Reyes RPC Book 1

CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law, defined.

Criminal law is tha t branch or division of law which defines
crimes, treat s of their nature, and provides for their punishment. (12
129)
Crime, defined.
Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law
forbidding or co mmandin g it. (I Law Dictionary, Rawle's
Third Revision, 729)
Sources of Philippine Criminal Law.

1. The Revised Pena l Code (Act No. 3815) and its amend•
ments .
2. Special Pena l Law s passe d by th e Philippine Commission,
Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National As•
sembly, th e Congress of th e Philippines, and the Batasan g
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law.
No common law crimes in the Philippines.

The so-called common law crimes, know n in the United States
and England as th e body of principles, usage s and rules of action,
which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive
declaration of the will of th e legislature, are not recognized in this
country. Unles s there be a particular provision in the penal code
or special penal law that defines and punishes the act, even if it be
socially or morally wrong, no criminal liability is incurred by its com•
mission. (See U.S. vs. Taylor, 28 Phil. 599, 604)
Court decisions are not sources of criminal law, because they merely
explain the meaning of, and apply, the law as enacted by the legislative branch
of the government.
CRIMINAL LAW IN GENERAL
Limitations to Enact Criminal Legislation
Power to define and punish crimes.

The State has the authority, under its police power, to define and
punish crimes and to lay down the rules of criminal procedure. States,
as a part of their police power, have a large measure of discretion in
creating and criminal offenses. (People vs. Santiago, 43 Phil.
120, 124)
The right of prosecution and punishmen t for a crime is one of
the attributes that by a natural law belongs to th e sovereign power
instinctively charged by th e common will of the members of society
to look after, guard and defend the interests of the community, the
individual and social rights and the liberties of every citizen and the
guaranty of the exercise of his rights. (U.S. vs. Pablo, 35 Phil. 94,
100)
Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact

penal legislation.
The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution imposes the following
limitations:
No post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
(Art. Sec. 22)
2. No person shall be held to answe r for a criminal offense
without due process of law. (Art. Sec.
The first limitation prohibits th e passag e of retroactive laws which are
prejudicial to th e accused.
An ex post facto law is one which:
make s criminal an act done before th e passag e of the law

and which wa s innocent whe n done, and punishe s such an
act;
(2) aggravates a crime, or make s it greater tha n it was , whe n

committed;
changes the punishmen t and inflicts a greater punishment
tha n the law annexed to th e crime whe n committed;
(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction
upon less or different testimony tha n the law required at
the time of the commission of th e offense;
2
CRIMINAL IN GENERAL
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
(5) assume s to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect

impose s penalty or deprivation of a right for something
which whe n done wa s lawful; and
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection

to which he ha s become entitled, such as the protection
of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of
amnesty. (In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 429,
431)
Congress is also prohibited from passin g an act which would inflict

punishmen t withou t judicial trial, for tha t would constitute a bill of attainder.
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts

punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a
legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt. (People vs.
Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382, 395)
Example:
Congress passes a law which authorizes the arrest and
imprisonment of communists without the benefit of a judicial trial.
To give a law retroactive application to the prejudice of the

accused is to make it an ex post facto law.
The penalty of mayor medium, or eight years and
one day to ten years, imposed by Presidential Decree No. 818,
applies only to swindling by means of issuing bouncing checks
committed on or after October 22, 1985. That increased penalty
does not apply to estafa committed on October 16, 1974 because
it would make the decree an ex post facto law. Its retroactive
application is prohibited by Articles 21 and 22 of the Revised
Penal Code and Section 12, Article IV (now Sec. 22, Art. of
the 1987 Constitution). (People vs. Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95, 97)
The second limitation requires that criminal laws must be of general

application and mus t clearly define the acts and omissions punished as
crimes.
Constitutional rights of the accused.

Article III, Bill of Rights, of the 1987 Constitution provides for the
following rights:
3
CRIMINAL IN GENERAL
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their

cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administra• tive bodies.
(Sec. 16)
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law. (Sec.
3. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable
by whe n evidence of guilt is strong, shall,
before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
released on recognizance as may be provided by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even whe n the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required. (Sec. 13)
4. In all criminal prosecutions, th e accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy th e
right to be heard by himsel f and counsel, to be informed
of the nature and caus e of th e accusation against him,
to hav e speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the
witnesse s face to face, and to hav e compulsory process to
secure th e attendance of witnesse s and th e production of
evidence in hi s behalf. However, after arraignment, trial
ma y proceed notwithstandin g th e absence of the accused
provided tha t he ha s bee n duly notified and his failure to
appear is unjustifiable. (Sec.
5. No person shal l be compelled to be a w itnes s agains t
himself. (Sec. 17)
Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall hav e th e right to be informed of his right
to remain silent and to hav e competent and independent
counsel preferably of hi s ow n choice.
If th e person cannot afford th e services of counsel, he mus t
be provided wit h one.
Thes e rights cannot be waived except in writing and
in th e presence of counsel. (Sec.
No torture, force, threat, intimidation, or any
other mean s which vitiate the free will shall be used against
him. Secret detention places, solitary,
4
CRIMINAL IN GENERAL
Statutory Rights of the Accused
or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (Sec
An y confession or admission obtained in violation of

this or Section hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
agains t him. (Sec.
6. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading

or inhuma n punishmen t inflicted. (Sec.
7. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishmen t
for th e sam e 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 th e sam e act.
(Sec. 21)
8. Free access to th e courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person
by reason of poverty. (Sec.
Statutory rights of the accused.

Section 1, Rule 115, of th e Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
provides tha t in all criminal prosecutions , th e accused shall be entitled:
1. To be presume d innocen t unti l th e contrary is proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
2. To be informed of th e nature and cause of th e accusation
against him.
3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every
stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation
of th e x xx
4. To testify as a w it nes s in hi s own behal f but subject to
cross-examinatio n on matter s covered by direct exami•
nation. Hi s silence shal l not in an y manne r prejudice
him .
To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against
himself.
6. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him
at the xxx
5
Characteristics of Criminal Law
To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of

witnesse s and production of othe r evidence in hi s behalf.
8. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial.
To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed
by law.
Rights of the accused which may be waived and rights which

may not be waived.
A right which ma y be waived is th e right of the accused to
confrontation and cross-examination. A right which may not be waived
is the right of th e accused to be informed of th e nature and cause of
the accusation against
The reason or principle underlying the difference between rights
which may be waived and rights which ma y not be waived is that those
rights which may be waived are personal, while those rights which
may not be waived involve public interest which ma y be affected. (2
Rules of Court, 1952 Edition, 748)
Characteristics of criminal law.

Criminal law ha s three mai n characteristics: (1) general, (2) territorial,
and (3) prospective.
I. GENERAL , in tha t crimina l la w is bindin g on all person s wh
o live or sojourn in Philippin e territory. (Art. 14, ne w Civil
Code)
In a case where th e accused contended tha t being an American

citizen, he cannot be prosecuted for, muc h les s convicted of, the crime
of illegal possession of firearms, because it is a constitutional right of
the citizens of th e Unite d State s of America "to kee p and bear
without an y need of applying and securing a government license
therefor, the Court of Appeals held:
"The P h i l i p p i n e s i s a so v er eig n stat e wit h th e

obligation and th e right of every governmen t to uphold
its law s and maintai n order withi n its domain, and wit h
the general jurisdiction to punis h persons for offenses
committed within its territory, regardless of the nationality
6
of the offender. and Yap, Public International Law,

p. No foreigner enjoys in thi s country extra-territorial
right to be exempted from its laws and jurisdiction, with the
exception of head s of state s and diplomatic representatives
who, by virtue of the customary la w of nations, are not
subject to th e Philippine territorial jurisdiction." (People
vs. Galacgac, 54 O.G. 1027)
As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not

affected by the military character of the accused.
U.S. vs. Sweet

(1 Phil. 18)
Facts: Sweet was an employee of the U.S. Army in the Philippines.

He assaulted a prisoner of war for which he was charged with the crime
of physical injuries. Sweet interposed the defense that the fact that he
was an employee of the U.S. military authorities deprived the court of the
jurisdiction to try and punish
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
unless controlled by express legislation to the contrary.
Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-

martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Civil courts have jurisdiction over murder cases committed by persons
subject to military law. The civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the
military courts or general courts-martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of
th e Philippines.
Civil courts have jurisdiction over the offense of malversation (Art. 217)
committed by an army finance officer. (People vs. Livara,
G.R. No. April 20, 1954)
Even in times war, the civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction
with the military courts or general courts-martial over soldiers of the
Philippine Army, provided that in the place of the commission of the
crime no hostilities are in progress and civil courts are functioning.
(Valdez vs. Lucero, 76 Phil. 356)
7
The Revised Penal Code or other penal law is not applicable

when the military court takes cognizance of the case.
When the military court takes cognizance of the case involving
a person subject to military law, the Articles of War apply, not the
Revised Penal Code or other penal law.
"By their acceptance of appointments as officers in the
Area from the General Headquarters of the 6th Military District,
the who were civilians at the outbreak of the war, became
members of the Philippine Army amenable to the Articles of War."
(Ruffy, et al. vs. Chief of Staff, et 75 Phil. 875)
Jurisdiction of military courts.

Section 1 of Rep. Act No. 7055 reads in full:
"Section Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines

and other persons subject to military law, including members
of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Units , who commit
crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised Penal Code, other
special penal laws, or local government ordinances, regardless
of whether or not civilians are co-accused, victims, or offended
parties which ma y be natural or juridical persons, shall be tried
by the proper civil court, except whe n th e offense, as determined
before arraignment by th e civil court, is service-connected, in
which case the offense shall be tried by court-martial: Provided,
That th e President of the Philippines may , in the interest of
justice, order or direct at any tim e before arraignment that any
such crimes or offenses be tried by th e proper civil courts.
"As use d in thi s Section , service-connecte d crime s or

offenses shall be limited to those in Articles 54 to 70,
Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of Commonwealth Act
No. 408, as amended.
"In imposing th e penalty for such crimes or offenses, the court-
martial may take into consideration the penalty prescribed therefor in
the Revised Penal Code, other special laws, or local government
ordinances."
The second paragraph of the above provision explicitly specifies wha t
are considered "service-connected crimes or offenses" under Commonwealth
Act No. 40 8 (CA 408), as amended, also known as the
8
Articles of War, to wit: those under Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and
Articles 95 to 97 of Commonwealt h Act No. 408, as amended.
Rep. Act No. 7055 did not divest the military courts of jurisdiction to try
cases involving violations of Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92 and Articles 95
to 97 of th e Articles of War as thes e are considered "service-connected crimes
or offenses." In fact, it mandate s that these shall be tried by the court-martial.
In view of th e clear mandat e of Rep. Act No. 7055, the Regional

Trial Court cannot divest th e General Court-Martial of its jurisdic•
tion over thos e charged wit h violations of Articles 63 (Disrespect
Toward the President etc.), 64 (Disrespect Toward Superior Officer),
67 (Mutiny or Sedition), 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a
Gentleman) and 97 (General Article) of the Articles of War, as these
are specifically included as "service-connected offenses or crimes"
under Section 1 thereof. Pursua n t to th e sam e provision of law,
th e military courts hav e jurisdiction over thes e crimes or offenses.
(Navales, et. al. vs. Abaya, et. G.R. Nos . 162318-162341, Oct. 25,
2004)
The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar

to another prosecution of the accused for the same offense.
A court-martial is a court, and th e prosecution of an accused
before it is a criminal, not an administrative case, and therefore it
would be, under certain conditions, a bar to another prosecution of
the accused for th e sam e offense, because th e latter would place the
accused in double jeopardy. (Marcos and Concordia vs. Chief of Staff,
AFP, 89 Phil. 246)
Offenders accused of war crimes are by military com•

mission.
The petitioner is a Filipino citizen though of a Japanese father,
and associating himself with Japa n in the war against the United
States of America and the Philippines, committed atrocities against
unarmed and non-combatant Filipino civilians and looted Filipino
property. He is, indeed, a war criminal subject to the jurisdiction of
the military commission. (Cantos vs. Styer, 76 Phil. 748)
Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines establishing
a National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules
9
and regulations governing the trial of war criminals is valid and

constitutional, th e President of th e Philippine s havin g acted in
conformity with the generally accepted principles and policies of
international law which are part of our Constitution. The promulgation
of said executive order is an exercise by the President of his powers
as Commander-in-Chief of all our armed forces.
"War is not ended simply because hostilities have ceased. After

cessation of armed hostilities, incidents of war ma y remain pending
which should be disposed of as in time of A military commission
"has jurisdiction so long as a technical state of war continues." This
includes the period of an armistice, or military occupation, up to
the effective date of a treaty of peace. (Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, et
83 Phil. 171; Cowles, Trial of War Criminals by Military Tribunals,
American Bar Association, June , 1944)
Exceptions to the general application of Criminal Law.

There are cases where our Criminal Law does not apply even
if the crime is committed by a person residing or sojourning in the
Philippines. These constitute the exceptions.
The opening sentence of Article 2 of th e Revised Penal Code
says that the provisions of this Code shall be enforced within th e
Philippine Archipelago, "except as provided in th e treaties and laws
of preferential
Article 14 of th e ne w Civil Code provides tha t penal law s and
those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who
live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles public
international law and to treaty stipulations.
Treaties or treaty stipulations.

An example of a treaty or treaty stipulation, as an exception to
the general application of our criminal law, is th e Base s Agreement
entered into by and betwee n th e Republic of th e Philippines and the
United State s of America on March 14, 1947 (which expired on 16
September 1991), stipulating tha t Philippines consents tha t
the United States have th e right to exercise jurisdiction over the fol•
lowing offenses:
(a) Any offense committed by any person withi n any base,

except where th e offender and the offended party are both
10
Philippine citizens (not members of the armed forces of the Unite d

State s on active duty) or th e offense is against the security of th e
Philippines;
(b) Any offense committed outside the bases by any member of
the armed forces of th e Unite d States in which the offended
party is also a membe r of th e armed forces of the United
States; and
(c) An y offense committed outside th e bases by any member of
th e armed forces of th e Unite d State s against the security
th e Unite d States."
Under the Agreement between th e Unite d States of America and
the Republic of th e Philippines Regarding th e Treatment of United
State s Armed Forces Visiting th e Philippines which wa s signed on
10 February 1998 Visiting Forces Accord"), the Philippines
agreed that:
(a) US military authorities shall hav e the right to exercise

withi n th e Philippines all criminal and disciplinary juris•
diction conferred on the m by th e military law of the US
over US personnel in RP;
(b) U S authoritie s exercise exclusiv e jurisdiction over U S
personne l wit h respec t t o offenses, includin g offenses
relating to th e security of th e US punishable under the
law of th e US , but not under th e laws of RP;
(c) US military authorities shall have the primary right to
exercise jurisdictio n over US personnel subject to th e
military law of th e US in relation to: (1) offenses solely
agains t th e property or security of th e US or offenses
solely agains t th e property or person of US personnel;
and (2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in
performance of official duty.
Law of preferential application.

Example of a law of preferential application.
Rep. Act No. 75 may be considered a law of preferential
application in favor of diplomatic representatives and their domestic
servants.
11
It is a law to penalize acts which would impair the proper

observance by the Republic and inhabitants of the Philippines of the
immunities, rights, and privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic
representatives in th e Philippines. Its pertinent provisions are:
"SEC. 4. Any writ or process issued out or prosecuted by
any person in any court of the Republic of the Philippines, or
by any judge or justice, whereby the person of any ambassador
or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received
as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant of
any such ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned, or
his goods or chattels are distrained, seized or attached, shall be
deemed and every person by who m the same is obtained or
prosecuted, whethe r as party or as attorney, and every officer
concerned in executing it, shall, upon conviction, be punished
by imprisonment for not more tha n three years and a fine of not
exceeding two hundred pesos in th e discretion of the court."
Exceptions:
"SEC. 5. The provisions of Section four hereof shall not
apply to an y case where th e person against whom the process is
issued is a citizen or inhabitant of the Republic of the
in the service of an ambassador or a public minister, and th e
process is founded upon a debt contracted before he entered upon
such service; nor shall th e said section apply to any case where
the person against who m the process is issued is a domestic
servant of an ambassador or a public minister, unles s the nam e
of the servant has , before th e issuin g thereof, been registered
in th e Depart ment of Foreign Affairs, and transmitted by th e
Secretary of Foreign Affairs to th e Chief of Police of the City of
Manila, who shall upon receipt thereof post the sam e in some
public place in his office. All persons shall have resort to the list
of name s so posted in th e office of th e Chief of Police, and ma y
take copies without fee."
Not applicable when the foreign country adversely affected does

not provide similar protection to our diplomatic representa•
tives.
The provisions of this Act shall be applicable only

in cases where th e country of th e diplomatic or consular repre-
12
CRIMINAL IN GENERAL
sentative adversely affected ha s provided for similar protection

to duly accredited diplomatic or consular representatives of the
Republic of th e Philippines by prescribing like or similar penal•
ties for like or similar offenses herein
Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by

virtue of the principles of public international law.
The following are not subject to the operation of our criminal
laws:
Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
(2) Ambassadors, minister s plenipotentiary, ministers resi•
dent, and charges d'affaires.
It is a well-establishe d principle of internationa l law tha t
diplomatic representatives, suc h as ambassadors or public ministers
and thei r official ret inue , po sses s i mmu n it y from th e criminal
jurisdiction of the country of their sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested
or punished by th e la w of tha t country. (II Hyde, International Law,
2nd 1266)
A consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of

an ambassador or minister.
It is well-settled tha t a consul is not entitled to the privileges
and i mmunitie s of an ambassado r or minister , but is subject to
the law s and regulations of the country to which he is accredited.
vs. Moran, 63 Phil. 250)
In the absence of a treaty to the contrary, a consul is not exempt from
criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides.
Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign
nations do not possess the status of, and cannot claim the privileges and
immunities accorded to ambassadors and ministers. (Wheaton, International
Law, Sec. 249)
II. TERRITORIAL, in tha t criminal law s undertake to punish
crimes committed within Philippine territory.
The principle of territoriality mean s that as a rule, penal laws
of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory.
13
Extent of Philippine territory for purposes of criminal law.

Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the provisions of said
code shall be enforced within th e Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone.
Article I of the 1987 Constitution provides that the national
territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands
and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which
the Philippines ha s sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of it s
terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea,
the seabed, the subsoil, th e 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 th e Philippines.
Exceptions to the territorial application of criminal law.

The sam e Article 2 of th e Revised Pena l Code provides tha t
its provisions shall be enforced outside of th e jurisdiction of th e
Philippines against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or
airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit an y coin or currency note of
the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by th e
Government of th e Philippines;
Should be liable for acts connected wit h the introduction
int o th e Philippine s o f th e obligation s and securitie s
mentioned in th e preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit
an offense in th e exercise of their functions; or
Should commit any of th e crimes against national security
and th e law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two
of the Revised Pena l Code.
III. PRO SPECTIV E , in tha t a pena l la w canno t mak e an act
punishable in a manne r in which it wa s not punishable whe n
committed. As provided in Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code,
crimes are punished under th e law s in force at th e time of their
commission.
14
Different Effects of Repeal of Penal Law
Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws.

Whenever a ne w statut e dealing wit h crime establishes con•
ditions more lenient or favorable to th e accused, it can be given a
retroactive effect.
Bu t thi s exception ha s no application:
Where th e ne w la w is expressly made inapplicable to pend•

ing actions or existin g cause s of action. (Tavera vs. Valdez,
1 Phil. 463 , 470-471)
2. Where th e offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5, Article 62 ,
Revised Pena l Code. (Art. 22 , RPC)
Different effects of repeal of penal law.

1. If th e repeal ma ke s th e penalty lighter in th e ne w law,
th e ne w la w shal l be applied, except whe n th e offender
is a habitua l delinquen t or whe n th e ne w law is made
no t applicable to pendin g action or existin g cause s of
action.
2. If the ne w law impose s a heavier penalty, the law in force

at th e tim e of th e co mmissio n of th e offense shal l be
applied.
3. If th e ne w law totally repeals th e existing law so tha t the
act which wa s penalized under the old law is no longer
punishable, the crime is obliterated.
When the repeal is absolute the offense ceases to be crimi•

nal.
People vs.
(61 Phil. 225)
Facts: The accused was prosecuted for and convicted of a violation

of an ordinance. While the case was pending appeal, the ordinance was
repealed by eliminating the section under which the accused was being
prosecuted.
Ruling: The repeal is absolute. Where the repeal is absolute,
and not a or repeal by implication, the ceases to
be criminal. The accused must be acquitted.
15
But repeal of a penal law by its reenactment, even without a

saving clause, would not destroy criminal liability. (U.S. vs. Cuna, 12
Phil. 241)
When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense,
the offender can be tried under the old law.
U.S. vs. Cuna
(12 Phil. 241)
Facts: The accused was charged with selling opium in violation

of Act No. 1461 of the Philippine Commission. During the pendency of
the case, Act No. 1761 took effect repealing the former law, but both Act
No. 1461 and Act No. 1761 penalize offenses against the opium laws.
Ruling: Where an Act of the Legislature which penalizes an of•
fense repeals a former Act which penalized the same offense, such repeal
does not have the effect of thereafter depriving the courts of jurisdiction
to try, convict, and sentence offenders charged with violations of the
old law prior to its repeal.
The penalty prescribed by Act No . 1761 is not more favorable

to the accused tha n tha t prescribed in Act No . 1461 , the penalty in
both Acts being th e same .
When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under

the old law, the accused cannot be convicted under the new
law.
People vs. Sindiong and Pastor

(77 Phil. 1000)
Facts: The accused was prosecuted for neglecting to make a return

of the sales of newspapers and magazines within the time prescribed
by certain sections of the Revised Administrative Code. Said sections
of the Revised Administrative Code were repealed by the National
Internal Revenue Code which does not require the making of return
of sales of newspapers and magazines.
Ruling: The court loses jurisdiction where the repealing law
wholly fails to penalize the act and penalized as an offense in
the old law. The accused, charged with violations of the old law prior
to the repeal, cannot be legally prosecuted after such repeal.
16
The provisions of said sections of the Revised Administrative Code

were not reenacted, even substantially, in the National Internal Revenue
Code.
A person erroneously accused and convicted under a repealed

statute may be punished under the repealing statute.
The accused wa s charged wit h havin g failed to pay th e salary
of Cabasares who m he employed as maste r fisherman in hi s motor
launch from Jun e 26 to October 12, 1952. He wa s convicted under
Com. Act No. 303 , which wa s repealed by Rep. Act No. 602, approved
on April 16, 1951 , and became effective 120 days thereafter. The
subject-matter of Com. Act No. 30 3 is entirely covered by Rep. Act No.
60 2 wit h which its provisions are inconsistent. It wa s held that the
fact tha t th e offender wa s erroneously accused and convicted under
a statut e which ha d already been repealed and therefore no longer
existed at th e time th e act complained of wa s committed does not
prevent conviction under th e repealing statut e which punishes the
sam e act, provided th e accused ha d an opportunity to defend himself
against th e charge brought agains t him. (People vs. Baesa, C.A., 56
O.G. 5466)
A new law which omits anything contained in the old law

dealing on the same subject, operates as a repeal of anything
not so included in the amendatory act.
Th e A g r i c u l t u r a l La n d Ref o r m Cod e s u p e r s e d e d th e
Agricultural Tenanc y La w (except as qualified in Section s 4 and
35 of th e Code). Th e Code instit ute d th e leasehol d syste m and
abolished shar e tenanc y subject to certai n conditions indicated in
Section 4 thereof. It is significant tha t Section 39 is not reproduced
in th e Agricultural Land Reform Code whos e Section 172 repeals
"all law s or part of an y law inconsisten t with" its provisions. Under
the leasehol d system , th e prohibition agains t pre-threshing ha s no
more etre becaus e th e lesse e is obligated to pay a fixed
rental as prescribed in Section 34 of th e Agricultural Land Reform
Code, or th e Code of Agrarian Reforms, as redesignate d in R.A.
No. 638 9 whic h took effect on Septembe r 10, 1971 . Thus, the legal
maxim , cessante ratione cessat ipsa lex (the reason for the law
ceasing, th e law itself also ceases) , applies to thi s case. (People vs.
Almuete , 69 SCRA 410)
17
Construction of Penal Laws
Self-repealing law.
The anomalous act attributed to Pedro de Reyes as described
in the information is undoubtedly a violation of Republic Act No. 650
being a "material misrepresentation in any document required" by
said Act "or the rules and regulations issued thereunder" and was
committed while said Act wa s in force. It wa s punishable under
Section 18 of said Act with fine or imprisonment, or both, and with
forfeiture of the goods or commodities imported in violation thereof.
(Sec. 18, R.A. No. 650) But since Rep. Act No. 650 expired by its own
limitation on Jun e 30, 1953, the forfeiture therein provided could
no longer be subsequently enforced. And, as correctly stated by the
Undersecretary of Justice in his Opinion No. 138, dated July
"the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs to proceed with
the forfeiture of goods and commodities imported in violation of the
Import Control Law wa s lost and tha t all proceedings of forfeiture,
as well as criminal actions pending on Jun e 30, 1953, abated with
the expiration of Republic Act No. 650."
The falsification or misrepresentation allegedly committed on the

import license could no longer be a basis for the penalty of forfeiture
at the time of the release of goods. Where an act expires by its own
limitation, the effect is the same as though it had been repealed at the
time of its expiration; and it is a recognized rule in this jurisdiction
that the repeal of a law carries wit h it th e deprivation of the courts
of jurisdiction to try, convict and sentenc e persons charged wit h
violation of the old law prior to the repeal. (People vs. Jacinto, C.A.,
54 O.G. 7587)
Construction of penal laws.

Penal law s are strictly construed against the Government
and liberally in favor of th e accused. (U.S. vs. Abad Santos,
36 Phil. 243; People vs. Yu Hai, 99 Phil. 728) The rule tha t
penal statute s should be strictly construed against th e
State ma y be invoked only where the law is ambiguous
and there is doubt as to its interpretation. Where the law
is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for the applica•
tion of the rule. (People vs. Gatchalian, 104 Phil. 664)
2. In the construction or interpretation of th e provisions of
the Revised Penal Code, the Spanis h text is controlling,
18
because it wa s approved by th e Philippine Legislature in its

Spanis h text. (People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil. 665, 668)
People vs. Garcia

(94 Phil. 814, 815)
Facts: Accused Garcia was prosecuted for having sold tickets for
"Have" races of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes, in violation of Act
4130, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 301, which penalizes any
person who, without being a duly authorized agent of the Philippine
Charity Sweepstakes, sold tickets of said corporation. The tickets sold
by the accused were different from, and not, the tickets issued by said
corporation. The law relied upon does not include tickets for
Sweepstakes races.
Held: The accused must be acquitted, the act imputed to him not
being punished by Act 4130, as amended.
N o perso n shoul d b e brough t withi n th e term s o f criminal

sta tute s wh o i s no t clearly withi n them , nor should an y act b e
pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by th e statute.
(U.S. vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243 , 246)
People vs. Mangulabnan

(99 Phil. 992, 998)
Facts: During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits

fired his gun upward in the ceiling, not knowing that there was a person
in the ceiling of the house. The owner of the house who was up in the
ceiling was hit by the slug that passed through it and was killed.
Art. 294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code provides, according to
its English text, that the crime is robbery with homicide "when by
reason or on occasion of the robbery the crime of homicide shall have
been committed."
The Spanish text of the same provision reads, as follows: "Cuando
con o con ocasion del robo homicidio."
Held: In view of the Spanish text which must prevail, the crime
committed is robbery with homicide, even if the homicide supervened
by mere accident.
While the English text of Art. 294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code
seem s to convey th e meanin g tha t the homicide should be
19
intentionally committed, the Spanish text mean s that it is sufficient that the
homicide shall have resulted, even if by mere accident.
Other cases of incorrect translation of the Spanish text into

the English text.
1. "sosteniendo combate" into in war" in Art. 135.
(People vs. 100 Phil. 90, 95-96)
2. privacion de into "imprisonment" in
Art. 157. (People vs. Abilong, 82 Phil. 172, 174)
delito" into crime" in th e headnote of Art.
160. (People vs. Yabut, 58 Phil. 499, 504)
4. "semilla into "cereal" in Art. 303. (People vs.
Mesias, 65 Phil. 267, 268)
5. "filed" in th e third paragraph of Art. 34 4 which is not
found in th e Spanis h text. (People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil.
665, 668)
- oOo -
20
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
(Act No. as amended)

AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE
AND OTHER PENAL LAWS
Be it enacted by th e Senat e and Hous e of Representatives of the
Philippines in Legislature assembled and by the authority of
th e same.
PRELIMINARY ARTICLE - This law shall be known Th e Revised Pena l
Code."
BOOK ONE
General Provisions Regarding the Date of En•
forcement and the Application of the Provisions of this
Code, and Regarding the Offenses, the Persons Liable
and the Penalties
Preliminary Title
DATE OF AND APPLICATION
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE
History of the Revised Penal Code.

This Code is called "Revised Penal Code," because the Committee
which was created by Administrative Order No. 94 of the Department
21
HISTORY OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
of Justice, dated October 18, 1927, composed of Diaz, as

chairman, and Quintin Paredes, Guillermo Guevara, Alex Reyes
and Mariano H. de Joya, as members, wa s instructed to revise the
old Penal Code, taking into consideration th e existing conditions,
the special penal laws and the rulings laid down by the Supreme
Court.
The Committee did not undertake the codification of all penal
laws in the What the Committee did wa s merely to revise
the old Penal Code and to include in the draft the other penal laws
related to it.
The Revised Penal Code does not embody the latest progress of
criminal science, as th e results of the application of advanced and
radical theories "still remain to be
The old Penal Code, which wa s revised by th e Committee, took effect in
the Philippines on Jul y 14, 1887, and wa s in force up to December 31 , 1931.
In th e cas e of U.S. vs. 31 Phil. 321 , 323 , th e
Supreme Court traced th e history of th e old Pena l Code, as fol•
lows:
"The royal order dated Decembe r 17, 1886, directed th e
execution of th e royal decree of Septembe r 4, 1884, wherei n it
wa s ordered tha t th e Pena l Code in force in th e Peninsula , as
amende d in accordance wit h th e recommendation s of th e code
committee, be published and applied in th e Philippine Islands
(This law) havin g bee n publishe d i n th e Official Gazette
of Manila on March 13 an d 14, 1887, becam e effective four month s
thereafter."
The Revised Pena l Code, as enacted by th e Philippine Legisla•

ture, wa s approved on December 8, 1930. It took effect on January
1, 1932. Felonies and misdemeanors , committed prior to January 1,
1932, were punished in accordance wit h th e Code or Acts in force at
the time of their commission, as directed by Art. 366 of the Revised
Penal Code.
The Revised Penal Code consists of two books.

The Revised Penal Code consists of two books, namely: Book
One, and (2) Book Two.
22
DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE Art 1
REVISED PENAL CODE
Book One consists of two parts: (a) basic principles affecting criminal
liability (Arts. 1-20), and (b) th e provisions on penalties including criminal and
civil liability (Arts. 21-113).
I n Book Tw o are define d felonie s wit h th e correspondin g penalties,
classified and grouped under fourteen different titles (Arts. 114-365).
Date of Effectiveness.
A r t i c l e 1. Time when Act takes effect. — Thi s Co d e s ha l l
t a k e effec t o n th e f irs t da y o f J a n u a r y , n i n e t e e n h u n d r e d an d
thirty-two .
The Revised Penal Code is based mainly on principles of the

classical school.
This Revise d Pena l Code continues , like th e old Pena l Code,
to be base d on th e principles of th e old or classical school, although
so m e p r o v i s i o n s o f e m i n e n t l y p o s i t i v i s t i c t e n d e n c i e s (tho s e
havin g reference to th e punishmen t of impossible crimes, juvenile
delinquency, etc.) wer e incorporated in th e presen t Code.
Two theories in Criminal Law.

There are two important theories in criminal law: (1) the classical
theory, and (2) th e theory.
Characteristics of classical theory.

1. The basis of criminal liability is huma n free will and the
purpose of the penalty is retribution.
2. . Tha t ma n i s e s s e n t i a l l y a mora l creatur e wit h
a n absolutel y free will to choose betwee n good and
evil, thereb y placin g more stres s upon th e effect or
result of th e felonious act tha n upon th e man , th e
criminal himself.
3. It ha s endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct
proportion between crime and penalty.
23
Art. 2 APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS
4. There is a scant regard to th e huma n element. (Basic

Principles, Rationale, p. 2, by the Code Commission on
Code of Crimes)
Characteristics of the positivist theory.

That ma n is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid
phenomenon which constrains hi m to do wrong, in spite of or
contrary to his volition.
That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon,
and as such, it cannot be treate d and checked by th e
application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence
nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined
a but rather through the enforcement of individual
measures in each particular case after a thorough, personal
and individual investigation conducted by a competent
body of psychiatrists and social scientists.
(Basic Principles, Rationale, pp. 2 and 3, by the Code Commission on

Code of Crimes)
Art . 2. Application of its provisions. — E x c e p t as p r o v i d e d

i n th e t r e a t i e s a n d l a w s o f p r e f e r e n t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n , th e
p r o v i s i o n s o f thi s Co d e sha l l b e e n f o r c e d no t onl y w i t h i n th e
P h i l i p p i n e A r c h i p e l a g o , i n c l u d i n g it s a t mo s p h e r e , it s interio r
w a t e r s an d ma r i t i m e z o ne , bu t als o o u t s i d e o f it s j u ri s d i ct io n ,
a g a i n s t t h o s e w ho :
S h o u l d c o m mi t a n offens e w h i l e o n a P h i l i p p i n e shi p
o r airship ;
2 . S h o u l d f o rg e o r c o u n t e r f e i t an y co i n o r c u r r e n c y
no t e o f th e P h i l i p p i n e I s l a n d s o r o b l i g a t i o n s
a n d s e c u r i t i e s i s s u e d b y th e G o v e r n m e n t o f th e
Philippin e Islands ;
3 . S h o u l d b e l i a b l e fo r a c t s c o n n e c t e d w i t h th e
i n t r o d u c t i o n int o t hes e Island s o f th e o blig a t io n s an d
s e c u r i t i e s m e n t i o n e d i n th e p r e c e d i n g n u mb e r ;
4 . Whil e bein g publi c officer s o r employees , shoul d com • mi t a n
offens e i n th e exercis e o f thei r functions ; o r
24
APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS Art. 2
5 . S h o u l d c o m m i t an y o f th e c r i me s a g a i n s t n a t i o n a l
s e c u r i t y an d th e la w o f n a t i o n s , d e f i ne d i n Titl e On e
o f B o o k Tw o o f t hi s Co de .
Scope of the application of the provisions of the Revised

Penal Code.
The provisions of th e Revised Pena l Code shall be enforced not
only within th e Philippine Archipelago, but also outside of its juris•
diction in certain
The five paragraphs of Art. 2 treat of th e application of th e

Revised Pena l Code to acts committed in th e air, at sea, and even in
a foreign country whe n such acts affect the political or economic life
of th e nation.
In what cases are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code

applicable even if the felony is committed outside of the
Philippines?
They are applicable in th e following cases:
1. Whe n th e offender should commit an offense while on a

Philippine ship or airship.
The Philippine vessel, although beyond three miles from the
seashore, is considered part of the national territory.
Thus , an y perso n wh o committe d a crime on board a Philippine
shi p or airship whil e th e sam e is outside of th e Philippine territory
can be tried before our civil courts for violation of th e Penal Code.
Bu t whe n the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory
of a foreign country, th e crime committed on said vessel or
aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign country.
A Philippine vessel or aircraft mus t be understood as that which
is registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs.
It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in accordance with
the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship of its owner, which
makes it a Philippine ship or airship. A vessel or aircraft
25
which is unregistered or unlicensed does not come within the purview

of paragraph No. 1 of Art. 2.
Thus, if a crime is committed te n miles from the shores
of the Philippines on board a vesse l belonging to a Filipino,
but the sam e is not registered or licensed in accordance with
the laws of th e Philippines, paragraph No. 1 of Art. 2 is not
applicable.
The Philippine court ha s no jurisdiction over the crime of theft
committed on the high seas on board a vessel not registered or
licensed in the Philippines. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
2. When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin
or currency note of th e Philippine s or obligations and
securities issued by th e Government.
Thus, any person wh o make s false or counterfeit coins
(Art. 163) or forges treasury or bank notes or other obligations
and securities (Art. 166) in a foreign country ma y be prosecuted
before our civil courts for violation of Art. or Art. 166 of th e
Revised Penal Code.
When th e offender should be liable for acts connected wit h
the introduction into th e Philippines of th e obligations and
securities mentioned in th e preceding number.
The reaso n for thi s provision i s tha t th e introduction
of forged or counterfeited obligations and securities into th e
Philippines is as dangerous as th e forging or counterfeiting of
the same, to the economical interest of the country.
4. When th e offender, while being a public officer or employee,

should commit an offense in th e exercise of his functions.
The crimes tha t ma y be committed in th e exercise of public
functions are direct bribery (Art. 210), indirect bribery (Art.
frauds against th e public treasury (Art. 213), possession
of prohibited interest (Art. 216), malversation of public funds
or property (Art. 217), failure of accountable officer to render
accounts (Art. 218), illegal use of public funds or property (Art.
220), failure to mak e delivery of public funds or property (Art.
and falsification by a public officer or employee committed
with abuse of his official position. (Art. 171)
26
When any of thes e felonies is committed abroad by any

of our public officers or employees while in th e exercise of his
he can be prosecuted here.
When th e offender should commit any of the crimes against

th e national security and th e law of nations.
The crimes agains t th e national security and th e law of
nations are treason (Art. conspiracy and proposal to commit
treason (Art. 115), espionage (Art. 117), inciting to war and
giving motives for reprisals (Art. violation of neutrality
(Art. correspondence wit h hostile country (Art. 120), flight
to country (Art. 121), and piracy and mutiny on the high
seas. (Art. 122)
The crimes punishable in the Philippines under Art. 2 are

cognizable by the Regional Trial Court in which the charge
is
The crimes committed outside of th e Philippines but punishable therein
under Article 2 of th e Revised Pena l Code shall be cognizable by th e Regional
Trial Court in whic h th e charge is first filed. (Rule 110, Sec. 15[d], Revise d
Rule s of Criminal Procedure)
Regiona l Trial Court s (formerly hav e original jurisdic •
tio n over all crime s an d offense s co mmite d o n th e hig h sea s o r
beyond th e jurisdictio n of an y countr y on board a shi p or warcraft
of an y kin d registere d or license d in th e Philippine s in accord•
ance wit h it s laws . (Sec. 44[g] , Judiciar y Act o f 1948 , Rep. Act
No . 296 )
IMPORTANT WORDS AN D PHRASE S IN ART. 2

1. "Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application."
This phrase mean s that while the general rule is that
the provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be enforced
against any person who violates any of its provisions while
living or sojourning in th e Philippines, the exceptions
to that rule may be provided by the treaties and laws of
preferential applications, like the RP-US Visiting Forces
Accord, the Military Bases Agreement between the Republic
27
of the Philippines and the United States of America, and the

provisions of Rep. Act No. 75.
2. "its atmosphere."
The sovereignty of the and therefore
its penal laws extend to all the air space which covers its
territory, subject to the right of wa y or easement in favor
of foreign aircrafts.
3. "interior waters."
The phrase "interior waters" includes creeks, rivers, lakes
and bays, gulfs, straits, coves, inlets and roadsteads lying wholly
within th e three-mile limit.
4. "maritime zone."
The State s by mean s of treaties have fixed its length to
three miles from the coastline, starting from the low water mark.
It includes those parts of the sea
or recesses in th e coastline whos e width at their entrance
is not more tha n twelv e mile s measure d in a straight line
from headland to headland, and all straits less than six
miles wide.
For those straits havin g more than that width, the
space in the center outside of th e marine league limits is
considered as open sea. (Opinion of Attorney General, Jan.
Crimes committed on board foreign merchant ship or airship.

Jus t as our merchan t ship is an extensio n of our territory,
foreign merchant ship is considered an extension of th e territory of
the country to which it belongs. For thi s reason, an offense commited
on the high seas on board a foreign merchant vessel is not triable by
our courts. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
Continuing offense on board a foreign vessel.

Bu t a continuin g crim e committe d on board a Norwegia n merchant
vessel sailing from Formosa to the Philippines, by failing
28
to provide stalls for animal s in transit in violation of Act No. 55, is triable in th
e Philippines.
The offense of failing to provide suitable mean s for securing animal s
while transporting the m on a (foreign) ship from a foreign port to a port of th
e Philippines is withi n th e jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines whe n th
e forbidden conditions existed during the tim e th e ship wa s withi n territorial
waters , regardless of the fact that th e sam e conditions existed whe n th e ship
sailed from th e foreign port and while it wa s on th e hig h seas . (U.S. vs . Bull,
15 Phil. 7)
Offense committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while

on Philippine waters is triable before our court.
Since th e Philippine territory extend s to three miles from the
headlands, whe n a foreign merchant vessel enters this three-mile limit,
th e ship's officers and crew become subject to th e jurisdiction of our
courts. The space withi n 3 mile s of a line drawn from th e headlands
which embrace th e entrance to Manila Bay is within territorial
(U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7, 17-18)
Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign

merchant vessels.
There are two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard
merchant vessel s whil e in th e territorial waters of another country.
French Rule. — Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country,
unles s their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or th e
safety of th e state is endangered.
English Rule. — Such crimes are triable in that country, unless they
merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the internal managemen
t thereof.
In this country, we observe the English Rule.
According to the French theory and matters happening
on board a merchant ship which do not concern the tranquility of the
port or persons foreign to the crew, are justiceable only by the courts of
the country to which the vessel belongs. The French courts therefore
claim exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on board French
merchant vessels in foreign ports by one member of the crew against
29
another. Such jurisdiction ha s never been admitted or claimed by Great

Britain as a right, although she ha s frequently conceded it by treaties. (U.S.
vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7, 14)
Do the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime of

homicide committed on board a foreign merchant vessel by
a member of the crew against another?
Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on
board are to be dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of
the ship, but those which disturb the public peace may be suppressed,
and, if need be, the offenders punished by the proper authorities of
the local jurisdiction.
It may not be easy at all time s to determine to which of the
two jurisdictions a particular act of disorder belongs. Much will
undoubtedly depend on th e attending circumstances of the particular
case, but all mus t concede that felonious homicide is a subject for th e
local jurisdiction, and tha t if th e proper authorities are proceeding
with th e case in the regular way, th e consul ha s no right to interfere
to prevent it. (Mali and Wildenhus vs. Keeper of the Common Jail,
120 U.S. 1, cited in People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729, 731-732)
Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on

board a foreign merchant vessel in transit not triable by our
courts.
Mere possessio n of opiu m aboard a foreign merchan t vesse l in
transi t is not triable in Philippine courts, becaus e tha t fact alone
does not constitute a breach of public order. Th e reason for thi s
ruling is tha t mere possessio n of opiu m on suc h a ship, without
being used in our territory, does not bring about in thi s country
those disastrous effects tha t our la w contemplate s avoiding. Bu t
said courts acquire jurisdiction whe n th e tin s of opium are landed
from th e vesse l on Philippine soil. Landin g or usin g opium is an
open violation of th e law s of th e Philippines . (U.S. vs. Look Chaw,
18 Phil. 573 , 577-578)
When the foreign merchant vesse l is not in transit because the
Philippines is its terminal port, th e person in possession of opium on board
that vessel is liable, because he ma y be held guilty of illegal importation of
opium. (U.S. vs. Ah Sing, 36 Phil. 978, 981-982)
30
Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public order.

Smoking opium aboard an Englis h vessel while anchored two
and one-half miles in Manila Bay constitutes a breach of public order,
because th e primary object of th e law in punishing the use of opium
is to protect th e inhabitants of thi s country against th e disastrous
effects entailed by th e us e of such drug. And to smoke opium within
our territorial limits, eve n though aboard a foreign merchant ship,
is certainly a breach of th e public order here established, because it
causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our territory.
Philippine courts hav e jurisdiction over crimes constituting a breach
of public order aboard merchan t v essel s anchored in Philippine
jurisdictional waters. (People vs . Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729, 733)
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed

on board foreign warships in territorial waters.
In case vessel s are in th e ports or territorial waters of a foreign
country, a distinction mus t be mad e betwee n merchant ships and
warships; th e former are more or les s subjected to the territorial
(See U.S . vs . Bull, 15 Phil. 7; U.S . vs . Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 573; and
People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729)
Warships are alway s reputed to be the territory of the country

to which the y belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of another
state. A Unite d State s Army transport is considered a warship. (U.S.
vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
Extra-territorial application of Republic Act No. 9372.

Rep. Act No. 9372 , otherwise known as the "Human Security
Act of 2007" which wa s passed into law on 6 March 2007 ha s
territorial application.
Section 58 of Rep. Act No. 9372 provides that subject to the provision of
an existing treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary
provision of any law of preferential application, the provisions of the Act shall
apply:
(1) to individua l person s wh o commi t any of th e crimes
defined and punished in the Act within the terrestrial
domain, interior waters, maritime zone and airspace of
the Philippines;
31
(2) to individual persons who, although physically outside

the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit, conspire
of plot any of the crimes and punished in the Act
inside the territorial limits of the
(3) to individual persons who, although physically outside the

territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the said crimes
on board Philippine ship or airship;
(4) to individual persons who commit any of said crimes within any
embassy, consulate or diplomatic premises belonging to or
occupied by th e Philippine government in an official capacity;
to individual persons who, although physically outside the
territorial limits of th e Philippines, commit said crimes against
(5) Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their
citizenship or ethnicity wa s a factor in the commission of th e
crime; and
to individual persons who, although physically outside the

territorial limits of th e Philippines, commit said crimes directly
(6) against th e Philippine government.
32
Title One
FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Chapter One
FELONIES
Art . 3 . Definition. — Act s an d o m i s s i o n s p u n i s h a b l e b y

la w ar e f e l o n i e s (delitos).
F e l o n i e s ar e c o m m i t t e d no t o nl y b y me a n s o f d e c e i t
bu t als o b y m e a n s o f fa ul t (culpa).
Ther e i s decei t whe n th e ac t i s performe d wit h deliberat e intent ;
an d ther e i s faul t whe n th e wrongfu l ac t result s fro m imprudence ,
negligence , lac k o f foresight , o r lac k o f skill .
Felonies, defined.
Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code.
Elements of felonies.
The element s of felonies in general are:
That there mus t be an act or omission.
That the act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal
Code.
3. That th e act is performed or th e omission incurred by
mean s of dolo or culpa. (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No.
80762, March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 309, 324)
33
Art. 3 FELONIES
IMPORTAN T WORD S AN D PHRASE S I N ART . 3 .
Meaning of the word "act."

By act mus t be understood any bodily movement tending to produce
some effect in the external world, it being unnecessary that the same be
actually produced, as the possibility of its production is sufficient. (See People
vs. Gonzales, supra)
But the act mus t be one which is defined by the Revised Penal Code as
constituting a felony; or, at least, an overt act of that felony, that is, an
external act which ha s direct connection with the felony intended to be
committed. (See Art. 6)
Example of felony by performing an act.

A took the watch of B with intent to gain and without the consent of the
latter. The act of taking th e watc h of B, wit h intent to gain, constitutes the
crime of theft.
Only external act is punished.

The act mus t be external, because internal acts are beyond th e
sphere of penal law. Hence, a criminal though t or a mere intention,
no matter how immoral or improper it ma y be, will never constitute
a felony.
Thus, even if A entertains th e idea of killing B, as long as he does not

commence th e commission of th e crime directly by overt act, A is not
criminally liable.
Meaning of the word "omission."

By omission is mean t inaction, th e failure to perform a positive
duty which one is bound to do. There mus t be a law requiring the
doing or performance of an act.
Examples of felony by omission:

Anyone who fails to render assistanc e to any person whom he
finds in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, is
liable for abandonment of persons in danger. (Art. 275, par. 1)
34
FELONIES Art. 3
An officer entrusted with collection of taxes who voluntarily

fails to issu e a receipt as provided by law, is guilty of illegal
exaction. (Art. 213 , par.
3. Every person owing allegiance to the Philippines, without being a

foreigner, and havin g knowledge of any conspiracy agains t th e
government, wh o does not disclose and make know n th e sam e to
th e proper authority, is liable for misprision of treason. (Art. 116)
It will be noted tha t in felonies by omission, there is a law re•

quiring a certain act to be performed and th e person required to do
th e act fails to perform it.
The omission must be punishable by law.

B eca us e there is no law tha t punishe s a perso n wh o does
not report to th e authorities th e commission of a crime which he
witnessed, th e omission to do so is not a felony.
People vs. and Atienza

(56 Phil. 353)
Facts: Martin Atienza was convicted as principal by direct par•

ticipation and Silvestre as accomplice of the crime of arson by
the Court of First Instance.
On the night of November 25, 1930, while Nicolas la Cruz
and his wife, de la Cruz, were gathered together with the
appellants herein after supper, Martin Atienza told said couple to
take their furniture out of the house because he was going to set fire
to it. Upon being asked by Nicolas and Antonia why he wanted to set
fire to the house, he answered that it was the only way he could be
revenged upon the people of Masocol, who, he said, had instigated
the charge of adultery against him and his co-defendant, Romana
Silvestre. As Martin Atienza was at that time armed with a pistol, no
one dared say anything to him, not even Romana Silvestre, who was
about a meter away from her co-defendant. Alarmed at what Martin
Atienza had said, the couple left the house at once to communicate
with the barrio lieutenant, Buenaventura Ania, as to what they had
just heard Martin Atienza say; but they had hardly gone a hundred
arms' length when they heard cries of Fire!" Turning back
they saw their home in flames. The fire destroyed about forty-eight
houses.
35
Art. 3 FELONIES
Romana listened to her co-defendant's threat without raising

a protest, and did not give the alarm when the latter set fire to the
house.
Held: Mere passive presence at the scene of another's crime, mere
silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence of agreement or
conspiracy, is not punishable.
Romana Silvestre was acquitted.
"Punishable by law."
This is the other element of a felony. This is based upon the
maxim, crimen, nulla poena sine that is, there is no
crime where there is no law punishing it.
The phrase "punished by law" should be understood to mea n
"punished by th e Revised Pena l Code" and not by a special law.
That is to say, the term "felony" mean s acts and omissions punished
in th e Revised Penal Code, to distinguish it from th e words
and "offense" which are applied to infractions of th e law punished by
special statutes.
Classification of felonies according to the means by which

they are committed.
Art. 3 classifies felonies, according to th e mea n s by whic h
they are committed, into (1) intentional felonies, and (2) culpable
felonies.
Thus, th e second paragraph of Art. 3 state s tha t felonies are

committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of
fault (culpa).
Intentional felonies and culpable felonies distinguished.

In intentiona l felonies, th e act or o missio n of th e offender
is malicious. In the languag e of Art. 3, th e act is performed with
deliberate intent (with malice). The offender, in performing the act
or in incurring th e omission, has the intention to cause an injury to
another. In culpable felonies, th e act or omission of th e offender is
not malicious. The injury caused by th e offender to another person is
"unintentional, it being simply th e incident of another act performed
without malice." (People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939) As stated in Art. 3, the
36
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight
or lack of skill.
Felonies committed by means of dolo or with malice.

The word "deceit" in th e second paragraph of Art. 3 is not the
proper translation of th e word Dolus is equivalent to malice,
which is th e intent to do an injury to another. (I Wharton's Criminal
Law 180)
Whe n th e offender, in performing an act or in incurring an

omission, ha s th e intention to do an injury to th e person, or
right of another, such offender acts wit h malice. If th e act or omission
is punished by th e Revised Pena l Code, he is liable for intentional
felony.
Most of th e felonies defined and penalized in Book II of the Revised

Penal Code are committed by mean s of dolo or wit h malice. There are few
felonies committed by mean s of fault or culpa. Art.
217 punishe s malversation through negligence. Art. 224 punishes evasion
through negligence. Art. 365 punishe s acts by imprudence or negligence,
which, ha d the y been intentional, would constitute grave, les s grave or light
felonies.
There are crimes which cannot be committed through impru• dence or
negligence, such as , murder, treason, robbery, and malicious mischief.
Felonies committed by means of fault or culpa.

Betwee n an act performed voluntarily and intentionally, and another
committed unconsciously and quite unintentionally, there exist s another,
performed without malice, but at th e sam e time punishable, though in a lesser
degree and with an equal result, an intermediate act which the Penal Code
qualifies as imprudence or negligence.
A person who caused an injury, without intention to cause

an evil, may be held liable for culpable felony.
The defendant, who wa s not a medical practitioner, tied a girl,
wrapped her feet with rags saturated with petroleum and thereafter
set them on fire, causing injuries. His defense was that he undertook
37
Art. 3 FELONIES
to render medical assistance in good faith and to the best of his ability
to cure her of ulcer. It wa s held that while there wa s no intention to
cause an evil but to provide a remedy, the defendant was liable for
physical injuries through imprudence. (U.S. vs. 12 Phil. 175,
190)
Imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

Imprudence indicates a deficiency of action. Negligence indicates
a deficiency of perception. If a person fails to take the necessary
precaution to avoid injury to person or damage to property, there is
imprudence. If a person fails to pay proper attention and to use due
diligence in foreseeing th e injury or damage impending to be caused,
there is negligence. Negligence usually involves lack of foresight.
Imprudence usually involves lack of skill.
Reason for punishing acts of negligence (culpa).

A ma n mus t use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his
acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, if not from instinct, then
through fear of incurring punishment. He is responsible for such results as
anyone might foresee and for his acts which no one would have performed
except through culpable abandon. Otherwise, his own person, rights and
property, and those of his fellow beings, would ever be exposed to all manne r
of danger and injury. (U.S. vs. Maleza, 14 Phil. 468, 470)
In felonies committed by means of dolo or with malice and

in felonies committed by means of fault or culpa, the acts or
omissions are voluntary.
The adjective voluntary used in th e old Penal Code is suppressed
in the definition of felonies in Art. 3 of th e Revised Penal Code. This
omission does not mea n tha t an involuntary act ma y constitute a
felony. As in the old Penal Code, th e act or omission must be voluntary
and punishable by law to constitute a felony. Art. 3 classifies felonies
into intentional felonies, and (2) culpable felonies. An intentional
felony is committed whe n th e act is performed wit h deliberate intent,
which mus t necessarily be voluntary.
On the other hand, in culpable felony, which is committed whe n the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill, the act is also voluntary.
38
FELONIES Art. 3
The only difference betwee n intentional felonies and culpable

felonies is that, in th e first, th e offender acts with malice; whereas,
in the second, the offender acts without malice.
The definition of reckless imprudence in Art. 365 say s "reckless
imprudence consist s in voluntarily, but withou t malice, doing or
failing to do an act from which material damage
Thus , a hunte r wh o seeme d t o hav e see n wit h hi s lanter n
something like th e eyes of a deer about fifty meters from him and the n
shot it, but muc h to hi s surprise, on approaching wha t he thought
wa s a deer, it proved to be hi s companion, performed a voluntary act
in discharging hi s gun , although th e resulting homicide is without
malice, because he did not have th e intent to kill the But the
hunter, knowin g tha t he ha d two companions, should have exercised
all the necessar y diligence to avoid every undesirable accident, such
as th e one tha t unfortunately occurred on th e person of one of his
companions. The hunte r wa s guilty of th e crime of homicide through
reckless imprudence (People vs . Ramirez, 48 Phil. 206)
A criminal act is presume d to be voluntary. Fact prevails over

assumption, and in th e absence of indubitable explanation, the act mus t be
declared voluntary and punishable. (People vs. Macalisang, 22 SCRA 699)
Acts executed negligently are voluntary.

People vs. Lopez
44 O.G. 584)
Facts: Lopez was driving a truck. A girl was crossing the street
during a torrential rain. The girl was struck down by the truck. During
the trial, Lopez claimed that he had no intention of causing injury to the
girl.
Held: Lopez was not accused of intentional homicide, but of
having caused her death by reckless imprudence, which implies lack
of malice and criminal intent. Acts executed negligently are voluntary,
although done without malice or criminal design. In this case, Lopez
was not compelled to refrain or prevented from taking the precaution
necessary to avoid injury to persons.
When there is compulsion or prevention by force or intimidation,

there is no voluntariness in the act.
39
Art. 3 FELONIES
Three reasons why the act or omission in felonies must be

voluntary.
1. The Revised Penal Code continues to be based on the
Classical Theory, according to which the basis of criminal
liability is huma n free will.
2. Acts or omissions punished by law are always deemed
voluntary, since ma n is a rational being. One must prove
that his case falls under Art. 12 to show that his act or
omission is not voluntary.
3. In felonies by dolo, the act is performed with deliberate

intent which mus t necessarily be voluntary; and in felonies
by culpa, th e imprudenc e consist s in but
without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
material injury results.
Therefore, in felonies committed by mean s of dolo, as well as in
those committed by mean s of culpa, th e act performed or the omis•
sion incurred by th e offender is voluntary, but th e inten t or malice
in intentional felonies is replaced by imprudence , negligence, lack
of foresight or lack of skill in culpable felonies.
Requisites of dolo or malice.

In order that an act or ma y be considered as having
been performed or incurred with deliberate intent, th e following
requisites mus t concur:
(1) He mus t hav e FREEDO M whil e doing an act or
omitting to do an act;
(2) He mus t hav e INTELLIGENC E while doing the act
or omitting to do th e act;
(3) He must have INTEN T while doing the act or omitting
to do the act.
1. Freedom. When a person acts withou t freedom, he is no longer a
huma n being but a tool; hi s liability is as much as that of the
knife that wounds, or of the torch that set s fire, or of the key that
opens a door, or of the ladder tha t is placed against the wall of
a house in committing robbery.
40
Thus , a person wh o acts under th e compulsion of an irresistible force is
exemp t from criminal liability. (Art. 12, par. 5)
So also, a person who acts under th e impulse of an uncontrollable

fear of an equal or greater injury is exemp t from criminal liability
(Art. 12, par. 6)
2. Intelligence. Withou t thi s power, necessar y to determine the

morality of human acts, no crime can exist. Thus, th e imbecile
or th e insane , and th e infant under nine years of age as , well as
th e minor over nin e but les s tha n fifteen years old and acting
withou t discernment, hav e no criminal liability, because they
act withou t intelligence. (Art. 12, pars. 1, 2 and 3)
3. Intent. Inten t to commit th e act wit h malice, being purely a

menta l process, is presume d and th e presumption arises from
th e proof of th e commission of an unlawful act.
All th e three requisites of voluntariness in intentional felony
mus t be present, becaus e voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and
intentional (U.S . vs . Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488 , 495)
Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of

intelligence.
One wh o acts withou t freedom necessarily ha s no intent to do an injury
to another. One wh o acts without intelligence ha s no such intent.
Bu t a person wh o acts wit h freedom and with intelligence may not hav
e th e intent to do an injury to another. Thus, a person who caused an injury
by mere accident had freedom and intelligence, but since he ha d no fault or
intention of causing it, he is not criminally liable. (Art. 12, par. 4, Revised
Penal Code)
The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of a per•

son.
Where the defendant carried away articles belonging to another and
concealed the m from the owner and from the police authorities, denying
having them in his possession, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it
may be inferred that he acted with intent of gain. Intent is a mental state, the
existence of which is shown by the overt acts of a person. (Soriano vs. People,
88 Phil. 368, 374)
41
Art. 3 FELONIES
Intent to kill is difficult to prove, it being a mental act. But it

can be deduced from the external acts performed by a person. When
the acts naturally produce a definite result, courts are slow in con•
cluding that some other result wa s intended. (U.S. vs. Mendoza, 38
Phil. 691-693; People vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil. 967, cited in People vs.
Lao, 11 C.A. Rep. 829)
Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an un•

lawful act.
People vs. Sia Teb Ban

(54 Phil. 52, 53)
Facts: The accused took a watch without the owner's consent.

He was prosecuted for theft. The accused alleged as a defense that the
prosecution failed to prove the intent to gain on his part, an element
of the crime of theft.
Held: From the felonious act (taking another's property) of
the accused, freely and deliberately executed, the moral and legal
presumption of a criminal and injurious intent arises conclusively and
indisputably, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(See: People vs. Renegado, No. May SCRA

275, 286)
Criminal inten t and th e will to commi t a crime are alway s presumed
to exist on the part of the person wh o executes an act which the law punishes,
unles s th e contrary shall appear. (U.S. vs. Apostol, 14 Phil. 92, 93)
But the presumption of criminal intent does not arise the

proof of the commission of an act which is not unlawful.
U.S. vs. Catolico

(18 Phil. 504, 508)
Facts: The accused was a justice of the peace. He rendered

decisions in certain cases, each one for damages resulting from a breach
of contract, from which the defendants appealed. As required by law,
the defendants deposited and a bond for each case.
It appeared that the sureties on the said bonds were insolvent and
that the defendants did not present new bonds within the time fixed
42
by the accused as justice of the peace. Upon petition of the plaintiffs, the
accused dismissed the appeals and ordered said sums attached and
delivered to the plaintiffs in satisfaction of the judgment. The accused
was prosecuted for malversation (a felony punishable now under Art.
217).
Held: The act of the accused, in permitting the sums deposited
with him to be attached in satisfaction of the judgment rendered by
him, was not unlawful. Everything he did was done in good faith
under the belief that he was acting judiciously and correctly. The
act of a person does not make him a criminal, unless his mind be
criminal.
The maxi m is: actus facit nisi mens sit rea — a crime is
not committed if th e mind of th e person performing to act complained
be innocent. It is true tha t a presumption of criminal intent may
arise from proof of th e commission of a criminal act; and the general
rule is tha t if it is proved tha t th e accused committed the criminal
act charged, it will be presume d tha t th e act wa s done with criminal
intention and tha t it is for th e accused to rebut this presumption. But
it mus t be borne in mind tha t th e act from which such presumption
springs mus t be a criminal act. In th e case at bar, the act wa s not
criminal.
Where th e facts proven are accompanied by other facts which

show tha t th e act complained of wa s not unlawful, the presumption
of criminal inten t does not arise.
There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent.

The presumption of criminal intent from the commission of an unlawful
act ma y be rebutted by proof of lack of such intent.
Thus, a minor who married without parental consent, in viola•
tion of Art. 475 of the old Penal Code which punished "any minor who
shall contract marriage without th e consent of his or her parents,"
wa s not liable criminally, because she proved that she acted without
malice. The defendant minor testified that she believed that she was
born in 1879; that so her parents gave her to understand ever since
her tenderest age; and tha t she did not ask them concerning her
age, because they had already given her to so understand since her
childhood. The presumption of malice wa s rebutted by her testimony.
One cannot be convicted under Article 475 (similar to Art. 350 of the
Revised Penal Code) whe n by reason of a mistake of fact there does
43
Art. 3 FELONIES
not exist the intention to commit the crime. (U.S. vs. 1 Phil.
109)
Also, a person who suddenly got up in his sleep, left the room with
a in his hand, and upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him,
wounded her in the abdomen and attacked others, is not criminally
liable, because his acts were not voluntary, for having acted in a
dream; he had no criminal intent. (People vs. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255)
People vs.
(96 Phil. 566)
Facts: The accused was a military major of La Paz, Abra, in 1944.

He received an order from the regional commander of an infantry,
Philippine Army, operating as a guerrilla unit, to prosecute
for treason and to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen. The jury found
guilty of the charge and the recommendation of the jury was approved
by the Headquarters of the guerrilla unit. For the execution
of Borjal, the accused was prosecuted for murder.
The accused acted upon orders of superior officers which turned
out to be illegal. As a military subordinate, he could not question the
orders of his superior officers. He obeyed the orders in good faith,
without being aware of their illegality, without any fault or negligence on
his part.
Held: Criminal intent was not established. To constitute a
crime, the act must, except in certain crimes made such by statute, be
accompanied by a criminal intent, or by such negligence or indifference
to duty or to consequences, as in law, is equivalent to criminal intent.
(U.S. vs. Catolico, 18 Phil. 507) The accused was acquitted.
Mistake of fact.
While ignorance of th e la w excuse s no one from compliance
therewith (ignorantia non excusat), ignorance or mistak e of fact
relieves th e accused from criminal liability (ignorantia facti
Mistake of fact 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 wit h criminal intent.
An honest mistak e of fact destroys th e presumption of criminal intent
which arises upon th e commission of a felonious act. (People
44
FELONIES Art. 3
vs. Coching, et C.A., 52 O.G. 293 , citing People vs . 74 Phil.

257)
Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:

Tha t th e act done would hav e bee n lawful had the facts
bee n as th e accused believed the m to be.
2. That th e intention of th e accused in performing th e act
should be lawful.
3. Tha t th e mistak e mus t be withou t fault or carelessness on

th e part of th e accused.
Lack of intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the

facts of the case.
The defendant swore to Civil Service Form No. 1 before a notary
public tha t he wa s never accused of a violation of an y law before any
court or tribunal, whe n in truth and in fact he ha d been charged with
th e offense of unjust vexation in a criminal case before the Justice
of th e Peace Court. He wa s prosecuted for th e crime of perjury, for
havin g falsely sworn tha t he wa s never accused of an y offense. When
he testified in hi s defense, th e defendant claimed tha t he answered
to th e question whethe r he had been accused of a violation of
any law, because he relied on th e opinion of th e provincial fiscal that
unjust vexation does not involve moral turpitude and he thought
it wa s not necessary to mentio n it in Civil Service Form No. 1. It
appeared tha t he had been previously prosecuted twice for perjury
for having answered to the sam e question, and he wa s acquitted
in one case and th e information in th e other wa s dismissed. It wa s
held that in view of th e factual background of th e case, the act of the
defendant in answerin g "No" to th e question can be considered only
as an error of judgmen t and did not indicate an intention to commit
the crime of perjury. The defendant wa s not liable for the crime of
perjury, because he had no intent to commit the crime. (People vs.
C.A., 70 O.G. 3786)
In mistake of fact, the act done would have been lawful, had
the facts been as the accused believed them to be.
In other words, the act done would not constitute a felony had
the facts been as the accused believed them to be.
45
Art. 3 FELONIES
Thus, in the cases of U.S. vs. and People vs. Beronilla,

supra, the accused in th e first case believed that she wa s already
of age whe n she contracted marriage and th e accused in the second
case believed that the orders of hi s superior officer were legal. Had
they been the real facts, there would not be any felony committed.
But even if the y were not th e real facts, since th e accused acted in
good faith, they acted without intent. Hence, their acts were invol•
untary.
In mistake of fact, the act done by th e accused would have
constituted (1) a justifying circumstance under Art. 11, (2) an abso•
lutory cause, such as that contemplated in Art. 247, par. 2, or (3) an
involuntary act.
U.S. vs. Ah Chong

(15 Phil. 488)
Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in Ft. He was afraid of

bad elements. One evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in
his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to
bed, he was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called
out twice, "Who is but received no answer. Fearing that the
intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again,
"If you enter the room I will kill you." But at that precise moment, he
was struck by the chair that had been placed against the door, and
believing that he was being attacked he seized a kitchen knife and
struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his
roommate.
Held: Ah Chong must be acquitted because of mistake of fact.
Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed the m to be, he would have
been justified in killing the intruder under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the
Revised Penal Code, which requires, to justify the act, that there be —
unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed, (2)

reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself. If the intruder was really a robber, forcing his way into the
room of Ah Chong, there would have been unlawful aggression on the
part of the intruder. There would have been a necessity on the part
of Ah Chong to defend himself and/or his home. The knife would have
been a reasonable means to prevent or repel such aggression. And Ah
46
FELONIES Art. 3
Chong gave no provocation at all. Under Article of the Revised Penal

Code, there is nothing unlawful in the intention as well as in the act
of the person making the defense.
(See: People vs. Mamasalaya, No. Feb. Phil.

639, 654)
People vs. Oanis

(74 Phil. 257)
Facts: Chief of Police Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Galanta

were under instructions to arrest one Balagtas, a notorious criminal and
escaped convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. Proceeding
to the suspected house, they went into a room and on seeing a man
sleeping with his back towards the door, simultaneously fired at him
with their revolvers, without first making any reasonable inquiry as
to his identity. The victim turned out to be an innocent man, Tecson,
and not the wanted criminal.
Held: Both accused are guilty of murder.
Eve n if it wer e true tha t th e victim wa s th e notorious criminal, th e

accused would not be justified in killing hi m while the latter wa s sleeping.
In apprehending eve n th e most notorious criminal, the law does not
permit th e captor to kill him. It is only whe n th e fugitive from justice is
determined to fight th e officers of the la w who are trying to capture hi m tha t
killing him would be justified.
The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the

part of the accused.
Ah Chong case and Oanis case distinguished.
In th e Ah Chong case, there is an innocent mistak e of fact without any
fault or carelessness on the part of the accused, because, having no time or
opportunity to make any further inquiry, and being pressed by circumstances
to act immediately, the accused had no alternative but to take the facts as they
then appeared to him, and such facts justified his act of killing the deceased.
In the Oanis case, the accused found no circumstances whatever which
would press them to immediate action. The person in the room
47
Art. 3 FELONIES
being then asleep, the accused had ample time and opportunity to
ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves, and could even
effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been
made, as the victim wa s unarmed. This, indeed, is the only legitimate
course of action for the accused to follow even if the victim wa s really
Balagtas, as they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight, but to
arrest, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or aggression
is offered by him.
Hence, the accused in the Oanis case were at fault whe n they
shot the victim in violation of th e instructions given to them. They
were also careless in not verifying first the identity of the victim.
Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his intention was

to kill another, does not relieve the accused from criminal
responsibility.
That the accused made a mistak e in killing one ma n instead of another
cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility, he having acted maliciously
and wilfully. (People vs . Gona, 54 Phil. 605)
In mistake of fact, the intention of the accused in performing

the act should be lawful.
in error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim,
the principle of mistake of fact does not apply.
Example: A wante d to kill B by shooting hi m with a pistol.

Thinking that the person walking in dark alley wa s A shot the
person. It turned out tha t th e person killed wa s C, the brother
of A. A had no intention to kill Since th e act and intention
of A in firing his pistol are unlawful, A cannot properly invoke
the principle of mistake of fact in hi s defense.
No crime of resistance when there is a mistake of fact.

One who resists an arrest, believing tha t the peace officer is
a bandit, but wh o submit s to th e arrest immediatel y upon being
informed by the peace officer tha t he is a policeman, is not guilty of
the crime of resistance to an agent of th e authorities under Art. 151
of the Revised Penal Code, because of mistak e of fact. (See U.S. vs.
Bautista, 31 Phil. 308)
48
FELONIES Art. 3
When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a de•

fense.
People vs. De Fernando

(49 Phil. 75)
Facts: The accused, a policeman, was informed that three con•

victs had escaped. In the dark, he saw a person going up the stairs of a
house, carrying a and calling for someone inside. The daughter of
the owner of the house was at that time with the accused who fired a
shot in the air. As the unknown person continued to ascend the stairs
and believing that he was one of the escaped convicts, the accused fired
directly at the man who turned out to be the nephew of the owner of
the house.
Held: He is guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. The
victim called for someone in the house. That fact indicated that he was
known to the owner of the house. The accused should have inquired from
the daughter of the owner of the house as to who the unknown person
might be.
The defense of mistak e of fact is untenable whe n the accused is

charged wit h a culpable felony. In mistak e of fact, wha t is involved
is lack of intent on th e part of th e accused. In felonies committed
through negligence, there is no intent to consider, as it is replaced
by imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means

of dolo.
Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by mean s of
dolo because of the legal maxim s —
Actus non facit nisi mens sit rea, "the act itself does not
make a ma n guilty unles s his intention were so."
Actus me invito factus non est actus, "an act done by me
against my will is not my act." (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 499)
Distinction between general intent and specific intent.

In felonies committed by the third element of voluntari•
ness is a general intent; whereas, in some particular felonies, proof of
particular specific intent is required. Thus, in certain crimes against
49
Art. 3 FELONIES
property, there mus t be the intent to gain (Art. 293 — robbery; Art.
— theft). Intent to kill is essential in frustrated or attempted homicide
(Art. 6 in relation to Art. 249); in forcible abduction (Art. 342), the specific
intent of lewd designs mus t be proved.
When the accused is charged with intentional felony, absence

of criminal intent is a defense.
In th e absenc e of criminal intent , ther e is no liability for intentional
felony. All reasonable doubt intended to demonstrate error and not crime
should be indulged in for the benefit of the accused. (People vs. Pacana, 47
Phil. 48)
If there is only error on th e part of th e person doing the act,
he does not act with malice, and for that reason he is not criminally
liable for intentional felony.
Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in

felonies committed by means of culpa.
In felonies committed by mean s of culpa, since the doing of or
failing to do an act mus t also be voluntary, there mus t be freedom
and intelligence on th e part of th e offender, but the requisite of
criminal intent , whic h is required in felonies by dolo, is replaced by
the requisite of imprudence, negligence , lack of foresight, or lack of
skill.
Such negligence or indifference to duty or to consequence is, in law,
equivalent to criminal intent. (U.S. vs . Catolico, 18 Phil. 507)
But in felonies committed by mean s of culpa, the mind of the accused is
not criminal. However, his act is wrongful, because the injury or damage
caused to the injured party results from the imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill of the accused.
Therefore, in order that the act or omission in felonies committed by
mean s of fault or culpa ma y be considered voluntary, the following requisites
mus t concur:
(1) He mus t hav e FREEDO M whil e doing an act or omitting

to do an act;
(2) He mus t hav e INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or
omitting to do the act;
50
FELONIES Art. 3
(3) is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or LACKS FORESIGHT or

SKILL while doing the act or omitting to do the act.
In culpable felonies, the injury caused to another should

be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act
performed without malice.
People vs. Guillen
(85 Phil. 307)
Facts: Guillen, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he per•

formed the act voluntarily; that his purpose was to kill the President,
but that it did not make any difference to him if there were some people
around the President when he hurled that bomb, because the killing
of those who surrounded the President was tantamount to killing the
President, in view of the fact that those persons, being loyal to the
President, were identified with the latter. In other words, although it
was not his main intention to kill the persons surrounding the Presi•
dent, he felt no compunction in killing them also in order to attain his
main purpose of killing the President.
Held: The facts do not support the contention of counsel for
appellant that the latter is guilty only of homicide through reckless
imprudence in regard to the death of Simeon Varela and of less serious
physical injuries in regard to Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro
and Maglalang.
In throwing the hand grenade at the President with the inten•
tion of killing him, the appellant acted with malice. He is therefore
liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act; for in accordance
with Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred
by any person committing a felony although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended. In criminal
negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it
being simply the incident of another act performed without malice.
(People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939) In the words of Viada, "in order that
an act may be qualified as imprudence it is necessary that neither
malice nor intention to cause injury should intervene; where such
intention exists, the act should be qualified by the felony it has
produced even though it may not have been the intention of the
actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced." (Viada's
comment on the Penal Code, Vol. 7, 5th p. 7) And, as was held
by this court, deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially
inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence. (People vs.
Nanquil, 43 Phil. 232)
51
Art. 3 FELONIES
Mistake in the identity of the intended victim is not reckless

imprudence.
A deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent
with the idea of reckless imprudence. Where such an unlawful act is
willfully a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot
be considered as reckless imprudence. (People vs. Guillen, 85 Phil.
307, citing People vs. Nanquil, 43 Phil. 232, and People vs. Guia, 54
Phil. 605)
A person causing damage or injury to another, without malice

or fault, is not criminally liable under the Revised Penal
Code.
Since felonies are committed either by mean s of deceit (dolo) or
by mean s of fault (culpa), if there is neither malice nor negligence
on the part of the person causing damage or injury to another, he is
not criminally liable under the Revised Pena l Code.
In such case, he is exemp t from criminal liability, because he cause s an
injury by mer e accident, withou t fault or intention of causing it. (Art. 12, par.
4, Revised Pena l Code)
Illustration:
Three men, Ramos, Abandia and Catangay, were huntin g deer
at night. Ramos carried a lantern fastened to his forehead. Abandia
and Catangay were following him. They saw a deer. Catangay whos e
gun wa s already cocked and aimed at th e deer stumbled against
an embankmen t which lay betwee n him and Ramos. His gun wa s
accidentally discharged, hittin g and killing Ramos. It wa s held tha t
Catangay wa s not criminally liable because he had no criminal intent
and was not negligent. (U.S. vs. Catangay, 28 Phil. 490)
The act performed must be lawful.

In the foregoing illustration, th e act of aiming the gun at the
deer while hunting is lawful, it not being prohibited by any law.
But the act of discharging a gu n in a public place is unlawful.
(Art. 155, Revised Penal Code) In such case, if a person is injured as
a result of the discharge of th e gun, th e one discharging it in a public
place is criminally liable for the injury caused.
52
FELONIES Art. 3
The third class of crimes are those punished by special laws.

There are three classe s of crimes. The Revised Penal Code de• fines and
penalizes th e first two classe s of crimes, (1) the intentional felonies, and (2) the
culpable felonies. The third class of crimes are those defined and penalized by
special law s which include crimes punished by municipal or city ordinances.
Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws.

Whe n th e crime is punishe d by a special law, as a rule, intent
to commit th e crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender
ha s th e intent to perpetrate th e act prohibited by th e special law.
Inten t to commit th e crime and inten t to perpetrate the act
mus t be distinguished. A person ma y not hav e consciously intended
to commit a crime; but he did inten d to commit an act, and that act
is, by th e very nature of things, th e crime itself. (U.S. vs. Go Chico,
14 Phil. 128)
In th e first (intent to commit the crime), there mus t be criminal

intent; in the second (intent to perpetrate the act), it is enough that
th e prohibited act is done freely and consciously.
People vs. Bayona

(61 Phil. 181)
Facts: Defendant was driving his automobile on a road in front

of electoral precinct No. 4 in Barrio de Pilar, Capiz. He had
a revolver with him. He was called by his friend, Jose D. Benliro. He
alighted from his automobile and approached him to find out what
he wanted. He did not leave his revolver in the automobile, because
there were many people in the road in front of the polling place and
he might lose it. He was within the fence surrounding the polling
place when Jose E. Desiderio, a representative of the Department
of the Interior, took possession of the revolver defendant was car•
rying.
The Solicitor-General was for his acquittal.
Held: The law which defendant violated is a statutory provision,
and the intent with which he violated is immaterial. It may be conceded
that defendant did not intend to intimidate any elector or to violate
the law in any other way, but when he got out of his automobile and
carried his revolver inside of the fence surrounding the polling place,
53
Art. 3 FELONIES
he committed the act complained of, and he committed it wilfully. The

Election Law does not require for its violation that the offender has
the intention to intimidate the voters or to interfere otherwise with the
election.
The rule is that in acts mala in there mus t be a criminal

intent; but in those mala prohibita, it is sufficient if the prohibited
act was intentionally done.
Since th e Election Code prohibits and punishe s th e carrying
of a firearm inside th e polling place, an d tha t person did th e pro•
hibited act freely and consciously, he ha d th e inten t to perpetrate
th e act.
No intent to perpetrate the act prohibited.

If a ma n with a revolver merely passe s along a public road on election
day, within fifty meter s of a polling place, he does not violate th e provision of
th e law in question, because he had no intent to perpetrate the act prohibited,
and the sam e thin g would be true of a peace officer in pursuing a criminal;
nor would th e prohibition extend to persons living withi n fifty meter s of a
polling place, who merely clean or handle their firearms within their own
residences on election day, as they would not be carrying firearms withi n the
contemplation of the law. (People vs. Bayona, supra)
In those crimes punished by special laws, the act alone,

irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense.
U.S. us. Siy Cong Bieng, et al.

(30 Phil. 577)
Facts: Co Kong, while in charge of appellant's store and acting

as his agent and employee, sold, in the ordinary course of business,
coffee which had been adulterated by the admixture of peanuts and
other extraneous substances.
Question: Whether a conviction under the Pure Food and Drugs
Act (No. 1655 of the Philippine Commission) can be sustained where it
appears that the sale of adulterated food products was made without
guilty knowledge of the fact of adulteration.
Held: 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
54
FELONIES Art. 3
acts committed 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 greater master of things," to forbid in a limited class of cases the
doing of certain acts, and to make their commission criminal without
regard to the intent of the doer.
It is notorious that the adulteration of food products has
grown to proportions so enormous as to menace the health and
safety of the people. Ingenuity keeps pace with greed, and the care•
less and heedless consumers are exposed to increasing perils. To
redress such evils is a plain duty but a difficult task. Experience
has taught the lesson that repressive measures which depend for
their efficiency upon proof of the dealer's knowledge or of his intent
to deceive and defraud are of little use and rarely accomplish their
purposes. Such an emergency may justify legislation which throws
upon the seller the entire responsibility of the purity and sound•
ness of what he sells and compels him to know and to be certain.
(People vs. 106 N.Y., 321, cited in the case of U.S. vs. Go
Chico, 14 Phil. 133)
Reasons why criminal intent is not necessary in crimes made

such by statutory enactment.
The accused wa s charged wit h a violation of Section 1 of Act
1696 of th e Philippine Commission, which punishe s any person who
shall expose to public vie w any flag, banner, emblem or device used
during th e late insurrection in the Philippines. Even if the accused
acted withou t criminal intent , th e lower court convicted him. In
affirming th e judgmen t of conviction of th e lower court, the Supreme
Court said —
"The display of a flag or emblem used, particularly within a
recent period, by th e enemie s of the Government tends to incite
resistance of governmental functions and insurrection against
governmental authority jus t as effectively if made in the best of
good faith as if made with the most corrupt intent. The display
itself, without the intervention of any other fact, is the evil. It
is quite different from that large class of crimes, made such by
the common law or by in which the effect upon
the public depends upon the corrupt intention of the person
perpetrating the act. If A discharges a loaded gun and kills B,
the interest which society ha s in the act depends, not upon B's
death, but upon the intention with which A consummated the
55
Art. 3 FELONIES
act. If the gun wa s discharged intentionally, with the purpose of

accomplishing the death of B, then society ha s been injured and
its security violated; but if the gun wa s discharged accidentally
on the part of A, the n society, strictly speaking, ha s no concern
in the matter, even though the death of B results. The reason
for this is that A does not become a danger to society and its
institutions until he becomes a person with a corrupt The
mere discharge of the gun and the death of B do not of themselves
make him so. With those two facts mus t go the corrupt intent
to kill. In the case at bar, however, the evil to society and to the
Government does not depend upon th e state of mind of the one
who displays the banner, but upon th e effect which that display
ha s upon the public mind. In th e one case the public is affected
by the intention of th e actor; in th e other by the act itself." (U.S.
vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 129)
When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is

considered that th e act is injurious to public welfare and the doing
of the prohibited act is th e crime itself.
Good faith and absence of criminal intent not valid defenses

in crimes punished by special laws.
It does not matter, for th e validity of th e conviction of Ongsod,
that he is the owner or borrower, as th e proprietary concept of the
possession can have no bearing whatsoever on his guilt, within the
intendment and purview of Republic Act 4 (which amended Section
2692 of th e Revised Administrative Code and Commonwealth Act
56). And it is now beyond question tha t mere unlicensed possession
is sufficient to sustai n a conviction of illegal possession of firearms,
regardless of the intent of th e unlicensed holder, since the offense
is malum prohibitum punished by special law, and good faith and
absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses. (People vs. Orquijo,
[C.A.] 60 O.G. 836)
(See: Lacson, Jr. vs. Posadas , Matter No. 74-MJ, July 30,
1976, 72 SCRA 168, 171)
Exceptions:
1. Several PC soldiers wen t to the house of the defendant
and asked him if he had in his possession any unlicensed
56
FELONIES Art. 3
firearm. The defendant readily answered that he had one

but that said unlicensed firearm wa s in his possession prior
to hi s turning it over to th e Mayor of in connection
wit h th e drive of th e government in the collection of loose
firearms. Defendant told the PC soldiers tha t he bought
th e firearm from a stranger with the purpose of selling it to
th e PC who were paying for loose firearms. He even showed
to th e PC soldiers a letter of the tow n mayor authorizing
hi m to collect loose firearms in his barrio.
Held: To imple men t th e policy of th e governmen t on

loose firearms, it is imperative tha t th e persons collecting
and surrendering loose firearms should hav e temporary
and incidental possessio n thereof, for how can one collect
an d delive r w it ho u t t empo raril y layin g hi s hand s o n
th e firearms? It is for thi s reaso n tha t we believe that
th e doctrine of th e imma terialit y of animus possidendi
should be relaxed in a certain way. Otherwise, the avowed
purpose of th e government' s policy cannot be realized. Of
course, it woul d be a different story if it is show n tha t the
possesso r ha s held on to th e firearm for an undu e length
of tim e whe n he ha d all th e chance s to surrender it to the
proper authorities . (People vs. Landicho, [C.A.] 55 O.G.
842)
2. Whe n neither of the accused had ever intended to commit

th e offense of illega l po ssessio n of firearms (U.S . vs.
Samson, 16 Phil. 323); whe n both believed in good faith
that as civilian guards under Councilor Asa, an MIS agent
and a superior officer in th e Civilian Guard Organization,
and under the circumstances and facts of this case, they
cannot be held liable for the offense charged because they
never had any intent of violating the law. (People vs. Asa
and Balbastro, [C.A.] 50 O.G. 5853 , citing 68 Corpus Juris
39)
Where the accused had a pending application for permanent
permit to possess a firearm, and whose possession was not
unknown to an agent of the law who advised the former to
keep it in the meantime, any doubt as to his claim should
be resolved in his favor. (People vs. Mallari, 55 O.G.
1394)
57
Art. 3 FELONIES
Where appellant was duly appointed as civilian confidential

agent entrusted with a mission to make surveillance and
effect the killing or capture of a wanted person, and wa s
authorized to carry a revolver to carry out his mission, he
is not criminally liable for illegal possession of firearms.
(People vs. Lucero, 103 Phil. 500)
Note: In thes e cases , th e accuse d ha d no licens e to possess the

firearms, but in view of the facts and circumstances, the
absence of intent to violate the law wa s considered in
favor of the accused.
Mala in se and mala prohibita, distinguished.

There is a distinction betwee n crimes which are mala in se, or
wrongful from their nature, such as theft, rape, homicide, etc., and
those tha t are mala prohibita, or wrong merely because prohibited
by statute, such as illegal possession of firearms.
Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society
as to call for almost unanimou s condemnation of its members; while
crimes mala prohibita are violations of mere rules of convenience
designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society.
Law Dictionary, Rawle's 3rd Revision)
(1) In acts mala in se, th e inten t governs; but in those mala
prohibita, th e only inquiry is, ha s th e law been violated?
(People vs. 106 N.Y., 321 , cited in th e case of U.S.
vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 132)
Criminal intent is not necessary where th e acts are prohibited

for reasons of public policy, as in illegal possession of (People
vs. Conosa, C.A., 45 O.G. 3953)
(2) The term mala in se refers generally to felonies and
penalized by the Revised Penal Code. When the acts are
inherently immoral, they are mala in se, even if punished
by special laws. On the other hand, there are crimes in
the Revised Penal Code which were originally defined and
penalized by special laws. Among them are possession and
use of opium, malversation, brigandage, and libel.
The term mala prohibita refers generally to acts made criminal
by special laws.
58
FELONIES Art. 3
When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se,
even if punished under special law.
People vs. Sunico, et al.
50 O.G. 5880)
Facts: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose
duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other
precincts to the list of a newly created precinct. Several voters were
omitted in the list. Because their names were not in the list, some of
them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for viola•
tion of 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused
claimed that they made the omission in good faith.
The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact
that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the
latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum
prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not
be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable.
Held: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita
— they are mala per se. The omission or failure to include a voter's name
in the registry list of voters is not only wrong because it is prohibited;
it is wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter and violates one of
his fundamental rights. Hence, for such act to be punishable, it must
be shown that it has been committed with malice. There is no clear
showing in the instant case that the accused intentionally, willfully and
maliciously omitted or failed to include in the registry list of voters the
names of those voters. They cannot be punished criminally.
The Revised Election Code, as far as its penal provisions are

concerned, is a special it being not a part of th e Revised Penal
Code or its a mendments .
Intent distinguished from motive.

Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a
definite result. Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to
effect such result.
Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and, hence, need not be
proved for purposes of conviction. (People vs. Aposaga, No. L-32477, Oct. 30,
1981, 108 SCRA 574, 595)
An extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime
without a real motive but just for the sake of committing it. Or, the
59
Art. 3 FELONIES
apparent lack of a motive for committing a criminal act does not

necessarily mea n that there is none, but that simply it is not known
to us, for we cannot probe into the depths of one's conscience where
it may be found, hidden away and inaccessible to our observation.
(People vs. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255, 256)
One may be convicted of a crime whether his motive appears to
be good or bad or even though no motive is proven. A good motive does
not prevent an act from being a crime. In mercy killing, the painless
killing of a patient who ha s no chance of recovery, the motive may
be good, but it is nevertheless punished by law.
Motive, when relevant and when need not be established.

Where the identity of a person accused of having committed a crime is
in dispute, the motive that ma y have impelled its commission is very relevant.
(People vs. Murray, 105 Phil. 591, 598; People vs. Feliciano, No. L-30307, Aug.
15, 1974, 58 SCRA 383, 393)
Generally, proof of motive is not necessary to pin a crime on
the accused if th e commission of the crime ha s been proven and the
evidence of identification is convincing. (People vs. No. L-
32276, Sept. 12, 1974, 59 SCRA 136, 160)
Motive is essential only whe n there is doubt as to the identity of
the assailant. It is immaterial whe n the accused ha s been positively
identified. (People vs. Gadiana, G.R. No. 92509, March
SCRA 214-215; People vs. Mandapat, G.R. No. 76953, April 22,
1991, 196 SCRA 157, 165)
Where the defendant admits the killing, it is no longer necessary
to inquire into his motive for doing th e act. (People vs. G.R.
No. Jun e 30, 1959)
Motive is importan t in ascertainin g th e truth betwee n tw o
antagonistic theories or versions of the killing. (People vs. Boholst-
Caballero, No. L-23249, Nov. 61 SCRA People vs.
G.R. No. 86454, Oct. 18, 1990, 190 SCRA 706, 714-715; People
vs. Tabije, No. L-36099, 113 SCRA 191, 197)
Wher e th e identificatio n of th e accuse d proceeds from an

unreliable source and th e testimon y is inconclusive and not free
from doubt, evidence of motive is necessary. (People vs. Beltran, No.
Nov. 29, 1974, 61 SCRA 246, 254-255)
60
FELONIES Art. 3
Wher e ther e are n o ey ew it ne s se s t o th e crime, and wher e

suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons, motive is relevant
and significant. (People vs . Melgar, No. L-75268, Jan . 29, 1988, 157
SCRA 718, 725)
If th e evidenc e is merel y proof of motive is
essential. (People vs. No . L-37483, Jun e SCRA
Proof of motive is not indispensable where guilt is otherwise

established by sufficient evidence. (People vs. 107 Phil. 44, 49)
While th e question of motive is important to the person who
committed the criminal act, ye t whe n there is no longer any doubt
tha t th e defendant wa s th e culprit, it becomes unimportant to know
th e exact reason or purpose for th e commission of th e crime. (People
vs. Feliciano, No. L-30307, Aug. 15, 1974, 58 SCRA 383, 393)
How motive is proved.

Generally, th e motive is established by th e testimony of wit•
nesse s on th e acts or statement s of th e accused before or immediately
after th e commission of th e offense. Such deeds or words may indicate
the motive. vs. Fernandez, 82 Phil. 642, 649)
Motive proved by the evidence.

Appellant stabbed th e deceased. It wa s established that there
were two suffocating smoke s noticed during th e progress of the re•
ligious service of th e Iglesia ni which made appellant to go
around. Certainly, the those smokes, presumably by non-
members, which disturbed and interrupted the service, particularly
at the time whe n the Minister wa s preaching, is enough motive for
any member of the sect to be offended thereby, particularly appellant
who wa s a member of some importance. (People vs. Ramirez, 104 Phil.
720, 726)
Disclosure of the motive is an aid in completing the proof of

the commission of the crime.
Thus, the fact that the accused had been losing in their business
operations indicated the motive and therefore the intent to commit arson for
the purpose of collecting the insurance on their stock of merchandise. (U.S.
vs. Go Foo Suy, 25 Phil. 187, 204)
61
Art. 3 FELONIES
But proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a con•

viction.
The existenc e of a motive , thoug h perhap s an importan t
consideration, is not sufficient proof of guilt. (People vs. Marcos, 70 Phil.
468; People vs. Martinez y 106 Phil. 597) Mere proof of motive,
no matter how strong, is not sufficient to support a conviction if there
is no reliable evidence from which it may be reasonably deduced that
the accused was the malefactor. (People vs. 107 Phil. 188,
194)
Even a strong motive to commit th e crime cannot take the

place of proof beyond reasonable doubt, sufficient to overthrow the
presumption of innocence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is th e
mainstay of our accusatorial syste m of criminal justice. (People vs.
No. L-32886, Oct. 23 , 1981 , 108 SCRA 211 , 226)
Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of

the accused.
In a case, th e Suprem e Court concluded tha t th e defendant acted
while in a dream and hi s acts, wit h whic h he wa s charged, were not
voluntary in th e sens e of entailin g criminal liability.
Under the special circumstances of th e case, in which the victim
wa s th e defendant's own wife who m he dearly loved, and taking into
consideration th e fact tha t th e defendant tried to attack also hi s
father, in whos e house and under whos e protection he lived, besides
attacking Tanner and Malinao, his guests, whom he himself invited as
ma y be inferred from th e evidence presented, we find not only lack of
motives for the defendant to voluntarily commit th e acts complained
of, but also motives for not committing said acts. (People vs. Taneo,
58 Phil. 255, 257)
Lack of motive to kill th e deceased ha s bee n held as further basis for
acquitting th e accused, wher e th e lone testimon y of th e prosecution witnes s
is contrary to common experience and, therefore, incredible. (People vs .
Padirayon, No . L-39207, Sept. 25, 1975, 67
SCRA 135)
62
CRIMINAL LIABILITY Art. 4
Wrongful Act From That Intended
Art . 4. Criminal liability. — Crimina l liabilit y shal l be in • curred :

1 . B y an y perso n committin g a felon y (delito) althoug h th e wrongfu l
ac t don e b e differen t fro m tha t whic h h e intended .
2 . B y an y p e r s o n p e r f o r m i n g a n ac t w h i c h w o u l d b e
a n o f f e n s e a g a i n s t p e r s o n s o r p r o p e r t y , w e r e i t no t fo r th e
i n h e r e n t i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f it s a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o r o n a c c o u n t
o f th e e m p l o y m e n t o f i n a d e q u a t e o r i n e f f e c t u a l me a n s .
Application of Article 4.
Criminal liability is incurred by an y person in the cases men•
tioned in th e two paragraphs of Article 4. This article ha s no reference
to th e manne r criminal liability is incurred. The manne r of incurring
criminal liability under th e Revised Penal Code is stated in Article
3, tha t is, performing or failing to do an act, whe n either is punished
by law, by mean s of deceit (with malice) or fault (through negligence
or imprudence).
One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all

the consequences which may naturally and logically result
therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
Ordinarily, whe n a person commits a felony with malice, he
intends th e consequences of hi s felonious act. Bu t there are cases
where th e consequences of th e felonious act of the offender are not
intended by him. In those cases, "the wrongful act is "different
from tha t which he intended."
In view of paragraph 1 of Art. 4, a person committing a felony is
criminally liable although the consequences of his felonious act are
not intended by him.
Thus, where the death of the 6 year-old victim wa s brought
about by the rape committed by the accused, it is of no moment that
she died by accident whe n she hit her head on the pavement while
struggling, because, having performed an act constituting a felony,
he is responsible for all the consequences of said act, regardless of
his intention. (People vs. Mario Mariano, 75 O.G. 4802, No. 24, June
11, 1979)
63
Art. 4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Wrongful Act Different From That Intended
One is not relieved from criminal liability for the natural con•
sequences of one's illegal acts, merely because one does not intend to produce
such consequences. (U.S. vs. Brobst, 14 Phil. 310)
Thus, one who fired his gun at B, but missed and hit C instead,
is liable for the injury caused to C, although the one who fired the
gun had no intention to injure
One who gave a fist blow on the head of D, causing the latter to
fall with the latter's head striking a hard pavement, is liable for the
death of which resulted although th e one who gave the fist blow
had no intention to kill D.
And one who stabbed another in the dark, believing that the latter wa s
E, whe n in fact he wa s G, is liable for the injury caused to G, although th e
one who stabbed hi m had no intention to injure G.
Rationale of rule in paragraph 1 of Article 4.

The rationale of the rule in Article 4 is found in the doctrine
that "el que es causa de la causa es causa del (he who
is the cause of th e cause is th e cause of the evil caused). (People vs.
Ural, No. March 27, 1974, 56 SCRA 138, 144)
IMPORTAN T WORD S AN D PHRASE S I N PARAGRAP H 1 O F ART .

4.
1. "Committing a felony."
Paragraph 1 of Art. 4 say s tha t criminal liability shall
be incurred by any person "committing a felony," not merely
performing an act. A felony is an act or omission punishable by
the Revised Penal Code. If th e act is not punishable by th e Code,
it is not a But the felony committed by the offender should
be one committed by mean s of dolo, tha t is, with malice, because
paragraph 1 of Art. 4 speaks of wrongful act done "different from
tha t which he
If the wrongful act results from the imprudence, negligence, lack
of foresight or lack of skill of the offender, his liability should be
determined under Art. 365 , which defines and penalizes criminal
negligence.
The act or omission should not be punished by a special
law, because th e offender violating a special law may not have
the intent to do an injury to another. In such case, the wrongful
64
act done could not be different, as th e offender did not intend to do any
other injury.
Article 4, paragraph is not applicable in this case.

Defendant, who wa s not a regular medical practitioner, tied
a girl, wrapped her feet wit h rags saturated wit h petroleum and
thereafter set the m on fire causing injuries. Hi s defense wa s tha t he
undertook to render medical assistanc e in good faith and to the best
of his ability to cure her of ulcer. He admitted applying petroleum
but denied causin g th e burns. Held: While there wa s no intention to
cause an evil but to provide a remedy, accused wa s liable for injuries
thru imprudence. (U.S. vs. 12 Phil. 175)
Note: Defendant did not commit an intentional felony. If at

all, he committed illegal practice of medicine, which is
punished by a special law. Violation of a statute is proof
of negligence or imprudence. Defendant is liable for two
offenses: physical injuries through imprudence; and
(2) illegal practice of medicine.
When a person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally

liable for the result which is not intended.
(a) Thus, one who, because of curiosity, snatched the carried
by th e offended party at hi s belt, and the latter
caught th e blade of said bolo in trying to retain it, is not crimi•
nally liable for th e physical injuries caused, because there is no
provision in th e Revised Penal Code which punishes that act of
snatching the property of another jus t to satisfy curiosity. (See
U.S. vs. Villanueva, 31 Phil. 412)
(b) Thus, also, one who tries to retain the possession of his bolo
which wa s being take n by another and because of the struggle,
the tip of th e bolo struck and pierced the breast of a bystander,
is not criminally liable therefor, because the law allows a person
to use the necessary force to retain wha t belongs to him. (See
People vs. Bindoy, 56 Phil. 15)
People vs. Bindoy
(56 Phil. 15)
Facts: In a tuba wineshop in the barrio market, the accused
offered tuba to wife; and as she refused to drink having already
65
done so, the accused threatened to injure her if she would not accept.
There ensued an interchange of words between her and the accused,
and Pacas stepped in to defend his wife, attempting to take away
from the accused the bolo he carried. This occasioned a disturbance
which attracted the attention of Emigdio Omamdam who lived near
the market. Emigdio left his house to see what was happening, while
the accused and Pacas were struggling for the bolo. In the course of this
struggle, the accused succeeded in disengaging himself from Pacas,
wrenching the bolo from the latter's hand towards the left behind the
accused, with such violence that the point of the bolo reached Emigdio
Omamdam's chest, who was then behind the accused. The accused
was not aware of Omamdam's presence in the place.
Held: There is no evidence to show that the accused injured the
deceased deliberately and with the intention of committing a crime. He
was only defending his possession of the bolo, which Pacas was trying to
wrench away from him, and his conduct was perfectly legal. The
accused should be acquitted.
Had th e accused attempte d to woun d Paca s during the strug•

gle, but instea d of doing so, he wounde d O ma mdam , he would hav e
been liable for th e deat h of Oma mda m , becaus e in attemptin g to
wound another, th e accused would be committin g a felony, which
is attempte d homicide, if there is inten t to kill, under Art. 24 9 in
relation to Art. 6.
2. "Although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended."
The causes which ma y produce a result different from that
which the offender intended are: mistak e in the identity of
the victim; (2) mistak e in th e blow, that is, whe n the offender
intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on
another; and (3) th e act exceeds th e intent, that is, th e injurious
result is greater tha n tha t intended.
Unde r paragraph Art. 4, a person committing a felony
is still criminally liable even if —
a. There is a mistak e in th e identity of the victim — error in
personae. (See the case of People vs. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257)
In a case , defendan t wen t out of th e hous e wit h th e intention
of assaulting Dunca, but in the darkness of the evening, defendant
mistook Mapudul for Dunca and inflicted upon him
66
a mortal woun d wit h a bolo. In thi s case, th e defendant is

criminally liable for th e death of Mapudul. (People vs. Gona,
54 Phil. 605)
b. There is a mistak e in th e blow — aberratio ictus.
Example: People vs. Mabugat, 51 Phil. 967, wher e th e
accused, havin g discharged hi s firearm at Juan a Buralo but
because of lack of precision, hit and seriously wounded
Buralo, it wa s held tha t th e accused wa s liable for th e injury
caused to th e latter.
The injurious result is greater tha n that intended — praeter
Example: People vs. Cagoco, 58 Phil . 524 , wher e th e

accused, without inten t to kill, struck th e victim wit h his fist on
th e back part of th e hea d from behind, causing the victim to fall
down wit h hi s hea d hittin g th e asphalt pavemen t and resulting
in th e fracture of hi s head, it wa s held tha t th e accused wa s
liable for th e deat h of th e victim, although he had no intent to
kill said victim.
People vs. Mabugat

(51 Phil. 967)
Facts: The accused and Juana Buralo were sweethearts. One

day, the accused invited Juana to take a walk with him, but the latter
refused him on account of the accused having frequently visited the
house of another woman. Later on, the accused went to the house of
Bayan where Juana had gone to take part in some devotion.
There the accused, revolver in hand, waited until Juana and her niece,
Perfecta, came downstairs. When they went in the direction of their
house, the accused followed them. As the two girls were going upstairs,
the accused, while standing at the foot of the stairway, fired a shot from
his revolver at Juana but which wounded Perfecta, the slug passing
through a part of her neck, having entered the posterior region thereof
and coming out through the left Perfecta did not die due to proper
medical attention.
Held: The accused is guilty of frustrated murder, qualified by
treachery, committed on the person of Perfecta Buralo.
In People vs. No. April 30, 1985, 136

SCRA 238, the conduct of the wife of the accused aroused his ire and
67
incensed with wrath and his anger beyond control, he picked up a

piece of wood and started hitting his wife with it until she fell to the
ground complaining of severe chest pains. Realizing wha t he had
done, he picked her up in his arms and brought her home. Despite
his efforts to alleviat e her pains , th e wife died. Prosecuted for
parricide, he pleaded guilty and wa s allowed to establish mitigating
Passin g on hi s contentions, the Supreme Court held
that the fact tha t th e appellant intended to maltreat hi s wife only
or inflict physical injuries does not exemp t hi m from liability for th e
resulting and more serious crime of (pp. 242, 246)
To the sam e effect is People vs. No. L-36282, Dec. 10,
1976, 74 SCRA 263 , where it wa s held that the case is covered by
Article 4 of th e Revised Penal Code which provides that criminal
liability is incurred by any person co mmitting a felony although
the wrongful act done be different from tha t which he intended,
because the maltreat ment inflicted by the accused on his wife wa s
the proximate cause of her death. The accused in his inebriated state
had no intent to kill her. He wa s infuriated because his son did not
feed his carabao. He wa s provoked to castigate his wife because she
prevented hi m from whipping his negligent son. He could have easily
killed his wife had he really intended to take her life. He did not kill
her (p. 269)
Requisites of paragraph 1 of Art. 4.

In order tha t a person ma y be held criminally liable for a felony
different from tha t whic h he intende d to commit, th e following requisites
mus t be present:
a. That an intentional felony ha s been committed; and
b. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct,
natural and logical consequence of th e felony committed
by the offender. (U.S. vs. Brobst, 14 Phil. 310, 319; U.S.
vs. 29 Phil. 14, 19)
That a felony has been committed.

Thus , in th e cases of U.S. vs. and People vs. Bindoy,
supra, th e accused wer e not hel d criminall y liable, becaus e the y
were not committing a felony whe n the y cause d th e injury to an•
other.
68
Act Different From That Intended
No felony is committed (1) when the act or omission is not punishable

by the Revised Penal Code, (2) when the act is covered by any of the
justifying circumstances enumerated in Art. 11.
An act which is not punishable by the Revised Penal Code is attempting
to commit suicide. (Art. 253)
Therefore, if A, in att empt in g a suicide, jumpe d out of the

window to kill himself, but whe n he dropped to the ground he fell on
an old woma n wh o died as a consequence, A is not criminally liable
for intentional homicide. A wa s not committing a felony whe n he
attempted a suicide.
One wh o shoots at another in self-defense, defense of relative,

defense of a stranger, or in th e fulfillment of duty is not committing
a felony, th e act being justified. (Art. 11, Revised Penal Code)
Hence, if B, wh o wa s being fired at wit h a gu n by C to kill him,
fired his pistol at the latter in self-defense, but missed him and instead
hit and killed D, a bystander, B is not criminally liable for the death
of D. One acting in self-defense is not committing a felony.
A policeman, wh o wa s pursuing to arrest an armed prisoner

who had jus t escaped from jail, fired hi s service pistol at the latter
whe n he refused to be captured. The slug fired from th e pistol of the
policeman, after hitting th e prisoner on his right leg, hit and seriously
injured a passer-by. The policeman is not criminally liable for the
injury caused to th e passer-by, because being in the fulfillment of a
duty he wa s not committing a felony.
Of course, th e act of defense or fulfillment of duty mus t be exercised
with due care; otherwise, th e accused will be liable for culpable felony.
People vs. Salinas

(C.A., 62 O.G. 3186)
Facts: In the afternoon of February 14, 1958, the three accused,

namely: Saturnino Salinas, Crisanto Salinas and Francisco Salinas,
together with two small boys by the name of Tony and went to
the place of Severino Aquino to get their horses which the latter caught
for having destroyed his corn plants. When Crisanto and the two boys
were already inside the house of Severino Aquino, Crisanto asked, with
signs of respect and in a nice way, Severino Aquino what had the horses
69
destroyed. Thereafter, Salinas who was at that time in front

of the house of Severino Aquino in the yard told Severino Aquino to come
down from the house and he (Saturnino) will bolo him to pieces. Upon
hearing the words of Saturnino Salinas, Severino Aquino was about
to go downstairs but Crisanto held him on his waist. In his struggle to
free himself from the hold of Crisanto, he (Severino) moved his body
downwards thus Crisanto subsequently held Severino's neck. At the
moment Crisanto was holding Severino's neck, Aquino who
was then sitting on a mat inside the said house stood up and, carrying
her one month old child Jaime Tibule with her left hand and against
her breast, approached Severino and Crisanto. Upon reaching by the
left side of Crisanto, Mercuria tried, with her right hand, to remove the
hand of Crisanto which held the neck of Severino but Crisanto pulled
Mercuria's right hand causing said Mercuria to fall down over her child
Jaime Tibule on the floor of the house and Jaime Tibule was pinned on
the floor by Mercuria's body.
The cause of death (of Jaime Tibule) was hemorrhage

within the skull due to injury of the blood vessels in the parietal side
of the head due to an impact with a hard object."
Held: The accepted rule is that an offender is always liable
for the consequences of his criminal act even though the result be
different from what he intended. (Art. 4, Revised Penal Code) For
such liability to exist, two requisites are necessary, namely, (1) that
a crime be committed, and (2) that the wrong suffered by the injured
party be a direct consequence of the crime committed by the offender.
Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that Crisanto Salinas, in
his efforts to prevent Severino from going down the house to have
bloody encounter with his father who was in the yard, by taking hold
of Severino and pulling or jerking the right hand of Mercuria who
tried to free her father from his hold, committed or was committing
a crime. Consequently, it cannot likewise be said that the death of
the child was the direct result of a crime which Crisanto committed
or was in the act of committing.
Any person who creates in another's mind an immediate

sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something
resulting in the injuries, is liable for the resulting
injuries.
During a robbery in a passenger jeepney, one of the culprits told
the women passengers "to bring out their money and not to shout
else there will be One of the women jumped out of the jeepney.
Her head struck the pavement. She died as a consequence.
70
It was held that a man creates in another person's mind an

immediate sense of danger, which causes such person to try to escape,
and, in so doing, the latter injures himself, the man who creates such
a state of mind is responsible for the resulting injuries." (People vs.
Page, 77 SCRA 348, 355, citing People vs. Toling, L-27097, Jan. 17,
1975, 62 SCRA 17, 33)
The reason for th e ruling is tha t whe n th e culprit demanded

money from th e women , threatenin g to shoot if they would not bring
out their money, a felony wa s being committed (i.e., at that stage of
execution, attempted robbery wit h intimidation which is punishable
unde r Article 294 , in relatio n to Article 6 and Article 51 of the
Code).
The Toling case, supra, relying on U.S. vs. 41 Phil. 497,
quoted the syllabus, thus: "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 jump s into th e water, impelled
by th e instinct of self-preservation, th e assailan t is responsible for
homicide in case death results by drowning."
Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical conse•

quence of felonious act.
It is an established rule tha t a person is criminally responsible
for acts committed by hi m in violation of the law and for all the natural
and logical consequences resulting therefrom. (U.S. vs. Sornito, 4
Phil. 357, 360; U.S . vs. 32 Phil. 218, 226; People vs. Cornel,
78 Phil. 458 , 261)
In th e following cases, wrong done is considered the direct,

natural and logical consequence of the felony committed, although
a. The victim who wa s threatened or chased by the accused

wit h a knife, jumped into the water and because of the
strong current or because he did not know how to swim he
sank down and died of drowning. (U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil.
497; People vs. Buhay, 79 Phil. 372)
b. The victim removed the drainage from the wound which
resulted in the development of peritonitis which in turn
caused his death, it appearing that the wound caused by
the accused produced extreme pain and restlessness which
71
made the victim remove it. (People vs. 62 Phil.

162)
Other causes cooperated in producing th e fatal result,
as long as the wound inflicted is dangerous, tha t is ,
calculated to destroy or endanger life. This is true even
though the immediate cause of the death wa s erroneous
or unskillful medical or surgical treatment. This rule
surely seem s to have its foundation in a wise and practical
policy. A different doctrine would tend to give immunit y
to crime and to tak e awa y from huma n life a salutary
and essentia l safeguard. Amid th e conflicting theories of
medical men , and th e uncertaintie s attendan t upon th e
treatmen t of bodily ailment s and injuries, it would be
eas y in man y case s of homicide to raise a doubt as to th e
immediat e caus e of death , and thereby to open wide th e
door by which persons guilt y of th e highes t crime migh t
escape conviction and punishment . (13 R.C.L., 751 , 752;
22 L.R.A., Ne w Series , 841 , cited in People vs. Moldes, 61
Phil. 4)
Bu t wher e it clearly appear s tha t th e injury would not have

caused death, in th e ordinary course of events , but would hav e
healed in so man y days and wher e it is show n beyond all doubt tha t
the deat h wa s due to th e malicious or careless acts of th e injured
person or a third person, th e accused is not liable for homicide. One
is accountable only for hi s ow n acts and their natural or logical
consequences, and not for thos e which bear no relation to th e initial
cause and are due, for instance , to th e mista ke s committed by th e
doctor in th e surgical operation and th e treatmen t of th e victim's
wound. (Decision of th e Suprem e Court of Spain, April cited
by Viada)
d. The victim wa s suffering from internal malady.
Blow was efficient cause of death.
Th e d e c e a s e d ha d a d e l i c a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n an d wa s
suffering from Th e accused gav e fist blows on
th e deceased' s right hy pochondrium , bruisin g th e liver and
producin g interna l hemo rrhag e , resultin g i n th e deat h o f
th e victim. Th e accused wa s liable for homicide. (People vs.
Illustre, 54 Phil. 594 )
72
Blow accelerated death.

Th e deceased wa s suffering from internal malady. The
accused gave fist blows in th e back and abdomen, producing
inflammation of th e spleen and peritonitis, and causing death.
The accused wa s liable for homicide, because by his fist blows
he produced th e cause for th e acceleration of the death of the
deceased. (People vs . 23 Phil. 22)
Blow was proximate cause of death.
Th e decea se d wa s sufferin g from hear t disea se . Th e
accused stabbed th e decease d wit h a knife, but as th e blade of
th e knife hi t a bone, it did not penetrat e th e thoracic cavity,
but it produced shock, resultin g in th e deat h of th e victim. The
accused wa s liable for homicide, becaus e th e stabbing wa s th e
proximate caus e of th e deat h of th e deceased. (People vs. Reyes,
6 1 Phil. 341 )
e. . Th e o f f ende d pa rt y re f u s e d t o s u b mi t t o
su rg i ca l operation.
The offended party is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation
to relieve th e accused from th e natural and ordinary results of hi s
crime. (U.S. vs. Marasigan, 27 Phil. 504)
f. Th e resulting injury wa s aggravated by infection.
(1) Th e accuse d wounde d th e offended party wit h a
bolo. Whe n th e offended party entered th e hospital,
n o a nt i - t et a nu s injection wa s give n t o hi m and th e
wound s becam e infected whe n he wen t out of th e
hospital . Held: Th e accused is responsible for the
duratio n of th e t reat me n t and disability prolonged
by th e infection . (Peopl e vs . Red, C.A., 43 O.G.
5072 )
An accused is liable for all the consequences of
hi s acts, and the infection of a wound he has caused
is one of the consequences for which he is
(People vs. 9 C.A. Rep. 204)
But the infection should not be due to the mali• cious
act of the offended party. (U.S. vs. De Santos,
G.R. No.
73
(2) Although the wounds might have been cured sooner than 58
days had the offended party not been addicted to tuba
drinking, thi s fact does not mitigat e th e liability of the
accused. (U.S. vs. Bayutas, 31 Phil. 584)
The accused attacked the deceased with a bolo. After

the deceased had fallen, th e accused threw a stone
whic h hit hi m on th e right clavicle. The wound s
inflicted could no t hav e cause d th e deat h of th e
deceased. A week later, th e deceased died of tetanu s
secondary to the infected wound. Held: The accused
is responsible for the death of the deceased. (People
vs. Cornel, 78 Phil. 418)
People vs.
(62 Phil. 162)
Facts: The accused took hold of a fireband and applied it to the

neck of the person who was pestering him. The victim also received from
the hand of the accused a wound in his abdomen below the navel. While
undergoing medical treatment, the victim took out the drainage from his
wound and as a result of the peritonitis that developed, he died. The
accused claimed as a defense that had not the deceased taken out the
drainage, he would not have died.
Held: Death was the natural consequence of the mortal wound
inflicted. The victim, in removing the drainage from his wound, did
not do so voluntarily and with knowledge that it was prejudicial to his
health. The act of the victim (removing the drainage from his wound)
was attributed to his pathological condition and state of nervousness
and restlessness on account of physical pain caused by the wound,
aggravated by the contact of the drainage tube with the inflamed
peritoneum.
U.S. vs. Marasigan

(27 Phil. 504, 506)
Facts: The accused drew his knife and struck at Mendoza. In

attempting to ward off the blow, Mendoza was cut in the left hand.
The extensor tendon in one of the fingers was severed. As a result, the
middle finger of the left hand was rendered useless.
Held: Nor do we attach any importance to the contention of the
accused that the original condition of the finger could be restored by
74
a surgical operation. Mendoza is not obliged to submit to a surgical

operation to relieve the accused from the natural and ordinary results
of his crime. It was his voluntary act which disabled Mendoza and he
must abide by the consequences resulting therefrom without aid from
Mendoza.
People vs.
Feb. 43 SCRA 526, 532)
Facts: The accused stabbed the victim with an ice pick. The victim
was brought to the hospital where a surgical operation was performed
upon Although the operation was successful and the victim seemed
to be in the process of recovery, he developed, five (5) days later, a
paralytic ileum — which takes place, sometimes, in consequence of
the exposure of the internal organs during the operation — and then
died.
Held: It is contended that the immediate cause of the death of the
victim was a paralysis of the ileum that supervened five (5) days after the
stabbing, when he appeared to be on the way to full recovery. It has been
established, however, that the exposure of the internal organs in
consequence of a surgical operation in the abdomen sometimes results in
a paralysis of the ileum and that said operation had to be performed on
account of the abdominal injury inflicted by the accused. The accused is
responsible for the natural consequences of his own acts.
The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the

resulting injury.
Proximate cause is "that cause, which, in natural and continu•
ous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which th e result would not have occurred."
(Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil. 181, 186, quoting 38 Am. Jur. 695)
Moreover, a person committing a felony is criminally liable
for all th e natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom
although th e wrongful act done be different from tha t which he
intended. "Natural" refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of
huma n life or events, while "logical" mean s that there is a rational
connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury
or damage. The felony committed mus t be the proximate cause of
the resulting injury. Proximate cause is that cause which in natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury, and without which the result would not have
occured. The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing
75
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 prodecessor.
There must be a relation of "cause and effect," the cause being
the felonious act of the offended, the effect being the resultant injuries
and/or death of the victim. The "cause and effect" relationship is not
altered or changed because of the pre-existing such as the
pathological condition of the victim (las patologica del
the predisposition of the offended party (la constitucion
del or the concomitant or concurrent conditions, such
as the negligence or fault of the doctors (la de medicos para
sister al herido); or the conditions supervening the felonies act such
as tetanus, pulmonary infection or gangrene.
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury
when:
a) there is an active force tha t intervened between the felony
committed and th e 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 act of the vic•
tim.
If a person inflicts a wound wit h a deadly weapon in such a
manner as to put life in jeopardy and death follows as a consequence
of their felonious act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its crimi•
nality to prove that other cause s cooperated in producing the factual
result. The offender is criminally liable for th e death of the victim if
his delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed to the death of
the victim. A different doctrine would tend to give immunity to crime
and take away from huma n life a salutary and essential safeguard.
(Quinto vs. Andres, G.R. No. 155791 , March 16, 2005)
How to determine the proximate cause.

At about 2:00 o'clock in the morning while th e bus wa s running
very fast on a highway, one of th e front tires burst and the vehicle
began to zigzag until it fell into a canal and turned turtle. Four of its
passengers could not get out of th e overturned bus. It appeared that
as the bus overturned, gasoline began to leak from the tank on the
76
side of th e chassis , spreading over and permeating th e body of the bus and th
e ground under and around it. About te n men , one of them carrying a lighted
torch, approached th e overturned bus to help those left therein, and almost
immediatel y a fierce fire started, burning the four passengers trapped inside
it.
is th e proximate cause of th e death of the four passengers,

the negligence of th e driver resulting in th e fall into th e canal and
overturning of th e bus, or th e fire tha t burned th e bus?
"x x x. It ma y be that ordinarily, whe n a passenger bus overturns,

and pins down a passenger, merely causin g hi m physical injuries, if
through some event, unexpected and extraordinary, the overturned
bus is set on fire, say, by lightning, or if some highwayme n after
looting th e vehicle set it on fire, and th e passenger is burned to death,
one migh t still contend tha t th e proximate cause of his death wa s
the fire and not th e overturning of th e vehicle. Bu t in the present
case and under th e circumstances obtaining in the same , we do not
hesitate to hold tha t the proximate cause of the death of x x x (the
four passengers) was the overturning of the bus, this for the reason
that whe n th e vehicle turned not only on its side but completely on
its back, the leaking of th e gasoline from the tank wa s not unnatural
or unexpected; tha t th e coming of th e me n wit h a lighted torch wa s
in response to th e call for help, mad e not only by the passengers, but
most probably, by th e driver and th e conductor themselves , and that
because it wa s very dark (about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers had
to carry a light with them; and coming as the y did from a rural area
where lanterns and flashlights were not available, they had to use a
torch, th e most handy and available; and wha t wa s more natural than
that said rescuers should innocently approach the overturned vehicle
to extend the aid and effect th e rescue requested from them. In other
words, the coming of the me n with the torch wa s to be expected and
was a natural sequence of th e overturning of the the trapping
of some of its passengers and the call for outside help. What is more,
the burning of the bus can also in part be attributed to the negligence
of the carrier, through its driver and its conductor. According to the
the driver and the conductor were on the road walking back
and forth. They, or at least, the driver should and must have known
that in the position in which the overturned bus was, gasoline could
and must have leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area
in and around the bus, this aside from the fact that gasoline when
77
Act Different From That Intended
spilled, specially over a large area, can be smelt and detected even
from a distance, and yet neither the driver nor the conductor would
appear to have cautioned or taken steps to warn the rescuers not to
bring the lighted torch too near the bus." That is negligence on the
part of the agents of the carrier. (Vda. de Bataclan, et al. vs. Medina,
102 Phil. 181, 186, 187)
People vs. Luces

No. July 15, 1955)
Facts: Accused Ramon Luces gave a fist blow on the stomach

of Feliciana, causing her to fall unconscious. She never regained
consciousness and a few minutes thereafter she died. In the autopsy
report, it was found that the probable cause of death was cardiac failure.
The accused contended that the fist blow was not the proximate cause
of Feliciana's death.
Held: Whether Feliciana died as a direct effect of the fist blow, or
as an outcome of the fall that followed the blow, or as a consequence of
the blow and the fall that caused her to lose consciousness, or of heart
failure due to shock caused by the blow and her fall to the ground,
the result would be the same — that the blow was the primary and
proximate cause of her death.
The gravity of the crime does not depend on the more or less
violent means used, but on the result and consequence of the same and
if the accused had not ill-treated the deceased she would not have died.
Known is the Latin maxim that who is the cause of the cause, is
the cause of the evil caused."
Note: Ill-treating another by deed without causing any injury, is
a felony under Art. 266 of this Code.
In the case of People vs. Martin, 89 Phil. 18, the accused, wh o strangled
his wife the n suffering from heart disease, wa s found guilty of parricide even
if the death of his wife wa s the result of heart failure, because the heart failure
wa s due to th e fright or shock caused by th e strangling, which is a felony.
The following are not efficient intervening causes:

1. The weak or diseased physical condition of the victim, as
whe n one is suffering from tuberculosis or heart disease.
(People vs. Illustre and People vs. Reyes, supra)
78
2. The nervousnes s or temperamen t of the victim, as when

a person dies in consequence of an internal hemorrhage
brought on by moving about against the doctor's orders,
because of his nervous condition due to the wound inflicted
by th e accused. (People vs. Almonte, 56 Phil. 54; Se e also
People vs . 62 Phil. 162)
3. Cause s which are inheren t in th e victim, such as (a) the
victim not knowin g how to swim , and (b) the victim being
addicted to tuba drinking. (People vs . Buha y and U.S. vs.
Valdez, supra; U.S . vs . Bayutas , supra)
4. Neglec t of th e victim or third person, such as the refusal
by th e injured party of medical attendanc e or surgical
operation, or th e failure of th e doctor to give anti-tetanus
injection to th e injured person. (U.S. vs. Marasigan and
People vs . Red, supra)
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment, as
whe n th e assaul t took place in an outlying barrio where
proper modern surgical service wa s not available. (People
vs . Moldes, 61 Phil. 1)
Those causes, not efficient intervening causes, do not break
the relation of cause and effect — th e felony committed and the re•
sulting injury.
People vs. et al.

(94 Phil. 293)
Facts: One of the accused stabbed the injured party with a hunting
knife on October 28, 1951. The injured party was taken to the hospital
and was operated on. The operation did him well, but on December 19,
1951, he contracted a sickness known as mucous colitis which developed
because of his weak condition. He died on December
Is the accused who stabbed the injured party liable for the latter's
death?
Held: The doctors who attended the injured party agreed that his
weakened condition which caused disturbance in the functions of his
intestines made it possible for him to contract mucous colitis, which
shows that while the wounds inflicted were not the immediate cause,
they were however the proximate cause of death. This is enough to
make the accused responsible for the crime charged.
79
Note: The charge was robbery with homicide. The homicide was
committed with malice.
When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of

physical injuries inflicted.
Th e deat h o f th e victi m i s pre s u me d t o b e th e natura l
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, whe n the following
facts are
1. That th e victim at th e tim e the physical injuries were
inflicted wa s in normal health.
2. That death may be expected from the physical injuries
inflicted.
3. That death ensued withi n a reasonable time. (People vs.
Dat u C.A., 44 O.G. 2287)
I t hav in g bee n e s t a b l i s h e d tha t th e boy wa s i n
good healt h o n th e mornin g o f th e incident; tha t h e wa s whipped ,
spanke d and throw n a gains t th e post b y hi s teacher , hi s breas t
hittin g it; tha t h e complaine d t o hi s mothe r about th e oppressiv e
pain, crying an d ma s sa g in g hi s breas t all th e time ; tha t h e wa s
found to hav e tw o suspiciou s bluis h spots — a big one on th e breas t
and anothe r one on th e upper left arm; an d tha t he vomitte d blood
until he died thre e day s afterwards; and ther e bein g no proof of
any intervening cause, th e liabilit y of th e teache r for homicide
necessarily follows from th e premise s stated. (People vs. Ta mmang ,
5 C.A. Rep. 145)
Note: Had it been proved, as claimed by th e defense, that th e

boy died of hydrophobia, tha t would have constituted
an intervening cause, and th e accused would have been
acquitted.
Not direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony

committed.
If th e consequence s produced hav e resulted from a distinct
act or fact absolutely foreign from th e criminal act, th e offender is
not responsible for suc h consequences. (People vs. Rellin, 77 Phil.
1038)
80
A person is not liable criminally for all possible consequences which ma

y immediatel y follow hi s felonious act, but only for such as are proximate.
Thus, where a person struck another wit h hi s fist and knocked him
down and a horse near the m jumpe d upon hi m and killed him, the assailan t
wa s not responsible for th e death of tha t other person. (People vs. Rockwell,
39 Mich. 503)
This case should be distinguished from th e case of People vs.
Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524, supra.
In th e Cagoco case, there wa s no active force that intervened

between th e felonious act and th e result. In th e Rockwell there
wa s an active force (the jumpin g of th e horse upon th e deceased)
which produced th e result.
In th e following cases , th e injury caused is not the direct, logical and
necessary consequence of the felony committed, because the felony committed
is not th e proximate cause of th e resulting injury:
a. If slight physical injuries be inflicted by A upon B, and the
latter deliberately immerses hi s body in a contaminated
cesspool, thereby causing hi s injuries to become infected
an d serious , A cannot be hel d liabl e for th e crime of
serious physical injuries. (U.S. vs. De Santos, G.R. No.
13309)
The act of B in deliberately immersing his body in
a contaminated cesspool, not the slight physical injuries
inflicted by A, is the proximate cause of the serious physical
injuries.
b. The accused struck a boy on the mouth with the back of his
hand. Later, the boy died. Deat h might have been caused
by fever prevalent in th e locality, not by the blow on the
mouth. The accused who gave the blow wa s not liable for
the death of the deceased. (People vs. Palalon, 49 Phil.
177)
The accused struck a child, who wa s seriously ill with
fever for three weeks , upon the thighs wit h a slipper,
pushed and dragged him, throwing hi m heavily on the
ma t spread on the floor. The child died two days later.
81
As the true cause of the child's death was not proved, the
accused was convicted of physical injuries only. (U.S. vs.
3 Phil. 640)
d. Where medical findings lead to a distinct possibility that
the infection of the wound by tetanu s wa s an efficient
intervening cause later or between the time the deceased
was wounded to the time of his death, the accused must be
acquitted of the crime of homicide. (Urbano vs. 157
SCRA 10)
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the re•

sulting injury when —
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 th e accused; or
2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of th e
victim.
Is the accused responsible for the result, if there is a neglect of the

wound or there is an improper treatment of the
Th e neglec t o f th e woun d o r it s unskillfu l an d imprope r
treatment , whic h are of t he ms e lv e s consequence s of th e criminal
act and whic h migh t naturall y follow in an y case , mus t in law be
deeme d t o hav e bee n amon g thos e consequence s whic h wer e i n
contemplatio n of th e guilt y party and for whic h he is to be held
responsible. (26 Am . 193 , cited in Peopl e vs . Morallos, C.A., 5
0 O.G. 179)
Unskillful and improper treatment ma y be an active force, but it
is not a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act.
7s the accused criminally liable for the consequences which originate

through the fault or carelessness of the injured person
In the case of U.S. vs. Monasterial, 14 Phil. 391 , it wa s held
that who are responsible for an act constituting a crime are
also liable for all the consequences arising therefrom and inherent
therein, other than those due to incidents entirely foreign to the act
executed, or which originate through the fault or carelessness of the
82
Impossible Crimes
injured person, which are exceptions to th e rule not arising in the present
case."
In the case of People us. 62 Phil. 162, it is stated that
one who inflicts injury on another is deemed guilty of homicide if the
injury contributes to th e deat h of the latter, "even if the deceased
might hav e recovered if he had take n proper care of himself, or sub•
mitted to surgical operation."
It would see m tha t th e fault or carelessness of the injured party, which

would break th e relation of th e felony committed and the re• sulting injury,
mus t have its origin from hi s malicious act or omission (U.S. vs. Navarro, 7
Phil. 713), as whe n th e injured party had a desire to increase th e criminal
liability of hi s assailant.
A supervening event may be the subject of amendment of

original information or of a new charge without double jeop•
ardy.
Where th e charge contained in th e original information wa s
for slight physical injuries becaus e at tha t tim e th e fiscal believed
tha t th e woun d suffered by th e offended party would require medi•
cal attendanc e for a period of only 8 days , but whe n th e preliminary
investigatio n wa s conducted, th e justic e of th e peace found tha t th e
wound would hea l after a period of 30 days , th e act which converted
th e crime into a more serious one ha d supervened after th e filing
of th e original information and thi s supervenin g even t can still be
th e subject of a mend men t or of a ne w charge without necessarily
placing th e accused in double jeopardy. (People vs. Petilla, 92 Phil.
395)
Impossible crimes.
The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of criminal
propensity or criminal tendency on the part of the actor. Such person is
a potential According to thinking, the community
mus t be protected from anti-social activities, whethe r actual or
potential, of th e morbid type of ma n called "socially dangerous
person."
The penalty for impossible crime is provided in Article 59 of this Code.
83
Impossible Crimes
The 2nd paragraph of Art. 4 defines the so-called impossible

crimes (impossible attempts).
Requisites of impossible crime:
That the act performed would be an offense against persons
or property.
2. That the act wa s done wit h evil intent.
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the
means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation
of another provision of th e Revised Penal Code.
IMPORTAN T WORD S AN D PHRASE S I N PARAGRAP H 2 O F ART .

4.
1. an act which would be an offense against
persons or property."
I n co mmittin g a n impossibl e crime, th e offender
intends to commit a felony agains t persons or a felony
against property, and th e act performed would have been
an offense against persons or property. But a felony against
persons or property should not be actually committed, for,
otherwise, he would be liable for tha t felony. There would
be no impossible crime to speak of.
Felonie s agains t person s are :
a. Parricide (Art. 246)
b. Murder (Art. 248)
Homicide (Art. 249)
d. Infanticide (Art. 255)
e. Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258 and 259)
f. Duel (Arts. 260 and 261)
g. Physical injuries (Arts. 262, 263, 264, 265 and 266)
h. Rape (Art. 266-A)
84
Impossible Crimes
Felonie s agains t propert y are :
a. Robbery (Arts. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302 and 303)
b. Brigandage (Arts. 30 6 and 307)
Theft 311)
d. Usurpatio n (Arts. 31 2 and 313)
e. Culpable insolvency (Art. 314)
Swindlin g and other deceits (Arts. 315, 316, 317 and
318)
g. Chattel mortgage (Art. 319)
h. Arson and other crimes involving destruction (Arts.

320, 321 , 322 , 323 , 324 , 325 and 326)
i. Maliciou s mischie f (Arts. 327 , 328 , 329 , 33 0 and

331)
If th e act performed would be an offense other tha n a felony against
persons or against property, there is no impossible crime.
That the act was done with evil intent.

Since th e offender in impossible crime intended to commit an
offense against persons or against property, it mus t be shown that
the actor performed th e act wit h evil intent, that is, he mus t have
the intent to do an injury to another.
A, who wanted to kill B, looked for him. When A saw B, he found
out that B wa s already dead. To satisfy his grudge, A stabbed B in
his breast three time s with a knife. Is this an impossible crime?
No, because A knew tha t B wa s already dead whe n he stabbed
the lifeless body. There wa s no evil intent on the part of A, because
he knew that he could not cause an injury to B. Even subjectively,
he wa s not a criminal.
2. it not for the inherent impossibility its accomplish•
ment or on account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means."
In impossible crime, the act performed by the offender
cannot produce an offense against persons or property,
85
Impossible Crimes
because: the commission of the offense (against persons

or against property) is inherently impossible of accomplish•
ment; or (2) the mean s employed is either (a) inadequate;
or (b) ineffectual.
a. "Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment."
This phrase mean s that the act intended by the
offender is by its nature one of impossible accomplish• ment.
(See Art. 59, Revised Penal Code)
There must be either (1) legal or (2)
physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended
act.
E x a mp l e s o f i mp o s s i b l e crime s whic h ar e
punishable under th e Revised Penal Code are: (1)
When one tries to kill another by putting in his soup a
substance which he believes to be arsenic whe n in fact
it is common salt; and (2) whe n one tries to murder a
corpse. (People vs. 85 Phil. 493, 496)
(1) "Would be an offense against persons."
Example: A fired at B, wa s lying on
bed, not knowing tha t B wa s dead hours before.
In crime against persons, as would have been
in this case, it is necessary that the victim could
be injured or killed. A dead person cannot be
injured or killed. Had B been alive whe n he wa s
shot, and as a consequence he died, the crime
committe d by A would hav e been murder, a
crime agains t persons.
There is physical and legal impossibility in
this example.
(2) "Would be an offense against property."
A, with intent to gain, took a watch from
the pocket of B. When A had the watch in his
possession, he found out that it wa s the watch
which he had lost a week before. In other words,
the watch belonged to A. Is this an impossible
crime?
86
Impossible Crimes
It is believed tha t it ma y be an impossible

crime. The act performed would have been theft
had th e watch been th e property of B. But there
is a legal impossibility of accomplishing it, be•
cause in theft, the personal property taken mus t
belong to another.
An employee who, having know n the safe

combination, opens th e safe in the office for the
purpose of stealin g money, but who finds the safe
empty, is guilty of an impossible crime. The act
performed would have been a crime of theft were it
not for th e inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment. If there is no personal property tha t
could be taken , it is inherently impossible to commit
theft.
b. "Employment of means.
Example: A, determine d to poison B, use s a
small quantity of arsenic by mixing it with the food
given to B, believing tha t the quantity employed by
hi m is sufficient. Bu t since in fact it is not sufficient,
B is not killed. The mean s employed (small quantity
of poison) is inadequate to kill a person.
Where the means employed is adequate.

Bu t wher e th e mean s employed is adequate
and th e result expected is not produced, it is not an
impossible crime, but a frustrated felony.
Thus, if th e quantity of poison used is sufficient
to kill an ordinary person, but the intended victim
ha s developed strong resistance to poison because he
ha s been working in a mine, the crime committed is
frustrated murder.
Employment of "ineffectual means."
A tried to kill B by putting in his soup a substance
which he thought wa s arsenic whe n in fact it wa s sugar.
B could not have been killed, because the means employed
wa s ineffectual. But A showed criminal tendency and,
87
Art. 5 WHEN ACTS ARE NOT COVERED BY LAW
AND IN CASES OF EXCESSIVE PENALTIES
hence, he should be punished for it in accordance with Art. 4,

par. 2, in relation to Art. 59.
A, with intent to kill B, aimed his revolver at the back
of the latter, A, not knowing that it wa s empty. When he
pressed the trigger it did not fire. The means used by A is
ineffectual.
In impossible crime the act performed should not constitute

a violation of another provision of the Code.
A, who kne w tha t B owned and alway s carried a watch, decided
to rob B of said watch . Whe n A me t B for tha t purpose, B did not
hav e th e watc h becaus e he forgot to carry it wit h him . Thinkin g
tha t B had th e watch wit h him , A pointed hi s gu n at hi m and aske d
for th e watch . Findin g tha t B did not hav e th e watch , A allowed
B to go withou t further mo lestation . Is thi s an impossible crime?
It is believe d tha t A committe d a ttempt e d robbery, not impossibl e
crime. There wa s inten t to gai n on th e part of A whe n he decided
to tak e th e watc h of B at th e point of gun . Th e crime of robbery
wit h intimidatio n of perso n is no t produced, not becaus e of th e
inheren t impossibilit y of it s a cco mplish ment , bu t becaus e of a
caus e or accident (tha t B forgot to carry th e watc h wit h him ) othe r
tha n A's ow n spontaneou s desistance . (Art. 6, par. 3) Not e also tha t
A's pointin g hi s gu n at B alread y constitute d at leas t th e crime of
grave threat s unde r Art. 282 , subdivisio n 2 , o f th e Revised Pena l
Code. Thi s i s anothe r reaso n wh y i t i s no t a n impossibl e crime.
Purpose of the law in punishing the impossible crime.

To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. Objec•
tively, the offender ha s not committed a felony, but subjectively, he
is a criminal.
Art . 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should

be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of
excessive penalties. — W h e n e v e r a co u r t ha s k n o w l e d g e o f an y
ac t w h i c h i t ma y d e e m p r o p e r t o r e p r e s s an d w h i c h i s no t
p u n i s h a b l e b y law , i t sha l l r e n d e r th e p r o p e r d e c i s i o n an d
sha l l re p o r t t o th e Chie f E x e c u t i v e , t h r o u g h th e D e p a r t m e n t
88
WHEN ACTS ARE NOT COVERED BY LAW Art 5
o f Justice , th e reason s whic h induc e th e cour t t o believ e tha t sai d ac t

shoul d b e mad e th e subjec t o f pena l legislation .
I n th e s a m e w a y th e c o u r t s h a l l s u b m i t t o th e C hie f
E x e c u t i v e , t h r o u g h th e D e p a r t me n t o f J u s t i c e , suc h s t a t e me n t
a s ma y b e d e e m e d p r o p e r , w i t h o u t s u s p e n d i n g th e e x e c u t i o n
o f th e s e n t e n c e , w h e n a stric t e n f o r c e me n t o f th e p r o v i s i o n s o f
thi s Co d e w o u l d r e s u l t i n th e i m p o s i t i o n o f a c l ea rl y e x c e s s i v e
p e n a l t y , t a k i n g int o c o n s i d e r a t i o n th e d e g r e e o f ma l i c e an d
th e i n j u r y c a u s e d b y th e o f f e n s e .
"In connection with acts which should be repressed but which

are not covered by the law."
The 1st paragraph of thi s article which contemplates a trial of
a criminal case requires th e following:
The act committed by th e accused appears not punishable by an y
law;
Bu t th e court deem s it proper to repress such act;
3. In tha t case, th e court mus t render the proper decision by
dismissing th e case and acquitting the accused;
4. The judge mus t the n mak e a report to the Chief Executive,
through th e Secretary of Justice, stating the reasons which
induce hi m to believe tha t th e said act should be made the
subject of penal legislation.
Basis of par. Art. 5.

The provision contained in paragraph 1 of Art. 5 is based on
the legal maxim "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege," that is, that
there is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act.
"In cases of excessive penalties."

The 2nd paragraph of Art. 5 requires that —
The court after trial finds the accused guilty;
2. The penalty provided by law and which the court imposes
for the crime committed appears to be clearly excessive,
because —
89
a. the accused acted with lesser degree of malice,

or;
b. there is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser
gravity.
The court should not suspend the execution of the sen• tence.
4. The judge should submit a statemen t to the Chief Ex• ecutive,
through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive
clemency.
Examples of the accused acting with lesser degree of mal•

ice:
In a case where th e accused maltreated his wife in
his inebriated state, because she prevented him from whip•
ping their negligent son, and th e maltreatment inflicted
by the accused wa s th e proximate cause of her death, th e
Supreme Court applied Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code,
"considering tha t th e accused had no intent to kill his wife
and tha t her death migh t hav e been hastene d by lack of
appropriate medical attendance or her weak
The penalty of perpetua, prescribed by law for
the crime committed, appears to be excessive. (People vs.
Monleon, No. L-36282, Dec. 10, 1976, 74 SCRA 263, 269)
Father and son were convicted of qualified theft for
stealing te n tender coconut fruits from two coconut trees
in a coconut plantation, for th e family's consumption. The
court sentenced each of the m to an indeterminate penalty
of from four (4) month s and one (1) day of arresto mayor to
three (3) years, six (6) month s and twenty-one (21) days of
correccional, according to Art. 310 of the Revised
Penal Code. The Court of Appeals held: In the light of th e
circumstances surrounding th e case, we are of the belief
tha t the degree of malice behind th e appellants' felonious
act does not warrant th e imposition of so stiff a penalty
as we are now constrained to met e out under th e law. We
recommend, therefore, tha t they be pardoned after the y
shall have served four (4) months of the penalty so imposed.
Let a copy of this decision be forwarded to His Excellency,
90
th e President of th e Philippines, through th e Honorable,

th e Secretary of Justice. (People vs. Espino, et CA-G.R.
No. Feb. 20, 1956)
Example of total absence of injury:
The defendant chief of police altered and falsified the

municipal police blotter and th e book of records of arrests
and th e return of th e warrant of arrest and th e bail bond
of a person charged wit h qualified seduction so as to make
the m show that the said person wa s arrested and gave bond
on th e 13th day of September, 1930, whereas , in truth and
in fact, as said records showed before said falsification, that
person wa s arrested and released on bond on the 6th day of
September, 1930; and tha t defendant justice of th e peace
conspired and cooperated wit h hi s codefendant in mak•
ing said falsification in order to mee t th e administrative
charges the n pending against him. In other words, those
falsifications were committed to mak e it appear that there
wa s no delay in th e preliminary investigation conducted
by th e justice of th e peace for qualified seduction. In this
case, there is apparent lack of malice and total absence of
injury. (People vs. Cabagsan and Montano, 57 Phil. 598)
Executive clemency recommended for the wife who killed

her cruel husband.
Her decease d husban d not conten t wit h squanderin g awa y
th e family substance , and satisfied wit h keepin g a mistres s
upon who m he mus t have spent some of th e money that properly
belonged to hi s own family including his wife, got into the habit of
drinking until he became a habitual drunkard. On the very
day tha t she killed her husband, according to her own confession
on which her conviction wa s based, he came home drunk, forthwith
laid hand s on her, striking her on the stomach until she fainted,
and whe n she recovered consciousness and asked for the reason for
the unprovoked attack, he threatened to renew the beating. At the
supper table instead of eatin g th e meal set before him, he threw the
rice from his plate, thu s adding insul t to injury. Then he left the
house and whe n he returned he agai n boxed hi s wife, the herein
appellant. The violence wit h which appellant killed her husband
91
reveals the pent-up righteous anger and rebellion against years

of abuse, insult, and tyrann y seldom heard of. Considering all
these circumstances and provocations including th e fact as already
stated that her conviction wa s based on her own confession, th e
appellant is deserving of executive clemency, not of full pardon but
of a substantia l if not a radical reduction or commutation of her
life sentence . (Montemayor, concurring in People vs. Canja, 86
Phil. 518, 522-523)
Executive clemency recommended because of the severity

of the penalty for rape.
The crime committed by th e accused is simple rape. Before
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code wa s amended, simple rape
wa s penalized by reclusion temporal or twelve years and one day to
twenty years. Republic Act No. raised the penalty for simple
rape to reclusion perpetua and made qualified rape a capital offense.
Taking notice of the rampancy of sexual assaults , ensuing from the
lawlessnes s and deterioration of morals occasioned by the war, the
lawmaking body sought to deter rapists by increasing the penalty
for rape. It is believed tha t in this case, after the accused shall have
served a term of imprisonment consistent wit h retributive justice,
executive clemency ma y be extended to him. (People vs. Manlapaz,
No. Feb. 28, 1979, 88 SCRA 704, 719)
The penalties are not excessive when intended to enforce a

public policy.
1. The rampant lawlessnes s against property, person, and
even the very security of th e Government, directly
able in large measur e to promiscuous carrying and use of
powerful weapons , justify imprisonment which in normal
circumstances might appear excessive. (People vs. Estoista,
93 Phil. 647, 654)
2. With regard to th e fine of P5,000.0 0 imposed by the court
for selling a can of powdered milk for whe n the
selling price for it wa s it should be considered tha t
Congress thought it necessary to repress profiteering with
a heavy fine so tha t dealers would not take advantage of
th e critical condition to make unusual profits. (People vs.
Tiu Ua, 96 Phil. 738, 741)
92
Courts have the duty to apply the penalty provided by law.

A trial judg e expressed in hi s decision hi s view against the wisdom of th
e death penalty and refused to impose it. Held: It is the duty of judicial officers
to respect and apply th e law, regardless of their private opinions.
It is a well-settled rule tha t th e courts are not concerned with the
wisdom, efficacy or morality of laws . That question falls exclusively
withi n th e province of th e Legislature which enacts the m and the
Chief Executive wh o approves or vetoes them . The only function of
th e judiciary is to interpret th e law s and, if not in disharmony wit h
th e Constitution, to apply them . (People vs . 88 Phil. 35)
A trial judg e sent ence d th e accuse d to life impriso nment ,
although th e commission of th e crime of robbery wit h homicide wa s
attended by th e aggravating circumstances of and in band,
"in view of th e attitude of th e Chief Executive on death Held:
The courts should interpret and apply th e law s as the y find them
on th e statut e books, regardless of th e manne r their judgment s are
executed and implemente d by th e executive department. (People vs.
105 Phil. 502)
Judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the

Supreme Court.
If a Judg e of a lower court feels, in th e fulfillment of his mission
of deciding cases, tha t th e application of a doctrine promulgated by
the Supreme Court is against hi s wa y of reasoning, or against his
conscience, he ma y state his opinion on th e matter, but rather than
disposing of th e case in accordance wit h his personal view, he must
first think tha t it is his duty to apply th e law as interpreted by the
Highest Court of th e land, and that any deviation from a principle
laid down by the latter would unavoidably cause, as a sequel, unnec•
essary inconveniences, delays and expenses to the litigants. (People
vs. Santos, et 104 Phil. 560)
Accused-appellant claims that the penalty of reclusion perpetua
is too cruel and harsh a penalty and pleads for sympathy. Courts are
not the forum to plead for sympathy. The duty of courts is to apply
the law, disregarding their feeling of sympathy or pity for an accused.
DURA SE D LEX. The remedy is elsewhere — clemency from the
executive or an amendment of the law by the legislative, but surely,
93
Art. 6 STAGES OF EXECUTION
Definition of Stages
at this point, this Court can but apply the law. (People vs.
G.R. No. 116719, Jan. 18, 1996)
"When a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code."

The second paragraph of Art. 5 of the Revised Penal Code ha s
no application to the offense defined and penalized by a special law.
(People vs. Salazar, 102 Phil.
The reason for this ruling is that second paragraph of Art. 5
specifically mentions "the provisions of this
Art. 5 of the Revised Penal Code ma y not be invoked in cases
involving acts mala prohibita, because said article applies only to
acts mala in se, or crimes committed wit h malice or criminal intent.
(People vs. Quebral, C.A., 58 O.G. 7399) The ruling is based on th e
phrase, "taking into consideration the degree of
Before the case of People vs. Salazar, supra, wa s decided by the
Supreme Court, it applied th e second paragraph of Art. 5 in cases
involving illegal possessio n of firearms, a crime punishable by a
special law (People vs. Estoesta, 93 Phil. 654; People vs. 101
Phil. 179), and to th e offenses punished by th e Price Control Law.
vs. People, G.R. No. April 12, 1954)
Art . 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. —

C o n s u m m a t e d f e l o n i e s , a s w el l a s t h o s e w h i c h ar e f r u s t ra t e d
an d a t t e m p t e d , ar e p u n i s h a b l e .
A felo n y i s c o n s u m m a t e d w h e n al l th e e l e me n t s n e c e s s a r y
fo r it s e x e c u t i o n an d a c c o m p l i s h m e n t ar e p r e s e n t ; an d i t i s
f r u s t r a t e d w h e n th e o f f e n d e r p e r f o r m s al l th e a ct s o f e x ec u •
t io n w h i c h w o u l d p r o d u c e th e f e lo n y a s a c o n s e q u e n c e bu t
w h i c h , n e v e r t h e l e s s , d o no t p r o d u c e i t b y r e a s o n o f c a u s e s
i n d e p e n d e n t o f th e wil l o f th e p e r p e t r a t o r .
Ther e i s a n attemp t whe n th e offende r commence s th e commissio n
o f a felon y directl y b y over t acts , an d doe s no t perfor m al l th e act s o f
executio n whic h shoul d produc e th e felon y b y reaso n o f som e caus e o r
acciden t othe r tha n hi s ow n spontaneou s desistance .
94
STAGES OF EXECUTION Art. 6
Definition of
Consummated felony, defined.

A felony is consummate d whe n all th e element s necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present.
Frustrated felony, defined.

It is frustrated whe n th e offender performs all th e acts of
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of cause s independent of
the will of th e perpetrator.
Attempted felony, defined.

Ther e i s a n a t t e mp t w he n th e offende r c o m me n c e s th e
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform
all th e acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other tha n hi s own spontaneous desistance.
Development of crime.
From th e momen t th e culprit conceives the idea of committing a crime
up to th e realization of th e same , hi s act passes through certain stages.
Thes e stage s are: (1) internal acts; and (2) external acts.
Internal such as mere ideas in th e mind of a person, are
not punishable eve n if, had the y been carried out, they would
constitute a crime.
Intention and effect must concur.
Mere intention producing no effect is no more a crime than
a mere effect without the intention is a crime.
Thus, if A intended to commit treason and joined a body of
armed me n in th e belief that they were whe n in fact
they were Guerrilleros, A wa s not liable for treason, despite his
intent. (Albert)
2. External acts cover (a) preparatory acts; and (b) acts of execu•
tion.
a. Preparatory acts — ordinarily they are not punishable.
95
Attempted Felony
Ordinarily, preparatory acts are not punishable.

Hence, proposal and conspiracy to commit a felony, which
are only preparatory are not except when
the law provides for their punishment in certain felonies.
(Art. 8)
Bu t preparator y act s whic h are considere d i n
themselves, by law, as independent crimes are punishable.
Example: Possessio n of picklocks under Art. 304 . The possessio n
of picklock s is a preparator y act to th e commission of robbery.
(Arts. 299 and 302)
The other examples of preparatory acts are: (1) buying
poison or carrying a weapon with which to kill the intended
victim; (2) carrying inflammable materials to th e place where a
house is to be burned, etc.
For merely doing any of thes e acts, a person is not liable for
attempted homicide or attempted arson, because the y do not
constitute eve n the first stage of the acts of execution of those
crimes.
b. Acts of execution — they are punishable under the Revised Penal
Code.
The stages of acts of execution — attempted, frustrated,
and consummated — are punishable. (Art. 6)
The first stage of th e acts of execution of a felony is
the attempted; th e second stage, th e frustrated; and th e
last stage, th e consummated.
In performing th e acts of execution of a felony, th e offender
ma y reach only th e first stage or the second stage. In either case,
he does not produce th e felony he intends to commit. Bu t he is
liable for attempted felony or frustrated felony, as the case ma y
be.
Attempted felony.
There is an attemp t whe n th e offender begins the commission
of a felony directly by overt acts. He ha s not performed all the acts
of execution which should produce the felony.
Element s of attempted felony:
96
Attempted Felony
Th e offender commences th e commissio n of th e felony

directly by overt acts;
2. He does not perform all th e acts of execution which should
produce th e felony;
3. The offender's act is not stopped by his own spontaneous
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution wa s due to

cause or accident other tha n hi s spontaneous desistance.
IMPORTAN T WORD S AN D PHRASE S I N ART . 6 .
the commission of a felony directly by overt acts."

Whe n is th e commission of a felony deemed commenced directly
by overt acts? Whe n th e following two requisites are present:
(1) That there be external acts;
(2) Such external acts hav e direct connection with the crime
intended to be committed.
The external acts must be related to the overt acts of the crime
the offender intended to commit.
The external acts referred to in the first requisite must be related to the
overt acts of the crime the offender intended to commit. They should not be
mere preparatory acts, for preparatory acts do not have direct connection with
the crime which the offender intends to commit.
"Overt acts," defined.

An overt act is some physical activity or deed, indicating the
intention to commit a particular crime, more tha n a mere planning
or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following
its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles
nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and
necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
Preparatory acts and overt acts, distinguished.

If A bought poison from a drugstore, in preparation for the killing of B
by means of poison, such act is only a preparatory act. It is not
97
Attempted Felony
an overt act, because it ha s no direct connection with the crime of

murder which A intended to commit. The poison purchased may be
used by A to kill rats or insects. Hence, the act of buying poison did
not disclose necessarily an intention to kill a person with it.
But if A mixed the poison with the food intended for B, and
the latter, not knowing that it contained poison, put into his mouth
a spoonful thereof, the act of A wa s more than a mere planning or
preparation for the commission of murder. The buying of poison and
mixing it with the food of B who later put into his mouth part thereof
to eat it, taken together, constituted th e overt acts of murder. The
nature of the external act thu s performed by A clearly indicated
that he intended to commit the crime of murder. If for some reason
or another, B threw away the food wit h poison from his mouth, A is
liable for attempted murder.
Note: Killing a person by mean s of poison is murder. (Art. 248,
Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is not an overt act of homi•

cide.
In a case , th e evidenc e of th e prosecutio n establishe d th e following
facts:
While Tabago wa s talking wit h th e Chief of Police, he made a
motion to draw his pistol, but th e latter embraced him and prevented
him from drawing his pistol. Tabago the n told his two companions to
fire at the Chief of Police, but they could not do so, because the Chief of
Police wa s embracing Tabago. One of hi s companions, Avelino
fired a shot but th e sam e wa s not aimed at anybody.
Held: The accused cannot be convicted of the crime of attempted
homicide. The action of th e accused in placing hi s han d on hi s
revolver, which wa s the n on hi s waist, is indeed very equivocal and
susceptible of different interpretations. For example, it cannot be
definitely concluded that the attemp t of the accused to draw out his
revolver would if allowed to develop or be carried to its complete
termination following its natural course, logically and necessarily
ripened into a concrete offense, because it is entirely possible that at
any time during the subjective stage of the felony, the accused could
have voluntarily desisted from performing all the acts of execution
and which, had it happened, would completely exempt him from
98
Attempted Felony
criminal responsibility for th e offense he intended to commit.

vs. Tabago, et C.A., 48 O.G. 3419)
To constitute attempted homicide th e person using a firearm mus t fire
th e same , wit h inten t to kill, at th e offended party, without however
inflicting a mortal wound on th e latter.
Raising a bolo as if to strike the offended party with it is not

an overt act of homicide.
In th e case of U.S. vs. Simeon, 3 Phil. 688, it wa s held that th e
crime committed wa s only tha t of threatenin g another with a weapon
(Art. 285, par. 1), because all tha t th e accused did wa s to raise his bolo
as if to strike or stab th e offended party wit h it. The latter shouted
for help and ran away. No blow wa s struck; nor wa s there proof of
threats to kill or to do bodily harm.
If a blow wit h th e bolo wa s struck and there wa s intent to kill

on th e part of th e accused, th e act of striking th e offended party with
th e bolo would be an overt act of the crime of homicide.
Overt act may not be by physical activity.

There are felonies where, because of their nature or th e man•
ner of committing them , th e overt acts are not performed with bodily
movement or by physical activity. Thus, a proposal consisting in mak•
ing an offer of mone y to a public officer for th e purpose of corrupting
him is the overt act in th e crime of corruption of public officer. (U.S.
vs. Gloria, 4 Phil. 341)
The external acts must have a direct connection with the crime
intended to be committed by the offender.
At an early dawn, A wa s surprised by a policeman while in the act of
making an opening wit h an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap goods. At
that time the owner of the store wa s sleeping inside with another Chinaman.
A had only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening another from
the wall.
Is there an attempted robbery in this case?
No, because while it is true that the 1st requisite is present, that is, there
were external acts of breaking one board and unfastening another from the
wall of the store to make an opening through which
99
Attempted Felony
A could enter the store, yet the 2nd requisite is not present, for such acts had
no direct connection with the crime of robbery by the use of force upon
things.
In case of robbery by the use of force upon things, in order that
the simple act of entering by mean s of force another person's dwelling
may be considered an attempt to commit this offense, it must be shown
that the offender clearly intended to take possession, for the purpose
of gain, of some personal property belonging to another.
The crime co mmitte d wa s attempted trespas s to dwelling ,
because the intention of th e accused wa s obviously disclosed by hi s
act of making an opening through the wall, and that wa s to enter th e
store against the will of its owner who wa s the n living there. (People
vs. 61 Phil. 703) It is only an attempt, because A wa s
not able to perform all th e acts of execution which should produce
the felony of trespass to dwelling. Had A commenced entering th e
dwelling through th e opening, he would have performed all the acts
of execution.
What is an indeterminate offense?

It is one where th e purpose of th e offender in performing an act
is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous.
In th e case of People vs. Lamahang, supra, the final objective of
the offender, once he succeeded in entering th e store, ma y be to rob, to
cause physical injury to the inmates , or to commit any other offense.
In such a case, there is no justification in finding th e offender guilty
of attempted robbery by th e us e of force upon things.
The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature

of the acts executed by him, and not from his admission.
The intention of th e accused mus t be ascertained from the facts and,
therefore, it is necessary tha t th e mind be able to directly infer from the m th
e intentio n of th e perpetrator to caus e a particular injury.
In the case People vs. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, Jan . 24,
2003, the Supreme Court held that:
S u p r e m e Cour t o f Sp a in , i n it s decisio n o f
March 21 , 1892, declared tha t for overt acts to constitute an
100
Attempted Felony
attempted offense, it is necessary tha t their objective be known

and established or such tha t acts be of such nature that they
themselve s should obviously disclose th e criminal objective
necessaril y intended , said objective and finality to serve as
ground for designation of th e
Acts susceptible of double interpretation, tha t is, in favor as
well as against th e accused, and which show an innocent as well as a
punishable act, mus t not and cannot furnish grounds by themselve s
for attempted crime. (People vs. Lamahang , 61 Phil. 707)
In offenses not consummated , as th e material damage is want•
ing, th e nature of th e action intended cannot exactly be ascertained,
but th e sam e mus t be inferred from th e nature of the acts executed.
(I Groizard, p. 99) Th e overt acts leading to the commission of the
offense are not punishable except whe n the y are aimed directly at its
execution, and therefore the y mus t hav e an immediate and necessary
relation to th e offense. (I Viada, p. 47)
"Directly by overt
The la w requires tha t offender commences the commission
of th e felony directly by overt acts."
Only offenders wh o personally execute th e commission of a crime
can be guilty of attempted felony. The word "directly" suggests that
th e offender mus t commence th e commission of th e felony by taking
direct part in th e execution of th e act.
Thus, if A induced B to kill C, but B refused to do it, A cannot be
held liable for attempted homicide, because, although there wa s an
attempt on the part of A, such an attempt wa s not done directly with
physical activity. The inducement made by A to B is in the nature of
a proposal, not ordinarily punished by law.
But if B, pursuant to hi s agreement with A, commenced the
commission of the crime by shooting with intent to kill, but missed
and did not injure C, both A and B are guilty of attempted felony,
because of conspiracy. When there is conspiracy, the rule is — the
act of one is the act of
"Does not perform all the acts of execution."
If the offender ha s performed all the acts of execution — nothing more
is left to be done — the stage of execution is that of a frustrated
101
Attempted Felony
felony, if the felony is not produced; or consummated, if the felony is

produced.
If anything yet remained for him to do, he would be of an
attempted crime. (U.S. vs. Eduave, 36 Phil. 209)
Thus, as in the case of People vs. Lamahang, whe n the accused,
for the purpose of entering the dwelling of another broke one board and
unfastened another from the wall but he could start entering
through the opening thus created he wa s arrested by a policeman, the
crime committed wa s only attempted trespass to dwelling, because
there wa s something yet for him to do, that is, to commence entering
the dwelling through that opening in order to perform all the acts of
execution.
3. "By reason of some cause or accident."

In attempted felony, th e offender fails to perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony because of some cause or accident.
Examples:
Cause.
A picked th e pocket of B, inside of which there wa s a wallet
containing Before A could remove it from the pocket of
B, the latter grabbed A's han d and prevented him from taking
it. In this case, A failed to perform all the acts of execution,
that is, taking th e wallet, because of a cause, tha t is, th e timely
discovery by B of the overt act of A.
Accident.
A aimed his pistol B to kill the latter, but when he pressed
the trigger it jamme d and no bullet wa s fired from the pistol.
4. "Other than his own spontaneous desistance."

If the actor does not perform all th e acts of execution by reason
of his own spontaneous there is no attempted felony. The
law does not punish him.
Reason:
It is a sort of reward granted by law to those who, having one foot
on th e verge of crime, heed the call of their conscience
102
Attempted Felony
and return to th e path of righteousness. (Viada, Cod. 35-

36)
One who take s part in planning a criminal act but desists
in its actual commission is exemp t from criminal liability. For
after takin g part in th e planning, he could have desisted from
taking part in th e actual commission of th e crime by listening
to th e call of hi s conscience. (People vs. No.
Feb. 28, 1974, 55 SCRA 640, 654)
The desistance ma y be through fear or remorse. (People vs.

Pambaya, See 60 Phil. 1022) It is not necessary tha t it be actuated
by a good motive. The Code requires only tha t th e discontinuance of
the crime comes from th e person wh o ha s begun it, and that he stops
of hi s own free will. (Albert)
The desistance should be made before all the acts of execu•

tion are performed.
A stole a chicken unde r th e hous e of B one evening. Realizing
tha t wha t he did wa s wrong, A returned th e chicken to th e place
under th e hous e of B. Since th e crime of theft wa s already consum•
th e return of th e stolen property does not relieve A of criminal
responsibility. A ha d already performed all th e acts of execution
which produced th e crime of theft before he returned th e chicken.
A attacked and wounded B in th e abdomen with a sharp-edged
weapon, causing a wound serious enough to have produced death. A
wa s about to assaul t B again; but this time, A desisted and left B. B
wa s taken to th e hospital by another person. Because of the timely
and skillful medical treatment by a physician, B did not die. It will be
noted that whe n A desisted, he had already inflicted a mortal wound
on B, which could hav e produced his death were it not for the timely
intervention of a A is liable for frustrated
The desistance which exempts from criminal liability has

reference to the crime intended to be committed, and has no
reference to the crime actually committed by the offender
before his desistance.
A, with intent to kill, fired his pistol at B, but did not hit the
latter. B cried and asked A not to shoot him. A desisted from firing
his pistol again at B. Is A criminally liable?
103
Attempted Felony
Yes, not for attempted homicide because he desisted before he

could perform all the acts of execution, but for grave threats which
was already committed by him whe n he
It must be borne in mind that the spontaneous desistance of
a malefactor exempts him from criminal liability for the intended
crime but it does not exempt him from th e crime committed by hi m
before his desistance.(People vs. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-72, Jan.
Illustration of a case where the accused inflicted injury.

The issu e before th e court was: Should an accused who admit•
tedly shot the victim but is show n to hav e inflicted only a slight
wound be held accountable for th e deat h of th e victim due to a fatal
wound caused by his co-accused? Held: The slight wound did not
cause th e death of th e victim nor materiall y contribute to it. Hi s
liability should therefore be limited to th e slight injury he caused.
However, the fact tha t he inflicted a gunsho t wound on th e victim
show s the inten t to kill. Th e us e of a gu n fired at another certainly
leads to no other conclusion tha n tha t there is inten t to kill. He is
therefore liable for th e crime of attempte d homicide and not merely
for slight physical injury. Jr. vs . Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 43527 , Jul y 3, 1990, 187 SCRA 123 , 126, 133-134)
Subjective phase of the offense.

In attempted felony, th e offender never passes the subjective
phase of the offense.
of subjective phase of the offense.

It is that portion the acts constituting the crime, starting from
the point where th e offender begins th e commission of the crime to
that point where he ha s still control over his including their
(acts') natural course.
If between these two points th e offender is stopped by any cause
outside of his own voluntary desistance, th e subjective phase ha s not
been passed and it is an attempt. If he is not so stopped but continues
until he performs th e last act, it is frustrated, provided the crime is
not The acts the n of th e offender reached the objective phase
of the crime.
104
Frustrated Felony
Thus, if A, wit h inten t to kill, mixe s poison in th e soup intended

for B, and B begin s to tak e into hi s mout h a spoonful of it, until this
point, A can still prevent th e poisoning of B by voluntarily desist•
ing and tellin g B to throw awa y th e substanc e from hi s mout h as it
contains poison. Bu t from th e mo men t B swallow s it, A ha s no more
control over hi s acts. Th e poison is now in B's stomac h and it will
require th e interventio n of a physicia n to prevent th e poisoning of
B.
If because of th e intervention of th e physician, B did not die, A will be

liable for frustrated murder. The acts performed by A, following their natural
course, passed from th e subjective phase to the objective phase of th e crime.
Frustrated felony.
Elements :
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution;
2. All th e act s performed would produce the felony as a
consequence;
3. Bu t th e felony is not produced;
4. By rea so n of c a u s e s independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
The requisites of a frustrated felony are: (1) that the offender has
performed all th e acts of execution which would produce the felony;
and (2) tha t th e felony is not produced due to causes independent of
the perpetrator's will. (People vs. G.R. No. 88724, April
IMPORTAN T WORD S AN D PHRASES .

1. all the acts of execution."
In frustrated felony, the offender mus t perform all the acts of
execution. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because
he ha s performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. This
elemen t distinguishe s frustrated felony from attempte d felony.
In attempted felony, the offender does not perform all the acts of
execution. He does not perform the last act necessary to produce the
crime. He merely commences the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts.
105
Frustrated Felony
Thus, if A, with intent to kill, fires his gun at B, the discharge

of the gun is only an overt act. If the slug fired from the gun misses
B or the wound inflicted on B is not mortal, the last act necessary to
produce the crime of homicide is not yet performed by A. But if the
wound inflicted is mortal, that is, sufficient to cause death, A performs
the last act. If no medical attendance is given, B would surely die. In
homicide or murder, the crime is consummated if the victim dies. If
the victim survives, the crime is frustrated. (See U.S. vs. Eduave, 36
Phil. 209)
The Supreme Court in certain cases has emphasized the

belief of the accused.
People vs. Sy Pio

(94 Phil. 885)
Facts: The accused entered a store and once inside, he fired his
.45 caliber pistol at the Chinaman Sy who was hit fatally. who
was in the store asked him why he fired the shot and without answering
him, the accused fired at Kiap, hitting him on the right shoulder. Upon
being hit, Kiap immediately ran behind the store to hide and he heard
the accused fire at several other directions before he ran away. The
wound of Kiap healed in 20 days and was inflicted on the part of his
body which could not have produced his death. For shooting Kiap, the
accused was prosecuted for and declared guilty of frustrated murder
in the Court of First Instance.
Held: The fact that Kiap was able to escape, which the accused
must have seen, must have produced in the mind of the accused the
belief that he was not able to hit his victim at a vital part of the body.
In other words, the accused knew that he had not actually performed
all the acts of execution necessary to kill his victim.
The accused is guilty of attempted murder, because he did not
perform all the acts of execution, actual and subjective, in order that the
purpose and intention that he had to kill his victim might be carried
In other cases, th e Supreme Court stated —

Deadly weapons were used, blows were directed at the vital
parts of the body, th e aggressors stated their purpose to kill and
thought they had killed. The subjective phase of the crime wa s entirely
passed, and subjectively speaking , th e crime wa s complete. The
106
Frustrated Felony
felony is not produced by reason of cause s independent of the will of

the perpetrators; in this instance, th e playing possum by the victim,
that is, he escaped death from th e aggressors by the ruse of feigning
death. (People vs. 47 Phil. 770)
The defendant believed tha t he had performed all of the acts
necessary to consummat e th e crime of murder, and, therefore, of his
own will, desisted from striking further blows. He believed that he
had killed Keng Kin. Deat h did not result for reasons entirely apart
from th e will of th e defendant. Thi s surely stamp s th e crime as
frustrated murder. If, after the first blow, someone had rushed to the
assistance of Keng Kin and by hi s efforts had prevented the accused
from proceeding further in the commission of the crime, the defendant
not believing tha t he had performed all of th e acts necessary to cause
death, he would hav e bee n guilty of attempted murder. (U.S. vs.
San, cited in People vs. Dagman , 47 Phil. 771)
The aggressor stated hi s purpose to kill, thought he had killed,
and threw th e body into th e bushes . Whe n he gave himself up, he
declared tha t he ha d killed th e complainant. Bu t as death did not
result , th e aggresso r wa s guilt y of frustrated murder. (U.S. vs.
Eduave, 36 Phil. 210)
The belief of th e accused need not be considered. What should
be considered is whethe r all th e acts of execution performed by the
offender "would produce th e felony as a
In crimes agains t persons, as homicide, whic h requires the
victim's deat h to consumma t e th e felony, it is necessar y for the
frustration of the sam e that a mortal wound be inflicted, because
then the wound could produce the felony as a consequence. (People
vs. Guihama, et 13 C.A. Rep. 557)
In the following cases, the stage of execution was held to be

frustrated, because the wound inflicted was mortal:
a. People vs. Honrada, 62 Phil. where the accused stabbed
the offended party in the abdomen, penetrating the liver,
and in the chest. It was only the prompt and skillful medical
treatment which the offended party received that saved his
life.
b. People vs. Mercado, 51 Phil. 99, where the accused wounded
the victim in the left abdomen with a sharp-edged weapon,
107
Frustrated Felony
causing a wound in the cavity, serious enough

to have produced death.
People vs. David, 60 Phil. 93, where the accused in firing
his revolver at the offended party hit him in the upper side
of the body, piercing it from side to side and perforating the
lungs. The victim wa s saved due to adequate and timely
intervention of medical science.
In the following cases, the stage of execution was held to

be attempted, because there was no wound inflicted or the
wound inflicted was not mortal.
a. U.S. vs. Bien, 20 Phil. 354, where th e accused threw a
Chinaman into the deep water, and as the Chinaman did
not how to swim, he made efforts to keep himself afloat
and seized the gunwale of the boat, but the accused tried to
loosen the hold of the victim with the oar. The accused wa s
prevented from striking the latter by other persons. Since the
accused had the intent to kill the offended party, the former
actually committed attempted homicide against the latter.
b. People vs. Kalalo, et 59 Phil. 715, where the accused
fired four successive shots at th e offended party while th e
latter wa s fleeing to escape from his assailants and save his
own life. No t havin g hit th e offended party, either because
of his poor aim or because hi s intended victim succeeded
in dodging th e shots , th e accused failed to perform all
th e acts of execution by reason of a cause other tha n his
spontaneous desistance.
Eve n if no wound wa s inflicted, the assailant ma y
be convicted of attempted homicide, provided he had th e
intent to kill th e offended party. (People vs. Aban, CA-G.R.
No. November 30, 1954)
People vs. Domingo, CA-G.R. No. April
where two physicians called to th e witnes s stand by the
prosecution could not agree tha t the wounds inflicted upon
th e complainan t would caus e death. One of them , Dr.
Rotea, testified tha t th e wounds were not serious enough
to produce death eve n if no medical assistance had been
given to th e offended party.
108
Frustrated Felony
d. People vs. et 52 O.G. 3973 , where the head of

th e offended party wa s merely grazed by the shot which
hit him, th e wound being far from fatal.
2. produce the felony as a consequence."
All the acts of execution performed by the offender could have produced
the felony as a consequence.
Thus, whe n A approached B stealthily from behind and made a

movemen t wit h hi s right han d to strike B on th e back wit h a deadly
knife, but th e blow, instea d of reaching th e spot intended, landed on
the frame of th e back of th e chair on which B wa s sitting at the time
and did not cause the slightest physical injury on B, the stage of execu•
tion should have been that of attempted murder only, because without
inflicting a deadly wound upon a vital spot of which B should have
died, th e crime of murder would not be produced as a consequence.
The case of People vs. Borinaga, 55 Phil. 433 , is now superseded

by the case People vs. Kalalo, 59 Phil. 715, which sustains the above
opinion. In crimes agains t persons, such as murder, which require
that th e victim should die to consummat e th e felony, it is necessary
for the frustration of th e sam e tha t a mortal wound is inflicted.
Thus, in his dissenting opinion in the case People vs. Borinaga,
supra, Justice Villareal said: "It is true tha t th e frame of the back of
the chair stood betwee n th e deadly knife and th e back of Mooney; but
what it prevented wa s th e wounding of said Mooney in the back and
not hi s death, ha d he been wounded. It is th e preventing of death by
causes independent of th e will of th e perpetrator, after all the acts of
execution had been performed, tha t constitutes frustrated felony (of
murder), and not th e preventing of th e performance of all the acts of
execution which constitute the
3. not produce it."

In frustrated felony, the acts performed by the offender do not produce
the felony, because if the felony is produced it would be con• summated.
4. of the will of the perpetrator."

Even if all the acts of execution have been performed, the crime may
not be consummated, because certain causes may prevent its
109
Frustrated Felony
consummation. These certain causes may be the intervention of third

persons who prevented the consummation of the offense or may be
due to the perpetrator's own will.
If the crime is not produced because of the timely intervention
of a third person, it is frustrated.
If th e crime is not produced becaus e th e offender himself
prevented its consummation, there is no frustrated felony, for the 4t h
element is not present.
Note tha t th e 4t h elemen t say s tha t th e felony is not produced
reason of causes independent the will of the perpetrator." Hence,
if the cause which prevented th e consummatio n of the offense wa s
the perpetrator's own and exclusive will, th e 4t h elemen t does not
exist.
Problem:
A doctor conceived th e idea of killing hi s wife, and to carry out
hi s plan, he mixe d arsenic wit h th e soup of hi s victim. Immediatel y
after th e victi m took th e poisonou s food, th e offender suddenl y
felt suc h a twing e o f conscienc e tha t h e hims el f washe d ou t th e
sto ma c h o f th e victi m an d a d mi n i s t e r e d t o he r th e a dequa t e
antidote . Would thi s be a frustrate d parricide? Certainl y not ,
for eve n thoug h th e subjectiv e phas e o f th e crim e ha d alread y
bee n passed , th e mos t i mpo rt an t requisit e of a frustrate d crime ,
i.e., tha t th e cause whic h prev ent e d th e co ns u mma t io n of th e
offense b e independen t o f th e wil l o f th e perpetrator, wa s lacking .
(Guevara )
The crime cannot be considered attempted parricide, because

the doctor already performed all the acts of execution. At most, th e
crime co mmitte d would be physical injuries, as th e poison thu s
administered, being an injurious substance, could cause the same.
The inten t to kill whic h th e doctor entertaine d in the beginning
disappeared whe n he prevented th e poison from producing th e death
of his wife.
Is there frustration due to inadequate or ineffectual means?

Such a frustration is placed on the sam e footing as an impossible
attempt. (Albert)
110
Frustrated Felony
Frustrated felony distinguished from attempted felony.

1. In both, the offender ha s not accomplished his criminal
purpose.
2. While in frustrated felony, th e offender ha s performed all

th e acts of execution which would produce the felony as
a consequence, in attempted felony, th e offender merely
commences th e commission of a felony directly by overt
acts and does not perform all th e acts of execution.
In othe r words, in frustrated felony, th e offender
ha s reached th e objective phase; in attempted felony, th e
offender ha s not passe d th e subjective phase.
Th e essentia l elemen t whic h disting uishe s attempte d from

frustrated felony is that, in th e latter, there is no intervention of a
foreign or extraneous cause or agency betwee n the beginning of the
consummation of th e crime and th e mo men t whe n all of th e acts have
been performed which should result in the consummated crime; while
in th e former there is such intervention and th e offender does not
arrive at th e point of performing all of th e acts which should produce
the crime. He is stopped short of tha t point by some cause apart from
his own voluntary desistance. (People vs. G.R. No. 88724, April
3, 1990, 184 SCRA 105, 113, quoting U.S . vs. Eduave, 36 Phil. 209,
212)
Attempted or frustrated felony distinguished impossible

crime.
(1) In attempted or frustrated felony and impossible crime,
th e evil intent of th e offender is not accomplished.
(2) But while in impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender
cannot be accomplished, in attempted or frustrated felony
the evil intent of the offender is possible of accomplish•
ment.
(3) In impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot
be accomplished because it is inherently impossible of
accomplishment or because the mean s employed by the
offender is inadequat e or ineffectual; in attempted or
frustrated felony, wha t prevented its accomplishment is
Consummated Felony
the intervention of certain cause or accident in which the

offender had no part.
Consummated felony.
A felony is consummated whe n all the elements necessary for
its execution and accomplishment are present.

the elements" necessary for its execution and accomplishment
"are present."
In consumma t e d felony, all th e elements necessar y for it s
execution and accomplishment mus t be present. Every crime ha s
its own elements which mus t all he present to constitute a culpable
violation of a precept of law.
When not all the elements of a felony are proved.

When a felony ha s two or more element s and one of the m is not
proved by the prosecution during th e trial, either (1) the felony is
not shown to have been consummated , or (2) th e felony is not show n
to have been committed, or (3) another felony is shown to have been
committed.
Thus, in th e prosecution for homicide where th e death of th e victim is
an elemen t of th e offense, if tha t elemen t is absent, because the victim does
not die, th e crime is not consummated. It is either attempted or frustrated.
In taking personal property from another, whe n the elemen t of intent to
gain is lacking on th e part of the person taking it, the crime of theft is not
committed.
In the prosecution for estafa (Art. 315), if the elemen t of deceit
or abuse of confidence is not proved, there is no crime. There is only
civil liability.
Bu t if the elemen t of damag e only is not proved, the accused may be
found guilty of attempte d or frustrated estafa.
In th e prosecution for robbery wit h violence against persons
(Art. 294), if the elemen t of intent to gain is not proved, the accused
can be found guilty of grave coercion (Art. 286), another felony.
112
How to Determine the Three Stages
In the prosecution for forcible abduction (Art. 342), if the element

of lewd designs is not proved, th e accused ma y be held liable for
kidnapping and serious illegal detention (Art. 267), another
Hence, all the elements of th e felony for which th e accused is prosecuted
must be present in order to hold him liable therefor in its consummated stage.
How to determine whether the crime is only attempted or

frustrated or it is consummated.
In determining whether the felony is only attempted or frustrated or it is
consummated, (1) th e nature of the offense, (2) the elements constituting th e
felony, as well as (3) th e manner of committing the same, mus t be considered.
Nature of crime.
Arson (Arts. 320-326). — In arson, it is not necessary that the
property is totally destroyed by fire. The crime of arson is therefore,
consummated eve n if only a portion of the wall or any other part of
the house is burned. The consummation of the crime of arson does not
depend upon the extent of th e damage caused. (People vs. Hernandez,
54 Phil. 122) The fact of havin g set fire to some rags and jute sacks,
soaked in kerosene oil, and placing the m near the wooden partition of
the house, should not be qualified as consummated arson, inasmuch
as no part of the house began to burn. It is frustrated arson. (U.S.
vs. Valdes, 39 Phil. 240)
When a person had poured gasoline under the house of another
and wa s about to strike a match to set the house on fire whe n he wa s
apprehended, he wa s guilty of attempted arson. The acts performed
by him are directly connected with the crime of arson, the offense he
intended to commit. The pouring of the gasoline under the house and
the striking of the match could not be for any other purpose.
If there wa s blaze, but no part of the house is burned, the crime
of arson is frustrated. If any part of the house, no matter how small,
is burned, the crime of arson is consummated.
Elements constituting the felony.

In theft, the crime is consummated whe n the thief is able to take or
get hold of the thing belonging to another, even if he is not
113
able to carry it away. In estafa, the crime is consummated when the

offended party is actually damaged or prejudiced.
Theft. — A Customs inspector abstracted a leather belt
from the baggage of a Japanese and secreted it in the drawer
of his desk in the Customs House, where it wa s found by other
Customs employees. The Court of First Instance convicted him of
frustrated theft. The Supreme Court considered it consummated
theft, because all the element s necessary for its execution and
accomplishment were present. (U.S. vs. Adiao, 38 Phil. 754)
Actual taking with intent to gain of personal property,
belonging to another, without the latter's consent, is sufficient
to constitute consummated theft. It is not necessary that the
offender carries away or appropriates th e property taken.
Estafa. — Defendant wa s a salesma n of the Philippine
Education Company. After he had received for the sale
of books, which he should hav e given to th e cashier, he put it
in his pocket wit h intent to misappropriate the amount. Held:
This is frustrated estafa. (U.S. vs . Dominguez, 41 Phil. 408)
The accused performed all th e acts of execution. However,
the crime wa s not consummated as there wa s no damage caused
in view of the timely discovery of th e felonious act. In this kind
of estafa the element s of (1) abuse of confidence, and (2) damage
to the offended party mus t concur.
Is there a conflict in the rulings of the Adiao case and

Dominguez case?
In th e Adiao case, the theft wa s consummated although th e
belt wa s only secreted in defendant's desk. In the Dominguez case,
th e estafa wa s only frustrated eve n if th e sales money wa s already
i n defendant' s pocket. Apparently , the y shoul d bot h b e eithe r
consummated or frustrated. The difference lies in the elements of th e
two crimes. In estafa, the offended party mus t be actually prejudiced
or damaged. This elemen t is lacking in the Dominguez case. In theft,
the mere removal of the personal property belonging to another with
intent to gain is sufficient. The act of removing the personal property
constitutes the elemen t of taking in theft. In the Adiao case, only
the elemen t of taking is in question. And that element is considered
present because he abstracted (removed) th e leather belt from the
114
baggage where it wa s kept and secreted it in th e drawer of hi s desk. The

takin g wa s complete.
Frustrated theft.
A truck loaded with stolen boxes of rifles wa s on the way out
of the check point in Sout h Harbor surrounded by a tall fence whe n
an MP guard discovered th e boxes on th e truck. It wa s held that the
crime committed wa s frustrated theft, because of the timely discovery
of th e boxes on th e truck before it could pas s out of the check point.
(People vs. Dino, C.A., 45 O.G. 3446)
In th e Supply Depot at Quezon City, th e accused removed from
the pile nine pieces of hospital line n and took the m to their truck
where the y were found by a corporal of the MP guards whe n they
tried to pas s through th e check point. It wa s held tha t th e crime com•
mitted wa s consummate d theft. (People vs. et CA-G.R.
No. Ma y 31 , 1949)
Distinguished from the case.

In the Espiritu case, it wa s held tha t th e crime of theft wa s
consummated because th e thieve s were able to take or get hold of
th e hospital linen and tha t th e only thin g tha t wa s frustrated, which
does not constitute any elemen t of theft, is th e us e or benefit that the
thieves expected to derive from th e commission of th e offense.
In th e case, it wa s held tha t th e crime committed is that of
frustrated theft, because th e fact determinative of consummation in
the crime of theft is th e ability of the offender to dispose freely of the
articles stolen, eve n if it were more or les s momentarily. The Court
of Appeals followed th e opinion of Viada in this case. (See 5 Viada,
103)
Whe n the meanin g of an elemen t of a felony is controversial,
there is bound to arise different rulings as to th e stage of execution
of that felony.
Example of attempted theft.

The accused wa s found inside a parked jeep of Captain Parker by an
American MP. The jeep's padlock had been forced open and lying between
the front seats and the gearshift wa s an iron bar. Captain Parker was then
inside a theater. It was held that the accused already
115
commenced to carry out his felonious intention, and that if he did

not perform all the acts of execution which should have produced the
crime of theft, it was because of the timely arrival of the MP. The overt
acts of the accused consisted in forcing open the padlock locking the
gearshift to a ring attached to the dashboard which was placed there
to avoid the jeep from being stolen. (People vs. De la Cruz, C.A., 43
O.G. 3202)
Example of attempted estafa by means of deceit.

The accused fraudulently assumed authority to demand fees for the
Bureau of Forestry, when he noticed that a timber was cut in the forest
by the complainant without permit and used it in building his house.
The accused tried to collect from the complainant ostensibly to
save him from paying a fine and to prepare for him a petition to obtain
a permit to cut timber. The complainant refused or wa s unable to give
to the accused. (U.S. vs. Villanueva, 1 Phil. 370)
The fraudulent and false representations of the accused that he

wa s authorized to collect is the overt act. The refusal or inability
of the complainant to give to th e accused is a cause which
prevented the latter from performing all the acts of execution.
Examples of frustrated estafa by means of deceit.

The accused offered to give complainant a job as office boy in
Ft. with a salary of P25.00 , but asked for X-ray
examination. The representation of the accused that th e amount of
wa s for X-ray examination wa s false. Complainant handed to
him and while taking the remainin g five centavos from hi s
pocket, a policeman placed the accused under arrest. (People vs.
Gutierrez, C.A., 40 O.G., Supp. 4, 125)
Where the accused, who made false pretenses, is apprehended
immediately after receiving th e mone y from th e complainant inside
the compound of th e latter's employer, pursuant to a pre-arranged
plan with the authorities, the crime committed is frustrated, and not
consummated, estafa. (People vs. Castillo, C.A., 65 O.G. 1065)
Mere removal of personal property, not sufficient to consummate the

crime of robbery by the use of force upon things.
The culprits, after breaking th e floor of the bodega through which they
entered th e same , removed a sack of sugar from the pile;
116
but were caught in the act of takin g it out through the opening on
the floor. Held: Frustrated robbery. (People vs. Del C.A., 46
O.G. 4332)
In robbery by th e us e of force upon thing s (Arts. 299 and 302), since th

e offender mus t ente r th e building to commit the crime, he mus t be able to
carry out of th e building th e thin g take n to consum• mat e th e crime.
In robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons (Art.

294), th e crime is consumma te d the mo men t the offender gets hold
of th e thing take n or is in a position to dispose of it freely.
Element of intent to kill, when present in inflicting physical

injuries.
If any of th e physical injuries described in Articles 263, 264, 265
and 266 is inflicted with intent to kill on any of th e persons mentioned
in Article 246 , or wit h the attendance of any of th e circumstances
enumerate d in Article 248, th e crime would be either attempted or
frustrated parricide or murder as th e case ma y be.
Defendant wit h a pocket knife inflicted several wounds on the

victim. The words "until I can kill you" were uttered by the assailant.
Held: Attempted homicide, not physical injuries, because the inten•
tion to kill is evident. (U.S. vs. Joven, 44 Phil. 796)
The accused inflicted bolo wounds on the shoulder and across the lips of
th e victim and the n withdrew. Held: Not frustrated homicide, but serious
physical injuries as the accused probably knew that the injuries were not such
as should produce death. Intent to kill wa s not present. (U.S. vs. Maghirang,
28 Phil. 655)
The facts indicate that the petitioner had no intention to kill
the offended party. Thus, petitioner started the assault on the of•
fended party by jus t giving him fist blows; the wounds inflicted on
the offended party were of slight nature; the petitioner retreated and
went away whe n the offended party started hitting him with a bolo,
thereby indicating that if the petitioner had intended to kill the of•
fended party, he would have held his ground and kept on hitting the
offended party with his bolo to kill him. The element of intent to kill
not having been fully established, and considering that the injuries
suffered by the offended party were not necessarily fatal and could be
healed in les s than 30 days, the offense committed by the petitioner
117
is only that of less serious physical injuries. (Mondragon vs. People, 17

SCRA 476)
Where the accused voluntarily left their victim after giving him
a sound thrashing, without inflicting any fatal injury, although they
could have easily killed their said victim, considering their superior
number and the weapons wit h which they were provided, the intent
to kill on the part of the accused is wanting and the crime committed
is merely physical injuries and not attempted murder. (People vs.
Malinao, [CA] 57 O.G. 2328)
Manner of committing the crime.

Formal crimes — consummated in one instant, no attempt.
There are crimes, like slander and false testimony, which
are consummated in one instant, by a single act. These are formal
crimes.
As a rule, there can be no attemp t at a formal crime,
because betwee n the thought and the deed there is no chain of
acts that can be severed in any link. Thus, in slander, there is
either a crime or no crime at all, depending upon whether or
not defamatory words were spoken publicly. (Albert)
In the sale of marijuana and other prohibited drugs, th e
mere act of selling or eve n acting as broker consummates the
crime. (People vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 83325 , May 8, 1990, 185
SCRA 154, 166)
2. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt act.
Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121). — In this crime the mere
attempt to flee to an enem y country is a consummated felony.
Corruption of minors (Art. 340). — A mere proposal to
the minor to satisfy the lust of another will consummate th e
offense.
There is no attempted crime of treason, because th e overt
act in itself consummate s the crime. (63 C.J., Sec. 5, p. 814)
3. Felony by omission.
There can be no attempted stage whe n the felony is by
omission, because in this kind of felony the offender does not
118
execute acts. He omits to perform an act which the law requires

hi m to do.
Bu t killing a child by starving him, although apparently by
omission, is in fact by commission. (Albert)
4. Crimes the intervention two persons to commit them
are consummated by mere agreement.
In those crimes, like betting in sport contests and corruption

of public officer (Art. 197 and Art. 212) , whic h require th e
interventio n o f tw o person s t o commi t them , th e sam e are
consummate d by mere agreement. The offer made by one of the
parties to th e other constitutes attempted felony, if the offer is
rejected. (U.S. vs. Basa , 8 Phil. 89)
In view of th e rule stated, it would see m that there is no
frustrated bribery (corruption of public officer). But in the case
of People vs. Diego Quin, G.R. No. L-42653, it wa s held by the
Suprem e Court tha t wher e th e defendant fails to corrupt a
public officer, because th e latter returned the money given by the
defendant, the crime committed is frustrated bribery (corruption
of public officer) under Art. 212 in relation to Art. 6.
In th e case U.S. vs. Te Tong, 26 Phil. 453 , where the roll
of bills a mountin g to P50 0 wa s accepted by th e police officer for
th e purpose of usin g th e sam e as evidence in th e prosecution
of th e accused for attempted bribery (attempted corruption of
a public officer), it wa s held that th e accused who delivered the
money wa s guilty of attempted bribery.
5. Material crimes — There are three stages of execution.
Thus, homicide, rape, etc., are not consummated in one instan t or
by a single act. These are the material crimes.
(a) Consummated rape. — The accused lay on top of a girl nine
years of age for over fifteen The girl testified
that there wa s partial penetration of the male organ in her
private parts and that she felt intense pain. Held: Entry
of the labia or lips of the female organ without rupture
of th e hyme n or laceration of th e vagin a is generally
held sufficient to warrant conviction of the accused for
consummated crime of rape. (People vs. Hernandez, 49
Phil. 980, 982)
119
(b) Frustrated rape. — The accused endeavored to have sexual

intercourse with a girl three years and eleven months old.
There was doubt whether he succeeded in penetrating
the vagina. Held: There being no conclusive evidence of
penetration of the genital organ of the child, the accused
is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and can only be found
guilty of frustrated rape. (People vs. 50 Phil. 998,
1000)
However, in th e case of People vs. Orita, 184 SCRA
114, 115, th e Suprem e Court held tha t "x x x for th e
consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential.
Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is
sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ,
without rupture of the hyme n or laceration of the vagina,
is sufficient to warran t x x x Takin g int o
account th e nature, element s and manne r of execution
of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it
is hardly conceivable how th e frustrated stage in rape
can be committed." The Supreme Court further held that
the Erifia case appears to be a "stray" decision inasmuch
as it ha s not been reiterated in th e Court's subsequent
decisions.
(c) Attempted rape. — The accused placed himself on top of a

woman, and raising her skirt in an effort to get his knee s
between her legs while hi s hand s held her arms firmly,
endeavoring to have sexual intercourse with her, but not
succeeding because the offended party wa s able to extricate
herself and to run away. Held: Attempted rape. (People vs.
Brocal, [CA] 36 O.G. 856)
(d) Consummated homicide. — Accused-appellant shot th e
victim in th e left forearm. While he and th e victim were
grappling for the gun, hi s co-accused who ha s remained at
large, stabbed th e victim in th e chest. The victim died and
it wa s established that the cause of death wa s
seco n da r y t o sta b wo un d . Held: A c c u s e d - a p p e l l a n t
wa s found guilt y of homicide ther e bein g no qualifying
circumstanc e t o mak e th e killin g murder. Th e fact tha t
he did not inflict th e mortal wound is of no moment , since
th e existenc e of conspiracy wa s satisfactorily show n by
120
th e evidence . (People vs . Sazon , G.R. No. 89684 , Sept.

18, 1990 , 189 SCRA 700 , 703 , 711 , 713)
(e) Frustrated murder. — The accused stabbed his two victims
as the y were about to close their store in the evening. One
of th e victims died while th e other recovered. Held: The
assaul t upon th e surviving victim constituted frustrated
murder, her relatively quick recovery being the result of
prompt medical attention which prevented the infection
i n th e woun d from rea chin g fata l proportions whic h
would otherwise hav e ensued. The attack wa s qualified by
treachery (alevosia). (People vs. Mision, G.R. No. 63480,
Feb. 26, 1991 , 194 SCRA 432 , 445-446)
(f) Attempted homicide. — Th e accuse d intende d to kill
hi s victim but he wa s not able to perform all th e acts
of execution necessar y to consummat e th e killing. The
wound s inflicted did not affect vital organs. They were not
mortal. He first warne d hi s victim before shooting him.
Held: Attempte d homicide. (People vs. Ramolete, No. L-
28108 , March 27, 1974, 56 SCRA 66, 82-83)
There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.

In impossible crime, th e person intending to commit an offense
ha s already performed the acts for the execution of the same, but
nevertheless th e crime is not produced by reason of the fact that
the act intended is by its nature one of impossible accomplishment
or becaus e th e mean s employe d by suc h person are essentiall y
inadequate or ineffectual to produce the result desired by him.
Art. 59, Revised Penal Code)
Therefore, since the offender in impossible crime ha s already
performed the acts for th e execution of the same, there could be no
attempted impossible crime. In attempted felony, the offender has not
performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony
as a consequence.
There is no frustrated impossible crime, because the acts per• formed
by the offender are considered as constituting a consummated offense.
121
Art. 7 LIGHT FELONIES WHEN PUNISHABLE
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Ligh t felonie s ar e

punishabl e onl y whe n the y hav e bee n consummated , wit h th e exceptio n
o f thos e committe d agains t person s o r property .
What are light felonies?

Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of
which the penalty arresto or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos,
or both, is provided. (Art. 9, par. 3)
The light felonies punished by the Revised Penal Code:

1. Slight physical injuries. (Art. 266)
2. Theft. (Art. 309, pars. 7 and 8)
3. Alteration of boundary marks. (Art. 313)
4. Malicious mischief. (Art. 328, par. 3; Art. 329, par. 3)
5. Intriguing against honor. (Art. 364)
The penalty for th e above-mentioned crimes is arresto menor
(imprisonment from one day to thirty days), or a fine not exceeding P200.

1. "With the exception of those committed against persons or
General Rule:
Light felonies are punishable only whe n they have been consum• mated.
Exception:
Light felonies committed against persons or property, are
punishable eve n or frustrated.
Reason for the general rule.

Light felonies produce such light, such insignificant moral and material
injuries tha t public conscience is satisfied with providing a
122
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO Art. 8
COMMIT FELONY
light penalty for their consummation. If the y are not consummated,

the wrong done is so slight that there is no need of providing a penalty
at all. (Albert)
Reason for the

The commission of felonies against persons or property presup•
poses in the offender moral depravity. For that reason, even attempted
or frustrated light felonies against persons or property are punishable.
Examples of light felonies against person:

Art. 26 6 — Slight physical injuries and maltreatment.
Examples of light felonies against property:

Art. 309 , No . 7 — Theft by huntin g or fishing or gathering
fruits, cereal s or othe r forest or farm products upon an
inclose d estat e or field wher e trespa s s is forbidden and
th e valu e of th e thin g stole n does not exceed
2. Art. 309, No. 8 — Theft, where the value of the stolen prop•
erty does not exceed and the offender was prompted by
hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood.
3. Art. 313 — Alteration of boundary marks.
4. Art. 328, No. 3; Art. 329, No. 3 — Malicious mischief where
the damage is not more tha n or if it cannot be
estimated.
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — C o n s p i ra c y

an d p r o p o s a l t o c o mmi t felon y ar e p u n i s h a b l e onl y i n th e case s
i n w h i c h th e la w s p e c i a l l y p r o v i d e s a p e n a l t y ther efo r .
A c o n s p i r a c y e xi st s w h e n tw o o r mo r e p e r s o n s co m e t o a n
a g r e e m e n t c o n c e r n i n g th e c o m m i s s i o n o f a felo n y an d decid e
t o c o m m i t it .
T her e i s p r o p o s a l w h e n th e p e r s o n wh o ha s d e c i d e d t o
c o m mi t a felo n y p r o p o s e s it s e x e c u t i o n t o so m e othe r perso n
o r persons .
123
Art. 8 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO
COMMIT FELONY
IM PO RTAN T WO RD S AN D P H R A S E S .
"Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony."
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are two different acts
or felonies: (1) conspiracy to commit a felony, and (2) proposal to
commit a felony.
2. "Only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
therefor."
Unles s there is a specific provision in the Revised Penal
Code providing a penalty for conspiracy or proposal to commit
a felony, mere conspiracy or proposal is not a felony.
Conspiracy is not a crime except when the law specifically

provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exist s whe n tw o or more persons come to an
agreemen t concerning th e commissio n of a felony and decide to
commi t it. (Art. 8) Generally , conspiracy is not a crime excep t
whe n th e law specifically provides a penalt y therefor as in treaso n
(Art. 115), rebellion (Art. 136) an d seditio n (Art. 141). The crime
o f conspirac y know n t o th e co mmo n la w i s no t a n indictabl e
offense in th e Philippines . (U.S . vs . Buanco , 14 Phil. 472 ;
U.S . vs . 3 7 Phil . 599 , 614 ; Peopl e vs . Asaad , 5 5 Phil.
697 ) An a greemen t to commi t a crime is a reprehensibl e act from
th e viewpoin t of morality , but as long as th e conspirators do not
perform over t act s i n f urtheranc e o f thei r ma lev o len t design ,
the sovereignt y of th e Stat e is not outrage d and th e tranquilit y
o f th e public rema in s undist urbed . However , whe n i n resolut e
execution of a commo n sche me , a felony is committe d by tw o or
more malefactors, th e existenc e of a conspiracy a ssu me s pivotal
importance in th e determinatio n of th e liability of th e perpetrators.
(People vs . Peralta , 2 5 SCRA 759 )
General Rule:
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not punishable.
Exception:
They are punishable only in the cases in which the law
specially provides a penalty therefor.
124
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO Art 8
COMMIT FELONY
Reason for the rule.

Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory
acts, and th e law regards the m as innocent or at leas t permissible
except in rare and exceptional cases.
The Revised Penal Code specially provides a penalty for mere

conspiracy in Arts. and
Art. Conspiracy xxxto commit treason — Penalty. — The
conspiracy x x x to commit th e crime of treason shall be punished x
x x by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding 10,000 pesos x x x.
Art. 136. Conspiracy x x x to commit coup rebellion or
insurrection. — The conspiracy x x x to commit coup d'etat shall be
punished by prision mayor in its minimu m period and a fine which
shall not exceed 8,000 pesos.
The conspiracy x x x to commit rebellion or insurrection shall
be punished x x x by prision correccional in its ma ximu m period and
a fine which shall not exceed 5,000 pesos xxx. (As amended by Rep.
Act No. 6968)
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. — Persons conspiring
to commit th e crime of sedition shall be punished by prision mayor in
its mediu m period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos. (As amended
by P.D. No. 942)
Treason, coup d'etat rebellion or sedition should not be

actually committed.
The conspirators should not actually commit treason, coup d'etat
rebellion or sedition. It is sufficient that two or more persons agree
and decide to commit treason, rebellion or sedition.
If they commit, say, treason, they will be held liable for treason,
and the conspiracy which they had before committing treason is only
a manner of incurring criminal liability. It is not a separate offense.
Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from conspiracy as a

manner of incurring criminal liability.
When the conspiracy relates to a crime actually committed, it
is not a felony but only a manner of incurring criminal liability, that
is, whe n there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
125
COMMIT FELONY
Even if the conspiracy relates to any of the crimes of treason,

rebellion and sedition, but any of them is actually committed, the
conspiracy is not a separate it is only a manner of incurring
criminal liability, that is, all the conspirators who carried out their
plan and personally took part in its execution are equally liable. The
offenders are liable for treason, rebellion, or sedition, as the case may
be, and the conspiracy is absorbed.
When conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal liability,
it is not punishable as a separate offense.
Illustrations of conspiracy as felony and as a manner of

incurring criminal liability.
1. A and B agreed and decided to rise publicly and take arm s
against the government wit h th e help of their followers. Eve n if
the y did not carry out their plan to overthrow the government,
A and B are liable for conspiracy to commit rebellion under Art.
136 of th e Revised Penal Code.
But if A and B and their followers did rise publicly and

take arm s agains t th e governmen t to overthrow it, thereby
committing rebellion, their conspiracy is not a felony. They are
liable for rebellion and their conspiracy is only a manne r of
incurring criminal liability for rebellion.
2. A, B, an d C, after ha v in g conceive d a crimina l plan , got
together, agreed and decided to kill D. If A, B and C failed to
carry out th e plan for som e reaso n or another, the y are not
liable for havin g conspired agains t D, because th e crime the y
conspired to commit, whic h is murder, is not treason, rebellion
or sedition.
Bu t if the y carried out th e plan and personally took part in its
execution which resulted in th e killing of D, the y are all liable for
murder, even if A merely acted as guard outside the house where
D wa s killed and B merely held th e arms of D whe n C stabbed hi m
to death. Their conspiracy is only a manne r of incurring criminal
liability for murder. It is not an offense, not only because a crime
wa s committed after th e conspiracy, but also because conspiracy to
commit murder is not punished in th e Revised Penal Code.
126
COMMIT FELONY
Indications of conspiracy.
When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object,
one performing one part and the other performing another part so as
to complete it, with a view to th e attainment of the same object, and
their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and
cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted
action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be justified in
concluding that said defendants were engaged in a conspiracy. (People
vs. No. L-35700, Oct. 53 SCRA 246, 254)
Thus, an accused ha s been held as a co-conspirator as th e cir•
cumstance s of hi s participation indubitably showed unity of purpose
and unit y in th e execution of th e unlawful acts, gleaned from that
fact tha t he kne w of th e plot to assassinat e th e victim as he too had
been ordered to scout for a ma n wh o could do th e job; he also knew
exactly the place where th e killing wa s to take place and also the date
and approximate tim e of th e assault. (People vs. Cantuba, G.R. No.
79811 , March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 289, 298)
For a collective responsibility among th e accused to be estab•

lished, it is sufficient tha t at th e time of th e aggression, all of them
acted in concert, each doing hi s part to fulfill their common design
to kill their victim, and although only one of the m ma y have actually
stabbed th e victim, th e act of tha t one is deemed to be the act of all.
(People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. 90641 , Feb. SCRA 794,
798)
The acts of the defendants must show a common design.

It is fundamental for conspiracy to exist that there must be unity
of purpose and unity in th e execution of th e unlawful objective. Here,
appellants did not act with a unity of purpose. Even assumin g that
appellants have joined together in the killing, such circumstances
alone do not satisfy the requirement of a conspiracy because the rule
is that neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient proof
of conspiracy. It mus t be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly
as the commission of the offense itself. Obedience to a command does
not necessarily show concert of design, for at any rate it is the acts of
the conspirators that show their common design.
Although the defendants are relatives and had acted with some degree
of simultaneity in attacking their victim, nevertheless, this
127
COMMIT FELONY
fact alone does not prove conspiracy. (People vs. No.

Nov. 29, 1973, 54 SCRA 172, 186-188)
People vs.
(167 439)
Facts: The deceased Miranda, a 25-year-old retardate, and the

accused Pugay were friends. On the evening of May 19, 1982, while
a town fiesta was being held in the public the group of accused
Pugay and Samson saw the deceased walking nearby, and started mak•
ing fun of him. Not content with what they were doing, accused Pugay
suddenly took a can of gasoline from under the engine of a wheel
and poured its contents on the body of Miranda. Then, the accused
Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him.
Held: Where there is nothing in the records showing that there
was previous conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose between the
two accused immediately before the commission of the crime, where
there was no animosity between the deceased and the accused and it
is clear that the accused merely wanted to make fun of the deceased,
the respective criminal responsibility of the accused arising from
different acts directed against the deceased is individual and not
collective, and each of them is liable only for the act committed by
him.
Period of time to afford opportunity for meditation and reflection, not

required in conspiracy.
Unlike in evident premeditation, where a sufficient period of time
must elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection and
for the perpetrator to deliberate on th e consequences of his intended
deed (U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil. 330), conspiracy arises on the very instan t
the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and
forthwith decide to pursue it. Once this assen t is established, each
and everyone of the conspirators is made criminally liable for th e
crime, committed by anyone of them . (People vs. Monroy, et 104
Phil. 759)
Art. of the Revised Penal Code punishing conspiracy.

Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.
— The penalty of prision correccional in its minimu m period or a
fine ranging from two hundred to six thousand pesos, or both, shall
be imposed upon:
128
COMMIT FELONY
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 com• merce or to prevent by
artificial mean s free competition in th e market.
2.
3. An y person who, being a manufacturer, producer,

shall combine, conspire or agree with any person x
x x for th e purpose of makin g transactions prejudicial to
lawful commerce, o r o f increasing th e market price
o f any such merchandise
Requisites of conspiracy:
That two or more persons came to an agreement;
2. That th e agreemen t concerned th e commission of a felony;
and
3. That th e execution of th e felony be decided upon.
1st element — agreemen t presupposes meetin g of the minds
of two or more persons.
Thus, th e fact tha t a document is discovered purporting to be
a commission appointing th e defendant an officer of armed forces
against the Government does not prove conspiracy, because it wa s
not shown that defendant received or accepted that commission. (U.S.
vs. Villarino, 5 Phil. 697)
2nd element — th e agreement mus t refer to the commission of
a crime. It mus t be an agreement to act, to effect,
to bring about wha t ha s already been conceived
and determined.
Thus, the mere fact that the defendant met and aired some complaints,
showing discontent with the Government over some real or fancied evils, is
not sufficient. (U.S. vs. Figueras, 2 Phil. 491)
3rd element — the conspirators have made up their minds to
commit the crime. There must be a determina•
tion to commit the crime of treason, rebellion
or sedition.
129
COMMIT FELONY
Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy.

Article 8 of th e Revised Pena l Code provides that there is
conspiracy whe n two or more persons agree to commit a crime
and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential to establish
conspiracy, and may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused
before, during and after the commission of the crime. Conspiracy can
be presumed from and proven by acts of the accused themselves whe n
the said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action
and community of interests. It is not necessary to show that all the
conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. Conspiracy renders
all the conspirators as co-principals regardless of the extent and
character of their participation because in contemplation of law, the
act of one conspirator is the act of all. (People vs. Buntag, G.R. No.
123070, April 14, 2004)
Quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy.

Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, th e
elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Settled
is the rule that to estabish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation
rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is
A conspiracy mus t be established by positive and conclusive
evidence. It mus t be show n to exist as clearly and convincingly as
the commission of th e crime itself. Mere presence of a person at th e
scene of the crime does not mak e him a conspirator for conspiracy
transcends companionship.
The evidence show s tha t George Comadre and Danilo Lozano
did not have any participation in th e commission of th e crime and
mus t therefore be set free. Their mere presence at th e scene of th e
crime as well as their close relationship wit h Antonio are insufficient
to establish conspiracy considering tha t the y performed no positive
act in furtherance of th e crime.
Neither wa s it proven tha t their act of running away with An•
tonio wa s an act of giving moral assistanc e to his criminal act. The
ratiocination of th e trial court tha t "their presence provided encour•
agement and sens e of security to is devoid of any factual
basis. Such finding is not supported by th e evidence on record and
cannot therefore be a valid basis of a finding of conspiracy. (People
vs. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, Jun e 8, 2004)
130
COMMIT FELONY
The Revised Penal Code specially provides a penalty for mere

proposal in Arts. and
Art. 115. proposal to commit treason — Penalty. — The
proposal t o commit the crime o f treason shall b e punished
by prision correccional and a fine not exceeding 5,000 pesos.
Art. 136. proposal to commit coup d'etat rebellion or

insurrection. — The proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be
punished by prision mayor in its minimu m period and a fine which
shall not exceed 8,000 pesos.
Th e proposal t o commi t rebellion o r insurrection shall b e

punished x x x by prision correccional in its mediu m period and a fine
not exceedin g 2,000 pesos. (As a mende d by Rep. Act. No. 6968)
Treason or rebellion should not be actually committed.

In proposal to commit treason or rebellion, th e crime of treason
or rebellio n should not be actually committed by reason of the
proposal.
If the crime of treaso n or rebellion wa s actually committed after and
because of th e proposal, the n th e proponent would be liable for treason or
rebellion as a principal by inducement (Art. 17, par. 2), and in such case th e
proposal is not a felony.
Requisites of
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony; and
2. That he proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.
There is no criminal proposal when —

1. The person who proposes is not determined to commit the
felony.
Example: A desire s tha t th e presen t governmen t be
overthrown. But A is afraid to do it himself with others. A then
suggests the overthrowing of the government to some desperate
people who will do it at the slightest provocation. In this case,
A is not liable for proposal to commit rebellion, because A has
not decided to commit it.
131
COMMIT FELONY
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal.

In th e above example , note tha t there wa s merely a
a decided, concrete and formal proposal.
3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
Example: A conceive d th e ide a of ov erthrow in g th e
present government. A called several of his trusted followers
and instructed them to go around the country and secretly to
organize groups and to convince the m of the necessity of having
a new government. Note that wha t A proposed in this case is
not the execution of the crime of rebellion, but the performance
of preparatory acts for the commission of rebellion. Therefore,
there is no criminal proposal.
Problem:
If the proponents of rebellion desist before any rebellious act is actually
performed by the would-be material executors, inform the authorities and aid
in the arrest of their fellow plotters, should the proponents be exempt?
According to Albert, the proponents should be exempt from the
penalties provided for criminal proposals and conspiracies, for th e
law would rather prevent tha n punis h crimes and encouragement
should be given to those who hearke n to the voice of conscience.
But once a proposal to commit rebellion is made by the propo•
nent to another person, th e crime of proposal to commit rebellion
is consummated and th e desistance of th e proponent cannot legally
exempt hi m from criminal liability.
It is not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is

made agrees to commit treason or rebellion.
Note that what constitutes the felony of proposal to commit treason
or rebellion is the making of proposal. The law does not require that
the proposal be accepted by the person to whom the proposal is made.
If it is accepted, it may be conspiracy to commit treason or rebellion,
because there would be an agreement and a decision to commit it.
Proposal as an overt act of corruption of public officer.

One who offers money to a public officer to induce him not to
perform his duties, but the offer is rejected by the public officer, is
132
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES Art. 9
ACCORDING TO THEIR GRAVITY
liable for attempted bribery. (U.S. vs. Gloria, 4 Phil. 341) Note that
while it is true tha t th e act performed by the offender is in the nature
of a proposal, and is not punishable because it does not involve treason
or rebellion, nevertheless, th e proposal in this case is an overt act of
the crime of corruption of public officer. (See Art. 212)
The crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable

are against the security of the State or economic security.
Treason is against the external security of the State. Coup d'etat,
rebellion and sedition are agains t internal security. Monopolies and
combinations in restraint of trade are agains t economic security.
Reason why conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime is

punishable in crimes against external and internal security
of the State.
In ordinary crimes, th e Stat e survives th e victim, and the cul•
prit cannot find in th e success of hi s work any impunity. Whereas,
in crimes against th e external and internal security of the State, if
the culprit succeeds in hi s criminal enterprise, he would obtain the
power and therefore impunity for th e crime committed. (Albert)
Art . 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies, and light felonies.

— G r a v e f e l o n i e s ar e t h o s e t o w h i c h th e la w a t t a c h e s th e
ca p ita l p u n i s h m e n t o r p e n a l t i e s w h i c h i n an y o f thei r p er io d s
ar e a fflictive , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h Art i cl e 2 5 o f thi s Code .
Les s g rav e f e l o nie s ar e thos e w h i c h th e la w p u n i s h e s wit h
p e n a l t i e s w h i c h i n t h ei r m a x i m u m p e r i o d ar e c o rrectio na l , i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h th e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d a rti cl e .
Ligh t felonie s ar e thos e infraction s o f la w fo r th e com • missio n o f
whic h th e penalt y o f arresto menor o r a fin e no t exceedin g 20 0 pesos , o r
both , i s provided .
Classification of felonies according to their gravity.

Art. 9 classifies felonies according to their gravity. The gravity
of the felonies is determined by the penalties attached to them by
law.
133
Art. 9 CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES

"To which the law attaches the capital punishment."
Capital punishment is death penalty.
2. "Or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive."
Although the word "any" is used in the phrase, whe n
the penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of two
or more distinct penalties, the higher or highest of th e
penalties mus t be an afflictive penalty.
Example: A felony punishable by prision correccional to

prision mayor is a grave felony, because the higher of the two
penalties prescribed, which is prision mayor (Art. 71), is an
afflictive penalty.
If the penalty prescribed is composed of two or more

periods corresponding to different divisible penalties, th e higher
or maximu m period mus t be that of an afflictive penalty.
Example: A felony punishable by prision correccional in

its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period is a
grave felony, because the higher period, which is the minimum
of prision mayor, is a period of an afflictive penalty.
If the penalty is composed of two periods of an afflictive

pena lt y or of tw o period s correspo ndin g to different
afflictive penalties, th e offense for which it is prescribed
is a grave felony.
Example: A felony punishable by the medium and maximum

periods of prision mayor or by prision mayor in its maximum
period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period is a grave
felony, because both prision mayor and reclusion temporal are
afflictive penalties.
The afflictive penalties in accordance with Art. 25 of this

Code are:
Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
134
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES Art. 9
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,

Prision mayor.
which in their maximum period are correc•
tional."
Whe n th e penalt y prescribe d for th e offens e i s composed
of two or more distinct penalties, the higher or highes t of th e
penalties mus t be a correctional penalty.
Example: A felony punishable by arresto menor to
is a less grave felony, because the higher of the two penalties
prescribed, which is destierro, is a correctional penalty. Arresto
menor is a light penalty.
If the penalty prescribed is composed of two or more periods

corresponding to different divisible penalties, the higher or
maximu m period mus t be tha t of correctional penalty.
Example: A felony punishable by arresto menor in its
maximum period to destierro in its minimum period is a less
grave felony, because the higher is a period of a correctional
penalty.
If the penalty is composed of two periods of a correctional

penalt y or of tw o period s correspondin g to different correctional
penalties, like destierro and arresto mayor, the offense for which it
is prescribed is a less grave felony.
The following are correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspension,
Destierro.
"The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos, or both, is provided."
When the Code provides a fine of exactly for
the commission of a felony, it is a light felony. If the amount
of the fine provided by the Code is more than P200.00,
then it is a less grave felony, because according to Art. 26,
135
Art. 10 APPLICATION OF CODE TO CRIMES
PUNISHABLE BY SPECIAL LAWS
a not exceeding P6,000.0 0 is a correctional penalty. If

the amount of the fine provided by the Code is more than
it is a grave felony, because according to Art.
26, a fine exceeding is an afflictive penalty.
Although Art. 26 provides that a fine not less tha n
is a correctional penalty, Art. 9 which defines light
felonies should prevail, because the latter classifies felonies
according to their gravity, while the former classifies the
fine according to the amount thereof.
Gambling punished wit h arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding is a light felony. (People vs. Canson,
101 Phil. 537)
A felony punishable by a fine not exceeding P200.0 0 and

censure (Art. 365, paragraph 4) is a light felony, because public
censure, like arresto menor, is a light penalty.
Art . 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions this Code. — Of•
f e n s e s w h i c h ar e o r i n th e f u t u r e ma y b e p u n i s h a b l e u n d e r
sp ec ia l la w s ar e no t s u b j e c t t o th e p r o v i s i o n s o f thi s Co de .
Thi s Co d e sha l l b e s u p p l e m e n t a r y t o s u c h l a w s , u n l e s s th e
la t te r s h o u l d s p e c i a l l y p r o v i d e th e c o n t r a r y .
Are offenses punishable under special laws subject to the

provisions of the Revised Penal Code?
Article 10 is composed of two clauses. In th e first, it is provided
that offenses under special law s are not subject to the provisions
of the Code. The second make s th e Code supplementar y to such
laws.
The two clauses of Art. reconciled.

The first clause should be understood to mea n only that the Penal Code
is not intended to supersede special penal laws. The latter are controlling with
regard to offenses therein specially punished. Said clause only restates the
elemental rule of statutory construction that special legal provisions prevail
over general ones.
136
APPLICATION OF CODE TO CRIMES Art. 10
The second clause contains th e soul of th e article. The main

idea and purpose of th e article is embodied in the provision that the
"Code shall be supplementary" to special laws, unless the latter should
specially provide th e contrary. (Dissent of Justice Perfecto, People vs.
Gonzales, 82 Phil. 307)

"Special
A "special law" is defined in U.S. vs. Serapio, 23 Phil.
584, as a penal law which punishe s acts not and
penalized by th e Penal Code.
Special la w is a statut e enacted by th e Legislative

branch, penal in character, which is not an amendmen t to
th e Revised Pena l Code. Special law s usually follow the
form of American penal The penal for exam•
ple, provides a penalty of from five to te n years or a fine
not exceeding P5,000.00 , or both, in the discretion of the
court.
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on penalties cannot

be applied to offenses punishable under special laws.
Art. 6 relative to attempted and frustrated stage s of execution,
Arts. 18 and 19 regarding accomplices and accessories, and Arts. 50
to 57 which provide tha t th e penalty for the principal in an attempted
felony is two degrees and in a frustrated felony one degree lower
than the penalty for the consummated felony, that the penalty for
the accomplice is one degree lower and for the accessory two degrees
lower tha n that for the consummated felony, Arts. 13 and 14 which
provide for mitigating and aggravating circumstances, respectively,
and Art. 64 which provides for the rules for the application of penalties
with three periods, cannot be applied to offenses punishable under
special laws. The reasons are that the special laws do not provide
for a scale of penalties, as that in Art. 71 of the Code, where a given
penalty could be lowered by one or two and that the penalty
provided by the special law does not contain three periods.
The term "imprisonment" and not "prision correccional" should
be used in reference to the penalty for the crime of illegal possession
of firearms and other crimes punished by special laws, because the
137
term "prision correccional," "prision mayor," or "arresto mayor" is

peculiar to penalties for crimes punished by the Revised Penal Code.
(See People vs. Respecia, 107 Phil. 995)
Offenses under special laws, not subject to the provisions of

this Code relating to attempted and frustrated crimes.
By virtue of the provision of the first part of this article, it wa s
held that the attempted or the frustrated stage of the execution of
an offense penalized by a special law is not punishable, unless the
special law provides a penalty therefor. (U.S. vs. Lopez Basa, 8 Phil.
89)
The ruling in the case of U.S. vs. Basa, supra, is still good,
notwithstanding the case of Navarra vs. People, 96 Phil. 851 , where
it is stated that the prohibition against the interest in municipal
contracts includes all the steps take n to consummate the contract,
that is, frustrated and attempted stage s are included.
In the Navarra case, the exchange of the property of the husband
of a woma n councilor and tha t of th e municipality wa s approved by
the municipal council. The provisions of th e Administrative Code
charged to have been violated by th e councilor do not require tha t th e
contract be approved by th e provincial governor. In the Basa case, th e
written proposal of Councilor Basa , offering to furnish street lamp s
to the municipality, at th e price name d therein, wa s not accepted
by the municipal council, it being a violation of the law, prohibiting
public officers from becoming interested in any transaction in which
it is their official duty to intervene.
In the Navarra case, th e transaction in which the councilor
became interested havin g been approved by the municipal council,
the offense wa s consummated. In th e Basa case, th e proposal, not
having been accepted by th e municipal council, th e offense wa s only
in the attempted stage.
The special law has to fix penalties for attempted and frus•
trated crime.
The penalty for the consummated crime cannot be imposed whe n the
stage of the acts of execution is either attempted or frustrated, because the
penalty for the attempted and frustrated crime is two degrees or one degree
lower, respectively. The special law does not
138
provide for a penalty one or two degrees lower tha n that provided for
the consummated stage. The special law ha s to fix a penalty for the
attempt and a penalty for the frustration of the crime defined by it, in
order that the crime may be punished in case its commission reached
only the attempted or frustrated stage of execution.
When a special law covers the mere attempt to commit the

crime by it, the attempted stage is punishable by the
same penalty provided by that law.
Whe n th e accuse d wa s abou t t o board a plan e o f th e Pa n American
World Airways, four pieces of gold bullion were found tied to his body. He wa s
charged wit h a violation of Republic Act No. 265.
Held: Section 4 of Circular No . issued in accordance with the
provisions of Republic Act No. 265, provides that "any person desiring
to export gold in any form mus t obtain a license from the Central
Bank x x x." This section explicitly applies to "any person desiring to
export gold" and hence, it contemplates the situation existing prior
to th e consummation of th e exportation. Indeed, its purpose would
be defeated if th e penal sanction were deferred until after th e article
in question had left th e Philippines, for jurisdiction over it and over
th e guilty party would be lost thereby. (People vs. Jolliffe, 105 Phil.
677)
Art. is not applicable to punish an accomplice under

the special law.
The offense involved is punished by Com. Act No. 466, Sec.
The penalty imposed is clearly intended only for th e "person who is
found in possession" of the prohibited article. No punishment for a
mere accomplice is provided. Although by Article 10 of the Revised
Penal Code, its provisions may be applied to offenses punished by
special laws in a supplementary manner, the pertinent provisions
thereof on accomplices simply cannot be given effect in the case at
bar. To be able to do so, the rules on graduation of penalties must
be resorted to. Thus, Article 52 thereof prescribes for the accomplice
in a consummated offense a penalty one degree lower than that
prescribed for the principal therein. But, the penalty provided in
Section 174 of the National Internal Revenue Code here involved,
is a single penalty standing by itself without any provision therein
as to degrees of penalties imposable. No room for the application of
139
the rule of graduation of penalties therefore exists. It would be a

legal impossibility to determine what penalty is to be imposed upon
a mere accomplice. The combined provisions of both the Revised
Penal Code and the National Internal Revenue Code do not provide
any such penalty or at least lay down the basis or the manner of
its determination. The rule is and ha s always been nullum crimen
nulla poena sine lege. Hence, even if appellant is conceded to have
performed acts which would make of him an accomplice, it would
nevertheless be impossible to impose any penalty upon him because
of the demonstrated inapplicability of the principles of the Revised
Penal Code on accomplices to the case at bar. (Dissenting opinion,
People vs. Padaong, 10 C.A. Rep. 979)
Plea of guilty is not mitigating in illegal possession of

arms, punished by special law.
The plea of guilty as mitigating circumstance under the Revised Penal
Code (Art. 13, par. 7) is not available to offenses punishable under special
laws. (People vs. Noble, 77 Phil. 1086)
Offenses which are punishable under the special laws are not
subject to the provisions of Art. 64 of th e Revised Penal Code, and
it has been held that the provisions of th e Revised Penal Code, rela•
tive to the application of th e circumstances modifying the criminal
liability of the accused are not applicable to special laws. (People vs.
Respecia, 107 Phil. 995)
Art. 64 of th e Revised Pena l Code prescribing th e rules for th e
graduation of penaltie s containin g three periods whe n mitigatin g
and/or aggravating circumstance s attended th e commission of th e
crime, wa s held inapplicable to offenses penalized by special laws ,
because the penalty prescribed by special law is usually indeterminate
and does not contain three periods. For thi s reason, th e mitigatin g
circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty is not considered to mitigate
the liability of one accused of illegal possessio n of firearms. (People
vs. Ramos, 44 O.G. 3288 ; People vs . Gonzales, 82 Phil. 307)
This Code considered supplementary to special laws.

2. "Supplementary"
The word "supplementary" mean s supplying wha t is
lacking; additional.
140
Some provisions of the Pena l Code (especially with the addition

of the second sentenc e of Art. 10), are perfectly applicable to special
laws. In fact, th e Supreme Court ha s extended some provisions of the
Penal Code to special penal laws , suc h as , th e provisions of Article
22 wit h reference to th e retroactive effect of penal law s if the y favor
the accused (People vs. 44 Phil. 437); those of Article 17 with
reference to participation of principals in the commission of the crime
(U.S. vs . Ponte, 20 Phil. 379); thos e of Article 39 wit h reference to
subsidiary imprisonmen t in case of insolvency to pay the fine (People
vs. Abedes, 26 8 SCRA 619); and those of Article 45 with reference
to th e confiscation of th e instruments used in the commission of the
crime. (U.S. vs. 28 Phil. 305)
Indemnity and subsidiary imprisonment in the Revised Penal

Code applied to violation of Motor Vehicle Law.
People vs. Moreno
(60 Phil. 712)
Facts: The accused drove a car in a reckless manner, and in going
around a curve leading to a concrete bridge, he violently struck the
railing of the bridge and crushed the left side of the car. The person who
was seated on the left side of the car received injuries from which he died
the same day. The accused was convicted of homicide thru reckless
imprudence and violation of the Motor Vehicle Law (Act No. 3992). That
special law has no provision regarding indemnity to heirs of the deceased
and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. In Articles 39 and
100 of the Revised Penal Code, indemnity to heirs and subsidiary
imprisonment are, respectively, provided.
Held: Articles 39 and 100 of the Revised Penal Code are supple•
mentary to the Motor Vehicle Law.
Art. 39 of the Code applied to Rep. Act No. 145.

The appellant who wa s found guilty of a violation of Rep. Act No.
145, penalizing unlawful solicitation of, or contract for, fees relative
to claim for benefits under statutes of the U.S. being administered by
the U.S. Veterans Administration, was sentenced to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment (Art. 39) should he fail to pay to the offended party
the indemnity awarded to the latter. (People vs. Lardizabal, CA-G.R.
Nos. to 11543, Aug. 22, 1955)
141
Art. 39 the Code applied to Act No. 4003.

Appellant's contention that the trial court committed error in
ordering him to serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
in the paymen t of fine for th e reason tha t Act No. 4003 , which
prohibits fishing with the use of explosives, fails to provide for such
subsidiary imprisonment and that being a special law, it is not subject
to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, is untenable. The second
paragraph of Article 10 of the said Code provides that "this Code shall
be supplementary to such laws, unles s the latter should specially
provide the contrary." Articles 100 (civil liability) and 39 (subsidiary
penalty) are applicable to offenses under special laws (People vs.
Dizon 97 Phil. 1007). (People vs. Cubelo, 106 Phil. 496)
No accessory penalty, unless the special law provides there•

for.
In the case of People vs. Santos, 44 O.G. 1289, the Court of
Appeals refused to impose accessory penalty upon the accused found
guilty of a violation of Act 3992 , because tha t law does not provide
for any.
Article paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, applied to

minor over nine but less than fifteen years old who violated
a special law.
People vs. Navarro

(C.A., 51 O.G. 4062)
Facts: A girl, 13 years, months, and 3 days old, was prosecuted

for selling cocoa more than the selling price fixed by the
government. The prosecution failed to establish that she acted with
discernment.
Held: The state has the burden of proving that the minor acted
with discernment, otherwise, such minor shall be adjudged to be
criminally irresponsible solely by reason of her age showing lack
of intelligence. Article 12, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code
applied.
In the above-mentioned case, th e accused wa s prosecuted under

a special law. Intent is immaterial in crimes mala prohibita. Bu t
even in crimes mala prohibita, the prohibited act mus t be voluntarily
142
committed. The offender mus t act wit h intelligence. In said case, the accused
acted without intelligence.
3. "Unless the latter should specially provide the contrary."

Th e fac t tha t C o m mo n w e a l t h Ac t No . 46 5 p u n i s h e s th e
falsification of residence certificates in th e cases mentioned therein
does not prevent th e application of th e general provisions of th e
Revised Penal Code on other acts of falsification not covered by the
special law, since under Art. 10 of th e Revised Penal Code it ha s
supplementary application to all special laws, unless the latter should
specially provide the contrary, and Commonwealth Act No. 465 makes
no provision tha t it exclusively applies to all falsifications of residence
certificates. (People vs. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913 , 919-920)
Special laws amending the Revised Penal Code are subject

to its provisions.
P.D. No. 533 is not a special law, entirely distinct from and
unrelated to th e Revised Pena l Code. From th e nature of the penalty
impose d whic h is in term s of th e classification and duration of
penalties as prescribed in th e Revised Penal Code, which is not for
penalties as are ordinarily imposed in special laws, the intent seem s
clear tha t P.D. No. 53 3 shall be deemed as an amendmen t of the
Revised Penal Code, wit h respect to th e offense of theft of large cattle
(Art. 310), or otherwise to be subject to applicable provisions thereof
such as Article 104 of th e Revised Penal Code on civil liability of the
offender, a provision which is not found in the decree, but which could
not have been intended to be discarded or eliminated by the decree.
Article 64 of the sam e Code should, likewise, be applicable, under
which the presence of two mitigating circumstances, that of plea of
guilty and extreme poverty, without any aggravating circumstances
to offset them, entitles the accused to a lowering by one degree of the
penalty for the offense. (People vs. Macatanda, No. Nov. 6,
1981, 109 SCRA 35, 40-41)
143
Chapter Two
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
The circumstances affecting criminal liability are:

I. circumstances (Art.
II. Exempting circumstances (Art. 12), and other absolutory causes
(Arts. 20; 124, last 280, last 332; 344; etc.)
III. Mitigating circumstances (Art. 13)
IV. Aggravating circumstances (Art. 14)
V. Alternative circumstances (Art. 15)
Imputability, defined.
Imputability is th e quality by which an act ma y be ascribed to a person
as its author or owner. It implies tha t th e act committed ha s been freely and
consciously done and may, therefore, be put down to the doer as his very
own. (Albert)
Responsibility, defined.
Responsibility is th e obligation of suffering th e consequences of
crime. It is the obligation of takin g th e penal and civil consequences
of the crime. (Albert)
Imputability, distinguished from responsibility.

While imputabilit y implie s tha t ma y b e impute d t o
a person, responsibilit y implie s tha t perso n mus t tak e th e
consequence of such a deed. (Albert)
Meaning of "guilt."
Guilt is an element of responsibility, for a ma n cannot be made to
answer for the consequences of a crime unles s he is guilty. (Albert)
144
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 11
Self-Defense
I. . Justifyin g Circumstances .
1. Definition
Justifying circumstances are those where the act of

a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such
person is deemed not to hav e transgressed the law and is
free from both criminal and civil liability.
There is no civil liability, except in par. 4 of Art.
where th e civil liability is borne by th e persons benefited
by the act.
2. Basis justifying circumstances.
The law recognizes th e non-existence of a crime by

expressly statin g in the opening sentence of Article that
th e persons therein mentioned not incur any criminal
liability."
Art . 11 . Justifying — Th e f o l l o w i n g do no t
i n c u r an y c r i mi n a l l i a b i l i t y :
Anyon e wh o act s i n defens e o f hi s perso n o r rights , provide d
tha t th e followin g circumstance s concur :
First. Unlawfu l aggression ;
Second. Reasonabl e necessit y o f th e mean s employe d t o preven t o r
repe l it;
Third. Lac k o f sufficien t provocatio n o n th e par t o f th e perso n
defendin g himself .
2. . A n y o n e wh o act s i n d ef e n s e o f th e perso n o r right s
o f hi s spo u se , a s c e n d a n t s , d e s c e n d a n t s , o r leg iti ma te , na tura l ,
o r a do pte d bro t her s o r sisters , o r o f hi s rela tiv e s b y affinity i n
th e sam e deg rees , an d tho s e b y c o n s a n g u i n i t y w ithi n th e fourt h
civil deg ree , p r o v i d e d tha t th e f irs t an d seco n d req ui s ite s
prescribe d nex t p r e c e d i n g c i r c u ms t a n c e ar e present , an d th e
furthe r requisite , i n cas e th e p r o v o c a t i o n wa s give n b y th e perso
n at•
tacked , tha t th e on e m a k i n g d ef e n s e ha d n o par t therein .
3. A n y o n e wh o act s i n d e f e n s e o f th e p e r s o n o r rig ht s
o f a s t ra n g er , p r o v i d e d tha t th e firs t an d s e c o n d r e q u i s i t e s
145
Art. 11 JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
m e n t i o n e d i n th e first c i r c u ms t a n c e o f thi s articl e ar e presen t

an d tha t th e p e r s o n d e f e n d i n g b e no t i n d u c e d b y r e v e n g e ,
r e s e n t m e n t o r o t h e r evi l mo t i v e .
4 . An y p e r s o n w h o , i n o rde r t o a v o i d a n evi l o r injury ,
do e s a n ac t w h i c h c a u s e s d a ma g e t o a n o t h e r , p r o v i d e d tha t
th e f o l l o w i n g r e q u i s i t e s ar e p r e s e n t :
First. Tha t th e evi l sough t t o b e avoide d actuall y exists ;
Second. Tha t th e inj ur y f ea re d b e g r ea te r tha n tha t don e
t o a v o i d it .
Third. Tha t ther e b e n o othe r practica l an d les s harmfu l mean s o f
preventin g it .
5 . An y p e r s o n w h o act s i n th e ful fi ll men t o f a dut y o r
i n th e la w fu l e x e r c i s e o f a r ig h t o r office .
6 . An y p e r s o n w h o a ct s i n o b e d i e n c e t o a n orde r i s s u e d
b y a s u p e r i o r fo r so m e l a w f u l p u r p o s e .
There is no crime committed, the act being justified.

In stating that th e persons mentioned therein "do not incur any
criminal liability," Article recognizes th e acts of such persons as justified.
Such persons are not criminals, as there is no crime com• mitted.
Burden of proof.
The circumstances mentioned in Art. are matters of defense
and it is incumbent upon th e accused, in order to avoid criminal li•
ability, to prove th e justifying circumstance claimed by hi m to th e
satisfaction of th e court.
Self-defense.
Well-entrenched is th e rule tha t where th e accused invokes self-
defense, it is incumbent upon hi m to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself. He mus t rely
on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weaknes s of the
prosecution. For, eve n if th e prosecution evidence is weak, it could
not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted th e killing.
146
Self-Defense Par. 1
(People vs. Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, Sept. SCRA

People vs. Rey, G.R. No. 80089 , April 13, 1989, 172 SCRA 149, 156;
People vs. 75 Phil. 772, 777)
Self-defense , mus t b e proved wit h certaint y b y sufficient,
satisfactory and convincing evidence tha t excludes any vestige of
criminal aggression on the part of th e person invoking it and it cannot
be justifiably entertained wher e it is not only uncorroborated by any
separate competent evidence but, in itself, is extremely doubtful.
(People vs. Mercado, No. L-33492, March 30 , 1988, 159 SCRA 453 ,
458; People vs . Jr., No . March 28, 1980, 96
SCRA 573 , 584)
In self-defense, th e burden of proof rests upon the accused. His
duty is to establish self-defense by clear and convincing evidence,
otherwise, conviction would follow from hi s admission that he killed
th e victim. He mus t rely on th e strengt h of hi s own evidence and not
on the weaknes s of tha t for th e prosecution. (People vs. Clemente,
G.R. No . L-23463 , Septembe r 28 , 1967, 21 SCRA 261 ; People vs.
Talaboc, Jr., G.R. No. L-25004, October SCRA 87; People
vs. G.R. No. Januar y SCRA 245; People
vs. Montejo, No. L-68857, Nov. 21 , 1988, 167 SCRA 506, 512; People
vs. Corecor, No. March 21 , 1988, 159 SCRA 84, 87)
The plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it

is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but in
itself is extremely doubtful. (People vs. Flores, L-24526, February 29,
SCRA 342; Ebajan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 77930-31,
Feb. 9, 1989, 170 SCRA 178, 189; People vs. Orongan, No.
Dec. SCRA 586, 597-598; People vs. Mendoza, [CA] 52
O.G. 6233)
Par. 1. - SELF-DEFENSE .
Anyone who acts in defense his person or rights, provided
that the following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
147
Par. 1 Self-Defense
Rights included in self-defense.

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 enjoyment of which is protected by law.
from the right to life on which rests the legitimate defense
of our person, we have the right to property acquired by us, and the
right to honor which is not the least prized of man's patrimony."
Viada, 172, 173, 5th edition)
Reason why penal law makes self-defense lawful.

Because it would be quite impossible for the State in all cases to
prevent aggression upon its citizens (and even foreigners, of course)
and offer protection to the person unjustly attacked. On the other
hand, it cannot be conceived tha t a person should succumb to an
unlawful aggression without offering any resistance. (Guevara)
The law on self-defense embodied in any penal syste m in th e
civilized world finds justification in man's natural instinct to protect,
repel, and save his person or rights from impending danger or peril; it
is based on tha t impulse of self-preservation born to ma n and part of
his nature as a huma n being. To th e Classicists in penal law, lawful
defense is grounded on th e impossibility on the part of the State to
avoid a present unjust aggression and protect a person unlawfully
attacked, and therefore it is inconceivable for the State to require that
the innocent succumb to an unlawful aggression without resistance,
while to the Positivists, lawful defense is an exercise of a right, an act
of social justice done to repel th e attack of an aggression.
vs. Court of Appeals, Nos. Aug. 6, 1979, 92 SCRA 567,
571-572; People vs. Boholst-Caballero, No. L-23249, Nov. 25, 1974,
61 SCRA 180, 185)
Requisites of self-defense.
There are three requisites to prove th e claim of self-defense as
stated in paragraph 1 of Article of the Revised Penal Code, namely:
unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the mean s em•
ployed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself. (People vs. Uribe, G.R. Nos.
76493-94, Feb. 182 SCRA 624, 630-631; People vs. Delgado,
G.R. No. 79672, Feb. 15, 1990, 182 SCRA 343, 349-350; People vs.
Self-Defense Par. 1
Batas, G.R. Nos . 84277-78, Aug. 2, 1989, 176 SCRA 46, People
vs. G.R. No. 82113 , Jul y SCRA 116; People
vs. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285 , Jun e 28, 1989, 174 SCRA 285, 291)
First requisite of self-defense.

Th e first requisit e of self-defense is tha t there be unlawful aggressio n o
n th e par t o f th e perso n injure d o r kille d b y th e accused.
Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite.

It is a statutory and doctrinal requirement that for the justifying
circumstance of self-defense, th e presence of unlawful aggression is
a condition sine qua non. There can be no self-defense, complete or
incomplete, unles s th e victim ha s committed an unlawful aggression
against th e person defending himself. (People vs. Sazon, G.R. No.
89684 , Sept. 18, 189 SCRA 700, 704; People vs. Bayocot, G.R.
No. 55285, Jun e citing Ortega vs.
ganbayan, G.R. No . 57664 , Feb. 8, 1989, 170 SCRA 38; Andres vs.
CA, No. L-48957, Jun e SCRA 268; People vs.
No. 72936, Jun e 18, 1987, 151 SCRA 170; People vs. 58
Phil. 586)
For th e right of defense to exist, it is necessary tha t we be

assaulted or tha t we be attacked, or at least tha t we be threatened
wit h a n attac k i n a n immedia t e and imminen t manner , as , for
example, brandishing a knife wit h which to stab us or pointing a gun
to discharge against us. (1 Viada, 5 edicion, 173, p. 3275)
If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent
or repel. The second requisite of defense will have no basis.
In th e case of People vs. 61 Phil. 786, this rule wa s
explained, as follows:
act of mortally wounding the victim has not been
preceded by aggression on th e part of th e latter. There is
no occasion to speak of necessit y of the mean s
or of on th e part of one
invoking legitimate self-defense, because both circumstances
presuppose unlawful aggression which wa s not present in the
instan t case." (p. 788)
149
Par. 1 Self-Defense
Aggression must be unlawful.

The requisite of defense says that the aggression must be
unlawful.
There are two kinds of aggression: (1) lawful, and (2) unlaw•
ful.
The fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right in a more or
less violent manner is an aggression, but it is lawful.
Thus, the act of a chief of police who used violence by throwing
stones at the accused whe n the latter wa s running away from hi m to
elude arrest for a crime committed in hi s presence, is not unlawful
aggression, it appearing that the purpose of the peace officer wa s to
capture the accused and place him under arrest. (People vs.
60 Phil. 796, 805)
So also, is the act of a policeman who, after firing five cautionary

shots into the air, aimed directly at th e escaping detainee whe n he
had already reasons to fear tha t th e latter would be able to elude
him and his pursuing companions. (Valcorza vs. People, No.
Oct. 31 , 1969, 30 SCRA 143, 149; See also vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 51206, Aug. 25, 1989, 176 SCRA 699, 708)
Article 249 of the ne w Civil Code provides that "(t)he owner or

lawful possessor of a thin g ha s th e right to exclude any person from
the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he ma y us e
such force as ma y be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an
actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of hi s
property."
Thus , under th e ne w Civil Code a person ma y us e force or
violence to protect hi s property; and if in protecting his property such
person use s force to prevent its being take n by another, the owner
of the property is not an unlawful aggressor, because he is merely
exercising a right.
Paramour surprised in the act of adultery cannot invoke self-

defense if he killed the offended husband who was assaulting
him.
In a case, th e Supreme Court, in denying the paramour's plea
of self-defense, said: "(E)ven thoug h it were true and even if th e
150
Self-Defense Par. 1
deceased did succeed in enterin g th e room in which th e accused

(the paramour and th e wife of th e deceased) were lying, and did
immediatel y thereupo n assaul t (the paramour), giving hi m several
blows wit h th e bolo whic h (the deceased) carried, tha t assaul t wa s
natural and lawful, for th e reaso n tha t it wa s made by a deceived
and offended husban d in order to defend hi s honor and rights by
punishin g th e offender of hi s honor, and if he had killed hi s wife
and (the paramour), he would hav e exercised a lawful right and
such acts would hav e fallen withi n th e sanctio n of Article 42 3 (now
Art. 247 ) of th e Pena l Code Th e (paramour) well kne w tha t by
ma inta inin g unlawful relations wit h (the deceased's wife), he wa s
performing an unlawful and criminal act and exposed himsel f to th e
vengeanc e of th e offended husband , and that , by their meetin g each
other in th e said house , he wa s runnin g th e danger of the latter's
surprising the m there, as in fact it did occur." (U.S. vs. Merced, 39
Phil. 198, 202-203 )
Meaning of unlawful aggression.

Unla w fu l a g g r e s s i o n i s e q u i v a le n t t o a ssa u l t o r a t leas t
threatened assaul t of an immediat e and imminen t kind. (People vs.
Alconga, 78 Phil. 366) There is unlawful aggression whe n the peril to
one's life, limb or right is either actual or imminent. There must be
actual physical force or actual us e of weapon. (People vs. Crisostomo,
No. Oct. 23 , 1981 , 108 SCRA 288, 298)
There mus t be an actual physical assaul t upon a person, or at
least a threat to inflict real injury.
In case of threat, th e sam e mus t be offensive and positively
strong, showing th e wrongful intent to cause an injury. (U.S. vs.
Guysayco, 13 Phil. 292 , 295)
Unlawfu l agg ressio n presuppo se s a n actual , sudden , and
unexpected attack, or imminen t danger thereof, and not merely a
threatening or intimidating attitude. (People vs. Pasco, Jr., No. L-
45715, Jun e 24, 1985, 137 SCRA 137; People vs. Bayocot, G.R. No.
55285, Jun e 28, 1989, 174 SCRA 285, 292; People vs. Rey, G.R. No.
80089, April 13, 1989, 172 SCRA 149, 156)
Unlawful aggression refers to an attack that has actually broken
out or materialized or at the very least is clearly imminent; it can•
not consist in oral threats or a merely threatening stance or posture.
151
Par. 1 Self-Defense
(People vs. Lachica, 132 SCRA 230 People vs. Tac-an, G.R.
Nos. 76338-39, Feb. 26, 1990, 182 SCRA 601 , 613) There must be a
real danger to life or personal safety. (People vs. Cagalingan, G.R.
No. 79168, Aug. 3, 1990, 188 SCRA 313, 318)
There is unlawful aggression whe n the peril to one's life, limb (People
vs. Sumicad, 56 Phil. 643, 647), or right is either actual or imminent.
When there is no peril to one's life, limb or right, there is no unlawful

aggression.
Thus , th e act of th e decease d in preventin g th e accused from
inflicting a retaliator y blow on th e perso n wh o ha d boxed th e accused is
not unlawfu l aggression . (People vs . Flores, C.A., 47
O.G. 2969 )
Wher e th e decea sed , afte r kiddin g th e accused , a nothe r
Constabulary soldier acting as sentry and singing, told the latter
that he had no voice for singing and, after words were exchanged
and while still in a spirit of fun, th e deceased seized th e accused by
the throat, whereupon th e latter killed th e deceased wit h his rifle,
it wa s held tha t th e fact tha t the deceased seized the accused by th e
throat and exerted pressure thereon in one of his frolics which he
had persistently kept up wit h notorious imprudence, and in spite
of the opposition of th e accused, cannot be considered as an illegal
aggression in the case of two companions in arms quartered in th e
same barracks. (U.S. vs. Padilla, 5 Phil. 396)
Where the deceased merely held th e hand s of th e son of th e
accused to request hi m (the son) to release the knife in order tha t
nothing untoward might happen, but he refused to do so, and in order
to avoid bloodshed, th e deceased tried to wrest th e knife from hi m
and in so doing pressed hi m agains t a coconut tree, without th e leas t
intention of harming him, the father wa s not justified in killing th e
deceased, because there wa s no unlawful aggression on the part of
the latter. (People vs. C.A., 44 O.G. 2774)
Peril to one's life.

Actual — that the danger mus t be present, that is, actually
in existence.
152
Self-Defense Par. 1
Example:
U.S. vs. Jose Laurel

(22 Phil. 252)
Facts: On the night of December 26, 1909, while the girl Con-
cepcion Lat was walking along the street, on her way from the house
of Exequiel Castillo, situated in the pueblo of Tanauan, Province of
Batangas, accompanied by several young people, she was approached
by Jose Laurel who suddenly kissed her and immediately thereafter
ran off in the direction of his house, pursued by the girl's companions,
among whom was the master of the house above-mentioned, Exequiel
Castillo, but they did not overtake him.
Early in the evening of the 28th of December, Jose Laurel went
to the parochial building, in company with several young people, for
the purpose of attending an entertainment which was to be held there.
While sitting in the front row of chairs, and while the director of the
college was delivering a discourse, Jose Laurel was approached by
Domingo Panganiban who told him that Exequiel Castillo wished to
speak with him, to which Laurel replied that he should wait a while
and thereupon Panganiban went away. A short time afterwards, he
was also approached by Alfredo Yatco who gave him a similar mes•
sage, and soon afterwards Felipe came up and told him that
Exequiel Castillo was waiting for him on the of the house.
This being the third summons addressed to him, he arose and went
down to ascertain what the said Exequiel wanted. When they met,
Exequiel asked Laurel why he kissed his (Exequiel's) sweetheart, and
on Laurel's replying that he had done so because she was very fickle
and prodigal of her use of the word on all occasions, Exequiel said
to him that he ought not to act that way and immediately struck him a
blow on the head with a cane or club, which assault made Laurel dizzy
and caused him to fall to the ground in a sitting posture and that, as
Laurel feared that his aggressor would continue to assault him, he
took hold of the pocketknife which he was carrying in his pocket and
therewith stabbed Exequiel. Among the wounds inflicted on Exequiel,
the wound in the left side of his breast was the most serious on account
of its having fully penetrated the lungs and caused him to spit blood.
He would have died, had it not been for the timely medical aid rendered
him.
Held: The defensive act executed by Jose Laurel was attended by

the three requisites of illegal aggression on the part of Exequiel Castillo,
there being lack of sufficient provocation on the part of Laurel, who
did not provoke the occurrence complained of, nor did he direct that
Exequiel Castillo be invited to come down from the parochial
153
Par. 1 Self-Defense
and arrange the interview in which Castillo alone was interested, and,
finally, because Laurel, in defending himself with a against
the assault made upon him with a cane, which may also be a deadly
weapon, employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the same.
2. Imminent — that th e danger is on the point of happening.

It is not required that the attack already begins, for it may
be too late.
Example:
People vs. Cabungcal

(51 Phil. 803)
Facts: On March the accused invited several persons to

a picnic in a fishery on his property in the barrio of Misua, municipality
of Infanta, Province of Tayabas. They spent the day at said fishery
and in the afternoon returned in two boats, one steered by the accused
and the other by an old woman named Nine
persons were in the boat steered by the accused, the great majority
of whom were women, and among them the accused's wife and son
and a nursing child, son of a married couple, who had also gone in
his boat. The deceased Juan was another passenger in
his boat. Upon reaching a place of great depth, the deceased rocked
the boat which started it to take water, and the accused, fearing the
boat might capsize asked the deceased not to do it. As the deceased
paid no attention to this warning and continued rocking the boat, the
accused struck him on the forehead with an oar. The deceased fell
into the water and was submerged, but a little while after appeared
on the surface having grasped the side of the boat, saying that he
was going to capsize it and started to move it with this end in view,
seeing which the women began to cry, whereupon the accused struck
him on the neck with the same oar, which submerged the deceased
again. The deceased died as a consequence.
Held: Due to the condition of the river at the point where the
deceased started to rock the boat, if it had capsized, the passengers
would have run the risk of losing their lives, the majority of whom
were women, especially the nursing child. The conduct of the deceased
in rocking the boat until the point of it having taken water and his
insistence on this action in spite of the accused's warning, gave rise
to the belief on the part of the accused that it would capsize if he did
not separate the deceased from the boat in such a manner as to give
him no time to accomplish his purpose. It was necessary to disable
him momentarily. For this purpose, the blow given him by the accused
on the forehead with an oar was the least that could reasonably have
154
Self-Defense Par. 1
been done. And this consideration militates with greater weight with
respect to the second blow given in his neck with the same oar, because
then the danger was greater than the boat might upset, especially as the
deceased had expressed his intention to upset it.
Although th e case involves defense of relatives and at th e sam e time

defense of strangers, it is cited here because unlawful aggression is also a
requisite in defense of relatives and in defense of strangers and ha s th e sam e
meaning .
Peril to one's limb.

Whe n a person is attacked, he is in imminen t danger of death
or harm.
The blow wit h a deadly weapon ma y be aimed at th e vital parts
of hi s body, in whic h case there is danger to hi s life; or with a less
deadly weapo n or an y other weapo n tha t can caus e minor physical
injuries only, aime d at other parts of th e body, in which case, there
is danger only to hi s limb.
The peril to one's limb ma y also be actual or only imminent.

Peril to one's limb includes peril to th e safety of one's person from
physical injuries.
An attack wit h fist blows ma y one's safety from physical
injuries. Such an attack is unlawful aggression. (People vs. Montalbo,
56 Phil. 443)
There must be actual force or actual use of weapon.

The person defending himsel f mus t have been attacked with
actual physical force or with actual use of weapon.
Thus , insulting words addresse d to th e accused, no matte r
how objectionable the y ma y hav e been , without physical assault,
could not constitut e unlawful aggression. (U.S. vs. Carrero, 9 Phil.
544)
A light push on th e hea d with the hand does not constitute
unlawfu l ag gressio n . (People vs . 61 Phil. 786) A mere
pus h or a shove , not followed by othe r acts, does not constitut e
unlawful aggression . (People vs. Sabio, G.R. No . L-23734, April
27, 1967)
155
Par. 1 Self-Defense
But a slap on the face is an unlawful aggression. Two persons

met in the street. One slapped th e face of th e other and the latter
repelled it by clubbing hi m and inflicting upon him less serious
physical injury. Held: The act of slapping another constituted th e
use of force qualifying an unlawful aggression. (Decision of th e
Supreme Court of Spain of Januar y 20, 1904; People vs. Roxas, 58
Phil. 733)
Reason why slap on the face constitutes unlawful aggression.

Since the face represents a person and his dignity, slapping it
is a serious personal attack. It is a physical assault coupled with a
willful disregard, nay, a defiance, of an individual's personality. It
may, therefore, be frequently regarded as placing in real danger a
person's dignity, rights and safety. (People vs. Sabio, G.R. No. L-23734,
April 27, 1967)
Mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient.

Mere belief of an impendin g attack is not sufficient. Neithe r is an
intimidating or threatenin g attitude. Eve n a mere push or shove not followed
by other acts placing in real peril the life or personal safety of the accused is
not unlawful aggression. (People vs. Bautista,
254 SCRA 621)
"Foot-kick greeting" is not unlawful aggression.

Teodoro Sabio wa s squattin g wit h a friend, Irving Jurilla, in a
plaza. Romeo Bacobo and two others — Ruben and Leonardo
Garcia — approached them . All of the m were close and old friends.
Romeo Bacobo the n asked Sabio wher e he spent the holy week. At
the sam e time, he gave Sabio a "foot-kick greeting," touching Sabio's
foot wit h his own left foot. Sabio thereupon stood up and dealt Romeo
Bacobo a fist blow, inflicting upon hi m a lacerated wound, 3/4 inch
long, at the upper lid of th e left eye. It took from to 12 days to
heal and prevented Romeo Bacobo from working during said period
as employee of Victorias Milling Co., Inc.
Held: A playful kick at th e foot by wa y of greeting betwee n friends may
be a practical joke, and ma y even hurt; but it is not a serious or real attack on
a person's safety. It may be a mere slight provocation. (People vs. Sabio, 19
SCRA 901)
156
Self-Defense Par. 1
No unlawful aggression, because there was no imminent and

real danger to the life or limb of the accused.
If, indeed, Rillamas did take hold of the barrel of appellant's rifle
or eve n tried to grab it, we do not believe it wa s justified for appellant
remove th e safety lock and fire" hi s weapon. In their relative
positions, appellant had more freedom of action tha n the deceased
who wa s sandwiched amon g th e three other passengers withi n the
small area of th e calesa in which the y were. In other words, between
the two of them, appellant had the better chance to win in the struggle
for th e rifle. (People vs . Riduca, No . L-26729, Jan . 55 SCRA
190, 199)
True, th e deceased acted rather belligerently, arrogantly, and
menacingly at th e accused-appellant, but such behavior did not give
rise to a situation tha t actually posed a real threat to th e life or safety
of accused-appellant. The peril to th e latter's life wa s not imminent
and actual. To constitute unlawful aggression, it is necessary that an
attack or material aggression, an offensive act positively determining
th e inten t of th e aggressor to caus e an injury shall hav e been made.
(People vs. Macaso, No . Jun e 30, 1975, 64 SCRA 659, 665-
666)
A strong retaliation for an injury or threat may amount to an

unlawful aggression.
Whe n a person who wa s insulted, slightly injured or threatened,
made a strong retaliation by attacking th e one who gave the insult,
caused th e slight injury or mad e th e threat, th e former became the
offender, and th e insult, injury or threat should be considered only as
a provocation mitigating his liability. (U.S. vs. 9 Phil. 544)
In this case, there is no self-defense.
Retaliation is not self-defense.

Retaliation is different from an act of self-defense. In retaliation,
the aggression that wa s begun by the injured party already ceased to
exist whe n the accused attacked him. In self-defense, the aggression
was still existing whe n the aggressor wa s injured or disabled by the
person making a defense.
Thus, when a person had inflicted slight physical injuries on another,
without intention to inflict other injuries, and the latter
157
Par. 1
attacked the former, the one making the attack wa s an unlawful

aggressor. The attack made wa s a retaliation. But where a person is
about to strike another with fist blows and the latter, to prevent or
repel the blows, stabs the former with a knife, the act of striking with
fist blows is an unlawful aggression which may justify the use of the
knife. If the knife is a reasonable means, there is self-defense.
The attack made by the deceased and the killing of the

deceased by defendant should succeed each other without
appreciable interval of time.
In order to justify homicide on the ground of self-defense, it
is essential tha t th e killing of th e deceased by the defendant be
simultaneous with the attack by the deceased, or at least both
acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time. (U.S.
vs. Ferrer, 1 Phil. 56)
When the killing of the deceased by the accused was after the attack
made by the deceased, the accused must have no time nor occasion for
deliberation and cool thinking.
The deceased drew his revolver and levelled it at the accused who, sensin
g th e danger to his life, sidestepped and caught th e han d of the deceased wit
h his left, thu s causing the gu n to drop to th e floor. Immediately, the accused
drew his knife, opened it and stabbed th e deceased in the abdomen.
The fact tha t whe n th e accused held th e right han d of th e
deceased, which carried th e gun, th e weapo n fell to the floor could
not be taken to mea n tha t th e unlawful aggression on the part of th e
deceased had ceased. The incident took place at nighttime in the house
of a relative of the deceased; amon g those present were a brother
and a cousin of th e deceased, said cousin having a criminal record;
and the deceased himsel f had been indicted for illegal possession of
firearm and for discharge of firearm. Unde r such circumstances, the
accused could not be expected to hav e acted with all the coolness of
a person under normal condition. Uppermost in his mind at the tim e
mus t have been the fact tha t hi s life wa s in danger and that to save
himself he had to do somethin g to stop the aggression. He had no
time nor occasion for deliberation and cool thinking because it wa s
imperative for him to act on the spot. (People vs. Arellano, C.A., 54
O.G. 7252)
158
Self-Defense Par. 1
The unlawful aggression must come from the person who

was attacked by the accused.
Although the accused was unlawfully attacked, nevertheless, the
aggressor was not the deceased but another person. Consequently, this
unlawful aggression cannot be considered in this case as an element of
self-defense, because, in order to constitute an element of self-defense, the
unlawful aggression mus t come, directly or indirectly, from the person
who was subsequently attacked by the accused. It has been so held by
the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision of May nor can such
element of unlawful aggression be considered present when the author
thereof is unknown, as wa s held in the decision of February of
said Supreme Court. (People vs. Gutierrez, 53 Phil. 609, 611)
The alleged act of th e victim in placing hi s han d in his pocket,

as if he wa s going to draw out something, cannot be characterized
as unlawful aggression. On th e other hand , th e accused wa s the
aggressor. Hi s act of armin g himsel f wit h a bolo and following
and overtaking th e group of th e victim show s that he had formed
th e resolution of liquidating th e victim. There being no unlawful
aggression, there could be no self-defense. (People vs. Calantoc, No. L-
27892, Jan . 31 , 1974, 55 SCRA 458 , 463-464)
A public officer exceeding his authority may become an

unlawful aggressor.
Thus, a provincial sheriff who, in carrying out a writ of execution,
exceeded his authority by taking against the will of th e judgment
debtor persona l property wit h sent i menta l valu e t o th e latter,
although other personal property sufficient to satisfy the claim of the
plaintiff was made available to said sheriff, wa s an unlawful aggressor
and the debtor had a right to repel the unlawful aggression. (People
vs. Hernandez, 59 Phil. 343)
The lawful possessor of a fishing net wa s justified in using force
to repel seizure by a peace officer who wa s making it without order
from the court. (People vs. [CA] 36 O.G. 54)
Nature, character, location, and extent of wound of the accused

allegedly inflicted by the injured party may belie claim of self-
defense.
1. The accused, claimin g self-defense, exhibited a small
159
Par. 1 Self-Defense
scar 1/2 inches long) caused by an instrument on his

head. Held: The exhibitio n of a smal l woun d shortly
after the occurrence does not meet the requirement for
— paraphrasing the Supreme Court — "if in order to be
exempt from military service there are those who mutilate
themselves or cause others to mutilate them, who would
not wound himself slightly in order to escape" the penalty
of reclusion temporal prescribed for the crime of homicide?
(People vs. 52 Phil. 94, 96)
2. The location, number and seriousness of the stab wounds
inflicted on th e victims belie th e claim of self-defense. One
of the victims alone sustaine d twenty-one (21) wounds.
(People vs. Batas, G.R. Nos . 84277-78, Aug. 2, 1989, 176
SCRA 46, 53, 54)
3. The nature, character, location and extent of the wound s
suffered by th e decease d belie an y supposition tha t it
wa s the deceased wh o wa s th e unlawful aggressor. "The
nature and number of wound s inflicted by an assailan t
[are] constantly and unremittingly considered important
indicia which disprove a plea of self-defense." (People vs .
G.R. No. Nov. SCRA 35, 43)
The deceased suffered three stab wounds, two of which
were fatal, and one incised wound. (People vs. Marciales,
No. Oct. 18, 1988, 166 SCRA 436, 443)
Appellant's theory of self-defense is negatived by the nature
and location of th e victim's wound s which, having a right-
to-left direction, could not hav e possibly been inflicted by a
right-handed person in front of th e victim wit h a two-feet
long bolo. (People vs. Labis, No. L-22087, Nov. 15, 1967,
21 SCRA 875, 882)
5. In view of th e number of wound s of th e deceased, ninetee n
in number, th e plea of self-defense cannot be seriously
So it ha s been constantly and uninterruptedly
held by th e Supreme Court from U.S. vs. Gonzales (8 Phil.
443 to People vs. Constantino (L-23558, Aug. 10,
1967, 20 SCRA 940), a spa n of sixty (60) years. (People vs.
Panganiban, No . L-22476, Feb. 27, 1968, 22 SCRA 817,
823)
160
Self-Defense Par. 1
6. The accused wa s th e only eyewitnes s to th e crime. He

admitted tha t he killed th e deceased, but advanced the
clai m tha t he acte d in self-defense. Held: The actual,
undisput ed , physica l facts flatly contradict th e whol e
theor y of self-defense. Th e nature , character, location
and exten t of th e wound, as testified to by the doctor who
had examine d th e wound, clearly show tha t th e deceased
wa s struck either from behind or while hi s body wa s in a
reclining position, from which it follows that th e accused
did not act in self-defense. (People vs. Tolentino, 54 Phil.
77, 80)
Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor belies the

claim of self-defense.
It wa s unlikely tha t a sexagenaria n would have gone to the
extent of assaultin g th e 24-year-old accused who wa s armed with
a gun and a bolo, jus t because th e latter refused to give him a pig.
(People vs . Diaz, No . L-24002, Jan . 21 , 1974, 55 SCRA 178, 184)
It is hard to believe tha t th e deceased, an old ma n of 55 years
sick wit h ulcer, would still press hi s attack and continue hacking the
accused after havin g been seriously injured and had lost his right
hand. (People vs. No. Jan . 23, 1974, 55 SCRA 245,
253-254)
The fact that the accused declined to give any statement when
he surrendered to a policeman is inconsistent with the plea
of self-defense.
Whe n the accused surrendered to the policemen, he declined to
give any statement, which is th e natural course of things he would
have done if he had acted merely to defend himself. A protestation
of innocence or justification is the logical and spontaneous reaction
of a ma n who finds himself in such an inculpatory predicament as
that in which the policemen came upon him still clutching the death
weapon and his victim dying before him. (People vs. Manansala, No.
Feb. 17, 1970, 31 SCRA 401 , 404)
The accused did not act in self-defense because, if he had done
so, that circumstance would have been included in his confession. He
never declared in his confession that he acted in self-defense. Had
161
Par. 1 Self-Defense
he acted in self-defense, he should have reported the incident to the police of

the three towns, the poblacion of which he passed whe n he fled from the
scene of the incident. (People vs. De la Cruz, No. L-45485, Sept. 19, 1978, 85
SCRA 285, 291; See also People vs. Delgado, G.R.
No. 79672, Feb. 15, 1990, 182 SCRA 343, 350)
Physical fact may determine whether or not the accused acted

in self-defense.
In People vs. Dorico (No. Nov. 29, 1973, 54 SCRA
172, 184), where the accused claimed self-defense by alleging tha t
he stabbed the victim twice whe n th e latter lunged at the accused
to grab the latter's bolo, it wa s observed tha t if this were true, the
victim would have been hit in front. The evidence showed, however,
that the wounds were inflicted from behind.
The physical fact belies th e claim of self-defense. The revolver
of the deceased wa s still tucked inside th e waistband of his pant s
which is indicative of hi s unpreparedness whe n he wa s fired upon
simultaneously by th e accused wit h their weapons.
The fact tha t the deceased received a total of 13 gunshot wounds is
inconsistent wit h th e claim tha t th e deceased wa s fired upon in self-
defense. (People vs. Perez, No. L-28583, April SCRA 603 ,
610)
In People vs. Aquino (No. L-32390 , Dec. 28 , 1973 , 54 SCRA
409), th e plea of self-defense wa s sustained . There were conflict•
ing versions as to how th e victim wa s shot but th e Suprem e Court
sustaine d th e version of th e accused as bein g in accord wit h th e
physical evidence. The prosecution tried to prove tha t th e victim
wa s standin g about tw o or thre e meter s awa y from th e truck wher e
th e accused wa s seate d a s driver and tha t th e accused, without an y
exchange of words, shot th e victim. Th e accused, on th e other hand ,
claimed tha t th e victim wen t up th e runnin g board of th e truck,
after pulling out a "balisong," and hel d on to th e windshiel d frame.
Whe n th e victim lunged wit h hi s knife, th e accused leaned far right,
at th e sam e tim e parrying th e han d of th e victim wh o switched to
a stabbing position and, at tha t mo ment , th e accused, wh o wa s
already leanin g almos t prone on th e driver's seat, got hi s gu n from
th e tool box and shot th e victim. Th e Court considered th e physical
objective facts as not only consisten t with , but confirming strongly,
th e plea of self-defense. Th e direction and trajectory of th e bullets
162
Self-Defense Par. 1
would hav e been different had th e victim bee n standin g upright two or thre e
meter s to th e left of th e truck.
When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer

exists.
Whe n unlawful aggression which ha s begun no longer exists,
because th e aggressor runs away, th e one making a defense has no
more right to kill or eve n to wound th e former aggressor.
People vs. Alconga, et al.

(78 Phil. 366)
Facts: The deceased was the banker in a game of black jack.

The accused posted himself behind the deceased acting as a spotter
of the cards and communicating by signs to his partner. Upon
discovering the trick, the deceased and the accused almost came
to blows. Subsequently, while the accused was seated on a bench
the deceased came and forthwith gave a blow with a "pingahan,"
but the accused avoided the blow by crawling under the bench. The
deceased continued with second and third blows, and the accused
in a crawling position fired his revolver. A hand to hand fight
ensued, the deceased with his dagger and the accused using his bolo.
Having sustained several wounds, the deceased ran away, but was
followed by the accused and another fight took place, during which
a mortal blow was delivered by the accused, slashing the cranium
of the deceased.
Held: There were two stages in the fight between the accused and
the deceased. During the first stage of the fight, the accused in inflicting
several wounds upon the deceased acted in self-defense, because then the
deceased, who had attacked the accused with repeated blows, was the
unlawful aggressor. But when the deceased after receiving several
wounds, ran away, from that moment there was no longer any danger to
the life of the accused who, being virtually unscathed, could have chosen
to remain where he was and when he pursued the deceased, fatally
wounding him upon overtaking him, Alconga was no longer acting in
self-defense, because the aggression begun by the deceased ceased from
the moment he took to his heels.
In a case where the deceased, who appeared to be the first

aggressor, ran out of bullets and fled, and the accused pursued him
and, after overtaking him, inflicted several wounds on the posterior
side of his body, it wa s held that in such a situation the accused
should have stayed his hand, and not having done so he was guilty of
163
Par. 1 Self-Defense
homicide. (People vs. Del C.A., 58 O.G. 7879, citing decisions

of the Supreme Court)
Retreat to take more advantageous position.

If it is clear that the purpose of the aggressor in retreating is to
take a more advantageous position to insure the success of the attack
already begun by him, the unlawful aggression is considered still
continuing, and the one making a defense ha s a right to pursue hi m
in his retreat and to disable him.
No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight.

1. No unlawful aggression in concerted fight, as whe n th e
accused and the deceased, after an altercation in a bar,
agreed to fight, wen t to a store and purchased two knives;
that thereafter, the accused repeatedly expressed his desire
and wis h to th e deceased not to fight, and that the former
begged th e latter tha t there be no fight betwee n them ,
and that th e deceased paid no heed to such request and
attacked the accused; but th e accused succeeded in killing
the deceased. It wa s held that the aggression wa s reciprocal
and legitimate as betwee n two contending parties. (U.S.
vs. Navarro, 7 Phil. 713; See also People vs. Marasigan,
51 Phil. 701 and People vs. Gondayao, 30 SCRA 226)
2. There is agreement to fight in this case.
Whe n the accused, pursued by th e deceased, reached his
house, he picked up a pestle and, turning towards the deceased,
faced him, saying: "Come on if you are brave," and the n attacking
and killing him. It wa s held that th e accused did not act in self-
defense, for wha t he did after believing himsel f to be duly armed,
wa s to agree to th e fight. (People vs . Monteroso, 51 Phil. 815)
3. The challenge to a fight must be accepted.
If the deceased challenged th e accused to a fight and
forthwith rushed towards th e latter with a bolo in his hand,
so tha t th e accused had to defend himself by stabbing the
deceased with a knife, th e accused, not having accepted the
challenge, acted in self-defense. (People vs. Del Pilar, C.A.,
44 O.G. 596)
164
Self-Defense Par. 1
Reason for the rule.

Where th e fight is agreed upon, each of th e protagonists is at
once assailant and assaulted, and neither can invoke the right of self-
defense, because aggression which is an incident in the fight is bound
to arise from one or th e other of th e combatants. (People vs. Quinto,
55 Phil.
Whe n parties mutuall y agre e to fight, it is immateria l who attacks or

receives th e wound first, for th e first act of force is an incident of th e fight
itself and in no wis e is it an unwarranted and unexpected aggression which
alone can legalize self-defense. (U.S. vs. 36 Phil. 837; People vs. Marasigan, 51
et Phil. 701; People
vs. 56 Phil. 19; People vs . Neri, 77 Phil. 1091)
Aggression which is ahead of the stipulated time and place

is unlawful.
Where there wa s a mutua l agreemen t to fight, an aggression
ahea d of th e stipulate d tim e an d place woul d be unlawful. The
acceptance of th e challenge did not place on th e offended party the
burden of preparing to mee t an assaul t at an y tim e eve n before
reaching th e appointed tim e and place for th e agreed encounter, and
any such aggression wa s patently illegal. (Severino Justo vs. Court
of Appeals, 53 O.G. 4083)
Illustration:
A and B were in th e office of a division superintendent of
schools. A and B ha d an altercation. A grabbed a lead paper
weight from a table and challenged B to go out, to fight outside
the building. A left th e office, followed by B. When they were in
front of the table of a clerk, B asked A to put down the paper
weight but instead A grabbed th e neck and collar of the polo
shirt of B which wa s torn. B boxed A several times.
In this case, the aggression made by A which took place before he
and B could go out of th e buildin g is unlawful, notwithstanding their
agreement to fight.
One who voluntarily joined a cannot claim self-defense.

The court a quo rejected the claim of self-defense interposed by
the appellant. We find that such plea cannot be availed of because no
165
Par. 1
unlawful aggression, so to speak, wa s committed by the deceased,

Rodolfo an d H erna nd o Ca unt e ag a ins t th e appella nt .
Appellant's version of the incident wa s to the effect that he had
come to the aid of Villafria at the latter's call whe n Villafria boxed
Mariano Dioso and engaged the group of Dioso, Saldo and Caunte in
a fight. In other words, he voluntarily joined the fight, whe n he did
not have to. He voluntarily exposed himsel f to the consequences of
a fight with his opponents. Granting arguendo that the first attack
came from Dioso or Saldo or Caunte, yet sam e cannot be considered
an unlawful or unexpected aggression. The first attack which came
from either is but an incident of th e fight. (People vs.
64 O.G. 12632)
The rule now is "stand ground when in the right."

The ancient common law rule in homicide denominated "retreat to the
wall," ha s now given wa y to the ne w rule "stand ground whe n in the right."
So, where the accused is where he has the right to be, the law does
not require hi m to retreat whe n hi s assailant is rapidly advancing
upon him with a deadly weapon. (U.S. vs. 37 Phil. 57)
The reason for th e rule is tha t if one flees from an aggressor, he runs
the risk of being attacked in th e back by the aggressor.
How to determine the unlawful aggressor.

In the absence of direct evidence to determine who provoked th e
conflict, it ha s been held tha t it shall be presumed that, in the nature
of the order of things, the person who wa s deeply offended by the insult
was the one who believed he had a right to demand explanation of
the perpetrator of tha t insult, and the one who also struck the first
blow whe n he wa s not satisfied wit h th e explanation offered. (U.S.
vs. Laurel, 22 Phil. 252)
The circumstance tha t it wa s th e accused, not the deceased, who
had a greater motive for committing th e crime on the ground that th e
deceased had already sufficiently punished the accused on account
of his misbehavior and because he wa s publicly humiliated, having
gotten the worst of the fight betwee n the two inside the theater, leads
the court to the conclusion that th e claim of self-defense is really
untenable. (People vs. Berio, 59 Phil. 533)
166
Self-Defense Par. 1
Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights.

Note that in the three classes of defense mentioned in paragraphs
2 and 3 of Art. th e defense of rights requires also the first and
second requisites, namely, (1) unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable
necessity of th e mean s employed to prevent or repel it.
1. Attempt to rape a woman — defense of right to chastity.

a. Embracing a woman , touching her private parts and
her breasts, and throwing her to th e ground for the
purpose of raping her in an uninhabited place whe n
it wa s twilight, constitute an attack upon her honor
and, therefore, an unlawful aggression. (People vs.
De la Cruz, 61 Phil. 344)
b. Placing of han d by a ma n on the woman's upper thigh
is unlawful aggression. (People vs. 76 Phil.
174)
2. Defense of property.
Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying

circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on
the person of one entrusted wit h said property. (People vs.
Apolinar, C.A., 38 O.G. 2870)
3. Defense of home.
Violent entry to another's house at nighttime, by a
person who is armed with a and forcing his way into
the house, shows he wa s ready and looking for trouble, and
th e manne r of hi s entry constitutes an act of aggression.
The owner of the house need not wait for a blow before
repelling th e aggression, as that blow may prove fatal.
(People vs. Mirabiles, 45 5th 277)
I n thi s day and time s whe n bold robberies and
thieveries are committed even under the very noses of the
members of the household and usually at night, courts
mus t not hesitate to sustain the theory of self-defense of
the victim of thievery or robbery whe n such thief or robber
by overt acts shows aggression instead of fear or desire to
escape upon apprehension for certainly such an intruder
must be prepared not only to steal but to kill under the
167
Par. 1 Self-Defense
circumstances. In the case at bar, even if the accused did

not actually see the victim assault him with the
the mere fact that the victim assaulted the accused under
cover of darkness is such unlawful aggression as would
justify the accused to defend himself. (People vs. Salatan,
[CA] 69 O.G. 10134)
People vs. De la Cruz

(61 Phil. 344)
Facts: The accused, a woman, was walking home with a party

including the deceased, Francisco Rivera. It was already dark and they
were passing a narrow path. When the other people were far ahead,
the deceased who was following the accused suddenly threw his arms
around her from behind, caught hold of her breasts, kissed her, and
touched her private parts. He started to throw her down. When the
accused felt she could not do anything more against the strength of her
aggressor, she got a knife from her pocket and stabbed him.
Held: She was justified in making use of the knife in repelling what
she believed to be an attack upon her honor since she had no other
means of defending herself.
An attempt to rape a woma n constitutes an aggression sufficient

to put her in a state of legitimate defense inasmuc h as a woman's
honor cannot but be esteeme d as a right as precious, if not more tha n
her very existence. The woma n thu s imperilled ma y kill her offender
if that is th e only mean s left for her to protect her honor from so grave
an outrage. (People vs . Luague, et 62 Phil. 504)
People vs.
(76 Phil. 174)
Facts: The deceased was courting the accused in vain. One day,
the deceased approached her, spoke to her of his love which she flatly
refused, and he thereupon suddenly embraced and kissed her on account
of which the accused gave him fist blows and kicked him. Thereafter,
she armed herself with a fan knife, whenever she went out. One week
after the incident, the deceased entered a chapel, went to sit by the
side of the accused, and placed his hand on the upper part of her right
thigh. Accused pulled out her fan knife and with it stabbed the deceased
at the base of the left side of the neck, inflicting a mortal wound.
Held: The means employed by the accused in the defense of her
honor was evidently excessive. The chapel was lighted with electric
168
Self-Defense Par. 1
lights, and there were already several people, including her father and
the barrio lieutenant, inside the chapel. Under the there
was and there could be no possibility of her being raped.
Th e Suprem e Court apparentl y considered in thi s case th e

existence of unlawful aggression consisting in the deceased's placing
his hand on th e upper portion of her right thigh. The accused wa s
not given th e benefit of complete self-defense, because the mean s
employed wa s not reasonable. If th e accused only gave th e deceased
fist blows or kicked him , to prevent hi m from going further in his
attempt to commit an outrage upon her honor, she would have been
completely justified in doing so.
People vs. Apolinar

(C.A., 38 O.G. 2870)
Facts: The accused, armed with a shotgun, was looking over his
land. He noticed a man carrying a bundle on his shoulder. Believing
that the man had stolen his the accused shouted for him to stop,
and as he did not, the accused fired in the air and then at him, causing
his death.
Held: Defense of property is not of such importance as right to
life, and defense of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance
only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted
with said property.
Had the accused, wh o wante d to stop the thief then approaching

him, been attacked, sa y wit h a by tha t thief, he would have
been justified in shooting him, if the shotgun wa s the only available
weapon for his defense.
In such case, there would be unlawful aggression on the part of
the deceased, which is required eve n in defense of one's property. It
will be noted that in paragraph 1 of Article the opening clause,
which is followed by the enumeration of the three requisites, states:
"anyone wh o acts in defense of hi s person or rights." The word
"rights" includes right to property. Hence, all the three requisites of
self-defense, particularly unlawful aggression, mus t also concur in
defense of property.
In the case of People vs. Goya, CA-G.R. No. Sept. 29,
1956, the guard in a bodega surprised the injured party in the act
169
Par. 1 Self-Defense
of going out through the door with a sack of To prevent the

latter from taking away a sack of palay, the guard fired a shot at the
party, inflicting less serious physical injuries. Held: Since the
injured party did not lay hands on the guard or make any attempt to
attack the latter, the guard cannot properly and legally claim defense
of property. There mus t be an attack by the one stealing the property
on the person defending it.
The belief of the accused may be considered in determining

the existence of unlawful aggression.
"A, in the peaceable pursuit of his affairs, sees B rushing rapidly
toward him, with an outstretched arm and a pistol in his hand ,
and using violent menaces against his life as he advances. Havin g
approached near enough in th e sam e attitude, A, who ha s a club in
his hand, strikes B over the hea d before or at th e instant th e pistol
is discharged; and of th e wound B dies. It turns out th e pistol wa s
loaded with powder only, and tha t th e real design of B is only to
terrify A. Will any reasonable ma n sa y tha t A is more criminal tha n
he would have been if there had been a bullet in the pistol? Those wh o
hold such doctrine mus t require tha t a ma n so attacked must, before
he strikes th e assailant, stop and ascertain how th e pistol is loaded
— a doctrine which would entirely tak e awa y th e essential right of
self-defense." (Lloyd's Report, p. 160, cited in U.S . vs. Ah Chong, 15
Phil. 502-503)
There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy pistol,

provided the accused believed it was a real gun.
That Crispin Oscimina's gu n turned out to be a toy pistol is
inconsequential, considering its strikingly similar resemblance to a
real one and defendant-appellant's belief tha t a real gu n wa s being
aimed at him. (People vs. 11 C.A. Rep. 914)
Forcibly pushing picketers to let company trucks enter the compound

is not unlawful aggression against the rights of the picketers.
The act of th e security officer of a strike-bound company in
forcibly pushin g th e picketers after he ha d ordered the m to give
way and let the company trucks to ente r th e compound, but th e
picketers refused, does not constitute unlawful aggression against
the legitimate rights of th e picketers as would justify its repulsion
170
Self-Defense Par. 1
with equal and reasonable force such as inflicting physical injuries

upon th e officer, for wha t wa s under attack by said security officer
wa s not th e right of picketing, but th e act of remaining in
the passagewa y whe n th e trucks wante d to get inside, which is not a
part of th e picketing protected by law. (People vs. et 3 C.A.
Rep.
Threat to inflict real injury as unlawful aggression.

mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not preceded by an
outward and material aggression, is not unlawful aggression, because
it is required tha t th e act be offensive and positively strong, showing
the wrongful intent of th e aggressor to caus e an injury.
Mere threatening attitude is not unlawful aggression.

U.S. vs.
(13 Phil. 292)
Facts: As her husband had stayed away from home for more
than two weeks, remaining in the barrio of Dujat, distant about two
and one-half hours' walk from the town under the pretext that he was
engaged in field work, on the 20th of March, 1907, at about 2 p.m., the
accused decided to go to said barrio and join him. To this end she hired
a and after getting some clothes and other things necessary
for herself and husband, started out with her infant child and servant
girl; but before reaching the barrio and the where her husband
ought to be, night came on, and at about 7 o'clock she alighted and dis•
missed the vehicle after paying the driver. They had yet to travel some
distance. On seeing her husband's horse tied in front of a house, she
suspected that he was inside; thereupon she went to the steps leading
to the house, which was a low one, and then saw her husband sitting
down with his back toward the steps. She immediately entered the
house and encountered her husband, the deceased and the owners of
the house taking supper together. Overcome and blinded by jealousy
she rushed at Lorenza Estrada, attacked her with a pen knife that she
carried and inflicted five wounds upon her in consequence of which
Lorenza fell to the ground covered with blood and died a few moments
afterwards.
The accused pleaded not guilty, and in exculpation she alleged
that, when Lorenza Estrada saw her and heard her remonstrate with
her husband, she being then upstairs, Lorenza at once asked what
had brought her there and manifested her intention to attack her with
a knife that she carried in her hand, whereupon the accused caught
171
Par. 1 Self-Defense
the deceased by the right hand in which she held the weapon, and
immediately grappled with her, and in the struggle that ensued she
managed to get hold of a pen knife that she saw on the floor close by;
she could not say whether she struck the deceased with it as she could
not account for what followed.
Held: Even though it was true that when the accused Emilia, made
her appearance, the deceased Lorenza arose with a knife in her hand
and in a threatening manner asked the accused what had brought her
there, such attitude, under the provisions of Article 8, No. 4, of the Penal
Code (Art. par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code), does not constitute
the unlawful aggression, which, among others, is the first indispensable
requisite upon which exemption (justification) by self-defense may be
sustained.
In order to consider that unlawful aggression was actually

committed, it is necessary that an attack or material aggression, an
offensive act positively determining the intent the aggressor to cause
an injury shall have been made; a mere threatening or intimidating
attitude is not sufficient to justify th e commission of an act which is
punishable per se, and allow a claim of justification on th e ground
that it wa s committed in self-defense.
Examples of threats to inflict real injury:

When one aim s a revolver at another wit h th e intention of
shooting him. (Dec. Sup. Ct. Spain, Sept. 29, 1905)
2. The act of a person in retreating two steps and placing hi s
hand in hi s pocket wit h a motion indicating hi s purpose
to commit an assaul t wit h a weapon. (Dec. Sup. Ct. Spain,
Jun e 26, 1891)
3. The act of opening a knife, and making a motion as if to
make an attack. (Dec. Sup. Ct. Spain, Oct. 24, 1895)
Note that in th e above cases, th e threatening attitude of the
aggressor is offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful
intent of the aggressor to cause an injury.
When intent to attack is manifest, picking up a weapon is

sufficient unlawful aggression.
When the picking up of a weapon is preceded by circumstances
indicating the intention of the deceased to use it in attacking the
Par. 1
defendant, such act is considered unlawful aggression. (People vs. Javier, 46

O.G. No. 7, July, 1950)
Aggression must be real, not merely imaginary.

Thus , whe n th e accused , dislikin g th e interventio n o f th e
deceased in a certain incident betwee n th e accused and a couple,
armed himsel f wit h a gu n and wen t to th e hous e of th e deceased, and
upon seein g th e latter holding a kris in his hand, shot hi m to death,
there wa s no unlawful aggression, notwithstandin g th e claim of the
accused tha t th e deceased wa s a ma n of violent temper, quarrelsome
and irritable, and tha t th e latter migh t attack hi m with the kris,
because he merely imagined a possible aggression. The aggression
mus t be real, or, at least, imminent. (People vs. De la Cruz, 61 Phil.
422)
Aggression that is expected.

An aggression tha t is expected is still real, provided it is im•
minent.
It is well-know n tha t th e person wh o pursue s another wit h
the intent and purpose of assaultin g hi m does not raise his hand
to discharge th e blow until he believes tha t hi s victim is within his
reach.
In this case, it is not necessary to wait until the blow is about
to be discharged, because in order tha t th e assaul t ma y be prevented
it is not necessary tha t it ha s been actually perpetrated. (U.S. vs.
Batungbacal, 37 Phil. 382)
Second Requisite of Defense of Person or Right: Reasonable

necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
This second requisite of defense presupposes the existence of
unlawful aggression, which is either imminent or actual. Hence, in
stating the second requisite, two phrases are used, namely: "to
prevent" and (2) When we are attacked, the danger to our
life or limb is either imminent or actual. In making a defense, we
prevent the aggression that places us in imminent danger or repel
the aggression that places us in actual danger. A threat to inflict real
injury places us in imminent danger. An actual physical assault places
us in actual danger.
173
Par. 1 Self-Defense
In the case of U.S. us. Batungbacal, 37 Phil. 382, the Supreme

Court stated: "The law protects not only the person who repels an
aggression (meaning actual), but even the person who tries to prevent
an aggression that is expected (meaning
The second requisite of defense mean s tha t (1) there be a
necessity of the course of action take n by th e person ma kin g a
defense, and (2) there be a necessity of the mean s used. Both mus t
be reasonable.
The reasonableness of either or both such necessity depends on
the existence of unlawful aggression and upon the nature and extent
of the aggression.
The necessity to take a course of action and to use a means

of defense.
The person attacked is not duty-bound to expose himself to be
wounded or killed, and while the danger to his person or life subsists,
he ha s a perfect and indisputabl e right to repel such danger by
wounding his adversary and, if necessary, to disable him completely
so that he may not continue th e assault. (U.S. vs. Molina, 19 Phil.
227)
The reasonableness of the necessity depends upon the cir•

cumstances.
In emergencies where th e person or life of another is
huma n nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in
obedience to the instinct of self-preservation. The reasonableness of
the necessity to take a course of action and the reasonableness of th e
necessity of the mean s employed depend upon the circumstances of
the case.
In a situation, like th e one at bar, where the accused, who wa s
then unarmed, wa s being mauled with fistic blows by the deceased
and hi s companions for refusing their offer to drink wine, picked up
a lead pipe within his reach and wit h it struck the deceased on th e
forehead resulting in th e latter's death, th e use by the accused of such
lead pipe under the circumstances is reasonable. That the accused
did not select a lesser vital portion of th e body of th e deceased to hit
is reasonably to be expected, for in such a situation, the accused ha s
to move fast, or in split seconds, otherwise, the aggression on hi s
174
Self-Defense Par. 1
person would hav e continued and hi s life endangered. (People vs.

C.A., 67 O.G. 3313)
1. Necessity of the course of action taken.
The necessit y of th e course of action take n depends on th e
existence of unlawful aggression. If there wa s no unlawful
aggression or, if there was , it ha s ceased to exist, there would be
no necessity for any course of action to take as there is nothing to
prevent or to repel.
In determining the existence of unlawful aggression tha t
induced a person to tak e a course of action, the place and occasion
of th e assaul t and th e other circumstances mus t be considered.
a. Place and occasion of the assault considered.
Th e co mma n d give n t o th e accuse d b y th e
deceased in a dark and an uninhabited place, for the
purpose of playing a practical joke upon him, "Lie
down and give me your money or else you made
th e accused act immediately by discharging his pistol
against th e deceased. It wa s held that a person under
suc h circumstances cannot be expected to adopt a
les s violent mean s of repelling wha t he believed wa s
an attack upon hi s life and property. (Dec. Sup. Ct.
Spain, March 17, 1885)
Similar illustration is given in the case of U.S.
vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 501-502.
b. The darkness of the night and the surprise which
characterized the assault considered.
When the accused, while walking along in a dark
street at night wit h pistol in hand on the lookout for
an individual who had been making an insulting dem•
onstration in front of his house, was suddenly held
from behind and an attempt wa s made to wrench the
pistol from him, he wa s justified in shooting him to
death, in view of the darkness and the surprise which
characterized the assault. The deceased might be able
to disarm the accused and to use the pistol against
the latter. (People vs. Lara, 48 Phil. 153)
175
Art. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Par. 1 Self-Defense
No necessity of the course of action taken.

When the deceased who had attacked Alconga ran away, there was no
necessity for Alconga to pursue and kill the deceased. (People vs. Alconga, 78
Phil. 366)
The theory of self-defense is based on the necessity on the part of
the person attacked to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression, and
when the danger or risk on his part ha s disappeared, his stabbing
the aggressor while defending himself should have stopped. (People
vs. Calavagan, C.A. G.R. No. August 10, 1955)
The claim of self-defense is not credible as the accused narrated
that he had succeeded in disarming the victim of the piece of wood the
latter was allegedly so that stabbing with such frequency, frenzy
and force can no longer be considered as reasonably necessary. (People
vs. Masangkay, No. Oct. SCRA
When the deceased who endeavored to set fire to the house of th e
accused in which th e two small children of the latter were sleeping
wa s already out of the house and prostrate on the ground, having been
boloed by th e accused, there wa s no reasonable necessity of killing
her. (U.S. vs. Rivera, 41 Phil. 472 , 474)
While the accused might have been and doubtless wa s justified
in picking up the bamboo pole to keep his adversary at bay, he wa s not
justified in striking the head of the deceased with it, as he was not in any
real danger of his life, for his adversary, although armed with had
not attempted to draw it, and limited his assault to an attempt to push
the accused back to the shallow pool into which he had been thrown at
the outset of the quarrel. (U.S. vs. Pasca, 28 Phil. 222, 226)
While there wa s an actual physical invasion of appellant's prop•
erty whe n the deceased chiselled th e wall s of his house and closed
appellant's entrance and exit to th e highway, which he had th e right
to resist, the reasonableness of the resistance is also a requirement of
the justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of one's rights.
When the appellant fired his shotgun from his window, killing his two
Victims, his resistance wa s disproportionate to the attack. (People vs.
121 SCRA 402-403)
When aggressor is disarmed.

When the wife wa s disarmed by her husband after wounding him
seriously but she struggled to regain possession of the bolo, there was
176
Par. 1
a reasonable necessity for hi m to use said bolo to disable her, because

he wa s already losing strengt h due to loss of blood and to throw away
the bolo would only give her a chance to pick it up and again use it
against him. (People vs. Rabandaban, 85 Phil. 636, 637-638; People
vs. Datinguinoo, 47 O.G. 765)
But whe n the defendant, who had been attacked by the deceased,
succeeded in snatching the bolo away from th e latter, and the deceased
already manifested a refusal to fight, th e defendant wa s not justified
in killing him. (People vs. 56 Phil. 98, 101)
When only minor physical injuries are inflicted after unlaw•

ful aggression has ceased to exist, there is still self-defense
if mortal wounds were inflicted at the time the requisites of
self-defense were present.
Th e fact tha t minor physical injuries wer e inflicted by th e
accused after th e unlawful aggression had ceased and after he had
stabbed th e deceased wit h two mortal wounds, said mortal wounds
having been inflicted at a time whe n th e requisites of complete self-
defense were still present, cannot and should not affect th e benefit of
said complete self-defense in the absence those relatively
small wound s contributed to or hastened the death of the deceased.
(People vs. Del Pilar, 44 O.G. 596)
This ruling should not be applied if the deceased, after receiving
minor wounds, dropped his weapo n and signified his refusal to fight
any longer, but th e accused hacked hi m to death. The reason is that
the wound inflicted, after the aggression had ceased, wa s the cause
of death.
The person defending is not expected to control his blow.

Defense of person or rights does not necessarily mea n the killing
of the unlawful aggressor. Bu t the person defending himself cannot
be expected to think clearly so as to control his blow. The killing of
the unlawful aggressor ma y still be justified as long as the mortal
wounds are inflicted at a time whe n the elements of complete self-
defense are still present.
One is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine distinctions as to
the extent of the injury which a reckless and infuriated assailant
177
Par. 1 Self-Defense
might probably inflict upon him. (Brownell vs. People, 38 Mich. 732, cited in
the case of People vs. Sumicad, 56 Phil. 647)
The fact tha t th e accused struck one blow more tha n wa s
necessary to save his own life, or that he failed to hold
his hand so as to avoid inflicting a fatal wound where a less severe
stroke might have served the purpose, would not negative self-defense,
because the accused, in the heat of an encounter at close quarters,
wa s not in a position to reflect coolly or to wait after each blow to
determine the effects thereof. (U.S. vs. Macasaet, 35 Phil. 229; People
vs. Espina, C.A., 49 O.G. 983)
And if it wa s necessary for the accused to use his revolver, he

could hardly, under the be expected to take deliberate
and careful aim so as to strike a point les s vulnerable tha n th e body
of his assailant. (U.S. vs. Mack, 8 Phil. 701; U.S. vs. 37 Phil.
57)
When the aggression is so sudden that there is no time left to the one
making a defense to determine what course of action to take.
At the mo men t th e deceased wa s about to stab the superior of•
ficer of the accused, th e latter hit th e deceased wit h a brava.
The trial court believed that the accused should have only struck hi s
hand to disable it, or only hit hi m in a les s vulnerable part of the body.
Held: The trial court demanded too muc h of th e accused's wisdom,
judgmen t and discretion during the split second he had to think and
act to save his superior officer. (People vs. Pante, C.A., G.R. No. 5512 ,
March 29, 1940)
repelling or preventing an unlawful aggression, the one

defending must aim at his assailant, and not indiscriminately
fire his deadly weapon.
Even granting tha t while in a private discussion or quarrel wit h
his wife, appellant Galacgac wa s suddenly beaten twice on hi s hea d
with an iron bar by Pablo Soriano thu s causing blood to ooze over
his eyes, appellant Galacgac certainly had no right to fire at random
his unlicensed revolver. He kne w tha t there were man y innocent
persons in Soriano's house, namely, his (Galacgac's) wife, hi s sister
and brother-in-law. Besides, there were man y inhabited house s in
the vicinity of house No. 1238 Street. Of course, appellant
178
Self-Defense Par. 1
Galacgac had a perfect and lawful right to defend himsel f against the
unjustified assaul t upon his person mad e by Pablo Soriano. However, because
he did not aim at hi s assailan t but instea d indiscriminately fired hi s deadly
weapo n at th e risk of th e lives and limbs of the in• nocent persons he kne w
were in th e place of occurrence, his act of defense wa s not exercised wit h due
care.
However, there being no inten t to kill, appellant Galacgac wa s held

liable for physical injuries. (People vs . Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027)
2. Necessity of the means used.
The mean s employed by th e person makin g a defense
mus t be rationally necessar y to prevent or repel an unlaw•
ful aggression.
Thu s in th e following cases , there wa s no rational necessity
to employ the means used.
a. A sleeping woman, who wa s awakened by her brother-
in-law grasping her arm, wa s not justified in using
a knife to kill hi m as th e latter did not perform any
other act which could be construed as an attempt
against her honor. (U.S. vs . Apego, 23 Phil. 391)
b. Whe n a person wa s attacked wit h fist blows only,
there wa s no reasonable necessity to inflict upon the
assailan t a mortal wound with a dagger. (People vs.
Montalbo, 56 Phil. 443)
There wa s in this case a reasonable necessity to
act by using fist blows also. Bu t there wa s no necessity
to employ a dagger to repel such an aggression.
When a ma n placed his hand on the upper thigh of
a woma n seated on a bench in a chapel where there
were man y people and which wa s well-lighted, there
wa s no reasonable necessity to kill him with a knife
because there wa s no danger to her chastity or honor.
(People vs. Jaurigue, 76 Phil. 174)
There wa s in this case a reasonable necessity to stop
the deceased from further doing the same thing or more.
But there wa s no necessity to use a knife.
179
Par. 1 Self-Defense
It is otherwise where the husband of the accused wa s kneeling

over her as she lay on her back on the ground and his hand choking
her neck when she pulled out the knife inserted at the left side of her
husband's belt and plunged it at his body hitting the left back portion
just below the waist. There wa s reasonable necessity of the use of the
knife. (People vs. Boholst-Caballero, No. L-23249, Nov. 1974, 61
SCRA 180, 189)
The test of reasonableness of the means used.

Whether or not the means employed is reasonable, will depend
upon the nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor, his
physical condition, character, size and other circumstances, and those
of the person defending himself, and also the place and occasion of
the assault.
Perfect equality betwee n th e weapo n used by the one defending himself
and that of the aggressor is not required, because the person assaulted does not
hav e sufficient tranquility of mind to think, to calculate and to choose which
weapo n to use. (People vs. Padua, C.A., 40 O.G. 998)
"Reasonable necessit y of th e mean s employed does not imply
material commensurability betwee n th e mean s of attack and defense.
What the law requires is rational equivalence, in the consideration
of which will enter as principal factors th e emergency, th e imminen t
danger to which th e person attacked is exposed, and th e instinct,
more tha n reason, tha t move s or impel s th e defense, and the propor-
tionateness thereof does not depend upon th e harm done, but rests
upon th e imminen t danger of such injury." (People vs. Encomienda,
No. Aug. 18, 1972, 46 SCRA 522 , 534, quoting People vs.
Lara, 48 Phil. 153; People vs. Paras, 9 Phil. 367)
As wa s already mentioned, th e reasonableness of th e mean s employed

will depend upon —
1. The nature and quality of the weapons:
a. Although as a general rule a dagger or a knife is more
dangerous tha n a club, th e us e of a knife or dagger,
whe n attacked wit h a club, mus t be deemed reason•
able if it cannot be shown that the person assaulted
(1) had other available means or (2) if there was other
means, he could coolly choose the less deadly weapon
180
JUSTIFYIN G CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 11
Self-Defense Par. 1
to repel the assault. (People vs. Padua, 40 O.G.

998)
In th e case of U.S. vs. Laurel, 22 Phil. 252, a similar
ruling wa s applied.
The use of a bolo to repel the aggression by means of a
stick, the use of a knife against a rod, or a knife against a
stick wa s held to be reasonable under the cir• cumstances.
(People vs. Romero, C.A., 34 O.G. 2046)
Bu t it wa s held tha t the use of a bayonet against
a can e is not reasonable. The accused could have
warded off th e blows made by th e deceased with his
cane. If th e accused had only drawn hi s bayonet in
defense, tha t would hav e been enough to discourage
and prevent th e deceased from further continuing
wit h hi s attack or sufficient to ward off th e blows
given by th e deceased whe n he attacked the accused.
I n sta bbin g th e decease d wit h hi s bayonet , th e
accused wen t beyond wha t wa s necessary to defend
himsel f against th e unlawful aggression made by the
deceased. (People vs . No. Nov. 29,
1962, 6 SCRA 688 , 692-693)
Since the deceased wa s a gangster with a reputa•
tion for violence, the use by the accused of a dagger
to repel th e persistent aggression by the deceased
with a wooden pestle is reasonably necessary under
the circumstances. (People vs. C.A., 44 O.G.
1255)
At a distance, stones hurled by the deceased, who wa s
a know n boxer, big and strong, may constitute a graver
danger tha n a bolo. In such case, the use of a bolo wa s held
reasonable. (People vs. Aguilario, C.A., 56 O.G. 757)
The use of a revolver against an aggressor armed
with a bolo wa s held reasonable, it appearing that the
deceased wa s advancing upon the accused and within a few
feet of striking distance when the latter shot him. (U.S. vs.
Mack, 8 Phil. 701)
In the case of People vs. Maliwanag, No. L-30302,
Aug. 58 SCRA 323, 331-332, it was held that
181
Par. 1 Self-Defense
there was reasonable necessity of the means employed

to repel the aggression from the deceased when the
appellant's only recourse in defending himself wa s
to use his service pistol against one who wielded a
deadly balisong knife.
b. To use a firearm against a dagger or a knife, in the
regular order of things, does not imply any difference
between such weapons. (Dec. Sup. Ct. of Spain, Oct.
27, 1887)
Thi s rul in g i s subj ec t t o th e l i m i t a t i o n s
mentioned in the case of People vs. Padua, supra,
namely: there wa s no other available means; or (2) if
there wa s other th e one making a defense
could not coolly choose the less deadly weapon to repel
the aggression.
But whe n a person is attacked with fist blows, he mus t
repel the same with the weapon that nature gave him,
meaning with fists also. (People vs. Montalbo, 56 Phil. 443)
This ruling applies only whe n the aggressor and the
one defending himsel f are of the same size and strength.
2. Physical condition, character and size.
a. Thus, whe n th e one defending himself who wa s of
middle age, wa s cornered, had hi s back to th e iron
railing, and three or four me n bigger, and stronger
tha n he were striking him with fists, such person wa s
justified in usin g a knife. (People vs. 58 Phil.
858)
b. The aggressor wa s a bully, a ma n larger and stronger,
of known violent character, with previous criminal
records for assault . He attacked wit h fist blows a
smaller ma n wh o wa s the n armed with a bolo. In
spite of havin g received, as a warning, a cut wit h a
bolo on the left shoulder, th e aggressor continued to
attempt to possess himself of the bolo. Killing him with
a bolo wa s justified in this case. (People vs. Sumicad,
56 Phil. 643)
182
Self-Defense Par. 1
The character of the aggressor is emphasized in this

case:
Considering tha t th e aggressor provoked the
incident and started the aggression; considering that
he is of violent temperament, troublesome, strong
and aggressive wit h three criminal records, twice of
slander by deed and once of threat to kill; considering
tha t he wanted to impose his will on the family of
th e accuse d for havin g rejected hi s nephe w as a
suitor of th e sister of the accused, boxing the m one
after another and in their own home — the Court of
Appeals held that the accused wa s justified in striking
hi m wit h a bolo on th e forehead and on th e right eye.
(People vs. Padua, C.A., 40 O.G. 998)
3. Other circumstances considered.
In view of the imminence of the danger, a shotgun is
a reasonable means to prevent an aggression with a bolo.
M, being abruptly awakene d by shouts that P wa s
pursuin g H an d M's tw o children , and seeing , upo n
awakening, tha t in fact P wa s infuriated and pursuing H
with a bolo hi s hand and his arm raised in an attitude as if
to strike, took up a shotgun lying within his reach and fired
at P, killing hi m at once. Held: Under the circumstances,
in view of th e imminence of the danger, the only remedy
which could be considered reasonably necessary to repel
or prevent tha t aggression, wa s to render the aggressor
harmless. As M had on hand a loaded shotgun, this weapon
wa s the most appropriate one that could be used for the
purpose, eve n at the risk of killing the aggressor, since
the aggression also gravely threatened the lives of
the parties assaulted. (U.S. vs. Batungbacal, 37 Phil. 382,
387-388)
Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel

unlawful aggression to be liberally construed in favor of law-
abiding citizens.
These are dangerous times. There are many lawless elements who kill
for the thrill of killing. There is no adequate protection for the
183
Par. 1 Self-Defense
law abiding citizens. When a lawless person attacks on the streets or

particularly in the victim's home, he should assume the risk of losing
his life from the act of self-defense by firearm of his victim; otherwise,
the law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of the lawless elements.
Hence, the requisite of reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression should in these times of
danger be interpreted liberally in favor of the law-abiding citizens.
(People vs. So, 5 CAR [2s] 671 , 674)
Rule regarding the reasonableness of the "necessity of the

means employed" when the one defending himself is a peace
officer.
The peace officer, in the performance of his duty, represents
the law which he must uphold. While th e law on self-defense allows
a private individual to prevent or repel an aggression, the duty of a
peace officer requires him to overcome his opponent.
Thus, th e fact tha t a policeman, wh o wa s armed with a revolver
and a club, migh t hav e used hi s club instead, does not alter th e
principle since a policeman's club is not a very effective weapon as
against a drawn knife and a police officer is not required to afford a
person attacking him, the opportunity for a fair and equal struggle.
(U.S. vs. Mojica, 42 Phil. 784, 787)
But in th e case of U.S. vs. Mendoza, 2 Phil. it wa s held

that it is not reasonably necessary for a policeman to kill his assailant
to repel an attack with a
The use by a police officer of his service revolver in repelling th e
aggression of the deceased who assaulte d him with a kitchen knife
and continued to give him thrust s in th e confines of a small room
measuring 6 feet by 6 feet is reasonable and necessary. Considering
the imminen t danger to which hi s life wa s exposed at the time, he
could hardly be expected to choose coolly, as he would under normal
conditions, the us e of his club as a les s deadly weapon to us e against
his assailant. As a police officer in the lawful performance of his official
duty, he mus t stand his ground and cannot, like a private individual,
take refuge in flight. His duty requires hi m to overcome his opponent.
(People vs. Caina, 14 CAR [2s] 93 , 99-100)
There is no evidence that the accused wa s also armed with a weapon less
deadly tha n a pistol. But even if he had a club with him,
184
Self-Defense Par. 1
the pistol would still be a reasonable mean s to repel the aggression

of th e deceased, for a police officer is not required to afford a person
attacking him wit h a drawn knife the opportunity for a fair and equal
struggle. While th e law on self-defense allows a private individual
to prevent or repel an aggression, th e duty of a peace officer requires
him to overcome hi s opponent. The peace officer, in th e performance
of his duty, represents th e law which he mus t uphold. (People vs. Uy,
Jr., 20 CAR [2s] 850, 859-860)
First two requisites common to three kinds of legitimate

defense.
The first two requisites thu s far explained are common to self-
defense, defense of a relative, and defense of a stranger. These three
kinds of legitimate defense differ only in the third requisite.
Third requisite of self-defense.

"Lack of sufficient provocation on the part the person defending
himself."
Reason for the third requisite of self-defense.

Whe n the person defending himsel f from th e attack by another gave
sufficient provocation to the latter, the former is also to be blamed for having
given cause for th e aggression.
Hence, to be entitled to the benefit of the justifying circumstance
of self-defense, th e one defending himsel f mus t not have given cause
for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by inciting or provoking
the assailant.
Cases in which third requisite of self-defense considered

present.
The third requisite of self-defense is present —
When no provocation at all wa s given to the aggressor by
the person defending himself; or
2. When, even if a provocation wa s given, it was not sufficient;
or
3. When, even if the provocation wa s sufficient, it was not
given by the person defending himself; or
185
Par. 1 Self-Defense
4. When, eve n if a provocation wa s given by th e person

defending himself, it wa s not proximate and immediate
to the act of aggression. (Decisions of the Supreme Court
of Spain of March 5, 1902 and of April 20, 1906)
No provocation at all.
Thus, whe n A shot B to death, because B wa s running amuck
and with a dagger wa s rushing towards A manifestly intending to
stab A, there wa s no provocation whatsoever on the part of A. The
third requisite of self-defense is present.
There was provocation, but not sufficient.

A, havin g discovered tha t B ha d built a part of hi s fence on A's
land, asked B wh y he ha d done so. This question angered B wh o
immediatel y attacked A. If A would kill B to defend himself, th e
third requisite of self-defense would still be present, because eve n if
it is true tha t th e question of A angere d B, thereby makin g B attack
A, such provocation is not sufficient. (U.S . vs . Pascua , 28 Phil. 222 )
A had a right to deman d explanatio n wh y B ha d built th e fence on
A's property. The exercise of a right cannot give rise to sufficient
provocation.
How to determine the sufficiency of provocation.

The provocation mus t be sufficient, which mean s tha t it should be
proportionate to th e act of aggression and adequate to stir th e aggressor to its
commission. (People vs. Alconga, 78 Phil. 366)
Thus, to engag e in a verbal argument cannot be considered sufficient
provocation. (Decision of th e Supreme Court of Spain of October 5, 1877)
Is it necessary for th e provocation to be sufficient tha t th e one who
gave it mus t have been guilty of using violence and thu s becoming an unlawful
aggressor himself?
No, it is not necessary.
The provocation is sufficient —
When one challenges the deceased to come out of the house and
engage in a fist-fight wit h hi m and prove who is the better man .
(U.S. vs. McCray, 2 Phil. 545)
186
Self-Defense Par. 1
Th e v ersio n o f th e def ens e de se rv e s n o credit .

Accuse d fathe r an d so n c ha l le ng e d th e decease d t o
an d the y killed hi m whe n h e cam e out. One o f th e
first requisite s of self-defense is unlawfu l aggression .
Accuse d fathe r calle d out th e decease d from hi s hous e
an d provoked hi m t o fight . Co min g out, said accused
thre w a ston e at him . Th e decease d merel y fought back
bu t togethe r bot h accuse d a ssa ulte d hi m unti l h e fell
wounded . (Peopl e vs . Valencia , No . L-58426 , Oct. 31 ,
1984 , 133 SCRA 82 , 86-87 )
2. Whe n one hurls insults or imputes to another the utterance

of vulgar language , as whe n th e accused and his brothers
imputed to th e deceased, th e utterance of vulgar language
against them , whic h imputation provoked th e deceased to
attack them . (People vs. Sotelo, 55 Phil. 403)
Bu t it is not enough tha t th e provocative act be

unreasonable or annoying. A petty question of pride does
not justify th e woundin g or killing of an opponent. (People
vs. C.A., 46 O.G. 1621)
3. Whe n th e accused tried to forcibly kiss the sister of the
deceased. The accused thereby gave sufficient provocation
to th e deceased to attack him. There is no complete self-
defense, because th e third requisite is not present. (People
vs. Getida, CA-G.R. No. Jan . 6, 1951)
Sufficient provocation not given by the person defending

himself.
Note th e phrase "on th e part of the person defending
in th e third requisite of self-defense. Thus, in the case of People vs.
60 Phil. 266, it wa s held that the third requisite of self-
defense wa s present, because the provocation proven at the trial was
not given by the accused but by the brother-in-law of the deceased.
Requisite of "lack of provocation" refers exclusively

to "the person defending himself."
Thus, if the accused appears to be the aggressor, it cannot be said that
he wa s defending himself from the effect of another's aggression. (People vs.
Espino, 43 O.G. 4705)
187
Par. 1 Self-Defense
In the case People vs. Alconga, 78 Phil. the attack made by

the deceased whe n Alconga wa s the one defending himself during the
first stage of the fight, wa s not considered as a provocation to Alconga
in the second stage of the fight, because then he was the aggressor and
the third requisite of self-defense is limited to the person defending
himself.
Provocation by the person defending himself not proximate

and immediate to the aggression.
Thus, if A slapped th e face of B one or two days before and
B, upon meetin g A, attacked th e latter but wa s seriously injured
whe n A defended himself, th e provocation given by A should be
disregarded, because it wa s not proximate and immediate to th e ag•
gression made by B. In thi s case, th e third requisite of self-defense
is still present.
In th e case of U.S. vs. Laurel, supra, th e kissing of the girlfriend
of the aggressor wa s a sufficient provocation to the latter, but since
the kissing of th e girl took place on December 26 and the aggression
wa s made on December 28, the provocation wa s disregarded by th e
Supreme Court.
Illustration of the three requisites of self-defense.
People vs. Dolfo

(C.A., 46 O.G. 1621)
A wa s an electrician while B wa s hi s assistant. A called B to him, who

instead of approaching asked him, "Why are you calling me?" A considered th e
retort as a provocative answe r and suddenly threw a
4 by 2 inches piece of wood at B. B retaliated by throwing at A the
sam e piece of wood. A picked up the piece of wood, approached B and
started to beat hi m wit h th e piece of wood. B defended himself wit h a
screwdriver and inflicted a mortal wound on A.
Question: (1) Was there sufficient provocation on the part of B
whe n he retorted "Why are you calling me?" (2) Was there reasonable
necessity in usin g the screwdriver to repel the attack?
Answer: (1) B's answ e r of "Why are you callin g me?" whe n
summoned by A might have mortified and annoyed the latter but it
wa s not a sufficient provocation. The provocation mus t be sufficient or
proportionate to the act committed and adequate to arouse one to its
commission. It is not sufficient that the provocative act be unreasonable
188
JUSTIFYIN G CIRCUMSTANCE S Art. 11
Self-Defense Par. 1
or annoying. A small question of self-pride does not justify hurting or

killing an opponent.
(1) The act of A in hurling the piece of wood at B whe n his
pride wa s hurt constituted unlawful aggression. Subsequent act of A in
attacking B wit h the piece of wood, after B ha d hurled back the thrown
piece of wood, wa s a continuation of the unlawful aggression already
begun. The subsequen t act of A placed B in his defense, justifying the
use of a reasonable mean s to repel it.
(2) In determining whether or not a particular mean s employed

to repel an aggression is reasonable, the person attacked should not
be expected to judg e thing s calmly and to act coolly or serenely as
one not under stress or not facing a danger to life or limb. The test
is: Considering the situation of th e person defending himself, would
a reasonable ma n placed in th e sam e circumstance have acted in the
sam e way? In thi s case, the screwdriver wa s a reasonable mean s to
repel the unlawful aggression of A. B wa s justified in killing him with
it. All the three requisites of self-defense were present. Hence, accused
B mus t be, as he was , acquitted.
All th e element s of self-defense are present in this case.
The deceased husband of the accused wa s kneeling over her

as she lay on her back on the ground and hi s han d choking her neck
whe n she pulled out the knife tucked on th e left side of her husband's
belt and plunged it at hi s body.
(2) A woma n being strangled and choked by a furious aggressor

and rendered almost unconscious by th e strong pressure on her throat,
she had no other recourse but to get hold of any weapon within her
reach to save herself from impending death. Reasonable necessity of
the mean s employed in self-defense does not depend upon the harm
done but rests upon the imminen t danger of such injury.
(3) Sh e did not give sufficient provocation to warrant the

aggression or attack on her person by her husband. While it was
understandable for the latter to be angry at his wife for finding her on
the road in the middle of the night, he wa s not justified in inflicting
bodily punishment with an intent to kill by choking his wife's throat.
All that she did wa s to provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong
in the mind of her husband, which is not a sufficient provocation under
the law of (People vs. Boholst-Caballero, No. Nov.
1974, 61 SCRA 180, 195-196)
Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense.

Unde r Rep . Ac t No . 926 2 otherwis e know n a s Anti-Violenc e
189
Par. 1 Self-Defense
Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, which took effect on March
27, 2004, it is provided that -
"Sec. 26. Battered Women Syndrome as a Defense. — Victim- survivors
who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered women syndrome
do not incur criminal and civil liability notwith• standing the absence of any
of the elements for justifying circum• stances of self-defense under th e
Revised Penal Code.
In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who wa s
suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commis•
sion of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert
psychiatrists/psychologists."
The Battered Woman Syndrome, explained.

In claimin g self-defense, appellan t raise s th e novel theory
of the battered woma n (BWS). While ne w in Philippine
jurisprudence, the concept ha s been recognized in foreign jurisdictions
as a form of self-defense or, at th e least, incomplete self-defense. By
appreciating evidence tha t a victim or defendant is afflicted with th e
syndrome, foreign courts convey their "understanding of the justifiably
fearful state of mind of a person who ha s been cyclically abused and
controlled over a period of time."
A battered woma n ha s been defined as a woman "who is repeat•
edly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a
ma n in order to coerce her to do something he want s her to do without
concern for her rights. Battered wome n include wives or wome n in
any form of intimate relationship wit h men. Furthermore, in order
to be classified as a battered woman , the couple mus t go through
the battering cycle at least twice. An y woma n may find herself in an
abusive relationship wit h a ma n once. If it occurs a second time, and
she remains in th e situation, she is defined as a battered woman."
Battered wome n exhibit common personality traits, such as low self-
esteem, traditional beliefs about the home, the family and th e female sex role;
emotional dependence upon the dominant male; th e tendency to accept
responsibility for the batterer's actions; and false hopes that the relationship
will improve.
More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized
by the so-called "cycle of violence," which ha s three phases: (1) the
tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the
190
Self-Defense Par. 1
tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase. During the tension- building
phase, minor battering occurs — it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or
another form of hostile behavior. The woman usually tries to pacify the
batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out
of hi s way. What actually happens is that she allows herself to be abused in
way s that, to her, are comparatively minor. All sh e want s is to prevent th e
escalation of the violence exhibited by the batterer. This wish, however, proves
to be double- edged, because her "placatory" and passive behavior legitimizes
his belief that he ha s th e right to abuse her in th e first place.
However, th e techniques adopted by the woma n in her effort to
placate hi m are not usually successful, and the verbal physical
abuse worsens. Eac h partner sense s th e imminen t loss of control
and the growing tension and despair. Exhauste d from th e persistent
stress, the battered woma n soon withdraws emotionally. But the more
she becomes emotionally unavailable, th e more th e batterer becomes
angry, oppressive and abusive. Often, at some unpredictable point,
the violence "spirals out of control" and leads to an acute battering
incident.
The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by bru•
tality, destructiveness and, so metimes , death. The battered woman
deems this incident as yet also inevitable. During this
phase, she ha s no control; only th e batterer ma y put an end to the
violence. Its nature reasons for ending it. The battered woman usually
realizes tha t she cannot reason wit h him, and that resistance would
only exacerbate her condition.
At this stage, she ha s a sens e of detachment from the attack
and th e terrible pain, althoug h sh e ma y later clearly remember
every detail. Her apparent passivity in the face of acute violence may
be rationalized thus: the batterer is almost always much stronger
physically, and she knows from her past painful experience that it is
futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents are often very savage
and out of control, such that innocent bystanders of are
likely to get hurt.
The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute
battering incident ends. During thi s tranquil period, the couple
experience profound relief. On the one hand, the batterer may show
a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner. He knows that
he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her
forgiveness and promising never to beat her again. On the other hand,
191
Par. 1 Self-Defense
the battered woman also tries to convince herself that the battery
will never happen again; that her partner will change for the better;
and that this "good, gentle and caring man" is the real person whom
she loves.
A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor
of the emotional stability of the batterer. Sensing his isolation and
despair, she feels responsible for his well-being.
The truth, though, is tha t th e chances of his reforming, or
seeking or receiving professional help, are very slim, especially if she
remains with him. Generally, only after she leaves him does he seek
professional help as a wa y of getting her back. Yet, it is in this phase
of remorseful reconciliation that she is most thoroughly tormented
psychologically.
The illusion of absolute interdependency is well-entrenched in
a battered woman's psyche. In this phase, she and her batterer are
indeed emotionally dependent on each for hi s
behavior, he for her forgiveness. Underneat h this miserable cycle of
violence and each partner may believe tha t
it is better to die tha n to be separated. Neither one may really feel
independent, capable of functioning without th e other." (People vs.
Genosa, G.R. No. 135981 , Januar y 15, 2004.)
Effect of Battery on Appellant

Because of th e recurring cycles of violence by the
abused woman, her state of mind metamorphoses. In determining
her state of mind, we cannot rely merely on the judgmen t of an
ordinary, reasonable person who is evaluating the events immediately
surrounding the incident. A Canadian court ha s aptly pointed out
that expert evidence on the psychological effect of battering on wive s
and common law partners are both relevant and necessary. "How
can the menta l state of th e appellant be appreciated without it? The
average member of th e public ma y ask: Why would a woma n put up
with this kind of treatment? Why should she continue to live wit h
such a man? How could she love a partner who beat her to th e point
of requiring hospitalization? We would expect th e woman to pack her
bags and go. Where is her self-respect? Why does she not cut loose
and mak e a new life for herself? Such is the reaction of th e average
person confronted wit h the so-called wife
To understand the syndrome properly, however, one's viewpoint should
not be drawn from that of an ordinary, reasonable person. What
192
Self-Defense Par. 1
goes on in th e min d of a person wh o ha s been subjected to repeated,

severe beating ma y not be consistent comprehensible
those who have not been through a similar experience. Expert opinion
is essentia l to clarify and refute common myth s and misconceptions
about battered women .
The theory of BWS formulated by Lenore Walker, as well as her
research on domestic violence, ha s had a significant impact in the United
States and the United Kingdom on the treatment and prosecution of
cases, in which a battered woman is charged with the killing of her
violent partner. The psychologist explains that the cyclical nature of
the violence inflicted upon the battered woman immobilizes the latter's
"ability to act decisively in her own interests, making her feel trapped in
the relationship with no mean s of escape." In her years of research, Dr.
Walker found that "the abuse often escalates at the point of separation
and battered women are in greater danger of dying then."
Corroborating these research findings, Dra. Dayan said that "the
battered woma n usuall y ha s a very low opinion of herself. She has x
x x self-defeating and self-sacrificing x x x [W]hen the
violence would happen, the y usuall y think tha t the y it,
tha t the y were th e one[s] wh o precipitated th e violence that] they
provoke[d] their spouse to be physically, verbally and eve n sexually
abusive to them."
According to Dra. Dayan , ther e are a lot of reason s wh y a
battered woma n does not readily leave an abusive partner — poverty,
and guilt arising from the latter's belief that she provoked
the violence, tha t she ha s an obligation to keep the family intact at
all cost for the sake of their children, and that she is the only hope
for her spouse to change.
The testimony of another expert witness , Dr. Pajarillo, is also
helpful. He had previously testified in suits involving violent family
relations, having evaluated "probably ten to twenty thousand" violent
family disputes within the Armed Forces of the Philippines, wherein
such cases abounded. As a result of his experience with domestic
violence cases, he became a consultant of the Battered Woman Office
in Quezon City. As such, he got involved in about forty (40) cases of
severe domestic violence, in which the physical abuse on the woman
would sometimes even lead to her loss of
Dr. Pajarillo explained that "overwhelming brutality, trauma"
could result in post traumatic stress disorder, a from of "anxiety
neurosis or neurologic After being repeatedly and severely
193
Par. 2 Defense of Relatives
abused, battered persons "may believe that the y are essentially

helpless, lacking power to chang e their x x x [A]cute
battering incidents can have the effect of stimulating the development
of coping responses to the trauma at th e expense of the victim's
ability to muster an active response to try to escape further trauma.
Furthermore, x x x the victim ceases to believe that anything she can
do will have a predictable positive effect."
A study conducted by Martin Seligman, a psychologist at th e
University of Pennsylvania, found tha t "even if a person ha s control
over a situation, but believes that she does not, she will be more likely
to respond to that situation wit h coping responses rather tha n trying
to escape." He said that it wa s th e cognitive individual's
proved all-important. He referred to this phenomenon
helplessness." [T]he truth or facts of a situation turn out
to be less important tha n the individual's set of beliefs or perceptions
concerning th e situation. Battered wome n don't attempt to leav e
the battering situation, eve n whe n it ma y see m to outsiders tha t
escape is because the y cannot predict their own safety; the y
believe that nothing the y or anyone else does will alter their terrible
circumstances."
Thus, jus t as the battered woma n believes that she is somehow
responsible for the violent behavior of her partner, she also believes
that he is capable of killing her, and tha t there is no escape. Bat•
tered wome n feel unsafe, suffer from pervasive anxiety, and usually
fail to leave the relationship. Unles s a shelter is available, she stay s
with her husband, not only because sh e typically lacks a mean s of
self-support, but also because sh e fears tha t if she leaves she would
be found and hurt eve n more. (People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981 ,
January 15, 2001).
Flight, incompatible with self-defense.

The appellant went into hiding after the hacking incident. Suffice it
to state that flight after the commission of the crime is highly evidentiary
of guilt, and incompatible with self-defense (People vs. G.R.
No. citing People vs. 132 SCRA 116).
Par. 2 - DEFENS E OF
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by
194
Defense of Relatives Par. 2
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first
and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance
are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was
given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part
therein.
Relatives that can be defended.

1. Spouse.
2. Ascendants .
3. . Descendants .
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or

relatives by affinity in th e sam e degrees.
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.
Relatives by affinity, because of marriage, are parents-in-law,
son or daughter-in-law, and brother or sister-in-law.
Deat h of th e spouse terminates the relationship by affinity (Kelly
v. 12 Ark. 667, 659, 56 288; Chase vs. Jennings, 38 Me.
unles s th e marriage has resulted in issue who is still living, in
which case th e relationship of continues. vs. Dear-
10 191; Bigelow vs. Sprague, 140 Mass. 425, 5 NE 144)
Consanguinity refers to blood relatives. Brothers and sisters are
within the second civil degree; uncle and niece or aunt and nephew are
withi n th e third civil degree; and first cousins are within the fourth
civil degree.
Thus, if A acted in defense of th e husband of A's sister-in-law,
there is no defense of relative, because th e relation between A and
the husband of A's sister-in-law is not one of those mentioned in
paragraph 2 of Article 11. (People vs. Cabellon, 51 Phil. 846) The
husband of A's sister-in-law is a stranger to A for purpose of the law
on defense of relatives.
Basis justification.
The justification of defense of relatives by reason of which the
defender is not criminally liable, is founded not only upon a humani•
tarian sentiment, but also upon the impulse of blood which impels
men to rush, on the occasion of great perils, to the rescue of those
close to them by ties of blood. (Albert)
195
Requisites of defense of relatives:

Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the mean s employed to prevent or
repel it; and
In case the provocation wa s given by the person attacked,
the one making a defense had no part therein. (See People
vs. G.R. No. 72976, July 9, 1990, 187 SCRA 291,
295; People vs. Agapinay, G.R. No. 77776, Jun e 27, 1990,
186 SCRA 812, 823)
First two requisites are the same as those of self-defense.

The meanin g of "unlawful aggression" and that of "reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it" are already
explained in the discussion of self-defense.
Defense of relatives also requires that there be unlawful

aggression.
O f th e thre e requisite s o f defens e o f relatives , unlawfu l aggression
is the most essentia l and primary, without which any defense is not possible or
justified. (People vs. Agapinay, supra)
Of th e three (3) requisite s 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 tha t an unlawful aggression
wa s actually committed, it is necessar y tha t an attack or material
aggression, an offensive act positively determining the intent of th e
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 punishable per se, and allow a claim of exemption
from liability on the ground tha t it wa s committed in self-defense
or defense of a relative. (Balunueco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
126968, April 9, 2003)
Whe n tw o person s are g et t in g read y t o strik e eac h other ,
ther e ca n be no unlawfu l a gg ressio n , and hence , a relativ e of
eithe r wh o butt s in an d a d mini st er s a deadl y blow on th e othe r
to preven t hi m from doin g har m is no t actin g in defens e of a rela•
tive , but is guilt y of homicide . (Peopl e vs . Moro M unabe , 46
O.G. 4392 )
196
Defense of Relatives Par. 2
In this case, whe n he sa w th e deceased and hi s brother facing

each other in a fight, each holding a taki taki, an for up•
rooting rubber seedlings, th e accused hit th e deceased on the head
with hi s taki taki, causin g th e latter's death.
If th e accused appears to be the aggressor, he cannot invoke the
defense of havin g acted in defense of a relative. (People vs.
C.A., 4 0 O.G. 1477)
Must unlawful aggression exist as a matter of fact, or can it

be made to depend upon the honest belief of the one making
a defense?
Yes, it can be mad e to depend upon th e hones t belief of the one
makin g a defense. (U.S. vs . 17 Phil. 260, 264)
Thus, whe n A attacked and wounded B wit h a dagger, causing
th e latter to fall down, but B immediatel y stood up and defended
himself by striking A wit h a bolo and as a result, A wa s seriously
wounded and fell in the mu d wit h B standing in front of A in a position
as if to strike again in case A would stand up, there is no doubt that
A wa s th e unlawful aggressor. Bu t whe n the sons of A came, what
the y saw wa s tha t their father wa s lying in th e mud wounded. They
believed in good faith tha t their father wa s th e victim of an unlawful
aggression . If the y killed B unde r suc h circumstances , the y are
justified.
In that case, there wa s a mistak e of fact on the part of the sons

of A.
Even in self-defense, the Supreme Court of Spain held that when
a person while walking at night in an uninhabited place wa s ordered
by someone to halt and give his money, such person wa s justified
in shooting tha t someone, eve n if he turned out to be a friend, only
playing a practical joke.
Gauge of reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the ag•

gression.
The gauge of reasonable necessity of the mean s employed to
repel the aggression as against one's self or in defense of a relative is
to be found in the situation as it appears to the person repelling the
aggression. It has been held time and again that the reasonableness
197
of the means adopted is not one of mathematical calculation or

rial commensurability between the mean s of attack and but
the imminent danger against the subject of the attack as perceived
by the defender and the instinct more tha n reason that moves the
defender to repel the attack. (Eslabon vs. People, No. Feb.
24, 1984, 127 SCRA 785, 790-791)
Third requisite of defense of relative.

The clause, "in case the provocation wa s given by the person attacked,"
used in stating th e third requisite of defense of relatives, does not mea n that
the relative defended should give provocation to the aggressor. The clause
merely states an event which may or may not take place.
The phrase "in case" mean s "in the event that."
There is still a legitimate defense of relative even if th e relative being
defended ha s given provocation, provided that the one defend• ing such
relative ha s no part in th e provocation.
Reason for the rule:

That although the provocation prejudices th e person who gave
it, its effects do not reach the defender who took no part therein, be•
cause the latter wa s prompted by some noble or generous sentimen t
in protecting and saving a relative.
When the third requisite is lacking.

The accused wa s previously shot by th e brother of the victim. It
cannot be said, therefore, tha t in attacking the victim, the accused
wa s impelled by pure compassion or beneficence or the lawful desire
to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin. Rather, he
wa s motivated by revenge, resentmen t or evil motive because of a
running feud betwee n them . (People vs. Toring, G.R. No. 56358, Oct.
26, 1990, 191 SCRA 38, 47)
The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is im•

material.
Thus, eve n if A had slapped th e face of B who, as a consequence of the
act of A, immediately commenced to retaliate by drawing a
198
Defense of Stranger Par. 3
knife and trying to stab A, and C, father of A, killed B in defense of

his son, C is completely justified, notwithstandin g th e fact that the
provocation wa s given by hi s son A.
Bu t if C had induced hi s son A to injure B, thereby taking part

in the provocation made by A, C would not be completely justified
in killing B while th e latter wa s about to stab A, because th e third
requisite of defense of relative is lacking.
Suppose, th e person defending hi s relative wa s also induced by
revenge or hatred, would there be a legitimate defense of relative?
As long as th e three requisites of defense of relatives are present, it
will still be a legitimate defense.
Examples of defense of relatives.

1. The accused, at a distance of about 20 from his house,
heard hi s wife shouting for help. He rushed to the house and
once inside sa w th e deceased on top of hi s wife. He drew his
bolo and hacked th e deceased at th e base of his neck whe n the
latter wa s forcibly abusing hi s wife. (People vs. Ammalun , C.A.,
51 O.G. 6250)
2. Domingo Rivera challenged th e deceased to prove who of the m

wa s th e better man . Whe n th e deceased picked up a bolo and
wen t after him, Domingo Rivera took to flight. The deceased
pursued hi m and upon overtaking hi m inflicted two wounds.
Antonio Rivera, father of Domingo, rushed to his son's assistance
and struck wit h a cane the bolo from th e hand s of the deceased.
Domingo Rivera inflicted fatal wounds upon the While
th e son wa s originally at fault for giving provocation to the de•
ceased, yet th e father wa s justified in disarming the deceased,
having acted in lawful defense of his son. Bu t Domingo Rivera
wa s declared guilty of th e crime of homicide. (U.S. vs. Rivera,
26 Phil. 138)
Par. 3 - DEFENS E OF STRANGER.

Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a
stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned
in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the
person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other
evil motive.
199
Art. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Par. 3 Defense of Stranger
Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the mean s employed to prevent or
repel it; and
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment,
or other evil motive. (See People vs. Moral, No.
Oct. 12, 1984, 132 SCRA 474, 485)
Note that the first two requisites are the same as those of self- defense
and defense of relatives.
Basis of defense of stranger.

What one may do in his defense, another may do for him. Persons
acting in defense of others are in th e sam e condition and upon the
same plane as those wh o act in defense of themselves. The ordinary
ma n would not stand idly by and see his companion killed without
attempting to save hi s life. (U.S. vs. 38 Phil. 10, 13)
Third requisite of defense of stranger.

This Code requires tha t th e defense of a stranger be actuated
by a disinterested or generous motive, whe n it puts down "revenge,
resentment, or other evil as illegitimate. (Albert)
Who are deemed strangers?

An y perso n not included in the enumeration of relatives
mentioned in paragraph 2 of this article, is considered stranger for
the purpose of paragraph 3. Hence, eve n a close friend or a distant
relative is a stranger withi n th e meanin g of paragraph 3.
The person defending "be not induced."

Paragraph 3 of Art. 11 use s the phrase "be not induced." Hence,
even if a person ha s a standing grudge against the assailant, if he
enters upon the defense of a stranger out of generous motive to save
the stranger from serious bodily har m or possible death, th e third
requisite of defense of stranger still exists. The third requisite would
be lacking if such person was prompted by his grudge against th e as•
sailant, because the alleged defense of th e stranger would be only a
pretext.
200
Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury Par. 4
If in defending hi s wife's brother-in-law, th e accused acted also

from an impulse of resentment against the deceased, th e third req•
uisite of defense of stranger is not present. (People vs. Cabellon and
Gaviola, 51 Phil. 851)
Examples of defense of stranger:
1. A wa s able to deprive B, a constabulary lieutenant, of hi s pistol

during th e fray. B ordered C, a constabulary soldier under his
command, to search A for th e pistol. Whe n C wa s about to ap•
proach A to search him, th e latter stepped back and shot at C
wh o wa s able to avoid th e shot. Whe n A wa s about to fire again
at C, D, another constabulary soldier, fired at A with his rifle
which killed him.
Held: D wa s justified in killing A, havin g acted in defense of

stranger. (People vs. et 66 Phil. 638)
2. A heard screams and cries for help. Whe n A responded, he saw
B attacking hi s (B's) wife wit h a dagger. A approached B and
struggled for th e possession of the weapon, in the course of which
A inflicted wound s on B.
Held: A acted in defense of a stranger. (People vs. Valdez, 58

Phil. 31)
Furnishing a weapon to one in serious danger of being throttled is

defense of stranger.
A Japanes e hit an old ma n 78 years of age on th e face, shoved
him to the ground and attempted to choke him. The accused furnished
the old ma n wit h a small gaff, used by gam e cocks, with which the
old ma n killed his assailant. The accused wa s justified in furnishing
the old ma n with the gaff, it being in defense of stranger. (U.S. vs.
Subingsubing, 31 Phil. 376)
Par. 4 - AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY.

Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an
act which causes damage to another, provided that the following
requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it;
201
Par. 4 Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful

means of preventing it.
"Damage to
This term covers injury to persons and damage to property.
The Court of Appeals applied paragraph 4 of Art. in a case
of slander by deed, a crime against honor, where the accused (a
woman) who wa s about to be married to the offended party eloped
with another man, after the offended had made preparations
for the wedding, the Court holding that there wa s a necessity on the
part of the accused of avoiding a loveless marriage with the offended
party, and that her refusal to marry him and her eloping with the
man whom she loved were justified and did not amount to the crime of
slander by deed. (People vs. Norma Hernandez, C.A., 55 O.G. 8465)
the evil sought to be avoided actually exists."

The evil mus t actually exist. If th e evil sought to be avoided
is merely expecte d or anticipate d or ma y happe n in th e future,
paragraph 4 of Art. is not applicable.
Example of injury to person under paragraph 4:

A person wa s driving his car on a narrow road wit h due diligence
and care whe n suddenly he saw a "six by six" truck in front of his car.
If he would swerve his car to th e left he would fall into a precipice, or
if he would swerve it to th e right he would kill a passer-by. He wa s
forced to choose betwee n losing hi s life in th e precipice or sacrificing
the life of th e innocent bystander. He chose th e latter, swerved hi s
car to the right, ran over and killed th e passer-by. (Guevara)
In view of thi s example and th e principle involved, th e killing
of the foetus to save th e life of th e mother ma y be held excusable.
"That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it."
Does the foregoing example violate the second condition required
by the Code, that is, tha t th e injury feared be greater than that done
to avoid
No, because the instinct of self-preservation will always mak e one feel
tha t his own safety is of greater importance tha n that of another.
202
Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury Par. 4
The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or

imprudence of the actor.
Thus, if in th e example above, th e driver drove his car at full

speed, disregardin g th e condition of th e place, and althoug h he
sa w th e "six by six" truck at a distance 50 0 meters away, he did
not slacken hi s speed, he cannot invoke paragraph 4 of this article,
because th e state of necessit y wa s brought about by his own reckless
imprudence.
When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot invoke the
justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury.
Pio wit h a bolo and Severo wit h an axe attacked Geminiano
who wa s wounded. Nearby, Jua n embraced Marianito, Geminiano's
son, who had a gu n slun g on hi s shoulder, and grappled with him.
Geminiano died. Pio, Severo and Jua n were prosecuted for murder.
Jua n invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil
or injury (Par. 4, Article in explaining his act of preventing
Marianito from shooting Pio and Severo.
Held: Hi s reliance on tha t justifying circumstance is

The act of Jua n in preventin g Marianito de Leon from
shooting and Severo Padernal, who were the aggressors,
wa s designed to insure th e killing of Geminiano de Leon without any
risk to his assailants. Jua n Padernal wa s not avoiding any evil whe n
he sought to disable Marianito. (People vs. Ricohermoso, et 56
SCRA 431)
Note: Even if Marianito wa s about to shoot Pio and Severo,

hi s act, being in defense of his father, is not an evil that
could justifiably be avoided by disabling Marianito.
Examples of damage to property under paragraph 4:

1. Fire breaks out in a cluster of nipa houses, and in order to
prevent its spread to adjacent houses of strong materials, the
surrounding nipa houses are pulled down. (Albert)
2. Where a truck of th e Standard Vacuu m Oil Co. delivering
gasoline at a gas station caught fire and, in order to prevent
the burning of the station, the truck wa s driven to the middle
of the street and there abandoned, but it continued to move and
203
Par. 5 Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful
Exercise of Right or Office
thereafter crashed against and burned a house on the other side
of the street, the owner of the house had a cause of action against
the owner of the gas station under paragraph 2 of Art. 101, in
relation to paragraph 4 of Art. 11. (Tan vs. Standard Vacuum
Oil Co., 91 Phil. 672)
3. During the storm, the ship which wa s heavily loaded with goods
wa s in danger of sinking. The captain of the vessel ordered
part of the goods thrown overboard. In this case, the captain
is not criminally liable for causing part of the goods thrown
overboard.
The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result from a
violation of law by the actor.
Thus, an escaped convict wh o ha s to steal clothes in order to move
about unrecognized, does not act from necessity. (Albert) He is liable for theft
of the clothes.
There is civil liability under this paragraph.

Although , as a rule ther e is no civil liability in justifyin g cir•
cumstances , it is only in paragrap h 4 of Art. wher e ther e is civil liability, but
th e civil liabilit y is borne by the persons benefited.
In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article the persons for
whose benefit the harm ha s bee n prevented, shall be civilly liable in
to th e benefit which the y ma y hav e received. (Art. 101)
Par. 5. - FULFILLMEN T OF DUT Y OR LAWFUL

EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE.
Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office.
Requisites:
That the accused acted in th e performance of a duty or in
th e lawful exercise of a right or
2. That the injury caused or th e offense committed be th e necessary
consequence of th e due performance of duty or the lawful exercise
of such right or office. (People vs. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257, 259; People
vs. Pajenado, No. L-26458, Jan .
30, 1976, 69 SCRA 172, 177)
204
Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Par. 5
In th e case of People vs. Oanis, supra, th e first requisite is
present, because th e accused peace officers, wh o were trying to get a
wanted criminal, were acting in th e performance of a duty.
The second requisite is not present, because through impatience, over-
anxiety, or in their desire to take no chances, the accused ex• ceeded in th e
fulfillment of their duty whe n they killed a sleeping person who m the y
believed to be the wanted criminal without making an y previous inquiry as to
hi s identity.
Fulfillment of duty.
People vs. Felipe
(46 Phil. 738)
Facts: Lorenzo Napilon escaped from the jail where he was serving
sentence.
Some days afterwards the policeman, Felipe Delima, who was
looking for him, found him in the house of Jorge armed with a
pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance, and demanded his
surrender. The fugitive answered with a stroke of his lance. The
policeman dodged it, and to impose his authority fired his revolver,
but the bullet did not hit him. The criminal ran away, without parting
with his weapon. The peace officer went after him and fired again his
revolver, this time hitting and killing him.
The policeman was tried and convicted by the Court of First
Instance of homicide and sentenced to temporal and the
accessory penalties.
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 an extreme means, which, although it proved to be fatal, was
justified by the circumstances.
Article 8, No. 11 of the Penal Code (Art. 11, par. 5, Revised Penal
Code) being considered, Felipe Delima committed no crime, and he is
hereby acquitted with costs de
Ruling in Delima case, applied to the case of a guard who killed a
detained prisoner while escaping.
If a detained prisoner under the custody of the accused, a
man detailed to guard him, by mean s of force and violence, wa s able
205
to leave the cell and actually attempted to escape, notwithstanding
the warnings given by the accused not to do so, and wa s shot by the
accused, the latter is entitled to acquittal in accordance with the
ruling laid down in People vs. Delima, 46 Phil. 738. (People vs. Bisa,
C.A., 51 O.G. 4091)
Ruling in the Delima case, applied to a case where an escaping

detainee charged with a relatively minor offense of stealing
a chicken was shot to death by a policeman.
In this case, four members of the police force went after hi m
as soon as the detention prisoner had escaped. When the escaping
detainee saw one of the policemen, he lunged at the latter, hitting
him with a stone on the right cheek, as a consequence of which he
fell down, and while in that position on the ground, he wa s again
struck with a stone by th e escaping detainee; thereafter, the latter
ran away pursued by the policeman and his in the course
of the pursuit, th e policeman fired a warning shot into the air, and as
the escaping detainee paid no hee d to this, the policeman fired into
the air four time s more and kept on pursuing him; as the latter wa s
apparently widening the distance betwee n them, and fearing tha t
he might finally be able to elude arrest, th e policeman fired directly
at him while he wa s in th e act of jumpin g again into another part of
the creek, the shot havin g hit hi m on the back. (Valcorza vs. People,
30 SCRA 148-150)
People vs. Lagata

(83 Phil. 159)
Facts: When the guard called his order to assemble, one of the
prisoners wa s missing. So, he ordered the others to look for him. The
other prisoners scampered. The guard fired at two of the prisoners,
wounding one and killing the other (Tipace). His reason wa s to
prevent the attempt of the prisoners to escape.
Held: As regards the shooting of Abria and Tipace, we are con•
vinced that the facts were as narrated by the witnesse s for the pros•
ecution. Abria wa s shot whe n he wa s only three meters away from
the guard and the defense has not even shown that Abria attempted
to escape. Tipace wa s also shot whe n he wa s about four or five meters
away from the guard. The latter's allegation that Tipace wa s running,
— conveying the idea tha t said prisoner wa s in the act of escaping,
206
— appears to be inconsistent with his own testimony to the effect that
Tipace was running sidewise, with his face looking towards him (the
guard), and with the undisputed fact that Tipace was hit near one axilla,
the bullet coming out from the opposite shoulder. If Tipace's purpose
was to escape, the natural thing for him to do would have been to give
his back to the guard.
It is clear that the guard had absolutely no reason to fire at Tipace.
The guard could have fired at him in self-defense or if absolutely neces•
sary to avoid his escape.
Five Justice s believed tha t th e prisoner wh o wa s killed wa s not

escaping. The four Justice s who dissente d believed tha t the prisoner
wa s escaping or running awa y whe n he wa s shot by the guard. All
the Justices agreed tha t a guard is justified in shooting an escaping
prisoner.
In the case of U.S. vs. Magno, et 8 Phil. 314, where the
prisoner attempte d to escape, and the Constabulary soldiers, his
custodians, shot hi m to death in view of th e fact tha t the prisoner,
disregarding th e warnin g of his custodians, persisted in his attempt
to escape, and there wa s no other remedy but to fire at him in order
to prevent hi m from getting away, it wa s held that the Constabu•
lary soldiers acted in th e fulfillment of duty and, therefore, were not
criminally liable.
Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified.

In the case People vs. Gayrama, 60 Phil. 796, where the ac•
cused, who had slashed wit h a bolo th e municipal president on his
arm, ran away and refused to be arrested, it wa s stated that if the
chief of police had been armed with a revolver and had used it against
the accused, th e act of the chief of police under those circumstances
would have been fully justified.
The reason for this is tha t it is the duty of peace officers to ar•
rest violators of the law not only whe n they are provided with the
corresponding warrant of arrest but also when they are not provided
with said warrant if the violation is committed in their own presence;
and this duty extends even to cases the purpose of which is merely to
prevent a crime about to be consummated. (U.S. vs. 1 Phil.
47; U.S. vs. Resaba, 1 Phil. 311; U.S. vs. Vallejo, 11 Phil. 193; U.S.
vs. Santos, 36 Phil. 853)
207
But shooting a thief who refused to be arrested is not
A security guard accosted a thief who had stolen ore in the tun•
nel of a mining company. The thief tried to flee. The security guard
ordered him to stop, but the latter disregarded the order. The security
guard fired four shots into the air with his carbine to scare the thief
and to stop him. As the thief continued to flee, saying that he would
not stop even if he died, the security guard fired a fifth shot directed
at the leg of the thief, but the bullet hit him in the lumbar region.
The thief died.
Held: The security guard acted in the performance of his duty,
but he exceeded the fulfillment of his duty by shooting the deceased.
He wa s adjudged guilty of homicide. (People vs. Bentres, C.A., 49
O.G. 4919)
In the case People vs. Oanis, supra, it wa s held that although an

officer in makin g a lawful arrest is justified in using such force as is
reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome hi s
resistance , preven t hi s escape , recapture hi m i f he escapes , and
protect himself from bodily harm, yet he is never justified in using
unnecessary force or in treating hi m wit h wanton violence, or in
resorting to dangerous means whe n th e arrest could be effected
otherwise. (6 par. 13, p. 612) The doctrine is restated in th e
Rules of Court thus: "No violence or unnecessary force shall be used
in making an arrest, and th e person arrested shall not be subject to
any greater restraint tha n is necessary for hi s detention." (Rule 113,
Sec. 2, par. 2)
Legitimate performance of duty.

When th e victim without apparent reason, but probably due
to drunkenness, fired hi s gu n several time s at the Vista Club,
the accused and hi s partner had to intervene for they were wit h th e
They would have been remis s in their duty if they did not. True,
the deceased companion of th e accused shot th e victim who died as a
result. Bu t it would be doing injustice to a deceased agent of the law
who cannot now defend himsel f to state that whe n he approached th e
trouble making victim he had a preconceived notion to kill. It mus t be
presumed that he acted pursuant to law whe n he tried to discharge his
duty as an NB I agent and that th e killing of the victim wa s justified
under the circumstances. The sam e is true for the accused. (People
vs. Cabrera, No. Oct. 28, 1980, 100 SCRA 424, 431)
208
Illegal performance of duty.
The defense of fulfillment of a duty does not avail. The attitude adopted
by the deceased in putting his hand s in his pocket is not sufficient to justify th
e accused to shoot him. The deceased wa s unarmed and th e accused could
have first warned him, as the latter wa s coming towards him, to stop where he
was , raise hi s hands, or do the things a policeman is trained to do, instead of
mercilessly shooting him upon a mere suspicion tha t the deceased wa s armed.
(People vs. Tan, No. L-22697, Oct. 5, 1976, 73 SCRA 288, 292-293)
We find the requisites absent in the case at bar. Appellant wa s

not in the of his duties at the time of the shooting for the
reason that the girls he wa s attempting to arrest were not committing
any act of prostitution in his presence. If at all, the only person he wa s
authorized to arrest that time wa s Roberto Reyes, who offered
him the services of a prostitute, for acts of vagrancy. Even then, the
fatal injuries that the appellant caused the victim were not a necessary
consequence of appelant's performance of his duty as a police officer.
The record shows that appellant shot the victim not once but twice after
a heated confrontation ensued between them. His duty to arrest the
female suspects did not include any right to shoot the victim to death.
(People vs. Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, January 24, 2001)
Distinguished from self-defense and from consequence of

felonious act.
Fulfillment of duty to prevent the escape of a prisoner is different from
self-defense, because the y are based on different principles.
In the case of People us. Delima, supra, the prisoner who attacked
the policeman wit h "a stroke of his lance" wa s already running away
whe n he wa s shot, and, hence, the unlawful aggression had already
ceased to exist; but th e killing wa s done in the performance of a duty.
The rule of self-defense does not apply.
The public officer acting in the fulfillment of a duty may appear
to be an aggressor but his aggression is not unlawful, it being neces•
sary to fulfill his duty.
Thus, when the guard levelled his gun at the escaping prisoner
and the prisoner grabbed the muzzle of the gun and, in the struggle
for the possession of the gun, the guard jerked away the gun from the
hold of the prisoner, causing the latter to be thrown halfway around,
and because of the force of the pull, the guard's finger squeezed the
209
trigger, causing it to fire, hitting and killing the prisoner, the guard was
acting in the fulfillment of duty. (People vs. Bisa, C.A., 51 O.G. 4091)
In either case, if the accused were a private person, not in the
performance of a duty, the result would be different. In the first
case, there would be no self-defense because there is no unlawful
aggression. In the second case, the one pointing the gun at another
would be committing a (grave threat under Art. 282)
For instance, A levelled his gun at B, threatening the latter
with death. B grabbed the muzzle of the gun and in the struggle for
the possession of the gun, A squeezed the trigger causing it to fire,
hitting and killing B. In this case, A is criminally liable under Art.
4, par. 1, in relation to Art. 282 and Art. 249.
Lawful exercise of right or office.

Of right.
Unde r th e Civil Code (Art. 429), th e owner or lawful possesso r of a
thin g ha s the right to exclude an y person from the enjoymen t and disposal
thereof. For this purpose, he ma y use such force as ma y be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatene d unlawful physical invasio
n or usurpatio n of hi s property.
If in protecting his possession of the property he injured (not seriously)
the one trying to get it from him, he is justified under thi s paragraph.
Unde r thi s paragrap h (lawful exercise of a right), it is no t

necessar y tha t ther e be unlawfu l aggressio n against the person
charged wit h th e protection of th e property. If there is unlawfu l
aggression agains t th e person charged wit h th e protection of th e
property, the n paragraph 1 of Art. applies, it being a defense of
right to property.
Doctrine of "self-help" under Art. 429, Civil Code, applied in

Criminal Law.
People vs. Depante

58 O.G. 926)
Facts: At about 9 o'clock in the morning of December 29, 1958,
while Mariano Depante wa s in a Chinese store, Paciencia Iquiran, his
210
saw him holding a five-peso bill in his left hand. Mariano had
just bought a package of cigarettes and the five-peso bill he was holding
was part of the change he had just received from the storekeeper.
Paciencia, who was in a bad mood because Mariano had not given her
support for sometime, approached him and after uttering insulting
words, grabbed the five-peso bill from Mariano's hand. When he acted
to recover the same, she grabbed his shirt, tearing the same. Mariano
gave her fist blows on the forehead, on the right side of the head and
on the middle part of her left arm, knocking her down. He was able to
regain possession of the five-peso bill.
Was the act of Paciencia in grabbing the five-peso bill an actual
or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of Mariano
Depante's property? We find that it was. More than that, the act could
be attempted robbery. The fact that Paciencia was a querida and that
Mariano had not supported her for sometime was not an exempting
or justifying circumstance. Robbery can even be committed by a wife
against her husband. Only theft, swindling and malicious mishief can•
not be committed by a wife against her husband. (Art. 332, Revised
Penal Code)
Did Mariano use such force as was reasonably necessary to re•
pel or prevent the actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property? On this point, we find that he cannot claim
full justification, for the three fist blows which rendered Paciencia
unconscious for sometime were not reasonable, considering the sex of
the complainant. Hence, appellant is criminally liable. However, his
criminal liability may be mitigated under Article 69 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Held: The requisites mentioned in Art. 429, Civil Code, in relation
to Art. 11, paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code, to justify the act not being
all present, a penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed
by law may be imposed.
The actual invasion of property may consist of a mere distur•

bance of possession or a real dispossession.
If it is mere disturbance of possession, force may be used against
it at any time as long as it continues, even beyond the prescriptive
period for an action of forcible entry. Thus, if a ditch is opened by
Pedro in the land of Juan, the latter may close it or cover it by force
at any time.
If the invasion, however, consists of a real dispossession, force
to regain possession can be used only immediately after the dispos-
211
Par. 6 Obedience to an Order Issued for
Some Lawful Purpose
session. Thus, if Juan, without the permission of Pedro, picks up a
book belonging to the latter and runs off with it, Pedro can pursue
Jua n and recover the book by force.
If the property is immovable, there should be no delay in the
use of force to recover it; a delay, even if excusable, such as whe n due
to the ignorance of the dispossession, will bar the right to the use of
force. Once the usurper's possession ha s become firm by the lapse of
time, the lawful possessor mus t resort to the competent authority
to recover his property. (Tolentino's comment on Article 429 of the
new Civil Code, Vol. II, p. 54, citing 3-1 and Wolff
92-93)
Of right
The exercise of a statutory right to suspend installment pay•
ment s under Section 23 of P.D. 957 is a valid defense against the
purported violations of 22 tha t petitioner is charged with.
Petitioner's exercise of th e right of a buyer under Article 23 of P.D.
No. 957 is a valid defense to th e charges against him. (Sycip vs. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 125059, March 17, 2000)
office.
The executioner of th e Bilibid Prison cannot be held liable for
murder for th e execution by hi m because he wa s merely
acting in th e lawful exercise of hi s office. (Guevara)
A surgeon who amputate d the leg of a patient to save him from
gangrene is not liable for the crime of mutilation, because he wa s acting in th e
lawful exercise of his office.
Par. 6. - OBEDIENC E TO AN ORDER ISSUE D FOR SOME

LAWFUL PURPOSE .
Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a

superior for some lawful purpose.
Requisites:
1. That an order ha s been issued by a superior.
2. That such order mus t be for some lawful purpose.
212
Obedience to an Order Issued for Par. 6
Some Lawful Purpose
3. That the mean s used by the subordinate to carry out said
order is lawful.
Both the person who gives the order and the person who executes
it, mus t be acting withi n the limitations prescribed by law. (People
vs. Wilson and Dolores, 52 Phil. 919)
Example of absence of the third requisite.
The court ordered tha t th e convict should be executed on a certain date.

The executioner put hi m to deat h on a day earlier tha n th e date fixed by th e
court.
The execution of the convict, although by virtue of a lawful

order of the court, wa s carried out against the provision of Art. 82.
The executioner is guilty of murder.
When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate

who obeyed it is criminally liable.
(1) One wh o prepared a falsified document with full knowledge of
its falsity is not excused eve n if he merely acted in obedience to
th e instruction of hi s superior, because the instruction wa s not
for a lawful purpose. (People vs. Barroga, 54 Phil. 247)
(2) A soldier who, in obedience to the order of his sergeant, tortured
to death the deceased for bringing a kind of fish different from
that he had been asked to furnish a constabulary detachment, is
criminally liable. Obedience to an order of a superior is justified
only whe n th e order is for some lawful purpose. The order to
torture the deceased wa s illegal, and the accused wa s not bound
to obey it. (People vs. Margen, et 85 Phil. 839)
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.
When the accused acted upon orders of superior officers, which
he, as military subordinate, could not question, and obeyed the orders
in good faith, without being aware of their illegality, without any fault
or negligence on his part, he is not liable because he had no criminal
intent and he wa s not negligent. (People vs. Beronilla, 96 Phil. 566)
213
Art. 12 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Imbecility or Insanity
II. Exe mptin g circu mstances .

1. Defi n it io n
Exempting circumstances are those
grounds for exemption from punishment because there is
wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions
which make the act voluntary or negligent.
2. B a si s
The exemption from punishment is based on the com• plete
absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the
absence of negligence on the part of the accused.
Under the Revised Penal a person must act with
malice or negligence to be criminally liable. One who acts
without intelligence, freedom of action or intent does not
act with malice. On the other hand, one who acts without
intelligence, freedom of action or fault does not act wit h
negligence.
Art . 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability.

— Th e followin g ar e exemp t fro m crimina l liability :
1 . A n i m b e c i l e o r a n i n s a n e p e r s o n , u n l e s s th e l a t t e r
ha s a ct e d d u r i n g a luci d i n t e r v a l .
Whe n th e i m b e c i l e o r a n i n s a n e p e r s o n ha s c o m m i t t e d
a n ac t w h i c h th e la w def i ne s a s a f e l o n y (delito), th e co ur t
o rd e r hi s c o n f i n e me n t i n on e o f th e h o s p i ta l s o r a s y l u m s
e s t a b l i s h e d fo r p e r s o n s t h u s a ff lict ed , w h i c h h e sha l l no t b e
p e r m i t t e d t o l ea v e w i t h o u t firs t o b t a i n i n g th e p e r m i s s i o n o f
th e sa m e co u rt .
2. A p e r s o n u n d e r ni n e y e a r s o f
3 . A p e r s o n ov e r n i n e y e a r s o f ag e an d u n d e r f if te e n ,
u n l e s s h e ha s a c t e d w it h d i s c e r n m e n t , i n w h i c h ca se , s u c h
m i n o r sha l l b e p r o c e e d e d a g a i n s t i n a c c o r d a n c e w it h th e
p r o v i s i o n s o f Art icl e 8 0 o f t hi s Co de .
child fifteen years of age or under is exempt from criminal liability under
Rep. Act No. 934 4 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006).
214
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 12
Imbecility or Insanity Par. 1
Whe n suc h m i n o r i s a d j u d g e d b e c r i mi n a l l y irre spo n si •

ble , th e co urt , i n c o nf o r mi t y wit h th e p r o v is i o n s o f thi s an d th e
p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h , shal l c o m mi t hi m t o car e an d custod y
o f hi s fa mi l y w h o sha l l b e c h a r g e d w it h hi s s u r v e i l l a n c e an d
e d u c a t i o n ; o t h e r w i s e , h e sha l l b e c o m m i t t e d t o th e ca r e o f
so m e i n s t i t u t i o n o r p e r s o n m e n t i o n e d i n sa i d Arti cl e
4 . An y p e r s o n w h o , w h i l e p e r f o r m i n g a la w fu l ac t w i t h
du e ca re , c a u s e s a n i n j ur y b y me r e a c c i d e n t w i t h o u t faul t o r
i n t e n t i o n o f c a u s i n g it .
5 . An y p e r s o n w h o a ct s u n d e r th e c o m p u l s i o n o f a n
i r r e s i s t i b l e fo rce .
6 . An y p e r s o n w h o a ct s u n d e r th e i m p u l s e o f a n u n c o n •
t r o l l a b l e fea r o f a n e q ua l o r g r e a t e r inj ury .
7 . An y p e r s o n w h o fail s t o p e r f o r m a n ac t r e q u i r e d b y
law , w h e n p r e v e n t e d b y s o m e la w f u l o r i n s u p e r a b l e ca u se .
In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed but

no criminal liability arises.
Technically, one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting
circumstances commits a crime, although by th e complete absence of
any the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the
act, no criminal liability arise. (Guevara)
Burden of proof.
Any of the circumstances mentioned in Art. 12 is a matter of defense and
th e sam e mus t be proved by the defendant to the satis• faction of the court.
Par. 1 — An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has

acted during a lucid interval.
Imbecility distinguished from insanity.

This paragraph establishes the distinction between imbecility and
insanity, because while the imbecile is exempt in all cases from
repealed by Rep. Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
of 2006). See explanations,
215
Par. 1 Imbecility or Insanity
criminal liability, the insane is not so exempt if it can be shown that

he acted during a lucid interval.
During lucid interval, the insane acts with intelligence.
An imbecile is one who, while advanced in age, ha s a mental
development comparable to that of children between two and seven years of
age.
An imbecile within the meaning of Art. is one who is deprived
completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the
time of committing the crime. (People vs. No. L-52688, Oct.
17, 1980, 100 SCRA 325, 333, citing People vs. 87 Phil.
658, 660)
To constitute insanity, there must be complete deprivation of

intelligence or that there be a total deprivation of the freedom
of the will.
The Supre m e Court o f Spai n hel d tha t i n order tha t th e
exempting circumstance of insanity may be take n into account, it is
necessary tha t there be a complete deprivation of intelligence while
committing th e act, that is, tha t the accused be deprived of reason;
that he acts without the least discernment; or that there be a total
deprivation of of the will. (People vs. Formigones, 87 Phil.
Insanity exists whe n there is a complete deprivation of intel•

ligence in committing th e act, tha t is, th e accused is deprived of
reason, he acts without th e least discernment, because there is a
complete absence of th e power to discern, or that there is a total dep•
rivation of freedom of the will. (People vs. Puno, No. Jun e
29, 1981, 105 SCRA 151, 158-159, citing earlier cases. Also, People
vs. Magallano, No. L-32978, Oct, 30, 1980, 100 SCRA 570, 578-579)
Thus, mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough, espe•

cially if th e offender ha s not lost consciousness of his acts. At most, it
is only a mitigating circumstance. (Art. 13, par. 9)
Procedure when the imbecile or the insane committed a

felony.
The court shall order hi s confinement in one of the hospitals
or asylum s establishe d for persons afflicted, which he shall not be
216
permitted to leav e withou t first obtainin g th e permissio n of th e court.

Bu t th e court has no power to permit th e insan e person to leave
the without first obtaining the opinion of the Director of Health
that he ma y be released without danger. (Chin Ah Foo vs.
54 Phil. 775)
Who has the burden of proof to show insanity?

The defense mus t prove tha t th e accused wa s insan e at th e time
of th e commission of th e crime, because th e presumption is always
in favor of sanity. (People vs. Bascos, 44 Phil. 204, 206)
Sanit y bein g th e normal condition o f th e huma n mind, th e

prosecution ma y proceed upon th e presumption tha t th e accused wa s
san e and responsible whe n th e act wa s committed. The presumption
is always in favor of sanity and th e burden of proof of insanity is on
the defense. (People vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 87084 , Jun e 27, 1990, 186
SCRA 858, citing cases)
How much evidence is necessary to overthrow the presump•

tion of sanity?
The wife of th e accused and his cousin testified that the accused had
been more or les s continuously out of hi s mind for man y years. The assistan t
district healt h officer who , by order of th e court, examined th e accused
found tha t the accused wa s a violent maniac. The physician expressed th e
opinion tha t th e accused wa s probably insane whe n he killed th e deceased.
The total lack of motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased bears
out the assumption that the former wa s insane. (People vs. Bascos, supra)
In order to ascertain a person's mental condition at the time of
the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his
mind during a reasonable period both before and after that time.
Direct testimony is not required, nor are specific acts of derangement
essential to establish insanity as a defense. Mind can be known only
by outward acts. Thereby, we read the thoughts, the motives and
emotions of a person and come to determine whether his acts conform
to the practice of people of sound mind. To prove insanity, therefore,
circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing, will suffice. (People
vs. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 93)
217
Insanity at the time of the commission of the felony distin•

guished from insanity at the time of the trial.
When a person wa s insane at the time of the commission of the felony,
he is exempt from criminal liability.
When he wa s sane at the time of the commission of the crime,
but he becomes insane at the time of the trial, he is liable criminally.
The trial, however, will be suspended until the mental capacity of the
accused be restored to afford him a fair trial.
Evidence of insanity.
The evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act
under prosecution or to the moment of its execution. If the evi•
dence points to insanity subsequent to the commission of the crime,
the accused cannot be acquitted. He is presumed to be sane whe n he
committed it. (U.S. vs. Guevara, 27 Phil. 547, 550; People vs. Fausto,
No. Dec. 30, 1961 , 3 SCRA 863 , 866-867; People vs. Puno,
No. Jun e 29, 1981, 105 SCRA 151, 158)
If the insanity is only occasional or intermittent in its nature,

the presumption of its continuance does not arise. He who relies on
such insanity proved at another time mus t prove its existence also at
the time of the commission of th e offense. Where it is shown that the
defendant had lucid intervals, it will be presumed tha t the offense
wa s committed in one of them. Bu t a person who ha s been adjudged
insane, or who ha s been committed to a hospital or to an asylum for
the insane, is presumed to continue to be insane. (People vs. Bonoan,
64 Phil. 87)
When defense of insanity is not credible.

Appellant himsel f testified tha t he wa s acting very sanely that
Monday morning, as shown by the fact that he wen t to the can•
tee n in a jovial mood whistling, and tossing a coin in
his he sa w persons inside th e canteen x x x; he noticed
th e arrival of Lira wh o banged his folders on th e table, elbowed
him, and said in a loud voice: "ano he saw Lira put his right
hand inside his pocket and with the other hand pushed a chair
towards him; he became "confused" because he remembered that
Lira threatened to kill hi m if he would see him again; at this
point "he lost his senses" and regained it whe n he heard the voice
of Mrs. Tan saying: "Loreto, don't do and then he found
218
out that he had wounded Lira. If appellant wa s able to recall all

those incidents, we cannot understand wh y his memory stood
still at tha t very crucial momen t whe n he stabbed Lira to return
at th e sna p of the finger as it were, after he accomplished the
act of stabbing his victim. The defense of insanity is incredible.
(People vs. Renegado, No. May 57 SCRA 275,
286-287)
2) ) The accuse d kne w tha t hi s wife wa s dead becaus e h e

wa s informed of her death. He said that hi s wife quarrelled
with him . Sh e wa s irritable. He remembere d tha t a wee k
before the incident he got we t while plowing. He fell asleep
without changin g hi s clothes. He immediatel y surrendered
after the incident. He remembered tha t he rode on a tricycle.
During his confinement in jail he mopped th e floor and cooked
food for his fellow prisoners. So metimes , he worked in the
town plaza or wa s sen t unescorted to buy food in the market.
He is not insane. (People vs. No. L-52688, Oct. 17,
1980, 100 SCRA 325,
330-331 , 337)
3) Government psychiatric doctors who had closely observed the

accused for a mont h and a half found hi m in good contact with
hi s environment and tha t he did not manifest any odd behavior
for in fact he could relate th e circumstances tha t led to his
confinement. He exhibited remorse for killing the victim, his
wife, and he voluntarily surrendered to th e police headquarters
where he executed a statemen t confessing his misdeed. He wa s
coherent and intelligent. Before the killing, he wa s working for
a living through fishing three time s a week and he himself fixed
th e prices for his catch. The presumption of sanity ha s not been
overcome. (People vs. Magallano, No. L-32978, Oct. 30, 1980,
100 SCRA 570, 577-578)
The accused wa s afflicted with "schizophrenic reaction" but knew
wha t he wa s doing; he had psychosis, a slight destruction of the
ego; in spite of his "schizophrenic reaction," his symptoms were
"not socially incapacitating" and he could adjust to his environ•
ment. He could distinguish between right and wrong. He had
no delusions and he wa s not mentally deficient. The accused
was not legally insane when he killed the hapless and helpless
victim. (People vs. Puno, No. June SCRA
151, 156, 159)
219
5) The mental illness of the accused wa s described as "organic

mental disorder wit h psychosis" but the doctor said tha t a
person suffering from insanity may know that what he is doing
is wrong. He also observed that the mental illness of the accused
came on and off. When interviewed upon his admission to the
mental institution, he recalled having taken 120 cc of cough
syrup and consumed about 3 sticks of marijuana before th e
commission of the crime, an admission confirming his prior
extrajudicial confession. The presence of his reasoning faculties,
which enabled him to exercise sound judgment and satisfactorily
articulate th e aforesaid matters , sufficiently discounts any
intimation of insanity of the accused whe n he committed the
dastardly felonies. (People vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 87084, Jun e 27,
1990, 186 SCRA 851 , 862-863)
Dementia praecox is covered by the term insanity.

Thus, whe n a person is suffering from a form of psychosis, a type
dementia praecox, homicidal attack is common, because of delusions
that he is being interfered wit h sexually, or that his property is being
taken. During th e period of excitement, such person ha s no control
whatever of his acts. (People vs. Bonoan, supra)
The unlawful act of the accused may be due to his mental disease or a
mental defect, producing an "irresistible impulse," as whe n th e accused ha s
been deprived or ha s lost the power of his will which would enable him to
prevent himsel f from doing the act.
In the Bonoan case, supra, an irresistible homicidal impulse
wa s considered embraced in th e term "insanity."
Schizophrenia, formerly called dementia praceox.

Medical books describe schizophreni a as a chronic menta l
disorder characterized by inability to distinguish betwee n fantasy
and reality and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions.
Fo r me rl y ca lle d dementia pracecox, i t i s th e mos t co mmo n
form of psychosis . (Peopl e vs . 145 SCRA 45 1 (1986 )
Symptomatically, schizophrenic reactions are recognizable through
odd and bizarre behavior apparent in aloofness or periods of impulsive
destructiveness and immatur e and exaggerated emotionality, often
ambivalently directed. The interpersonal perceptions are distorted in
the more serious states by delusions and hallucinations. In the most
220
disorganized form of schizophrenic living, withdrawal into a fantasy

life take s place and is associated wit h serious thought disorder and
profound habit deterioration in which th e usua l social customs are
disregarded. During th e initial stage, th e common early symptom is
aloofness, a withdrawal behind barriers of loneliness, hopelessness,
hatred and fear. Frequently, th e patient would see m preoccupied
and dream y an d ma y appear "faraway." He does not empathiz e
wit h th e feelings of others and manifests little concern about the
realities of life situations. The schizophrenic suffers from a feeling
of rejection and an intolerable lack of self-respect. He withdraws
from emotional involvemen t wit h other people to protect himsel f
from painful relationships. There is shallownes s of affect, a paucity
of emotional responsivenes s and a loss of spontaneity. Frequently,
he becomes neglectful of personal care and cleanliness.A variety of
subjective experiences, associated wit h or influenced by mounting
anxiety and fears precede th e earliest behavioral changes and oddities.
He becomes aware of increasing tensio n and confusion and becomes
distracted in conversation manifested by hi s inability to maintai n a
train of thought in hi s conversations. Outwardly, thi s will be noticed
as blocks or breaks in conversations. The schizophrenic may not speak
or respond appropriately to hi s companions. He ma y look fixedly
away, or he ma y appear to stare, as he does not regularly blink his
eye s in hi s attemp t to hold hi s attention. (People vs. Madarang, G.R.
No. 132319, May 12, 2000)
Kleptomania.
If the accused appears to hav e been suffering from kleptomania whe n
he committed th e crime of theft, how shall we regard his abnormal, persistent
impulse or tendency to steal? Is it an exempting circumstance or only a
mitigating circumstance?
The courts in the United State s have conflicting opinions. Some
believe that it is an exempting circumstance. Others believe that it
is only a mitigating circumstance.
In this jurisdiction, the question ha s not been brought before the court
for its determination.
The case of a person suffering from kleptomani a mus t be investigate d
by competent alienis t or psychiatrist to determine whether the impulse to
steal is irresistible or not. If the unlawful act of the accused is due "to his
mental disease or a mental defect, producing
221
an irresistible as when the accused ha s been deprived or has

lost the power of his will which would enable him to prevent himself
from doing the the irresistible impulse, even to take another's
property, should be considered as covered by the term "insanity." In
the case of People vs. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 87, an irresistible homicidal
impulse wa s considered embraced in the term "insanity." It may be
said that a person who ha s lost the power of his will, at the moment,
also lost consciousness of his acts.
On the other hand, if the mental disease or mental defect of the accused
only diminishes the exercise of his will-power, and did not deprive him of the
consciousness of his acts, then kleptomania, if it be the result of his mental
disease or mental defect, is only a mitigating circumstance.
Epilepsy may be covered by the term

Epilepsy is a chronic nervou s diseas e characterized by fits,
occurring at intervals, attended by convulsive motions of the muscles
and loss of consciousness. Where th e accused claimed that he wa s an
epileptic but it wa s not shown tha t he wa s under the influence of an
epileptic fit whe n he committed th e offense, he is not exempt from
criminal liability. (People vs. Mancao and Aguilar, 49 Phil. 887)
Feeblemindedness is not imbecility.

In the case of People vs. Formigones, supra, it wa s held tha t
feeblemindednes s is not exempt ing , becaus e th e offender could
distinguish right from wrong. An imbecil e or an insan e canno t
distinguish right from wrong.
Pedophilia is not insanity.

The doctor's testimony, however, did not help accused's case
because although he admitted havin g initially categorized accused
as insane, the doctor eventuall y diagnosed accused to be afflicted
with pedophilia, a mental disorder not synonymous with insanity. He
explained that pedophilia is a sexual disorder wherein the ha s
strong, recurrent and uncontrollable sexual and physical fantasies
about children which he tries to fulfill, especially whe n there are
no people around. He claimed, however, that despite his affliction,
the subject could distinguish betwee n right and wrong. In fact, he
222
maintained tha t pedophilia could be committed without necessarily

killing th e victim although injuries migh t be inflicted on the victim
in an effort to repel an y resistance. (People vs. Diaz, G.R. No.
Dec.
Amnesia is not proof of mental condition of the accused.

Amnesia , in and of itself, is no defense to a criminal charge
unles s it is show n by competent proof tha t the accused did not know
the nature and quality of hi s action and tha t it wa s wrong. Failure to
remember is in itself no proof of th e menta l condition of the accused
whe n the crime wa s performed. (People vs. No. 125334,
Jan. 28, 1998)
Other cases of lack of intelligence.

Committing a crime while in a dream.
One who, whil e sleeping, suddenly got up, got a bolo, and
upon meetin g hi s wife wh o tried to stop him, wounded her and
also attacked other persons, is not criminally liable, it appearing
tha t th e act wa s committed while in a dream. (People vs. Taneo,
58 Phil. 255) The act wa s done without criminal intent.
Somnambulism or sleepwalking, where the acts of the
person afflicted are automatic, is embraced in the plea of
insanity and mus t be clearly proven. (People vs.
55 Phil. 604)
In th e case of U.S. us. Odicta, 4 Phil. 309, it wa s
held tha t th e case of th e somna mbulis t falls under the
rule tha t a person is not criminally liable if his acts are
not voluntary. The ruling in the case of People vs. Gimena
and tha t in the case of U.S. vs. Odicta are not inconsist•
ent. The act of a person is not voluntary whe n he does not
hav e intelligence and intent while doing the act.
a. Hypnotism. Whether or not hypnotism is so effective as
to make th e subject act during artificial somnam•
bulism, is still a debatable question. (Albert)
2. Committing a crime while suffering from malignant
malaria.
223
Par. 2 Minor Under Nine Years
Thus, one who wa s suffering from malignant malaria

when she wounded her husband who died as a consequence
is not criminally liable, because such illness affects the
nervous system and causes among others such complication
as acute melancholia and insanity at times. (People vs.
Lacena, 69 Phil. 350)
Basis of paragraph
The exemptin g circumstance of insanit y or imbecility is based
on th e complete absence of intelligence , an elemen t of voluntari•
ness.
Par. 2. — A person under nine years of age.
"Under nine years" to be construed "nine years or less."

The phrase "under nine years" should be construed "nine years or
as may be inferred from th e nex t subsequent paragraph which
does not totally exempt a person "over nine years of age" if he acted
with discernment. (Guevara; Se e Art. 189, P.D. No. 603)
Age of absolute irresponsibility raised to fifteen years of

age.
Republic Act No. 934 4 otherwise known as "Juvenile Justic e
and Welfare Act of 2006" raised the age of absolute irresponsibility
from nine (9) to fifteen years of age.
Unde r Section 6 of th e said law, a child fifteen (15) year s of
age or under at th e tim e of th e commissio n of th e offense shall be
exemp t from criminal liability. However, th e child shall be subject
to an intervention program as provided under Section 20 of the sam e
law.
Basis of paragraph 2.
The exempting circumstance of minority is based also on the
complete absence of
224
Minor Over Nine and Under Fifteen Years Par. 3
Par. 3. — A person over nine years of age and under fifteen,

unless he has acted with discernment, in which case,
such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance
with the provisions of Article 80 of this Code.
Paragraph 3, Article RPC impliedly repealed by Republic

Act No. 9344.
Paragraph 3, Article 12 of th e Revised Penal Code is deemed repealed
by the provision of Republic Act 934 4 declaring a child fifteen years of age or
under exemp t from criminal liability. The law provides thus:
"Section 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility.
— A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the
commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability.
However, th e child shall be subject to an intervention program pursuant
to Section 20 of this Act.
A child above fifteen (15) year s but below eightee n (18)
year s of ag e shal l likewis e be exemp t from criminal liability
and be subjected to an interventio n program, unles s he/sh e
ha s acted wit h discernment , in whic h case, suc h child shall be
subject to th e appropriate proceedings in accordance wit h this
Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not
include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforce in
accordance wit h existing laws."
Children above fifteen but below eighteen years of age

who acted without discernment exempt from criminal liability.
A minor under eighteen but above fifteen mus t have
acted wit h discernmen t to incur criminal liability. The minor is
presume d t o hav e acted withou t discernmen t since th e phras e
"unless he/she acted with discernment" indicates an exception to the
general rule that a minor under 18 but above 15 ha s acted without
discernment.
Thus, it is incumbent upon th e prosecution to prove that a minor who
is over 15 but under 18 years of age ha s acted with discernment, in order for
the minor not to be entitled to this exempting circumstance.
225
Par. 3 Minor Over Nine and Under Fifteen Years
Periods of criminal responsibility

Thus, under the Code as amended by Republic Act No. 9344
(Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), the life of a huma n being
is divided into four periods:
The age of absolute irresponsibility — 9 years and below
(infancy).
(2) The age conditional responsibility — between 9 and 15
years.
(3) The age full responsibility — 18 or over (adolescence) to

70 (maturity).
(4) The age of mitigated responsibility — over 9 and under 15,
offender acting wit h discernment; 15 or over but les s tha n
18; over 70 years of age.
Hence, senility which is the age over 70 years, although said to
be the second childhood, is only a mitigated responsibility. It cannot
be considered as similar to infancy which is exempting.
Meaning of "discernment."
The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption
from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over
nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to
understand the difference between right and wrong, and such capacity
may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration
all the facts and circumstances afforded by th e records in each case,
the very appearance, the very attitude, th e very comportment and
behaviour of said minor, not only before and during the commission of
the act, but also after and eve n during th e trial. (People vs.
68 Phil. 580, 583; Guevarra vs. G.R. No. 75256, Jan . 26,
1989, 169 476, 481)
Discernment and Intent distinguished.

Th e term s "intent" an d "discernment" convey tw o distinc t
thoughts. While both are products of the mental processes within a
person, refers to th e desired act of the person while
ment" relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to th e
said act. Hence, a person may not intend to shoot another but may be
226
Minor Over Nine and Under Fifteen Years Par. 3
aware of the consequences of his negligent act which may cause injury
to the sam e person in negligently handlin g an air rifle. (Guevara vs.
supra, at 481)
Discernment may be shown by the manner the crime was

committed, or (2) the conduct of the offender after its com•
mission.
1. Manner of committing the crime.
Thus , whe n th e minor committed the crime during

nighttime to avoid detection or took the loot to another town to
avoid discovery, he manifested discernment. (People vs. Magsino,
G.R. No . 40176 , May 3, 1934)
2. Conduct of offender.
Th e accused , year s old (disregard age: Case cited

to illustrate discernmen t of a minor) shot th e offended
party, wh o had caught hi m shooting at the latter's mango
fruits, wit h a slingshot hitting th e latter in one of his eyes,
and after havin g done so said: "Putang ina mo,
mo." It wa s held tha t th e first part of the remark
clearly manifested th e perverted character of the accused
and th e second part reflected his satisfaction and elation
upon the accomplishment of his criminal act. These facts
indicate discernment on th e part of the minor. (People vs.
Alcabao, C.A., 44 O.G. 5006)
Facts from which age is presumed must be stated for the

record.
The officer or court called upon to mak e a finding as to the
age of th e accused should stat e in th e record, not merely a general
statemen t of the personal appearance of the accused, but the par•
ticular fact or facts concerning personal appearance which lead such
officer or court to believe tha t hi s age wa s as stated by said officer
or court.
It would seem that this provision presupposes that the minor committed
the crime, but that the court finds that he acted without discernment.
227
Par. 3 Minor Over Nine and Under Fifteen Years
Determination of Age.
The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of
minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with
the law until is proven to be eighteen years old or older.
The age of a child may be determined from the child's birth certificate,
baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence
of these documents, age may be based on information from th e child
himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance
of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the
age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.
Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict with the law prior
to the filing of the information in any appropriate court may file a case in a
summary proceeding for the determination of age before the Family Court
which shall decide the case within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the
appropriate pleadings of all interested parties.
If a case ha s been filed against the child in conflict wit h the law
and is pending in th e appropriate court, the person shall file a motion
to determine the age of the child in th e sam e court where th e case
is pending. Pending hearing on th e said motion, proceedings on the
main case shall be suspended.
In all proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judge s and
other government officials concerned shall exert all efforts at determining the
age of th e child in conflict wit h th e law. (Sec. 7, Rep. Act No. 9344)
The allegation of "with intent to kill" in the information is

allegation of discernment.
Where the information for homicide filed in the court of first
instance alleges "that said accused, with the intent to kill, did the n
and there wilfully, criminally, and feloniously push one Lolita Padilla,
a child 8 1/2 years of age, into a deep place x x x and as a consequence
thereof Lolita got drowned and died right the n and there," it is held
that the requirement that there should be an allegation that she acted
with discernment should be deemed amply me t with the allegation in
the information that the accused acted "with the intent to kill." The
allegation clearly conveys the idea that she knew what would be the
consequence of her unlawful act of pushing her victim into deep water
and that she knew it to be wrong. (People vs. Neito, 103 Phil.
228
Accident Par. 4
The exempting circumstance in paragraph 3 of Art. 12 is based also on
th e complete absence of intelligence.
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.
Elements:
A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He cause s an injury to another by mere accident;
4. Without fault or intention of causin g it. (See People vs.
Vitug, 8 CAR [2s] 909)
The person must be performing a act.

While defending himself against the unjustified assault upon his
person made by his assailant, appellant Galacgac fired his revolver
at random, wounding two innocent persons.
Held: The discharge of a firearm in such a thickly populated place
in th e City of Manila being prohibited and penalized by Article 155
of the Revised Penal Code, appellant Galacgac wa s not performing a
lawful act whe n he accidentally hit and wounded Marina Ramos and
Alfonso Ramos. Hence, th e exempting circumstance provided for in
Article 12, paragraph 4, of th e Revised Penal Code, cannot be properly
invoked by appellant Galacgac. (People vs. Galacgac, 54 O.G. 1027)
Striking another with a gun in self-defense, even if it and

seriously injured the assailant, is a lawful act.
Whe n th e defendan t drew hi s gu n and wit h it struck the
deceased after the latter had given him a fist blow on the shoulder,
the defendant wa s performing a lawful act. The striking with the
gun wa s a legitimate act of self-defense. But we might
the striking done with due care as required by the second element
for exemption? We believe so, since the striking could not have been
Par. 4 Accident
done in any other manner except how it wa s done so by the appellant.

Whether the gun was cocked or uncocked, the striking could not have
been done in any other manner. The injury, therefore, that resulted
from the firing of the gun wa s caused by accident and without any
fault or intention on the part of defendant in causing it, in accordance
with the 3rd and 4t h requisites.
The trial court puts much stress on the fact that since th e
appellant allegedly had his finger on the trigger with the gun already
cocked it wa s reckless and imprudent of him to have used the gun
in striking the deceased. We do not agree. Under the circumstances,
striking him, as wa s done here, and not shooting him, wa s the more
prudent and reasonable thin g to do, whether the gun wa s cocked or
uncocked. (People vs. Vitug, 8 C.A. Rep. 905; People vs. Tiongco, C.A.,
63 O.G. 3610)
Bu t the act of drawing a weapon in the course of a quarrel, not
being in self-defense, is is light threat (Art. 285, par. 1,
Rev. Penal Code), and there is no room for the invocation of accident as
a ground for exemption. (People vs. Reyta, Jr., 13 C.A. Rep. 1190)
The person performing a lawful act must do so with due care,

without fault or negligence.
Appellant claims exemption from criminal liability under Article
12, paragraph 4, of th e Revised Pena l Code which provides tha t any
person who, while performing a lawful act wit h due care, cause s
an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of doing it is
exempted from criminal liability. But, this exempting circumstance
cannot be applied to the appellant because its application presupposes
that there is no fault or negligence on the part of the person performing
the lawful act wit h due care, whereas , in this case, th e prosecution
had duly established tha t th e appellant wa s guilty of negligence.
(People vs. Sa n Juan , C.A., 65 O.G. 11264)
Examples of accident.
U.S. vs.
(15 Phil. 196)
Facts: The accused, while hunting, saw wild chickens and fired
a shot. The slug, after hitting a wild chicken, recoiled and struck the
230
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE S Art. 12
Accident Par. 4
tenant who was a relative of the accused. The man who was injured died.
Held: If life is taken by misfortune or accident while the actor is
in the performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without
intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability.
There i s n o questio n tha t th e accused wa s engage d i n th e

performance of a lawful act whe n th e accident occurred. He wa s not
negligent or at fault, because th e deceased wa s not in the direction
at which th e accused fired his gun. It wa s not foreseeable that the
slug would recoil after hittin g th e wild chicken.
A chauffeur, whil e driving hi s automobile on th e proper side of
the road at a moderate speed and with due diligence, suddenly and
unexpectedly sa w a ma n in front of hi s vehicle coming from the
walk and crossing th e street without any warnin g tha t he would do
so. Becaus e it wa s not physically possible to avoid hitting him, the
said chauffeur ran over th e ma n wit h hi s car. It wa s held that he wa s
not criminally liable, it being a mere accident. (U.S. vs. Tayongtong,
21 Phil. 476)
Jus t as the truck the n being driven by the accused wa s passing

the slow-moving road roller, a boy about 10 or 12 years of age jumped
from th e step of th e side board of th e road roller directly in front of
the truck, and wa s knocked down, ran over and instantly killed. The
accused wa s acquitted of all criminal liability arising out of the un•
fortunate accident which resulted in the death of the boy. (U.S. vs.
Knight, 26 Phil. 216)
What is an accident?
An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our
will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies
beyond the bounds humanl y foreseeable consequences.
If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will be a case of
negligence. (Albert)
Accident presupposes lack of intention to commit the wrong

done.
The exempting circumstance of Art. of the Revised Penal
Code refers to purely accidental cases where there was absolutely
231
Par. 4 Accident
no intention to commit the wrong done. It contemplates a situation

where a person is in the act of doing something legal, exercising due
care, diligence and prudence but in the process, produces harm or
injury to someone or something not in the least in the mind of the
actor — an accidental result flowing out of a legal act. (People vs.
Gatela, 17 CAE [2s] 1047, 1055)
Case of negligence, not accident.

As the two persons fighting paid him no attention, the defendant
drew a .45 caliber pistol and shot twice in the air. The bout continued,
however, so he fired another shot at the ground, but unfortunately the
bullet ricocheted and hit Eugenio Francisco, innocent bystander,
who died thereafter. Held: The misha p should be classed as homicide
through reckless imprudence. It is apparent the defendant wilfully
discharged his gun, without taking the precautions demanded by th e
circumstances that the district wa s populated, and the likelihood that
his bullet would glance over the hard pavemen t of the thoroughfare.
(People vs. 77 Phil. 1018)
Comment: The consequence here wa s clearly foreseeable.
Accident and negligence, intrinsically contradictory.

In Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA
375 the Supreme Court held tha t an accident is a
circumstance, event or happening; an event happening without any
huma n agency, or if happenin g wholly or partly through huma n
agency , a n even t whic h unde r th e circumstanc e i s unusua l o r
unexpected by the person to who m it happens. Negligence, on th e
other hand, is th e failure to observe, for th e protection of the interest
of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which
the circumstances justl y demand without which such other person
suffers injury. Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory;
one cannot exist with the other. (People vs. G.R. No. 137347,
March 4, 2004)
The death of the deceased in this case was considered caused

by mere accident.
The accused wa s prosecuted for havin g killed her husband.
Explaining wha t took place, she said, in part: "When the door wa s
ajar my son wen t in, and the n my husband pushed it and as I saw
232
Accident Par. 4
that he wa s about to crush my son's head, I jabbed my husband with

the point of the umbrella downwards to prevent him from crushing
my son's head." We find nothing improbable in this statemen t and if
we add to this th e absence of an y reasonable motive to prompt said
defendant to injure her husband , we are compelled to conclude that
in thrusting her umbrella in th e opening of the door in question, she
did so to free her son from the imminen t danger of having his head
crushed or being strangled; and if she thu s caused her husband's
injury, it wa s by a mere accident, withou t any fault or intention to
cause it. (People vs. Ayaya, 52 Phil. 354, 358)
When claim of accident not appreciated.

Repeated blows negate claim of wounding by mere accident.
(People vs. Taylaran, No. Oct. SCRA
373 , 376)
2 ) Accidenta l shoo tin g i s neg a t e d b y t hrea ten in g words

preceding it and still aiming the gun at the prostrate body of
th e victim, instead of immediately helping him. (People vs.
Reyes, No. Feb. 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 474, 478)
Husband and wife had an altercation. The deceased husband
got a carbine and holding it by th e muzzle raised it above
hi s right shoulder in an attemp t to strike accused wife.
She side-stepped and grappled wit h hi m for the possession
of the gu n and in th e scuffle th e gu n wen t off, the bullet
- hitting her husban d in th e neck. So went the version of the
accused. Held: It wa s difficult, if not well-nigh impossible,
for her who wa s frail and shorter tha n her husband, who
wa s robust and taller, to have succeeded in taking hold
of the carbine, for if her husband wa s to strike her with
the butt of th e carbine and she side-stepped, he would not
have continued to hold the carbine in a raised position.
Actual test during the trial showed that the carbine was
not defective and could not fire without pressing the trigger.
The absence of any powder burns at the entrance of the
wound in the body of the deceased is convincing proof that
he wa s shot from a distance, and not with the muzzle of
the gun almost resting on his shoulder or the back of the
neck. (People vs. Samson, No. March 29, 1963, 7
SCRA 478, 482-483)
233
Par. 5 Irresistible Force
The exempting circumstance in paragraph 4 of Art. 12 is based on lack
of negligence and intent. Under this circumstance, a person does not commit
either an intentional felony or a culpable felony.
Par. 5. — Any person who acts under the compulsion of an

irresistible force.
This exemptin g circumstance presupposes tha t a person is compelled

by mean s of force or violence to commit a crime.
Elements:
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force.
2. That the physical force mus t be irresistible.
3. That the physical force mus t come from a third person.
Before a force can be considered to be an irresistible one, it mus t
produce such an effect upon the individual that, in spite of all resist•
ance, it reduces him to a mere instrumen t and, as such, incapable of
committing a It mus t be such that, in spite of th e resistance
of the person on whom it operates, it compels hi s members to act and
his mind to obey. Such a force can never consist in anythin g which
springs primarily from th e ma n himself; it mus t be a force which acts
upon him from the outside and by a third person. (U.S. vs. Elicanal,
35 Phil. 209)
Example:
In th e case of U.S. vs. Caballeros, et 4 Phil. 350, it
appears that Baculi, one of th e accused who wa s not a membe r
of the band which murdered some American school-teachers, wa s
in a plantation gathering bananas . Upon hearing the shooting,
he ran. However, Baculi wa s see n by the leaders of th e band
who called him, and striking him with the butts of their guns,
they compelled hi m to bury the bodies.
Held: Baculi wa s not criminally liable as accessory for concealing
the body of th e crime (Art. 19) of murder committed
234
Irresistible Force Par. 5
by th e band, because Baculi acted under the compulsion of an

irresistible force.
No compulsion of irresistible force.

The pretension of an accused tha t he wa s threatened with a gun
by his friend, the mastermind, is not credible where he himself wa s
armed wit h a rifle. (People vs. Sarip, Nos . Feb. 28,
1979, 88 SCRA 666 , 673-674)
Passion or obfuscation cannot be irresistible force.

Th e irres ist i bl e force can never consist in an impulse or
passion, or It mus t consis t of an extraneou s
force comin g from a third person. (Dec. of Sup . Ct. of Spain ,
March 15, 1876)
The exemptin g circumstance in paragraph 5 of Art. 12 is based on the
complete absence of freedom, an elemen t of voluntariness.
A person wh o acts under th e compulsion of an irresistible force,
like one wh o acts under th e impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal
or greater injury, is exemp t from criminal liability because he does
not act wit h freedom. (People vs. Loreno, No. July 9, 1984,
130 321)
Nature of force required.

The force mus t be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere
instrumen t wh o acts not only withou t will but agains t hi s will.
The duress, force, fear or intimidation mus t be present, imminent
and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done.
A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of
such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape
or self-defense in equal combat. (People vs. Loreno, No. L-54414, July
9, 1984, 130 SCRA 311 , 321-322, citing People vs. Villanueva, 104
Phil. 450)
235
Par. 6 Uncontrollable Fear
Par. 6. — Any person who acts under the impulse of an

uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
This exempting circumstance also presupposes that a person

is compelled to commit a crime by another, but the compulsion is by
means of intimidation or threat, not force or violence.
Elements:
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater
than or at least equal to, that which he is required to com•
mit;
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence
that the ordinary ma n would have succumbed to it. (U.S.
vs. Elicanal, 35 Phil. 209, 212, 213)
For th e exe mpt i n g circu mst a nc e of uncontrollabl e fear to
be invoked successfully, th e following requisites mus t concur: (a)
existence of an uncontrollable fear; (b) th e fear mus t be real and
imminent; and (c) th e fear of an injury is greater tha n or at leas t
equal to that committed. (People vs. Petenia, No. Aug. 12,
1986, 143 SCRA 361 , 369)
Illustration:
Exaltacion and Buenaventur a Tanchinco were
compelle d unde r fear of death to swea r allegia nc e to th e
Katipunan whos e purpose wa s to overthrow the government by
force of
In this case, th e accused cannot be held criminally liable
for rebellion, because the y joined the rebels under the impulse
of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. (U.S. vs.
Exaltacion, 3 Phil. 339)
The penalty for the crime which Exaltacion was required

to commit, is mayor, that is, imprisonment for a period of from
6 years and 1 day to 12 years, and fine. The act which he wa s asked to
commit was to swear allegiance to the Katipunan and become one of
those engaged in overthrowing the government by force of arms. If he
did not commit it, he would be killed. Death is a much greater injury
than imprisonment for 12 years and paying a fine.
236
Uncontrollable Fear Par. 6
Bu t if A had threatened to burn th e house of B should the latter not kill

his (B's) father, and B killed hi s father for fear that A might burn his (B's)
house, B is not exemp t from criminal liability for the reason tha t th e evil wit
h which he wa s threatened wa s much les s than tha t of killing hi s father.
Nature of duress as a valid defense.

Dures s as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent, or
reasonable fear for one's life or limb and should not be speculative,
fanciful, or remote fear. (People vs. No. L-22947, July
91 SCRA 340, 355, citing People vs. Quilloy, 88 Phil. 53)
The accused must not have opportunity for escape or self-

defense.
A threat future injury is not enough. The compulsion mus t
be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to th e accused for
escape or self-defense in equal combat.
Dures s is unavailin g where the accused had every opportunity
to run away if he had wante d to or to resist any possible aggression
because he wa s also armed. (People vs. Palencia, No. L-38957, April
30, 1976, 71 SCRA 679, 690; People vs. Abanes, No. Sept.
28, 1976, 73 SCRA 44, 47)
Where th e accused, wh o testified tha t he wa s intimidated into
committing th e crime, had several opportunities of leaving gang
which ha d decided to kidna p th e victim, hi s theory tha t he acted
under intimidation is untenable . (People vs. Parulan , 88 Phil. 615,
623)
Where th e accused testified tha t he joined the band because he
wa s threatened by the leader thereof, but it appears that the leader
was armed with a revolver only, while the accused wa s armed with
a rifle, so that he could have resisted said leader, it wa s held that
the accused did not act under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of an equal or greater injury. (People vs. Vargas and Kamatoy, C.A.,
45 O.G. 1332)
As regards accused Domingo Golfeo, the evidence is clear that
it wa s he who first struck with the butt of his gun hitting him
on the side of his body, then gave him a fist blow on his stomach,
237
Par. 6 Uncontrollable Fear
and after he had been taken to a secluded place, it wa s he who

ordered Areza to lie down in the fashion adopted by the
during gloomy days of Japanes e occupation and in tha t position
gave him a blow on the back of his neck which almost severed hi s
head from the body. His participation in the killing of Areza cannot
therefore be doubted. His only defense is that he did so in obedience
to the order of his commander, and because he acted under th e
influence of uncontrollable fear, he should be exempt from criminal
responsibility.
This defense of Golfeo is clearly untenable not only because of
the well-settled rule that obedience to an order of a superior will only
justify an act which otherwise would be criminal whe n the order is
for a lawful purpose, but also because the circumstances under which
Golfeo participated in the torture and liquidation of Areza cannot
in any way justify his claim tha t he acted under an uncontrollable
fear of being punished by his superiors if he disobeyed their order.
In the first place, at the time of the killing, Golfeo wa s armed wit h
an automatic carbine such tha t he could hav e protected himself from
any retaliation on th e part of his superiors if they should threaten
to punish hi m if he disobeyed their order to kill Areza. the second
place, the evidence show s that Areza wa s brought to a secluded place
quite far from that where his superiors were at the time and in suc h
a predicament, he and his companion Arsenal could have escaped
with Areza to avoid th e ire of their superiors. The fact that he
out their order although his superiors were at some distance from
him and tha t without pity and compunction he struck his victim in a
Kempetai fashion shows that he acted on the matter not involuntarily
or under the pressure of fear or force, as he claims, but out of hi s own
free will and wit h the desire to collaborate wit h the criminal design
of his superiors. (People vs. Rogado, et 106 Phil. 816)
Command killers, as cause of uncontrollable fear.

Timoteo Montemayor wa s accused of murder, for having told his two
companions to fetch shovels and to dig a grave and for havin g walked behind
th e Hukbalahap killers to th e place of the execution of the victim. It appears
tha t the two Hukbalahaps were ruthless killers and were then in a mood to
inflict extreme and summary punishmen t for disobedience to the command.
The place wa s isolated, escape wa s at least risky, and protection by lawfully
constituted authorities wa s
238
Uncontrollable Fear Par. 6
out of reach. The accused wa s acquitted, for having acted under the
impulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. (People
vs. Regala, et G.R. No. May 28, 1951)
In treason.
In th e eye s of th e law, nothing will excuse tha t act of joining an
enemy, but th e fear of immediate death. (People vs. Bagalawis, 78
Phil. 174, citing th e case of Republica vs . 2 Law,
300, 301)
This ruling is similar to tha t in th e Exaltacion case.
Speculative, fanciful and remote fear is not uncontrollable

fear.
The defendant ordered th e deceased whos e both hand s were tied at th e
back to knee l down wit h th e hea d ben t forward by the side of th e grave
already prepared for hi m by order of said defendant. Then , defendant hacked
th e hea d of th e deceased wit h a Japanes e sabre and immediatel y kicked th e
prostrate body of th e victim into th e grave.
Whe n prosecuted for murder, the defendant claimed that he had been
ordered by Major Sasak i to kill th e deceased. He also claimed that he could
not refuse to comply wit h tha t order, because the Japa• nese officer mad e a
threat.
Held: If the only evidence relating to a sort of a threat is the
testimony of the defendant: "As they insisted and I them that
I could not do it, the n Captain Susuki told me, have to comply
with tha t order of Major Sasaki; otherwise, you have to come along
with that threat is not of such a serious character and imminence
as to create in the mind of th e defendant an uncontrollable fear that
an equal or greater evil or injury would be inflicted upon him if he
did not comply with the alleged order to kill the deceased. (People vs.
Moreno, 77 Phil. 549)
Mere fear of a member of the Huk movement to disobey or refuse
to carry out orders of the organization, in the absence of actual
physical or moral compulsion to act, is not sufficient to exempt the
accused from criminal liability. (People vs. Fernando, No.
May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 149, 157)
239
Par. 7 Prevented By Insuperable Cause
Real, imminent or reasonable fear.

The case of U.S. vs. Exaltacion, 3 Phil. 339, is the example. There
is here fear of immediate death.
A threat of future injury is not enough.
To appreciate duress as a valid defense, a threat of future injury
is not enough. It mus t be clearly shown that the compulsion mus t be
of such character as to leave no opportunity for the accused to escape.
(People vs. Palencia, No. L-38957, April 30, 1976, 71 SCRA 679, 690;
People vs. Abanes, No. L-30609, Sept. 28, 1976, 73 SCRA 44, 47)
Distinction between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear.

In irresistible force (par. 5), the offender use s violence or physical force
to compel another person to commit a crime; in uncontrollable fear (par. 6),
the offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to commit a
crime.
The exempting circumstance in paragraph 6 of Art. 12 is also based on
the complete absence of freedom.
me invito factus non est actus." ("An act done by me
against my will is not my
Par. 7. — Any person who fails to perform an act required by law,

when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
Elements:
1. That an act is required by law to be done;

2. That a person fails to perform such act;
That his failure to perform such act wa s due to some lawful
or insuperable cause.
When prevented by some lawful cause.

Example:
A confessed to a Filipino priest that he and several other persons
were in conspiracy against the Government. Under Art. a Filipino
240
Prevented By Insuperable Cause Par. 7
citizen wh o knows of such conspiracy mus t report the sam e to the

governor or fiscal of th e province wher e he resides. If the priest does
not disclose and mak e know n the sam e to th e proper authority, he
is exemp t from criminal liability, because under th e law, the priest
cannot compelled to reveal any information which he came to know
by reason of th e confession mad e to hi m in his professional capacity.
(Vide, Sec. 24[d], Rule 130, Rules of Court)
When prevented by some insuperable cause.

Examples:
The municipal president detained th e offended party for
three days because to take hi m to th e neares t justice of the
peace required a journey for three days by boat as there
wa s no other mean s of transportation. (U.S. vs. Vicentillo,
19 Phil. 118, 119)
Under the law, the person arrested must be delivered
to the nearest judicial authority at most within eighteen
hours (now thirty-six hours, Art. 125, Rev. Penal Code, as
amended); otherwise, th e public officer will be liable for
arbitrary detention. The distance which required a journey for
three days wa s considered an insuperable cause. Hence, it was
held that the accused wa s exempt from criminal liability.
2. A mother who at the time of childbirth wa s overcome by
severe dizziness and extreme debility, and left the child in
a thicket where said child died, is not liable for infanticide,
because it wa s physically impossible for her to take home
the child. (People vs. Bandian, 63 Phil. 530, 534-535)
The sever e dizzines s and extrem e debility of the woman
constitute an insuperable cause.
The circumstance in paragraph 7 of Art. exempts the accused
from criminal liability, because he acts without intent, the third
condition of voluntariness in intentional felony.
In all the exempting circumstances, intent is wanting in the

agent of the crime.
Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelli•
gence. Hence, in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Art. 12, the imbecile, insane,
241
Art. 12 ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
or minor, not having intelligence, does not act with intent. The person
acting under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs 5 and
6 of Art. 12, not having freedom of action, does not act with intent. In
paragraph 4 of Art. 12, it is specifically stated that the actor causes
an injury by mere accident without intention of causing it.
Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstances.

(1) A person who acts by virtue of a justifying circumstance does not
transgress the law, that is, he does not commit any crime in the
eyes of the law, because there is nothing unlawful in the act as
well as in the intention of the actor. The act of such person is in
itself both just and lawful.
In justifying circumstances, there is neither a crime nor a crimi• nal. No
civil liability, except in par. 4 (causing damage to another in state of necessity).
(2) In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no criminal
liability. The act is not justified, but the actor is not criminally
liable. There is civil liability, except in pars. 4 and 7 (causing an
by mere accident; failing to perform an act required by law
whe n prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause) of Art. 12.
(See Art. 101 which does not mention pars. 4 and 7 of Art. 12)
Absolutory causes, defined.

Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for
reasons of public policy and sentimen t there is no penalty imposed.
Other absolutory causes.

In addition to the justifying circumstances (Art. and th e
exempting circumstances (Art. 12), there are other absolutory cause s
in the following articles, to wit:
Art. 6. — The spontaneous desistance of the person who com•
menced the commission of a felony before he could perform all th e
acts of execution.
Art. 20. — Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability.
— The penaltie s prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed
upon those who are such wit h respect to their spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or
242
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES Art. 12
relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of
accessories falling with th e provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article.
The provisions of paragraph 1 of Art. 19 read, as follows:
"By profiting the mselve s or assistin g th e offenders to profit by
the effects of th e crime."
Art. 124, last paragraph. — The commission of a crime, or violent
insanity or an y other ailmen t requiring th e compulsory confinement
of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for th e
detention of any person.
Art. 247, pars. 1 and 2. — Death or physical injuries inflicted
under exceptional circumstances. — An y legally married person who,
having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with another person, shall kill any of the m or both of the m in the act or
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon the m any serious physical
injury, shall suffer th e penalty of
If he shall inflict upon the m physical injuries of any other kind, he shall
be exemp t from punishment .
Art. 280, par. 3. — The provisions of this article (on trespass to dwelling)
shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter another's dwelling for the
purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the
dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall
enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or
justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns and other public
houses, while the same are open.
Art. 332 . — Persons exempt from criminal liability. — No
criminal, but only civil, liability shall result from the commission
of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or
caused mutually by the following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by af•
finity in the sam e line;
The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged
to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the
possession of another; and
Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if
living together.
243
Art. 12 ENTRAPMENT
Art. 344, par. 4. — In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of

and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already
imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be
applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the
fact of the above-mentioned crimes.
Instigation is an absolutory cause.

Example:
An interna l revenu e agent, representin g himsel f as a
private individual engaged in gambling, approached the accused
and induced the latter to look for an opium den where he said he
could smoke opium. The agent wen t to the accused three time s
to convince th e latter of his desire to smoke opium. Because of
the insistence of th e agent, the accused made efforts to look for
a place where both of the m could smoke opium until finally he
found one. The agent and th e accused wen t to the place which
turned out to be th e house of a Chinaman, and there the agen t
received an opium pipe and paid for the service to both of
them. After a while, th e agent left. He returned later to arrest
the accused allegedly for smoking opium.
Held: Th e accuse d wa s not criminall y liable. H e wa s instigated
to commit th e crime of smokin g opium. (U.S. vs. Phelps, 16 Phil. 440)
Suppose tha t th e agent in tha t case induced the accused to sell opium to
hi m and th e accused sold opium, could the accused be held liable for illegal
possession of opium?
Yes, because th e accused wa s the n in possession of opium and the mere
possession of opium is a violation of the law within itself.
Basis of exemption from criminal liability.

A sound public policy requires tha t the courts shall condemn
this practice (instigation) by directing th e acquittal of the accused.
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause.

Example:
Th e accuse d wrot e to hi s correspondent in Hongkon g to send
to hi m a shipmen t of opium. This opium had been in
244
ENTRAPMEN T Art. 12
Hongkong for sometime, awaiting a ship that would go direct

to Cebu.
The Collector of Custom s of Cebu received information
tha t th e accused wa s intendin g to land opium in the port. The
Collector promised the accused tha t he would remove all th e
difficulties in the way, and for this purpose agreed to receive
Jua n Samson , a secret serviceman, pretended to
smooth th e wa y for the introduction of th e prohibited drug.
Th e accuse d starte d landin g th e opium. A t thi s time ,
th e agent s of th e law seized th e opium and had the accused
prosecuted.
Held: It is true tha t Jua n Samso n smoothed the way for
th e introduction of the prohibited drug, but tha t wa s after the
accused had already planned its importation and ordered for
said drug.
Jua n Samso n neither induced nor instigated the accused
to import th e opium in question, but pretended to hav e an
understanding with th e Collector of Customs, who had promised
the m tha t he would remove all the difficulties in the wa y of their
enterprise so far as th e customs hous e wa s concerned.
This is not a case wher e an innocent person is induced to
commit a crime merely to prosecute him, but it is simply a trap
set to catch a criminal. (People vs. Lua Chua and Se Tieng,
56 Phil. 44)
Suppose, the accused had not yet ordered for opium in Hongkong
when he talked with the Collector of Customs but that on the strength
of the assurance of the Collector of Customs, he later ordered for opium
in Hongkong, would it be instigation? it would be not
entrapment, because the accused wa s instigated to import a prohibited
drug, a crime punished by Art. 192.
The doctrines referring to the entrapmen t of offenders and instigation
to commit crime, as laid down by the courts of the United States, are
summarized in 16 Corpus Juris, page 88, Section 57, as follows:
AN D INSTIGATION. - While it ha s been

said that the practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose
245
Art. 12 ENTRAPMENT
of institutin g criminal prosecutions is to be deplored, and whil e

instigation, as distinguished from mere entrapment, ha s often been
condemned and has sometimes been held to prevent the act from being
criminal or punishable, the general rule is that it is no defense to the
perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely
placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the
of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives
feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting
its commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where
the offense is one of a kind habitually committed, and the solicitation
merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception by the
detective will not shield defendant, if the offense was committed by him
free from the influence or the instigation of the detective. The fact that
an agent of an owner acts as a supposed confederate of a thief is no
defense to the latter in a prosecution for larceny, provided the original
design was formed independently of such agent; and where a person
approached by the thief as his confederate notifies the owner or the
public authorities, and being authorized by the m to do so, assist s the
thief in carrying out the plan, the larceny is nevertheless committed."
(Cited in People vs. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng, 56 Phil. 44)
A detective representing to be a private individual, jobless, and

in need of money, befriended a well-known thief. The thief told hi m
that there wa s easy money around if he would take a chance. The
detective asked the thief wha t it wa s and th e latter told him tha t he
wa s going to break into the house of a rich ma n to steal some jewel s
and money. The detective pretended to have agreed with him and
the two wen t to the house, entered it through the window, and once
inside, the thief opened with a false key the wardrobe in the hous e
and took jewel s and money. The n and there the detective arrested
the thief.
Is th e thief criminally liable for th e robbery committed?
Yes, it wa s entrapment. The fact that an agent of the law acted
as a supposed confederate of a thief is no defense to the latter, pro•
vided tha t the original design wa s formed by the thief independently
of such agent.
Entrapment and instigation distinguished.

There is a wide difference between entrapment and instigation,
for while in the latter case the instigator practically induces the would-
be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a
246
ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION Art. 12
DISTINGUISHED
co-principal, in entrapment, way s and mean s are resorted to for the

purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of
his criminal plan. Entrapment is no bar to the prosecution and convic•
tion of the lawbreaker. But whe n there is instigation, the accused must
be acquitted. (People vs. Galicia, C.A., 40 O.G. 4476; People vs. Yutuc,
G.R. No. 82590, July 26, 1990, 188 SCRA 1, 21; People vs.
G.R. No. 81761 , July 2, 1990, 187 SCRA 64, 71; vs. Court of
Appeals, No. L-46638, July 9, SCRA 534, 540)
In entrapment , th e entrapper resorts to way s and mean s to trap and

capture a lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan. In instigation, th e
instigator practically induces th e would-be defend• ant into committing th e
offense, and himsel f becomes a co-principal. In entrapment, th e mean s
originates from th e mind of the criminal. The idea and th e resolve to commit
th e crime come from him. In instigation, th e law enforcer conceives th e
commission of the crime and suggest s to th e accused wh o adopts th e idea and
carries it into execution. The legal effects of entrapment do not exempt the
criminal from liability. Instigation does. (People vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 83325,
May 8, 1990, 185 SCRA 154, 164, citing earlier cases)
In instigation, a public officer or a private detective induces an innocent

person to commit a crime and would arrest hi m upon or after the commission
of th e crime by the latter. It is an absolutory cause.
In entrapment, a person ha s planned, or is about to commit, a crime
and way s and mean s are resorted to by a public officer to trap and catch the
criminal. Entrapmen t is not a defense.
Instigation must be made by public officers or private detec•

tives.
A criminal act may not be punishable if the accused wa s induced
to commit it by active cooperation and instigation on the part public
detectives. (State vs. Hayes, 105 Mo. S.W. 514, 24 Am. St. Rep.
360)
A sound public policy requires that the courts shall condemn
this practice by directing an acquittal whenever it appears that the
public authorities or private detectives, with their cognizances, have
taken active steps to lead the accused into the commission of the act.
As was said in a Michigan case: "Human nature is frail enough at
best, and requires no encouragement in wrongdoing. If we cannot
247
Art. 12 COMPLETE DEFENSE S IN CRIMINAL CASES
assist another, and prevent him from committing crime, we should

at least abstain from any active efforts in the way of leading him into
(Saunders vs. People, 38 Mich. 218, 222)
If the one who made the instigation is a private individual, not
performing public function, both he and the one induced are criminally liable
for the crime committed: the former, as principal by induction; and the latter,
as principal by direct participation.
There is neither instigation nor entrapment when the violation

of the law is simply discovered.
Charged with and prosecuted for a violation of Executive Order
No. 62, series of 1945, the accused having sold a can of Menne n
Talcum Powder for whe n the ceiling price for said article wa s
only the defense contended that the government agent induced
the accused to violate the law by purchasing from him the article and
paying for it in an amount above the ceiling price.
Held: The agent did not induce the accused to violate the law.
He simply discovered the violation committed by the accused whe n
he (the agent) purchased the article from him. It wa s the accused who
charged and collected the price. There wa s not eve n an entrapment.
(People vs. Tan Tiong, C.A., 43 O.G. 1285)
Assurance of immunity by a public officer does not exempt

a person from criminal liability.
Thus, the accused who delivered to th e barrio lieutenant a gu n
and a mmunitio n whe n the latter announced "that anyone who is
concealing firearms should surrender the m so that he will not be
penalized" is not exempt from criminal responsibility arising from
the possession of the unlicensed firearm and ammunition. In fact,
not even the President could give such assurance of immunity to any
violator of th e firearm law. Hi s constitutional power of clemency can
be exercised only after conviction. (People vs. Alabas, C.A., 52 O.G.
3091)
Complete defenses in criminal cases.

Any of the essential element s of the crime charged is not proved
by the prosecution and the element s proved do not constitute
any crime.
248
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 12
2. . Th e ac t o f th e a ccuse d fall s unde r an y o f th e justify in

g circumstances. (Art.
3. . Th e cas e o f th e accuse d falls unde r an y o f exemptin

g circumstances. (Art. 12)
4. The case is covered by an y of th e absolutory causes:
a. Spontaneou s desistance during attempted stage (Art. 6),

and no crime under another provision of the Code or other
penal law is committed.
b. Light felony is only attempte d or frustrated, and is not

agains t persons or property. (Art. 7)
The accessory is a relative of th e principal. (Art. 20)
d. Legal grounds for arbitrary detention. (Art. 124)
e. Legal grounds for trespass . (Art. 280)
f. Th e crime of theft, swindlin g or maliciou s mischie f is
committed agains t a relative. (Art. 332)
g. Whe n only sligh t or les s seriou s physical injuries are
inflicte d b y th e perso n wh o surprise d hi s spous e o r
daughter in th e act of sexual intercourse with another
person. (Art. 247)
h. Marriage of th e offender wit h the offended party whe n the
crime committed is rape, abduction, seduction, or acts of
(Art. 344)
i. Instigation.
5. Guilt of th e accused not established beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Prescription of crimes. (Art. 89)
7. Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal
action in crime against chastity. (Art. 344)
III. Mitigatin g circu msta nces .
Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in
249
Art. 13 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Classes
the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from
criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
2. B a si s
Mitigating circumstances are based on the diminution of either
freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the
offender.
Classes of mitigating circumstances.

1. Ordinary mitigating — those enumerated in subsections
of Article 13.
Thos e mentione d in subsectio n 1 of Art. 13 are ordinary
mitigating circumstances, if Art. 69, for instance, is not applicable.
2. Privileged mitigating —
a. Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under
eighteen years of age. - When the offender is a minor
under eightee n years of age and his case falls under
the provisions of th e Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act, the following rules shall be observed:
(1) A person under fifteen years of age, and a
person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age
who acted withou t discernment, are exemp t from
criminal liability;
(2) Upo n a perso n over fifteen and unde r
eighteen years of age who acted with discernment,
th e penalty next lower tha n tha t prescribed by law
shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. (As
amended by Rep. Act No. 9344)
b. Art . 69 . Penalty to be imposed when the crime
committed is not wholly excusable. — A penalty lower
by one or two degrees tha n that prescribed by law
shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by
reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to
justify the sam e or to exempt from criminal liability
provided that th e majority of such conditions
be present.
250
Classes
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which

contain three periods. — In ca se s in whic h th e
penaltie s prescribed by law contain three periods,
whethe r it be a single divisible penalty or composed
o f t hre e differen t p e n a l t ie s , eac h on e o f whic h
forms a period x x x, th e courts shall observe for
th e application of th e penalt y the following rules,
according to whethe r there are or are not mitigating
or aggravating circumstances:
(5) Whe n there are two or more mitigating

circumst a nce s an d n o ag grav atin g circumstance s
are present, the court shall impose the penalty next
lower to tha t prescribed by law, in th e period that it
ma y dee m applicable, according to the number and
nature of such circumstances.
Xx x.
Privileged mitigating circumstances applicable only to

particular crimes.
Voluntary release of the person illegally detained within 3 days
without the offender attaining his purpose and before the
institution of criminal action. (Art. 268, par. 3) The penalty is one
degree lower.
2. Aba ndo nmen t withou t justification of th e spous e wh o
committed adultery. (Art. 333, par. 3) The penalty is one
degree lower.
Distinctions.
1. Ordinary mitigating is susceptible of being offset by any
aggravatin g circumstance; while privileged mitigating
cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance.
2. Ordinary mitigating, if not offset by an aggravatin g
circumstance, produces only the effect of applying the
penalty provided by law for the crime in its minimum
period, in case of divisible penalty; whereas, privileged
mitigating produces th e effect of imposin g upon th e
251
Distinctions Between Ordinary and Privileged
offender the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that

provided by law for the crime.
People vs. Honradez

(C.A., 40 O.G., 4, 1)
Facts: The accused who was charged with robbery was less than
years He committed the crime during nighttime purposely sought,
which is an aggravating circumstance.
Held: The aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot offset

the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
Note: As to whether the age 16 years or above but under 18 years
is a privileged mitigating circumstance is not a settled question.
Mitigating circumstances only reduce the penalty, but do not

change the nature of the crime.
Where the accused is charged with murder, as whe n treachery
as a qualifying circumstance is alleged in the information, th e fact
that there is a generic or privileged mitigating circumstance does not
change the felony to homicide.
If there is an ordinary or generic mitigating circumstance, not offset by
any aggravating circumstance, the accused should be found guilty of the same
crime of murder, but the penalty to be imposed is reduced to th e minimu m of
the penalty for murder.
If there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, the penalty for murder
will be reduced by one or two degrees lower.
In every case, th e accused should be held guilty of murder.
The judgment of the trial court that the mitigating circumstance
of non-habitua l drunkennes s change s th e felony to homicid e is
erroneous, because treachery is alleged in th e information and the
crime committed by the appellant is tha t of murder. The mitigating
circumstance reduces the penalty provided by law but does not change
the nature of the crime. (People vs. C.A., 56 O.G. 3654)
252
Chapter Three
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art . 13 . Mitigating circumstances. — Th e f o l l o w i n g ar e miti •

gatin g circumstances :
Thos e mentione d i n th e precedin g chapter , whe n al l th e
requisite s necessar y t o justif y th e ac t o r t o exemp t fro m crimina l liabilit
y i n th e respectiv e case s ar e no t attendant .
2 . Tha t th e o f f e n d e r i s u n d e r e i g h t e e n y e a r s o f ag e
o r o v e r s e v e n t y y e a r s . I n th e ca s e o f th e mi n o r , h e sha l l b e
p r o c e e d e d a g a i n s t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h th e p r o v i s i o n s o f Articl e
3 . Tha t th e o f f e n d e r ha d n o i n t e n t i o n t o c o m m i t s o
g r a v e a w r o n g a s t ha t c o m m i t t e d .
4 . Tha t s uf f i ci e n t p r o v o c a t i o n o r t h r e a t o n th e par t o f
th e o f f e n d e d p a r t y i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d e d th e act .
5. T h a t t h e ac t w a s c o m m i t t e d i n th e i m m e d i a t e
v i n d i c a t i o n o f a g ra v e o f f en s e t o th e on e c o m m i t t i n g th e felo n y
hi s s p o u s e , a s c e n d a n t s , d e s c e n d a n t s , l e g i t i m a t e , n a t u r a
l o r a d o p t e d b r o t h e r s o r s i s t e r s , o r r e l a t i v e s b y affinit y
withi n th e sam e degrees .
6 . Tha t o f h a v i n g a c t e d u p o n a n i m p u l s e s o p o w erfu l
a s n a t u r a l l y t o ha v e p r o d u c e d p a s s i o n o r o b f u s c a t i o n .
7 . T h a t th e o f f e n d e r ha d v o l u n t a r i l y s u r r e n d e r e d
h i ms e l f t o a p e r s o n i n a u t h o r it y o r hi s a g e nt s , o r tha t h e ha d
v o l u n t a r i l y c o n f e s s e d hi s g uil t bef o r e th e co ur t prio r t o th e
p r e s e n t a t i o n o f th e e v i d e n c e fo r th e p r o s e c u t i o n .
repealed by Rep. Act. No. 9344. A child above 15 but below 18 who
acted without discernment may be exempt from criminal liability.
253
Par. 1 Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances
8 . Tha t th e offende r i s dea f an d dumb , blind , o r other • wis e

sufferin g som e physica l defec t whic h thu s restrict s hi s mean s o f action ,
defense , o r communicatio n wit h hi s fello w beings .
9 . Suc h illnes s o f th e offende r a s woul d diminis h th e exercis e o f
th e will-powe r o f th e offende r withou t howeve r deprivin g hi m o f
consciousnes s o f hi s acts .
10. And , finally , an y o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f a s i mi l a r
na tu r e an d a n a l o g o u s t o t ho s e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d .
Par. 1. — Those mentioned in the preceding chapter when all

the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt
from criminal liability in the respective cases are not
attendant.
"Those mentioned in the preceding chapter."

This clause ha s reference to justifying and (2)
exempting circumstances which are covered by Chapter Two of Title
One.
Circumstances of or exemption which may give

place to mitigation.
The circumstances justification or exemption which ma y
give place to mitigation, because not all th e requisites necessary to
justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective
cases are attendant, are the following:
Self-defense (Art. par.
(2) Defense of relatives (Art. 11, par. 2);
(3) Defense of stranger (Art. 11, par. 3);
(4) State of necessity (Art. par. 4);
(5) Performance of duty (Art. par. 5);
(6) Obedience to order of superior (Art. par. 6);
(7) Minority over 9 and under 15 years of age (Art. 12, par.
3);
254
Incomplete Justifying or Exemptin g Circumstances Par. 1
(8) Causin g injury by mere accident 12, par. 4); and

(9) Uncontrollable fear. (Art. 12, par. 6)
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article cannot give place to mitigation,
because, as stated by the Supreme Court of Spain, the mental condition
of a person is indivisible; tha t is, there is no middle ground between
sanity and insanity, betwee n presence and absence of intelligence.
of Sup. Ct. of Spai n of December 19, 1891 and of October 3,
1884)
Bu t if th e offender is suffering from some illness which would

diminish th e exercise of his will-power, without however depriving
hi m of consciousness of hi s acts, suc h circumstance is considered a
mitigation under paragraph 9 of Article 13. It would see m that one
who is suffering from mental disease without however depriving one of
consciousness of one's act ma y be given th e benefit of tha t mitigating
circumstance.
When all the requisites necessary to justify the act are not
attendant.
1. Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of
stranger.
Not e tha t in thes e thre e classe s of defense , unlawful
aggression must be present, it bein g an i n d i s p e n s a b l e
requisite. Wha t is absen t is either one or both of th e last two
requisites.
Paragraph 1 of Art. 13 is applicable only when unlawful

aggression is present but the other two requisites are not
present in any of the cases referred to in circumstances Nos.
of 11.
Art. 13, par. applies only whe n unlawful aggression is present,
but the other two requisites are not present. (Guevara)
When two of the three requisites mentioned therein are present
(for example, unlawful aggression and any one of the other two), the
case mus t not be considered as one in which an ordinary or generic
mitigating circumstance is present. Instead, it should be considered
a privileged mitigating circumstance referred to in Art. 69 of this
Code.
255
Thus, if in self-defense there was unlawful aggression on the

part of the deceased, the means employed to prevent or repel it wa s
reasonable, but the one making a defense gave sufficient provocation,
he is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance, because the
majority of the conditions required to justify the act is present. (Art.
69) Also, if in the defense of a relative there wa s unlawful aggres•
sion on the part of the deceased, but the one defending the relative
used unreasonable mean s to prevent or repel it, he is entitled to a
privileged mitigating circumstance.
When there is unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased
without sufficient provocation by the defendant, but the latter use s
mean s not reasonably necessary, for after having snatched the rope
from the deceased, he should not hav e wound it around her neck
and tightened it. Held: There is incomplete self-defense on th e part
of th e defendant, which ma y be considered a privileged mitigating
circumstance. (People vs. Martin, 89 Phil. 18, 24)
But if there is no unlawful aggression, there could be no self- defense or

defense of a relative, whethe r complete or incomplete.
Example of incomplete defense.

The deceased wa s about to set on fire the hous e of th e
accused, where she wa s sleeping together with her two children.
They grappled and th e accused boloed to death th e deceased.
There wa s unlawful aggression consisting in trying to set on
fire th e house of th e accused. There wa s the elemen t of danger
to the occupants of the house. Bu t having already driven th e
aggressor out of the house, who wa s prostrate on th e ground, the
accused should not have persisted in wounding her no les s tha n
fourteen times . There is, therefore, absence of one circumstance
to justify th e necessity of killing th e aggressor.
The accused wa s entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance
of incomplete defense. Here, th e accused acted in defense of her
person, her home, and her children. (U.S. vs. Rivera, 41 Phil.
472 , 473-474)
Example of incomplete self-defense.

The accused is entitled to only incomplete self-defense.
The deceased wa s in a state of drunkenness, so he wa s not as
dangerous as he would if he had been sober. Hi s aim proved
256
Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances Par. 1
faulty and easily evaded as shown by th e fact that the person

defendin g wa s not hi t b y th e sta b attempts-blow s directed
agains t him . Th e necessit y of th e mean s use d to repel th e
aggression is not clearly reasonable. (People vs. De Jesus , No. L-
58506, Nov. 19, 1982, SCRA 616, 627)
Example of incomplete defense of relative.
The deceased hit th e first cousin of the accused wit h th e

butt of a shotgun. The deceased also pointed the shotgun at the
first cousin, took a bullet from his jacket pocket, showed it to
him and asked "Do you like to which the latter
replied, "No, Noy, I do not like that." The deceased the n placed
th e bullet in th e shotgu n and wa s thu s pointing it at the first
cousin whe n th e accused came from behind the deceased and
stabbed him . There wa s unlawful aggression on the part of the
deceased and there wa s no provocation on the part of the
However, because of a runnin g feud betwee n the deceased and
hi s brother on one side and th e accused and his brother on the
other side, th e accused could not have been impelled by pure
compassion or beneficence or th e lawful desire to avenge the
immediat e wrong inflicted on his cousin. He wa s motivated by
revenge, resentmen t or evil motive. He is only entitled to the
privileged mitigatin g circumstance of incomplete defense of
relative. (People vs. Toring, G.R. No. 56358, Oct. 26, 1990, 191
SCRA 38, 45-48)
2. Incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil

or injury.
Avoidance of greater evil or injury is a justifying circum• stance if
all th e three requisites mentioned in paragraph 4 of Article 11 are
present. Bu t if any of the last two requisites is absent, there is only a
mitigating circumstance.
3. Incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty.
As ha s been discussed under Article there are two
requisites that mus t be present in order that the circumstance
in Article 11, No. 5, may be taken as a justifying one, namely:
a. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in
the lawful exercise of a right or office; and
257
Par . 1 Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances
b. That the injury caused or offense committed be the neces•

sary consequence of the due performance of such duty or
the lawful exercise of such right or office.
In the case of People vs. Oanis, supra, where only one of the requisites of
circumstance No. 5 of Art. 11 was present, Art. 69 wa s applied. The Supreme
Court said —
"As th e decea se d wa s kille d whil e asleep , th e crime
committed is murder with the qualifying circumstance
There is, however, a mitigating circumstance of weight consisting
in the incomplete justifying circumstance defined in Art. 11, No.
5, of the Revised Penal Code. According to such legal provision, a
person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment
of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. There are
two requisites in order that the circumstance may be taken as a
justifying one: (a) that the accused acted in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and (b) that the
injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence
of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office. In the instant case, only the first requisite
is have acted in the performance of a duty.
The second requisite is wanting for the crime committed by the m
is not the necessary consequence of a due performance of their
duty. Their duty wa s to arrest Balagtas, or to get hi m dead or
alive if resistance is offered by hi m and they are overpowered.
But through impatience or over anxiety or in their desire to take
no chances, they have exceeded in the fulfillment of such duty by
killing the person whom they believed to be Balagtas without any
resistance from him without making any previous inquiry as
to his identity. According to Art. 69 of the Revised Penal Code,
the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by
law shall, in such case, be imposed.
"For all th e foregoing, th e j udg men t is modified an d
appellant s are hereb y declare d guilt y o f murde r wit h th e
mitigatin g circumstanc e above mentioned , and accordingly
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from five (5) years of
correccional to fifteen (15) years of temporal,
with the accessories of th e law, and to pay th e heirs of th e
deceased Serapio Tecson, jointly and severally, an indemnity
P2,000, with costs."
258
Incomplete Justifying or Exemptin g Circumstances Par. 1
Sinc e th e Suprem e Cour t considere d on e o f th e two requisites

as constituting the majority, it seem s that there is no ordinary mitigatin
g circumstanc e under Art. 13, par. 1, whe n th e justifying or exemptin g
circumstanc e ha s two requisites only.
4. Incomplete justifying circumstance of obedience to an order.
Roleda fired at Pilones, following th e order of Sergeant
Benting, Roleda's superior. It appears tha t on their way to the
camp, Roleda learned tha t Pilones had killed not only a barrio
lieutenan t but also a membe r of the military police, and this
ma y hav e aroused in Roleda a feeling of resentmen t that may
hav e impelled hi m to readily and without questioning follow
th e order of Sgt. Benting. To this ma y be added the fact of his
being a subordinate of Sgt. Bentin g who gave the order, and
while out on patrol whe n th e soldiers were supposed to be under
th e immediat e command and control of the patrol leader, Sgt.
Benting. (People vs. Bernal, et 91 Phil. 619)
When all the requisites necessary to exempt from criminal

liability are not attendant.
Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over 9 and under
15 years of age.
To be exemp t from criminal liability under paragraph 3 of Article
12, two conditions mus t be present:
a. That the offender is over 9 and under 15 years old; and
b. That he does not act with discernment.
Therefore, if the minor over 9 and under 15 years of age acted wit
h discernment, he is entitled only to a mitigating circumstance, because
not all the requisites necessary to exempt from criminal liability are
present.
The case of such minor is specifically covered by Art. 68.
2. Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident.
Under paragraph 4 of Article 12, there are four requisites that
mus t be present in order to exempt one from criminal li• ability,
namely:
259
a. A person is performing a lawful act;

b. With due care;
He causes an injury to another by mere accident; and
d. Without fault or intention of causing it.
If th e second requisit e and the 1st part of th e fourth requisite
are absent, th e case will fall under Art. 365 which punishes a felony by
negligence or imprudence.
In effect, there is a mitigating circumstance, because th e penalty
is lower tha n that provided for intentional felony.
If the first requisite and the 2nd part of the fourth requisite
are absent, because th e person committed an unlawful act and
had the intention of causing the injury, it will be an intentional
felony. The 2nd and 3rd requisites will not be present either.
In this case, there is not even a mitigating circumstance.
3. Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear.
Unde r paragrap h 6 of Article 12, uncontrollabl e fear
is an exemptin g circumstance if the following requisites are
present:
a. That the threat which caused the fear wa s of an evil greater
than, or at least equal to, tha t which he wa s required to
commit;
b. That it promised an evil of such gravity and imminence
tha t a n ordinar y perso n woul d hav e succumbe d t o i t
(uncontrollable).
If only one of thes e requisites is present, there is only a mitigat• ing
circumstance.
Illustration:
People vs. Magpantay

(C.A., 46 O.G. 1655)
Facts: In the night of May 8, 1947, Felix and Pedro took turns
to guard, so that whe n one wa s asleep the other was awake. At about
nine o'clock whe n Pedro wa s asleep, the silhouette of a ma n passed in
260
Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances Par. 1
front of their house without any light. The night was dark and it was
drizzling. The coconut trees and the bushes on the sides of the road
increased the darkness. When Felix saw the silhouette, he asked it
who it was, but it walked hurriedly, which made Felix suspicious as it
might be a scouting guard of the gang. Felix fired into the air,
yet the figure continued its way.
When Pedro heard the shot, he suddenly grabbed the rifle at his
side and fired at the figure on the road, causing the death of the man.
This man was afterward found to be Pedro Pinion, who was returning
home unarmed after fishing in a river.
The accused voluntarily surrendered to the barrio-lieutenant and
then to the chief of police.
Held: The accused acted under the influence of the fear of being
attacked. Having already in his mind the idea that they might be
raided at any moment by the Dilim gang and suddenly awakened by
the shot fired by Felix, he grabbed his gun and fired before he could
be fired upon. The fear, however, was not entirely uncontrollable, for
had he not been so hasty and had he stopped a few seconds to think,
he would have ascertained that there was no imminent danger.
He is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of grave fear, not
entirely uncontrollable, under paragraph 1 of Article 13 in connection
with paragraph 6 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. That said
two provisions may be taken together to constitute a mitigating
circumstance has been declared by the Supreme Court of Spain in its
decision of February 24, 1897 and by Groizard. (Codigo Penal, Vol. I,
pp. 370-372, Third Edition)
Consequently, there are two marked mitigating circumstances
in favor of the accused. Article 64, in paragraph 5, of the Revised
Penal Code provides that: "When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court
shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the
period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature
of such circumstances." The penalty for homicide is temporal.
The next lower penalty is prision mayor, which may be imposed in the
period that the court may deem applicable according to the number
and nature of such circumstance.
In view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused Pedro
Magpantay guilty of homicide, with two very marked mitigating
circumstances, and modifies the judgment appealed from by imposing
upon him the penalty of from six (6) months and one day prision
to six (6) years and one day of prision mayor.
261
Par. 2 Under Eighteen or Over Seventy Years Old
With due respect, it is believed that Art. 69, in connection with

paragraph 6 of Article not Article paragraph in relation to
paragraph 6 of Article 12, should be applied.
When it considered grave fear, not entirely uncontrollable, as
ordinary mitigating circumstance under Article 13, paragraph 1,
together with voluntary surrender, and applied Article 64, the Court
of Appeals should have fixed the maximu m term of the indeterminate
penalty (prision mayor) in its medium period. The two mitigating
circumstance s havin g bee n considered already for th e purpose
of lowering the penalty for homicide by one degree, pursuan t to
paragraph 5 of Article 64, there is no mitigating circumstance that
will justify the imposition prision mayor in its minimu m period.
Had Article 69 in connection with paragraph 6 of Article been
applied, the penalty imposed would have a correct basis. Under Article
69, the penalty one or two degrees lower tha n that provided for th e
offense may be imposed. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender need not be considered in lowering th e penalty by one
degree. Therefore, the voluntary surrender of the accused, which is a
generic mitigating circumstance, ma y be considered for the purpose
of fixing prision mayor in its minimu m period. (Art. 64, par. 2)
Par. 2. — That the offender is under eighteen years of age or

over seventy years. In the case the minor, he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions
of Article 80 (now Art. 192, P.D. No. 603).
Paragraph 2, Article 13 RPC impliedly repealed by Republic

Act No. 9344.
Paragraph 2, Article 13 of th e Revised Penal Code providing
that offender under eightee n years of age is entitled to a mitigating
circumstance of minority is deemed repealed by the provision of Re•
public Act 9344 declaring a child above fifteen (15) years but below
eighteen years or age shall be exempt from criminal liability un•
less he/she ha s acted with discernment. (Sec. 6, Rep. Act No. 9344)
In other words, wherea s before, an offender fifteen or over
but under eighteen years of age is entitled only to the benefits
provided under Article 68 of th e Revised Penal Code, under Republic
262
Under Eighteen or Over Seventy Years Old Par. 2
Act No. 934 4 or the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006," such offender
ma y be exempt from criminal liability should he/she acted without
discernment.
On the other hand, if such offender acted with discernment,

such child in conflict wit h th e law shall undergo diversion programs
provided under Chapter 2 of Republic Act No. 9344.
Meaning of Diversion and Diversion Program under Republic

Act No. 9344
"Diversion" refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process
of determining th e responsibility and treatmen t of a child in conflict
wit h th e la w o n th e basi s o f his/he r social, cultural, economic,
or educational background without resulting to formal
court proceedings. (Section Rep. Act No . 9344)
"Diversion Program" refers to th e progra m tha t th e child
i n conflict wit h th e la w i s require d t o underg o after he/sh e i s
found responsible for an offense without resorting to formal court
proceedings. (Section Rep. Act No. 9344)
System of Diversion.
Children in conflict wit h th e law shall undergo diversion pro• grams
without undergoing court proceedings subject to the following conditions:
(a) Where th e imposable penalt y for th e crime committed is
not more tha n six (6) years imprisonment, the law enforcement office
or Punon g Baranga y wit h th e assistanc e of th e local social welfare
and development officer or other member s of th e Local Councils for
the Protection of Children (LCPC) establishe d in all levels of local
government pursuant to Rep. Act No. 9344, shall conduct mediation,
family conferencing and conciliation and, where appropriate, adopt
indigenous modes of conflict resolution in accordance with the best
interest of th e child wit h a view to accomplishing the objectives of
restorative justice and th e formulation of a diversion program. The
child and his/her family shall be present in thes e activities.
(b) In victimless crimes where the imposable penalty is not
more than six (6) years of imprisonment, the local social welfare and
development officer shall meet with the child and his/her parents
or guardians for the development of the appropriate diversion and
263
Par. 2 Under Eighteen or Over Seventy Years Old
rehabilitation program, in coordination with the Barangay Council

for the Protection of Children (BCPC) created pursuant to Rep. Act
No. 9344.
(c) Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed ex•
ceeds six (6) years imprisonment, diversion measures may be resorted
to only by court. (See Section 23, Republic Act No. 9344)
Conferencing, Mediation and Conciliation.

A child in conflict with the law ma y undergo conferencing, me •
diation or conciliation outside th e criminal justice system or prior to
his entry into said system. A contract of diversion ma y be entered
into during such conferencing, mediation or conciliation proceedings.
(Sec. 25, Rep. Act No. 9344)
Contract of Diversion.
If during the conferencing, mediation or conciliation, th e child
voluntarily admits the commission of the act, a diversion program
shall be developed whe n appropriate and desirable as determined
under Section 30. Such admission shall not be used against the child in
any subsequent judicial, or administrative proceedings.
The diversion program shall be effective and binding if accepted by the
parties concerned. The acceptance shall be in writing and signed by
the parties concerned and the appropriate authorities. The local social
welfare and development officer shall supervise the implementation of
the diversion program. The diversion proceedings shall be completed
within forty-five (45) days. The period of prescription of th e offense
shall be suspended until th e completion of th e diversion proceedings
but not to exceed forty-five (45) days.
The child shall present to the competent authori•

ties that imposed the diversion program at least once a mont h for
reporting and evaluation of the effectiveness of th e program.
Failure to comply wit h th e term s and conditions of the contract of
diversion, as certified by the local social welfare and development officer, shall
give the offended party th e option to institute the ap• propriate legal action.
The period of prescription of th e offense shall be suspended during the
effectivity of th e diversion program, but not exceeding a period of two (2)
years. (Sec. 26, Rep. Act No. 9344)
264
Under Eighteen or Over Seventy Years Old Par. 2
Where diversion may be conducted.

Diversion ma y be conducted at the Katarungang Pambarangay, the
police investigation or th e inques t or preliminary investigation stage and at all
levels and phase s of th e proceedings including judicial level. (Section 24,
Republic Act No . 9344)
Duty of the Punong Barangay or the Law

when there is no diversion.
I f th e offense doe s no t fall unde r th e categor y wher e th e
imposable penalt y for th e crime committed is not more tha n six (6)
years of imprisonmen t or in case s of victimless crimes where the
imposable penalty is also not more tha n six years imprisonment, or if
the child, his/her parents or guardians does not consent to a diversion,
the Punon g Baranga y handlin g th e case shall, withi n three (3) days
from determination of th e absence of jurisdiction over th e case or
termination of th e diversion proceeding as th e case ma y be, forward
the records of th e case to th e law enforcement officer, prosecutor or
th e appropriate court, as th e case ma y be. (See Section 27, Republic
Act No . 9344)
In case a Law Enforcement Officer is th e one handlin g th e

case, withi n sam e period, th e Law Enforcement Officer shall forward
the records of th e case to th e prosecutor or judge concerned for the
conduct of inquest and/or preliminary investigation. The document
transmitting said records shall display th e word "CHILD" in bold
letters. (Sec. 28, Rep. Act No . 9344)
Determination of age of child in conflict with the law.

The child in conflict wit h th e law shall enjoy the presumption of
minority. He/She shall enjoy all th e rights of a child in conflict with
the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen years old or older.
The age of a child may be determined from the child's birth certificate,
baptismal certificate or any other pertinent In the absence
of these documents, age may be based on information from the child
himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance
of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the
age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.
Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict with the law prior
to the filing of the information in any appropriate court may file
265
Par . 2 U nde r or Over Seventy Years Old
a case in a summary proceeding for the determination of age before

the Family Court which shall decide the case within twenty-four
(24) hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all interested parties.
If a case has been filed against the child in conflict with the law
and is pending in the appropriate court, the person shall file a motion
to determine the age of the child in the same court where the case
is pending. Pending hearing on the said motion, proceedings on the
main case shall be suspended.
In all proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges and
other government officials concerned shall exert all efforts at determining the
age of the child in conflict with the law. (Section 7, Republic Act No. 9344)
That the offender is over 70 years of age is only a generic

mitigating circumstance.
While paragraph 2 of Article 13 covers offenders under 18 years of age
and those over 70 years, Article 68, providing for privileged mitigating
circumstances, does not include the case of offenders over 70 years old.
Prior to the enact men t of Rep. Act No. 9346 prohibiting th e

imposition of the death penalty, there were two cases where th e fact
that the offender is over 70 years of age had the effect of a privileged
mitigating circumstance, namely: whe n he committed an offense
punishable by death, tha t penalty shall not be imposed (Art. 47, par.
1) and (2) whe n the death sentence is already imposed, it shall be
suspended and commuted. (Art. 83)
In any of the above-mentioned two cases, the penalty of death will have
to be lowered to life imprisonment
The mitigatin g circumstance s in paragraph 2 of Art. 13 are
based on th e diminution of intelligence, a condition of voluntari•
ness .
266
No Intention to Commit So Grave A Wrong Par. 3
Par. 3. — That the offender had no intention to commit so

a wrong as that committed.
Rule for the application of this paragraph.

This circumstance can be taken into account only whe n the facts
proven show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between
the mean s employed to execute the criminal act and its
(U.S. vs. Reyes, 36 Phil. 904 , 907)
Illustrations:
The husband who wa s quarreling with his wife punched her

in th e abdomen, causin g th e rupture of her hypertrophied
spleen, from which she died. (People vs. Rabao, 67 Phil.
255, 257, 259)
2. The accused confined himself to giving a single blow with
a bolo on the right arm of the victim and did not repeat the
blow. The death of the victim was due to neglect and the lack
of medical treatment, his death having resulted from hemor•
rhage which those who attended to him did not know how to
stop or control in time. (U.S. vs. 1 Phil. 47, 49)
3. The accused, a policeman, boxed th e deceased, a detention

prisoner, inside the jail. As a consequence of the fistic blows,
th e deceased collapsed on th e floor. The accused stepped
on th e prostrate body and left. After a while, he returned
wit h a bottle, poured its contents on the recumbent body
of th e deceased, ignited it with a match and left the cell
again. As a consequence, the victim later on died. Held: The
accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of "no
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed."
(People vs. Ural, No. March 27, 1974, 56 SCRA
138, 140-141, 146)
Intention, being an internal state, must be judged by external

acts.
The intention, as an internal act, is judged not only by the pro•
portion of the mean s employed by him to the evil produced by his act,
but also by the fact that the blow wa s or was not aimed at a vital part
of the body.
267
Par. 3 No Intention to Commit So Grave A Wrong
Thus, it may be deduced from the proven facts that the accused
had no intent to kill the victim, his design being only to maltreat
him, such that whe n he realized the fearful consequences of his
felonious act, he allowed the victim to secure medical treatment at
the municipal dispensary. (People vs. Ural, No. March 27,
1974, 56 SCRA 138, 146)
Thus, where the accused fired a loaded revolver at the deceased
and killed him, it mus t be presumed , takin g into consideration
the means employed as being sufficient to produce the evil which
resulted, that he intended the natural consequence of his act and he
is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance
of lack of intention to commit a wrong as that committed. (U.S. vs.
Fitzgerald, 2 Phil. 419, 422)
Thus, where at the time of th e commission of the crime, the

accused wa s 32 years of age, while his victim wa s 25 years his senior,
and whe n the latter resisted his attempt to rape her by biting and
scratching him, to subdue her, the accused boxed her and then held her
on the neck and pressed it down, while she wa s lying on her back and
he wa s on top of her, these acts were reasonably sufficient to produce
the result that they actually death of the victim. (People
vs. No. L-29066, March 32 SCRA 95, 98)
So also, whe n th e assailant, armed wit h a bolo, inflicted upon
his victim a serious and fatal wound in th e abdomen, it is not to be
believed that he had no intention of killing his victim, having clearly
shown, by th e location of th e wound, tha t he ha d a definite an d
perverse intention of producing the injury which resulted. (U.S. vs.
Mendac, 31 Phil. 240, 244-245)
Defendant alleged as mitigating circumstance that he did not
intend to commit so grave an injury. Held: The plea is groundless;
he used a knife six inches long. The fatal injury wa s th e natural and
almost inevitable consequence. Moreover, he attempted to stab a
second tim e but wa s prevented from doing so. (People vs. Orongan,
et 58 Phil. 426 , 429)
The weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury
inflicted, and the manner it is inflicted may show that the
accused intended the wrong committed.
Intention mus t be judged by considering th e weapon used, th e
injury inflicted, and hi s attitude of the mind whe n th e
268
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE S Art. 13
accused attacked th e deceased. Thus, whe n the accused

use d a heavy club in attackin g th e decease d who m he
followed some distance, without giving him an opportunity
to defend himself, it is to be believed tha t he intended to do
exactly wha t he did and mus t be held responsible for the
result, without the benefit of this mitigating circumstance.
(People vs. Flores, 50 Phil. 548 , 551)
2. Whe n a person stabs another wit h a lethal weapon such

as a fan knife (and th e sam e could be said of th e butt of a
rifle), upon a part of th e body, for example, the head, chest,
or stomach, death could reasonably be anticipated and the
accused mus t be presumed to have intended th e natural
consequence of his wrongful act. (People vs. Reyes, 61 Phil.
341 , 343 ; People vs. Dat u Baguinda, 44 O.G. 2287)
3. The weapo n used, th e force of the blow, th e spot where the
blow was directed and landed, and th e cold blood in which
it wa s inflicted, all tend to negative any notion tha t the
plan wa s anythin g les s tha n to finish th e intended victim.
The accused in this case struck th e victim wit h a hammer
on th e right forehead. (People vs. Banlos, G.R. No.
Dec. 29, 1950)
4. As to th e alleged lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
as tha t committed, th e sam e cannot be appreciated. The
clear intention of th e accused to kill the deceased may be
inferred from th e fact tha t he used a deadly weapon and
fired at the deceased almost point blank, thereby hitting
hi m in the abdomen and causing death. (People vs. Reyes,
No. Feb. 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 474, 482)
5. Where the evidence show s that, if not all the persons who
attacked th e deceased, at least some of them, intended
to cause his death by throwing at him stones of such size
and weight as to cause, as in fact they caused, a fracture of
his skull, and as the act of one or some of them is deemed
to be the act of the others there being sufficient proof of
conspiracy, the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent
to commit so grave a wrong as the one actually committed
cannot favorably be considered. (People vs. Bautista, Nos.
L-23303-04, May 20, 1969, 28 SCRA People
269
vs. Espejo, No. L-27708, Dec. 19, 1970, 36 SCRA 400,

424)
Inflicting of five stab wounds in rapid succession negates pretense of

lack of intention to cause so serious an injury.
The inflicting by the accused of five (5) stab wounds caused in
rapid succession brings forth in bold relief the intention of the ac•
cused to snuff out the life of the deceased, and definitely negates any
pretense of lack of intention to cause so serious an injury. (People vs.
No. Oct. 31 , 1969, 30 SCRA 307, 316)
Art. par. 3, is not applicable when the offender employed

brute force.
To prove this circumstance, the accused testified that "my only
intention wa s to abuse her, but whe n she tried to shout, I covered
her mouth and choked her and later I found out that because of tha t
she died." The Supreme Court said: "It is easy enough for the ac•
cused to say that he had no intention to do great harm. Bu t he kne w
the girl wa s very tender in age (6 years old), wea k in body, helples s
and defenseless. He kne w or ought to have known th e natural and
inevitable result of the act of strangulation, committed by me n of
superior strength, specially on an occasion whe n she wa s resisting
the onslaught upon her honor. The brute force employed by th e ap•
pellant, completely contradicts the claim tha t he had no intention to
kill the victim." (People vs. Yu, No. Jan. 28, 1961, 1 SCRA
It is the intention the offender at the moment when he is committing the

crime which is considered.
The point is raised tha t th e trial court should have considered
the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a
wrong as tha t The argument is that the accused planned
only to rob; the y never mean t to kill. Held: Art. 13, par. 3, of th e
Revised Penal Code addresses itself to th e intention of th e offender
at the particular momen t whe n he executes or commits the criminal
act; not to his intention during the planning stage. Therefore, when ,
as in the case under review, th e original plan wa s only to rob, but
which plan, on account of the resistance offered by the victim, wa s
compounded into the more serious crime of robbery with homicide,
270
the plea of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong cannot be

rightly The irrefutable fact remains tha t whe n the y ganged
up on their victim, they employed deadly weapons and inflicted on him
mortal wound s in hi s neck. At tha t precise moment, the y did intend
to kill their victim, and tha t wa s th e mo men t to which Art. 13, par.
3, refers. (People vs . Boyles, No . May SCRA 88,
95-96; People vs. No . L-26789, April 25, 1969, 27 SCRA 1037,
1045-1046)
Art. 13, par. 3 of th e Revised Pena l Code "addresses itself to the

intention of th e offender at th e particular momen t whe n he executes
or commits th e criminal act; not to hi s intention during th e planning
stage." Therefore, if th e original plan, as alleged by th e accused, wa s
merely to ask for forgiveness from th e victim's wife who scolded the m
and threatened to report the m to th e authorities, which led to her
killing, the plea of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong cannot
be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. The records show that
the accused held th e victim's wife until she fell to the floor, whereupon
they strangled her by mean s of a piece of rope tied around her neck
till she died. The brute force employed by th e accused completely
contradicts th e claim tha t the y had no intention to kill the victim.
(People vs. No. L-30849, March SCRA 131,
152)
Lack of intention to grave a wrong mitigating in

robbery with homicide.
The mitigatin g circumstance of lack of inten t to commit so
grave a wrong ma y be appreciated favorably in robbery with homi•
cide, where it ha s not been satisfactorily established that in forcing
entrance through th e door which wa s the n closed, with the use of
pieces of wood, th e accused were aware that the deceased wa s behind
the door and would be hurt, and there is no clear showing that they
ever desired to kill the deceased as they sought to enter the house to
retaliate against th e male occupants or commit robbery. (People vs.
Abueg, No. Nov. 24, 1986, 145 SCRA 622, 634)
Appreciated in murder qualified by circumstances based on

manner of commission, not on state of mind of accused.
Several accused decided to have a foreman beaten up. The deed was
accomplished. But the victim died as a result of hemorrhage. It
271
was not the intention of the accused to kill the victim. Held: Murder
results from the presence of qualifying circumstances (in this case
with premeditation and treachery) based upon the manner in which
the crime wa s committed and not upon the state of mind of the ac•
cused. The mitigating circumstance that the offender had no intention
to commit so grave a wrong as that committed is based on the state
of mind of the offender. Hence, there is no incompatibility betwee n
evident premeditation or treachery, which refers to the manne r of
committing the crime, and this mitigating circumstance. (People vs.
Enriquez, 58 Phil. 536, 544-545)
Not appreciated in murder by treachery.

Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong is not appreciated
where the offense committed is characterized by treachery. The five
accused claim that the weapons used are mere pieces of wood, and th e
fact that only seven blows were dealt the deceased by the five of them ,
only two of which turned out to be fatal, shows that the tragic and
grievous result wa s far from their The record however,
that th e offense committed wa s characterized by treachery and th e
accused left th e scene of th e crime only after the victim had fallen
down. Hence, th e mitigating circumstance of lack of intention cannot
be appreciated in their favor. (People vs. Pajenado, No. L-26458, Jan .
30, 1976, 69 SCRA 172, 180)
Lack of intent to kill not mitigating in physical injuries.

In crime s agains t person s wh o do not die as a resul t of th e
assault , th e absenc e o f th e inten t t o kill reduce s th e felony t o
mer e physica l injuries , bu t it doe s not constitut e a mi tig a t in g
circumstanc e unde r Art. 13 , par. 3. (People vs . Galacgac, C.A., 54
Mitigating when the victim dies.

As part of their fun-making, th e accused merely intended to se t the
deceased's clothes on fire. Burning th e clothes of the victim would cause at the
very leas t some kind of physical injuries on this person. The accused is guilty
of th e resulting death of the victim but he is entitled to th e mitigating
circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong as tha t committed.
(People vs. Pugay, No. L-74324, Nov. 17, 1988, 167 SCRA 439 , 449)
272
Not applicable to felonies by negligence.

In th e case of infidelity in th e custody of prisoners through negligence
(Art. 224), thi s circumstance wa s not considered. (People vs. Medina, C.A., 40
O.G. 4196)
Th e reaso n i s tha t i n felonies throug h negligence , th e offender
act s withou t intent . Th e inten t i n int entio na l felonies i s replaced
by neglig ence , imprudence , lack of foresigh t or lack of skill in
culpable felonies. Hence , i n felonie s throug h negligence , ther e i s
n o inten t o n th e part o f th e offender whic h ma y b e considered a s
diminished .
Is Art. par. 3, applicable to felonies where the intention of

the offender is immaterial?
In unintentiona l abortion, wher e th e abortion tha t resulted
is not intended by th e offender, th e mitigatin g circumstance that
the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed is not applicable. (People vs . Cristobal, C.A., G.R. No.
8739, Oct.
Bu t i n anothe r case , wher e th e accuse d pulled th e hair o f
th e complainan t wh o wa s thre e month s pregnan t causin g her t o
fall on he r buttocks on th e cemen t floor, wit h th e result tha t after
experiencing vagina l hemorrhag e th e foetus fell from he r womb, it
wa s held tha t th e accused havin g intende d a t th e mos t t o maltreat
th e complainan t only, th e mitigatin g circumstance in Art. 13, par.
3, should be considered in hi s favor. (People vs. C.A., 58
O.G. 4060)
Unintentional abortion is committed by any person by vio•
lence, shall cause th e killing of th e foetus in th e uterus or the violent
expulsion of the foetus from the maternal womb, causing its death,
but unintentionally. (Art. 257)
Applicable only to offenses resulting in physical injuries or

material harm.
Thus, the mitigating circumstance that the offender did not intend to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed wa s not ap• preciated in cases of
defamation or slander. (People vs. Galang de Bautista, C.A., 40 O.G. 4473)
273
Par. 4 Provocation or Threat
In this circumstance, intent, an element of voluntariness in intentional
felony, is diminished.
Par. 4. — That sufficient provocation or threat on the part the

offended party immediately preceded the act.
What is provocation?
By provocation is understood any unjust or improper conduct
or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating
any
Requisites:
1. That the provocation mus t be sufficient.
2. That it mus t originate from the offended
3. That the provocation mus t be immediate to th e act, i.e.,
t o th e co mmissio n o f th e crime b y th e perso n wh o i s
provoked.
The provocation must be

Provocation in order to be mitigating mus t be sufficient and
immediately preceding the act. (People vs. No. L-32040, Oct.
79 SCRA 570, 575-576)
The word "sufficient" mean s adequate to excite a person to com• mit th
e wrong and mus t accordingly be proportionate to its gravity. (People vs.
Nabora, 73 Phil. 434, 435)
As to whethe r or no t a provocation is sufficient depend s upo n th e act
constitutin g th e provocation, th e social standin g o f th e person provoked, th
e place an d th e tim e whe n th e provocation i s made .
Examples of sufficient provocation.

1. The accused wa s a foreman in charge of the preservation of
order and for which purpose he provided himself wit h a
274
Provocation or Threat Par. 4
pick handle. The deceased, one of th e laborers in the line to

receive their wages , left hi s place and forced hi s wa y into
th e file. The accused ordered hi m out, but he persisted, and
th e accused gave hi m a blow wit h the stick on the right
side of th e hea d above th e ear. Held: Whe n th e aggression
is in retaliation for an insult, injury, or threat, th e offender
canno t successfull y clai m self-defense, but a t mos t h e
can be give n th e benefit of th e mitigating circumstance
under th e provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 13. (U.S. vs.
9 Phil. 544 , 545-546)
2. Whe n th e deceased abused and ill-treated th e accused by

kicking and cursing th e latter, th e accused wh o killed hi m
committed th e crime wit h this mitigating circumstance.
(U.S. vs . 37 Phil. 133, 135)
3. Whe n in hi s hous e th e accused sa w an unknow n person
jum p out of th e window and hi s wife begged for hi s pardon
on he r knees , he killed her. Suc h conduct on th e part of
hi s wife constitutes a sufficient provocation to th e accused.
(People vs . Marquez, 53 Phil. 260, 262-263)
4. Although there wa s no unlawful aggression, because the
challenge wa s accepted by th e accused, and therefore there
wa s n o self-defense, there wa s howeve r th e mitigating
circumstance of immediat e provocation. In this case, the
deceased insulted th e accused and the n challenged the
latter. (U.S. vs. Cortes, 36 Phil. 837)
When the defendant sought the deceased, the challenge to
fight by the latter is not provocation.
Thus , if th e defendan t appeare d in front of th e
house of the deceased, after they had been separated by
other persons who prevented a fight between them, even
if th e deceased challenged hi m to a fight upon seeing him
near his house, the defendant cannot be given the benefit of
th e mitigating circumstance of provocation, because when
the defendant sought the deceased, the former wa s ready
and willing to fight. (U.S. vs. Mendac, 31 Phil. 240)
5. There wa s sufficient provocation on the part of the victim
where the latter hit the accused with his fist on the eye of
275
the accused before the fight. (People vs. Manansala, Jr.,

31 SCRA 401)
6. The deceased, while intoxicated, found the accused lying
down without having prepared the evening meal. This
angered the deceased and he abused the accused by kick•
ing and cursing him. A struggle followed and the accused
stabbed him with a pen knife. The accused wa s entitled to
the mitigating circumstance that sufficient provocation or
threat immediately preceded the act. (U.S. vs. 37
Phil. 133)
The victim's act of kicking the accused on the chest prior

to the stabbing does not constitute unlawful aggression for
purposes of self-defense, but th e act may be considered as
sufficient provocation on the victim's part, a mitigating
circumstance tha t ma y be considered in favor of th e ac•
cused. (People vs . No. L-40757, Jan . 24, 1983,
120 SCRA 92 , 102)
8. Thrusting hi s bolo at petitioner, threatening to kill him,

and hacking the bamboo walls of his house are, in our view,
sufficient provocation to enrage any man , or stir his rage
and obfuscate his thinking, more so whe n the lives of hi s
wife and children are in danger. Petitioner stabbed the vic•
tim as a result of those provocations, and while petitioner
wa s still in a fit of rage. In our view, there wa s sufficient
provocation and th e circumstance of passion or obfuscation
attended the commission of the offense. vs. People,
G.R. No. 151978, Jul y 14, 2004)
Provocation held not sufficient.

(a) Whe n th e injured party asked the accused for an explana•
tion for th e latter's derogatory remarks against certain
ladies, th e accused cannot properly claim tha t h e wa s
provoked to kill. (People vs . Laude, 58 Phil. 933)
(b) While th e accused wa s taking a walk at the Ne w Luneta
one evening, th e deceased me t hi m and pointing his fin•
ger at th e accused asked th e latter wha t he wa s doing
there and the n said: you know we are watching for
honeymooners here?" The accused drew out his knife and
276
stabbed th e deceased wh o died as a consequence. Held:

The provocation mad e by the deceased wa s not sufficient.
(People vs. Nabora, 73 Phil. 434)
(c) The fact tha t th e deceased (a public officer) had ordered

th e arrest of th e accused for misdemeanor is not such a
provocation withi n th e meanin g of this paragraph tha t
will be considered in mitigatio n of th e penalt y for th e
crime of homicide committed by th e accused who killed th e
officer giving suc h order. (U.S. vs. Abijan, 1 Phil. 83) The
performance of a duty is not a source of provocation.
(d) Assumin g for the sak e of argumen t tha t the blowing of
horns, cutting of lane s or overtaking can be considered as
acts of provocation, th e sam e were not sufficient. The word
mean s adequate to excite a person to commit a
wrong and mus t accordingly be proportionate to its gravity.
Moreover, th e deceased's act of askin g for th e accused to
claim tha t he wa s provoked to kill or injure the deceased.
(People vs. Court of Appeals, et. G.R. No. 103613, Feb.
23 , 2001)
Provocation must originate from the offended party.

Where th e alleged provocation did not come from the deceased
but from the latter's mother, the sam e ma y not be appreciated in
favor of th e accused. (People vs. Reyes, No. Feb. 27, 1976,
69 SCRA 474, 481)
A and B were together. A hit C on the head with a piece of
stone from his sling-shot and ran away. As he could not overtake A,
C faced B and assaulted the latter. In this case, C is not entitled to
this mitigating circumstance, because B never gave the provocation
or took part in it.
The reason for the requirement is that the law says that the provocation
is "on the part of the offended party."
If during the fight between the accused and another person who
provoked the affair, th e deceased merely approached to separate
them and did not give the accused any reason for attacking him, and
in attacking the other person the accused killed the deceased, the
provocation given by the other person cannot be taken as a mitigating
circumstance. (U.S. vs. Malabanan, 9 Phil. 262, 264)
277
Difference between sufficient provocation as requisite

of incomplete self-defense and as a mitigating circumstance.
Sufficient provocation as a requisite of incomplete self-defense
is different from sufficient provocation as a mitigating circumstance.
As an element of self-defense, it pertains to its absence on the part
of the person defending himself; while as a mitigating circumstance,
it pertains to its presence on the part of the offended party. (People
vs. Court of Appeals, et. G.R. No. 103613, Feb. 23, 2001)
The provocation by the deceased in the first stage the fight is not a miti•
gating circumstance when the accused killed him after he had fled.
The provocation given by th e deceased at th e commencement
of the fight is not a mitigating circumstance, where the deceased ran
away and the accused killed hi m while fleeing, because the deceased
from th e momen t he fled did not give any provocation for the accused
to pursue and to attack him. (People vs. Alconga, 78 Phil. 366, 370)
Provocation must be immediate to the commission of the

crime.
Betwee n th e provocatio n b y th e offende d part y an d th e commission
of th e crime by th e person provoked, there should not be any interval of time.
The reason for thi s requirement is tha t the law state s tha t th e
provocation "immediately preceded the When there is an interval
of time betwee n the provocation and th e commission of the crime, th e
of the offended party could not have excited the accused to
the commission of the crime, he havin g had time to regain his reason
and to exercise self-control.
Provocation given by an adversary at the commencement and
during th e first stage of a fight cannot be considered as mitigating
where th e accused pursued and killed th e former while fleeing, and
the deceased, from th e momen t he had fled after the first stage of
the fight to the momen t he died, did not give any provocation for th e
accused to pursue, muc h les s further attack him. (People vs. Tan, No.
L-22697, Oct. 5, 1976, 73 SCRA 288, 294)
The provocation did not immediately precede the shooting. The accused
had almost a day to mull over th e alleged provocation before
278
he reacted by shooting th e victim. The inevitable conclusion is that

he did not feel sufficiently provoked at th e tim e th e alleged provoca•
tion wa s made, and whe n he shot th e victim the nex t day, it wa s a
deliberate act of vengeanc e and not th e natural reaction of a huma n
being to immediately retaliate whe n provoked. (People vs. Benito,
No. L-32042, Feb. 13, 1975, 62 SCRA 351 , 357)
But see the case of People vs. et G.R. No. April

where one of the accused, after the provocation by the deceased
consisting in accusing him of having stolen two jack fruits from his tree
and summarily taking them from the sled of the accused, went home
and later returned fully armed and killed the deceased. Yet, it was held
that the provocation should be considered in favor of the accused.
There seem s to be a misapplication of th e rule in this case. This ruling

would be correct if th e accusation tha t the accused stole the jack fruits be
considered as a grave offense instead of provocation, because an interval of tim
e betwee n th e grave offense and th e com• mission of th e crime is allowed in
such a case.
Threat immediately preceded the act.

Thus, if A wa s threatened by B with bodily harm and because
of the threat, A immediatel y attacked and injured B, there wa s a
mitigating circumstance of threat immediately preceding the act.
The threat should not be offensive and positively strong, because, if
it is, the threat to inflict real injury is an unlawful aggression which may
give rise to self-defense. (U.S. vs. Guysayco, 13 Phil. 292, 295-296)
Vague threats not sufficient.

The victim's mere utterance, "If you do not agree, beware," without
further proof that he wa s bent upon translating his vague threats into
immediate action, is not sufficient.
But where the victims shouted at the accused, "Follow us if you dare
and we will kill you," there is sufficient threat.
The mitigating circumstance in paragraph 4 of Art. is based
on the diminution of intelligence and intent.
279
Par. 5 Vindication of Grave Offense
Par. 5. — That the act was committed in the immediate

vindication a grave offense to the one committing the
felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
Requisites:
That there be a grave offense done to the one committing
the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the sam e degrees;
That th e felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.
A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and th e doing of
th e grave offense.
Illustrations:
Bein g accused by th e victim tha t th e accused stole th e
former's rooster which made th e latter feel deeply embar•
rassed, and the encounter took place in about half an hour's
time. (People vs. Pongol, C.A., 66 O.G. 5617, citing People
vs. 95 Phil. 398)
2 . Stabbin g t o deat h th e son o f th e accuse d whic h mos t
naturally and logically mus t hav e enraged and obfuscated
hi m that, seized by tha t feeling of hatred and rancour, he
stabbed indiscriminately th e people around. (People vs.
Doniego, No. Nov. 29, 1963, 9 SCRA 541 , 546 ,
547)
A lapse of time is allowed between the grave offense and the

vindication.
The word "immediate" used in the English text is not th e correct
translation. Th e Spanis h tex t use s The fact tha t th e
accused was slapped by the deceased in the presence of many persons
a few hours before th e former killed th e latter, wa s considered a
mitigating circumstance that th e act wa s committed in the immediate
vindication of a grave offense. Although the grave offense (slapping
of the accused by th e deceased), which engendered perturbation of
mind, wa s not so immediate, it wa s held that the influence thereof,
280
Vindication of Grave Offense Par. 5
by reason of its gravity and th e circumstances under which it wa s inflicted,

lasted until th e momen t th e crime wa s committed. (People vs. Parana, 64
Phil. 331 , 337)
In th e case People vs. Palaan, G.R. No. 34976, Aug.

unpublished, th e killing of th e paramour by th e offended husband
one day after th e adultery wa s considered still proximate.
In th e case of People vs. Diokno, 63 Phil. th e lapse of time

betwee n th e grave offense (abducting th e daughter of th e accused by
th e deceased) and th e vindication (killing of th e deceased) wa s two
or three days.
In this case, th e Suprem e Court said —
"The presence of the fifth mitigating circumstance of Article

13 of th e Revised Pena l Code, tha t is, immediat e vindication
of a grave offense ma y be take n into consideration in favor
of th e two accused, because although th e elopement took place
on Januar y 4, 1935 , an d th e aggressio n on th e 7t h of said mont h and
year, th e offense did not cease while (the abducted daughter's)
whereabout s remained unknow n and her marriage to the deceased
unlegalized. Therefore, there wa s no interruption from th e tim e th e
offense wa s committed to th e vindication thereof. (The) accused belongs
to a family of old customs to whom the elopement of a daughter wit h a
ma n constitutes a grave offense to their honor and cause s disturbance of
th e peace and tranquility of the home and at th e sam e time spreads
uneasiness and anxiety in th e mind s of th e members thereof." (p. 608)
Interval of time negating vindication.

1. Approximately nine (9) month s before th e killing, the deceased
boxed th e accused several time s in the face resulting in the
conviction of the deceased for less serious physical injuries. He
appealed, pending which the accused killed him. It cannot be
said that the second incident wa s an immediate or a proximate
vindication of the first. (People vs. Lumayag, No. March
31 , 1965, 13 SCRA 502, 507-508)
2. The deceased uttered the following remark at eleven o'clock in
the morning in the presence of the accused and his officemates:
"Nag-iistambay dito ang or "Hindi ko
281
na Civil Service ay istambayan At

five o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, the accused killed
the deceased. The mitigating circumstance of vindication of a
grave offense does not avail. (People vs. Benito, No. L-32042,
Dec. 17, 1976, 74 SCRA 271 , 279, 282-283)
3. Where the accused heard the deceased say that the accused's
daughter is a flirt, and th e accused stabbed the victim two
mo nth s later , th e mi t i g a t i n g circu msta nc e o f i mme d i a t e
vindication of a grave offense cannot be considered in favor of
accused because he had sufficient time to recover his serenity.
The supposed vindication did not immediately or proximately
follow the alleged insulting and provocative remarks. (People
vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 136861, November 15, 2000)
Distinguish provocation from vindication.

In th e case of provocation, it is made directly only to th e person
committing th e felony; in vindication, the grave offense ma y be
committed also against th e offender's relatives mentioned by
th e law.
2. In vindication, th e offended party mus t hav e done a grave of•
fense to th e offender or hi s relatives mentioned by th e law; in
provocation, th e cause tha t brought about the provocation need
not be a grave offense.
In provocation, it is necessary tha t th e provocation or threa t
immediately preceded th e act, i.e., tha t there be no interval of
time betwee n th e provocation and the commission of th e crime;
while in vindication, th e vindication of the grave offense ma y
be proximate, which admits of an interval of time betwee n th e
grave offense done by th e offended party and the commission of
the crime by th e accused.
Reason for the difference.

This greater leniency in th e case of vindication is due undoubt•
edly to th e fact tha t it concerns the honor of a person, an offense which
is more worthy of consideration tha n mere spite against th e one giving
th e provocation or threat.
Killing a relative is a grave offense.

It wa s most natural and logical for th e appellant to have been enraged
and obfuscated at th e sight of hi s dead son and seized by
282
Vindication of Grave Offense Par. 5
tha t feeling of hatred and rancour, to hav e stabbed indiscriminately th e

people around x x x.
On th e other hand, th e attenuatin g circumstance of immediate

vindication of a grave stabbing of hi s son to death,
or of havin g committed th e crime upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to hav e produced passion or obfuscation, ma y be deemed
to hav e attended th e commission of th e crime alternatively, because
both mitigatin g circumstances cannot co-exist. (People vs.
9 SCRA 541)
Basis to determine the gravity of offense in vindication.

The question whethe r or not a certain personal offense is grave
mus t be decided by th e court, havin g in mind th e social standing of
th e person, th e place, and th e time whe n th e insult wa s made. (See
People vs. Ruiz, 93 SCRA 739, wher e th e rule wa s applied.)
During a fiesta, an old ma n 70 years of age asked the deceased
for some roast pig. In th e presence of man y guests , th e deceased
insulted th e old man , saying: "There is no more. Come here and I will
make roast pig of you." A little later, while th e deceased wa s squatting
down, th e old ma n came up behind hi m and struck hi m on the head
with an ax. Held: While it ma y be mere trifle to an average person,
it evidently wa s a serious matter to an old man, to be made the butt
of a joke in th e presence of so man y guests . The accused wa s given
th e benefit of the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave
offense. (U.S. vs . 37 Phil. 201)
In that case, the age of the accused and the place were considered in
determining the gravity of the offense.
Considered grave offense:

Sarcastic remark implying that the accused wa s a petty tyrant.
Th e offended party, a volunteer worker to repair
an abandoned road, arrived in the afternoon when the
work should have started in the morning. Inquired by the
accused, the man in charge of the work, why he came late,
the offended party retorted sarcastically: "Perhaps during
the Spanish regime whe n one comes late, he is punished."
283
Infuriated at the reply, the accused fired his gun but did
not hit the offended party. (People vs. Batiquin, 40
O.G. 987)
2. Remark of the injured party before the guests that accused
lived at the expense of his wife. (People vs. 66 Phil.
323) The place wa s taken into consideration in that case.
3. Taking into account tha t the American forces ha d jus t
occupied Manila, it is not strange that the accused should
hav e considere d it the n as a grave offense whe n th e
offended party said: are a Japanese spy." (People vs.
Luna, 76 Phil. 101, 105)
The time wa s taken into consideration in that case.
4. If a person kills another for having found hi m in th e act
of committing an attempt against his (accused's) wife, he
is entitled to th e benefits of this circumstance of havin g
acted in vindication of a grave offense against hi s and hi s
wife's honor. (U.S. vs. Alcasid, 1 Phil. 86; Se e also U.S . vs.
Davis, Phil. 96, 99)
Where the injured party had insulted the father of the accused
by contemptuously telling him: "Phse, lalake"
(Pshaw, you are but a shrimp), the accused who attacked the
injured party acted in vindication of a grave offense to his
father. (People vs. David, 60 Phil. 93,
The provocation should be proportionate to the damage caused

by the act and adequate to stir one to its commission.
Aside from th e fact tha t the provocation should immediatel y
precede the commission of th e offense, it should also be proportionate
to th e damage caused by th e act and adequate to stir one to its com•
mission. The remark attributed to th e deceased tha t th e daughter of
the accused is a flirt does not warrant and justify th e act of accused
in slaying th e victim. (People vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 136861, November
15, 2000)
The mitigating circumstance in paragraph 5 of Art. 13 is based on the
diminution of th e conditions of voluntariness.
284
Passion or Obfuscation Par. 6
Grave offense must be directed to the accused.

The supposed grave offense done by th e victim wa s an alleged remark
made in th e presence of the accused tha t th e Civil Service Commissio n is a
hangou t of thieves . The accused felt alluded to because he wa s facing the n
criminal and administrative charges on several counts involving hi s honest y
and integrity.
The remark itself wa s general in nature and not specifically

directed to th e accused. If he felt alluded to by a remark which he
personally considered insultin g to him, tha t wa s hi s own individual
reaction thereto. Other people in th e vicinity wh o migh t have heard
th e remar k could not hav e possibly know n tha t th e victim wa s
insulting th e accused unles s the y were aware of th e background of
th e criminal and administrative charges involving moral turpitude
pending agains t th e accused. Th e remark cannot be considered a
grave offense agains t th e accused. (People vs. Benito, No. L-32042,
Feb. 6 2 SCRA 351 , 355-356)
Vindication of a grave offense incompatible with passion or

obfuscation.
Vindication of a grave offense and passion or obfuscation cannot be
counted separately and independently. (People vs. Dagatan, 106 Phil. 88, 98)
Par. 6. — That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as

naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
This paragraph requires that —

The accused acted upon an impulse.
2. The impulse mus t be so powerful that it naturally produced
passion or obfuscation in him.
Why passion or obfuscation is mitigating.

When there are causes naturally producing in a person powerful
excitement, he loses his reason and self-control, thereby diminish•
ing the exercise of his will power. (U.S. vs. Salandanan, 1 Phil. 464,
465)
285
Par. 6 Passion or Obfuscation
Rule for the application of this paragraph.

Passion or obfuscation may constitute a mitigating circumstance only
when the same arose from lawful sentiments.
For this reason, eve n if there is actually passion or obfuscation on the
part of the offender, there is no mitigating circumstance, when:
(1) The act is committed in a spirit lawlessness; or
(2) The act is committed in a spirit of revenge.
Requisites of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation:

That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce
such a condition of mind; and
2. That said act which produced the obfuscation wa s not far
removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable
length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover
his normal equanimity. (People vs. Alanguilang, 52 Phil.
663 , 665, citing earlier cases; People vs. 108 Phil.
730, 743; People vs. Nos . May 16,
SCRA 123, 134)
The act of the offended party must be unlawful or unjust.

The crime committed by th e accused mus t be provoked by prior
unjust or improper acts of th e injured party. (U.S. vs. Taylor, 6 Phil.
162, 163)
Thus, a common-law wife, who, havin g left th e common home,
refused to go home wit h th e accused, was acting within her rights,
and the accused (the common-law husband) had no legitimate right
to compel her to go wit h him. The act of th e deceased in refusing
to go home with the accused, while provocative, nevertheless was
insufficient to produce th e passio n and obfuscation tha t th e la w
contemplates. (People vs. Quijano, C.A., 50 O.G. 5819)
But where the accused killed his wife on the occasion whe n she
visited her aunt's husband, this mitigating circumstance wa s held
to be applicable, having in mind th e jealousy of the accused and her
refusal to return to his house until after the arrival of her uncle. (U.S.
vs. 38 Phil. 341 , 344-345)
286
The mitigating circumstance of havin g acted under an impulse

so powerful as to have produced passion and obfuscation should be
considered in favor of th e owner who, upon seein g th e person who
stole his carabao, shoots th e supposed thief. (People vs. et
al, C.A., 39 O.G. 1288)
The act of the deceased in creating trouble during th e wak e of
the departed father of defendant-appellant scandalizes the mourners
and offends the sensibilities of th e grieving family. Considering tha t
th e trouble created by th e deceased wa s both unlawful and sufficient
to infuriate accused-appellant, hi s guilt is mitigated by passion or
obfuscation. (People vs. Samonte , Jr., No. Jun e 11, 1975,
64 SCRA 319, 329-330)
The accused is entitled to th e mitigating circumstance of passion
or obfuscation where he hit th e deceased upon seein g the latter box
his 4-year-old son. The actuation of th e accused arose from a natural
instinct tha t impels a father to to th e rescue of a beleaguered
son, regardless of whethe r th e latter be right or wrong. (People vs.
Castro, No. L-38989, Oct. 29, 1982, 117 SCRA 1014, 1020)
Exercise of a right or fulfillment of duty is not proper source

of passion or obfuscation.
The accused killed th e deceased whe n th e latter wa s about to
take the carabao of th e accused to th e barrio lieutenant. Held: The
action of the deceased in taking th e carabao of the accused to him
and demanding payment for the sugar cane destroyed by that carabao
and in taking the carabao to th e barrio lieutenant whe n the accused
refused to pay, wa s perfectly legal and proper and constituted no
reasonable cause for provocation to the accused. The finding that
th e accused acted upon an impuls e so powerful as naturall y to
have produced passion or obfuscation wa s not justified, because the
deceased wa s clearly within his rights in wha t he did. (People vs.
et 58 Phil. 393)
Since the mother of the child, killed by the accused, had the
perfect right to reprimand the said accused for indecently converting
the family's bedroom into a rendezvous of herself and her lover, the
said accused cannot properly invoke the mitigating circumstance of
passion or obfuscation to minimize her liability for the murder of the
child. (People vs. Caliso, 58 Phil. 283)
287
Where the accused wa s making a disturbance on a public street

and a policeman came to arrest him, the anger and indignation of
the accused resulting from the arrest cannot be considered passion
or obfuscation, because the policeman wa s performing a lawful act.
(U.S. vs. Taylor, 6 Phil. 162)
The act must be sufficient to produce such a condition of

mind.
If the cause of th e loss of self-control wa s trivial and slight, as
whe n the victim failed to work on the hacienda of which th e accused
wa s the overseer, or where th e accused saw the injured party picking
fruits from the tree claimed by th e former, the obfuscation is not
mitigating. (U.S. vs. Diaz, 15 Phil. 123; People vs. C.A., 44
O.G. 102)
No passion or obfuscation after 24 hours, or several hours

or half an hour.
There could have been no mitigating circumstance of passion or
obfuscation whe n more tha n 24 hours elapsed betwee n th e alleged
insult and the commission of the felony (People vs. 37 Phil.
486, 490), or if several hours passed betwee n the cause of passion or
obfuscation and the commission of th e crime (People vs. 92
Phil. or where at least an hour intervened betwee n th e
previous fight and subsequent killing of the deceased by th e accused.
(People vs. Matbagon, 60 Phil. 887, 890)
Although the fact tha t accused wa s subjected by th e deceased

to a treatment (being slapped and asked to kneel down) offensive to
his dignity could give rise to th e feeling of passion or obfuscation,
the sam e cannot be treated as a mitigating circumstance wher e th e
killing took place one mont h and five days later. (People vs. Mojica,
No. L-30742, April 30, 1976, 70 SCRA 502, 509)
It is error to consider for th e accused, passion or obfuscation,
where the newspaper articles written by the victim assailin g th e
former's official integrity hav e bee n published for an appreciable
period long enough for pause and reflection. (People vs. Pareja, No.
Nov. 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 693 , 716-717)
The circumstance is unavailing where the killing took place four
days after the stabbing of the accused's kin. (People vs. Constantino,
No. L-23558, Aug. 10, 1967, 20 SCRA 940, 949)
288
or Obfuscation Par. 6
The reason for thes e rulings is tha t th e act producing the obfus•
cation mus t not be far removed from th e commission of the crime by
a considerable lengt h of time, during which th e accused might have
recovered his normal equanimity.
The defense must prove that the act which produced passion or ob•
fuscation took place at a time not far removed from the commission
of the crime.
The accused claimed tha t he ha d not been regularly paid his
wage s by th e victims who, he claimed further, used to scold hi m
and beat him; but he failed to prove tha t those acts which produced
passion and obfuscation in hi m took place at a tim e not far removed
from th e commission of th e crime which would justify an inference
tha t after hi s passion had been aroused, he ha d no tim e to reflect
and cool off. Mitigation does not avail him. (People vs. No.
Augus t 30 , 1968, 24 SCRA 960, 977)
For th e circumstance to exist, it is necessary tha t th e act which

gave rise to th e obfuscation be not removed from th e commission of
th e offense by a considerable lengt h of time, during which period the
perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. (People vs.
No . Oct. 30 SCRA 92 , 95-96)
The crime committed must be the result a sudden impulse of natural and
uncontrollable fury.
Obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which wa s planned
and calmly meditated or if th e impulse upon which the accused acted
wa s deliberately fomented by hi m for a considerable period of time.
(People vs. Daos, 60 Phil. People vs. Hernandez, 43 Phil. 104,
The circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be miti•

gating in a crime which is planned and calmly meditated before its
execution. (People vs. No. L-32040, Oct. 25, 1977, 79 SCRA
570, 575)
There is neither passion and obfuscation nor proximate vindica•
tion of a grave offense where the killing of the decedent was made four
days after the stabbing of the appellant's kin. Moreover, vengeance
is not a lawful sentiment. (People vs. Constantino, et G.R. No.
August 10, 1967)
289
Passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments.

1. The case of U.S. vs. Hicks, 14 Phil.
Facts: For about 5 years, the accused and the deceased lived
illicitly in the manner of husband and wife. After• wards, the
deceased separated from the accused and lived with another man.
The accused enraged by such conduct, killed the deceased.
Held: Eve n i f i t i s tru e tha t th e accuse d acte d
wit h obfuscatio n becaus e o f jealousy , th e mi tig a tin g
circumstance cannot be considered in his favor because
the causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for th e
loss of self-control are such which originate from legitimate
feelings, and not those which arise from vicious, unworthy
and immoral passions.
2. Bu t th e ruling in the case Hicks should be distinguished

from the case where the accused, in th e hea t of passion,
killed his common-law wife upon discovering her in flagrante
in carnal communication with a common acquaintance. It
wa s held in such a case that th e accused wa s entitled to th e
mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, because
the impulse wa s caused by the sudden revelation tha t she
wa s untrue to him, and hi s discovery of her in flagrante
in the arms of another. (U.S. vs. De la Cruz, 22 Phil. 429)
In U.S. vs. Hicks, the cause of passion and obfuscation of
the accused wa s hi s vexation, disappointment and anger
engendered by th e refusal of th e woma n to continue to live
in illicit relations with him, which she had a perfect right
to do.
The act of the deceased in refusing to go home with the
appellant, while provocative, nevertheless wa s insufficient
to produce such passion or obfuscation in the latter as would
entitle him to the benefits of that mitigating circumstance.
Not being a legitimate husband of the deceased, th e appel•
lant had no legitimate right to compel her to go with him.
The deceased wa s acting within her rights. The obfuscation
which th e appellant allegedly possessed him, granting that
he in fact had that feeling, did not originate from a legitimate
cause. (People vs. C.A., 50 O.G. 5819)
290
3. The case of People vs. (C.A.) 47 O.G. 4306.

Facts: The accused, as common-law wife, lived with
th e deceased for 15 years, whos e house she helped support.
Later, th e deceased married another woman. The accused
killed
Held: Although it wa s held in the Hicks case that "the
cause s whic h produce in th e min d loss of reason and self-
control and whic h lesse n criminal responsibility are those
which originate from lawful sentiments , not those which
arise from vicious, unworth y and immoral yet
suc h is not th e case here wher e th e fact that the accused
lived for 15 long years as th e real wife of th e deceased,
whos e hous e sh e helped to support, could not but arouse
tha t natural feeling of despair in th e woma n who saw her
life broken and found herself abandoned by th e very ma n
who m she considered for so long a time as her husband and
for whom she had made so many The mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation wa s considered in
favor of th e accused.
4. . Marcian o Marti n an d Beatri z withou t
bein g joine d in lawfu l wedlock, live d as husban d and
wife for thre e or four year s unti l Marcian o left thei r
common dwelling . Beatri z stabbe d hi m wit h a pen-
knife. Whe n aske d wh y sh e wounde d Marciano, sh e
replied tha t Mar• ciano "after havin g take n advantag e
of her" abandoned her. I t wa s hel d tha t th e mitigatin
g circumstanc e o f obfuscation shoul d be take n int o
consideration in favor of th e accused, in vie w of th e
peculiar circumstance s of th e case an d th e hars h
trea tmen t whic h th e deceased gav e he r a short tim e
before sh e stabbed him . (People vs . Yuman , 6 1 Phil.
786)
5. The defense submits that the accused is entitled to the

mitigating circumstance of having acted on a provocation
sufficiently strong to cause passion and obfuscation, because
the deceased's flat of the entreaties of the accused
for her to quit her calling as a hostess and return to their
former relation, aggravated by her sneering statement
that the accused wa s penniless and invalid, provoked the
291
accused into losing his head and stabbing the deceased.

It appears that the accused had previously reproved the
deceased for allowing herself to be caressed by a stranger.
Her loose conduct wa s forcibly driven home to the accused
by the remark of one on the very day of the crime
that the accused wa s the husband wife wa s being
used by one Maring for purposes of prostitution," a remark
that so deeply wounded the feelings of the accused that
he wa s driven to consume a large amount of wine before
visiting Alicia (deceased) to plead with her to leave her
work. Alicia's insulting refusal to renew her liaison wit h
th e accused, therefore, wa s not motivated by any desire to
lead a chaste life henceforth, but showed her determination
to pursue a lucrative profession tha t permitted her to
distribute her favors indiscriminately. It wa s held tha t
th e accused's insistence that she live wit h hi m again, and
his rage at her rejection of th e proposal cannot be properly
qualified as arising from immoral and unworthy passions.
Eve n without benefit of wedlock, a monogamous liaison
appears morally of a higher level tha n gainful promiscuity.
(People vs. No. Feb. SCRA 298,
302-303)
6. . P a s s i o n o r o bf usca t io n mu s t o rig ina t e from lawfu
l sentiments , not from th e fact that, for example, th e girl's
sweetheart killed th e girl's father and brother because th e
girl's parents objected to their getting married and th e girl
consequently broke off their relationship. Such an act is
actuated more by a spirit of lawlessnes s and revenge rather
tha n any sudde n and legitimate impulse of natural and
uncontrollable fury. (People vs. Nos .
May SCRA 123, 133, 134)
In spirit of lawlessness.
The accused wh o raped a woma n is not entitled to th e mitigat•
ing circumstance of acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to hav e produced jus t because he finds himsel f in
a secluded place wit h tha t young ravishing woman, almost naked,
and therefore, to succumb to th e uncontrollable passion of hi s
bestial instinct." (People vs. Sanico, C.A., 46 O.G. 98)
292
In a spirit of revenge.
A takin g care of a child, poisoned the child
wit h acid. Sh e did it, because sometim e before the killing of th e child,
th e mother of th e child, havin g surprised her (accused) with a ma n
on the bed of th e master, had scolded her. She invoked the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation resulting from tha t scolding
by th e mother of th e child. Held: Sh e cannot be credited with such
mitigating circumstance. Sh e wa s actuated more by spirit of law•
lessnes s and revenge tha n by an y sudde n impulse of natural and
uncontrollable fury. (People vs. Caliso, 58 Phil. 283 , 295)
Passio n and obfuscation ma y not be properly appreciated in

favor of appellant. To be considered as a mitigating circumstance,
passion or obfuscation mus t arise from lawful sentiment s and not
from a spirit of lawlessnes s or revenge or from anger and resentment.
In th e present case, clearly, Marcelo wa s infuriated upon seeing his
brother, Carlito, shot by Jose. However, a distinction mus t be made
betwee n th e first tim e tha t Marcelo hacked Jose and th e second time
tha t th e former hacked th e latter. Whe n Marcelo hacked Jose right
after seein g th e latter shoot at Carlito, and if appellant refrained
from doing anythin g else after than, he could have validly invoked
th e mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. But when,
upon seeing hi s brother Carlito dead, Marcelo wen t back to Jose,
who by the n wa s already prostrate on th e ground and hardly moving,
hacking Jose again wa s a clear case of someone acting out of anger
in th e spirit of revenge. (People vs. Bates , G.R. No. 139907, March
The offender must act under the impulse of special motives.

Excitement is the natural feeling of all persons engaged in a fight,
especially those who had received a beating, and the impulse in that state is
not considered in law so powerful as to produce obfuscation sufficient to
mitigate liability. (People vs. De Guia, C.A., 36 O.G. 1151)
Two individuals had been wrestling together and after being
separated, one of them followed up the other and wounded him with
a knife as he wa s entering a vehicle. Held: The aggressor cannot
claim in hi s favor that the previous struggle produced in him entire
loss of reason or self-control, for the existence of such excitement as
293
is inherent in all who quarrel and come to blows does not constitute
a mitigating circumstance. The guilty party mus t have acted under
the impulse of special motives. (U.S. vs. Herrera, 13 Phil. U.S.
vs. Fitzgerald, 2 Phil. 419)
But the ruling is different in the following case:

While the Attorney-General hesitates to accept the conclusion
of the lower court with reference to the attenuating circumstances
of unjust provocation and arrebato y obcecacion, we are inclined to
accept that theory. The record discloses that each used very insulting
language concerning the other and that they mus t have been very
greatly excited as a result of the quarrel, or otherwise th e other
people present would not have intervened. The acts complained of
were committed by the defendant soon after the quarrel had taken
place. (People vs. Flores, 50 Phil. 548)
Illustration of impulse of special motives.

The accused killed P, because the latter did not deliver the letter
of F to A, on which (letter) the accused had pinned his hopes of settling
the case against hi m amicably. The failure of P to deliver th e letter is
a prior unjust and improper act sufficient to produce great excitement
and passion in the accused as to confuse his reason and impel hi m
to kill P. It wa s a legitimate and natural cause of indignation and
anger. (People vs. Mil, 92 SCRA 89)
Obfuscation arising from jealousy.

The mitigating circumstance of obfuscation arising from jealousy cannot
be invoked in favor of th e accused whose relationship wit h th e woman (his
common-law wife) wa s illegitimate. (People vs. Salazar, 105 Phil. 1058, citing
U.S. vs. Hicks, 14 Phil. 217; People vs. Olgado,
et L-4406, March 31 , 1952)
Where th e killing of th e deceased by th e accused arose out
of rivalr y for th e han d of a wo ma n , pa ssio n or obfuscatio n is
mitigating.
The feeling of resentment resulting from rivalry in amorous rela• tions
with a woma n is a powerful instigator of jealousy and prone to produce anger
and obfuscation. (People vs. Marasigan, 70 Phil. 583; People vs. Macabangon,
63 Phil. 1062)
294
In an early case, it wa s held tha t the loss of reason and self-

control due to jealousy betwee n rival lovers wa s not mitigating. (U.S.
vs. De la 12 Phil. 698)
Obfuscation — when relationship is illegitimate — not miti•

gating.
The relations of th e accused wit h Rianzales were ille•
gitimate. The injured party made indecent propositions to her which
provoked th e accused. The accused attacked th e injured party. The
obfuscation of th e accused is not mitigating, because his relations
with Rosario Rianzales were illegitimate. (People vs. Olgado, et
G.R. No. L-4406, March 31 , 1952)
The cause producing passion or obfuscation must come from

the offended party.
The two sons, believing that S would inflict other wounds upon
their father, who wa s already wounded, in defense of their father, im•
mediately killed Under this great excitement, the two sons also pro•
ceeded to attack and did kill C who wa s near the scene at the time.
Held: Since C ha d take n no part in th e quarrel and had not in
any manne r provoked th e sons, passion or obfuscation cannot miti•
gate their liability with respect to the killing of This extenuating
circumstance is applied to reduce the penalty in cases where the
provocation which caused the heated passion wa s made by the injured
party. (U.S. vs. et 17 Phil. 260)
Where passion or obfuscation of the accused is not caused by
the offended party but by th e latter's relatives who mauled the wife
of the accused, the sam e ma y not be considered as a mitigating cir•
cumstance in his favor. (People vs. Lao, C.A., 64 O.G. 7873)
May passion or obfuscation lawfully arise from causes exist•

ing only in the honest belief of the offender?
Yes.
(1) Thus, the belief of the defendant that the deceased had
caused his dismissal from his employment is sufficient to
confuse his reason and impel him to commit the crime.
(U.S. vs. Ferrer, 1 Phil. 56, 62)
295
(2) It has also been held that the belief entertained in good
faith by the defendants that the deceased cast upon their
mother a spell of witchcraft which wa s the cause of her
serious illness, is so powerful a motive as to naturally
produce passion or obfuscation. (U.S. vs. Macalintal, 2 Phil.
448, 451; People vs. Zapata, 107 Phil. 103, 109)
(3) One of the accused, a self-anointed representative of God who
claims supernatural powers, demanded of the deceased kiss
and awake her dead sister who, she said, was merely asleep.
The deceased, an old lady, refused. The accused thought that
the deceased had become a devil. Then she commanded her
companions to surround the deceased and pray to drive the
evil spirits away, but, allegedly without success. The accused
barked an order to beat the victim to death as she had turned
into Satan or Lucifer. Held: The accused and her sisters are
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfusca•
tion. Her order to kiss and awake her sister wa s challenged
by the victim. This generated a false belief in the minds of
the three sisters that in the victim's person resided the evil
spirit — Satan or Lucifer. And this triggered "an impulse so
powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfusca•
tion." (People vs. Torres, 3 CAR [2s] 43, 56, 57)
Passion or obfuscation is a mitigating circumstance because th e
offender who acts with passion or obfuscation suffers a diminution of
his intelligence and intent.
Provocation and obfuscation arising from one and the same

cause should be treated as only one mitigating circumstance.
Since th e alleged provocation which caused th e obfuscation
of the appellants arose from the sam e incident, tha t is, th e alleged
maltreatment and/or ill-treatment of the appellants by the deceased,
those two mitigatin g circumstances cannot be considered as tw o
distinct and separate circumstances but should be treated as one.
(People vs. No. L-32040, Oct. 25, 1977, 79 SCRA 570, 575)
Thus, where the accused killed his wife during a quarrel, because he,
who had no work, resented her suggestion to join her brother in
296
the busines s of cutting logs, th e court erred in considering in favor

of the accused th e two mitigatin g circumstances of provocation and
obfuscation.
Vindication of grave offense cannot co-exist with passion

and obfuscation.
In th e case of People vs. Yaon, C.A., 43 O.G. 4142 , it wa s held
that if the accused assaile d hi s victim in th e proximate vindication of
a grave offense, he cannot successfully allege tha t he wa s also, in th e
same breath, blinded by passion and obfuscation, because these two
mitigating circumstances cannot both exist and be based on one and
the same fact or motive. At most, only one of the m could be considered
in favor of th e appellant, but not both simultaneously. Viada, citing
more tha n one dozen cases , say s tha t it is th e constant doctrine of
the Spanis h Suprem e Court tha t one single fact cannot be made the
basis of different modifying circumstances.
Exception — When there are other facts, although closely

connected.
Bu t wher e there are other facts, although closely connected
wit h th e fact upon whic h one circumstance is premised, the other
circumstance ma y be appreciated as based on th e other fact. (People
vs. 63 Phil. 601)
Thus, where th e deceased, a Chinaman, had eloped with the
daughter of the accused, and later whe n the deceased saw the accused
coming, th e deceased ran upstairs in hi s house, there are two facts
which are closely connected, namely: elopement, which is a grave
offense to a family of old customs, and (2) refusal to deal with him, a
stimulus strong enough to produce in his mind a fit of passion. Two
mitigating circumstances of (1) vindication, and (2) passion were
considered in favor of th e accused. The mitigating circumstance of
vindication of a grave offense wa s based on the fact of elopement and
that of passion on the fact that the deceased, instead of meeting him
and asking for forgiveness, ran away from the accused.
Passion or obfuscation compatible with lack of intention to

commit so grave a wrong.
So, it ha s been held in People vs. 5 CAR [2s] 507, 515.
297
Passion or obfuscation incompatible with treachery.

Passion or obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery, for while in the
mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation the offender loses his
reason and self-control, in the aggravating circumstance of treachery, the
mode of attack mus t be consciously adopted. One who loses his reason and
self-control cannot deliberately employ a par• ticular means, method or form
of attack in the execution of a crime. (People vs. Wong, 18 CAR [2s] 934, 940-
941)
Vindication or obfuscation cannot be considered when the person

attacked is not the one who gave cause therefor.
Vindication and obfuscation cannot be considered, not only
becaus e th e elopemen t o f Lucila Da g a t a n wit h Eleuteri o Yar a
and he r a ba ndo nme n t by th e latte r took place long before the
commission of the crime, but als o becaus e th e decease d was not
the one wh o eloped wit h and abandone d her. (People vs . Da g ata n ,
et 106 Phil. 88)
Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with evident pre•

meditation.
The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation cannot
co-exist with the circumstance of passion and obfuscation. The essence
of premeditation is tha t the execution of th e criminal act mus t be
preceded by calm thought and reflection upon th e resolution to carry
out the criminal intent during the space of tim e sufficent to arrive
at a composed judgment. (People vs. et. G.R. No. L-32040,
Oct. 25, 1977)
Passion or obfuscation distinguished from irresistible force.

While passion or obfuscation is a mitigating circumstance,
irresistible force is an exempting circumstance.
2. Passio n or obfuscation canno t give rise to an irresistibl e
force becaus e irresistibl e force requires physical force.
3. Passion or obfuscation, is in th e offender himself, whil e
irresistible force mus t come from a third person.
4. Passion or obfuscation mus t arise from lawful sentiments ;
whereas, the irresistible force is unlawful.
298
Surrender and of Guilt Par. 7
Passion or obfuscation distinguished from provocation.

Provocation comes from th e injured party; passion or ob•
fuscation is produced by an impulse which ma y be caused
by provocation.
2. Provocation mus t immediatel y precede th e commission

of th e crime; in passion or th e offense which
engenders perturbation of min d need not be immediate. It
is only required tha t th e influence thereof last s until th e
mo men t th e crime is committed.
3. In both, th e effect is th e loss of reason and self-control on th

e part of th e offender.
Par. 7. — That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself

to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to
the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
Two mitigating circumstances are provided in this paragraph.

1. Vo lunt a r y surrende r to a perso n in authorit y or hi s
agents.
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to th e
presentation of evidence for th e prosecution.
Although thes e circumstances are considered mitigating in th e
sam e subsection of Article 13, whe n both are present, the y should
have th e effect of mitigating as two independent circumstances. If any
of the m mus t mitigate th e penalty to a certain extent, whe n both are
present, the y should produce this effect to a greater extent. (People
vs. Fontabla, 61 Phil. 589, 590)
Requisites of voluntary surrender.

a. That the offender had not been actually arrested.
b. Tha t th e offender surrendered himsel f to a person in
authority or to the latter's agent.
That the surrender wa s voluntary. (Estacio vs.
bayan, G.R. No. 75362, March 6, 1990, 183 SCRA 12, 24,
299
Par. 7 Surrender and Confession of Guilt
citing People vs. 138 SCRA 141, 145 and People

vs. Hanasan, No. L-25989, Sept. 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 534,
541-542)
Requisite of
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the same mus t be
spontaneous in such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused
to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because he
acknowledged his guilt or because he wishe s to save the m the trouble
and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture. (People
vs. No. Aug. 30, 1968, 24 SCRA 960, 977, citing
People vs. 61 Phil. 27)
Merely requesting a policeman to accompany th e accused to

the police headquarters is not equivalent to the requirement tha t
he "voluntarily surrendered himsel f to a person in authority or hi s
agents." The accused mus t actually surrender his own person to th e
authorities, admitting complicity in the crime. Hi s conduct, after th e
commission of th e crime, mus t indicate a desire on hi s part to own
the responsibility for th e crime. (People vs. Flores, 21 CAR [2s] 417 ,
424-425)
Cases of voluntary surrender.

1. Th e accused , after plu ng in g a bolo int o th e victim' s
chest, ran toward th e municipal building. Upon seein g a
patrolman, he immediately threw away his bolo, raised hi s
two hands, offered no resistance and said to th e patrolman
"here is my bolo, I stabbed th e victim." There wa s inten t or
desire to surrender voluntarily to th e authorities. (People
vs. No. March 30, 1962, 4 SCRA 700,
703)
2. After th e commission of th e crime, th e accused fled to a
hotel to hide not from th e police authorities but from th e
companions of th e deceased wh o pursued hi m to th e hotel
but could not get to hi m because th e door wa s closed after
th e accused had entered. Once in the hotel, th e accused
dropped his weapon at th e door and whe n th e policemen
came to investigate, he readily admitted ownership of th e
weapo n and the n voluntarily wen t wit h them . H e wa s
300
Surrender and Confession of Guilt Par. 7
investigated by th e fiscal th e following day. No warrant

had been issue d for hi s arrest. The accused wa s granted
th e benefit of th e mitigatin g circumstance of voluntary
surrender. (People vs. 108 Phil. 100, 103)
3. . I m me d i a t e l y after th e shoo ting , th e accuse d havin
g all th e opportunity to escape, did not do so but instea d
called u p th e police depa rt ment . Whe n th e policemen
wen t to th e scene of th e crime to investigate, he
voluntarily approached the m and withou t revealin g hi s
identity, told the m tha t h e woul d hel p i n connectio n
wit h th e case a s h e kne w th e suspec t an d th e latter's
motive. Whe n brought to th e police statio n immediatel y
thereafter as a possible w itness , he confided to th e
investigator s tha t he wa s voluntarily surrenderin g and
also surrendering th e fatal gu n use d in th e shootin g of th
e Thes e acts of th e accused wer e hel d strongly
indicative of hi s inten t or desire to surrender voluntarily
to th e authorities. (People vs . Benito , No . L-32042 , Feb.
13, 1975 , 6 2 SCRA 351 ,
355)
4. Th e tw o accused left th e scen e of th e crime but made

several at tempt s to surrender to various local officials
whic h so meho w did not materializ e for one reaso n or
another. It wa s alread y a wee k after whe n the y were
finally able to surrender. Voluntary surrender After
committing th e crime, th e accused defied no law or agent
of th e authority, and whe n they surrendered, they did so
wit h meeknes s and repentance. (People vs. Magpantay,
No. Nov. 27, 1964, 12 SCRA 389, 392, 393)
5. Tempere d justic e suggest s tha t appellant s be credited
wit h voluntary surrender in mitigation. That they had no
opportunity to surrender because the peace officers came,
should not be charged agains t them . For one thin g is
yielded their weapons at the time. Not only
that. They voluntarily wen t with the peace officers to the
municipal building. These acts, in legal effect, amount to
voluntary surrender. (People vs. Torres, 3 CAR
citing earlier cases)
6. The accused did not offer any resistance nor try to hide
whe n a policeman ordered him to come down his house.
301
He even brought his bolo used to commit the crime and

voluntarily gave himself up to the authorities before he
could be arrested. Thes e circumstance s are sufficient
to consider th e mitigatin g circumstanc e of voluntar y
surrender in his favor. (People vs. Radomes, No.
March 20, 1986, 141 SCRA 548, 562)
7. All that the records reveal is that the accused trooped to

the police headquarters to surrender the firearm used in
committing the crime. It is not clear whether or not he also
sought to submit his very person to the authorities. The
accused is given the benefit of the doubt and his arrival
at th e police station is considered as an act of surrender.
(People vs. Jereza, G.R. No. 86230, Sept. 18, 1990, 189
SCRA 690, 698-699)
8. Where there is nothing on record to show that th e warrant
for th e arrest of th e accused had actually been served on
him, or that it had been returned unserved for failure of th e
server to locate said accused, and there is direct evidence
to show tha t he voluntarily presented himsel f to th e police
whe n he wa s take n into custody. (People vs. No .
Oct. 31 , 1969, 30 SCRA 307, 316-317)
Cases not constituting voluntary surrender.

The warrant of arrest showed that th e accused wa s in fact
arrested. Pueblo contra Conwi, 71 Phil. 595, 597)
The accused surrendered only after the warrant of arrest
wa s served upon him. (People vs. Roldan, No. L-22030,
May 23 SCRA 907, 910)
Where the accused wa s actually arrested by his own admis•
sion or tha t he yielded because of the warrant of arrest,
there is no voluntary surrender although the police blotter
euphemistically used th e word "surrender." (People vs.
No. L-30038, Jul y 18, 1974, 58 SCRA 21, 30)
4. The accused wen t into hiding and surrendered only whe n

they realized tha t th e forces of the law were closing in on
them. (People vs. Mationg, No. L-33488, March 29, 1982,
113 SCRA 167, 178)
302
5. Where the accused were asked to surrender by the police

and military authorities but they refused until only much
later whe n the y could no longer do otherwis e by force
of circumstances whe n the y kne w they were completely
surrounde d and ther e wa s no chance of escape. Their
surrender wa s not spontaneous as it wa s motivated more by
an intent to insure their safety. (People vs. G.R. No.
86163, April 26, 1990, 184 SCRA 671 , 678-679; People vs.
No. April SCRA 834, 844)
6. Where th e search for th e accused had lasted four (4) years,

which belies th e spontaneity of th e surrender. (People vs.
De la Cruz, No. L-30059, Dec. 19, 1970, 36 SCRA 452 ,
455)
7. Where other tha n th e accused's version in court that he

wen t to a police officer in Dagupa n City and asked the
latter to accompany hi m to Olongapo City after he wa s
told by someone tha t hi s picture wa s see n posted in the
municipal building, no other evidence wa s presented to
establish indubitably tha t he deliberately surrendered to
th e police. (People vs. Garcia, No. Jul y 9, 1981,
105 SCRA 325, 343)
8. Where th e accused only wen t to th e police station to report
tha t hi s wife wa s stabbed by another person and to seek
protection as he feared tha t th e sam e assailant would also
stab him. (People vs. G.R. No. 74515, Jun e
174 SCRA 93 , 99)
9. Where th e accused wen t to the PC headquarters not to
surrender but merely to report the incident which does not
evince any desire to own the responsibility for the killing
of the deceased. (People vs. Rogales, No. Nov. 30,
1962, 6 SCRA 830, 835)
10. Where the Chief of Police placed the accused under arrest
in his employer's home to which that officer was summoned
and it does not appear that it wa s the idea of the accused
to send for the police for the purpose of giving himself up.
(People vs. Canoy, 90 Phil. 633, 643)
Where the accused accompanied the Chief of Police to the scene
of the crimes and he wa s not yet charged with, or
303
suspected of having taken any part in, said crimes, and the
authorities were not looking for him, and would not have
looked for him if he had not been present at the investiga•
tion by the Chief of Police. (People vs. Canoy, 90 Phil.
644)
Where the accused wa s arrested in his boarding house and upon
being caught, pretended to say that he wa s on his wa y to the
municipal building to surrender to the authorities, for that is not
the nature of voluntary surrender that ma y serve to mitigate
one's liability in contemplation of law. (People vs. Rubinal, 110
Phil. 119, 127)
Not mitigating when defendant was in fact arrested.

There wa s no voluntar y surrender if th e warran t of arrest
showed that th e defendant wa s in fact arrested. (People vs.
71 Phil. 595)
Bu t where a person, after committing the offense and havin g
opportunity to escape , voluntaril y waite d for th e agent s of th e
authorities and voluntarily gave himsel f up, he is entitled to th e
benefit of this circumstance, eve n if he wa s placed under arrest by a
policeman the n and there. (People vs. 64 Phil. 331)
And when the accused helped in his victim to the hospital
where he wa s disarmed and arrested, it is tantamount to voluntary
surrender. (People vs. Babiera, C.A., 45 O.G., Supp. 5, 311)
The facts of Conwi case, supra, should be distinguished from th e
facts of th e case s of People vs. Parana and People vs. Babiera, supra,
where th e arrest of th e offender wa s after his voluntary surrender
or after his doing an act amounting to a voluntary surrender to th e
agent of a person in authority.
The accused who ran to the municipal building after the commission
of the crime had the intention or desire to surrender.
If th e accused wanted to run away or escape, he would not hav e
run to the municipal building. The fact that on seein g a patrolman,
the accused threw awa y hi s bolo, raised his two hands, and admitted
having stabbed th e injured party, is indicative of hi s intent or desire
to surrender voluntarily to th e authorities. (People vs. G.R.
No. March 30, 1962)
The accused who fled and hid himself to avoid reprisals from the
companions the deceased, but upon meeting a policeman voluntarily
went with him to the jail, is entitled to the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Thus , whe n th e accused, after th e commission of th e crime, fled
to the Imperial Hotel for security purposes, as there wa s no policeman
around and the companions of th e deceased were pursuing him to that
place, and once inside he hid himsel f there, hi s going voluntarily to
the wit h th e policeman wh o had gone to th e hotel to investigate
th e incident, wa s held to be a mitigatin g circumstance. (People vs.
G.R. No. Ma y 20 , 1960)
When the accused surrendered only after the warrant of arrest had
been served upon him, it is not mitigating.
It appears tha t appellant surrendered only after the warrant

of arrest wa s served upon him , whic h cannot be considered as a
surrender." (People vs. Roldan, G.R. No. May
When the warrant of arrest had not been served or not re•
turned unserved because the accused cannot be located, the
surrender is mitigating.
While it is true tha t th e warrant for th e arrest of the accused
wa s dated March and th e police authorities were able to take
custody of the accused only on March there is nothing in the
record to show tha t th e warrant had actually been served on him, or
that it had been returned unserved for failure of the server to locate
said accused. Upon th e other hand, there is direct evidence that the
accused voluntarily presented himsel f to the police on March
1967. And the fact that it wa s effected sometime after the warrant of
arrest had been issued does not in the least detract from the voluntary
character of the surrender in the absence of proof to the contrary.
(People vs. 30 SCRA 308)
The law does not require that the surrender be prior to the
order of arrest.
People vs. Yeda, 68 Phil. 740 [1939] People vs. Turalba,
G.R. No. Feb. 28, 1974, it wa s held that whe n after the
305
commission of the crime and th e issuance of the warrant of arrest,

the accused presented himsel f in the municipal building to post th e
bond for his temporary release, voluntary surrender is mitigating.
The fact that the order of arrest had already been issued is no bar
to the consideration of the circumstance because th e law does not
require that the surrender be prior to the order of arrest. (Rivera
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125867, May 31 , 2000)
"Voluntarily surrendered himself."

After the incident, the accused reported it to the councilor; that
he stayed in the councilor's place for about an hour; and that thereafter
he went to the chief of police to whom he related what had happened
between hi m and the injured party and surrendered the bolo — not
his person — to said chief of police.
Held: The foregoing facts do not constitute voluntary surrender.
The law requires that the offender must have "voluntarily surrendered
himself to a person in authority or his agents." (People vs. Jose de
Ramos, CA-G.R. No. April 26, 1956)
Surrende r o f weapon s canno t b e equate d wit h voluntar y surrender.
(People vs. Verges, No. L-36882-84, July 24, 1981 , 105 SCRA 744, 756)
Where the accused merely surrendered th e gu n use d in th e
killing, without surrendering his own person to the authorities, suc h
act of the accused does not constitute voluntary surrender. (People
vs. Palo, 101 Phil. 963 , 968)
The fact tha t the accused did not escape or go into hiding after
th e commission of the murder and in fact he accompanied th e chief of
police to the scene of the crime without however surrendering to hi m
and admitting complicity in the killing did not amount to voluntary
surrender to th e authorities and this circumstance would not be
extenuatin g in that case. (People vs. Canoy, 90 Phil. 633; People vs.
Rubinal, G.R. No. Nov. 29, 1960)
Appellant did not go to the PC headquarters after the shooting to
surrender but merely to report the incident. he never evinced
any desire to own the responsibility for the killing of the deceased.
(People vs. Rogales, 6 SCRA 830)
306
The surrender must be made to a person in authority or his

agent.
A in is one directly vested wit h jurisdiction,
tha t is, a public officer wh o ha s th e power to govern and execute
th e law s whethe r as an individual or as a member of some court or
governmental corporation, board or commission. A barrio captain and
a barangay chairman are also persons in authority. (Art. 152, RPC,
as amended by P.D. No. 299)
An "agent of a person in authority" is a person, who, by direct provi•

sion of the law, or by election or by appointment by competent author•
ity, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection
and security life and property and any person who comes to the aid of
persons in authority. (Art. 152, as amended by Rep. Act No. 1978)
Voluntary surrender to commanding officer of th e accused is
mitigating, because th e commandin g officer is an agent of a person
in authority.
Voluntary surrender to th e chief clerk of a district engineer is not
mitigating, because such chief clerk is neither a person in authority nor hi s
agent.
An accused wh o surrendered first to th e Justice of the Peace
(now Municipal Court), wit h who m he posted a bond, and the n to the
Constabulary headquarters of th e province, is entitled to the mitiga•
tion of voluntary surrender. (People vs. Casalme, No. July
26, 1966, 17 SCRA 717, 720-721)
Voluntary surrender does not simply mean non-flight.

Voluntary surrender does not simply mea n non-flight. As a
matter of law, it does not matter if the accused never avoided arrest
and never hid or fled. What the law considers as mitigating is the
voluntary surrender of an accused before his arrest, showing either
acknowledgment of his guilt or an intention to save the authorities
from the trouble and expense tha t his search and capture would re•
quire. vs. Court of Appeals, No. L-63564, Nov. 28, 1983, 126
SCRA 28, 30; People vs. No. March 20,
SCRA 548, 560)
The fact that the accused did not escape or go into hiding after the
commission of the murder and in fact he accompanied the chief
307
of police to the scene of th e crime without however surrendering to

him and admitting complicity in the killing did not amount to volun•
tary surrender to the authorities and this circumstance would not be
extenuating in that case. (People vs. Canoy and People vs. Rubinal,
supra)
Time and place of surrender.

The Revised Penal Code does not make any distinction among
the various mo ment s whe n the surrender may occur.
Five days after th e commission of the crime of homicide and
two days after the issuance of th e order for his arrest, th e accused
presented himself in th e municipal building to post the bond for his
temporary release.
Held: This is a voluntary surrender constituting a mitigating
circumstance. The law does not require that the surrender be prior
to the issuance of th e order of arrest. Moreover, the surrender of th e
accused to post a bond for hi s temporary release wa s in obedience to
the order of arrest and wa s tantamoun t to the delivery of his person
to th e authorities to answe r for th e crime for which hi s arrest wa s
ordered. (People vs. 68 Phil. 740, 741; People vs. No.
Oct. 31 , 1969, 30 SCRA 307, 316-317; People vs. Turalba,
No. Feb. 28, 1974, 55 SCRA 697, 704-705)
Note: In these cases, there is nothing in the record to show that

the warrant had actually been served on th e accused,
or that it had been returned unserved for failure of th e
server to locate th e accused. The implication is tha t if
the accused cannot be located by th e server of th e war•
rant, th e ruling should be different.
In the case People vs. G.R. No. Jun e

th e accused committed robbery wit h homicide on September
and surrendered on Jun e It wa s held that th e surrender wa s
voluntary and a mitigating circumstance.
Bu t if th e appellants surrendered because, after havin g been
fugitives from justice for more tha n 7 years, they found it impossible
to live in hostility and resistance to the authorities, martial la w
having been declared, th e surrender wa s not spontaneous. (People
vs. Sabater, 81 SCRA 564)
308
an accused wa s held entitled to th e mitigating circum•

stance of voluntary surrender where it appeared that he posted the
bond for hi s provisional liberty eightee n days after th e commission of
th e crime and fourteen and sixtee n days, respectively, after the first
and second warrants for hi s arrest were issued, th e court declaring
tha t th e fact tha t th e warrant for hi s arrest had already been issued
is no bar to th e consideration of thi s mitigating circumstance because
the la w does not require tha t th e surrender be prior to th e order of
arrest. (People vs . Valera, et Aug. By parity of
reasoning, therefore, appellant Maximo Diva's voluntary surrender to
the chief of police of th e municipality of Poro should be considered to
mitigate hi s criminal liability because th e law does not require him
to surrender to th e authorities of th e municipality of Sa n Francisco
where th e offense wa s committed. (People vs. Diva, et 23 SCRA
332)
In a ho micid e cas e wher e after th e killin g of th e decease d

whic h took place in J a niuay , Iloilo, th e tw o accuse d fled, took ref•
ug e in th e hous e of a lawyer , an d surrendere d to th e constabular y
in Iloilo City, after passing three municipalities, it wa s hel d tha t
ther e wa s voluntar y surrender . (People vs . Cogulio, C.A., 54 O.G.
5516 )
The surrender must be by reason of the commission of the

crime for which defendant is prosecuted.
Defendant cannot claim th e circumstance of voluntary surrender
because he did not surrender to th e authority or its agents by reason
of the commission of the crime for which he was prosecuted, but for
being a Hu k who wanted to come within th e pale of the law. (People
vs. etc., G.R. No. May 26, 1958)
Thus, if the defendant surrendered as a Huk to take advantage of the
amnesty, but the crime for which he wa s prosecuted wa s distinct and
separate from rebellion, his surrender is not mitigating.
Surrender through an intermediary.

The accused surrendered through the mediation of his father
before any warrant of arrest had been issued. His surrender was
appreciated as mitigating. (People vs. De la Cruz, No. L-45485, Sept.
85 SCRA 285, 292)
309
When is surrender voluntary?

A surrender to be voluntary mus t be spontaneous, showing the
intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authori•
ties, either (1) because he acknowledges his guilt, or (2) because he
wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in
his search and capture. (Quoted in People vs. No. L-68790,
Jan. 23, 1987, 147 SCRA 281 , 285)
If none of these two reasons impelled the accused to surrender,
because his surrender wa s obviously motivated more by an intention
to insure his safety, his arrest being inevitable, the surrender is not
spontaneous and therefore not voluntary. (People vs. Laurel,
59 O.G. 7618)
The surrender must be spontaneous.

The word "spontaneous" emphasizes the idea of an inner impulse, acting
without external stimulus. The conduct of th e accused, not hi s intention alone,
after th e commission of th e offense, determines th e spontaneity of the
surrender.
The circu mstance s surroundin g th e surrender of Simplici o
do not mee t this standard, because immediately after th e
commission of the robbery-slaying attributed to hi m and Atanacio
the y fled together to th e province of Leyte which neces•
sitated th e authorities of Quezon City to go to the place and search
for them. In fact, Simplicio Gervacio surrendered to th e Mayor of
Biliran twelve days after th e commission of th e crime, and only after
had been discovered in a far awa y sitio which led to th e
arrest of Atanacio Mocorro. (People vs. Gervacio, No. Augus t
30, 1968, 24 SCRA 960, 977)
The circumstance that th e accused did not resist arrest or strug•
gle to free himself after he wa s take n to custody by th e authorities
cannot amount to voluntary surrender. (People vs. Siojo, 61 Phil.
307, 318; People vs. Yuman , 61 Phil. 786, 787, 791) And while it is
claimed that the accused intended to surrender, the fact is that he did
not, despite several opportunities to do so, and wa s in fact arrested.
(People vs. 106 Phil. 391 , 397)
Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated in favor of an accused who

surrenders only after a warrant of arrest is issued and he finds it
310
futile to continue being a fugitive from justice. (People vs. Rodriguez,

No. Dec. 15, 1982, 119 SCRA 254, 258)
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, it is necessary that

the sam e be spontaneous in such manne r tha t it show s the intent of
th e accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either
because he acknowledge s hi s guilt or because he wishe s to save
the m th e trouble and expens e necessarily incurred in his search and
capture. (People vs . Lingatong, G.R. No. 34019 , Jan . 29, 1990, 181
SCRA 424 , 430 , citing earlier cases)
The surrender is not spontaneous where the accused took almost

nine month s after th e issuanc e of th e warrant of arrest against him
before he presente d himsel f to th e police authorities. (People vs.
Mabuyo, No. Ma y 8, 1975, 63 SCRA 532, 542).
Neithe r is voluntary surrender spontaneous where the accused
had gone into hiding for 2 1/2 years before surrendering. (People vs.
G.R. No. 69184 , March 183 SCRA 658, 669).
Intention to surrender, without actually surrendering, is not mitigat•

ing.
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be
appreciated in favor of th e accused wh o claims to have intended to surrender
but did not, despite several opportunities to do so, and wa s in fact arrested.
(People vs . Dimdiman, supra)
Note: The law requires tha t the accused mus t surrender him•
self.
There is spontaneity even if the surrender is induced by fear of retali•

ation by the victim's relatives.
The fact that the accused gave himself up to the police imme•
diately after the incident wa s not considered in his favor, because
during the trial, he declared that he did so out of fear of retaliatory
action from the relatives of th e deceased. This, according to the trial
Judge, is not the kind of surrender that entitles the accused to the
benefit of voluntary surrender.
Held: That the surrender was induced by his fear of retaliation by

the victim's relatives does not gainsay the spontaneity of the surrender,
311
nor alter the fact that by giving himself up, this accused saved the State
the time and trouble of searching for him until arrested. (People vs.
No. L-23463, Sept. 28, 1967, 21 SCRA 261, 268-269)
When the offender imposed a condition or acted with external stimulus,

his surrender is not voluntary.
There could have been no voluntary surrender because th e ac•
cused went into hiding after having committed the crimes and refused
to surrender without having first conferred with the town councilor.
(People vs. Mutya, G.R. Nos. 1255-56, Sept. 30, 1959)
A surrender is not voluntary whe n forced by as
whe n the culprits it impossible to live in hostility and
resistance to the constituted authorities and their agents in view of
the fact that the said authorities had neither given the m rest nor left
the m in peace for a (People vs. 61 Phil. 27, 34)
When they started negotiations for their surrender, th e roads
through which their escape could be attempted were blocked and th e
house where they were hiding wa s surrounded by the Constabulary
forces. They surrendered, because of their belief that their escape wa s
impossible under the circumstances. The surrender wa s not voluntary.
(People vs. G.R. Nos. Aug.
Requisites of plea of guilty.

In order tha t th e plea of guilty ma y be mitigating, th e three requisites
mus t be present:
That th e offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;
2. That th e confession of guilt wa s mad e in open court, tha t
is, before th e competent court tha t is to try th e case; and
3. That th e confession of guilt wa s made prior to th e pres•
entation of evidence for th e prosecution. (See People vs .
No. L-32243, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 47,
56, citing earlier cases. Also, People vs. Bueza, G.R. No.
79619, Aug. 20, 1990, 188 SCRA 683, 689)
The plea must be made before trial begins.

The trial on the merits had commenced and th e prosecution had already
presented evidence proving the guilt of th e accused whe n he manifested tha t
he would change hi s plea of not guilty to a plea of
312
Surrender and of Guilt Par. 7
guilty. He wa s properly As ruled in People vs. Kayanan

(83 SCRA 437), a plea of guilty mad e after arraignment and after trial
had begu n does not entitle th e accused to hav e such plea considered
as a mitigating circumstance. (People vs. Lungbos, No. L-57293, June
SCRA People vs. Verano, Jr., No. L-45589,
Jul y 28, 1988, 163 SCRA 614, 621)
Plea of guilty on appeal, not mitigating.
Plea of guilty in th e Court of First Instance (now RTC) in a case

appealed from th e Municipal Court is not mitigating, because th e
plea of guilty mus t be mad e at th e first opportunity, that is, in the
Municipal Court. (People vs . 64 Phil. 403 , 407-408; People
vs. De la 66 Phil. 451 , 453)
It cannot be properly stated that the appeal taken by the accused

from the Municipal Court to the Court of First Instance again restored
the case to its original state for the reason that the law requires a trial
de novo, because a trial de novo necessarily implies the existence of a
previous trial where evidence wa s presented by the prosecution.
Philosophy behind the rule.

If an accused, charged wit h an offense cognizable by th e mu•
nicipal court, pleads not guilty therein, and on appeal to the court of
first instance, change s hi s plea to tha t of guilty upon
he should not be entitled to th e mitigating circumstance of confession
of guilt. The philosophy behind thi s rule is obvious. For the spon•
taneous willingness of th e accused to admit th e commission of the
offense charged, which is rewarded by th e mitigating circumstance,
is absent. (People vs. 73 Phil. 597) Indeed, if the rule were
otherwise, an accused, wh o naturally nourishes the hope of acquittal,
could deliberately plead not guilty in the municipal court, and upon
conviction and on appeal to the court of first instance, plead guilty
just so he can avail himself of the benefit of a mitigating circumstance.
This cannot be countenanced. The accused should not be allowed to
speculate. (People vs. Oandasan, 25 SCRA 277)
Plea of not guilty at the preliminary investigation is no plea

at all.
If an accused is charged with an offense cognizable by the court of first
instance, and pleads not guilty before the municipal court at
313
its preliminary investigation, and after the elevation of the case to

the court of first court of competent
pleads guilty upon arraignment before this latter court, the plea of
not guilty upon arraignment at the preliminary investigation in the
municipal court is no plea at all. Hence, the accused could claim his
plea of guilty in the court of first instance as mitigating circumstance
pursuant to Article 13(7) of th e Revised Penal Code. (People vs .
supra)
The confession of guilt must be made in open court.

The extrajudicial confession made by the accused is not th e
voluntary confession which the Code contemplates. Such confession
wa s made outside of th e court. The confession of guilt mus t be mad e
in open court. (People vs. Pardo, et 79 Phil. 568)
The confession of guilt must be made prior to the presentation of the

evidence for the prosecution.
Plea of guilty after the fiscal had presented evidence is not miti•
gating because th e third requisite is lacking. (People vs . Co Chang,
60 Phil. 293)
The benefit of plea of guilty is not deserved th e accused wh o
submits to the law only after th e presentation of some evidence for
th e prosecution, believing tha t in th e end th e trial will result in hi s
conviction by virtue thereof. (People vs. De la Cruz, 63 Phil. 874;
People vs. 103 Phil. 504)
It is not necessary tha t all th e evidence of th e prosecution hav e
been Even if th e first witness presented by the prosecution
had not finished testifying during the direct examination whe n th e
accused withdrew hi s former plea of and substituted it
with the plea of "guilty," th e plea of guilty is not mitigating. (People
vs. Lambino, 103 Phil. 504)
Withdrawal of plea of not guilty and pleading guilty before

presentation of evidence by prosecution is still
All tha t th e la w requires is voluntary plea of guilty prior to th e
presentation of the evidence by th e prosecution. Thus, eve n if dur•
ing the arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty, he is entitled
to this mitigating circumstance as long as he withdraws his plea of
314
not guilty and thereafter pleads guilty to the charge before the fiscal could
present hi s evidence.
The change of plea should be made at the first opportunity.

Bu t in a case where th e accused committed the crime on March
and whe n arraigned on May he pleaded not guilty,
and it wa s only on Augus t 11, 1957, or about 1 year, 3 month s and
7 days tha t he felt contrite and repentant by changing his former
plea of not guilty to tha t of guilty, hi s plea of guilty wa s obviously
not spontaneous, and wa s apparently done not because of hi s sincere
desire to repent but because of hi s fear of eventual conviction. If it
wa s hi s desire to repent and reform, he could have pleaded guilty at
th e very first opportunity whe n his arraignment wa s first set. (People
vs. Quesada, 58 O.G. 6112)
A conditional plea of guilty is not a mitigating circumstance.

The plea of guilty wa s conditioned upon the allegation that the
killing wa s done whe n th e appellant surprised his wife in the act of
sexual intercourse wit h th e deceased Moro We already pointed
out tha t accused ma y not enter a conditional plea of guilty in
th e sens e tha t he admits hi s guilt provided tha t a certain penalty be
imposed upon him." We are, therefore, constrained to hold that th e
appellant in thi s case mus t be considered as having entered a plea
of not guilty. (People vs. Moro Sabilul, 89 Phil. 283, 285)
Death penalty changed to life imprisonment because of plea

of guilty, even if done during the presentation of evidence.
While the accused entered a plea of guilty, he did it only dur•
ing the continuation of the trial so that this circumstance may not,
under the law, be considered to mitigate the liability of the accused.
However, such an admission of guilt indicates his submission to the
law and a moral disposition on his part to reform, hence, the death
penalty imposed is changed to life imprisonment. (People vs. Coronel,
No. Jun e 30, 1966, 17 SCRA 509, 513)
Plea of guilty to amended information.

Trial had already begun on the original information for murder and
frustrated murder. However, in view of the willingness of the
315
Par. 7 Surrender and of Guilt
accused to plead guilty for a lesser offense, th e prosecution, with

leave of court, amended said information to make it one for homicide
and frustrated homicide, and th e accused pleaded guilty thereto.
That was an entirely new information and no evidence wa s presented
in connection with th e charges made therein before the accused
entered his plea of guilty. The accused is entitled to the mitigatin g
circumstance of plea of guilty. (People vs. Ortiz, No. Nov.
29, 1965, 15 SCRA 352 , 354)
Plea of guilty to lesser offense than that charged, not miti•

gating.
Plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not a mitigating circumstance,
because to be voluntary, the plea of guilty mus t be to th e offense charged.
(People vs. Noble, 77 Phil. 93)
For voluntary confession to be appreciated as an extenuatin g
circumstance, the sam e mus t not only be made unconditionally but
th e accused mus t admit to th e offense charged, i.e., robbery wit h
homicide in the present case, and not to either robbery or homicide
only. Hence, if the voluntary confession is conditional or qualified, it
is not mitigating. (People vs. Gano, et G.R. No. 134373, February
28, 2001)
Bu t whe n th e defendant pleaded guilty, only manifesting that
evident premeditation alleged in th e information did not attend th e
commission of the crime, and whe n the court required the presentation
of evidence on premeditation the prosecution failed to prove it, the plea
of guilty is mitigating, because although th e confession wa s qualified
and introduction of evidence became necessary, the qualification did
not deny th e defendant's guilt and, wha t is more, wa s subsequently
j u stif ie d . I t wa s no t th e def en da nt ' s faul t tha t a g g r a v a t i n g
circumstances were erroneously alleged in the information. (People
vs. 86 Phil. 534, 539; People vs. Ong, No. L-34497, Jan .
30, 1975, 62 SCRA 174, 216)
Plea of guilty to the offense charged in the amended informa•

tion, lesser than that charged in the original information, is
mitigating.
Charged with double murder, th e accused moved th e Court to permit
hi m to withdraw his former plea of not guilty to be substituted
316
wit h tha t of guilty to th e lesser crime of double homicide. The pros•

ecution moved to amen d th e information so as to change th e crime
from double murder to double homicide. Both motions were granted
by th e court.
Held: The plea of guilty to th e lesser offense charged in the

amended information is mitigating. (People vs. 101 Phil. 306,
307-308)
When the accused is charged with a grave offense, the court should
take his testimony in spite of his plea of guilty.
The trial court should "determine whether the accused really and truly
comprehended th e meaning , full significance and consequences of his plea and
that th e sam e wa s voluntarily and intelligently entered
or given by th e accused." (People vs. Lacson, No. L-33060, Feb. 25, 1974, 55
SCRA 589 , 593)
Becaus e there is no law prohibiting th e taking of testimony af• ter a plea
of guilty, wher e a grave offense is charged, thi s Court ha s deemed such takin
g of testimon y th e prudent and proper course to follow for th e purpose of
establishin g th e guilt and th e precise degree of culpability of th e defendant.
(People vs . Saligan, No. L-35792, Nov. 29, 1973, 54 SCRA 190, 195; People vs.
Domingo, Nos . L-30464-5,
Jan . 5 5 SCRA 237, 243-245)
Mandatory presentation of evidence in plea of guilty to capital

offense.
The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 116, Sec. 3)
provides that where the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, that
court shall conduct a searching inquiry into th e voluntariness and
full comprehension of th e consequences of his plea and shall require
the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability.
The accused may present evidence in his behalf.
Searching Inquiry.
The guidelines in the conduct of a searching inquiry are as fol•
lows:
Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought
into the custody of the law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a
competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary investiga-
317
tions; and (c) under what conditions he was detained and interrogated
during the This is intended to rule out the possibility
that the accused ha s been coerced or placed under a state of duress
either by actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent
quarters or simply because of the judge's intimidating robes.
(2) Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether
he had conferred with, and completely explained to, the accused the
meaning and consequences of a plea of guilty.
(3) Elicit information about th e personality profile of th e
accused, such as his age, socio-economic status , and educational
background, which may serve as a trustworthy index of hi s capacity
to give a free and informed plea of guilty.
(4) Inform the accused of th e exact length of imprisonment or
nature of the penalty under the law and the certainty that he will serve
such sentence. For not infrequently, an accused pleads guilty in th e
hope of a lenient treatment or upon bad advice or because of promises
of th e authorities or parties of a lighter penalty should he admit guilt
or express remorse. It is th e duty of th e judge to ensure tha t th e accused does
not labor under thes e mistake n impressions because a plea of guilty carries
wit h it not only th e admission of authorship of the crime proper but also of th
e aggravating circumstances attending it, that increase punishment.
(5) Inquire if the accused knows th e crime wit h which he is
charged and to fully explain to hi m th e element s of th e crime whic h
is th e basis of his indictment. Failure of th e court to do so would
constitute a violation of his fundamental right to be informed of th e
precise nature of the accusation against hi m and a denial of hi s right
to due process.
(6) All questions posed to th e accused should be in a languag e
known and understood by the latter.
(7) The trial judge mus t satisfy himsel f tha t th e accused, in
pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The accused mus t be required to nar•
rate the tragedy or reenact th e crime or furnish its missin g details.
(People vs. G.R. No. 174056, Feb. 27, 2007)
Reasons why plea of guilty is mitigating.

It is an act of repentance and respect for the law; it indicates a
318
Physical Defect Par. 8
moral disposition in th e accused, favorable to hi s reform. (People vs. De la

Cruz, 63 Phil. 874, 876)
The basis of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and
plea of guilty is th e lesser perversity of th e offender.
Plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable felonies and in

crimes punished by special laws.
Art. 365, par. 5, of th e Revised Pena l Code, which prescribes
th e penalties for culpable felonies, provides tha t "in th e imposition
of thes e penalties, th e courts shall exercise their sound discretion,
without regard to the rules prescribed in Art. 64." This last mentioned
article states , amon g other rules, tha t whe n there is a mitigating
circumstance withou t an y aggravating circumstance, the penalty to
be imposed is th e minimu m period of th e divisible penalty. (People
vs. 103 Phil. 526, 529)
When the crime is punished by a special law, the court shall also exercise
its sound discretion, as Art. 64 is not applicable. The penalty prescribed by
special law s is usually not divisible into three periods. Art. 64 is applicable
only whe n the penalty ha s three periods.
Par. 8. — That the offender is and dumb, blind or otherwise

suffering from some physical defect which thus restricts
his means of defense, or communication with his
fellow beings.
Deaf and dumb.

In a criminal case charging robbery in an inhabited house, the accused
is deaf and dumb. Held: He is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of being
deaf and dumb under Article 13, paragraph 8. (People vs. Nazario, 97 Phil.
990)
Physical defect must restrict means of action, defense, or

communication with fellow beings.
Physical defect referred to in this paragraph is such as being armless,
cripple, or a stutterer, whereby his mean s to act, defend
319
Par. 9 Illness of the Offender
himself or communicate wit h his fellow beings are limited. (Al•

bert)
Question: Does this paragraph apply when the deaf-mute or the blind is
educated?
This paragraph does not distinguish betwee n educated and uneducated
deaf-mute or blind persons.
The Code considers the m as being on equal footing.
Paragraph 8 of Art. 13 considers the fact tha t one suffering
from physical defect, which restricts one's mean s of action, defense,
or communication with one's fellow beings, does not have complete
freedom of action and, therefore, there is a diminution of that elemen t
of voluntariness.
Par. 9. — Such illness of the offender as would diminish the

exercise of the will-power of the offender without
however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
Requisites:
That th e illness of th e offender mus t diminish th e exercise of hi s
will-power.
2. That such illness should not deprive th e offender of con•
sciousness of his acts.
When the offender completely lost the exercise of will-power,

it may be an exempting circumstance.
Whe n a person becomes affected either by dementia praecox or
by manic depressive psychosis, during the period of excitement, he
ha s no control whatsoever of hi s acts. (Opinion of Dr. Domingo,
cited in th e case of People vs. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 95)
In suc h case, th e person affected, acted upon an irresistible homicidal

impulse.
In the Bonoan case, th e Supreme Court found th e accused de•
mented at th e time he perpetrated th e crime of murder acquitted
the accused.
320
Illness of the Offender Par. 9
Does this circumstance include illness of the mind?

Question: Does this paragraph refer to th e menta l condition
more or les s disturbed?
It is said tha t th e foregoing legal provision refers only to diseases of
pathological state tha t trouble th e conscience or will. (Albert)
Thus, thi s paragraph wa s applied to a mother who, under th e influence
of a puerperal fever, killed her child th e day following her delivery. (Dec. Sup.
Ct. Spain, Sept. 28, 1897)
Bu t in th e case People vs. Francisco, 78 Phil. 694, it wa s held

tha t thi s paragraph applies to defendant wh o committed the crime
while suffering from some illnes s (of th e body, th e mind, the nerves,
or th e moral faculty).
Not e tha t in accordance wit h th e ruling in th e above-mentioned case,
illnes s of th e mind is included. It would see m tha t a diseased mind, not
amountin g to insanity , ma y give place to mitigation.
Illness of the offender considered mitigating.

The mistaken belief of the accused that the killing of a witch
wa s for th e public good ma y be considered a mitigating
circumstance for th e reason tha t those wh o have obsession
tha t witches are to be eliminated are in the same condition
as one who, attacked wit h a morbid infirmity but still
retainin g consciousnes s of hi s acts, does not hav e real
control over hi s will. (People vs. Balneg, et 79 Phil.
805)
2. Example of illness of the nerves or moral faculty.
she is mentall y sane, we, however, are
inclined to extend our sympathy to the appellant because
of her misfortunes and weak character. According to the
report she is suffering from a mild behaviour disorder as
a consequence of the illness she had in early life. We are
willing to regard this as a mitigating circumstance under
Art. 13, Revised Penal Code, either in paragraph 9 or in
paragraph 10." (People vs. 82 Phil. 820)
One who wa s suffering from acute neurosis which made
him ill-tempered and easily angered is entitled to this
321
Par. 10 Similar and Analogous Circumstances
mitigating circumstance, because such illness diminished his

exercise of will power. (People vs. Carpenter, C.A., G.R. No.
4168, April 22, 1940)
4. The fact that the accused is feebleminded warrants the
finding in his favor of the mitigating circumstance either
under paragraph 8 or under paragraph 9 of Art. 13. (People
vs. Formigones, 87 Phil. 658)
5. The evidence of accused-appellant shows that while there
wa s some impairment of his mental faculties, since he wa s
shown to suffer from the chronic mental disease called
disorder or psychosis, such impairmen t
wa s not so complete as to deprive him of hi s intelligence or
the consciousness of hi s acts. The schizo-affective disorder
or psychosis of accused-appellant ma y be classified as an
illness which diminishes th e exercise of hi s will-power but
without depriving him of the consciousness of hi s acts. He
may thu s be credited with this mitigating circumstance but
will not exempt hi m from his criminal liability. (People vs.
Antonio, Jr., G.R. No. 144266, Nov. 27, 2002)
The circumstance in paragraph 9 of Art. 13 is mitigating because there is
a diminution of intelligence and intent.
Par. 10. — And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar

nature and analogous to those abovementioned.
Must be of similar nature and analogous to those mentioned

in paragraphs 1 to 9 of Art.
This paragraph authorizes th e court to consider in favor of th e
accused other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to
those mentioned" in paragraphs 1 to 9 of Art. 13.
Over years old with failing sight, similar to over 70 years

of age mentioned in paragraph 2.
The fact tha t th e defendant wa s over 60 years old and with fail• ing
sight, is analogous to circumstance No. 2 of Art. 13, as similar to
322
Similar and Analogous Circumstances Par. 10
th e case of one over 70 year s of age. (People vs. Reantillo and Ruiz, C.A., G.R.
No. 301 , Jul y 27, 1938)
Outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom analo•

gous to vindication of a grave offense.
Th e accuse d i s ent it le d t o th e mitig a tin g circumsta nc e o f
analogou s to, if no t th e sa m e as , vindicatio n of a grave offense
committed by th e deceased where th e latter took away the carabao
of th e accused and held it for ransom, and thereafter failed to fulfill
hi s promise to pay its valu e after th e carabao had died. (People vs.
No . L-38528, Nov. 19, SCRA 466, 476)
Outraged feeling of creditor, similar to passion and

tion mentioned in paragraph 6.
A person wh o killed hi s debtor who had tried to escape and refused to
pay his debt is entitled to mitigating circumstance similar to passion and
obfuscation. (People vs. Merenillo, C.A., 36 O.G. 2283)
Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion and obfuscation.

The fact that the accused committed slander by charging the
offended party with the concubine of the husband of the accused
under the impulse of a jealous feeling apparently justified, though later
discovered to be unfounded, because the complainant, as verified by
physical examination, wa s a virgin, may be taken, under Article 13,
paragraph 10, of the Revised Penal Code, as a mitigating circumstance
similar to passion and obfuscation. (People vs. Ubengen, C.A., 36 O.G.
763)
It is not difficult to see that boxing appellant during a dance
and in the presence of so many people, and he, an ex-soldier and ex-
member of a military organization and unit, well-known and respected,
undoubtedly produced rancour in the breast of who must have felt
deeply insulted; and to vindicate himself and appease his self-respect, he
committed the crime. The mitigation may well be found under paragraph
10 of the same article. (People vs. Libria, 95 Phil. 389)
Manifestations of Battered Wife Syndrome, analogous to an

illness that diminishes the exercise of will power.
The cyclical nature and the severity of the violence inflicted upon
appellant resulted in "cumulative provocation which broke down her
323
Par. 10 Similar and Analogous Circumstances
psychological resistance and natural pa•

ralysis," and "difficulty in concentrating or impairment of memory."
Based on the explanations of the expert witnesses, such
manifestations were analogous to an illness that diminished the
exercise by appellant her will power without, however, depriving her
of consciousness her acts. There was, thus, a resulting diminution of
her freedom of action, intelligence or intent. Pursuant to paragraphs
9 and 10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, this circumstance
should be taken in her favor and considered as a mitigating factor.
(People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, Jan. 14, 2004)
Esprit de corps, similar to passion and obfuscation.

Mas s psychology and appeal to esprit de corps is similar to
passion or obfuscation. In this case, many of the soldiers wh o took
part in the killing of th e deceased responded to th e call and appeal
of their lieutenant who urged the m to avenge th e outrage committed
by the deceased who had summarily ejected certain soldiers from th e
dance hall. They considered the act of th e deceased a grave insul t
against their organization. (People vs. Villamora, 86 Phil. 287)
Voluntary restitution of stolen property, similar to voluntary

surrender mentioned in paragraph 7.
On the other hand, voluntary restitution of th e property stolen
by the accused or immediately reimbursing th e amoun t malversed
(People vs. Luntao, C.A., 50 O.G. 1182) is a mitigating circumstance
as analogous to voluntary surrender.
The act of testifying for th e prosecution, without previous dis• charge,
by Lorenzo Soberano (one of th e accused) should be considered in his favor as
a mitigating circumstance analogous to a plea of guilty. (People vs. Navasca, 76
SCRA 72)
Extreme poverty and necessity, similar to incomplete justifi•

cation based on state of necessity.
The accused, on account of extreme poverty and of th e economic
difficulties the n prevailing, wa s forced to pilfer two sack s of paper
valued at from th e Customhouse . He sold th e tw o sacks of
paper for Held: The right to life is more sacred tha n a mere
property right. Tha t is not to encourage or eve n countenance theft,
324
Similar and Analogous Circumstances Par. 10
but merel y to dull so me w ha t th e kee n and pain-producing edges

of th e stark realities of life. (People vs . Macbul, 74 Phil. 436 , 438-
439 )
Stat e of necessity is a justifying circumstance under Art.
paragraph 4. Incomplete justification is a mitigating circumstance
under paragraph 1 of Article 13.
Extreme poverty ma y mitigate a crime against property, such as

theft, but not a crime of violence suc h as murder. (People vs. Agustin,
No. March 16 SCRA 467, 474-475)
Bu t it is not mitigatin g wher e th e accused had impoverished

himsel f and lost hi s gainful occupation by committing crimes and
not driven to crime due to wan t and poverty. (People vs. Pujinio, No.
April 29 , 1969, 27 SCRA
Testifying for the prosecution, analogous to plea of guilty.

The act of th e accused of testifying for th e prosecution, without
previous discharge, is a mitigatin g circumstance analogous to a plea
of guilty. (People vs. Navasca , No. March 76 SCRA
70, 81)
Killing the wrong man is not mitigating.

Neithe r do we believe tha t th e fact that he made a mistake in killing the
wrong ma n should be considered as a mitigating circum• stance. (People vs.
Gona, 54 Phil. 605 , 606-607)
Not analogous mitigating circumstance.

In parricide, th e fact tha t th e husban d of th e accused wa s
unworthy or wa s a rascal and a bully and wa s bad (People vs. Canja,
86 Phil. 518, 521), or tha t th e victim wa s a bad or quarrelsome
person (People vs. Fajardo, C.A., 36 O.G. 2256) is not a circumstance
of a similar nature and analogous to any of those mentioned in the
preceding paragraphs of Art. 13.
The accused, who wa s charged with the crime of falsification,
pleaded guilty and invoked as mitigatin g circumstance the lack
of irreparable material damage. Held: This is not recognized as a
mitigating circumstance in the Revised Penal Code. Neither is it
among those which ma y be considered as similar in nature and
325
Personal Nature
analogous to those expressly prescribed as mitigating circumstances. (People

vs. Dy Pol, 64 Phil. 563, 565)
Not resisting arrest, not analogous to voluntary surrender.

Yielding to arrest the slightest attempt to resist is not
analogous to voluntary surrender. (People vs. Rabuya, No.
Nov. 7, 1979, 94 SCRA 123, 138)
The condition of running amuck is not mitigating.

The Revised Penal Code enumerates the circumstances which mitigate
criminal liability, and the condition of running amuck is not one of them, or
one by analogy. The defense contended that running amuck is a cult among
the Moros that is age-old and deeply rooted. Insofar as the y are applicable,
mitigating circumstances mus t be applied alike to all criminals be the y
Christians, Moros or Pagans . (People vs. Salazar, 105 Phil. 1058)
Mitigating circumstances which are personal to the offenders.

M itigatin g circu ms t a n ce s whic h aris e (1) from th e mora l
attributes of the offender, or (2) from hi s private relations wit h th e
offended party, or (3) from any other personal cause, shall only serve
to mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories
as to who m such circumstances are attendant. (Art. 62 , par. 3)
Mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of

the offender.
A and B killed C, A acting under an impulse which produced
obfuscation. The circumstance of obfuscation arose from th e moral attribute
of A and it shall mitigate the liability of A only. It shall not mitigate the liability
of B.
Mitigating circumstances which arise from the private relations the

offender with the offended party.
A, son of B, committed robbery against the latter, while C, a
stranger, bought the property take n by A from B, knowing that th e
property wa s the effect of the crime of robbery. The circumstance
of relationship (Art. 15) arose from the private relation of A with B
and it shall mitigate the liability of A only. It shall not mitigate th e
liability of C, an accessory. (Art. 19)
326
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 13
Definition
Mitigating circumstances which arise from any other personal cause.

A, 14 years old and acting with discernment, inflicted serious
physical injuries on seein g wha t A had done to C, kicked the
latter, thereby concurring in th e criminal purpose of A and cooperating
with hi m by simultaneou s act. (Art. 18) The circumstance of minority
arose from other personal cause and it shall mitigate the liability of
A only. It shall not mitigate th e liability of B, an
Note: It seem s tha t all mitigatin g circumstances are personal

to th e offenders.
Circumstances which are neither exempting nor mitigating.
Mistake in the blow or ictus, for under Art. 48,

there is a complex crime committed. The penalty is even
higher.
2. Mistake in th e identity of th e victim, for under Art. 4, par.
1, th e accused is criminally liable eve n if th e wrong done
is different from tha t whic h is intended. See Art. 49 as to
its effect on th e penalty.
Entrapmen t of th e accused.
4. The accused is over 18 years of age. If th e offender is over
18 years old, hi s age is neither exempting nor mitigating.
(People vs . Marasigan, 70 Phil. 583)
5. Performance of righteous action.
The performance of righteous action, no matter how
meritorious it ma y be, is not justifying, exempting, or
mitigating circumstance in the commission of wrongs, and
although th e accused had saved the lives of a thousand
and one persons, if he caused the killing of a single huma n
being, he is, nonetheless , criminally liable. (People vs.
Victoria, 78 Phil. 122)
IV. Aggrava tin g Circu mstances .

1. D e f i n i t io n
Ag g ra v a t i n g ci rc u mst a nce s are thos e which , i f
attendant in the commission of the serve to increase
327
Art. 13 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Basis and Kinds
the penalty without, however, exceeding the maximum of the

penalty provided by law for the offense.
2. Basi s
They are based on the greater perversity of the offender
manifested in the commission of the felony as shown by:
(1) the motivating power itself, (2) the place of commission,
(3) the means and ways employed, (4) the time, or (5) the
personal circumstances of the offender, or of th e offended
party.
Four kinds of aggravating circumstances.

Generic — Those that can generally apply to all crimes.
Example — Dwelling, nighttime, or recidivism.
In Art. 14, th e circumstances in paragraphs Nos . 1,
2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, and 20, except
mean s of motor vehicles," are generic aggravating circum•
stances.
2. Specific — Those tha t apply only to particular crimes.
Example — Ignominy in crimes against chastity or cruelty
and treachery in crimes against persons.
In Art. 14, the circumstances in paragraphs Nos . 3
(except dwelling), and 21 are specific aggravating
circumstances.
3. Qualifying — Thos e tha t chang e th e natur e of th e
crime.
Example — Alevosia (treachery) or evident premedi• tation
qualifies th e killing of a person to murder.
Art. 24 8 enumerate s th e qualifyin g aggravatin g
circumstances which qualify the killing of person to mur• der.
4. Inherent — Those tha t mus t of necessity accompany th e
commission of th e crime. (Art. 62 , par. 2)
Exampl e — Eviden t premeditation is inheren t in robbery,
theft, estafa, adultery and concubinage.
328
Distinctions Between Qualifying and Generic
Qualifying aggravating circumstance distinguished from

generic aggravating circumstance.
The effect of a generic aggravating circumstance, not offset by
an y mitigating circumstance, is to increase th e penalty which
should be imposed upon th e accused to the ma ximu m period,
but without exceeding th e limit prescribed by law; while that of
a qualifying circumstance is not only to give the crime its proper
and exclusive nam e but also to place th e author thereof in such
a situation as to deserve no other penalty tha n that specially
prescribed by la w for said crime. (People vs. Bayot, 64 Phil. 269,
273)
2. A qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by a
mitigating circumstance; a generic aggravating circumstance
ma y be compensated by a mitigatin g circumstance.
A qualifying aggravating circumstance to be such mus t be alleged
in the information. If it is not alleged, it is a generic aggravating
circumstance only.
Aggravating circumstance not alleged.

An aggravating circumstance, eve n if not alleged in the infor•
mation, ma y be proved over th e objection of th e defense. (People vs.
Gabitanan, C.A., 43 O.G. 3209; People vs. Martinez Godinez, 106 Phil.
606-607) This is true only as regards a generic aggravating circum•
stance. As regards a qualifying aggravating circumstance, the same
must be alleged in th e information because it is an integral part of
the offense.
Generic aggravating circumstances, even if not alleged in the
information, may be proven during the trial over the objection of the
defense and may be appreciated in imposing the sentence. Such evi•
dence merely forms part of the proof of the actual commission of the
offense and does not violate the constitutional right of the accused
to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.
(People vs. 139 SCRA 115, 121, L-62833, Oct. 8, 1985, citing
earlier cases)
Where, in an information for simple theft, the qualifying cir• cumstance

of grave abuse of confidence ha s not been alleged, said cir• cumstance cannot
qualify the crime committed but must be regarded
329
Effect and Penalty
only as a generic aggravating circumstance. (People vs. Abella, C.A., 45 O.G.

1802)
If not alleged in the information, treachery is only generic aggravat•

ing circumstance.
What is not clear to us is, wh y the prosecuting attorney did not
in this case charge the crime of murder, instead of mere homicide.
Although this circumstance of treachery is proven, inasmuch as it
wa s not expressly alleged in th e information, it may be used only as
an aggravating circumstance but not to qualify the killing as murder.
(People vs. Alcantara, 45 O.G. 3451; People vs. Jovellano, No.
March 27, 1974, 56 SCRA 156, 163)
Treacher y i s merel y a generi c aggravatin g circumstanc e whe n not
alleged i n th e information but jus t proven a t th e trial. (People vs. Estillore,
No . L-68459 , March 4, 1986 , 141 SCRA 456 ,
461 ; People vs . Cantre , G.R. No . 70743 , Jun e 4 , 1990 , 186
76, 79)
Aggravating circumstances which do not have the effect of

increasing the penalty.
Aggravating circumstances (a) which in themselve s constitute a
crime specially punishable by law, or (b) which are included by
the law in a crime and prescribing th e penalty therefor
shall not be take n into account for th e purpose of increasing th e
penalty. (Art. 62 , par. 1)
Examples:
a. "That th e crime be committed by means of fire, x x
x explosion" (Art. 14, par. 12) is in itself a crime of arson
(Art. or crime involving destruction. (Art. 324) It is
not to be considered to increase th e penalty for th e crime
of arson or for th e crime involving destruction.
b. "That th e act x x x be committed in the dwelling of th e
offended party" (Art. 14, par. 3) or "that th e crime be com•
mitted after an unlawful entry" (Art. 14, par. 18), or "that
as a mean s to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor,
door, or window be broken (Art. 14, par. 19) is included by
Art. 299 in robbery in an inhabited house. It shall
330
Application
not be take n into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty
for tha t kind of robbery.
2. The sam e rule shall apply wit h respect to an y aggravating

circumstance inherent in th e crime to such a degree that it must
of necessity accompany the commission thereof. (Art. 62, par. 2)
Examples:
a. Evident premeditation is inherent in theft, robbery, estafa,

adultery and concubinage.
b. Taking advantag e of public position is inherent in crimes

where the offenders, who are public officers, committed the
crime in th e exercise of their functions, such as in bribery,
malversation, etc.
Aggravating circumstances which are personal to the of•

fenders.
Aggravatin g circumstance s whic h arise: (a) from th e moral
attributes of th e offender, or (b) from hi s private relations with the
offended party, or (c) from any other personal shall only serve to
aggravate th e liability of th e principals, accomplices, and accessories
as to who m such circumstances are attendant. (Art. 62, par. 3)
Examples:
1. A, wit h evident premeditation, gave B to kill
B imme dia t el y killed Eviden t premeditatio n is an
aggravating circumstance which arises from the moral
attribute of A. It shall serve to aggravate only the liability
of A, but not tha t of B.
2. A, stepson of B, killed the latter. C, knowing that A killed B
without justification, buried the dead body of B to prevent
the discovery of the crime. The private relation of A with B
shall serve to aggravate only the liability of A. It shall not
serve to aggravate the liability of C, the accessory. (Art.
19, par. 2)
3. A, who wa s previously convicted by final judgment of theft
and served sentence therefor, and B committed robbery.
Both were prosecuted and found guilty after trial. Upon
his conviction for robbery, A wa s a recidivist. Recidivism
331
Aggravating Circumstances Not Presumed
is an aggravating circumstance which arises from personal

cause. It shall serve to aggravate only the liability of A,
but not that of B.
Aggravating circumstances which depend their application

upon the knowledge of the offenders.
The circumstances which consist in the material execution
of the act, or (2) in the mean s employed to accomplish it, shall serve
to aggravate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge
of the m at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation
therein. (Art. 62, par. 4)
Illustrations:
1. In his house, A ordered B to kill A and B did not talk
about th e manne r C would be killed. B left th e hous e of
A and looked for B found C and killed th e latter wit h
treachery. (Art. 14, par. 16) The aggravating circumstance
of treacher y consist s in th e materia l executio n of th e
act. Since A had no knowledge of it, treachery shall only
aggravate th e liability of B.
2. A ordered B and C to kill D, instructin g the m to wai t
until nighttime so tha t th e crime could be committed wit h
impunity. B and C killed D at nighttime. Although A did
not take direct part in th e commission of th e crime, th e
aggravating circumstance of nighttime shall also aggravate
his liability, because he had knowledge of it at th e tim e of
the execution of th e act by B and
Aggravating circumstances not presumed.

An aggravating circumstance should be proved as fully as th e
crime itself in order to increase th e penalty. (People vs. Barrios, No.
L-34785, Jul y SCRA citing People vs.
77 SCRA 238, 246; People vs. G.R. No. 69374 , March 16,
1989, 171 SCRA 291 , 302)
332
Chapter Four
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AGGRAVATE
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art . 14 . Aggravating circumstances. — Th e f o l l o w i n g ar e

aggravatin g circumst ances :
Tha t a d v a n t a g e b e t a k e n b y th e o f hi s publi c
position .
2 . Tha t th e c r i m e b e c o m m i t t e d i n c o n t e m p t o f o r w it h
i n s u l t t o th e p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s .
3 . Tha t th e ac t b e c o m m i t t e d w i t h in su l t o r i n d i s r e g a r d
o f th e r e s p e c t du e th e o f f e n d e d p a rt y o n a c c o u n t o f hi s
ag e , o r sex , o r t ha t i t b e c o m m i t t e d i n th e d w e l l i n g o f th e of•
f e n d e d pa rty , i f th e l a t t e r ha s no t g i v e n p r o v o c a t i o n .
4 . Tha t th e ac t b e c o m m i t t e d w i t h a b u s e o f c o n f i d e n c e
or obviou s ungratefulness .
5 . T h a t th e c r i m e b e c o m m i t t e d i n th e p a l a c e o f
th e C h i e f E x e c u t i v e , o r i n hi s p r e s e n c e , o r w h e r e p u b l i c
a u t h o r i t i e s ar e e n g a g e d i n th e d i s c h a r g e o f thei r dutie s o r i n
a plac e dedicate d to religiou s worship .
6 . Tha t th e c r i m e b e c o m m i t t e d i n th e n i g h t t i m e o r i n
a n u n i n h a b i t e d p l a c e , o r b y a ba nd , w h e n e v e r suc h cir cu m •
s t a n c e s ma y f a c i l i t a t e th e c o m m i s s i o n o f th e offen se .
Wheneve r mor e tha n thre e arme d malefactor s shal l hav e acte d
togethe r i n th e commissio n o f a n offense , i t shal l b e deeme d t o hav e
bee n committe d b y a band .
7 . Tha t th e crim e b e committe d o n th e occasio n o f a conflagration
, shipwreck , earthquake , epidemic , o r othe r calamit y o r misfortune .
8 . Tha t th e c r i m e b e c o m m i t t e d w it h th e ai d o f arme d
me n o r p e r s o n s wh o i n s u r e o r affor d i mp u n i t y .
333
Provisions
9. . Tha t th e a c c u s e d i s a r e c i d i v i s t .
A r e c i d iv i s t i s on e w ho , a t th e tim e o f hi s tria l fo r on e
crime , shal l ha v e bee n p r e v i o u sl y co nv icte d b y final j u d g me n t
o f a n o t h e r cri m e e m b r a c e d i n th e sa m e titl e o f thi s Co de .
10. Tha t th e of fende r ha s bee n p r e v i o u s l y p u n i s h e d fo r
a n o ffens e t o w h i c h th e la w a t t a c h e s a n equa l o r g rea te r pen •
alt y o r fo r tw o o r mo r e c r i me s t o w h i c h i t a t t a c h e s a l ig hte r
p e n a l ty .
Tha t th e crim e b e committe d i n consideratio n o f a price ,
reward , o r promise .
12. Tha t th e crim e b e c o mmi t t e d b y mea n s o f i n u n d a t io n ,
fire, p o i s o n , e x p l o s i o n , s t r a n d i n g o f a v e s s e l o r i n t e n t i o n a l
d a ma g e t h e r e t o , d e r a i l m e n t o f a l o c o mo t i v e , o r b y th e us e o f
an y o t h e r artific e i n v o l v i n g g r ea t w a s t e an d ruin .
13. Tha t th e ac t b e c o m m i t t e d w it h e v i d e n t p r e m e d i t a •
tion .
14. Tha t craft , f ra ud , o r d i s g u i s e b e e m p l o y e d .
15. Tha t a d v a n t a g e b e t a k e n o f s u p e r i o r s t r e n g t h , o r
mean s b e employe d t o weake n th e defense .
16. Tha t th e ac t b e c o m m i t t e d w it h t r e a c h e r y
Ther e i s treacher y whe n th e offende r commit s an y o f th e crime s

agains t th e person , employin g means , method s o r form s i n th e executio n
thereo f whic h ten d directl y an d speciall y t o insur e it s execution , withou t
ris k t o himsel f arisin g fro m th e defens e whic h th e offende d part y migh t
make .
Tha t me a n s b e e m p l o y e d o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s b r o u g h t
a b o u t w h i c h ad d i g n o m i n y t o th e n a t u r a l effect s o f th e act .
18. Tha t th e c r i m e b e c o m m i t t e d afte r a n u n l a w f u l en •
try .
Ther e i s a n unlawfu l entr y whe n a n entranc e i s effecte d

b y a wa y no t intende d fo r th e purpose .
19. Tha t a s a m e a n s t o th e c o m m i s s i o n o f a c r i m e a wa ll ,
roof, fl o o r , do o r , o r w i n d o w b e b r o k e n .
334
Advantage Taken of Public Position Par. 1
20. . Tha t th e c r i m e b e c o m m i t t e d w i t h th e ai d o f
p e r s o n s u n d e r f i f t e e n y e a r s o f a ge , o r b y m e a n s o f mo t o r
v e h i c l e , air • s h i p s , o r o t h e r s i mi l a r m e a n s .
Tha t th e w r o n g do n e i n th e c o m m i s s i o n o f th e crim e
b e d e l i b e r a t e l y a u g m e n t e d b y c a u s i n g o t h e r w r o n g no t neces •
sa r y fo r it s c o m m i s s i o n .
To be appreciated, qualifying and aggravating circumstances

must be alleged in the information.
Pursua n t t o th e 200 0 Revise d Rule s o f Crimina l Procedure,
every Co mplain t o r Information mus t stat e not only th e qualifying
but als o th e ag grav atin g circumst a nces . Thi s rule ma y b e give n
retroactiv e effect i n th e ligh t o f th e w ell- esta blishe d rule tha t
sta tute s regulatin g th e procedure of th e courts will be construed
a s applicable t o action s pendin g an d undetermine d a t th e tim e o f
thei r pa ssag e . Th e a ggravat in g circumst a nce s o f eviden t preme•
ditation, dwelling and unlawful entry, not havin g been alleged in the
Information, ma y not no w be appreciated to enhanc e th e liability of
accused-appellant. (People vs . Antonio, G.R. No . 144266 , November
27, 2002 )
If not they may still be considered in the award of

damages.
Althoug h th e aggravatin g circumstances in question cannot
be appreciated for th e purpose of fixing a heavier penalty in this
case, the y should, however, be considered as bases for the award of
exemplary damages, conformably to current jurisprudence. (People
vs. G.R. Nos . 124830-31, Jun e 27, 2003)
Par. — That advantage be taken by the offender of his public

position.
Basis of this aggravating circumstance.

This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown
by the personal circumstance of the offender and also by the means
used to secure the commission of the crime.
335
Par. 1 Advantage Taken of Public Position
Applicable only when the offender is a public

The aggravating circumstance that advantage be taken by the offender
of his public position applies only whe n the person commit• ting the crime is
a public officer who takes advantage of hi s public position.
Meaning of "advantage be taken by the offender of his public

position."
The public officer mus t use the influence, prestige or ascend•
ancy which his office gives hi m as the mean s by which he realizes hi s
purpose. The essence of th e matter is presented in the inquiry,
the accused abuse his office in order to commit th e (U.S. vs.
Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 150, 156-157)
Examples:
a. The accused took advantage of his public position. He could
not hav e maltreated th e victim if he wa s not a policeman
on guard duty. Becaus e of his position, he had access to
the cell where th e victim wa s confined. The prisoner wa s
under his custody. (People vs. Ural, No. March
27, 1974, 56 SCRA 138, 145)
b. There is abuse of public position where a police officer in
the course of investigation of a charge against him for grave
threats shot the complainant in a treacherous manner .
(People vs. Reyes, No. Feb. 27, 1976, 69 SCRA
474, 480-481)
Advantage of public position is present where the accused used
their authority as members of the police and constabulary to
disarm the victim before shooting him. (People vs. Asuncion,
G.R. No. 83870, Nov. SCRA 396, 402)
This aggravating circumstance is not present when a Con•

gressman offered resistance to a peace
In the case of a Congressma n wh o offered resistanc e to hi s
captor upon being surprised in a gambling house, this aggravating
circumstance is not present. (People vs. Veloso, 48 Phil. The
reason for this ruling is that the Congressman did not take advantage
of the influence or reputation of hi s office.
336
This aggravating circumstance is present when a councilor

collects fines and misappropriates them.
U.S. vs. Torrida

(23 Phil. 189)
Facts: The accused, shortly after entering upon his duties as

councilor of the town of ordered that deaths of all large animals
must be reported to him as councilman. As a result of this instruction,
the owners of several such animals were induced to pay the accused
supposed fines on the belief that such were required by a municipal
ordinance. He spent the money paid to, and received by him as fines.
Held: The fact that the accused was councilor at the time placed
him in a position to commit these crimes. If he were not a councilor he
could not have induced the injured parties to pay these alleged fines. It
was on account of his being councilor that the parties believed that he
had the right to collect fines and it was for this reason that they made
the payments. It is true that he had no right to either impose or collect
any fine whatsoever and it is likewise true that a municipal councilor is
not an official designated by law to collect public fines, but these facts
do not destroy or disprove the important fact that the accused did, by
taking advantage of his public position, deceive and defraud the injured
parties out of the money they paid him.
Note: The crime committed by Torrida is estafa by means of deceit.
(Art. 315, par. 2)
When the public did not take advantage of the

of his position, this aggravating circumstance is not present.
U.S. vs. Dacuycuy

(9 Phil. 84)
Facts: Thirty-nine (39) persons requested the accused, then a

councilor, to purchase cedulas for them giving him He took
only 16 cedulas, and spent the rest of the money.
Held: When a public officer commits a common crime independ•
ent of his official functions and does acts that are not connected with
the duties of his office, he should be punished as a private individual
without this aggravating circumstance.
Note: In this case, Dacuycuy did not avail himself of the influ•
ence, prestige or ascendancy which his position carried with it, when
337
Par. 1 Advantage Taken of Public Position
he committed the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence. (Art. 315,

par. He received the money in his private capacity. He was requested
by the people to buy cedula certificates for them.
Likewise, the mere fact that the defendant, a justice of the peace,
misappropriated the money he received from the debtor in an extra•
judicial agreement under obligation to turn it over to the creditor,
does not aggravate his liability, inasmuch as no legal proceedings were
pending at the time of this agreement and the debt wa s not reduced
to judgment. He did not take advantage of his official position in the
commission of the crime of estafa. (U.S. vs. Estabaya, 36 Phil. 64,
67)
There must be proof that the accused took advantage of his public
position.
It is not shown tha t accused-appellant took advantage of hi s position as
confidential agent of Mayor Claudio in shooting th e victim, or that he used hi
s "influence, prestige or ascendancy" in killing th e deceased. Accused-
appellant could have been shot by Bayona without having occupied th e said
position. Thus, in th e absence of proof tha t advantage wa s take n by accused-
appellant of hi s being a confidential agent, the aggravating circumstance of
abuse of public position could not be properly appreciated against him. (People
vs . Ordiales, No. L-30956, Nov. 23, 1971 , 42 SCRA 238, 245-246)
Peace officers taking advantage of their public positions.

A policeman in uniform who abducted a girl by availing himsel f
of his position (U.S. vs. 34 Phil. or the chief of police
who, during th e search of a boat by mean s of intimidation, obtained
money from th e crew (People vs. 51 Phil. 393 , 394-395), or
a special agen t of the military police who committed robbery wit h
homicide wit h th e gu n which he had been authorized to carry as a
peace officer (People vs. Madrid, 88 Phil. committed th e crime
by taking advantage of his public position.
In th e case of Fortuna vs. People, G.R. No . 135784 , Dec. 4,
2000 , i t wa s hel d tha t mer e fact tha t th e thre e (3) accuse d
wer e all police officers at th e tim e of th e robbery placed the m in a
position to perpetrat e th e offense. If the y wer e not police officers,
the y could not have terrified the Montecillos into hording th e mobile
338
patrol car an d forced the m to han d over thei r money . Precisel y it

wa s o n accoun t o f thei r authorit y tha t th e Montecillo s believe d
tha t Mario ha d in fact co mmitte d a crime an d woul d be brought
t o th e police statio n for inv est ig a t io n unles s the y gave the m wha t
the y demanded. "
Wearing uniform is immaterial in certain cases.
Although he wa s off-duty and there is evidence tha t he was in

civilian clothes at th e time, it is nonetheless obvious that knowing that
the offended party was aware of his being a policeman, and sought to
impose, illegally, hi s authority as such, th e penalty provided by law
mus t be mete d out in it s ma xi mu m period. (People vs . Tongco, 3 C.A.
Rep. 1071)
The mere fact tha t he wa s in fatigue uniform and had army rifle
at th e tim e is not sufficient to establis h tha t he misuse d hi s public
position in th e commission of th e crimes. (People vs. No. L-
18793, Oct. 1968, 25 SCRA 468 , 471-472)
Failure in official duties is tantamount to abusing of office.

Bu t eve n if defendant did not abuse hi s office, if it is proven tha t
he ha s failed in his duties as suc h public officer, thi s circumstance
would warrant th e aggravation of hi s penalty.
Thus, th e fact tha t defendant wa s th e vice-president of a town
at th e tim e he voluntarily joined a band of brigands made hi s liability
greater. (U.S. vs . Cagayan, 4 Phil. 424, 426)
Not aggravating when it is an integral element of, or inherent

in, the offense.
This circumstance, taking advantage of public position, cannot
be take n into consideration in offenses where taking advantage of
official-position is made by law an integral element of the crime, such
as in malversation under Art. or in falsification of document
committed by public officers under Art. 171. (People vs. Tevez, 44
Phil. 275, 277)
Taking advantage of public position is inherent in the case of
accessories under Art. 19, par. 3, and in crimes committed by public officers.
(Arts. 204 to 245)
339
Par. 2 Contempt or Insult to Public Authorities
Not aggravating if accused could have perpetrated the crime

without occupying police position.
In this case, there wa s no showing tha t accused-appellant took
advantage of his being a policeman to shoot Jelord Velez or tha t he
used his "influence, prestige or ascendancy" in killing the victim. Ac•
cused-appellant could have shot Velez even without being a policeman.
In other words, if the accused could have perpetrated the crime even
without occupying his position, there is no abuse of public position.
In People vs. Herrera, th e Court emphatically said tha t th e mere fact
that accused-appellant is a policeman and used his government is•
sued .38 caliber revolver to kill is not sufficient to establish tha t he
misused his public position in th e commission of the crime. (People
vs. G.R. Nos . 140407-08, Januar y 15, 2002)
Par. 2. — That the crime be committed in contempt of or with

insult to the public authorities.

This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as show n by his
lack of respect for th e public authorities.
Requisites of this circumstance:

That th e public authority is engaged in the exercise of hi s
functions.
That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions
is not th e person against who m th e crime is committed.
(U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil. People vs. Siojo, 61
Phil. 307, 317)
3. The offender know s hi m to be a public authority.

4. Hi s presence ha s not prevented th e offender from commit•
ting th e criminal act.
Example of this aggravating circumstance:

A and B are quarreling on a street and th e municipal mayor, upon
passin g by, attempt s to separate the m to stop th e quarrel. Not• withstanding
the intervention and th e presence of th e mayor, A and
340
Contempt or Insult to Public Authorities Par. 2
B continued to quarrel until A succeeds in killing B. In this case, A

commits th e crime of homicide wit h th e aggravating circumstance of
a contempt of or wit h insul t to the public authority."
Meaning of "public authority."

A public authority, sometime s also called a person in authority,
is a public officer who is directly veste d wit h jurisdiction, that is, a
public officer wh o ha s th e power to govern and execute the laws. The
councilor, th e mayor, th e governor, etc., are persons in authority.
The barangay captain and barangay chairman are also persons in
authority. (Art. 152, as amende d by P.D. No. 1232, Nov. 7, 1977)
Not applicable when crime is committed in the presence of

an agent only.
Paragraph 2 of Art. 14 wa s not applied in a case where the crime
wa s committed in th e presence of th e chief of police of a town, because
he is not a public authority, but an agent of th e authorities. (People
vs. Siojo, 61 Phil. 307, 311 , 317; People vs . Verzo, No . Dec.
26, 1967, 21 SCRA 1403 , 1410)
An agen t of a person in authority is "any person who, by direct
provision of la w or by election or by appointmen t by competent
authority, is charged wit h th e ma int ena nc e of public order and
th e protection an d securit y of life and property, suc h as barrio
councilman, barrio policeman and baranga y leader, and any person
wh o comes to th e aid of persons in authority." (Art. 152, as amended
by B P 873)
The crime should not be committed against the public

thority.
If the crime is committed against a public authority while he is
in the performance of his official duty, the offender commits direct
assault (Art. 148) without this aggravating circumstance, because it
is not a crime committed "in contempt of or with insult" to him, but
a crime directly committed against him.
This rule wa s not followed in the case of People vs. Santok,
G.R. No. May 30, 1963, where it wa s held that the crime
committed wa s homicide with the aggravating circumstance of the
commission of the offense in contempt of the public authority, since
341
Par. 3 Disregard of Rank, Age, Sex or Dwelling
of Party
the deceased was shot while in the performance of his official duty
as barrio lieutenant.
The accused should have been prosecuted for and convicted of a
complex crime of homicide with direct assault (Art. in relation to
Art. 48 and Art. 148, Revised Penal Code), without the aggravating
circumstance.
Knowledge that a public authority is present is essential.

Lack of knowledge on the part of the offender that a public author• ity
is present indicates lack of intention to insult the public authority.
Thus, if A killed B in th e presence of th e town mayor, but A did
not know of the presence of the mayor, this aggravating circumstance
should not be considered against A.
Presence of public authority has not prevented offender

committing the crime.
An offense ma y be said to hav e been committed in contempt of
a public authority whe n hi s presence, made known to the offender,
ha s not prevented th e latter from committing th e criminal act.
Par. 3. — That the act be committed (1) with insult or in

disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of his (a) rank, (b) age, or (c) sex, or (2) that
it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party,
if the latter has not given provocation.
When all the four aggravating circumstances are present,

must they be considered as one?
Four circumstances are enumerated in this paragraph, which can be
considered single or together. If all th e four circumstances are present, the y
hav e the weight of one aggravating circumstance only. (Albert) But see the
case of People vs. Santos, 91 Phil. 320, cited under paragraph 6, Art. 14.
The aggravating circumstances of sex and age of th e injured party as
well as those of dwelling place and nighttime mus t also be taken into account.
(People vs. Taga, 53 Phil. 273)
342
Disregard of Rank, Age, Sex or Dwelling Par. 3
of Offended Party
Basis of these aggravating circumstances.
Thes e circumstances are based on th e greater perversity of the
offender, as shown by th e personal circumstances of th e offended party and
th e place of th e commission of th e crime.
Applicable only to crimes against persons or honor.

This circumstance (rank, age or sex) ma y be taken into account only in
crimes agains t persons or honor.
Thus , in th e case of th e robbery of a thin g belonging to the President,

th e aggravating circumstance of disregard of respect due th e offended party
cannot be take n into account, because the mere fact tha t the thin g belongs to
th e President does not mak e it more valuable tha n th e thing s belonging to a
private person.
Disregard of th e respect due th e offended party on account of
hi s rank, age or sex ma y be take n into account only in crimes against
persons or honor, whe n in th e commission of th e crime, there is some
insult or disrespect to rank, age or sex. It is not proper to consider
this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property. Robbery
wit h homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against
persons. Homicide is a mere incident of th e robbery, th e latter being
th e mai n purpose and object of th e criminal. (People vs. No.
L-32040, Oct. 25, 1977, 79 SCRA 570, 576-577)
Meaning of "with insult or in disregard."

It is necessary to prove th e specific fact or circumstance, other
tha n that th e victim is a woma n (or an old ma n or one of high rank),
showing insult or disregard of sex (or age or rank) in order that it
may be considered as aggravating circumstance. (People vs. Valencia,
C.A., 43 O.G. 3740) There mus t be evidence that in the commission
of the crime, the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the
sex or age of the offended party. (People vs. 65 Phil. 548,
550-551)
The circumstance of old age cannot be considered aggravating. There
wa s no evidence that the accused deliberately intended to of• fend or insult
the age of the victim. (People vs. Diaz, 70 O.G. 4173, citing People vs.
Gervacio, 24 SCRA 960; People vs. Mangsant, 65
Phil. 548; People vs. 88 Phil. 35, 44)
343
of Offended Party
With insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended
party on account —
1. of the rank of the offended party.
There mus t be a difference in the social condition of the
offender and the offended party.
For example, a private citizen who attacked and in•
jured a person in authority, or a pupil who attacked and
injured his teacher (U.S. vs. Cabiling, 7 Phil. 469, 474),
the act not constituting direct assault under Art. 148 of
th e Revised Penal Code.
Also, killing a judge because he wa s strict or because
of resentmen t which th e accused harbored agains t hi m
as a judge, constitute s th e aggravating circumstance of
disregard of th e respect due th e offended party on account
of hi s rank. (People vs . Valeriano, 90 Phil. 15, 34-35)
Also, an attempt upon the life of a general of the Philip•
pine Army is committed in disregard of hi s rank. (People
vs. Torres, G.R. No. L-4642, May
Rank wa s aggravating i n th e following cases : th e
killing of a staff sergeant by hi s corporal; th e killing of
th e Assistan t Chief of Personnel Transaction of th e Civil
Service Commission by a clerk therein; th e murder by a
pupil of his teacher; th e murder of a municipal mayor; th e
murder of a city chief of police by th e chief of th e secret
service division; assault upon a 66-year-old (now RTC)
judge by a justice of th e peace (now municipal judge); th e
killing of a consul by a mere chancellor; and th e killing of
an army general. (People vs. No. Nov. 20,
SCRA 308, 330-331)
Meaning of rank.
"Rank" refers to a high social position or standin g as
a grade in th e armed forces; or to a graded official standing
or social position or station; or to th e order or place in which
said officers are placed in th e army and navy in relation to
others; or to the designation or title of distinction conferred
upon an officer in order to fix his relative position in refer-
344
of Offended Party
to other officers in matters of privileges, precedence,
and sometime s of command or by which to determine his
pay and emolument s as in th e case of army staff officers;
or to a grade or official standing, relative position in civil
or social life, or in any scale of comparison, status, grade,
including its grade, statu s or scale of comparison within a
position. (People vs. supra, at 330)
Proof of fact of disregard and deliberate intent to insult re•

quired.
Disregard of th e rank of th e victim wh o wa s a baran•
ga y captai n canno t b e appreciate d a s a n aggravatin g
circumstance there being no proof of th e specific fact or
circumstance tha t th e accused disregarded the respect due
to th e offended party, nor does it appear tha t th e accused
deliberately intended to insul t th e rank of th e victim as
barrio captain. (People vs. No . Nov. 28,
1980, 101 SCRA 332 , 347)
2. of the age of the offended

Thi s circumst a nc e i s presen t whe n th e offended
person , by reaso n of hi s age , could be th e father of th e
offender. (Viada, 1 Cod. Pen . 326 ; U.S . vs . 17
Phil. 260 , 264-265 ; U.S . vs . Reguera , 4 1 Phil. 506 , 517-
518 )
This aggravating circumstance applies to an aggres• sor, 45
years old, while th e victim wa s an octogenarian. (People vs.
Orbillo, G.R. No. L-2444, April 29, 1950)
This aggravating circumstance wa s applied also in
th e case where th e person killed wa s eighty years old and
very weak. (People vs. Gummuac, 93 Phil. 657)
The aggravating circumstance of disregard of age
attended the commission of the crime whe n the deceased
wa s 65 while the offenders were 32 and 27 years of age,
respectively. (People vs. Zapata, G.R. No. Feb.
27, 1960, 107 Phil. 103, 108)
The crime wa s committed in disregard of the respect due
to th e victim on account of age and relationship,
345
of Offended Party
th e accused being a grandson of th e deceased. (People
vs. No. May 16, 1980, 97 SCRA 549,
556)
The circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies
in cases where th e victim is of tender age as well as of old
age. This circumstance wa s applied in a case where one of
the victims in a murder case wa s a 12-year-old boy. Here,
th e victim wa s only 3 years old. (People vs. No. L-
49430, March SCRA citing U.S. vs.
38 Phil. 746. Also, People vs. Enot, No. Oct.
30, 1962, 6 SCRA 325, 329-330, where one of the victims
wa s only five years old, another, a minor, and th e third, a
baby)
Bu t whe n th e injuries inflicted upon a 9-year-old girl
were any thought or intention x x x of heapin g
contumely or insult upon th e child because of her se x or
her tender this circumstance wa s not considered ag•
gravating. (U.S. vs . Dacquel, 781 ,
Deliberate intent to offend or insult required.

The circumstance of old age cannot be considered
aggravating in th e absence of evidence tha t th e accused
deliberately intended to offend or insul t th e ag e of th e
victim. (People vs. Diaz, No. L-24002, Jan . 21 , 1974, 55
SCRA
Disregard of old age not aggravating in robbery with homi•

cide.
It is not proper to consider disregard of old age in crimes
agains t property. Robbery wit h homicide is pri• marily a crime
against property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere
incident of th e robbery, th e latter be• ing th e mai n purpose and
object of th e criminal. (People vs. Nabaluna , No. L-60087, Jul y 7,
1986, 142 SCRA 446 ,
458)
This circumstance applies to tender age as well as to

old age. This circumstance wa s applied in a murder case
where one of th e victims wa s a boy twelve years of age.
(U.S. vs. Butag, 38 Phil. 746)
346
of Offended Party
3. of the sex of the offended party.
This refers to th e female sex, not to th e male sex.
Examples:
a. Whe n a person compels a woma n to go to his house
agains t he r will, th e crime of coercion with the aggra•
vating circumstance of disrespect to sex is committed.
(U.S. vs. Quevengco, 2 Phil. 412 , 413)
b. The accused who, upon knowing the death of their

relative, and not being able to take revenge on the
killers, because of their imprisonment, selected and
killed a female relative of th e killers in retaliation,
co mmitte d th e act wit h thi s a gg rava tin g circum•
stance. (People vs . Dayug , 49 Phil. 423 , 427)
Direct assault upon a lady teacher. (Sarcepuedes vs. People,

90 Phil. 230; People vs. Manapat, C.A., 51 O.G. 894)
No disregard of respect due to sex.

A and B (a woman ) were sweethearts . B told A tha t she no
longer cared for hi m and tha t sh e loved another man . A stabbed B to
death. Held: It wa s not proved or admitted by th e accused tha t whe n
he committed th e crime, he ha d th e intention to offend or disregard
the sex of th e victim. (People vs. Mangsant, 65 Phil. 548, 550)
Killing a woman is not attended by this aggravating circumstance if

the offender did not manifest any specific insult or disrespect towards
her sex.
Disregard of sex is not aggravating in the absence of evidence
that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of the
victim or showed manifest disrespect to her womanhood. (People vs.
Puno, No. Jun e 29, 1981, 105 SCRA citing People
vs. Mangsant, 65 Phil. 548; People vs. Mori, January 31,
1974, 55 SCRA 382; People vs. 90 Phil. 379; U.S. vs. De Jesus,
14 Phil. 190)
Not applicable in certain cases.

This aggravating circumstance is not to be considered in the following
cases:
347
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Disregard of Rank, Age, Sex or Dwelling of
Offended Party
When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation.
When a ma n is blinded with passion or obfuscation,
this being the condition of the mind, he could not have
been conscious that his act wa s done with disrespect to the
offended party. (People vs. Ibahez, No.
March 20, 1948)
When there exists a relationship between the offended party
and the offender.
Facts: After a decree of divorce, the wife wa s given the
custody of their baby girl. Thereafter, th e accused meetin g
his former wife, asked her to allow hi m to visit their daugh•
ter, but she turned down his request. The accused became
infuriated and pointed hi s gu n at her as she boarded a
The gu n wen t off and she wa s injured.
Held: Notwithstandin g th e divorce decree, there still
existed some relationship betwee n th e accused and hi s
divorced wife, which had direct bearing wit h their only
child, for which reason, th e accused wa s askin g hi s former
wife to allow hi m to visit their daughter entrusted to her
by order of th e court. The accused had to deal wit h no
other person but wit h hi s former wife to visit hi s daughter.
(People vs. Valencia, C.A., 43 O.G. 3740)
The record does not sho w tha t th e commissio n of

crime in question wa s attended by any offense to or
disregard of th e age of th e offended party, about 75 or 65
years old, takin g into account th e circumstances under
which the act in question developed and th e pre-existing
relations betwee n th e accused and th e deceased. (People
vs. 51 Phil. 963 , 965)
There existed in this case a relation of employer and laborer,
because the deceased wa s a laborer of the offender.
When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in
Thus, in (a) parricide, (b) rape, (c) abduction, or (d)
seduction, sex is not aggravating.
Rape being a sex crime or one committed against a woman,
th e trial court erred in considering sex as an ag-
348
of Offended Party
circumstance in imposing th e penalty, it being
inherent in th e crime of rape. (People vs. Lopez, 107 Phil.
Disregard of sex absorbed in treachery.

There wa s disregard of sex because th e blouse of the victim wa s
needlessly removed, but th e circumstance is absorbed in treachery
which is attendant. (People vs. Clementer, No. L-33490, Aug.
58 SCRA 742 , 749, citing People vs . Mangsant , 65 Phil. 548; People
vs. 88 Phil. 35)
Bu t see People vs. Lapaz, G.R. No. 68898, March 31, 1989, 171 SCRA
539, at 550, where it wa s held that the aggravating circumstanc• es of
disregard of sex and age are not absorbed in treachery because treachery
refers to th e manne r of th e commission of the crime, while disregard of sex
and age pertains to th e relationship of the victim.
That the crime be committed in the dwelling of the offended

party.
Dwelling mus t be a building or structure, exclusively used for rest
and comfort. A house and store" (People vs.
89 Phil. 233 , 239), or a marke t stall wher e th e victim slept is not a
dwelling.

This is based on th e greater perversity of the offender, as shown by th e
place of the commission of th e offense.
Dwelling is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because
of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to huma n abode. According to one
commentator, one's dwelling place is a "sanctuary worthy of respect" and that
one who slanders another in the latter's house is more guilty tha n he who
offends him elsewhere. (People vs. Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990, 187
SCRA 566, 575)
What aggravates the commission of the crime in one's dwell•

ing:
The abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in the
offender by opening the door to him; or
349
of Party
2. The violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing
therein with violence or against the will of the owner. (Dis•
senting opinion of Justice Villareal, People vs. 68
Phil. 635, 637)
home is a sort of sacred place for its owner. He who goes
to another's house to slander hurt him or do him wrong, is more
guilty tha n he who offends hi m elsewhere." (Viada, 5th edition, Vol.
II, pp. 323-324)
The evidence mus t show clearly that the defendant entered th e
house of the deceased to attack him. (People vs. Lumasag, 56 Phil.
19, 22; People vs. Manuel, Nos. Aug. 29, 1969, 29 SCRA
337, 345)
Offended party must not give provocation.

As ma y be seen, a condition sine qua non of this circumstance,
is that the offended party "has not given provocation" to th e offender.
When it is the offended party who ha s provoked the incident, he loses
his right to the respect and consideration due hi m in hi s own house.
(People vs. Ambis, supra)
Meaning of provocation in the aggravating circumstance of

dwelling.
The provocation mus t be:
Given by th e owner of th e dwelling,
(2) Sufficient, and
(3) Immediate to th e commission of th e crime.
If all thes e condition s are present, th e offende d part y is
deemed to hav e given provocation, and th e fact tha t th e crime is
committed in th e dwelling of the offended party is not an aggravating
circumstance.
On the other hand, if any of those conditions is not present, the
offended party is deemed not to hav e given provocation, and th e fact
that the crime is committed in th e dwelling of the offended party is
an aggravating circumstance.
350
of Offended Party
There must be close relation between provocation and com•
mission of crime in the dwelling.
Although th e Code provides tha t th e aggravating circumstance
of dwelling cannot be properly take n into account if th e provocation
wa s given by the offended party, thi s is true only whe n there exists
a close relation betwee n th e provocation and th e commission of the
crime in th e dwelling of th e person from who m the provocation came.
(People vs. 60 Phil. 279 , 288)
Because the provocation is not immediate, dwelling is ag•

gravating.
The defendant learned tha t th e deceased and th e former's wife
were maintainin g illicit relations. One night, he wen t to the house of
the deceased and killed hi m the n and there. During the trial of the
case, th e defense contended tha t th e deceased provoked the crime
by hi s illicit relations wit h th e wife. Held: That the
provocation (the illicit relations) wa s not given immediately prior to
th e commission of th e crime. Dwellin g is still aggravating. (People
vs. Dequina, 60 Phil. 279 , 288-289)
Eve n if th e defendan t cam e to kno w of th e illicit relations immediatel
y before h e wen t t o th e hous e o f th e deceased , th e aggravating
circumstance of dwelling ma y still be considered against th e defendant
because th e provocation (the illicit relations) did not take place in tha t house.
If th e defendant surprised th e deceased and the wife of the defendant in
th e act of adultery in the house of th e deceased, the aggravating circumstance
of dwelling would not exist. (People vs. Dequina, supra)
Owner of dwelling gave immediate provocation — dwelling

is not aggravating.
Dwelling is not aggravating, although the incident happened in
the house of the victim, where the stabbing wa s triggered off by his
provocative and insulting acts, for having given sufficient provocation
before the commission of the he ha s lost his right to the respect
and consideration due him in his own house. (People vs. Atienza, No.
L-39777, Aug. 31 , 1982, SCRA 379, 385)
351
of Offended Party
in her house, th e offended party began to abuse the
daughter of the accused and to call her vile names . The accused
heard the insulting words and appeared in front of the offended
party's house and demanded an explanation. A quarrel ensued , and
the accused, becoming very angry and excited, entered th e house
of the offended party and struck her wit h a bolo. In tha t case, th e
invasion of th e privacy of the offended party's home wa s th e direct
and immediate consequence of th e provocation give n by her. No
aggravating circumstance of dwelling. (U.S. vs. 23 Phil. 10,
12)
Prosecution must prove that no provocation was given by

the offended party.
Tha t th e of fende d pa rt y ha s no t g iv e n p r o v o c a t i o n i n
hi s hous e i s a fact tha t mus t b e show n b y th e evidenc e o f th e
prosecution , a s i t canno t b e a ssu me d . I t i s a n essentia l elemen t
o f th e aggravatin g circu mst a nc e o f dwelling . (Peopl e vs . Pakah ,
8 1 Phil . 426 , 429 )
Even if the offender did not enter the dwelling, this circum•
stance applies.
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be take n into
account. Althoug h th e triggerma n fired th e shot from outside th e
house, hi s victim wa s inside. For thi s circumstance to be considered,
it is not necessary tha t th e accused should hav e actually entere d th e
dwelling of th e victim to commit th e offense; it is enoug h tha t th e
victim wa s attacked insid e hi s own house , althoug h th e assailan t
ma y hav e devised mean s t o perpetrate th e assaul t from without .
(People vs . No . Jan . 31 , 1969 , 2 6 SCRA 750 ,
760 , citing People vs . 8 6 Phil. 36) Thus , dwellin g wa s hel d
aggravatin g wher e th e victim wh o wa s aslee p i n hi s hous e wa s shot
as he opened th e door of hi s hous e upon bein g called an d awa kene d
by th e accused. (People vs. No . L-24852, Nov. 28 , 1980, 101
SCRA 332 , 346 )
Dwelling is aggravating, eve n if th e offender did not enter th e upper
part of th e hous e where th e victim was , but shot from under the house.
(People vs . Bautista, 79 Phil. 652 , 653 , 657)
352
of Offended Party
Even if the killing took place outside the dwelling, it is
vating provided that the commission of the crime was begun
in the dwelling.
Thus, where the accused began the aggression upon the person of
the deceased in the latter's dwelling by binding his hands or by drag•
ging him from his house and after taking him to a place near the house
he killed him, dwelling is aggravating, since the act performed cannot
be divided or the unity resulting from its details be broken up. (U.S. vs.
27 Phil. 432, 438; People vs. Mendova, 100 Phil. 811, 818)
Dwelling is aggravating in abduction or illegal detention.

I n abductio n o r illega l detentio n wher e th e victi m wa s take n
from he r or hi s hous e and carried awa y to anothe r place, dwelling is
aggravating . (U.S . vs . Banila , 1 9 Phil. U.S . vs . Velasquez,
8 Phil. 321 , 324 ; Peopl e vs . M a silung a n , 104 Phil. 621 , 635 )
Bu t dwelling wa s not aggravating in a case where the deceased
wa s called down from hi s hous e and he wa s murdered in th e vicinity
of th e house. (U.S. vs . Ramos, 1 Phil. 192, 193; People vs. Lumasag,
56 Phil. 19, 22-23)
What dwelling includes.

Dwellin g includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and
enclosure under the house. (U.S. vs. Tapan, 20 Phil. 211 , 213; People
vs. Alcala, 46 Phil. 739, 744)
But, in People vs. L-38094, Nov. 7, 1979, 94 SCRA
where th e victim wa s stabbed at th e foot of their stairs,
dwelling wa s not aggravating. Aquino, concurring and dissenting,
said tha t dwelling is aggravating because th e killing took place at
the foot of the stairs of th e victim's (p. 241)
If the deceased was only about to step on the first rung the lad•
der whe n he wa s assaulted, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling
will not be applicable. (People vs. 102 Phil. 199, 210)
When the deceased had two houses where he used to live,

the commission of the crime in any of them is attended by
the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.
In a case, it wa s held that the aggravating circumstance of
353
of Offended Party
dwelling wa s present, because the deceased wa s murdered in the
house at Franco Street in Tondo, which wa s one of the two houses
(the other being at Sampaloc) where the deceased used
to live and have his place of abode during his stay in Manila. (People
vs. Rodriguez, 103 Phil. 1015)
Dwelling is not aggravating in the following cases:

When both offender and offended party are occupants of
the same house (U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 9 Phil.
and this is true eve n if offender is a servant in th e house.
(People vs. Caliso, 58 Phil. 283, 294-295)
Thus, dwelling is not aggravating in rape where th e
accused and th e offended party are domiciled in th e sam e
house. (People vs. Morales, No. Nov. 94
SCRA 191, 201)
2. Whe n th e robbery is committe d by th e us e of force upon
things, dwellin g is not a gg rava tin g becaus e it is inher•
ent. To commit robbery by th e us e of force upon things , th e
offender mus t enter th e dwelling house, or other building,
of th e offended party. (U.S. vs. Cas, 14 Phil. 21 , 22)
Bu t dwelling is aggravating in robbery wit h violence
agains t o r int i mida t io n o f person s becaus e thi s clas s
of robbery ca n be co mmitte d withou t th e necessit y of
trespassin g th e sanctit y of th e offended party's house .
Entrance into th e dwelling hous e of th e offended party
is not an elemen t of th e offense. (People vs . Cabato, No . L-
37400, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 98 , 110; People vs .
Apduhan, Jr., No. Aug. 30, 1968, 24 SCRA 798,
815; People vs. Valdez, 64 Phil. 860, 867)
Dwellin g i s no t inherent , hence , aggravating , i n robbery

wit h homicid e sinc e th e autho r thereo f could have
accomplished th e heinou s deed withou t havin g to violate th e
domicile of th e victim. (People vs. Mesias , G.R. No. 67823 , Jul y
9, 1991, 199 SCRA 20, 27, citing earlier cases)
Note: There are two kinds of robbery: (1) robbery wit h

violence against or intimidation of persons; and (2)
354
of Offended Party
robbery wit h force upon thing s in inhabited house.
(Arts. 29 4 and 299)
3. In th e crime of t respas s to dwelling , it is inheren t or

included by la w in defining th e crime. This crime can be
committed only in th e dwelling of another.
4. . Whe n th e owne r o f th e dw ellin g gav e sufficient an d
immediate provocation.
5. Whe n th e dwelling wher e th e crime wa s committed did

not belong to th e offended party. Thus , whe n the accused,
upon hearing tha t their sister wa s dead, wen t to her house,
and the n and there, upon seein g their sister lying on the
floor wit h her hea d resting on th e lap of her paramour, and
thinkin g tha t th e latter ha d killed her, attacked and killed
him , th e aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot be
considered against th e accused. The dwelling did not belong
to th e paramour, th e person who m the y killed. (People vs.
88 Phil. 672 , 675)
6. Whe n th e rape wa s committed in th e ground floor of a

two-story structure, th e lower floor being used as a video
rental store and not as a private place of abode or residence.
(People vs . G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000)
Dwelling was found aggravating in the following cases al•

though the crimes were committed not in the dwelling of the
victims.
The victim wa s raped in the boarding house where she
wa s a bedspacer. Her room constituted a as the
term is used in Article 14(3) of the Revised Penal Code.
(People vs. Daniel, No. L-40330, Nov. 20, 1978, 86 SCRA
511 , 531)
The victims were raped in their paternal home where they were
guest s at th e time and did not reside there. (2 CAR [2s] 675)
But in People vs. Ramolete, No. March 27,
1974, 56 SCRA 66, dwelling wa s not considered aggra•
vating because the victim wa s a mere visitor in the house
where he wa s killed.
355
of Offended Party
3. The victim wa s killed in the house of her aunt where she
was living with her niece. Dwelling wa s considered aggra•
vating because dwelling may mea n temporary dwelling.
(People vs. Badilla, G.R. No. 69317, May 21 , 1990, 185
SCRA 554, 570)
4. The victims, while sleeping as guests in the house of an•
other person, were shot to death in that house. Dwelling
wa s held aggravating. The Code speaks of not
domicile. (People vs. Basa, 83 Phil. 622, 624)
Dwelling is aggravating when the husband killed his es•

tranged wife in the house solely occupied by her.
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present whe n th e
husband killed his estranged wife in the house occupied by her, other
tha n the conjugal home. (People vs. Galapia, Nos. L-39303-05, Aug.
1, 1978, 84 SCRA 526, 532)
In case of adultery.
When adultery is committed in the dwelling of th e husband, even
if it is also the dwelling of the unfaithful wife, it is aggravating because
besides the latter's breach of th e fidelity she owes he r she
and her paramour violated the respect due to the conjugal home and
they both thereby injured and commited a very grave offense against
the head of the house. (U.S. vs. 33 Phil. 611 , 613)
Note: Adultery is committed by a married woma n wh o shall

have sexual intercourse wit h a ma n not her husband and
by th e ma n who ha s carnal knowledge of her, knowin g
her to be married. (Art. 333 , Revised Pena l Code)
Dwelling not aggravating in adultery when paramour also lives there.

Bu t th e rule is different if both the defendants (the wife and
her paramour) and the offended party were living in th e sam e house
because the defendants had a right to be in th e house.
Th e a ggra vat in g circumst a nc e o f abus e o f confidence wa s
properly applied, whe n the offended husband took th e paramour into
his home, furnished hi m wit h food and lodging without charge, and
treated him like a son. (U.S. vs. 23 Phil. 28, 33)
356
Abuse of Confidence and Obvious Par. 4
Ungratefulness
The aggravating circumstance present in such case is abuse of
confidence, if th e offender availed himsel f of th e favorable position in which
he wa s placed by th e very act of th e injured party, thu s grossly abusing th e
confidence of th e latter in admitting him into his dwell• ing. (U.S. vs. Barbicho,
13 Phil. 616 , 620-621)
Dwelling is not included in treachery.

Although and abus e of superior strength are always
included in th e qualifying circumstance of treachery, dwelling cannot
be included therein. (People vs . 100 Phil. 537, 544)
Par. 4. — That the act be committed with (1) abuse of confidence,

or (2) obvious ungratefulness.
There are two aggravating circumstances in thi s paragraph.
Basis of these aggravating circumstances.

The y are based on th e greater perversity of th e offender, as show n by
th e means and ways employed.
Abuse of
Thi s circu mstanc e exist s only whe n th e offended party ha s
trusted th e offender wh o late r abuses suc h trus t by committin g
th e crime. Th e abus e of confidence mus t be a mea n s of facilitat•
ing th e commissio n of th e crime, th e culprit takin g advantag e of
th e offended party's belie f tha t th e former woul d not abus e said
confidence.
Requisites:
That the offended party had trusted the offender.
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime
against the offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of
the crime. (People vs. Luchico, 49 Phil. 689, 697; People
vs. Zea, No. Jun e 29, 1984, 130 SCRA 77, 90)
357
Par. 4 Abuse of Confidence and Obvious
Ungratefulness
Example:
A jealous lover, who had already determined to kill his sweet•
heart, invited her to a ride in the country. The girl, unsuspecting
of his plans, went with him. While they were in the car, the jealous
lover stabbed her. It wa s held that this aggravating circumstance
wa s present. (People vs. Marasigan, 70 Phil. 583, 594)
Confidence does not exist.

Facts: After preliminary advances of the master, th e female
servant refused and fled. The master followed and after catching up
with her, threw her on the ground and committed the crime of rape.
When the master raped the offended party, she had already lost her
confidence in him from th e momen t he made an indecent proposal
and offended her with a kiss.
Held: The confidence must facilitate the commission the crime,
the culprit taking advantage of offended belief tha t th e former
would not abuse said confidence. No aggravating circumstance in this
case. (People vs. Luchico, 49 Phil. 689, 697)
There is no abuse of confidence in attempted rape wher e on the day of
the crime, th e accused wa s in th e company of th e offended girl, not because
of her confidence in him, but because the y were partners in a certain business.
(People vs. Brocal, C.A., 46 O.G. 6163)
Special relation of between accused and victim.

There is no abuse of confidence where th e deceased and the
accused happened to be together because the former invited th e latter
nightclubbing and to bring wit h hi m the mone y th e latter owed the
former. (People vs. Ong, No. L-34497, Jan . 30, 1975, 62 SCRA 174,
213-214)
Betrayal of confidence is not aggravating.

Facts: The offended party wa s living in th e hous e of th e ac•
cused, her parent s havin g entruste d her to th e care of said accused.
One day, at about 6:30 in th e evening , whil e th e offended party wa s
standin g in front of a store watchin g some children wh o were play•
ing, th e accused approached her, took her by th e arm and forcibly
led her to an isolated toilet, hidden from public view by some
358
Abuse of Confidence and Obvious Par. 4
Ungratefulness
grasses , and once in th e spot, he intimidated her wit h a knife and through th
e use of force and violence succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her.
Held: There is no showing tha t th e accused wa s able to commit the

crime by abusing th e confidence reposed in hi m by the offended party. The
accused betrayed th e confidence reposed in hi m by th e parents of th e girl. Bu
t thi s is not an aggravating circumstance. It mus t be an abuse of confidence
tha t facilitated th e commission of the crime which is aggravating. (People vs.
Arthur Crumb, C.A., 46 O.G. 6163)
Killing of child by an amah is aggravated by abuse of confidence.

Whe n th e killer of th e child is th e domesti c servan t of th e family and
is sometime s th e deceased child's amah , the aggravating circumstance of
grave abus e of confidence is present. (People vs. Caliso, 58 Phil. 283 , 294)
Compare thi s cas e wit h th e Crumb case. In th e Crumb case,
th e confidence reposed by th e parent s of th e girl in th e offender
could not hav e facilitated th e commissio n of th e crime, because the
offended girl could resist, althoug h unsuccessfully, th e commission
of th e crime.
In th e Caliso case, th e victim, being a nine-month-old child,
could not resist th e commission of th e crime. The confidence reposed
by the parents of the child in th e offender facilitated th e commission
of the crime.
The between the offender and the offended party

must be immediate and personal.
In the case U.S. vs. Torrida, 23 Phil. it wa s held that
the mere fact that the voters had reposed confidence in the defendant
by electing him to a public office does not mea n that he abused their
confidence whe n he committed estafa against them.
Abuse of confidence inherent in some felonies.

It is inherent in malversation (Art. 217), qualified theft (Art. 310),
estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315), and qualified seduction.
(Art. 337)
359
Par. 4 Abuse of Confidence and Obvious
Ungratefulness
Ungratefulness must be obvious, i.e., manifest and clear.
The other aggravating circumstance in paragraph 4 of Art. 14
is that the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness.
This aggravating circumstance wa s present in the case of the
accused who killed his father-in-law in whose house he lived and who
partially supported him. (People vs. Floresca, G.R. Nos .
May 31 , 1956, 99 Phil. 1044)
The circumstance wa s present where th e accused wa s living
in the house of the victim who employed hi m as an overseer and in
charge of carpentry work, and had free access to th e house of the
victim who wa s very kind to him, his family, and wh o helped hi m
solve his problems. (People vs. No. L-32633, Nov.
109 SCRA 109, 126)
The circumstance wa s present where a security guard killed a

bank officer and robbed th e bank. (People vs. No.
Jun e 25, 1982, 114 SCRA 487, 494-495)
The circumstanc e wa s presen t wher e th e victim wa s suddenl y
attacke d whil e i n th e act o f givin g th e assaila nt s thei r brea d an d
coffee for breakfast. Instea d of bein g grateful to th e victim , at leas t
b y doin g hi m n o harm , the y took a dv a ntag e o f hi s h e l p l e s s ne s s
w he n hi s tw o arm s wer e use d for ca rry in g thei r food, thu s
preventin g hi m from defendin g hi msel f from th e sudde n attack .
(People vs . Ba ut ist a , No . L-3 8624 , Jul y 25 , 1975 , 6 5 SCR A 460 ,
470 )
The circumstance exists whe n a visitor commits robbery or theft in the

house of his host.
Bu t in the case of Mariano vs. People, 68 Phil. 724, 726, th e act
of stealin g th e property of the host is considered as committed wit h
abuse of confidence.
Th e mer e fact, however , tha t th e accuse d an d th e offended
party live i n th e sam e hous e i s no t i n itsel f enoug h t o hold tha t
ther e wa s presen t abus e o f confidence wher e th e hous e wa s not
th e property of th e offended party. (People vs . Alqueza , 51 Phil.
817 , 819-820 )
360
Palace and Places of Commission of Offense Par. 5
Par. 5. — That the crime be committed in the palace of the

Executive, or in his presence, or where public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
Basis of the aggravating circumstances.

The y are based on th e greater perversity of th e offender, as shown by
the place of th e commission of th e crime, which mus t be respected.
Place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge

of their duties (par. 5), distinguished from contempt or insult
to public (par. 2)
In both, th e public authorities are in the performance of
their duties.
2. . Unde r par. 5 , th e publi c a utho rit ie s wh o are i n
th e performance of their duties mus t be in their office;
while in par. th e public authorities are performing their
duties outside of their office.
3. Unde r par. 2, th e public authority should not be the of•
fended party; while under par. 5, he ma y be the offended
party. (U.S. vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil. 385, 395)
Official or religious functions, not necessary.

The place of th e commissio n of th e felony (par. 5), if it is Malacahang
palace or a church, is aggravating, regardless of whether State or official or
religious functions are being held.
The Chief Executive need not be in palace. His
presence alone in any place where th e crime is committed is enough
to constitute the aggravating circumstance. This aggravating cir•
cumstance is present eve n if he is not engaged in the discharge of his
duties in the place where the crime is committed.
Other public authorities must be actually engaged in the

performance of duty.
But as regards the place where the public authorities are engaged
in the discharge of their duties, there mus t be some performance of
public
361
Par. 5 Palace and Places of Commission of
Thus, where the accused and the deceased who were respectively
plaintiff and defendant in a civil case in the court of a justice of the peace,
having gotten into some trouble, left the courtroom and wen t into an
adjoining room, where the accused, without any warning, attacked the
deceased wit h a knife and killed him on the spot, it ha s been held that it wa s
error to consider the aggravating circumstance of having committed the
offense in the place where th e public authority wa s exercising his functions.
(U.S. vs. Punsalan, 3 Phil. 260, 261)
Undoubtedly, th e reason for not applying the circumstance wa s that
the court had already adjourned whe n the crime wa s committed, and the
attack wa s made in the adjoining room, not in th e very place where the
justice of th e peace wa s engaged in the discharge of hi s duties.
An electoral precinct during election day is a place "where public

authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties."
Thus, th e aggravating circumstance th e crime be commit•
ted where public authorities are engaged i n th e discharge o f
their duties" wa s appreciated in th e murder of a person in an electoral
precinct or polling place during election day. (People vs . Canoy, G.R.
No. L-6037, Sept.
Place dedicated to religious worship.

Cemeteries are not such a place, however respectable the y ma y be, as
the y are not dedicated to th e worship of God. The church is a place dedicated
to religious worship.
The aggravating circumstance th e crime be committed
x x x in a place dedicated to religious worship" wa s appreciated in a
case where the accused shot th e victims inside th e church or in a case
of unjust vexation where th e accused kissed a girl inside a church
whe n a religious service wa s being solemnized. (People vs.
C.A., 36 O.G. 2018; People vs. CA-G.R. No. April 4,
1951)
Offender must have intention to commit a crime when he

entered the place.
Facts: At th e tim e of th e commission of th e crime, both th e deceased
and defendant were inside a chapel. The deceased placed
362
Nighttime, Uninhabited Place or Band Par. 6
hi s hand on th e right thig h of defendant girl, who pulled out with her right
han d a fan knife and stabbed him.
Held: The aggravating circumstance tha t the killing wa s done
in a place dedicated to religious worship cannot be legally
wher e there is no evidence to sho w tha t th e defendant had murder
in her heart whe n sh e entered th e chapel on th e fatal night. (People
vs. 76 Phil. 174, 182)
This ruling seem s to be applicable also in case a crime is com•
mitted in palace or wher e public authorities are engaged
in th e discharge of their duties.
Par. 6. — That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or

(2) in an uninhabited place, (3) by a band, whenever
such circumstance may facilitate the commission of
the offense.

They are based on th e tim e and place of th e commission of the crime
and mean s and way s employed.
Should these circumstances be considered as one only or

three separately?
In its decision of April 5, 1884 , th e Suprem e Court of Spain
held tha t the y constitute only one aggravatin g circumstance if they
concur in th e commissio n of felony. Bu t in its decision of April 27,
1897, th e sam e court held tha t its former decision did not declare
an absolute and general rule whic h would exclude th e possibility of
their being considered separately whe n their elements are distinctly
perceived and can subsist revealing a greater degree
of perversity. (People vs. Santos , 91 Phil. 320, 327-328)
Thus, vs. Cunanan, 110 Phil. 313, 318, nighttime and
band were considered separately.
When aggravating.
Nighttime, uninhabited place or band is aggravating —
363
Par. 6 Nighttime, Uninhabited Place or Band
When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or

(2) When especially sought for by the offender to insure the
commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity
(People vs. 79 Phil. 568, 578); or
(3) When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose
of impunity. (U.S. vs. Billedo, 32 Phil. 574, 579; People vs.
Matbagon, 60 Phil. 887, 893)
Although should not be estimated as an aggravating
circumstance, since the time for th e commission of th e crime was not
deliberately chosen by the accused; yet, if it appears tha t th e accused
took advantage of the darkness for the more successful consummation
of his plans, to prevent his being recognized, and tha t th e crime
might be perpetrated unmolested, th e aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity should be applied.
To take advantage of a fact or circumstance in committing a

crime clearly implies an intention to do so, and one does not avail
oneself of th e darkness unles s one intended to do so. (People vs .
Matbagon, 60 Phil. 887, 893; People vs . Apduhan, Jr., No .
Aug. 30, 1968, 24 SCRA 798, 816)
Illustration of taking advantage of nighttime.

A, with intent to kill B, had hidden behind a tree and availed himself of
the darkness to prevent hi s being recognized or to escape more readily. As
soon as B came, A stabbed hi m to death.
"Whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commis•

sion of the offense."
Pa ra g ra p h 6 o f Articl e 1 4 require s onl y tha t n i g h t t i me ,
uninhabited place, or band "may facilitate th e commission of th e
The tes t fixed by th e statut e is an objective one. (Dissentin g
opinion in People vs. Matbagon, 60 Phil. 887, 894)
Nighttime may facilitate the commission of the crime, whe n
because of th e darkness of th e night th e crime can be perpetrated
unmolested, or interference can be avoided, or there would be greater
certainty in attaining th e end s of th e offender. (People vs. Matbagon,
supra)
364
Nighttim e facilitated th e commission of the crime to such an extent tha t

th e defendant wa s able to consummat e it wit h all its dastardly details
without anyone of th e persons living in the sam e premises becoming aware of
wha t wa s going on. (People vs. Villas, No. L-20953, April 21 , 1969, 27 SCRA
947, 952-953)
Meaning of "especially sought for," "for the purpose of im•

punity," and "took advantage thereof."
The Suprem e Court considered other test s for the application
of th e aggravating circumstances under thi s paragraph. They are
aggravating whe n they are "especially sought or whe n the offender
"took advantage
The offender especially sought for nighttime, whe n he sought
for it in order to realize th e crime wit h more ease. (People vs. Aquino,
68 Phil. 615, 618)
Nighttime is not especially sought for, whe n the notion to commit
the crime wa s conceived only shortly before its commission (People
vs. Pardo, 79 Phil. 568, 578-579), or whe n th e crime wa s committed
at night upon a mere casual encounter. (People vs. Cayabyab, 274
SCRA 387)
Bu t where th e accused waited for the night before committing
robbery wit h homicide, nighttime is especially sought for. (People vs.
87 Phil. 800)
Nighttim e wa s appreciated against th e accused who wa s living
only 150 meters awa y from th e victim's house and evidently waited
for nightfall to hide hi s identity and facilitate his escape, knowing
that most barrio folks are already asleep, or getting ready to sleep,
at 9:00 p.m. (People vs. Baring, G.R. No. 87017, Jul y 20, 1990, 187
SCRA 629, 636)
Nighttime wa s sought for where the accused lingered for almost
three hours in the evening at the restaurant before carrying out their
plan to rob it. (People vs. No. L-57293, Jun e 21 , 1988, 162
SCRA 383, 388)
There is proof that the offenders purposely sought
nighttime to commit the crime. Consider th e facts that the accused
tried to ascertain whether the occupants of the house were asleep,
thereby indicating the desire to carry out the plot with the least
365
detection or to insure its consummation with a minimum of resistance

from the inmates of the house. (People vs. Atencio, No.
January 17, 1968, 22 SCRA 88, 102-103)
The circu mstanc e o f nig htt im e wa s aggravatin g wher e i t
i s self-evident tha t i t wa s sough t t o facilitate th e commissio n o f
th e offense, whe n all th e member s o f th e househol d wer e asleep .
(People vs . Berbal, G.R. No . 71527 , Aug. 10, 1989, 176 SCRA 202 ,
216 )
Nighttime need not be specifically sought for when (1) it

facilitated the commission of the offense, or (2) the offender
took advantage of the same to commit the crime.
I t i s th e constan t jurisprudenc e i n thi s jurisdictio n tha t th e
circumstanc e of nocturnity, althoug h not specifically sough t for by
th e culprit, shal l aggravat e hi s criminal liability if it facilitate d
th e commissio n of th e offense or th e offender took a dva ntag e of
th e sam e to commi t th e crime. (People vs . Corpus, C.A., 43 O.G.
2249 , citing U.S . vs . Perez, 32 Phil. 163; People vs . Pineda , 56 Phil.
688)
Nocturnity , eve n thoug h not specially sought , if it facilitated
the co mmission of th e crime and th e accused took advantag e thereof
t o commi t it, ma y b e considered a s a n aggravatin g circumstance .
(People vs . Lungbos , supra, citin g Peopl e vs . Galapia , 84 SCRA
530)
"For the purpose of impunity" mean s to prevent hi s (accused's)
being recognized, or to secure himsel f against detection and punish•
ment. (People vs. Matbagon, 60 Phil. 887, 891-892, 893)
Thus, it wa s held tha t the commission of th e crime wa s attended
by th e aggravating circumstance of nighttime, because of th e silence
and darkness of th e night which enabled th e offender to tak e awa y
the girl with thing which undoubtedly th e offender could
not hav e done in the daytime and in sight of people. (U.S. vs.
34 Phil. 169, 175)
The offender took advantag e of an y of th e circumstances of nighttime,
uninhabited place, or by a band whe n he availed himsel f thereof at the time of
the commission of th e crime for th e purpose of impunity or for the more
successful consummation of hi s plans.
366
(a) Nighttime.
By th e word shoul d be understood , according to

Viada, tha t period of darknes s beginning at end dusk and ending
at dawn. Night s are from sunse t to sunrise . (Art. 13, Civil Code)
Nighttime by and of itself is not an aggravating circumstance.

The lower court appreciated nocturnity against appellants solely
on th e basis of th e fact on record tha t th e crime wa s committed at
about 5 o'clock in th e morning. This particular finding stands correc•
tion. By and of itself, nighttim e is not an aggravating circumstance.
It becomes so only whe n it is especially sought by the offender, or
taken advantage of by hi m to facilitate th e commission of the crime
or to insure hi s immunit y from capture. In th e instan t case, other
tha n th e tim e of th e crime, nothing els e whatsoeve r suggest s that
the aggravating circumstance of nighttime wa s deliberately availed
of by appellants. In vie w of thi s deficiency, said circumstance should
be disallowed eve n as , technically, it ma y hav e been accepted by
the m whe n the y pleaded guilty on arraignment. (People vs. Boyles,
No. Ma y 29, 1964, 11 SCRA 88, 94)
Where th e darkness of th e night wa s merely incidental to the

collision betwee n two vehicles which caused the heated argument and
th e eventual stabbing of th e victim, nighttime is not aggravating. To
be aggravating, th e prosecution mus t show that the accused purposely
sought to commit th e crime at nighttime in order to facilitate the
achievement of his objectives, prevent discovery or evade capture.
(People vs. Velaga, Jr., G.R. No. 87202 , July SCRA 518,
523-524)
The information must allege that nighttime was sought for or

taken advantage of by the accused or that it facilitated the
commission of the crime.
The jurisprudence on this subject is to the effect that nocturnity
mus t have been sought or take n advantage of to improve the chances
of success in the commission of the crime or to provide impunity for
the offenders. The bare statemen t in the information that the crime
wa s committed in the darkness of the night fails to satisfy the crite•
rion. (People vs. Fernandez, No. L-32623, June 29, 1972, 45 SCRA
535, 537)
367
Not aggravating when crime began at daytime.

When the crime wa s the result of a succession acts which took
place within the period of two hours, commencing at 5:00 p.m. and
ending at 7:00 p.m., without a moment's interruption in which it can
be said that the thought of nighttime, being the most favorable oc•
casion for committing the crime, occurred to the accused, there is no
aggravating circumstance of nighttime. (People vs. Luchico, 49 Phil.
689, 697)
The commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the

nighttime.
Thus, although the safe wa s thrown into the bay at night, but the
money, the taking of which constituted the offense, wa s withdraw n from the
treasury during the daytime, th e crime of malversation wa s not attended by
th e aggravating circumstance of nighttime. (U.S. vs . Dowdell, 11 Phil. 4, 7)
The offense must be actually committed in the darkness of the night.

Thus, whe n the defendants did not intentionally seek th e cover
of darkness for th e purpose of committing murder and the y wer e car•
rying a light of sufficient brilliance which made it eas y for th e people
nearby to recognize them (U.S. vs. Paraiso, 17 Phil. or
whe n the crime of robbery wit h homicide wa s committed at daybreak
when the defendants could be recognized (U.S. vs. Tampacan, 19 Phil.
185, 188), nighttime is not aggravating.
When the place of the crime is illuminated by nighttime is not

aggravating.
The fact tha t the scene of the incident wa s illuminated by th e light on
the street as well as tha t inside th e vehicle of which th e vic• tim wa s a
passenger, negate s the notion that accused had especially sought or had taken
advantage of nighttime in order to facilitate th e commission of the crime of
theft or for purposes of impunity. (People vs. Joson, C.A., 62 O.G. 4604)
Although the offense wa s committed at nighttime, th e record does not

show that appellant had sought it purposely or take n advan• tage thereof to
facilitate the perpetration of th e offense. In fact, th e place from which he fired
at Laguna seemed to be sufficiently lighted
368
for him to be clearly visible to, as well as recognized by, all of those
who happened to be nearby. (People vs. Bato, G.R. No. L-23405, Dec.
29, 1967, 21 SCRA 1445, 1448)
Nocturnity is not aggravating where there is no evidence that the

accused had purposely sought th e cover of th e darkness of the night
to commit th e crime; nor is there evidence tha t nighttime facilitated
the commission of th e crime, aside from th e fact that the scene of the
crime wa s illuminated. (People vs . Moral, No. Oct.
132 SCRA 474, 487. Also, People vs. G.R. No. 56358, Oct. 26,
1990, 191 SCRA 38, 47; People vs . Aspili, G.R. Nos . 89418-19, Nov.
21 , 1990, 191 SCRA 530 , 543)
The lighting of a or use of flashlights does not

negate the aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
It is self-evident tha t nighttim e wa s sough t by appellant to
facilitate the commission of th e offense, whe n all th e members of the
household were asleep. The fact that Restituto hit a matchstick
does not negate th e presence of said aggravating circumstance. Thus,
People vs. Rogelio Soriano, G.R. No. L-32244, Jun e
122 SCRA 740, this Court rejected th e contention tha t nocturnity
could not be appreciated because flashlights were used. (People vs.
Berbal, G.R. No. 71527, Aug. 10, 1989)
(b) Uninhabited place.
What is uninhabited place?

An uninhabited place is one where there are no houses at all, a place at a
considerable distance from town, or where th e houses are scattered at a great
distance from each other.
This aggravating circumstance should not be considered when
the place where the crime wa s committed could be seen and the voice
of the deceased could be heard from a nearby house. (People vs. Laoto,
52 Phil. 401 , 408)
Whether or not the crime committed is attended by this ag•
gravating circumstance should be determined not by the distance
of the nearest house from the scene of the crime, but whether or not
in the place of the commission of the offense there was a reasonable
possibility of the victim receiving some help.
369
That the place is uninhabited is determined, not by the distance

of the nearest house to the scene of the crime, but whether or not
in the place of its commission, there wa s reasonable possibility of
the victim receiving some help. Thus, the crime is committed in an
uninhabited place where the killing wa s done during nighttime, in a
sugarcane plantation about a hundred meters from the nearest house,
and the sugarcane in the field wa s tall enough to obstruct the view of
neighbors and passersby. (People vs. Fausto 75 O.G. 4979,
No. 25, Jun e 18, 1979)
The purely accidental circumstance that on the day in question
another banca, namely, that of the witnesse s for the prosecution,
wa s also at sea, is not an argument against the consideration of such
aggravating circumstance. It wa s difficult for the victim to receive any
help and it wa s eas y for the assailants to escape punishment. (People
vs. Rubia, 52 Phil. 172, 175-176; People vs. No. L-26789, April
27 SCRA 1037, 1044)
U n i n h a b i t e d plac e i s a g g ra v a t i n g w her e th e felon y wa s

perpetrated in th e open sea, where no help could be expected by
th e victim from other persons and th e offenders could easily escape
punishment. (People vs. Nulla, No. L-69346, Aug. SCRA
471 , 483)
The fact tha t persons occasionally passed in th e uninhabited place and
tha t on the night of th e murder another huntin g party wa s not a great
distance away, does not matter. It is th e natur e of th e place which is decisive.
(People vs. Bangug , 52 Phil. 87, 92)
A place about a kilometer from th e neares t hous e or other inhabite d
place i s considered an uninhabite d place. (People vs . Aguinaldo, 55 Phil. 610,
616; People vs. Mendova, 100 Phil. 811 ,
818)
With th e finding of th e body of the victim in a solitary place off

th e road and hidden among th e trees and tall grasse s on a hill, some
500 meters away from th e toll gate where help to th e victim wa s dif•
ficult and the escape of th e accused seemed easy, it is correct to ap•
preciate the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place. (People
vs. Atitiw, C.A., 66 O.G. 4040)
The killing wa s done in Barrio Makatipo, Novaliches,
City, a n iso late d plac e tha t rese mb le d tha t o f a n a ba ndo ne d
370
subdivision. The place wa s ideal not merely for burying the victim
but also for killing hi m for it wa s a place where th e possibility of the
victim receiving some help from third persons wa s completely absent.
The accused sought the solitude of the place in order to better attain
their purpose without and to secure themselve s against
detection and punishment . (People vs. Ong, No. L-34497, Jan . 30,
1975, 62 SCRA 174, 212-213)
When the victims are the occupants of the only house in the
place, the crime is committed in an uninhabited place.
In th e case of People vs. Piring, 63 Phil. 546, where the accused attacked
and killed a couple in thei r house , th e circumstance of uninhabited place wa s
not take n into consideration as aggravating circumstance, because it wa s not
proven tha t there were no houses near th e hous e of th e deceased. The
implication is that, if it wa s shown tha t there wer e no house s there, it would
be considered an uninhabited place, eve n if there wa s a hous e there and the
victims were living in tha t house.
Solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal purpose.

It mus t appear tha t th e accused sought the solitude of th e place
where th e crime wa s committed, in order to better attain his purpose.
(People vs . Aguinaldo, 55 Phil. 610 , 616) The offenders mus t choose
the place as an aid either (1) to an eas y and uninterrupted accom•
plishment of their criminal designs, or (2) to insure concealment of
the offense, that he migh t thereby be better secured against detection
and punishment. (U.S. vs. Vitug, 17 Phil. 1, 20; People vs.
No. Jul y 31 , 1987, 152 SCRA 570, 578)
Hence, this aggravating circumstance is not present even if the
crime wa s committed in an uninhabited place, if the offended party
wa s casually encountered by th e accused and the latter did not take
advantage of th e place or there is no showing that it facilitated the
commission of the crime. (People vs. Luneta, 79 Phil. 815, 818)
The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place cannot be
considered against the although the house nearest to the
dwelling of the victim wa s about a kilometer away, if the defendants
did not select the place either to better attain their object without
interference or to secure themselves against detection and punish•
ment. (People vs. Deguia, 88 Phil. 520, 526)
371
(c) By a band.
What is a band?
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together
in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by
a band.
The armed men must act together in the commission of the crime.
The mere fact that there are more than three armed me n at the scene of
the crime does not prove the existence of a band, if only one of them
committed the crime while the others were not aware of the com• mission of
the crime. The definition of "by a band" says that the armed men "shall have
acted together in the commission of the offense."
The band mus t be composed more than three armed persons.

Hence, eve n if there are 20 persons, but only 3 are armed, this ag•
gravating circumstance by a band cannot be considered. (U.S. vs.
Mendigoren, 1 Phil. 658, 659; Se e also U.S. vs . 11 Phil.
229, 231; People vs. Pakah , 81 Phil. 426, 429; People vs. Ga, G.R. No.
49831 , Jun e 27, 1990, 186 SCRA 790, 797; People vs. Lungbos, No.
L-57293, Jun e 21 , SCRA 383 , 388)
is included in the term "arms."

We held in th e case of People vs. Bautista (28 SCRA 184) that
there is an intention to cause death if th e accused throws a stone at
th e victims, thu s including stone under th e term arms in th e phrase
"more tha n 3 armed malefactors acted together." (People vs. Manlolo,
G.R. No. 40778 , Jan . 26, 1989)
If one of the four armed persons is a principal by inducement,

they do not form a band.
What is more, the supposed participation of the petitioner herein,
Modesto as in th e sam e information, wa s tha t
of principal by inducement, which undoubtedly connotes tha t he ha s
no direct participation in th e perpetration thereof. (Gamara vs.
Valero, No. Jun e 25, 1973, 51 SCRA 322 , 326)
Note: All the armed men , at leas t four in number, mus t take direct part
in the execution of the act constituting th e crime. (Art. 17,
paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code)
372
Nighttime , Uninhabited Place or Band Par. 6
When nighttime, uninhabited place, or by a band did not

facilitate the commission of the crime, was not especially
sought for, or was not taken advantage of.
Whe n four armed wh o casually me t another group of
three armed persons in an uninhabited place at nighttime, quarreled
with th e latter and, in the heat of anger, the two groups fought against
each other, resulting in the death of one of the three which formed
the other group, nighttime, uninhabited place, and by a band are not
aggravating circumstances.
Reason: Whe n th e mee t in g betwee n th e offenders and th e

group of th e decease d wa s casual , th e offenders could not have
sought for th e circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place and
their forming a band. Whe n th e offenders attacked the group of the
deceased in th e hea t of anger, the y could not have taken advantage
of such circumstances. And since the y did not afford the offenders
any advantage, suc h circumstances could not have facilitated the
commission of th e crime.
"By a band" is aggravating in crimes against property or against

persons or in the crime of illegal detention or treason.
The aggravating circumstance of by a band is considered in
crimes against property (People vs. Corpus, C.A., 43 O.G. 2249) and
in crimes against persons. (People vs. Laoto, 52 Phil. People
vs. Alcaraz, 103 Phil. 533 , 549; People vs. Aspili, G.R. Nos. 89418-19,
Nov. 1990, 191 SCRA 530, 543) It wa s take n into account also
in illegal detention (U.S. vs. Santiago, 2 Phil. 6, 8), and in treason.
(People vs. Manayao, 44 O.G. 4868)
Not applicable to crimes against chastity.

Thus, in the crime of rape committed by four armed persons, this cir•
cumstance was not considered. (People vs. Corpus, C.A., 43 O.G. 2249)
Abuse of superior strength and use of absorbed in

aggravating circumstance of "by a band."
The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of their
superior strength and with the use of firearms is absorbed by the
generic aggravating circumstance of the commission of the offense
by a band. (People vs. G.R. No. 42964, March 14, 1988)
373
Par. 7 On Occasion of Calamity or Misfortune
"By a band" is inherent in brigandage.

In the crime of brigandage, which is committed by more than
three armed persons forming a band of robbers (Art. 306), the cir•
cumstance that the crime wa s committed by a band should not be
considered as aggravating, because it is inherent in or is necessarily
included in the crime.
"By a band" is aggravating in robbery with homicide.

In the cases of People vs. Sawajan, 53 Phil. and People
vs. 85 Phil. 498, 503, it wa s held that in the imposition of th e
penalty for th e crime of robbery wit h homicide, th e aggravatin g
circumstance tha t the crime wa s committed by a band should be
taken into consideration.
Par. 7. — That the crime be committed on the occasion of a

conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune.

The basis of this aggravating circumstance ha s reference to th e
time of the commission of the crime.
Reason for the aggravation.

The reason for th e existence of thi s circumstance is found in th e
debased form of criminality me t in one who, in the midst of a great calamity,
instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking
advantage of their misfortune to despoil them . (U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil.
150, 157)
Example:
An example of this circumstance is the case of a fireman who commits
robbery in a burned house, or that of a thief who immediately after a
destructiv e typhoo n steal s persona l propert y from th e demolished houses.
374
Aid of Armed Men, etc. Par. 8
The offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfor•

tune.
Thus, if the accused wa s provoked by the offended party to commit the
crime during the calamity or misfortune, this aggravating circum• stance may
not be taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the penalty
because the accused did not take advantage of it.
"Chaotic condition" as an aggravating circumstance.

The phrase other calamity or misfortune" refers to other
conditions of distress similar to those precedingly enumerated, that
is, "conflagration, shipwreck, earthquak e or epidemic." Hence, cha•
otic conditions after liberation is not included under this paragraph.
(People vs. Corpus, 43 O.G. 2249)
Bu t in th e case of People vs. Penjan, C.A., 44 O.G. 3349, the

chaotic condition resultin g from th e liberation of Sa n Pablo wa s con•
sidered a calamity.
The development of engin e trouble at sea is a misfortune, but
it does not come withi n th e context of th e phrase "other calamity or
misfortune," as used in Art. 14, par. 7 of th e Revised Penal Code,
which refers to other conditions of distress similar to those precedingly
enumerated therein, namely, "conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake
or epidemic," such as th e chaotic conditions resulting from war or
the liberation of th e Philippines during th e last World War. Clearly,
no condition of great calamity or misfortune existed whe n the motor
banca developed engine trouble. (People vs. No. L-26789, April
25, 1969, 27 SCRA 1037, 1045)
Par. 8. — That the crime be committed with the aid of( 1) armed
men, or (2) persons who insure or afford impunity.

It is based on the means and ways of committing the crime.
Requisites of this aggravating circumstance.

That armed men or persons took part in the commission
of the crime, directly or indirectly.
375
Par. 8 Aid of Armed Men, etc.
2. That the accused availed of their aid or relied upon

them whe n the crime was committed.
Rule for the application of this circumstance.

The casual presence of armed men near the place where the crime
was committed does not constitute an aggravating circumstance whe n
it appears that the accused did not avail himself of their aid or rely
upon them to commit the crime.
The armed men must take part directly or indirectly.

The accused stabbed the deceased to death.
"The testimon y of th e accused, corroborated by tha t of th e
witnes s for th e prosecution, is tha t th e crime wa s committed by
him (accused) alone, withou t assistanc e from any one. It is true
tha t i n th e hous e nea r th e place wher e th e crime wa s committe d
there were te n me n armed wit h daggers, and five withou t arms , but
these men took no part, directly or indirectly, in the commission of
the crime, and it does not appear tha t the y heard th e conversation
which caused th e sudde n determinatio n on th e part of th e accused
to kill th e deceased. The accused, therefore, did not avail himsel f of
their aid or rely upon the m to commit th e (U.S . vs . Abaigar,
2 Phil. 417, 418)
Examples of "with the aid of armed men."

A, in order to ge t rid of he r husband , secure d th e service s of
other Moros b y promisin g the m reward s and ha d the m kill he r
husband. In accordance wit h th e plan, the y armed the mselv e s wit h
clubs, wen t to th e hous e of th e victim and clubbed hi m to deat h
whil e A held a lighte d lamp . A also supplie d the m wit h rope wit h
whic h to tie her husband . In thi s case, A committe d parricide "with
th e aid of arme d men." (People vs . G.R. No . L-45902 , Ma y
31 , 1938)
and L were prosecuted for robbery with rape. It appeared from
their written confessions that the y had companions who were armed
whe n they committed th e crime. It wa s held that the y were guilty of
robbery with rape wit h the aggravating circumstance of aid of armed
men. (People vs. Ortiz, 103 Phil. 944, 949)
376
Aid of Armed Men, etc. Par. 8
Exceptions:
(1) This aggravatin g circumstance shall not be considered
whe n both the attacking party and the party attacked were
equally armed. (Albert)
(2) This aggravating circumstance is not present whe n the
accused as well as those wh o cooperated with him in the
commission of th e crime acted under th e same plan and
for the same purpose. (People vs . 63 Phil. 546, 553;
People vs. Candado, No. L-34089, Aug. 1, 1978, 84 SCRA
508, 524)
"With the aid of armed men" (Par. 8), distinguished from "by
a band." (Par.
By a band requires that more tha n three armed malefactors shall
have acted together in the commission of an offense. Aid of armed men
is present eve n if one of th e offenders merely relied on their aid, for
actual aid is not necessary.
"Aid of armed men" is absorbed by "employment of a

band."
Thus, it is improper to separately take into account against the accused th
e aggravating circumstances of (1) th e aid of armed men, and (2) employment
of a band in appraising the gravity of th e offense, in view of th e definition of
band which includes any group of armed men, provided the y are at least four
in number. (People vs. Manayao, 78 Phil. 721, 728)
Note: If there are four armed men , aid of armed me n is ab•

sorbed in employment of a band. If there are three armed
me n or aid of armed me n may be the aggravating
circumstance.
"Aid of armed men" includes "armed women."

Aid of armed women is aggravating in kidnapping and serious
illegal detention. (People vs. 94 Phil. 839, 846)
But see People vs. 98 Phil. where it was opined
that some use of arms or show of armed strength is necessary to guard
377
Par. 9 Recidivist
a kidnap victim to prevent or discourage escape and so in a sense,

it may be justly regarded as included in or absorbed by the offense
(p. 340)
Par. 9. — That the accused is a recidivist.

This is based on th e greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his
inclination to crimes.
Who is a recidivist?
A recidivist is one who, at the time of hi s trial for one crime,
shall have been previously convicted by final judgmen t of another
crime embraced in th e sam e title of the Revised Pena l Code. (People
vs. G.R. No. 65833 , May 196 SCRA 611 , 619)
Requisites:
That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. Tha t he wa s previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime;
3. That both th e first and th e second offenses are embraced
in the same title of the Code;
4. That th e offender is convicted of th e ne w offense.
"At the time of his trial for one crime."

What is controlling is th e time of trial, not th e tim e of th e commission
of th e crime. It is not required tha t at th e tim e of th e commission of th e
crime, th e accused should have been previously convicted by final judgmen t
of another crime.
Meaning of "at the time of his trial for one crime."

The phrase "at the time of his trial" should not be restrictively
construed as to mea n th e date of arraignment. It is employed in its
general sense , including th e rendering of the judgment. It is mean t
to include everything that is done in the course of the trial, from
378
Recidivist Par. 9
arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge in open

court. (People vs. supra)
Held: The accused wa s not a recidivist. (People vs. Baldera, 86 Phil. 189,
193)
No recidivism the subsequent conviction is for an offense committed

before the offense involved in the prior conviction.
The accused wa s convicted of robbery wit h homicide committed
on December He wa s previously convicted of theft committed
on December 30, 1947.
Held: The accused wa s not a recidivist. (People vs. Baldera, 86

Phil. 189)
"Previously convicted by final judgment."

The accused wa s prosecuted an d tried for theft, estafa and
robbery. Judg ment s for three offenses were read on th e same day.
Is he a recidivist? No, because th e judgmen t in any of the first two
offenses wa s not yet final whe n he wa s tried for th e third offense.
Sec. 7 of Rule 120 of th e Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides tha t except where th e death penalty is imposed, a judgmen t
in a criminal case becomes final (1) after the lapse of the period for
perfecting an appeal, or (2) whe n th e sentence ha s been partially or
totally satisfied or served, or (3) th e accused ha s waived in writing
his right to appeal, or (4) the accused ha s applied for probation. Sec. 6
of Rule 122 of th e Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that
appeal mus t be taken within fifteen days from promulgation
or notice of the judgmen t or order appealed from."
The present crime and the previous crime must be "embraced

in the same title of this Code."
Thus, if the accused had been twice convicted of violation of section
824 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila and subsequently
he was prosecuted for violation of Article 195 of the Revised Penal
Code concerning gambling, is not a recidivist. (People vs. Lauleco,
C.A., 36 O.G. 956) When one offense is punishable by an ordinance or
special law and the other by the Revised Penal Code, the two offenses
are not embraced in the same title of the Code.
379
Par. 9 Recidivist
But recidivism was considered aggravating in a usury case where

the accused was previously convicted of the same offense. Under its
Art. 10, the Revised Penal Code should be deemed as supplementing
special laws of a penal character. (People vs. Hodges, 68 Phil. 178,
188)
Examples of crimes embraced in the same title of the Revised

Penal Code.
Robbery and theft are embraced in Title Ten, referring to crimes
against property. Homicide and physical injuries are embraced in
Title Eight, referring to crimes against persons. The felonies
and penalized in Book II of th e Revised Penal Code are grouped in
different titles. Title Ten and Title Eight are among them .
There is recidivism even if the lapse of time between two

felonies is more than years.
Recidivism mus t b e take n int o account a s a n a ggravatin g
circumstance no matter how man y years have intervened betwee n
the first and second felonies. (People vs. Colocar, 60 Phil. 878, 884;
See also People vs. No. L-28547, Feb. 22, 1974, 55 SCRA
563, 575, where the accused admitted their previous convictions.)
Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a
recidivist; but amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its ef•
fects.
This is th e ruling in th e case of U.S. vs. Sotelo, 28 Phil. 147,
160. According to Art. 89, amnest y extinguishe s th e penalty and all
its effects. There is no such provision wit h respect to pardon.
Therefore, pardon does not prevent a former conviction from being
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
The accused-appellant admitte d during th e trial tha t h e wa s
once convicted of th e crime of homicide but he wa s granted an abso•
lute pardon therefor. The lower court properly considered recidivism
since a pardon for a preceding offense does not obliterate th e fact
tha t th e accused is recidivist upon his conviction of a second of•
fense embraced in th e sam e title of th e Revised Pena l Code. (People
vs. Lacao, Sr., G.R. No. 95320 , Sept. 4, 1991 , 20 1 SCRA 317, 330 )
380
or Habituality Par. 10
Par. 10. — That the offender has been previously punished for
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which
it attaches a lighter penalty.

Th e basis is th e sam e as tha t of recidivism, i.e., the greater perversity
of th e offender as show n by hi s inclination to crimes.
Requisites:
Tha t th e accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another offense to
which th e law attache s an equal greater penalty, or for
two or more crimes to which it attache s lighter penalty
tha n tha t for th e ne w offense; and
3. Tha t he is convicted of the ne w offense.
The accused wa s convicted of homicide, les s serious physical
injuries, and slight physical injuries, all committed on January 14.
1979. He wa s found by th e trial court to have committed offenses prior
to and after tha t date, as follows: (1) prior to January, 1979, he wa s
arrested and accused of th e crime of theft; (2) on May 15, 1973, he
wa s likewise charged for physical injuries but said case wa s amicably
settled; (3) on January he wa s likewise charged for the crime
of theft and wa s convicted of said offense; (4) he wa s likewise charged
and convicted in another criminal case; (5) he wa s also charged for
theft but said case wa s settled amicably; and (6) he wa s charged and
convicted for theft on October In reiteracion or habituality,
it is essential tha t the offender be previously punished, that is, he
ha s served sentence, for an offense in which the law attaches, or
provides for an equal or greater penalty tha n that attached by law
to the second offense, or for two or more offenses, in which the law
attaches a lighter penalty. The records did not disclose that the
accused ha s been so previously punished. Reiteracion or habituality
is not attendant. (People vs. Villapando, G.R. No. Oct.
178 SCRA 341, 355)
"Has been previously punished."

This phrase in paragraph 10 mean s that the accused previ• ously
served sentence for another offense or sentence s for other
381
Par. 10 Reiteracion or Habituality
offenses before his trial for th e ne w offense. (See People vs. Abella, No. L-
32205, Aug. 31 , 1979, 93 SCRA 25, 48, where the rule wa s applied.)
The second requisit e is present: (1) whe n th e penalty pro•
vided by law for th e previous offense is equal to tha t for th e ne w
offense; or (2) whe n th e penalty provided by law for th e previou s
offense is greater; or (3) whe n th e accuse d served at least two
eve n if th e pena lt ie s provided by la w for th e crime s
are lighter.
"Punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal

penalty."
A served sentence for forcible abduction (Art. 342) punishable
by reclusion temporal, that is from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years.
Later, after A wa s released from prison, he committed homicide
249) punishable also by reclusion temporal. In fixing th e penalty for homicide,
the court will have to consider the aggravating circumstance of habituality
against A.
"Punished for an offense to which the law attaches

greater penalty."
Th e accused once served sentenc e for homicid e punisha bl e by
a penalt y rangin g from 12 year s an d 1 da y to 20 years . Now , he
is convicted of falsificatio n punisha bl e by a pena lt y rangin g
6 year s an d 1 da y to 12 years . Is ther e reiteracion or ha bitua lit y
i n thi s case? Yes , beca us e th e pena lt y for homicid e for whic h h e
serve d sentenc e greater tha n tha t for th e ne w offense (falsifica•
tion).
Suppose it wa s falsification first and homicide now? Then, there is no
habituality, because th e penalty for th e first offense is les s tha n that for th e
second offense. The penalty for th e first offense mus t at least be equal to tha t
for th e second offense.
Suppose it wa s homicide before and homicide now? Then, there is
recidivism, because the first and th e second offenses are embraced in th e sam
e title of th e Code. Although th e law requires only final judgmen t in
recidivism, even if th e convict served sentence for one offense, there is still
recidivism, provided th e first and th e second offenses are embraced in the
sam e title of th e Code.
382
Reiteracion or Habituality Par. 10
"Punished x x x for two or more crimes to which it attaches

a lighter penalty."
A served 30 days imprisonmen t for theft; later, he served 2
month s for estafa; now he is tried for homicide which is punishable
with reclusion temporal, tha t is, 12 years and 1 day to 20 years.
Not e tha t for th e previous tw o offenses, th e law provides lesse r
penalties.
It is the penalty attached to the offense, not the penalty actu•

ally imposed.
Paragrap h No . 10 of Art. 14 speak s of penalt y attached to th e
offense, whic h ma y hav e severa l periods. Hence , eve n if the accused
served th e penalt y of prision mayor in its minimu m period and is
now convicted of an offense for whic h th e penalt y of prision mayor
ma xi mu m is imposed , ther e is still habituality , provided tha t the
penalt y attache d to th e tw o offenses is prision mayor in its full
extent.
Reiteracion or habituality, not always aggravating.

If, as a result of takin g thi s circumstance into account, the
penalty for th e crime of murder would be death and the offenses
for which th e offender ha s been previously convicted are against
property and not directly against persons, th e court should exercise
its discretion in favor of th e accused by not taking this aggravating
circumstance into account. (1 Viada, 310)
Recidivism and reiteracion, distinguished.

The circumstance of reiteracion may be distinguished from that
of recidivism as follows:
(a) In reiteracion, it is necessary that the offender shall have
served out his sentence for the first offense; whereas, in
recidivism, it is enough that a final judgment has been
rendered in the first offense.
(b) In reiteracion, the previous and subsequent offenses must
not be embraced in the same title of the Code; whereas,
recidivism, requires that the offenses be included in the
same title of the Code.
383
Par. 10 Reiteracion or Habituality
(c) Reiteracion is not always an aggravating circumstance;

whereas, recidivism is always to be taken into consideration
in fixing the penalty to be imposed upon the accused.
The four forms of repetition are:

1. Recidivism. (Paragraph 9, Art. 14)
2. Reiteracion or habituality. (Paragraph 10, Art. 14)
3. Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency. (Art. 62 , para•
graph
4. Quasi-recidivism. (Art. 160)
The first two are generic aggravating while th e
third is an extraordinary aggravating circumstance. The fourth is a
special aggravating circumstance.
Habitual delinquency.
There is habitual delinquency whe n a person, withi n a period of
ten years from th e date of his release or last conviction of th e crimes
of serious or les s serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or
falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third tim e or of-
tener. (Art. 62 , last paragraph) In habitual delinquency, th e offender
is either a recidivist or one who ha s been previously punished for two
or more offenses (habituality). He shall suffer an additional penalty
for being a habitual delinquent.
Quasi-recidivism.
Any person who shall commit a felony after havin g bee n con•
victed by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or
while serving the same , shall be punished by the maximu m period
of th e penalty prescribed by law for th e ne w felony. (Art. 160)
Defendant, while serving sentence in Bilibid for one crime, struck and
stabbed th e foreman of the brigade of prisoners. Unde r Article 160 of th e
Code, he shall be punished with the maximu m period of th e penalty
prescribed by the law for the new felony. (People vs. Durante, 53 Phil. 363 ,
372)
384
Price, Reward or Promise Par. 11
Par. 11. — That the crime be committed in consideration of a

price, reward or promise.
Basis:
This is based on th e greater perversity of the offender, as shown
by th e motivating power itself.
This aggravating circumstance presupposes the concurrence

of two or more offenders.
Whe n thi s aggravatin g circumstance is present, there mus t
be two or more principals, th e one wh o gives or offers th e price or
promise and th e one wh o accepts it, both of who m are
the former, because he directly induces th e latter to commit the crime,
and th e latter because he commits it. (1 Viada, 262)
this paragraph applicable to the one who gave the price

or
When this aggravating circumstance is present, it affects not only
the person wh o received th e price or th e reward, but also the person
who gave it. (U.S. vs. 36 Phil. 923 , 924; U.S. vs. Maharaja
38 Phil. 1, 7)
The established rule in Spanis h jurisprudence is to the effect

that the aggravating circumstance of price, reward or promise thereof
affects equally th e offeror and the acceptor. (People vs. Alincastre,
No. Aug. 30, 1971 , 40 SCRA 391 , 408; People vs. Canete,
No. L-37945, May 28, SCRA 451 , 459)
P procured an ignorant ma n to kill the brother and of
P for a reward of P60. The ignorant man , following the instruction of
P, killed them. Held: Murder by inducement of a price is committed.
(U.S. vs. Parro, supra)
In the case of U.S. vs. Parro, price wa s a qualifying aggravating
circumstance.
The aggravating circumstance that the crime wa s committed
for hire or reward can be applied to the instigator of the crime. (U.S.
vs. 23 Phil. 81)
But in the case of People vs. Talledo and Timbreza, 85 Phil.
539, it was held that the aggravating circumstance of price or reward
385
Par. 11 Price, Reward or Promise
cannot be considered against the other accused for the reason that it
was not she who committed the crime in consideration of said price
or reward.
If the price, reward or promise is alleged in the information as a
qualifying aggravating circumstance, it shall be considered against all the
accused, it being an element of the crime of murder. In the case of Talledo and
Timbreza, price wa s considered as a generic aggravating circumstance only,
because it wa s not alleged to qualify the crime to murder.
Price, reward or promise must be for the purpose of inducing

another to perform the deed.
The evidence mus t show that one of the accused used money or
other valuable consideration for the purpose of inducing another to
perform the deed. (U.S. vs. 23 Phil. 81)
If without previous promise it wa s given voluntarily after th e
crime had been committed as an expression of hi s appreciation for
the sympathy and aid shown by other accused, it should not be take n
into consideration for the purpose of increasing the penalty. (U.S. vs.
Flores, 28 Phil. 29, 34)
The evidenc e show s tha t ther e wa s an offer of a rewar d by
appellan t Pascua l Bartolo me , and a promis e by appellan t Sa nto s ,
bu t th e ev idenc e i s no t co nclusiv e tha t a pp ella n t Be n Perla s
participated in th e commissio n of th e robbery by reaso n of suc h
reward or promise, it appearin g tha t eve n before th e othe r accuse d
me t wit h Pascua l Bartolom e an d th e othe r municipa l officials wh o
made the th e other accused had already decided to commit
th e robbery. No doubt, th e reward and th e promise aforementione d
mus t hav e g ive n th e othe r accused , incl ud i n g a p p e l la n t Be n
Perlas , further enco urag emen t in th e commissio n of th e robbery;
however, in our opinion, for thi s a gg ravatin g circumstanc e to be
considered agains t th e perso n induced , th e sai d inducemen t mus t
be th e primary consideratio n for th e co mmissio n of th e crime by
him. (People vs. Paredes , Nos . Aug. 2 4 SCRA
386
By Means of Fire, etc. Par. 12
Par. 12. — That the crime be committed by means of

inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a
vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment
of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice
involving great waste and ruin.

The basis ha s reference to means and ways employed.
Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish a

criminal purpose, any of the circumstances in paragraph
cannot be considered to increase the penalty or to change
the nature of the offense.
As generic aggravating circumstance.
A killed his wife by mean s of fire, as whe n he set their house on fire
to kill her; or by mean s of explosion, as whe n he threw a hand grenade
at her to kill her; or by mean s of poison which he mixed with the food
of his wife. In any of these cases, there is only a generic aggravating
circumstance, because the y cannot qualify the crime. The crime com•
mitted is parricide which is already qualified by relationship.
Whe n another aggravating circumstance already qualifies the
any of thes e aggravating circumstances shall be considered as
generic aggravating circumstance only.
When there is no actual design to kill a person in burning a house, it

is plain arson even if a person is killed.
When the crime intended to be committed is arson and somebody
dies as a result thereof, the crime is simply arson and the act resulting
in th e death of tha t person is not eve n an independent crime of
homicide, it being absorbed. (People vs. Paterno, et 85 Phil.
722)
If death resulted as a consequence of arson committed on any
of the properties and under any of the circumstances mentioned in
Articles 320 to 326, the court shall impose the death penalty. (Art.
320, Revised Penal Code, as amended)
On the other hand, if the offender had the intent to kill the
victim, burned the house where the latter was, and the victim died
387
Par. 12 By Means of Inundation, Fire, etc.
as a consequence, the crime is murder, qualified by the circumstance that the

crime wa s committed "by mean s of fire." (See Art. 248)
When used as a means to kill another person, the crime is

murder.
The killing of the victim by means of such circumstances as in•
undation, fire, poison, or explosion qualifies it to murder. (Art. 248, Par. 3)
1. "By means of fire"
In a case, the accused had set fire to an automobile under a
building, with the result that the edifice wa s consumed by fire. One
of the inmates of the house perished in the conflagration.
Held: In order to constitute murder, there should be an actual
design to kill and tha t th e use of fire should be purposely adopted as
a means to that end. (U.S. vs. Burns, 41 Phil. 418, 432)
Hence, if the purpose of th e explosion, inundation, fire or poison
is to kill a predetermined person, th e crime committed is murder.
Once any of thes e circumstances is alleged in th e information to
qualify the offense, it should not be considered as generic aggravat•
ing circumstance for th e purpose of increasing th e penalty, because
it is an integral elemen t of th e offense.
Bu t if a house wa s set on fire after the killing of th e victim,
there would be two separate crimes of arson and murder or homicide.
(People vs. Bersabal, 48 Phil. People vs. Piring, 63 Phil. 546,
552) There would not be an aggravating circumstance of "by mean s
of fire."
2. "By means of explosion"
What crime is committed if a hand grenade is thrown into th e house
where a family of seve n persons live, and as a result of th e explosion, the wall
of th e house is damaged, endangering th e lives of the people there?
The offense is a crime involving destruction. (Art. 324) If one of
the people there died, but there is no intent to kill on the part of the
offender, it will be a crime involving destruction also, but the penalty
will be death. But if there is intent to kill and explosion is by the
offender to accomplish hi s criminal purpose, it is murder the victim
dies as a direct consequence thereof.
388
By Means of Inundation, Fire, etc. Par. 12
3. means of derailment of locomotive"

Under Art. 330, which defines and penalizes the crime of damage
to mean s of communication, derailment of cars, collision or accident
mus t result from damag e to a railway, telegraph or telephone lines.
Bu t thi s is without prejudice to th e criminal liability for other
consequences of criminal act.
What crime is committed if as a result of the derailment
of cars only property is damaged? It is damage to mean s
of communication under Art. 330 .
(2) Wha t is th e crime if th e deat h of a person also results
without intent to kill on th e part of th e offender? It is a
complex crime of damag e to mean s of communication with
homicide. (Arts. 33 0 and 24 9 in relation to Arts. 4 and
48)
(3) Wha t is th e crime committed , if th e deat h of a person
resulted and there was intent to kill on th e part of the
offender? It is murder, because th e derailment of cars or
locomotive wa s th e mean s use d to kill th e victim. (Art.
248)
(4) Mus t thi s aggravating circumstance be considered to raise
th e penalty, if it already qualifies th e crime to murder? No,
because of Art. 62 , par. which provides tha t whe n the
aggravating circumstance is included by the law in defin•
ing a crime, it shall not be take n into consideration for the
purpose of increasing th e penalty.
It will be noted tha t each of th e circumstances of "fire," "explo• sion,"
and "derailment of a locomotive" ma y be a part of the defini• tion of
particular crime, such as , arson (Art. 320), crime involving destruction (Art.
324), and damage s and obstruction to mean s of communication. (Art. 330)
In these cases, they do not serve to increase the penalty, because they
are already included by the law in defining the crimes.
Par. 12 distinguished from Par. 7.

Under par. 12, the crime is committed by means of any of such acts
involving great wast e or ruin. Under par. 7, the crime is com• mitted on the
occasion of a calamity or misfortune.
389
Par. 13 Evident Premeditation
Par. 13. — That the act be committed with evident premedita•

tion.

The basis ha s reference to the ways of committing the crime,
because evident premeditation implies a deliberate planning of the
act before executing it.
Illustration of deliberate planning of the act before executing

it.
Pastor Labutin had planned to liquidate Simplicio Tapulado.
The plan could be deduced from the outward circumstances shown
from the time he walked wit h Vicente and Angel Libre (the
triggermen) to the house of Lucio where he caused his co-
accused to be drunk, the breaking out of his plan to kill the victim
to his co-accused at th e time whe n he kne w that they were already
drunk, hi s remark tha t he had grudge against the victim in reply to
the comment of Vicente Ompad that he had no ill-feeling against hi m
(victim), his immediate action to supply the ammunition whe n Vicente
Ompad remarked about th e lack of it, and hi s being always near th e
triggermen at the critical moment s whe n the crime wa s actually to
take place. These circumstances were mean s which he considered
adequate and effective to carry out the intended commission. He
had sufficient time to reflect and allow his conscience to overcome
hi s resolutio n t o kill. Tha t Pasto r La buti n acte d wit h know n
premeditation, is evident indeed. (People vs. Ompad, No.
Jan. 31 , 1969, 26 SCRA 750, 759)
Evident premeditation may be considered as to principal by

induction.
Thus, whe n Gil as far back as March 1907, attempted to
induce Batolinao to kill th e priest; in March 1909, two month s prior
to th e murder, he offered Patpa t to kill th e priest; som e day s
prior to th e murder, he said tha t an anarchistic society ha d bee n
formed wit h th e object of killing th e friars; and on th e afternoon of
May 15, he presided at th e meetin g held in hi s own house , wher e it
wa s agreed tha t th e priest should be killed and he there deliberately
selecte d hi s nephe w to commi t th e crime, and directly induced
him to do it; the crime, in so far as Gil Gamao wa s concerned, wa s
390
Evident Premeditation Par. 13
committed wit h know n premeditation. (U.S. vs. Gamao, 23 Phil. 81 , 96)
Essence of premeditation.
Th e essenc e o f pre med it a t io n i s tha t th e executio n o f th e
criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon
th e resolution to carry out th e criminal inten t during th e space of
tim e sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. (People vs. Durante ,
53 Phil. 363 , 369 )
Eviden t premeditation ha s bee n fully established. The com•

mission of th e crime wa s premeditated and reflected upon and wa s
preceded by cool though t and a reflection wit h the resolution to carry
out the criminal inten t during a spa n of tim e sufficient to arrive at
the hour of judgment. (People vs . No. L-42964, March 14,
SCRA 602 , 612)
Thus , evident premeditation ma y not be appreciated absent

any proof as to how and whe n th e plan to kill wa s hatched or wha t
time elapsed before it wa s carried out. (People vs. G.R. No.
71153, Aug. 16, 1991 , 20 0 SCRA 624, 635)
Neithe r is it aggravating where the fracas wa s the result of
rising tempers, not a deliberate plan (People vs. Padrones, G.R. No.
85823, Sept. SCRA 496, nor whe n the attack wa s
made in th e hea t of anger. (People vs. No. L-39046, Jun e 30,
1975, 64 SCRA 729, 734)
It is not aggravating in the absence of evidence showing that the
accused had, prior to th e killing, resolved to commit the same, nor is
there proof that the shooting of the victim wa s the result of medita•
tion, calculation or resolution, and th e deceased wa s unknown to the
accused before the incident. (People vs. Samonte, Jr., No.
June 11, 1975, 64 SCRA 319, 326)
The premeditation must be "evident."

There mus t be evidence showing that the accused meditated
and reflected on his intention between the time when the crime was
conceived by him and the time it was actually perpetrated. (People
vs. Carillo, 77 Phil. 579) The premeditation must be evident and not
merely suspected. (People vs. Yturriaga, 86 Phil. 534, 538; People vs.
391
No. L-32733, Sept. 11, 1974, 59 SCRA 31, 38-39; People

vs. Lacao, No. L-32078, Sept. 30, 1974, 60 SCRA 89, 95)
Requisites of evident premeditation:

The prosecution mus t prove —
1. The time whe n th e offender determined to commit th e
crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit ha s clung to
his determination; and
3. A sufficient lapse of time betwee n th e determinatio n an d
execution , to allow hi m to reflect upon th e consequence s
of hi s act and to allow hi s conscience to overcome th e
reso lutio n o f hi s will . (Peopl e vs . Lagarto , G.R. No .
65883 , Ma y 6 , 1991 , 196 SCRA 611 , 619-620 ; Peopl e vs .
Clamor, G.R. No . 82708 , 198 SCRA 642 , 655 ; Peopl e vs .
Pacris , G.R. No . 69986 , March 5, 1991 , 194 SCRA 654 ,
664 ; Peopl e vs . Iligan, G.R. No . 75369 , Nov . 26 , 1990 ,
191 SCRA 643 , 653 ; Peopl e vs . Requipo, G.R. No . 90766 ,
Aug . 13, 1990 , 188 SCRA 571 , 57 7 and legion s of othe r
cases )
Example:
U.S. vs. Manalinde

(14 Phil. 77)
Facts: The accused who pleaded guilty confessed that his wife died
about one hundred days before; that he was directed by Datto Mupuck
to go huramentado and to kill the two persons he would meet in the
town; that if he was successful in the matter, Mupuck would give him
a pretty woman on his return; that in order to carry out his intention
to kill two persons in the town of Cotabato, he provided himself with a
kris, which he concealed in banana leaves; that he travelled for a day
and a night from his home; that upon reaching the town, he attacked
from behind a Spaniard, and immediately after, he attacked a
man who was close by; and that he had no quarrel with the assaulted
Held: Those facts established the aggravating circumstance of

evident premeditation.
392
Manalinde illustrates the three requisites of evident premedi•

tation.
First requisite —
On a certain date, Manalind e accepted th e proposition tha t

he would turn huramentado and kill the first two persons he would
mee t in the marke t place. On said date, the offender is said to have
determined to commit th e crime.
Second requisite —
He undertook the journey to comply therewit h and provided

himself with a weapon. The journey and the carrying of the weapon
are acts manifestly indicating tha t th e offender clung to his determi•
nation to commit th e crime.
Third requisite —
After th e journey for a day and a night, he killed the victims.
One day and one nigh t constitute a sufficient lapse of time for the
offender to realize th e consequences of his contemplated act.
Other illustrative cases.
The circumstance of evident premeditation is present because
on tha t very Friday afternoon immediatel y after the incident at the
canteen, appellant Renegado, giving vent to his anger, told his co-em•
ployee, Ramirez, and th e security guard, Velasco, that he wa s going
to kill Lira. That state of mind of appellant wa s evident once more
whe n he wen t to th e school dance that sam e Friday evening and he
asked another security guard if Lira wa s at the dance. On the following
day, Saturday, appellant me t Mrs. Benita Tan to whom he confided
that had he see n Lira the night before he would surely have killed
him. And on Monday morning, knowing Lira's snack time, appellant
armed himself with a knife, proceeded to the canteen at around 9:30
a.m. and seeing the teacher Lira with his back towards him, stabbed
Lira from behind. (People vs. Renegado, No. May 31, 1974,
57 SCRA 275, 290)
What else can better portray this circumstance that the frequent
meetings of the four accused at the Barrio Fiesta Restaurant in order
to discuss, lay out the plan, and secure the different paraphernalia
consisting of the rope, icepick, flannel cloth, flashlight and shovel?
Added to this is the careful selection of an "ideal" site for the
393
happening. (People vs. Ong, No. L-34497, Jan. 30, 1975, 62 SCRA
The admissio n of th e accused tha t he had wit h hi m a .22

caliber revolver on th e afternoon of December 12, 1969; tha t whe n
he sa w the victim driving hi s car on P. Parede s Street he followed
him up to th e corner of P. Parede s and Lepanto Street s wher e he
shot th e victim eight time s suddenl y and withou t any warning ,
speak s elo quent l y o f hi s pla n g enera t e d b y a n a ll - co nsu min g
hatred, to kill the person who m he considered responsible for all hi s
misfortunes. The lower court did not, therefore, err in considering
th e aggravatin g circumstanc e of eviden t premeditatio n agains t
th e appellant. (People vs . Benito , No . L-32042 , Feb. 13, 1975 , 6 2
351 , 359 )
There is evident premeditation where on the night whe n de•
ceased slapped th e accused and asked him to kneel down, th e latter
made it clear that he would avenge his humiliation; whe n two days
later accused looked inside a bus for th e deceased and not finding
him there said that if deceased were there, he had something for him .
Accused found deceased seated in a jeep and stabbed him. (People vs .
Mojica, No. L-30742, April 30, 1976, 70 SCRA 502, 508-509)
The date and time when the offender determined to commit

the crime essential.
The date and, if possible, the time whe n th e offender determined to
commit th e crime is essential, because th e lapse of time for th e purpose of the
third requisite is computed from that date and time.
Second requisite necessary.

The premeditation mus t be based upon external acts and not
presumed from mere lapse of time. (U.S. vs. 1 Phil. 173,
176)
The criminal inten t evident from outward acts mus t be notori•
ous and manifest, and the purpose and determination mus t be plain
and have been adopted after mature consideration on th e part of th e
persons who conceived and resolved upon th e perpetration of the
crime, as a result of deliberation, meditation and reflection sometim e
before its commission. (People vs . Zapatero, No . Aug. 15,
1974, 58 SCRA 450, 459; U.S. vs. 24 Phil. 69, 73)
394
Thus, although in offender's confession there is a statemen t

that, on th e morning of Jun e 29, whe n he heard tha t wa s at
large, he proposed to kill him, there is an entire absence of evidence
showing tha t he meditated and reflected on his intention between the
time it wa s conceived and the time the crime wa s actually perpetrated.
(People vs. 77 Phil. 572)
Second requisite exists.

After th e offenders had determined (conceived) to commit the crime, the
y manifestly indicated tha t the y clung to their determina• tion —
(a) When th e crime wa s carefully planned by th e offenders.
(b) Whe n th e offenders previously prepared the mean s which
the y considered adequate to carry it out. (U.S. vs. Cornejo,
28 Phil. 457)
(c) Whe n a grave wa s prepared at an isolated place in the
field for th e reception of th e body of th e person whom the
criminals intended to kill. (U.S. vs . 13 Phil.
660)
(d) Whe n th e defendants mad e repeated statement s that the
hour of reckoning of th e victim would arrive and armed
themselve s wit h deadly weapons . (People vs. Lopez, 69
Phil. 298)
(e) Whe n the defendant commenced to sharpen his bolo on
the afternoon preceding th e night of the crime. (U.S. vs.
Liwakas, 17 Phil. 234)
(f) When the defendant, according to his own confession, three
times attempted to take th e life of the deceased in order
to be able to marry his widow, with whom he was in love.
(People vs. Ducusin, 53 Phil. 280)
(g) Where the accused repeatedly plotted the commission of
the murder over a period of several weeks and, on at least
two occasions, made preliminary efforts to carry it out.
(People vs. Jaravata, G.R. No. L-22029, August 15, 1967,
20 SCRA 1014)
395
Mere threats without the second element does not show

evident premeditation.
A threat to kill, unsupported by other evidence which would
disclose the true criminal state of mind of the accused, will
only be construed as a casual remark naturally emanating
from a feeling of rancor and not a resolution of the character
involved in evident premeditation. (People vs. Fuentesuela,
G.R. No. April 22, 1942)
(2) The mere fact that the accused stated in his extrajudicial
confession that as soon as he heard that the deceased had
escaped from the army stockade he prepared to kill him,
is not sufficient to establish evident premeditation. It is
necessary to establish that the accused meditated on his
intention between the time it wa s conceived and the time
the crime wa s actually perpetrated. Defendant's proposition
wa s nothing but an expression of his own determination
to commi t th e crim e whic h i s entirel y different from
premeditation. (People vs. 77 Phil. 572)
(3) Evident premeditation wa s not present in the case at bar. It

is true tha t two days immediately preceding th e shooting,
appellant threatened to shoot the deceased and on th e eve
of th e killing, appellant expressed hi s intention to finish
him. However, there wa s no showing, tha t in between ,
appellant made plans or sought the deceased to accomplish
the killing. In fact, th e killing happened whe n appellant
wa s plowin g th e field an d th e decease d unexpectedl y
appeared thereat. It is clear that appellant's act of shooting
th e deceased wa s not premeditated. The rule is that th e
qualifying circumstance of premeditation is satisfactorily
establishe d only if it is proved tha t th e defendant had
deliberately planned to commi t th e crime , an d ha d
persistently and continuously followed it, notwithstandin g
that he had ample time to allow hi s conscience to overcome
th e determination of hi s will, if he had so desired, after
meditation and This circumstance i s
not proven where there is no evidence as to the time whe n
th e defendant decided to kill the victim. (People vs.
Sarmiento, No. May 31 , 1963, 8 SCRA 263, 267-
268; People vs. Bautista, 79 Phil. 652 , 657)
396
Existence of ill-feeling or grudge alone is not proof of evident

premeditation.
While th e appellant migh t hav e nursed a grudge or resentmen t
against th e victim, tha t circumstance is not a conclusive proof of evi•
dent premeditation. (People vs . Lacao, No. L-32078, Sept. 30, 1974
60 SCRA 89, 95)
It is true tha t about twelv e days before th e killing, the accused

tried to injure th e victim. He desisted after he wa s restrained by third
persons wh o intervened during th e altercation. The prosecution's
evidence does not show th e step s tha t th e accused took thereafter in
order tha t he could kill th e victim on tha t fateful hour whe n the latter
wa s answerin g a call of nature on th e porch of hi s house. Possibly,
the killing wa s actually premeditated but th e prosecution's evidence
is not conclusive on th e presence of tha t aggravating circumstance.
(People vs. Manangan , No. L-32733, Sept. 11, 1974, 59 SCRA 31,
39)
The mere fact tha t after lunch time th e accused mauled and
detained th e victim and tha t at around four o'clock, while th e latter
wa s in their custody, he wa s killed, would not mea n that there wa s
evident premeditation. (People vs. Manzano, Nos . L-33643-44, July
31 , 1974, 58 SCRA 250, 261-262)
What is sufficient lapse of time?

Evident premeditation wa s held attendant where the ac•
cused had had three day's time to meditate upon the crime
which he intended to commit, and wa s not prompted by the
impulse of the moment. (People vs. 92 Phil. 668,
670)
2. Th e existenc e of eviden t premeditatio n is undeniable.
From th e incident that dated back one month previously
whe n the deceased during a fight, slapped the appellant
and ordered him to kneel down, the humiliation inflicted
him caused hi m to persist in the thought that one day he
would be avenged. So he made it clear on the very same
evening of that encounter. Two days later, he stepped on
the running board of a bus, peeped inside and inquired
if the deceased wa s there. When he did not find him, he
made the remark that if he were there, he had something
397
for him. Under such a circumstance, the premeditation to inflict

harm is quite evident. (People vs. Mojica, 70 Phil. 502, 508-509)
3. Evident premeditation wa s attendant where the accused
had one whole day to make the necessary preparations from
the time he conceived the idea of attacking the deceased.
4. Evident premeditation wa s attendant where the accused
had more tha n one-half day for meditation and reflection
and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of
his will las de la voluntad) had he
desired to hearken to its warnings. (U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil.
530, 547; People vs. Diaz, No. L-24002, Jan. 21 , 1974, 55
SCRA 178, 188)
5. Four hours tha t intervened betwee n rage and aggression
of the accused is sufficient tim e for desistance. (People vs .
70 Phil. 525, 527)
6. When the accused came to know that th e deceased deliv•
ered only 100 bundles of corn, he wa s enraged. Tha t wa s
3:00 p.m. At 7:00 p.m. of sam e date, th e accused armed
himself with a bolo and lance, wen t to th e hous e of th e
deceased, and killed th e latter. The lapse of tim e of 3 1/2
hours betwee n th e plan and th e commission of th e crime is
sufficient time for the offenders to reflect dispassionately
upon the consequences of their contemplated act. (People
vs. Mostoles, 85 Phil. 883 , 892)
7. Evident premeditation wa s attendant where th e accused

apprehended the victims about 10 o'clock in th e evenin g
and the crime wa s consummate d at about 1 o'clock early
th e following morning. The accused had sufficient tim e
to meditate and reflect on th e consequences of their act.
(People vs. Berdida, No. Jun e SCRA
520, 530)
Three hours or less considered sufficient lapse of time.

Evident premeditation preceded the commission of the crime.
The slaying wa s done about three hours from the time the scheme to
kill was plotted. (People vs. Gausi, G.R. No. Jun e
398
Bu t wher e th e defendant constabulary soldier wa s rebuked by

his superior at around 7:00 a.m. and, a quarter of an hour later, he
shot to death hi s superior, there wa s no premeditation because a
sufficient tim e did not elapse to allow the conscience of the accused
to overcome th e resolution of hi s will if he desired to hearken to its
warning. (U.S. vs . Blanco, 18 Phil. 206, 208)
Th e appellan t ha d onl y abou t half an hour for meditatio n

and reflection from th e tim e h e left th e house , wen t t o hi s camp ,
put on hi s fatigue uniform, got a garan d rifle and returned to said
house, followed th e serenader s a short distanc e and the n fired th e
two shots . Th e tim e wa s insufficient for full meditatio n and reflec•
tion. (People vs . Pantoja, No . Oct. 11, 1968, 25 SCRA 468,
471 )
Bu t in People vs. Dumdum, Jr., No . Jul y 30, 1979, 92

SCRA 198, 202 , it wa s held tha t th e killing of the deceased wa s ag•
gravated by evident premeditation because th e accused conceived of
th e assaul t at leas t one hour before its perpetration.
However, in th e later case People vs. Crisostomo, No.
Oct. SCRA evident premeditation wa s rejected
because th e accused planned to kill th e deceased at 7 o'clock in the
morning and th e killing took place at 9 o'clock the sam e morning. The
accused did not hav e sufficient tim e to reflect during the two hours
tha t preceded th e killing.
Why sufficient time is required.

Th e offender mus t hav e an opportunity to coolly and serenely think
and deliberate on th e meanin g and th e consequences of wha t he planne d to
do, an interval long enoug h for hi s conscience and better judgmen t to
overcome hi s evil desire and scheme. (People vs. Mendoza, 91 Phil. 58, 64)
Evident premeditation contemplates cold and deep meditation,
and tenacious persistence in the accomplishment of the criminal act.
(People vs . Gonzales, 76 Phil. 473) Mere determination to commit
the crime does not of itself establish evident premeditation for it
mus t appear, not only tha t th e accused made a decision to commit
the crime prior to th e moment of execution, but also that his decision
wa s the result of meditation, calculation or reflection or persistent
attempt. (People vs. 77 Phil. 572; People vs. Sarmiento, No.
May 31 , 1963, 8 SCRA 263 , 268)
399
There must be sufficient time between the outward acts and

the actual commission of the crime.
Thus, the mere fact that the accused was lying in wait for his
victim just before the attack is not sufficient to sustain a finding of
evident premeditation, in the absence of proof that he had been lying
in wait for a substantial period of time. (U.S. vs. Buncad, 25 Phil.
530, 539)
But whe n it appears that the accused borrowed a bolo for the
purpose of committing the crime early in the morning and wa s lying
in wait for some time before he attacked his victim, evident premedi•
tation is sufficiently established. (U.S. vs. Mercoleta, 17 Phil. 317,
320)
Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation.

Where conspiracy is directly established, wit h proof of the at•
tendant deliberation and selection of the method, time and mean s
of executing the crime, the existence of evident premeditation can
be taken for granted. (U.S. vs. Cornejo, 28 Phil. 457, 461 ; People vs.
74 Phil. 295, 297)
Exception:
Bu t whe n conspirac y i s onl y implied, eviden t premedita •
tion may not be appreciated, in th e absence of proof as to ho w and
whe n the plan to kill the victim wa s hatched or wha t time had elapsed
before it wa s carried out. (People vs. Custodio, 97 Phil. 698 , 704;
People vs. Upao Moro, G.R. No. May 28, 1957)
Evident premeditation and price or reward can

The aggravating circumstance of price, reward, or promise ma y be
taken into consideration independently of the fact tha t premedita• tion ha s
already been considered, inasmuc h as there exists no incom• patibility between
thes e two circumstances, because if it is certain that as a general rule price or
reward implies premeditation, it is no less certain that th e latter may be
present without the former. (U.S. vs. Robor, 7 Phil. 726, 728)
Premeditation is absorbed by reward or promise. (People vs.
G.R. No. December 24, 1938)
400
Bu t thi s rule is applicable only to th e inductor. The mere fact that

another executed the act on the promise of reward does not neces• sarily mea n
tha t he had sufficient tim e to reflect on the consequences of his act. (U.S. vs.
Manalinde, 14 Phil. 77, 82)
When victim is different from that intended, premeditation is

not aggravating.
Evident premeditation may not be properly taken into account
whe n th e person who m th e defendant proposed to kill wa s different
from th e one wh o became hi s victim. (People vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil.
967, 970; People vs. Guillen, 85 Phil 307, 318; People vs. Hilario, et
G.R. No. 128083 , March 16, 2001)
Distinguish the ruling in the case from that in the Guillen

case.
It is true tha t in th e case of People vs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307, it
wa s held that whe n the person killed is different from the one intended
to be killed, th e qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation
ma y not be considered as present; however, in th e case of People vs.
Timbol, et G.R. Nos . Augus t it wa s held
tha t evident premeditation ma y be considered as present, even if a
person other tha n th e intended victim wa s killed, if it is shown that
th e conspirators were determined to kill not only the intended victim
but also any one who may help him put a violent resistance. (People
vs. 97 Phil. 515, 535)
It is not necessary that there is a plan to kill a particular

person.
For premeditation to exist, it is not necessary that the accused planned to
kill a particular person.
(1) The criminal intent which wa s carried out wa s to kill the
first two persons whom the accused should meet at the
place where he intended to commit the crime. Evident
premeditation wa s considered against the accused. (U.S.
vs. Manalinde, 14 Phil. 77, 82)
(2) After careful and thoughtful meditation , th e accused
decide d t o kill , a t th e firs t o ppo rt un ity , whatever
individual he should mee t from th e town of Macabebe,
401
on account of th e previous illnes s of hi s son of cholera

which he attributed to the persons from Macabebe. Held:
Ina smuc h as th e accused int entio nall y sough t out a
nativ e of th e tow n of Macabebe, a human being, ther e is
no doubt that , actuate d by th e impuls e of hi s prejudice
agains t an y individual from Macabebe and obedient to
hi s criminal resolution seriously conceived and selecte d
to carry out vengeance , he perpetrated th e crime wit h
premeditation. (U.S . vs . Zalsos and 40 Phil. 96,
103)
(3) A general attack upon a having been premeditated

and planned, the killing of any individual during the attack
is attended by the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation. (U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil. U.S.
vs. Binayoh, 35 Phil. 23, 30; U.S. vs. Butag, 38 Phil. 746,
747)
Reason for the difference of the rulings.

Whe n th e offender decided to kill a particular person and pre•
meditated on the killing of the latter, but whe n he carried out hi s plan he
actually killed another person, it cannot properly be said tha t he premeditated
on the killing of the actual victim.
Bu t if the offender premeditated on the killing of any person, like th e
offender in th e Manalinde case who decided to kill th e first two persons he
would meet in the market place, it is proper to consider against the offender
the aggravating circumstance of premeditation, because whoever is killed by
him is contemplated in hi s premedita• tion.
And where th e victim belonged to the class designated by the accused,
although the victim wa s not previously determined by him, premeditation is
an aggravating circumstance.
In th e case of U.S. vs. Zalsos and Ragmac, supra, the victim, a
peddler from th e tow n of Macabebe, belonged to th e class designated
by th e accused, tha t is, "persons from to who m he attrib•
uted th e existence of a cholera epidemic in his barrio. Such being th e
case, an y individual from the tow n of Macabebe wa s contemplated in
his premeditation.
402
Craft, Fraud or Disguise Par. 14
Distinguished from the Caranto case.

In th e Caranto case, it appears tha t th e victim was also
termined, and th e threat s mad e by defendant wh o had lost a fishing
boat wa s tha t either he or th e thief would be turned into ghost. The
killing of th e thief afterwards wa s held not to be murder qualified
by evident premeditation, because there wa s merely a threat which
wa s not of a direct and specific character. (U.S. vs. Caranto, 4 Phil.
256, 257)
Evident premeditation, while inherent in robbery, may be

aggravating in robbery with homicide if the premeditation
included the killing of the victim.
It is inheren t in robbery, specially wher e it is committed by
various persons , becaus e the y mus t hav e a n agreement , the y have
to meditat e and reflect on th e manne r of carrying out th e crime
and the y hav e to act coordinately in order to succeed. Bu t if there
is eviden t premeditatio n not only to stea l personal property in th e
hous e of Judg e Bautist a bu t also to kill him , it shall be considered
to increase th e penalty. (People vs . 90 Phil. People
vs . Nabual , No . L-27758, Jul y 14, 1969, 28 SCRA 747, 752)
If there is no evidence tha t th e conspirators previously planned and

agreed to kill th e victims , eviden t premeditatio n is not aggra• vatin g in
robbery wit h homicide. (People vs. Pulido, 85 Phil. 695, 709)
Where th e killing of a person during th e commission of robbery
wa s only an incident, because their original plan wa s only to rob, and
the y killed the deceased whe n th e latter refused to open the de
and fought with them, this aggravating circumstance should be
disregarded. (People vs. No. L-32040, Oct. 97 SCRA
570, 576)
Par. 14. - That (1) craft, (2) fraud, or (3) disguise be employed.

The basis ha s reference to the mean s employed in the commis• sion of
the crime.
403
Par. 14 Craft, Fraud or Disguise
Application of this paragraph.

This circumstance is characterized by the intellectual or mental rather
than the physical mean s to which the criminal resorts to carry out his design.
This paragraph wa s intended to cover, for example, the case where a thief
falsely represents that he is the lover of the serv• ant of a house in order to
gain entrance and rob the owner
or where A simulate s the handwriting of B, who is a
of C, inviting the latter, without the knowledge of B, by mean s of a
note written in such simulated hand, to meet B at the designated
place, in order to give A, who lies in wait at the place appointed, an
opportunity to kill or where one use s a disguise to prevent
being recognized. (U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 150, 155)
Craf t (involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the

accused).
Craft involves th e us e of intellectual trickery or cunning on the part of
the accused. It is not attendant where th e accused wa s practi• cally in a
stupor whe n th e crime wa s committed. (People vs. Juliano, No. L-33053, Jan
. 28, 1980, 95 SCRA 511 , 526)
Craft is chicanery resorted to by th e accused to aid in th e
execution of his criminal design. It is employed as a scheme in th e
execution of the crime. It is not attendant where th e regular driver
of the victim feigned illness to enable another driver to drive for th e
victim who drove th e vehicle first to the house of th e regular driver
who said he wa s already well and so he boarded wit h hi s co-accused,
took over the driver's seat, and during th e trip shot th e victim wh o
wa s also on board th e vehicle. (People vs. Zea, No. Jun e 29,
1984, 130 SCRA 77, 81 , 90)
Where four men , havin g determined to kill a ma n in an un•
inhabited place so tha t th e crime might be les s easily discovered,
invited him to go wit h the m on a journey to a distant mountai n on
the pretense tha t the y would find there a tree from which
flowed a liquid supposed to have a peculiar virtue, and murdered him
in a remote and uninhabited place, th e aggravating circumstance of
craft wa s present and should be take n into account for th e purpose
of increasing th e penalty. (U.S. vs. 36 Phil. 817, 818, 820;
People vs. Alcaraz, 103 Phil. 533 , 549)
The act of th e accused in pretending to be bona fide passenger s
in the taxicab driven by th e deceased, whe n they were not so in fact,
404
in order not to arouse hi s suspicion, and the n killing him, constituted

craft. (People vs. Daos, 60 Phil. 143, 154)
The act of the accused in assumin g position of authority, pretend•

ing to be a membe r of th e whe n he wa s not, to gain entrance and
be able to be wit h th e offended party alone in the latter's house, thu s
enabling hi m to commit acts of against her, constituted
craft. (People vs. Timbol, C.A., 47 O.G. 1869)
Where defendants pretended to be constabulary soldiers to gain entry

into th e place of the victims, craft is properly appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. (People vs. Saquing, No. L-27903, Dec. 26, 1969, 30 SCRA 834 ,
844)
The act of th e accused in brushing the dirt on the pants of the offended
party, which the accused himself had dirtied, and while the attention of the
offended party wa s centered on the act of the accused, a confederate of the
accused grabbed the wallet of the offended party from behind, constituted
craft. (People vs. Bagtas, C.A., 47 O.G. 1251)
In a case wher e th e defendants asked the offended party to
change a and, whe n the latter took out his wallet, the defend•
ants snatched it from th e han d of th e offended party, it wa s held that
th e crime of robbery wa s attended by the aggravating circumstance
craft. (People vs. Mallari, 60 Phil. 400, 402 , 405)
Craft wa s used by the accused in th e commission of the offense of
rape whe n th e accused resorted to th e us e of innocent-looking choco•
late candies which did not arouse the suspicion of the complainant
that the y contained deleterious drug, the purpose of the accused in
giving the m being to weake n her resistance so that she would not be
able to repulse physically and mentally his sexual assault. (People
vs. Guy, C.A., 64 O.G. 13557)
There is craft where the accused lures out the victim from his house in
order to be killed. (People vs. Barbosa, No. L-39779, Nov. 7, 1978, 86 SCRA
217, 225)
Craft wa s attendant where all the accused with murder in their hearts
pretended to accompany the victim in a friendly manner in going home and
in order to lure him into a false sense of security and making him unmindful
of the tragedy that would befall him, one of them even placed his hands on
the shoulder of the victim while walk• ing. (People vs. Molleda, No. L-34248,
Nov. 21 , 1978, 86 SCRA 667,
705)
405
The presence of craft cannot be disputed for th e appellant had

deceived the victim into coming to her apartment under the pretext
of accompanying the victim to the bank, and played on th e victim's
seeming fondness for one Reynaldo Sioson to lure said victim to
the third floor of th e apartmen t where th e appellant committed
the crime. The unsuspectin g victim found herself caught in th e
malevolent trickery practiced by the appellant, the consequence of
which proved fatal. (People vs. Rodriguez, No. March 31 ,
1980, 96 SCRA 722 , 738-739)
But craft is not attendant where the unlawful scheme could have
been carried out just the same even without the pretense. (People vs.
Nos. 89418-19, Nov. SCRA 530, 543)
Craft, when not an aggravating circumstance.

Where craft partakes of an elemen t of th e offense, th e sam e
may not be appreciated independently for th e purpose of aggrava•
tion. Vide, Article 62 , pars. 1 and 2, Revised Pena l Code. Thus, whe n
the offender never intended to genuinely enter into the transaction
of purchase and sale wit h th e owner of the jeep, to th e offender th e
deed of sale being a sham , as he did not pay th e price thereof, th e
fraud take s th e place of trespas s in th e taking of th e jee p involved in
th e crime of qualified theft committed by him. (People vs.
C.A., 59 O.G. 4521)
Craft is not clearly established where th e evidence show s tha t
the accused and hi s companions, wh o came out from behind a patch
of bamboo trees, did not camouflage their hostile intentions at th e
incipiency of th e attack, as the y announced their presence at th e
scene of th e crime wit h shouts and gunshots. (People vs . Cunanan ,
No. Jan . 20, 1977, 75 SCRA 15, 17, 23)
F r a u d (insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim

to act in a manner which would enable the offender to carry out his
design).
Where th e defendants induced their victims to give up their
arms upon a promise tha t no harm should be done to the m (U.S. vs.
Abelinde, 1 Phil. 568, 574), and whe n th e latter gave up their arms,
the former attacked and killed them, it wa s held that there wa s
and where the defendants, upon th e pretext of wantin g to buy a bot-
406
of wine, induced th e victim to go down to th e lower story of his

dwelling wher e th e wine wa s stored, entered it whe n th e door wa s
opened to him, and there commenced th e assault which ended in his
death, it wa s also held tha t there wa s fraud. (U.S. vs. Bundal, 3 Phil.
89, 90, 98)
Does gaining entrance by pretending to buy cigarettes or to

drink water constitute craft?
To ente r th e hous e of Pedro one of th e accused
shouted from th e outsid e tha t the y wante d to buy which
induced th e owne r to open th e kitche n for them , and one of the m
said tha t the y wante d to drink som e wate r whic h also paved the
wa y for thei r intrusio n in th e house . Once inside, the y committed
robbery wit h rape. It wa s hel d tha t th e aggravatin g circumstance
of craft attende d th e commissio n of th e crime. (People vs. Napili,
85 Phil. 521 , 527, citing U.S . vs . 36 Phil. 817 , and People
vs . Daos , 60 Phil. 143)
Th e facts co nstit utin g th e agg rava tin g circumstanc e being

similar to those in th e case of U.S. vs. Bundal, supra, it should be
fraud.
The accused, stepfather of th e offended party, taking advantage of th e
absence of th e girl's mother, wen t to the house and took the young girl away,
telling th e latter tha t she wa s to be taken to her godmother's house. The
accused, however, took th e girl to another house where he ravished her. Held:
The accused committed rape, employing fraud. (People vs. De Leon, 50 Phil.
539, 545)
Hairline distinction between craft and fraud.

There is craft or fraud whe n by trickery, accused gained entrance
in victim's house . By pretendin g the y had pacific intention s (to
buy chickens) in desiring to enter home, they allayed his
suspicions. They gained entrance into the house with his consent
through trickery or deceit. (People vs. Saliling, No. L-27974, Feb. 27,
1976, 69 SCRA 427, 443)
How is craft distinguished from fraud?

When there is a direct inducement by insidious words or machi•
nations, fraud is present; otherwise, the act of the accused done in order not
to arouse the suspicion of the victim constitutes craft.
407
Disguis e (resorting to any device to conceal identity).

The fact that the defendant had his face blackened in order that
he should not be recognized at the time he committed the crime con•
stitutes the aggravating circumstance of disguise. (U.S. vs.
4 Phil. 154, 157)
When the defendant covered his face with handkerchief before
committing the crime, the aggravating circumstance of disguise is
present. (People vs. 63 Phil. 546, 553)
But if in spite of th e use of handkerchief to cover their faces, the
culprits were recognized by the victim, disguise wa s not considered
aggravating. (People vs. Sonsona, G.R. No. L-8966, May
The accused with two others wore mask s to cover their faces.
There could have been no other purpose for this but to conceal their
identities particularly for the one who wa s very muc h know n to th e
offended parties. The fact that th e mask subsequently fell down thu s
paving th e wa y for this one's identification does not render th e ag•
gravating circumstance of disguise inapplicable. (People vs. Cabato,
No. L-37400, April 160 SCRA 98, 110)
In a case where th e defendant illegally wore a Constabulary
uniform, it wa s held that the aggravating circumstance of disguise
wa s present. (People vs. Gonzalez, 56 Phil. 842
The use of an assumed name in the publication of a libel constitutes
disguise. (People vs. C.A., G.R. No. 43808, Aug.
Disguise, not considered.

It is also worth mentioning tha t while appellant reportedly had
a sort of a mask and wa s usin g sunglasses , thes e clumsy accouter-
could not constitute the aggravating circumstance of Legally,
disfraz contemplates a superficial but somewha t effective dissembling
to avoid identification. Here, eve n if it is true tha t he as• sumed that
masquerade, appellant wa s readily recognizable because his face
could easily be see n together wit h the identifying feature of
his mustache. (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. March 9, 1998)
The purpose of the offender in using any device must be to

conceal his identity.
While it appears tha t some of the offenders had cloths wrapped about
their heads, it does not appear that this wa s done as a disguise,
408
Superior Strength or Means to Weaken Defense Par. 15
but wa s following rather th e custom of th e country in which they had been

reared. (U.S. vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 150, 156)
The act of th e accused in disguising herself by using her hus•
band's clothes and a ha t given to her by her companion before they
continued on their wa y to th e place where she killed the deceased,
wa s not considered aggravating circumstance of disguise, because
she did it for fear of being attacked on th e way. (U.S. vs. Guysayco,
13 Phil. 292 , 293 , 296)
Th e malefactor s resorte d to a disguise . Tha t circumstanc e

did no t facilitat e th e co n s u mma t i o n o f th e killing . Nor wa s i t
take n advantag e of by th e malefactors in th e course of th e assault.
According to th e prosecution' s version , at th e incipiency of th e
attack, th e accused an d hi s companion s did not camouflage their
hostile They announced their presence at the scene of the
crime wit h shout s an d gunshots . Tha t mode of attack counteracted
whateve r deception migh t hav e arise n from their disguise. (People
vs . Cunanan , No . Jan . 20 , 1977, 75 SCRA 15, 23)
Par. 15. — That advantage be taken of superior strength, or

(2) means be employed to weaken the defense.
Meaning of "advantage be
Not e th e word "advantage" in this paragraph.
To take advantage of superior strength mean s to use purposely
excessive force out of proportion to the mean s of defense available
to the person attacked. (People vs. Cabiling, No. Dec. 17,
SCRA citing Albert's Commentaries on the Revised
Penal Code, pp. 126-127; People vs. Sarabia, No. March 31,
1980, 96 SCRA citing Cabiling; People vs. Cabato, No.
April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 98, 110, citing Cabiling; People
vs. Carpio, G.R. Nos. 82815-16, Oct. 31 , 1990, 191 SCRA 108, 119,
citing Cabato; People vs. Moka, G.R. No. 88838, April 26, 1991, 196
SCRA 378, 387, citing Cabato)
Illustrations of no advantage of superior strength.

(1) One who attacks another with passion and obfuscation
does not take advantage of his superior strength.
409
Par. 15 Superior Strength or Means to Weaken Defense
(2) This aggravating circumstance does not apply whe n a

quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow wa s struck
at a time whe n the aggressor and his victim were engaged
against each other as ma n to man. (U.S. vs. Badines, 4
Phil. 594, 595)
In these two cases, the offenders may or might have superior strength,
but they do not or did not take advantage of it.
Illustrations of abuse of superior strength.

An illustration of the cases which fall within this provision
is where, for example, a strong ma n ha s ill-treated a child,
an old or decrepit person, or one weakened by disease, or
where a person's physical strength ha s been overcome by
the use of drugs or intoxicants. In each of these cases, there
is a marked difference of physical strength betwee n th e
offended party and the offender. (U.S. vs . Devela, 3 Phil.
625, 628)
(2) Th e decea se d Martir wa s una rmed , unde r th e
influence o f liquor. H e wa s muc h smalle r tha n Navarra .
Navarra' s attac k cam e after h e (Martir) wa s pushe d
t o th e wal l b y Antoni o Santiago . No t conten t wit h thi s
an d after Marti r tried to escape , Virgilio Cruz fired at
him . No t onl y that , thi s wa s followed b y tw o othe r shot s
from Na va rra . Sinc e th e agg resso r s wer e police offic•
er s fully armed , an d th e decea se d wa s defenseles s an d
unde r th e influenc e of liquor, a clea r cas e of abus e of
superiorit y i s present . Th e tw o took advantag e o f thes e
circu mst a nce s t o c o n su mma t e th e offense. (Peopl e vs .
Nava rra , G.R. No . L-25607 , October 2 5 SCR A
491 , 497 )
(3) Th e a g g ra v a t i n g ci r cu ms t a n c e o f a bus e o f superio r
strengt h i s attendan t wher e th e victim wh o died wa s a n
innocent and tender baby, barely six month s old, and th e
wounded children were aged five (5) and twelv e year s
old, because of th e marked difference of physical strengt h
betwee n th e offended parties and th e offender. (People
vs. Gatcho, No. Feb. 26, 1981 , 103 SCRA 207,
220)
410
When the attack was on the victim alternately, there is no abuse

of superior strength.
Us e o f superio r st rengt h shoul d not b e considere d eve n i f all

th e accuse d delivere d blow s upo n th e victim , becaus e th e attac k
wa s mad e o n th e victi m a lt erna t ely , on e after th e other. (Peopl e
vs . Narciso , No . L-244 84 , Ma y 28 , 1968 , 2 3 SCRA 844 , 865 -866 )
Abuse of superior strength when a man attacks a woman

with a weapon.
An attack mad e by a ma n wit h a deadly weapo n upon an un•
armed and defenseless woma n constitutes th e circumstance of abuse
of tha t superiority which hi s sex and th e weapon used in the act af•
forded and from whic h th e woma n wa s unable to defend herself.
(People vs. Guzman , 107 Phil. 1122, 1127, citing U.S. vs.
36 Phil. 757; U.S. vs. Consuelo, 13 Phil. 612; People vs. Quesada, 62
Phil. 446)
Illustrations:
a. Th e accused attacke d an unarme d 4 feet, 11-inch girl
wit h a knife. He had abused th e superiority which his sex
and weapo n employed afforded him, and from which the
deceased would be unable to defend herself. (People vs.
No. Oct. 31 , 1969, 30 SCRA 307, 315)
The accused wa s armed while the victim, a married woman,
wa s unarmed and she guilelessly approached the group of
the without th e least inkling that any harm would
befall her, whe n she wa s shot in the back after her hands
were tied behind her. Abuse of superiority wa s employed in
liquidating her. (People vs. Clementer, No. Aug.
30, 1974, 58 SCRA 742, 744, 749)
Th e femal e victi m wa s stabbed to death . Three me n

had earlier invaded her house. Her husband wa s away
fishing with the husband of her sister who wa s her only
companion and her sister's one-year-old son. Certainly,
an attack by three me n against a helpless and defenseless
woman constitutes abuse of superior strength. (People vs.
Patinga, No. Jan . 18, 1982, SCRA 52, 58,
62)
411
No abuse of superior strength in parricide against the wife.

Abuse of superior strength is inherent in the crime of parricide
where the husband kills the wife. It is generally accepted that the
husband is physically stronger tha n the wife. (People vs. Galapia,
Nos. Aug. 1, 1978, 84 SCRA 526, 531)
That the victim is a woman is inherent in parricide.

Abuse of superior strength , however, should not be applied to the case
of a husban d wh o kills hi s wife, for th e reaso n tha t se x is inheren t in th e
crime of parricide. (Decision of th e Suprem e Court of Spai n of April 28 ,
1873 ; People vs . Galapia, 84 SCRA 526 )
Evidence of relative physical strength necessary.

Bu t the mere fact tha t one person wa s attacked by two aggres•
sors does not constitute this aggravating circumstance, if th e rela•
tive physical strength of th e parties does not appear. There mus t be
evidence that th e accused were physically stronger and tha t the y
abused such superiority. (People vs. Bustos, Phil. 385, 392; People
vs. 63 Phil. The mere fact of there being a superior•
ity of numbers is not sufficient to bring th e case withi n aggravating
circumstance. (U.S. vs. Devela, supra; People vs. G.R.
No. 85246, Aug. 30, 1990, 189 SCRA 250, 258)
Illustrations:
a. The records of the case are bereft of any information wit h
respect to th e physical conditions of both th e accused and
the victims. Thus, abuse of superior strength cannot be
considered. (People vs. Cabato, No. L-37400, April
160 SCRA 98, 110)
b. . Ther e wa s error i n a ppreciatin g th e circu msta nc e
o f abus e of superior strength . There is no evidenc e of
th e respectiv e or join t participation of th e two accused in
as • sa ultin g th e victim , muc h les s tha t the y took
a dva nt ag e of thei r superior strength . (People vs .
Maloloy-on, G.R. No . 85246 , Aug . 30 , 1990 , 189 SCRA
250 , 258 )
The fact that there were two (2) male persons who attacked the
victim does not per se establish that the crime wa s com• mitted
with abuse of superior strength there being no proof
412
of th e relative strength of the aggressors and the

(People vs. Carpio, G.R. Nos. 82815-16, Oct. 191
SCRA 108, 119)
When abuse of superior strength is aggravating.

The a g grav at in g circumstanc e of abus e of superior strengt h
depend s on th e age , siz e an d strengt h of th e parties. It is consid•
ered w heneve r ther e is a notoriou s inequalit y of forces betwee n
th e victi m and th e aggressor , a s s e s s i n g a superiority of strengt h
notoriousl y a dva nt a geou s for th e aggresso r whic h is selecte d or
take n a dva ntag e of by hi m in th e co mmissio n of th e crime. (Peo•
ple vs . Carpio, supra; Peopl e vs . Cabato, supra; People vs . Moka,
supra)
Number of aggressors, if armed, may point to abuse of su•

perior strength.
In the cases U.S. vs. Tandoc, 40 Phil. and People
vs. Caroz, 68 Phil. 521 , 527, th e greater number of the assaulting
party wa s considered b y th e Suprem e Court i n determinin g the
circumstance of superior strength. Bu t it will be noted that in those
cases, th e accused were armed.
It is manifes t tha t defendant s acted wit h abuse of superior
strength , for wherea s th e three (3) of the m were wielding the
victim wa s unarme d and trying to flee. Hence, th e crime committed
wa s murder, qualified by abus e of superior strength. (People vs.
Verzo, G.R. No. Dec. 26, 1967, 21 SCRA 1403, 1410)
Bu t in a case where three persons armed with bolos attacked
another who wa s armed wit h a revolver, it wa s held that there was
no abuse of superior strength, as their strength wa s almost balanced,
a revolver being as effective, if not more so, than three bolos. (People
vs. Antonio, 73 Phil. 421 , 424-425)
Similarly, there is no abuse of superior strength where the ac•
cused did not cooperate in such a way as to secure advantage from
their combined strength. The fact that the accused did not conspire
to kill the victim implies that they did not jointly exploit their supe•
rior strength. Numerical superiority does not always mean abuse of
superiority. (People vs. Jr., No. March 28, 1974, 56
210, 217)
413
Abuse of superior strength by numerical superiority.

The two accused jumped on the victim as he wa s wrestling
with their companion who has remained at large. It wa s
while they had him thu s outnumbered that one of the ac•
cused delivered the fatal blow. There wa s abuse of superior
strength. (People vs. Boyles, No. May 29, 1964,
11 88, 95)
2. The assailants were four in number and were armed wit h
bladed instruments. The deceased wa s alone, unarmed, and
taken by surprise. Abuse of superior strength wa s properly
considered. (People vs. Casillar, No. Nov.
30 SCRA 352, 358)
3. The three assailant s are brothers. Alejandro, wh o wa s
armed wit h a bolo (sondang) lay in wai t for th e victim
and his brother, and they encountered hi m as the y were
fleeing after Joaquin had threatened them . As th e victim
retreated, and his brother took refuge in a grass y place,
Joaquin appeared from behind, holding a barbed harpoon
(gata-ao) which he plunged into th e victim's back and the n
tried to pull it out. While Joaquin wa s trying to extricate
the harpoon which got stuck because of its hooks, Alejandro
stabbed the victim with his sondang. The victim fell to the
ground. also armed with a sondang, slashed the
prostrate victim in th e abdomen. Alejandro and Antonieto
repeatedly stabbed hi m while Joaquin wa s pulling out the
harpoon. The victim died in consequence of hi s numerous
wounds. Abuse of superiority is aggravating. Th e three
assailant s took advantage of their combined strengt h to
overpower th e victim. (People vs. Velez, No . L-30038, Jul y
18, 1974, 58 SCRA 21 , 24, 31)
4. There were several assailant s who literally gange d up on
the victim. He had to flee because he could not cope with
th e successive and simultaneou s assault s of hi s assail•
ants. Eve n the armed policeman, who wa s present at the
scene of th e fight, could not break up th e fight because
the victim had several adversaries. All tha t th e
could do wa s to fire hi s carbine into th e air. There wa s
marked disparity betwee n th e strength of th e victim and
the strength of the aggressors who, at th e last stage of the
414
fight, surrounded thei r quarry, wounded hi m repeatedly

and left hi m only whe n he wa s sprawled on th e ground.
Evidently, th e assailant s cooperated in such a wa y as to
derive advantag e from thei r combined strengt h and to
insur e th e victim's death. Abus e of superiority wa s cor•
rectly appreciated.
Our jurisprudence is exemplified by the holding that where
four persons attacke d an unarme d victim but there wa s
no proof as to ho w th e attack commenced and treachery
wa s no t proven, th e fact tha t ther e wer e four assailant s
would constitut e abus e of superiority. (People vs. Garcia,
No . L-30449 , Oct. 94 SCRA 14, 28 , People
vs. No . 6742 , Jan . 21 Phil. 287; U.S. vs.
No . 7870 , Jan . 10, 1913 , 2 4 Phil. 69)
6. Abus e of superiority is attendan t where two accused, both

armed wit h knives, ha d cooperated in such a wa y as to se•
cure advantage from their combined superiority in strength
and took turns in stabbing th e victim who wa s unarmed.
(People vs. No . L-38094, Nov. SCRA
227, 239)
7. It is manifest tha t th e accused, together with his co-as•
sailants wh o unfortunately hav e not been apprehended,
took advantage of their superior strength, whe n the four
of them , two of who m were armed wit h bladed weapons,
surrounded and stabbed th e unarmed, helpless and unsus•
pecting victim. Abuse of superior strength is aggravating.
(People vs. Madlangbayan, No. L-33607, Dec. 94
SCRA 679, 686)
8. Give n th e fact tha t th e victim, himsel f unarmed , wa s
simultaneously attacked by the two appellants and the
third accused who ha s remained at large, all of them with
weapons, they took advantage of superior strength. (G.R.
No. 74736, Feb. 18, 1991, 194 SCRA 120, 128)
9. Advantage of superior strength attends. The number of
the assailants and the firearms and bolos which they used
on the victim show notorious inequality of forces between
the victim and the aggressor. (People vs. Moka, G.R. No.
88838, April 26, 1991, 196 SCRA 378, 386)
415
There were four (4) accused, relatively of regular, me•

dium build and size. Two were armed with "guhi" (piece
of bamboo, sharpened or pointed at one end) and stone
and the other two wit h Indian arrows. The four were car•
rying bolos inside a scabbard and tied to th e waist. The
victim wa s unarmed. He had companions but they did
not do anythin g to help him. Abuse of superior strength
wa s correctly found to be attendant. (People vs.
G.R. No. Aug. 16, 1991 , 200 SCRA 624 , 635-636)
There is abuse of superior strength when weapon used is out

of proportion to the defense available to the offended party.
Abuse of superior strength is present not only whe n the offenders
enjoy numerical superiority or there is a notorious inequality of force
between the victim and the aggressor, but also whe n the offender use s
a powerful weapon which is out of proportion to the defense available
to the offended party. (People vs. Padilla, 233 SCRA 46)
Simultaneous attack by two persons with revolvers a

defenseless person is aggravated by superior strength.
When two persons took part in the crime armed wit h bolos or
revolvers and made a simultaneous attack upon a defenseless person,
the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength should
be taken into consideration. (U.S. vs. Bahagale, 24 Phil. 69, 71 , 83;
U.S. vs. 51 Phil. 670, 675; U.S . vs. 21 Phil. 287, 291)
In these cases, th e two defendants are both guilty as principals.
There is no abuse of superior strength when one acted as

principal and the other two as accomplices.
But whe n the court finds that one of the three accused committed
the crime as principal and the two as accomplices, abuse of superior
strength cannot be take n into consideration, because it would be
inconsistent. Where abuse of superior strength is to be estimate d as
an aggravating circumstance from the mere fact tha t more tha n one
person participated in the offense, it mus t appear that the accused
cooperated together in some way designed to weake n the defense. This
would mak e the m guilty in th e character of principals. (People vs.
55 Phil. vs. People, G.R. No. L-20338,
April 27, 1967, 19 SCRA 842, 846)
416
When there is an allegation of treachery, superior strength

is absorbed.
Like nighttime, superior strength is absorbed and inherent in
treachery. (People vs. Mobe, 81 Phil. 58, 63; People vs. 87
Phil. 743, 745; People vs. Renejane, Nos. L-76954-55, Feb. 26, 1988,
158 SCRA 258, 269; People vs . Centeno, G.R. No. 33284, April 20,
SCRA People vs. G.R. No. 63396, Nov. 15,
SCRA 415 , 421)
Abuse of superior strength is aggravating in coercion and

forcible abduction, when greatly in excess of that required
to commit the offense.
Abuse of superior strengt h ma y be present in coercion (Art. 286)
or forcible abduction. (Art. 342; People vs. Fernando, C.A., 43 O.G.
1717) Although th e commission of th e crime of coercion or forcible
abduction presupposes superiority of force on the part of the offenders,
yet when the strength availed of is greatly in excess of that required
for the realization of the offense, as wher e th e offenders were very
much superior to th e complainant individually and collectively
People vs. Dayug, 49 Phil. 423 , 427; People vs. Pineda, 56 Phil. 688,
689, 690), abuse of superior strengt h should be considered for the
purpose of increasing th e penalty.
Other crimes in which abuse of superior strength is aggra•

vating.
Abuse of superior strength is aggravating in illegal detention
(Arts. 267 and 268), where six persons took and carried away the
victim from his home (U.S. vs. Santiago, 4 Phil. in robbery
with rape, committed by five armed persons (People vs. Macaya, 85
Phil. 540, in multiple rape, committed four men (U.S. vs.
Camiloy, 36 Phil. 757, 758); in robbery with homicide, committed by
three men. (People vs. Boyles, No. May 29, 1964, 11 SCRA
88, 91-92, 96)
The circumstance of "by a band" and that of "abuse of supe•

rior strength," distinguished.
The circumstance of abuse of superiority was, however, with• drawn by
the prosecution on the ground that since the offense of
417
robbery with homicide wa s committed by a band, the element of necessarily

absorbs the circumstance of abuse of superior strength. We believe that said
withdrawal wa s ill-advised since th e circumstances of band and abuse of
superiority are separate and
distinct legal concepts.
The element of band is appreciated when the offense is com•
mitted by more tha n three armed malefactors regardless of the com•
parative strength of the victim or victims. Hence, the indispensable
components of cuadrilla are (1) at least four malefactors, and (2) all
of the four malefactors are armed. On the other hand, the gravamen
of abuse of superiority is th e taking advantage by the culprits of their
collective strength to overpower their relatively weaker victim or
victims. Hence, in the latter aggravating factor, wha t is take n into
account is not the number of aggressors nor the fact that the y are
armed, but their relative physical might the offended party.
(People vs. Apduhan, Jr., No. Aug. 30, 1968, 24 SCRA 798,
814-815)
The aggravating circumstance of the commission of the crime by a

band has been established, it appearing that there were more than three
armed malefactors who acted together in the commission of the offense.
(People vs. No. March 14, 1988, 158 SCRA 602,
613)
The a gg ravat in g circumstanc e of commissio n of a crime by a
band wa s incorrectly appreciated. A band (en cuadrilla) consist s of
at leas t four malefactors wh o are all armed. Whe n there wer e only
three perpetrators and two weapons , a kitchen knife and a dagger,
the terrible threeso m e of th e accused did not constitut e a band.
(People vs. Ga, G.R. No. 49831 , Jun e SCRA 790 , 797 -
798)
Aggravating circumstances absorbing band.

Abuse of superiority absorbs cuadrilla. If treachery absorbs
abuse of superiority and band (U.S. vs. Abelinde, 1 Phil. the n
it is reasonable to hold that band should not be treated separately and
distinct from abuse of superior strength. The two circumstances have
the sam e essence which is the utilization of th e combined strengt h of
the assailants to overpower the victim and consummat e th e killing.
vs. Medrana, No. Dec. 14, 1981, 110 SCRA 130,
145)
418
The aggravating circumstance of by a band is absorbed in treach•

ery. (People vs. G.R. No. 75366, Jul y 4, 1990, 187 SCRA
People vs. Rojas, Nos . L-46960-62, Jan . SCRA
169, 178-179)
Means employed to weaken defense.

The circumstance of employing mean s to weake n the defense is
illustrated in th e case wher e one, struggling wit h another, suddenly throws a
cloak over th e hea d of hi s opponent and while in this situ• ation he wound s
or kills him. (U.S. vs. Devela, supra)
One who, while fighting wit h another, suddenly casts sand or dirt upon
th e latter's eye s and the n wound s or kills him, evidently employs mean s
which weake n th e defense of hi s opponent. (People vs. Siaotong, G.R. No. L-
9242, March 29, 1957)
Bu t th e mere fact tha t a Garand rifle wa s used in killing the
victim does not necessarily raise th e aggravating circumstance of
employing mean s to weake n th e defense. (People vs. No.
Oct. 27, 1988, 166 SCRA 638 , 649)
Intoxicating the victim to weaken defense.

This aggravating circumstance exists also whe n th e offender,
who had th e intention to kill th e victim, made th e deceased intoxicat•
ed, thereby materially weakening the latter's resisting power. (People
vs. 53 Phil. 280, 289)
If the state of intoxication is such that the victim cannot put

up any sort of defense — treachery.
If in his intoxicated state it wa s impossible for the victim to put
up any sort of resistance at th e time he wa s attacked, treachery may
be considered. (People vs. Ducusin, supra)
Applicable only to crimes against persons, etc.

This circumstance is applicable only to crimes against persons, and
sometimes against person and property, such as robbery with physical
injuries or homicide.
Note: In People vs. Guy, supra, employing means to weaken the

defense is not the aggravating circumstance. It is craft.
419
Par. 16 Treachery
Means to weaken the defense absorbed in treachery.

The aggravating circumstance of employing means to weaken the
defense is absorbed by treachery. (People vs. Tunhawan, No. L- 81470, Oct.
27, 1988, 166 SCRA 638, 649-650)
Par. 16. — That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).

The basis ha s reference to the means and ways employed in the
Meaning of treachery.
There is treachery whe n the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods or forms in th e execu•
tion thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himsel f arising from th e defense whic h th e offended
party migh t make . (Art. 14, par. 16, Revised Pena l Code; People
vs. Lacao, Sr., G.R. No . 95320 , Sept. 4, 1991 , 20 1 SCRA 317 , 330;
People vs. Velaga, Jr., G.R. No . 87202 , Jul y 23 , 1991 , 199 SCRA
Treachery mean s that the offended party wa s not given opportu•

nity to mak e a defense. (People vs. G.R. No. 89823 , Jun e 19,
SCRA 368, 387, citing earlier cases; People vs . G.R.
No. 77087, May 23 , SCRA 334, 351 , citing earlier cases)
Treachery attended the shooting of the deceased. The attack
wa s sudden, unexpected, without warning, and without giving th e
victim an opportunity to defend himself or repel the aggression, as , in
fact, th e deceased did not sens e any danger tha t he would be shot by
th e assailant as there wa s no grudge or misunderstandin g betwee n
them. (People vs. Rey, G.R. No. 80089 , April SCRA 149,
158)
Rules regarding treachery.

Applicable only to crimes against the person.
This is based on the phrase against the
in the definition of treachery.
420
Treachery Par. 16
(2) Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment

of crime.
It is not necessary tha t th e means, methods or forms

employed in th e execution of th e crime insure its accom•
plishment, as th e la w says , insure its only.
(3) The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
This is based on th e phrase "employing meth•
ods, or forms in th e execution whic h tend directly and
in th e definition of treachery.
Applicable only to crimes against persons.

Thi s circumstanc e is applicable only to crimes agains t per•
sons.
It is not necessary that the mode of attack insures the con•

summation of offense.
The treacherous character of th e mean s employed in the ag•
gression does not depend upon th e result thereof but upon the mean s
itself, in connection wit h th e aggressor's purpose in employing it.
Otherwise, there would be no attempte d or frustrated murder quali•
fied by treachery. For this reason, th e law does not require that the
treacherous mean s insure th e execution of th e aggression, without
risk to th e person of th e aggressor arising from the defense which
the offended party migh t make , it being sufficient that it tends to this
end. (People vs. Parana, 64 331 , 336)
So it ha s been held that where the accused attacked the offended
party unexpectedly and th e wound s inflicted by him upon the latter
would have caused death had not th e weapon whereby the same were
inflicted me t wit h an obstacle, such as th e ribs, which prevented
its penetrating the lungs and kidneys, alevosia is present and the
defendant is guilty frustrated murder. (People vs. Reyes, 47 Phil.
635, 639)
Also, where one assaulted another from behind, but failed to
kill the latter because the wound inflicted wa s not sufficient to cause
the attack wa s characterized by treachery even if the offender
did not attain his end.
421
Par. 16 Treachery
The above illustrations are examples frustrated murder and attempted

murder, respectively, characterized by treachery. Treachery was considered,
even if the offense wa s not consummated.
Treachery cannot be presumed.

The suddenness of attack does not, of itself, suffice to support
a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose wa s to kill, so long as the
decision wa s made all of a sudden and the victim's helpless position
wa s accidental. The qualifying circumstance of treachery may not be
simply deduced from presumption as it is necessary that the existence
of this qualifying or aggravating circumstance should be proven as
fully as the crime itself in order to aggravate the liability or penalty
incurred by the culprit. (People vs. No. Jan .
23, 1974, 55 SCRA 245, 258; People vs. Narit, G.R. No. 77087, May
23 ,
1991, 197 SCRA 334, 351; People vs. Tiozon, G.R. No. 89823 , Jun e
SCRA 368, 387-388; People vs. Lubreo, G.R. No. 74146,
Aug. 2, 1991, 200 SCRA 11, 28)
Where no particulars are know n as to the manne r in which th e

aggression wa s made or how the act which resulted in th e death of
the deceased began and developed, it can in no way be established
from mere suppositions tha t th e accused perpetrated th e killing
with treachery. The wound in the back might hav e been th e last one
inflicted or might have been inflicted by accident in th e course of th e
fight. (U.S. vs. Perdon, 4 Phil. 141, 143-144; U.S. vs. 34
Phil. 786, 792-793)
Illustrations:
1. There is no treachery under thes e circumstances: th e as•
sailant wa s alone while hi s victim had four (4) companions
nearby who could respond instinctively upon seein g their
injured companion; an altercation preceded th e attack;
and th e meetin g of th e victim and the assailan t wa s only
accidental. (People vs. Velaga, Jr., G.R. No. 87202 , Jul y
23 , 1991, 199 SCRA 518, 523)
2. . Neithe r i s treacher y attendan t wher e n o witnes s

wh o could have see n how th e deceased wa s shot wa s
presented. (People vs. Tiozon, supra, at 389)
3. Nor is treachery present in these circumstances: th e wit•
nes s to the attack did not see how it all began and could
422
Treachery Par. 16
not provide th e details on how the initial attack wa s com•

menced and how it developed until th e victim fell to the
ground at which time he saw the fallen victim being beaten;
th e autopsy report show s no back injury; and the attack
wa s mad e in broad daylight, on a public road and in an
inhabited area, wit h th e us e of a wooden club, all indicative
of a casual and not a planned encounter. (People vs. Narit,
supra, at 351-352)
4. Neithe r is th e circumstanc e attendan t where th e attack

wa s frontal, indicatin g tha t th e victim wa s not totally
withou t opportunity to defend himself, and all surround•
ing circumstance s indicate tha t th e attack wa s the result
of a ras h and impetuou s impuls e of th e mo men t rather
tha n from a deliberate act of th e will. (People vs. Tugbo,
Jr., G.R. No . 75894 , April 22 , 1991 , 196 SCRA 133, 138-
139)
Exceptions:
1. Whe n th e victim wa s tied elbow to elbow, hi s body with
man y wound s an d hi s hea d cut off, treacher y ma y be
considered, thoug h no witnesse s saw the killing. (U.S. vs.
Santos, 1 Phil. 222 , 224-225)
2. The killing of a child is murder qualified by treachery, even
if th e manne r of attack wa s not shown. (People vs. Laggui,
C.A., 34 O.G. 1708)
3. The Supreme Court in People vs. Retubado, No.

162 SCRA 276, 286: Treachery mus t be appreciated in the
killing of a child eve n if the manne r of attack is not
It exists in the commission of the crime whe n an adult
person illegally attacks a child of tender years and causes
his death. (Citing People vs. Valerio, Jr., Feb. 25,
1982, 112 SCRA 231)
The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.

This mean s that:
(1) The accused must make some preparation to kill the
deceased in such a manner as to insure the execution of
the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person
423
Par. 16 Treachery
attacked to defend himself or retaliate (People vs. Tumaob,

83 Phil. 738, 742; People vs. Saez, No. March 29,
1961, 1 SCRA 937, 944; People vs. Iligan, G.R. No. 75369,
Nov. 26, 1990, 191 SCRA 643, 653); or
(2) The mode of attack must be thought of by the offender,
and mus t not spring from the unexpected turn of events.
(People vs. Dauz, C.A., 40 Sup. The mode of
attack could not have been thought of whe n the decision
to shoot the deceased was sudden, in view of the latter's
flight, and the relative positions of the victim and the killer
were entirely accidental. (People vs. Abalos, 84 Phil. 771,
773)
In the following cases, it wa s held that there wa s treachery:

1) The act of shooting the victim at a distance, without th e
least expectation on his part that he would be assaulted,
is characterized by treachery. The assailant deliberately
employed a mode of execution which tended directly and
specially to insure the consummation of the killing without
any risk to himsel f arising from th e defense which th e vic•
tim could have made. (People vs. Nos.
Jan . 21 , 1974, 55 SCRA 153, 175)
2) The killings were attended wit h the aggravating circum•
stance of treachery because th e accused made a deliberate,
surprise attack on the victims. They perpetrated th e kill•
ings in such a manne r that there wa s no risk to themselve s
arising from any defense which the victims migh t hav e
made. (People vs. Mori, Nos. Jan . 31 , 1974,
55 SCRA 382, 403-404)
The circumstances surrounding th e killing of th e deceased
show treachery. His hands were raised and he wa s pleading
for mercy wit h one of th e assailant s whe n another struck
hi m on th e neck with a bolo. The role of th e third assail•
ant of weakenin g th e defense, by disabling th e son of the
deceased, wa s part and parcel of the mean s of execution
deliberately resorted to by th e assailants to insure th e as•
sassination of the deceased without any risk to themselves.
(People vs. Ricohermoso, Nos. L-30527-28, March
5 6 SCRA
424
Treachery Par. 16
4) The assailant, in strategically placing himself in a forested

area near the highway and firing at the unsuspecting victim
at a distance of eight meters, employed a mode of execution
tha t insured th e consummatio n of the killing without any
risk arising from an y defense tha t th e victim could have
made. (People vs. Zapatero, No . Aug. 15, 1974,
58 SCRA 450 , 459)
5) In a sense , ther e wa s treacher y becaus e th e victim, a

woman , wa s first reduced to helplessnes s before she wa s
shot. (People vs . Clementer, No . L-33490, Aug. 30, 1974,
58 SCRA 742 , 749)
6) The victim wa s shot whil e he wa s gathering tuba on top

of a coconut tree. He wa s unarme d and defenseless. He
wa s not expecting to be assaulted. He did not give any
immediat e provocation. The deliberate, surprise attack
show s tha t Sangalan g and hi s companions employed a
mode of execution which insured th e killing without any
risk to the m arising from any defense which the victim
could hav e made. (People vs. Sangalang, No. Aug.
30, 1974, 58 SCRA 737, 741)
7) It wa s treacherou s to shoot Cayago at night, while he

wa s urinating on th e porch and whe n he did not expect
at all that hi s enemy , Manangan , wa s only four meters
awa y aimin g a carbine at him . It wa s an ambuscade.
Mananga n resorted to a mode of execution that insured the
consummation of the killing without risk to himself arising
from any defense which the victim could have made. (People
vs. Manangan, No. L-32733, Sept. 11, 1974, 59 SCRA 31,
37)
8) There is treachery where the victim wa s tied and gagged
before being stabbed. Undisputed facts show that Henry
Chua's hand s were tied and his mouth wa s gagged with a
flannel cloth before he wa s stabbed twice with an icepick
and buried in a shallow grave near a creek. These facts
portray well that the tied hands of the victim rendered him
defenseless and helpless thereby allowing the accused to
commit the crime without risk at all to their person. (People
vs. Ong, No. L-34497, Jan. 30, 1975, 62 SCRA 174, 211)
425
Par. 16 Treachery
9) There wa s treachery because the five accused suddenly

intercepted the victim while he wa s on his way to the house
of his cousin. The appellants resorted to a mode of attack
which insured the consummation of the crime without any
risk to themselves. The victim wa s unarmed and he had
no time to defend himself in view of the suddenness of the
assault and the fact that he wa s drunk at the time. (People
vs. Pajenado, No. L-26458, Jan. 30, 1976, 69 SCRA 172,
179-180)
10) The attack on th e victim wa s deliberate, sudde n and

unexpected and from behind. Most of the wounds sustained
by the victim and which were fatal were found on his back.
All of thes e are indicative of the fact tha t th e accused
employed mean s and methods which tended directly and
especially to insure the execution of the offense without
risk to th e offenders arising from the defense which th e
offended party might have made. (People vs. Palencia, No.
April 71 SCRA 679, 689)
The victim wa s clearly not in a position to defend himsel f
at the time of the attack. He wa s the n on top of a coconut
tree. His assailant wa s on the ground aiming and firing at
hi m muc h as if he were a sitting duck. There was , in other
words, the employment of mean s or methods or manne r
of execution which insured th e attacker's safety from an y
defensive or retaliatory act on th e part of th e victim, wh o
wa s perched on top of th e coconut tree quite helpless .
(People vs. G.R. No. 88098, Jun e 26, 1991 , 198
SCRA 529, 540)
12) Treachery wa s correctly appreciated. The accused, armed
wit h a gun , riding tande m on a motorcycle, suddenl y
and withou t warnin g sho t th e victim i n th e back a s th e
motorcycle sped by. Th e victi m wa s the n w alkin g alon g
a road, unsuspect in g and unarmed . Th e motorcycle the n
turne d back t o wher e th e victim lay wounded , an d th e
accused fired at hi m once more, agai n hittin g hi m in th e
back. Th e victim ha d no effective opportunity to defend
himsel f and t o strike back a t th e a ssa ssin . (People vs .
Clamor, G.R. No . 82708 , Jul y 1, 1991 , 198 SCRA 642 ,
654-655 )
426
Treachery Par. 16
13) Treachery is attendant. The accused, after having made

two step s behind th e victim, suddenly and unexpectedly,
wit h th e us e of a bolo, hacked the deceased at his back
causin g a deep wound and fracture of the 5th rib. Whe n
th e victim faced th e accused, he wa s again hacked at the
forehead. (People vs. Lubreo, G.R. No. 74146, Aug.
20 0 SCRA 11 , 29)
14) The deceased wa s stabbed without warning. So sudden and

unanticipated wa s th e attack that the victim wa s given
no chance to defend himself. Then the accused, although
apparently acting without prior agreement, also instantly
and all togethe r attacke d him . Eve n if their aforesaid
acts wer e independentl y performed on their individual
initiatives, such concerted action ensured the commission of
the crime without risk to the m arising from any defense or
retaliation that the victim might have resorted to. Treachery
wa s correctly appreciated against all the accused. (People
vs. Lacao, Sr., G.R. No. 95320, Sept. 317,
330)
When treachery is not present.

1) There wa s no treachery. The attack wa s perpetrated in a
frontal encounter, show n by th e location of the wounds on
the front part of the victim's body. There were no wounds on
the back. The assailant s did not mak e any deliberate, sur•
prise attack on th e victim. They did not consciously adopt
a treacherous mode of attack. The attack wa s preceded by
an altercation and on th e spur of the moment. (People vs.
Jr., No. March 28, 1974, 56 SCRA 210,
217)
2) The trial court correctly held tha t there wa s no treachery.

The initial assault on the victim wa s not made in a sud•
den and unexpected manner. The malefactors gave him an
ominous warning of their presence and heralded their en•
trance into his house by firing two gunshots at the
They first mauled him presumably in a frontal encounter.
(People vs. Manzano, Nos. L-33643-44, July 31, 1974, 58
SCRA 250, 260)
427
Par. 16 Treachery
The accused and his companions did not camouflage their

hostile intentions. They announced their presence at the
scene of the crime with shouts and gunshots. That mode of
attack negated the existence of treachery since the element
of surprise, which marks the presence of treachery, wa s
absent. (People vs. Cunanan, No. Jan. 20, 1977,
75 SCRA 15, 23)
When treachery cannot be considered.

Treachery cannot be appreciated where there is nothing in
the record to show tha t the accused had pondered upon the mode or
method to insure the killing of the deceased or remove or diminish any
risk to himself that might arise from the defense that the deceased
might make, as whe n hi s decision to shoot th e victim is sudden,
brought about by a stinging provocation from th e latter. (People vs .
Macaso, No. L-30489, Jun e 64 SCRA 659, 666-667)
In the following cases, it wa s held tha t there wa s treachery: "Inasmuch

as Refuerzo wa s unarme d and utterly defenseless ,
he tried to escape through th e window. Quirino Ramolet e shot hi m
in tha t situation. Refuerzo fell into th e batalan wit h three serious
gunsho t wound s of entr y on hi s back. Treachery (alevosia) wa s
manifest in tha t manne r of assaul t becaus e it insured th e killing
without an y risk to th e (People vs . Ramolete, et 56
SCRA 66)
"When the victim saw appellant hacking her sister, she ran out of the
house and cried for help. Appellant chased her and, upon overtak• ing her,
struck her on the head." (People vs. Cruz, 109 Phil. 288)
Note: Did th e accused consciously adopt tha t method of shoot•

ing th e deceased as th e latter "tried to escape through
the window" and of striking th e victim on th e head while
chasing her? It happened so suddenly tha t he could not
have thought of tha t manne r of assault.
When there is no evidence that the accused had, prior to the mo•
ment of th e killing, resolved to commit th e crime, or there is no proof
that the death of th e victim wa s th e result of meditation, calculation
or reflection, treachery cannot be considered. (U.S. vs. Balagtas , 19
Phil. 164)
428
Treachery Par. 16
If th e decision to kill was sudden, there is no treachery, eve n

if th e position of th e victi m wa s vulnerable , becaus e it wa s not
deliberately sought by the accused, but wa s purely accidental. (People
vs. Cadag, et G.R. No. May 31 , 1961)
The reason for those rulings is tha t the law itself says: "There
is treachery whe n the culprit employed means , methods or forms of
execution which tend directly and specially to insure the execution
of th e crime, without risk to himself." Hence, the mere fact that th e
attack wa s sudden and unexpected does not show treachery, unles s
there is evidence tha t such form of attack wa s purposely adopted by
th e accused. There mus t be evidence showin g tha t the accused re•
flected on th e means , method s and forms of killing the victim. (People
vs. supra)
The characteristic and unmistakabl e manifestation of treachery

is th e deliberate, sudden and unexpected attack of the victim from
behind, without any warnin g and withou t giving hi m an opportunity
to defend himsel f or repel th e initial assault.
Bu t mere suddennes s of the attack is not enoug h to constitute

treachery. Such method or form of attack mus t be deliberately chosen
by th e accused. (People vs. Macalisang, G.R. No. L-24546, February
22 SCRA 699, 704)
To sustai n a finding of treachery, th e means , method or form
of attack mus t be show n to hav e been deliberately adopted by the
appellant. (People vs. Caldito, G.R. Nos. 78432-33, Feb.
SCRA 66, 77, citing People vs. Manalo, 148 SCRA 98, 108)
That the mode of attack was consciously adopted may be inferred from
the circumstances.
The aggravating circumstance of treachery is established where
the evidence showed that one of the accused approached the victim
from behind, encircling hi s arm in a tight grip around the victim's
neck while hi s co-accused held the victim's two hands, and as the
victim wa s thu s rendered helpless and unable to defend himself, both
the former and a third co-accused stabbed the victim with the scissor
blades, inflicting upon the victim at least four serious stab wounds,
any one of which could have caused his death. (People vs. Lunar, No.
May 29, 1972, 45 SCRA 119, 140)
Treachery attended the killing where the assailants hid behind
a pile of logs under cover of darkness and the victim was approached
429
Par. 16 Treachery
from behind and shot as he turned around. (People vs. Jaravata, No.
August 1967, 20 SCRA 1014, 1020)
By their acts of showering the house with bullets, executed in the
darkness of the night, the offenders employed means, methods and
forms in the execution of th e crime which tended directly to insure
the execution of their criminal design without risk to themselve s
arising from the defense which th e occupants of th e house might
make. (People vs. Elizaga, No. L-23202, April SCRA 449,
463)
If th e accused wa s well hidden behind a tree whe n he shot th e
victim who, unarme d and unaware , ha d no wa y of defending him •
self, th e accused deliberately employed means , method s or forms to
insure th e execution of th e crime, withou t risk to himself. (People
vs. Guevarra, G.R. No. April 16, 1968, 23 SCRA 58 , 72)
In th e case of People vs. G.R. No . Nov. 22 ,
1966, 18 SCRA 699, 700, 701-702, th e defendant also hid behind a
tree and shot at th e victim while th e latter wa s running awa y and
wa s thu s without mean s of defending himself, but treachery wa s not
appreciated because the defendant did not purposely tak e advantage
of the circumstance to kill th e victim without risk to himself. He did
so because he wa s scared, believing tha t th e deceased wa s armed
with a gun.
Treachery attended. Three men , armed wit h a knife, crept up
in th e dark against a defenseless and unsuspectin g victim wh o wa s
answering a call of nature. When two of the m pinioned th e victim's
arms so that their companion could stab hi m repeatedly and wit h
impunity, the y thereby employed mean s which assure d th e execu•
tion of th e crime without risk to themselve s arising from th e defense
tha t their victim migh t hav e made. (People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No.
90641 , Feb. 27, 1990, 182 SCRA 794, 799)
Treachery is present. The numerou s stab wounds, some of which were

inflicted at th e back of th e victim, show tha t th e attack wa s sudden and
brutal. The suddennes s of th e attack deprived th e victim, a woman, unarmed
and alone, th e opportunity to run or fight back. The assailant, a strong youn g
man , did not eve n suffer an y injuries except for th e small wound on hi s
finger inflicted by a bite. Obviously, apart from usin g her teeth , th e victim
could not put up an y defense. (People vs. Badilla, G.R. No. 69317, May 21 ,
1990, 185 SCRA 554,
570)
430
Treachery Par. 16
Where the meeting between the accused and the victim is cas•
ual and the attack impulsively done, there is no treachery.
Facts: Upon seein g th e accused, th e deceased started to run, whereupon
the accused whistle d at him. As the deceased ignored the call and continued to
run away, th e accused got off from his bicycle and, from a distance of some
fifty meters , fired a shot at the deceased who wa s fatally hit. The meetin g of
th e two persons wa s casual. The accused fired at hi s victim impulsively,
because the latter ignored the call of th e accused.
Held: Where th e meetin g betwee n th e accused and the victim
wa s casual and the attack wa s done impulsively, there is no treachery
even if th e attack wa s sudden and unexpected and while the victim
wa s running away with his back towards the accused. (People vs.
Calinawan, 83 Phil. 647, 648)
The reason for thi s ruling is tha t th e accused could not have
made preparation for th e attack, th e meetin g betwee n him and the
deceased being casual, and th e means , method and form of attack
could not hav e bee n though t of by th e accused, because the attack
wa s impulsively done.
In another case, th e victim wa s sen t to th e store to buy some
beer. It, therefore, jus t so happene d tha t he wa s sen t on an errand
at tha t particular tim e to tha t particular place; otherwise, he would
have remained at home. Nobody kne w beforehand that he would go to
the store. No t eve n th e appellant nor his deceased brother could have
expected to mee t th e victim there at tha t specific moment. Nor could
appellant have foreseen tha t th e victim would be carrying bottles of
beer at the momen t tha t he would attack th e latter. The meeting of
th e victim and hi s assailant s wa s casual. Treachery did not attend.
(People vs. Diaz, No. L-75433, Nov. 9, 1988, 167 SCRA 239, 246)
Alevosia canno t be appreciated. Th e manne r in which th e
aggression wa s made or how the act which resulted in the death of
the victim began and developed wa s not shown. It would appear,
too, that the accused had no opportunity to plan the way, method, or
mean s wit h which to execute the felony, as the meeting between the
accused and the deceased wa s accidental since there is no evidence
that the accused knew beforehand that the deceased would be passing
by the warehouse where they were working at that particular time.
(People vs. Bacho, G.R. No. 66645, March 29, 1989, 171 SCRA 458,
431
Par. 16 Treachery
Another reason why treachery cannot be considered is that the

meeting of the victim and the accused wa s only accidental. (People
vs. Velaga, Jr., G.R. No. 87202, July 23, 1991, 199 SCRA 518, 523)
Attacks showing intention to eliminate risk.

(a) Victim asleep.
Treachery attend s where th e victim wa s stabbed
while he wa s asleep. (People vs. Caringal, G.R. No.
Aug. SCRA People vs. Nolasco, No.
L-55483, Jul y 28, 1988, 163 SCRA 623, 629; People vs.
Trinidad, No. L-38930, Jun e SCRA 714, 725;
People vs. Reunir, No. L-73605, Jan. 157 SCRA
People vs. Andres, No. L-75355, Oct.
SCRA 290, 300; People vs. Perante, Jr., Nos.
Jul y 16, 1986, 143 SCRA 56, 60; People vs. Miranda, 90
Phil. 91 , 96; People vs. Dequina, 60 Phil. 279, 286)
(b) Victim half-awake or just awakened.

Trea cher y cha ra ct erize d th e crime . Eve n i f th e
deceased wa s already awake whe n th e aggression com•
menced, and eve n if there wa s light, the victim wa s still
down on his back, still drowsy, and unarmed. He wa s una•
ware of the defendant's intention. The blows were delivered
all of a sudden and without warning. (People vs . Yadaon,
82 Phil. 160, 163)
Treachery attends where the victim had jus t awak•
ened whe n attacked, because he migh t still be dazed and
unprepared for the attack and would not be in a position
to offer any risk or danger of retaliation to the attacker.
(People vs. Perante, Jr., supra; People vs. Atencio, No . L-
22518 , Jan . 17, 1968, 22 SCRA 88, 102; People vs .
92 Phil. 805, 809)
(c) Victim grappling or being held.
Treachery is present where th e assailant stabbed th e victim
while the latter wa s grappling wit h another, thu s rendering hi m
practically helpless and unable to put up any defense. (People vs.
Lingatong, G.R. No. 34019 , Jan . 29, 1990, 181 SCRA 424, 430)
432
Treachery Par. 16
There is treachery where th e victim wa s stabbed in

a defenseless situation, as whe n he wa s being held by the
others whil e h e wa s being stabbed, a s th e accomplish•
men t of th e accused's purpose wa s ensured without risk
to hi m from an y defense th e victim ma y offer. (People vs.
G.R. No . L-22426, May 29, 1968, 23 SCRA
910; People vs. Lunar, G.R. No. May 29, 1972,
45 SCRA 119) Here, th e accused-appellant stabbed the victim on
th e chest whil e hi s companions held both of the victim's arms.
(People vs. Montejo, No. L-68857, Nov. 21 , 1988, 167 SCRA 506,
515)
Attacked from behind.

(1) With a firearm.
Treacher y a t t ende d th e crime , th e accuse d
shot th e victim from behind without warn•
ing. (People vs . Acosta, G.R. No . 70153 , Jul y
People vs . G.R. No . 83903 , Aug. 30, 1990,
189 People vs . Jr., G.R. No.
75618 , Dec. 180 SCRA 723, 731)
Treachery qualified the crime because, although
th e victim wa s forewarned of his impending death, he
wa s shot in th e back while he wa s entirely defenseless
and th e killers were under no risk whatsoever from
any retaliation the victim might make. (People vs.
G.R. No. 81404 , Jan . 28, 1991, 193 SCRA
429 , 435)
The shooting of Atty. wa s
trea chero us . Th e accuse d suddenl y and withou t
warning shot hi m whe n th e latter turned his back
towards th e accused and returned to his table to eat.
Atty. Maramba wa s fatally hit on the back of his
head and fell to the cement floor. Atty. Maramba did
not sense any danger that he would be shot by the
accused considering that he and the accused knew
each other personally and that there wa s no previous
grudge or misunderstanding between them. (People
vs. LAC, Nos. Jan. 10, 1987, 147 SCRA
219, 230)
433
Par. 16 Treachery
(2) With a weapon.
There wa s treachery, as the stabbing wa s from

behind, done in a sudden and unexpected manner while the
deceased was sitting and his head down on his hands.
(People vs. Delgado, G.R. No. 79672, Feb. 15, 1990, 182
SCRA 343, 351)
Treachery was duly and sufficiently proven. The
victim wa s suddenly and without warning stabbed
at the back of his nape by the assailant from behind
with a double-bladed knife. (People vs. Melgar, No. L-
75268, Jan. 29, 1988, 157 SCRA 718, 727)
(3) Other modes of armed attack.
Treachery in the commission of the crime wa s

correctly appreciated . Th e victi m wa s suddenl y
stabbe d b y th e a s s a i la n t w itho u t an y w a rning .
Although he wa s armed wit h a gun, he wa s never
given an opportunity to ward off the assaul t due to
its suddenness. (People vs. De Mesa, G.R. No. 87216 ,
July 28, 1990, 188 SCRA 48 , 55)
Treacher y att ende d wher e severa l accuse d

took turns in stabbing th e victim who wa s caught
by surprise and did not have time to defend himself.
(People vs. Dollantes, No. L-70639, Jun e 30, 1987,
151 SCRA 592, 607)
There wa s treachery because at th e tim e of th e
attack, th e victim wa s not in a position to defend
himself. After having been maltreated, the n stabbed,
and while in flight, he wa s chased as thoug h he wa s
a wounded quarry and in tha t defenseless state wa s
shot from behind by the assailant. (People vs.
No. L-66965, Jun e 18, 1987, 151 SCRA 113, 139)
There wa s treachery in the commission of th e
crime where the victim wa s shot to death while he
wa s lying face down on the floor, without any warning
and thu s wa s not able to defend himself at all. (People
vs. Pecato, No. Jun e SCRA 14,
28)
434
Treachery Par. 16
Two policemen reacted to assert their authority

i n p r o t e c t i n g an d co v eri n g c i v i l i a n s fro m th e
indiscriminate firing by the accused. Accused instead,
suddenl y and withou t warning , successivel y shot
them, knowing fully well that they were peace officers.
Although both were armed with their service guns,
the y were unable to offer resistance and put up a
defense due to th e suddennes s and close succession
of th e shots. Treachery attended the commission of
th e crimes. (People vs. Nos. Jan. 10,
1987, 147 SCRA 219 , 230)
Attackin g th e victim suddenly and with a

arm. (People vs. Rendora, G.R. No. Sept. 30,
1959)
Calling th e victim to come down from the house
and subjecting hi m to a volley of shots, causing his
death. (People vs . Mukung, G.R. No. March
22 , 1950)
Shooting unsuspecting victim who wa s hit in the
abdomen while he wa s wheeling around to face the assailant.
(People vs . Noble, 77 Phil. 93)
In all th e above cases, the offenders attacked
th e victims while th e latter were not in a position to
mak e a defense.
Fro m th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s o f sai d cases , th e
Supreme Court believed that the offenders purposely
adopted certain means , methods or forms of attack
to insure th e execution of the crime without risk to
themselves.
Requisites of treachery:
That at the time of the attack, the victim wa s not in a posi•
tion to defend himself; and
(2) That the offender consciously adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him.
To constitute treachery, two conditions mus t be present, to
wit: the employment of mean s of execution that gave the person
435
Par. 16 Treachery
attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means

of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. (People vs. Mabuhay,
G.R. No. 87018, May 24, 1990, 185 SCRA 675, 680)
In order for treachery to exist, two conditions mus t concur,
namely: (1) the employment of means, methods or manner of execu•
tion which would insure the offender's safety from any defense or
retaliatory act on the part of the offended party; and (2) such means ,
method or manner of execution wa s deliberately or consciously chosen
by the offender. (People vs. Sabado, No. L-76952, Dec. 22, 1988, 168
SCRA 681, 690; People vs. Rellon, No. Nov. 8, 1988, 167
SCRA 75, 77-78; People vs. Marciales, No. Oct. 18, 1988,
166 SCRA People vs. Estillore, No. L-68459, March
141 SCRA 456, 460)
The victim was not in a position to defend himself.

Treachery is properly appreciated when the victims were made to
lie face down, their hands tied at the back before they were killed (People
vs. No. Dec. or the
victim was from behind while dancing (People vs. Berzuela, G.R. No.
132078, Sept. 25, 2000), or whe n the victim wa s shot while blindfolded
(People vs. G.R. No. 130506, Feb. 28. 2002).
Treachery attended th e killing. The victim wa s totally defense•
less . H e wa s caugh t b y surprise whe n th e a ssa ilants , who m h e
considered his friends, suddenly attacked him. Without warning, he
wa s hit in the head, the n stabbed in th e back. Thu s disabled, he wa s
stabbed in th e chest. And eve n as he ran for hi s life, he wa s pursued
and stabbed some more whe n he stumbled. He never had a chance
to save hi s life. (People vs. Espinosa, G.R. No. 72883 , Dec. 20, 1989,
180 SCRA 393 , 400)
The violent death of th e victim wa s accompanied by treachery
where, although there were no eyewitnesse s to th e actual assault, he
wa s apparently beate n to death while his hand s and feet wer e tied
with a rope. (People vs. Gapasin, No. Oct. 27, 1986, 145
SCRA 178, 194)
Treachery wa s also present where th e assailant s mad e a de•
liberate, sudden and surprise attack from behind while th e victim
sat defenseless in th e driver's seat of his jeep. When he stopped hi s
jeep, one of the assailant s placed a piece of wire around his neck and
436
Treachery Par. 16
strangled hi m while th e other held him. At that precise mo men t of

th e attack, th e victim wa s not in a position to defend himself and the
accused deliberately and consciously adopted th e particular method
or form of attack whic h wa s strangulation from behind by one and
holding hi m by th e other beside him. (People vs. Masilang, No.
64699 , Jul y 1986, 142 SCRA 673 , 682)
There is treachery when the offenders made a deliberate surprise or

unexpected attack on the victim.
There wa s treachery because th e brothers mad e a deliberate

surprise or unexpected assaul t on Tadia. They literally ambushed
him. They waite d for hi m on th e cliff, a hig h ground which rendered
it difficult for hi m to flee or maneuve r in hi s defense. Tadia wa s shot
whil e he wa s ascending th e hill or cliff burdened by his food
basket. (People vs. Diaz, No. L-24002, Jan . 21 , 1974, 55 SCRA 178,
186)
The accused waited patiently and deliberately at th e farmhouse of th e
deceased, me t her on th e road whe n he sa w her coming riding
on a sled, waited by the roadside until th e victim passed by and then,
without warnin g and without giving th e victim a chance to escape,
made a sudde n and unexpected attack. The unarmed, fifty-six-year-
old woma n wa s absolutely helpless and unable to defend herself from
th e overpowering strength of th e accused whe n he stabbed her twice
wit h a combat bolo. The victim had no opportunity to defend herself
or repel th e initial assault. (People vs. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, Jun e
28, 1989, 174 SCRA 285, 293)
There is treachery where everyone of th e three victims wa s

completely helples s and defenseles s whe n shot and killed by the
accused wit h no risk to themselves . The first wa s completely taken
by surprise whe n he wa s shot in th e face. The second wa s lying down
whe n he wa s shot in the The third wa s seated whe n he was shot
in the head and shoulders. Non e of the three victims had a chance
to resist. (People vs. G.R. Nos. 38969-70, Feb. 9, 1989, 170
SCRA 107, 120)
Treachery wa s attendant where the victim wa s stabbed suddenly
and he wa s totally unprepared for the unexpected attack as he wa s
dancing at the precise time of the incident. He wa s given absolutely
no chance to defend himself. (People vs. Acaya, No. L-72998, July 29,
SCRA 768, 773)
437
Par. 16 Treachery
There was alevosia where the unarmed and unsuspecting victim was
ambushed in the dark, without any risk to his assailants. (People vs. Egaras,
No. L-33357, July 29, 1988, 163 SCRA 692, 696, citing earlier cases)
The victim wa s bringing food items for a noche buena whe n he
wa s suddenly attacked by two assailants , one armed wit h a spear
and the other wit h a bolo. The attack wa s so sudden tha t the victim
had no opportunity to defend himsel f or to inflict retaliatory blows
on the assailants . He jus t fell down after the spearing and wa s the n
hacked wit h the bolo. The killing wa s characterized by treachery.
(People vs. Bravante , No. L-73804, May 29, 1987, 150 SCRA 569 ,
576)
There is no treachery when the victim was already defending himself

when he was attacked by the accused.
Where the deceased wa s suddenly attacked, but he wa s able to
retreat to avoid being hit by the hacking blows and wa s hit only whe n
he wa s already in th e act of defending himself against th e attack of
the accused, there is no treachery. (People vs. Diva, No. L-22946,
April 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 332, 340)
Likewise, treachery is not present where th e accused and th e victim
grappled with each other. (People vs. Butler, No. L-50276, Jan . 27, 1983, 120
SCRA 281 , 306)
Does the fact that advantage was taken of relative confusion, so that
the act and identity of the offender would not be detected, and so that
his escape would be facilitated adequately establish treachery?
The Solicitor General in his brief recommends tha t defendant
be found guilty only of homicide, stating that, in hi s view, treachery
is not borne out by the evidence. Our consideration, however, of th e
facts shown in the record, particularly Rolando Banhao's testimony,
convinces us tha t treachery ha s been adequately established. As
counted by said witness , defendant stabbed th e deceased at th e tim e
when, on account of th e shower, people were going out of th e dance
hall to seek for cover. Advantag e wa s therefore take n by defendant
of the relative confusion created by the shower on th e crowd, so tha t
his act and identity would not be detected by th e people in th e dance
hall, and so tha t hi s escape would be facilitated. (People vs.
G.R. No. L-28596, February 21 , 1968, 22 SCRA 657, 660-661)
438
Treachery Par. 16
The reason for th e ruling is not in accordance with the second requisite
of treachery, and is completely alien to the definition of the aggravating
circumstance.
Treachery does not connote the element of surprise alone.

Counsel contends tha t since th e deceased had been threatened
since th e day before th e shooting, he wa s not caught by surprise at
all. Bu t treachery does not connote th e elemen t of surprise alone,
but exists whe n th e offender employs mean s which tend directly and
specially to insure th e execution of the offense, without risk to himself
arising from th e defense whic h th e offended party might make. (Art.
14, par. 16, Revised Pena l Code) Whe n appellant accosted his victim,
who could have had no idea as to jus t how th e threat to him would be
carried out, and without warning, shot hi m five times , nothing could
possibly hav e bee n done by th e latter in hi s own defense. (People vs.
No. Jul y 26, 1966, 17 SCRA 717, 720)
The appellant followed th e serenaders as the y walked, made no

indication tha t he would shoot, and the n suddenly fired from behind,
two shots in rapid succession from a distance of about five meters.
Unde r th e circumstances, clearly there wa s treachery. (People vs.
Pantoja, No . October 11, 1968, 26 SCRA 468, 471)
Mere sudden and unexpected attack does not necessarily

give rise to treachery.
It does not always follow that because the attack is sudden and
unexpected it is tainted with treachery. Indeed, it could have been
done on impulse, as a reaction to an actual or imagined provocation
offered by th e victim. (People vs. Sabanal, G.R. Nos. 73486-87, April
18, 1989, 172 SCRA 430, 434 , People vs. Malazzab, 160 SCRA
123; People vs. 158 SCRA 701; People vs. Macaso, 64 SCRA
659; People vs. 55 SCRA 245; People vs. 22 SCRA
699; and People vs. 83 Phil. 738)
When the accused gave the deceased a chance to prepare,

there was no treachery.
When the accused challenged the deceased to a before
the shooting, the attack was not treacherous even if the shooting
was sudden and the deceased wa s not prepared because it gave the
439
Par. 16 Treachery
deceased a chance to prepare for the impending attack. (People vs.

Visagar, 93 Phil. 319, 326-327)
No treachery where the attack is preceded by a warning.

And whe n the attack wa s frank, made face to face, and the
accused first asked did you say?" before starting the aggression,
there is no treachery because that question wa s already a warning to
the offended party of the hostile attitude of the accused. (People vs.
Luna, 76 Phil. 101, 104)
Calling attention of victim not necessarily a warning.

Treachery in th e commission of th e crime is clearly established
in this case: the assailant fired two successive shots at th e defenseless
victim, a fiscal, whil e th e latter wa s still seate d in hi s jeep , hittin g
him at th e neck and lumba r region. Th e fact tha t th e assailan t
called out, "Fiscal" before shooting th e victim does not negat e th e
presence of treachery. Th e assailan t being a hired killer, he wante d
t o insure tha t h e wa s shooting th e correct person. Whe n th e victi m
turned hi s face t o fin d out wh o wa s calling him , th e assailant s fire d
immediately , renderin g no opportunity for th e victi m to defend
himself. (People vs. No. L-68699, Sept. 22 , 1986 , 144
210 , 217-218)
No treachery where shooting is preceded by heated discus•

sion.
Facts: After a brief exchange of strong language, th e accused pulled his
revolver and fired at th e deceased three time s successively, while th e latter
wa s absolutely defenseless, as he had no weapo n of any kind whatsoever in hi
s hand s at tha t time.
Held: Since th e shooting wa s preceded by a heate d discussion
betwee n th e two, it mus t have placed th e deceased on hi s guard,
and th e alleged treachery cannot be legally considered. (People vs.
Gonzales, 76 Phil. 473 , 479)
There is no treachery where th e commission of th e crime wa s preceded
shortly before by a boxing incident and the victim and hi s companions had all
the opportunity to insure their safety, immediately before the attack of th e
defendants. (People vs. Gupo, G.R. No. 75814, Sept. 24, 1990, 190 SCRA 7, 19)
440
Treachery Par. 16
There is no treachery wher e th e assaul t upon th e deceased

wa s preceded by a heate d exchang e of words betwee n th e accused
and th e deceased. It cannot be said tha t th e deceased wa s caught
completely by surprise whe n th e accused took up arm s agains t him .
(People vs . G.R. No . Dec. 15, 1989, 180 SCRA 102,
107)
Where th e victim had provoked th e assailant by hitting not only

him, but also hi s wife, he should hav e been sufficiently
that reprisal migh t be in th e offing. The elemen t of a sudden unpro•
voked attack indicative of treachery is therefore lacking. (People vs.
Manlapaz, No. L-27259, Feb. 27, 1974, 55 SCRA 598, 604)
Killing unarmed victim whose hands are upraised is committed with

treachery.
The accused pointed hi s rifle at th e victim at a distance of six meters
and said, "Pardong, stand up, we are going to shoot you." The victim had hi s
hand s upraised, pleading in a loud voice, "Do not kill me, investigate first wha
t wa s my fault." The accused shot the victim, mortally wounding him .
Held: The killing wa s committed wit h treachery. (People vs.
G.R. No. Sept. 30, 1955)
Where th e victim wa s shot whe n hi s hand s were raised, t o
show tha t he would not fight, or because of fright, or to try to ward off
th e shots tha t were to come, he wa s clearly in a defenseless position.
This circumstance constitutes treachery. (People vs. Castro, G.R. Nos.
and Jun e 20 SCRA 543, 547)
Treachery wa s present in this case. The victim wa s unarmed
and had raised his hand s crying and pleading for his life whe n he was
shot by the assailants. Obviously, the stand taken by the victim posed
no risk to th e assailants. (People vs. Jutie, G.R. No. 72975, March
31 , 1989, 171 SCRA 586, 595, People vs.
March 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 573; People vs. Lasatin, February
11, 1953, 92 Phil. 668)
Killing a woman asking for mercy is committed with treachery.

The accused shot Mrs. Howell while she wa s pleading for her
daughters: na kayo. Huwag po."
441
Par. 16 Treachery
Held: The killing wa s committed with treachery. (People vs.

G.R. No. June Phil. 682, 684, 693)
There is treachery in killing a child.

Killing a child is characterized by because the weak•
ness of the victim due to his tender age results in the absence of any
danger to the accused. (U.S. vs. Oro, 19 Phil. 548, 554)
The killing of a one-year-old child, a six-year-old child, and
a twelve-year-old child is attended wit h treachery. The killing is
murder even if the manne r of attack wa s not shown. The qualifying
circumstance of treachery exists in th e commission of the crime of
murder whe n an adult person illegally attacks a child of tender years
and causes his death. (People vs. Retubado, G.R. No. 58585 , Jun e 20,
1988, 162 SCRA 276; People vs. Valerio, G.R. No. February
25, 1982, SCRA 208; U.S. vs. Lansangan, 27 Phil. 474; U.S . vs.
39 Phil. 846; People vs. Ganohon, G.R. Nos. 74670-74, April 30,
1991, 196 SCRA 431 , 446)
Intent to kill is not necessary in murder with treachery.

Thus, one who struck another with the fist from behind, th e blow
landing on th e back part of th e head, causing th e latter to fall back•
wards, hi s hea d striking the asphalt pavemen t which caused deat h
resulting from a fracture of th e skull, is guilty of murder although he
did not intend to kill the deceased. The Supreme Court of Spain ha s
held that there is no incompatibility, moral or legal, betwee n alevosia
and the mitigating circumstance of not havin g intended to cause so
great an injury. (People vs. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524, 530)
Bu t intent to kill is necessary in murder committed by mean s
of fire. (U.S. vs. Burns, 41 Phil. 418, 432-433)
Treachery may exist even if the attack is face to face.

It is not necessary for treachery to be present tha t th e attack mus t
come from behind the victim.
Treachery should be taken into account even if the deceased wa s
face to face wit h his assailant at th e tim e th e blow wa s delivered,
where it appears that th e attack wa s not preceded by a dispute and
the offended party wa s unable to prepare for his defense. (U.S.
vs. 28 Phil. 457, 461)
442
Treachery Par. 16
The attack wa s sudden and unexpected to th e point of incapaci•

tatin g George Ott to repel or escape from it. The offender adopted
a method which tended directly and especially to insure the accom•
plishment of his purpose without risk to himself arising from any
defense which th e offended party might make. True, th e victim and
th e accused were face to face whe n the attack commenced, the first
shot, according to all indications, havin g hit the victim in th e abdo•
men. Bu t it is also true tha t he had jus t wheeled around to see who
had spoken to hi m whe n th e defendant opened fire. (People vs. Noble,
77 Phil. 93)
Treachery is presen t althoug h th e shootin g wa s frontal, as

whe n the attack wa s so sudden and unexpected that the victim wa s
not in a position to offer an effective defense. Thus, where the victim
approached th e driver of a pickup and, as he approached the pickup,
th e victim wa s me t wit h gunfire which wa s followed by two more suc•
cessive shots, there wa s treachery. (People vs. Cuadra, No. L-27973,
Oct. 23 , 1978, 85 SCRA 576, 595)
Treachery attended where th e victim wa s completely take n by

surprise and shot, where he wa s seated peacefully eating with his
family. That he wa s shot face to face did not mak e th e attack any less
treacherous as he wa s totally take n aback and rendered completely
defenseless whe n he wa s shot. (People vs. Liston, G.R. No. 63396,
Nov. 15, 1989, 179 SCRA 415 , 421)
Treachery attend s althoug h th e attack is frontal where the
victim wa s completely helpless, as whe n both his hand s were held by
th e attackers numbering five gangin g up on him. (People vs.
G.R. No. 82363 , May 5, 1989, 173 SCRA 203, 208)
Where before the victim wa s stabbed and hit several times with
hollow blocks on the head, his arms were twisted, rendering him help•
less to defend himself or repel the initial assault, the mode of attack
wa s deliberately and consciously resorted to insure the commission
of the crime without risk to the assailants arising from the defense
that the victim might put up. (People vs. Paras, No. Jan.
31, 1987, 147 SCRA 594, 610)
Flashing the beam of a flashlight on the face of victim.

Where immediately prior to the stabbing, the accused flashed the beam
of his flashlight on the face of his victim, momentarily blinding
443
Par. 16 Treachery
the latter, the attack, though frontal, was sudden and perpetrated
in a manner tending directly to insure its execution, free from any
danger that the victim might defend himself. (People vs. Pongol, C.A.,
66 O.G. 5617)
Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Treachery is not to be presumed or taken for granted from the
mere statement of a witness that "the attack wa s There must
be a clear showing from the narration of facts why the attack or assault
is said to be "sudden." The reason for this is that treachery, like any
element of the crime, must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
(People vs. Santos, No. Oct. 85 SCRA 630, 639)
Treachery cannot be presumed; it mus t be proved by clear and
convincing or as conclusively as th e killing, if such be th e
crime, itself. (People vs. Tiozon, G.R. No. 89823 , Jun e 19, 1991 , 198
SCRA 368, 387-388, citing earlier cases)
Attack from behind is not always alevosia.

The mere fact that th e attack wa s inflicted whe n th e victim ha d
his back turned will not in itself constitute alevosia. It mus t appear
that such mode of attack wa s consciously adopted and th e question
of risk to the offender mus t be take n into account. (People vs . Baldos,
C.A., 34 O.G. 1937)
The fact tha t th e fatal wounds were found at th e back of th e
deceased does not, by itself, compel a finding of treachery. Suc h a
finding mus t be based on some positive proof and not merely by an
inference drawn more or les s logically from hypothetical facts. The
facts preceding the actual shooting mus t be in evidence. (People vs .
G.R. No. 69184 , March 26, SCRA 658 , 668)
The mere fact tha t th e victim had a stab woun d at th e back is
not indicative of alevosia, wher e th e deceased ha d sustaine d two (2)
other stab wound s at th e front, and th e evidence clearly show s tha t
the stab wound at th e back wa s th e last to be inflicted. (People vs.
Bacho, G.R. No. 66645 , March 29, 1989, 171 SCRA 458 , 466)
The fact that th e injuries of th e victim were inflicted from be• hind as th
e latter wa s running away does not necessarily establish treachery where it
does not appear tha t th e assailan t purposely chose to employ such mean s of
attack so that there would be no risk
444
Treachery Par. 16
to himsel f from any defense which th e offended party might make.

(People vs. Besana , Jr., No. May 64 SCRA 84, 88,
citing People vs. 83 Phil. 742)
Must treachery be present in the beginning of the assault?

It depends upon th e circumstances of th e case.
It mus t be show n tha t th e treacherous acts were present and
preceded the commencement of the attack which caused the injury
complained of. (U.S. vs. Balagtas , 19 Phil. 164, 172)
Notwithstandin g tha t th e shooting wa s sudden and unexpected
and committed on a helples s victim, in th e absence of a showing
tha t suc h mod e o f attac k wa s adopted consciously and tha t th e
assailant knowingly intended to ensure th e accomplishment of his
criminal purpose, and where th e shooting wa s only an aftermath of
a mauling, kicking, and boxing incident, treachery did not attend.
It is an established rule tha t treachery mus t be present from the
commencement of th e attack. (People vs. Tapeno, No. L-33573, Aug.
SCRA 696 , 703)
Eve n though in th e inception of th e aggression which ended in

th e death of th e deceased, treachery wa s not present, if there was a
break in the continuity the aggression and at the time the fatal wound
was inflicted on th e deceased he was defenseless, the circumstance of
treachery must be taken into account. (U.S. vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil. 385,
395)
Treachery need not exist in th e beginning of the assault if the
victim wa s first seized and bound and the n killed. (People vs.
44 Phil. 478, 483)
U.S. vs. Balagtas

(19 Phil. 164)
Facts: The accused knocked down the victim, striking him while
on the ground. Then, the accused threw him into the water, face down•
ward, while he was still alive in a helpless and defenseless condition.
Held: The knocking down of the victim, striking him on the
ground, and throwing him into the water constituted one and the same
attack. One continuous attack cannot be broken up into two or more
parts and made to constitute separate, distinct, and independent at•
tacks so that treachery may be injected therein.
445
Par. 16 Treachery
Note: In this case, there was no treachery at the inception of the

attack.
Also, even if the deceased wa s shot while he wa s lying wounded

on the ground, it appearing that the firing of the shot wa s a mere
continuation the assault in which the deceased wa s wounded, with no
appreciable time intervening between the delivery of the blows and the
firing of the shot, it cannot be said that the crime wa s attended by
treachery. (People vs. Peje, 99 Phil. 1052
If the wounding of the victim while lying on th e ground wa s
merely incidental to the ensuin g pursuit, not intended to ensure the
safety of the attackers themselves , there is no treachery. (People vs.
No. L-23463, September 28, 1967, 21 SCRA 261 , 270)
People vs.
(44 Phil. 478)
Facts: The accused assaulted the deceased with a knife and,

in the course of the fight which ensued, inflicted a serious cut on his
thigh. Upon receiving the wound, the deceased turned and fled, and
was immediately pursued by the accused. After going a short distance,
the deceased fell to the ground face downwards; and before he could
recover his equipoise and resume his flight, the accused ran up and
delivered a fatal thrust with his knife in the back of the deceased.
Held: That as the assault was not characterized by alevosia in its
inception and the aggression was continuous until the consummation
of the deed, the offense constituted simple homicide and not murder.
Canete could not have consciously adopted that method of attack, tha t is,
stabbing the deceased in th e back whe n th e latter wa s in a helpless condition,
since the assaul t began face to face and it wa s only whe n the deceased turned
around and ran awa y tha t their relative positions changed. And as the
aggression wa s continuous, Canete had no tim e to prepare for, or even to
think of, tha t method of attack.
U.S. vs. Baluyot

(40 Phil. 385)
Facts: The accused entered the office of the governor of

when the latter was sitting on a chair behind his desk. The accused ap•
proached the desk and upon reaching a position directly in front of the
governor, spoke certain words. Upon discovering that the governor was
446
Treachery Par. 16
the accused drew his own weapon and fired. The bullet fired
entered in the frontal region of the right shoulder blade of the governor
and inflicted a wound of minor importance. The governor immediately
arose. He escaped in the direction to his left by way of the space between
the left corner of his desk and the wall nearby, leading into a corridor.
The accused meanwhile turned somewhat to his right and advanced
slightly in the direction taken by the governor who was running away.
The accused fired again at the governor, hitting the latter in the region
of the right shoulder blade and passing through the body, an inch or
two from the wound made by the first shot. The governor continued his
flight along the corridor and took refuge in a closet at the end of the
corridor. Once within, he shut the door and placed himself in a position
to obstruct the entrance of his pursuer, who vainly attempted to open
the door. The governor screamed for help. This time, the accused who
was outside the closet stopped for a moment and judging the position
of the governor's head from the direction of the sound emitted, fired
his revolver in the direction indicated. The bullet passed through the
panel of the door and struck the governor in the forward part of the
head near and above the temple. This wound was necessarily fatal.
Held: The entire assault from the beginning until the second shot
was fired must be considered continuous and that the second shot was
fired while the victim was endeavoring to flee to a place of safety.
Even supposing that alevosia had not been present in the begin•
ning of the assault, it would be necessary to find this element present
from the manner in which the crime was consummated.
In the closet with the door shut, it was impossible for the governor
to see what his assailant was doing or to make any defense whatever
against the shot directed through the panel of the door. It was as if the
victim had been bound or blind-folded, or had been treacherously at•
tacked from behind in a path obscured by the darkness of the night.
Whe n th e second shot wa s fired , th e deceased wa s fleein g away

and entirely defenseless; but since th e entire assaul t from the be•
ginnin g u p t o tha t tim e wa s continuous and tha t th e assaul t wa s
begu n withou t treachery, th e Supreme Court did not consider the
second wound as havin g been inflicted wit h treachery. Moreover,
th e second wound wa s not fatal, like th e first wound. It wa s the
third wound in th e hea d which caused th e death of the victim. The
crime of murder wa s consummate d wit h the infliction of the third
wound.
But before the third wound wa s inflicted by the accused, he had
stopped for sometime. This fact is deducible from the circumstances
447
Par. 16 Treachery
that the accused attempted vainly to open the door of the closet; and
that when he failed, he judged the position of the head of the governor
before firing his revolver. Evidently, a certain period of time mus t
have elapsed in doing all of these acts. Because of that interruption,
the assault was not continuous up to the moment when the fatal blow
was inflicted treacherously. During the period of interruption, the
accused wa s able to think and even to make preparation for a method
or form of attack that insured the execution of the crime without risk
to himself.
Summary of the rules.

When the aggression is treachery must be present
in the beginning of the assault. (People vs. Canete, supra)
(2) Whe n the assault was not continuous, in tha t there wa s
an interruption, it is sufficient that treachery wa s present
at the moment the fatal blow was given. (U.S. vs. Baluyot,
supra)
In treachery, it makes no difference whether or not the victim

was the same person whom the accused intended to kill.
As the appellant committed th e act wit h intent to kill and wit h
treachery, the purely accidental circumstance tha t as a result of th e
shots, a person other tha n the one intended wa s killed, does not modify
the nature of the crime nor lesse n hi s criminal responsibility, and he
is responsible for the consequences of hi s acts. (People vs.
No. April 16, 1968, 23 SCRA 58, 72)
That another person, and not the victim, wa s the intended victim is not
incompatible with the existence of treachery. Treachery ma y be taken into
account even if the victim of the attack wa s not th e person whom the accused
intended to kill. (People vs. Trinidad, No. L-38930, Jun e 28, 1988, 162 SCRA
714, 725)
Treachery, wheneve r presen t in th e commission of a crime, should be
take n into account no matter whethe r th e victim of th e treacherous attack
wa s or wa s not the same person whom the accused intended to kill. (People vs.
Mabug-at, 51 Phil. 967, 970-971; People
vs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307, 318)
The reason for this rule is tha t whe n there is treachery, it is impossible
for either the intended victim or the actual victim to defend
448
Treachery Par. 16
himself against the aggression. (People vs. C.A., 40 O.G.

Sup.
When treachery is not to be considered as to the principal

by induction.
Whe n it is not show n tha t th e principal by induction directed
or induced th e killer of th e deceased to adopt the mean s or methods
actually used by th e latter in accomplishing the murder, because th e
former left to the latter th e details as to how it wa s to be accomplished,
treachery cannot be take n into consideration as to the principal by
induction. It shall aggravate th e liability of th e actual killer only.
(U.S. vs. Gamao, 23 Phil. 81 , 96) The ruling is based on Art. 62.
Treachery, abuse of superior strength, and means employed

to weaken the defense, distinguished.
An y one of thes e aggravating circumstances ma y facilitate the
In treachery, means , method s or forms of attack are employed
by th e offender to mak e it impossible or hard for the offended party
to put up any sort of resistance. (People vs. Ducusin, 53 Phil. 280, 289-
290; People vs. 83 Phil. 738)
In abuse of superior strength, th e offender does not employ
means , methods or forms of attack; he only take s advantage of his
superior strength.
In means employed to weaken the th e offender, like in
treachery, employs mean s but the mean s employed only materially
weaken s th e resisting power of th e offended party.
When there is conspiracy, treachery is considered against

all the offenders.
Treachery should be considered against all persons participat•
ing or cooperating in the perpetration of the crime, except when there
is no conspiracy among them. Hence, if there wa s no conspiracy even
if two accused helped each other in attacking th e deceased, only the
one who inflicted th e wound upon the deceased while the latter wa s
struggling wit h th e other defendant, is to suffer the effect of the
attendance of treachery. (People vs. Carandang, 54 Phil. 503, 506)
449
Par. 16 Treachery
The ruling stated in the first sentence should be subject to the provision
of Art. 62, paragraph No. 4, that is, treachery should be considered against
"those persons only who had knowledge" of the employment of treachery "at
the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein."
When there is conspiracy, treachery attends against all conspira• tors,

although only one did the actual stabbing of the victim. (People vs. Ong, No.
L-34497, Jan. 30, 1975, 62 SCRA 174, 211)
The mastermind should have knowledge of the employment

of treachery if he was not present when the crime was com•
mitted.
The trial court refused to consider treachery even as a generic
aggravating circumstance against appellant, on th e ground tha t he wa s not
present whe n the crime wa s actually committed, and left th e means , modes
or methods of its commission to a great extent to th e discretion of the others,
citing People vs. De Otero, 51 Phil. 201 .
The citation is not in point. It refers to a case where th e accused
wa s convicted as principal by inducement per se under paragraph 2 of
Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, without proof of conspiracy wit h
the other accused. In the case at bar, however, there wa s conspiracy
among the defendants, and th e rule is tha t every conspirator is re•
sponsible for the acts of th e others in furtherance of th e conspiracy.
Treachery — evident in th e act of the gunma n in suddenly firing hi s
revolver, preceded as it wa s by a false showing of courtesy to th e vic•
tim, thu s insuring the execution of th e crime without risk from any
defense or retaliation the victim might offer — should be appreciated
as a generic aggravating circumstance against th e mastermin d eve n
whe n he wa s not present whe n the crime wa s committed. (People vs.
Pareja, No. Nov. 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 693 , 715-716)
The ruling in this case should be subject to th e provision of Art.
62, paragraph No. 4.
If the intervention of other persons did not directly and es•

pecially insure the execution of the crime without risk to the
accused, there is no treachery.
even if the wife and sister of the accused held th e deceased
by his shirt whe n the accused inflicted the bolo wound s which caused
450
Treachery Par. 16
his death, there is no treachery, because the body and hand s of the
deceased were not deprived of liberty of action and, hence, there is
still risk to th e person of th e accused arising from the defense which
th e victim might make. (People vs. Julipa, 69 Phil. 751, 753)
Bu t if, of th e four persons who were to rob a house, one grappled
with th e watchma n whil e th e two opened fire and mortally wounded
both combatants, it wa s held tha t eve n though in th e inception of
the aggression, th e watchma n carried a carbine and wa s at liberty
to defend himself, it is a fact tha t at th e time th e fatal wounds were
inflicted, he wa s defenseless. His freedom of movement was being
restrained by one of th e culprits whe n the others fired at him. (People
vs. Mobe, 81 Phil. 58, 62)
Unde r th e circumstances, there wa s no risk to th e aggressor arising
from any defense whic h th e deceased might make.
Treachery, evident premeditation and use of superior strength

are absorbed in treason by killings.
Treachery, evident premeditation and us e of superior strength are, by
their nature, inherent in th e offense of treason. (People vs. Racaza, 82 Phil.
623 , 637)
Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength, aid of armed

men, by a band and means to weaken the defense.
Abuse of superior strength and employing mean s to weaken the
defense of the deceased by throwing sand to his face are absorbed
in treachery. (People vs. Siaotong, G.R. No. L-9242, March 29, 1957
When treachery is taken into account as a qualifying circumstance in

murder, it is improper to consider, in addition to that circumstance, the
generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, since the
latter is necessarily included in the former. (U.S. vs. Estopia, 28 Phil. 97, 100;
U.S. vs. Oro, 19 Phil. 548, 554-555; U.S. vs. Vitug,
17 Phil. 1, 20)
The aggravating circumstances of superior strength and by
band are absorbed in treachery. (People vs. Ampo-an, G.R. No. 75366,
July 4, 1990, 187 SCRA 173, 189; People vs. Manzanares, G.R. No.
82696, Sept. People vs. Molato, G.R. No.
451
Par. 16 Treachery
66634, Feb. 27, 1989, 170 SCRA 640, 647; People vs. Renejane, Nos.
L-76954-55, Feb. 26, 1988, 158 SCRA 258, 269)
The killings were attended with the aggravating circumstances
of treachery, abuse of superiority, dwelling and band
The qualifying circumstance alleged in the information is treachery
which absorbs abuse of superior strength and cuadrilla. (People vs.
Mori, Nos. Jan . 31 , 1974, 55 SCRA 382, 403; People vs.
Sangalang, No. Aug. 30, 1974, 58 SCRA 737, 741)
The aggravating circumstances of superior strengt h and aid of
armed men , as well as nighttime , are included in th e qualifying cir•
cumstance of treachery. (People vs. 102 Phil. 199, 210)
Nig htti m e an d abus e o f superior strengt h are inheren t i n
treachery and cannot be appreciated separately. (People vs. Bardon,
No. L-60764, Sept. People vs.
No. Dec. 3, SCRA 195, 202)
Abuse of superiority and aid of armed me n are absorbed in
treachery. (People vs. No. L-66965, Jun e SCRA
113, 139)
Treachery absorbs nocturnity, abuse of superiority, band and
aid of armed men. While there ma y be instances where any of the
other circumstances ma y be treated independently of treachery, it is
not so whe n the y form part of th e treacherous mode of attack. (People
vs. Sudoy, Oct. 10, 1974, 60 SCRA 174, 182)
Nighttime inherent in treachery.

The reason for this rule is tha t nighttim e forms part of th e
peculiar treacherou s mea n s an d manne r adopte d t o insur e th e
execution of the crime. (People vs. Pardo, 79 Phil. 568; People vs.
107 Phil. 44 , 50)
Had it not been at night, th e accused would not hav e bee n able to
approach th e deceased without th e latter's becoming aware of his presence
and guessing his intention. (People vs. Balagtas, 68 Phil. 675, 677) Hence,
nighttime is not a separate aggravating circumstance, wheneve r treachery is
already considered.
When nighttime is not absorbed in treachery.

There wa s treachery in th e commission of th e offense at bar.
452
Treachery Par. 16
The victims' hand s were tied at th e tim e the y were beaten. Since the
treachery rests upon an independent factual basis, th e circumstance
of nighttime is not absorbed therein, but can be perceived distinctly
therefrom. A special case therefore is present to which the rule that
nighttime is absorbed in treachery does not apply. (See People vs.
Joh n Doe, G.R. No . L-2463, March 31 , 1950; 2 Viada, Codigo Penal,
274-275; People vs. Berdida, No . Jun e 30, 1966, 17 SCRA
520, 529; People vs. Ong, No . L-34497, Jan . 62 SCRA 174,
212; People vs . Luna, No . Jul y 31 , 1974, 58 SCRA 195,
208)
Craft is included in and absorbed by treachery.

Craft is included in and absorbed by th e qualifying circumstance
of treachery, because it wa s used to insure th e commission of the crime
without any risk to th e culprits. (People vs . 83 Phil. 804)
Bu t in th e case of People vs. Daos, 60 Phil. it wa s held
tha t th e aggravating circumstances of craft and treachery should be
take n into consideration, on th e ground tha t th e act of th e accused
in pretending to be bona fide passenger s in th e taxi in order not to
arouse the driver's suspicion constitute craft; and th e fact tha t in
assaultin g hi m the y did so from behind, catching hi m completely
unaware, certainly constitutes treachery.
Whe n craft wa s employed in robbery wit h homicide, not with
a view to makin g treachery more effective as nighttime or abuse of
superior strength would in th e killing of th e victim, but to facilitate
the taking of the jeep in the robbery scheme as planned by the culprits,
it is not absorbed in treachery. (People vs. Sa n Pedro, No. L-44274,
Jan. 22, 1980, 95 SCRA 306, 309)
Age and sex are included in treachery.

Disregard of age and sex may be deemed included in treachery.
(People vs. 88 Phil. 35, 42 , citing People vs. Mangsant, 65
Phil. 548)
The aggravating circumstances of disregard of age and sex, and
advantage taken of superior strength, should not have been considered
independently of the aggravating circumstance of treachery which
was already considered. (People vs. Gervacio, No. August
30, 1968, 24 SCRA 960, 976)
453
Par. 16 Treachery
Illustration of aggravating circumstance absorbed by an•

other.
The circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place, cruelty and
aid of armed persons cannot be taken into consideration as aggra•
vating circumstances, because the first (nighttime) wa s necessarily
included in that of treachery; that of uninhabited place, because it
has not been proven that there were no houses near the house of the
deceased; that of cruelty, because the fire, which is the fact in which
said circumstance is made to consist, took place after th e victims
were already dead, the appellant not having taken advantage of said
mean s to deliberately augment the seriousness of th e crime; and that
of aid of armed persons, because the appellant as well as those who
cooperated with him in th e commission of the crime in question, acted
under the sam e plan and for the same purpose. (People vs. 63
Phil. 546, 553)
Dwelling is not included in treachery.

The aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot be included
in the qualifying circumstance of treachery. (People vs. 100
Phil. 537, 544; People vs. Jimenez , 99 Phil. 285, 288)
Defenseless condition of victims is included in abuse of su•

perior strength, not treachery.
The defenseless condition of th e wome n and children shot to
death by the offenders should be considered as included in the qualify•
ing circumstance of abuse of superior strength, not as an independent
circumstance of treachery. (People vs. Lawas, G.R. Nos .
Jun e 30, 1955)
Treachery is inherent in murder by poisoning.

Treachery is inherent in murder by poisoning. (People vs. Caliso, 58 Phil.
283 , 295)
Treachery cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation.

Treachery cannot co-exist wit h passion or obfuscation, for while
in the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, th e offender
loses his reason and self-control, in the aggravating circumstance
of treachery th e mode of attack mus t be consciously adopted. One
454
Ignominy Par. 17
who loses his reason and self-control could not deliberately employ
a particular means , method or form of attack in the execution of the
crime. (People vs. Wong, C.A., 70 O.G. 4844)
Par. 17. — That means be employed or circumstances brought

about which add ignominy to the natural effects of
the act.

The basis ha s reference to th e means employed.
Ignominy, defined.
Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to th e moral order, which
adds disgrace and obloquy to th e material injury caused by the crime.
(U.S. vs. Abaigar, 2 Phil. 417, 418; People vs. Acaya, No. L-72998,
Jul y 163 SCRA 768, 774)
Applicable to crimes against chastity, less serious physical

injuries, light or grave coercion, and murder.
This aggravating circumstance is applicable whe n th e crime committed
is against chastity.
Ignominy aggravates th e penalty for th e crime of less serious physical
injuries. (Art. 265, par. 2)
Ignominy wa s considered in th e crime of light coercion under Article
287, paragraph 2, in a case where th e accused who embraced and kissed the
offended party acted under an impulse of anger rather than a desire to satisfy
his lust. The act wa s committed in the pres• ence of many persons. The
offended party wa s a young woman. These circumstances tended to make th e
effects of the crime more humiliat• ing. (People vs. Cantong, C.A., 50 O.G.
5899)
There is ignominy to be considered in determining the proper penalty
for murder, whe n before he wa s killed, th e deceased, a landowner, wa s
forced by the accused to kneel in front of his house servants drawn up in line
before him. (U.S. vs. De Leon, 1 Phil. 163, 164)
455
Par. 17 Ignominy
"That means be employed."

When the accused raped a woman after winding cogon grass
around his genital organ, he thereby augmented the wrong done by
increasing its pain and adding ignominy thereto. (People vs.
et C.A., 45 O.G. 803)
"That circumstances be brought about."

(1) It would be present in a case where one rapes a married
woman in the presence of her husband (U.S. vs. Iglesia, 21
Phil. 55, 57), or alleged husband (People vs. Soriano, No. L-
32244, Jun e SCRA 740, or where
the accused rapes a woman in the presence of her betrothed
(U.S. vs. 5 Phil. 377-378), or where a woma n
wa s successively raped by four me n (U.S. vs. Camiloy, 36
Phil. 757, 758), or where one of the victims wa s raped in
th e presence of her husband, and the other successively
raped by five me n (People vs. Detuya, No . L-39300, Sept.
30, 1987, 154 SCRA 410 , 426), or where th e accused use d
not only th e missionary position, male superior, female
inferior, but also th e dog style of sexual intercourse, i.e.,
entry from behind. (People vs . Saylan, No. Jun e
29, 1984, 130 SCRA
Bu t where th e rape of th e wife wa s not perpetrated

in the presence or wit h th e knowledge of her husband , or
where th e rape wa s done after th e husband wa s killed,
th e rape committed could not hav e added ignominy to th e
crime. (People vs . Mongado, No. L-24877, Jun e 30 , 1969,
28 SCRA 642 , 651)
(2) There is ignominy whe n in compelling an old woma n to
confess to th e theft of clothes, th e accused maltreated her
and took off her drawers because the removing of her draw•
ers could hav e no other purpose but to put her to shame .
(People vs. Fernando, C.A., 43 O.G. 1717)
The crime committed in tha t case is grave coercion. (Art.
286)
"Which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act."

According to thi s clause, th e mean s employed or the
456
Ignominy Par. 17
brought about mus t tend to mak e th e effects of the crime

more humiliating or to put the offended party to shame.
The fact tha t th e appellants, in ordering th e complainant to
exhibit to the m her complete nakednes s for about two minute s before
raping her, brought about a circumstance which tended to make the
effects of th e crime more humiliating. (People vs. Jose, No.
Feb. 37 SCRA 450 , 476) Similarly, in a case where it wa s
tablished that th e accused use d a flashlight and examined the genital
of th e victim before he ravished her, and committed the bestial deed
in th e presence of th e victim's old father, th e Supreme Court held
tha t thes e facts clearly show tha t th e accused deliberately wanted to
further humiliat e th e victim, thereby aggravating and compounding
her moral sufferings. (People vs . Bumidang , G.R. No. 130630, Dec.
4, 2000)
Ignominy attended in thi s case: Betwee n seve n and eight o'clock

in th e evening, th e unwar y victim wen t to th e beach where she wa s
accustomed to void and whe n sh e squatted, th e assailan t unexpect•
edly appeared behind her, held he r hair, thu s tilting her face, and
while in tha t he inserted into her mout h th e muzzle of his
pistol and fired. Sh e died. (People vs . No. L-32624, Feb. 12,
1980, 96 SCRA 1,
Bu t th e fact tha t th e accused sliced and took th e flesh from th e

thighs , leg s and shoulders of th e victim after killing her by th e us e
of a knife does not add ignomin y to th e natural effects of th e act.
(People vs . Balondo, No . Oct. 30 SCRA
161; People vs. No . L-66965, Jun e SCRA 113,
140)
It is incorrect to appreciate adding ignominy to the offense where

the victim wa s already dead whe n his body wa s dismembered. It is
required tha t the offense be committed in a manner that tends to
make its effects more humiliating to the victim, that is, add to his
moral suffering. (People vs. G.R. No. 81404, Jan. 28, 1991,
193 SCRA 429, 436)
The mere fact that the assailant fired more shots at the pros•
trate bodies of his victims is not sufficient to show the existence of
ignominy. (People vs. Pantoja, No. Oct. 11, 1968, 25 SCRA
468, 472)
457
Par. 18 Unlawful Entry
No ignominy when a man is killed in the presence of his

wife.
The fact that the deceased wa s killed in the presence of his
wife certainly could not have such signification. The circumstance of
ignominy wa s not present, because no mean s wa s employed nor did
any circumstance surround the act tending to make the effects of the
crime more humiliating. (U.S. vs. Abaigar, supra)
Rape as ignominy in robbery with homicide.

Rape co mmitte d on th e occasion of robbery wit h homicide
increases the moral evil of th e crime, and it is incorrect to say tha t
there is no law which considers rape as an aggravating circumstance
simply because it is not specifically enumerated in Article 14 of the
Revised Penal Code as an aggravating circumstance. As ha s been
held in People vs. Racaza, 82 Phil. 623 , 638, rapes, wanto n robbery
for personal gain, and other forms of cruelties are condemned and
their perpetration will be regarded as aggravating circumstances of
ignominy and of deliberately augmentin g unnecessary wrongs to th e
mai n criminal objective under paragraphs 17 and 21 of Article 14 of
the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Tapales, No. Sept. 10,
1979, 93 SCRA 134, 142. Bu t see People vs. Mongado, No . L-24877,
Jun e 30, 1969, 28 SCRA 642, 651-652)
Par. 18. — That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.

The basis ha s reference to th e means and ways employed to commit th e
crime.
Meaning of unlawful entry.

There is an unlawful entry whe n an entrance is effected by a
way not intended for the purpose.
To effect entrance, not for escape.

Unlawful entry mus t be a mean s to effect entrance and not for escape.
(People vs. Sunga, 43 Phil. 205, 206)
458
Unlawful Entry Par. 18
Example:
The act of entering through th e window, which is not the proper
place for entrance into the house, constitutes unlawful entry.
Is there unlawful entry if the door is broken and thereafter made
an entry thru th e broken door? No, it will be covered by paragraph
19.
Reason for aggravation.

One wh o acts, not respecting the walls erected by men to guard
their property and provide for their personal safety, shows a greater
perversity, a greater audacity; the law punishes him with more
severity.
Application of this circumstance.

It should be considered in rape committed in a house after an entry
through th e window. It should be considered also in murder where the
accused entered the room of the victim through the window. It should be
considered also in robbery wit h violence agains t or intimidation of persons,
because unlawful entry is not inherent in that particular kind of robbery. The
window is not intended for entrance into th e building.
Bu t unlawful entry is one of th e way s of committing robbery with force
upon thing s under Art. 299, par. (a), and Art. 302 of the Code. It is inherent in
this kind of robbery.
If th e crime charged in th e information wa s only theft, and during th e
trial, th e prosecutio n proved unlawfu l entry, it is a generic aggravatin g
circumstanc e whic h ma y raise th e penalt y for theft to th e maximu m
period. It would be improper to convict the accused of robbery wit h force
upon thing s becaus e unlawful entry wa s not alleged in th e information.
(People vs . Sunga , 43 Phil. 205, 206)
Dwelling and unlawful entry taken separately in murders committed

in a dwelling.
When the accused gained access to the dwelling by climbing
through the window and once inside, murdered certain persons in the
dwelling, there were two aggravating circumstances which attended
459
Par. 19 Breaking Wall
the commission of the crimes — dwelling and unlawful entry. (People

vs. 61 Phil. 318, 331)
Unlawful entry is not aggravating in trespass to dwelling.

Trespass to dwelling is committed whe n a private individual shall enter
the dwelling of another against the latter's will and ma y be committed by
mean s of violence. (Art. 280)
If the offender entered the dwelling of another through an open• ing not
intended for the purpose, like the window, the unlawful entry wa s an integral
part of the circumstance of violence with which the crime of trespass wa s
committed. (U.S. vs. Barberan, 17 Phil. 509, 511-512)
Par. 19. — That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall,

roof, floor, door, or window be broken.

The basis ha s reference to means and ways employed to commit
the
Is the cutting of the canvas of the tent where soldiers are sleeping
covered by par. 19?
It wa s considered aggravating in murder where th e accused cut
the ropes at th e rear of a field ten t and killed two soldiers inside th e
tent. (U.S. vs. Matanug, Phil. 188, 189, 192)
The Supreme Court called it aggravating circumstance of
forcible
"As a means to the commission of a crime."

A broke a window to enable himself to reach a purse wit h money
on th e table near tha t window, which he took while hi s body wa s
outside of the building. The crime of theft wa s attended by this ag•
gravating circumstance. Not e tha t because of th e phrase "as a mean s
to the commission of a crime," it is not necessary tha t th e offender
should have entered th e building. Wha t aggravates th e liability of
the offender is th e breaking of a part of th e building as a mean s to
the commission of th e crime.
460
Breaking Wall Par. 19
To be considered as an aggravating circumstance, breaking the

door mus t be utilized as a mean s to the commission of the crime. It
is not to be appreciated where the accused did not break the door of
th e victims as a mean s to commit robbery with homicide where the
accused after breaking th e rope which wa s used to close the door
could have already entered the house. Breaking of the shutters and
th e framing of th e door to insure th e element s of surprise does not
aggravate the commission of the crime. (People vs. Capillas, No. L-
27177, Oct. 23, 1981 , 108 SCRA 173, 187)
To effect entrance only.

Bu t it ma y be resorted to as a mean s to commit a crime in a
house or building.
For example, a murderer who, for th e purpose of entering the house of
hi s victim, breaks a wall or a window of the house.
The circumstance is aggravating only in those cases where the offender
resorted to any of said mean s to enter the house. If th e wall, etc., is broken in
order to get out of th e place, it is not an aggravating circumstance.
Breaking a part of th e building is one of the mean s of entering the
building to commit robbery wit h force upon things under Art. 299, par. (a),
and Art. 302 of the Code. It is inherent in this kind of robbery. Breaking a part
of the building is not aggravating in that crime.
Where breaking of door or window is lawful.

Under Rule 113, Sec. 11 (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure).
— An officer, in order to mak e an arrest, either by virtue of a war•
rant, or without a warrant as provided in Section 5, may break into
any building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is
reasonably believed to be, if he is refused admittance thereto, after
announcing his authority and purpose.
Rule 126, Sec. 7 (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). - The
officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search after
giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any
outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or
anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any
person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.
461
Par. 20 Aid of Minor or by Means of Motor Vehicles
Par. 20. — That the crime he committed (1) with the aid of
persons under fifteen years of age, or (2) by means
of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.

The basis ha s reference to means and ways employed to commit the
crime.
Two different aggravating circumstances in paragraph 20.

Two different circumstances are grouped in this paragraph. The
first one tends to repress, so far as possible, th e frequent practice
resorted to by professional criminals to avail themselve s of minors
taking advantage of their irresponsibility; and th e second one is in•
tended to counteract the great facilities found by modern criminals
in said mean s to commit crime and flee and abscond once the same is
committed. (Albert)
"With the aid of persons under years of age."

A caused B, a boy 14 years old, to climb th e wall of the hous e
of C, to enter the sam e through its window, and once inside, to take ,
as in fact B took, clothes and other personal property in th e hous e of
Then B threw the m to the ground where A picked the m up. Th e
aggravating circumstance that the crime wa s committed wit h th e aid
of a person under fifteen years of age should be take n into account
against A.
"By means of motor vehicles."

Us e of motor vehicle is aggravating wher e the accused used th e
motor vehicle in going to th e place of th e crime, in carrying awa y th e
effects thereof, and in facilitating their escape. (People vs. Espejo,
No. L-27708, Dec. 19, 1970, 36 SCRA 400, 418)
May this aggravating circumstance be considered if th e motor
vehicle wa s used, not as a mean s to commit th e crime, but only as a
mean s for the flight or concealment of th e offender? Judg e Guevara
believes tha t th e us e of motor vehicles is aggravating the
same furnish a quick mean s for the flight or concealment of th e of•
462
Aid of Minor or by Means of Motor Vehicles Par. 20
The accused used th e motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in
carrying th e effects thereof and in facilitating the escape. (People vs. Espejo,
36 SCRA 400)
Whe n th e accused ha s decided to realize hi s plan of liquidating

the victim, drove hi s pickup wit h hi s companions, conducted a sur•
veillance of th e victim's whereabouts while driving his pickup, killed
th e victim upon meetin g him , and mad e good hi s escape by speeding
away in his vehicle, th e motor vehicle wa s used as a mean s to commit
th e crime and to facilitate escape, whic h is aggravating. (People vs.
No. Oct. 23 , 1978, 85 SCRA 576, 596)
After an earlier confrontation, th e principal accused caught up
wit h th e victim on board a jee p which th e former wa s driving. As soon
as he had stopped th e vehicle, he stepped down and axed th e victim,
while one of several companions stabbed him, th e rest stoning him.
The victim died. Th e jee p havin g played an important role in the
accomplishment of th e crime and th e accused and hi s companions
havin g mad e good their escape by speeding awa y aboard the jeep
in order to avoid discovery of their identities, use of motor vehicle
is aggravating. (People vs. Bardon, No. L-60764, Sept.
SCRA 416 , 420 , 426)
Note: If th e motor vehicle wa s use d only in facilitating the

escape, it should not be an aggravating circumstance.
Where th e us e of a vehicle wa s not deliberate to facilitate the

killing of th e victim, th e escape of th e assailant s from th e scene of
the crime, and th e concealment of th e body of the victim, but only
incidental, it is not an aggravating circumstance. (People vs.
No. Sept. 107 SCRA 313 , 338)
Where it appears tha t the us e of motor vehicle wa s merely in•
cidental and wa s not purposely sought to facilitate the commission
of the offense or to render th e escape of th e offender easier and his
apprehension difficult, th e circumstance is not aggravating. (People
vs. Garcia, No. July 9, 1981, 105 SCRA 325, 343)
Us e of motor vehicle will not be considered as an aggravating
circumstance where there is no showing that the motor vehicle was
purposely used to facilitate the commission of the crime or where
it is not shown that without it, the offense charged could not have
been committed. Thus, where the primary purpose of the assailant
in riding on a motorized tricycle wa s to return to their camp (assail-
463
Par. 20 Aid of Minor or by Means of Motor Vehicles
ant was a PC enlistedman) after shooting a first victim and it was

just incidental that on his way to the camp, he happened to see the
second victim, the circumstance is not aggravating. (People vs. Mil,
Nos. July 30, 1979, 92 SCRA 89, 102)
Estafa, which is committed by means of deceit or abuse of con•

cannot be committed by means of motor vehicle.
While it is true that a jeep wa s used in carting away the Vicks
we feel that the crime of estafa wa s not committed by mean s
of said vehicle. Furthermore, under Article 14, paragraph 20 of the
Revised Penal Code, that aggravating circumstance exists only if
crime be committed by means of motor vehicles (People vs.
Bagtas, et CA-G.R. No. September 12, 1955)
Theft, which is committed by merely taking personal property

which need not be carried away, cannot be committed by
means of motor vehicles.
The culprits used a car and, for part of th e way, a hired jeep in
going to and coming from th e place where th e crime (theft) wa s com•
mitted. It would be stretching the meanin g of th e law too far to say
that the crime wa s committed means of motor vehicles." (People
vs. Real, 10 C.A. Rep. 668)
Examples of crimes committed by means of motor vehicle.

A, with the help of B and wit h lewd designs , forcibly took and
carried away a woma n by mean s of an automobile to another town.
The crime of forcible abduction (Art. 342) wa s committed wit h this
aggravating circumstance.
Us e of motor vehicle wa s aggravating in theft where a truck
wa s used in carrying awa y th e stolen rails and iron and wooden tie s
from the scene of the theft to th e place wher e the y were sold (People
vs. Arabia, C.A., 53 O.G. 6569), and in robbery wit h homicide where
a motor vehicle wa s used in transporting th e accused. (People vs.
90 Phil. 15, 31 , 35)
Eve n if the victims rode voluntarily in th e jeepney, since the y
were lured and taken to the place where the y were killed, th e us e of
motor vehicles wa s considered aggravating. (People vs. De la Cruz,
100 Phil. 624, 634)
464
Cruelty Par. 21
A jeep wa s use d by th e appellants in fetching and luring the

deceased from hi s hous e to go wit h the m on the night in question,
which the y mus t hav e used also in taking hi m to the spot where later
on th e victim's body wa s found. There can be no doubt tha t th e us e of
the motor vehicle facilitated th e commission of the offense. (People
vs. Atitiw, 14 CAR [2s] 457, 467)
Whe n th e accused stabbed and inflicted upon hi s girlfriend, mortal
wound s whic h caused her death, while they were in a taxi which wa s hired
and use d by him , th e aggravating circumstance of by mean s of motor vehicle
wa s present. (People vs. Marasigan, 70 Phil. 583 , 594)
Where th e accused use d a motor vehicle to insure the success of their
nefarious enterprise, th e circumstance is aggravating. (People vs. Jaranilla,
No. L-28547, Feb. 22 , 1974, 55 SCRA 563 , 575)
Us e of motor vehicle is aggravating in thi s case: the car of the
accused wa s used in trailing th e victim's car up to th e time that it
wa s overtaken and blocked. It carried th e victim on th e wa y to the
scene of th e killing; it contained at its baggage compartment th e pick
and shovel used in digging th e grave; and it wa s th e fast mean s of
fleeing and absconding from th e scene. (People vs. Ong, No. L-34497,
Jan . 6 2 SCRA 174, 214)
"Or other similar means."

The expression should be understood as referring to motorized vehicles
or other efficient mean s of transportation similar to auto• mobile or airplane.
Thus, if the culprit, before committing and after committing the crime,
rode in a bicycle and escaped, there is no aggravating circum• stance. Bu t it is
aggravating if he used a motorcycle.
Par. 21. — That the wrong done in the commission of the crime
be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong
not necessary for its commission.

The basis ha s reference to ways employed in committing the
465
Par. 21 Cruelty
What is cruelty?
is cruelty whe n the culprit enjoys and delights in making
his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing hi m unnecessary
physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act. (People vs.
Dayug, 49 Phil. 423, 427)
For cruelty to be aggravating, it is essential that the wrong
done wa s intended to prolong the suffering of the victim, causing
him unnecessary moral and physical pain. (People vs. Llamera, Nos.
May 25, 1973, 51 SCRA 48, 60)
For cruelty or to be appreciated, th e evidence
mus t show that the sadistic culprit, for his pleasure and satisfaction,
caused the victim to suffer slowly and gradually, and inflicted on hi m
unnecessary moral and physical pain. (People vs. Luna, No.
July 31 , 1974, 58 SCRA 198, 209)
For cruelty to exist, it mus t be shown that the accused enjoyed

and delighted in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, caus•
ing him unnecessary physical or moral pain in th e consummation
of the criminal act. (People vs. Ong, No. L-34497, Jan . 30 , 1975, 62
SCRA 174, 215)
Requisites of cruelty:
That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing
other
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of
the purpose of the offender.
"Be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong."

This phrase mean s that th e accused at th e tim e of the commis•
sion of the crime had a deliberate intention to prolong th e suffering
of the victim.
Cruelty wa s not present in a case wher e the assailan t stoned

twice the victim, not for the purpose of increasing his sufferings, but
to kill him (U.S. vs. 3 Phil. 354, 357), or in a case where the
acts of the assailant s showed only a decided purpose to kill and not
to prolong sufferings of the victim (U.S. vs. Ta n 32 Phil. 104,
or where the purpose wa s to ensure the death of the three victims
466
Cruelty Par. 21
and to tampe r wit h th e bullet wound s to mak e the m appear as bolo

wounds in order to conceal th e fact tha t a gu n wa s used in killing
the m (People vs. Llamera, supra), or where th e victim wa s drowned
in th e sea after stabbing hi m while bound (People vs. Luna, supra),
or where th e victim wa s buried after being stabbed, not to mak e hi m
suffer any longer but to conceal hi s body and th e crime itself (People
vs. Ong, supra), or where th e accused kicked th e deceased or placed
his right foot on th e body of th e deceased to verify whether or not
the latter wa s still alive, and not for th e purpose of deliberately and
inhumanl y increasing hi s sufferings. (People vs. Mil, Nos.
05, Jul y 30, 1979, 92 SCRA 89 , 101)
"Other wrong not necessary for its commission."

A and B, wh o ha d tied C in th e latter's house, struck him with
their gun s to mak e hi m point th e place where he wa s keeping his
money. Striking hi m wit h th e gun s is "other wrong," but it is neces•
sary for th e commission of th e crime of robbery, particularly to get
C's money. Hence, there is no cruelty.
Cruelty refers to physical suffering of victim purposely in•

tended by offender.
Cruelty requires deliberate prolongation of the physical suffering
of victim. (People vs. Dayug, supra; People vs. Llamera, supra)
Cruelty cannot be presumed.

Cruelty is not to be inferred from th e fact tha t th e body of th e
deceased wa s dismembered, in th e absence of proof tha t this wa s done while
th e victim wa s still alive. (People vs. Jimenez , 54 O.G. 1361)
Cruelty considered in murder by burning mouth of child.

This circumstance is considered in the charge of murder for
burning the mouth and other parts of the body of an infant, months
old. If the desire of the defendant had been only to kill the child, he
could have carried out his purpose without compelling the victim to
undergo such great suffering and for so long a time. (U.S. vs. Oro, 19
Phil. 548, 554)
467
Par. Cruelty
Cruelty considered in extracting victim's eye and stuffing his

mouth with mud.
After hog-tying the victim, the accused extracted the victim's
left eye from its socket with th e pointed end of his cane and also
stuffed the victim's mouth with mud. Held: There is cruelty. (People
vs. Mariquina, 84 Phil. 39, 40-41, 43 , 44)
When the series of acts causing unnecessary sufferings of

victim took place in rapid succession, is there cruelty?
When a woman and her two daughters, one of them Corazon,
were fired at by the accused, Corazon screamed for help. One of the ac•
cused grabbed her, raised her from the ground, while the other accused
battered her with the butt of the rifle and pounded her on the ground.
Corazon died of external and hemorrhage. Held: There wa s
unnecessary cruelty. (People vs. Beleno, 92 Phil. 868, 869, 872)
Was there a deliberate intention on th e part of th e accused to

prolong th e suffering of the victim? There seem s to be no appreci•
able time intervening betwee n or amon g th e series of acts of th e
accused.
In the case People vs. Dayug, supra, it wa s held tha t mere
fact of inflicting various successive wound s upon a person in order to
cause his death, no appreciable time intervening betwee n th e infliction
of one wound and that of another to show tha t th e offender wante d
to prolong th e suffering of his victim, is not sufficient for takin g this
aggravating circumstance into consideration."
Plurality of wounds alone does not show cruelty.

Numbe r of wound s alone does not show cruelty, it being neces•
sary to show tha t th e accused deliberately and inhumanl y increased
the sufferings of th e victims. (People vs . 55 Phil.
616; People vs. Manzano, Nos . L-33643-44, Jul y 31 , 1974, 58 SCRA
250, 262; People vs. Lacao, No. L-32078, Sept. 60 SCRA 89,
96-97)
In th e absence of a showing tha t th e other wound s found on

the body of the victim were inflicted to prolong hi s suffering before
the fatal wound wa s dealt, it cannot be concluded tha t cruelty wa s
duly proven. Cruelty cannot be presumed. (People vs. No.
May 15, 1979, 90 SCRA 144, 156)
Cruelty Par. 21
Where there wer e man y wound s because there were man y as•
sailants, th e number of wound s alone is not sufficient to show that
the killing wa s committed for th e purpose of deliberately and inhu•
manl y aug mentin g th e suffering of the victim. (People vs. Vasquez,
No. 54117 , April 27, 1982, 113 SCRA 772, 776)
No cruelty when other wrong was done after victim was

dead.
Cutting extremities after victim is killed is not cruelty. (People vs.
Bersabal, 48 Phil. 439 , 441)
If at th e tim e th e house wa s set on fire th e inmate s who had been
seriously wounded were already dead, there is no cruelty. (People vs.
63 Phil. 546, 553; People vs. 85 Phil. 350, 353)
Neithe r ma y we consider th e circumstance of cruelty as found
by th e trial court, because there is no showin g tha t th e other wounds
found on th e bodies of th e victims were inflicted unnecessarily while
they were still alive in order to prolong their physical suffering.
(People vs . Nos . Oct. 31 , 1963, SCRA
323,
347-348)
For cruelty to be appreciated as a generic aggravating circum•

stance, there mus t be positive proof tha t th e wounds found on the
body of th e victim were inflicted while he wa s still alive in order un•
necessarily to prolong physical suffering. (People vs. G.R. No.
69986, March 194 SCRA 654, 663)
Ignominy distinguished from cruelty.

Ignominy (par. 17) involves moral suffering, while cruelty (par.
refers to physical suffering.
Rapes, robbery and other forms of cruelties are aggravating

circumstances of ignominy and cruelty in treason.
Rapes, wanton robbery for personal gain, and other forms of cruelties
are condemned and their perpetration will be regarded as ag• gravating
circumstances of ignominy and of deliberately augmenting unnecessary
wrongs to the main criminal objective, under paragraphs 17 and 21 of Article
14 of the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Racaza, 82 Phil. 623, 638)
46 9
Par. 21 Cruelty
Rape as aggravating in robbery with homicide.

Where rape attends the commission of the crime of robbery with
homicide, the rape should be deemed to aggravate the robbery with homicide.
(People vs. Basca, 55 O.G. 797)
Rape as aggravating in murder.

Since the victim wa s already at the threshold of death whe n
she wa s ravished, that bestiality may be regarded either as a form of
ignominy causing disgrace or as a form of cruelty which aggravated
murder, because it wa s unnecessary to the commission thereof and
wa s a manifest outrage on the victim's person. (People vs.
No. Oct. 23, 1979, 93 SCRA 638, 645)
Aggravating circumstances peculiar to certain felonies.

Among the aggravating circumstances peculiar to certain felo• nies are
th e following:
That th e offense (violation of domicile) be committed in
the nighttime, or if any papers or effects not constituting
evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after the
search made by the offender. (Art. 128, par. 2)
2. That the crime (interruption of religious worship) shall
have been committed wit h violence or threats. (Art. 132,
par. 2)
That the assault (direct assault) is committed with a weapon,

or whe n the offender is a public officer or employee, or whe n
the offender lays hands upon a person in authority. (Art.
148)
4. If the crime (slavery) be committed for the purpose of assign•
ing the offended party to some immoral the penalty
shall be imposed in its maximu m period. (Art. 272, par. 2)
5. If the threat (grave threats) be made in writing or through
a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximu m
period. (Art. 282)
6. If the robbery with violence against or intimidation of per•
sons (except robbery with homicide, or robbery with rape,
is committed in an uninhabited place or by a band,
470
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 14
Definition and
or on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is

made wit h th e use of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by
th e maximu m period of the proper penalties. (Art. 295)
7. If th e robbery wit h th e us e of force upon things (Art. 299)
is committed in an uninhabite d place and by a band, it
shall be punished by th e ma xi mu m period of the penalty
provided therefor. (Art. 300)
Alternative Circumstances
1. Definition or concept.
Alternative circumstances are those which mus t be
take n int o consideratio n as aggravating or mitigating
according to th e nature and effects of th e crime and the
other conditions attendin g its commission.
2. Basis of the alternative circumstances.

The basi s is th e natur e and effects of th e crime and
th e other conditions attendin g its commission.
471
Chapter Five
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Art . 15. Their concept. — A l t e r n a t i v e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ar e

t ho s e w h i c h mu s t b e t a k e n int o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a s a g g r a v a t i n g
o r m i t i g a t i n g a c c o r d i n g t o th e n a t u r e an d effect s o f th e cri m e
an d th e o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s a t t e n d i n g it s c o m m i s s i o n . The y ar e
th e r e l a t i o n s h i p , i n t o x i c a t i o n , an d th e d e g r e e o f i n s t r u c t i o n
an d e d u c a t i o n o f th e o f f e n d er .
Th e alternativ e circumstanc e o f relationshi p shal l b e take n int o
consideratio n whe n th e offende d part y i s th e spouse , ascendant ,
descendant , legitimate , natural , o r adopte d brothe r o r sister , o r relativ e
b y affinit y i n th e sam e degre e o f th e offender .
Th e i n t o x i c a t i o n o f th e o f f e n d e r sha l l b e t a k e n int o con •
s i d e r a t i o n a s a m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e w h e n th e o f f e n d e r
ha s c o m m i t t e d a f elo n y i n a st a t e o f i n t o x i c a t i o n , i f th e sa m e i s
no t h a b i t u a l o r s u b s e q u e n t t o th e pla n t o c o m m i t sai d felo ny ;
bu t w h e n th e i n t o x i c a t i o n i s h a b i t u a l o r i n t e n t i o n a l , i t shal l
be considere d as an aggravatin g circumstance .
The alternative circumstances are:

1. Relationship;
2. Intoxication; and
Degree of instruction and education of th e offender.
Relationship.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be take n into
consideration whe n the offended party is th e —
(a) spouse,
472
Relationship
(b) ascendant,
(c) descendant,
(d) legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or

(e) relative by affinity in th e sam e degree of th e offender.
Other relatives included.

The relationship of stepfather or stepmother and stepson or
stepdaughter is included by analogy as similar to that of ascendant and
descendant. (People vs . Bersabal, 48 Phil. 439 , 441; People vs.
C.A., 38 O.G. 467)
The reason for considering thes e relationships, as stated in the
case of People vs. Portento, supra, is tha t it is th e duty of the
mother to bestow upon her stepdaughter a mother's affection, care
and protection. Hence, th e effect of th e crime of murder committed
by th e stepmother agains t her stepdaughter make s th e relationship
aggravating.
The relationship of adopted parent and adopted child may also be

included, as similar to tha t of ascendan t and descendant.
Bu t th e relationship betwee n uncle and niece is not covered by
any of th e relationships mentioned. (U.S. vs . 15 Phil. 358,
361; People vs. Balondo, No. Oct. 31 , 1969, 30 SCRA 155,
161; People vs. No. Jul y SCRA 685,
692-693)
When mitigating and when aggravating.

The law is silent as to whe n relationship is mitigating and when it is
aggravating.
As a rule, relationship is mitigating in crimes against property,
by analogy to the provisions of Art. 332.
Thus, relationship is mitigating in the crimes of robbery (Arts. 294-
302), usurpation (Art. 312), fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314), and
arson. (Arts. 321-322, 325-326)
Under Art. 332 of the Code, no criminal, but only civil, liability shall
result from commission of the crime of theft, swindling or mali• cious mischief
committed or caused mutually by spouses, ascendants,
473
Art. 15 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Relationship
and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line; brothers and sisters
and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
In view of the provision of Art. 332, whe n the crime committed
is (1) theft, (2) swindling or estafa, or (3) malicious mischief, relation•
ship is exempting. The accused is not criminally liable and there is no
occasion to consider a mitigating or an aggravating
It is aggravating in crimes against persons in cases where the
offended party is a relative of a higher degree tha n the offender, or
whe n the offender and the offended party are relatives of th e same
level, as killing a brother (People vs. Alisub, 69 Phil. 362 , 364), a brother-
in-law (People vs . Mercado, 51 Phil. 99 , 102; People vs . Mendova, 100
Phil. 811 , 818), a half-brother (People vs. Nargatan , 48 Phil. 470,
472 , 475), or adopted brother. (People vs. Macabangon,
63 Phil. 1061-1062
Is relationship not aggravating when the offender killed his brother- in-
law?
Except an admission by th e appellant tha t th e deceased wa s
his brother-in-law, relationship by affinity should not be deemed to
aggravate the crime in th e absence of evidence to show tha t th e of•
fended party is of a higher degree in th e relationship tha n tha t of the
offender. (People vs. Canitan, No. Jun e 29, 1963, 8 SCRA
358, 364)
If the crime against persons is any of the serious physical

injuries, the fact that the offended party is a descendant of
the offender is not mitigating.
Whe n th e crime against persons is any of th e serious physical injuries
(Art. 263), eve n if th e offended party is a descendant of the offender,
relationship is an aggravating circumstance.
If th e offense of serious physical injuries is committed by the
offender against hi s child, whethe r legitimate or illegitimate, or any
of his legitimate other relationship is aggravating. But
th e serious physical injuries mus t not be inflicted by a parent upon
his child by excessive chastisement .
Art. 263 provides for a higher penalty "if th e offense (any of th e serious
physical injuries) is committed against any of th e persons
474
Relationship
enumerated in Art. 246." Art. 246, which defines and penalizes th e

crime of parricide, enumerate s th e following persons: father, mother,
or child, whethe r legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants
or or spouse.
When the crime is less serious physical injuries or slight physical

injuries, the ordinary rule applies.
Bu t whe n th e offense committed is less serious physical injuries

(Art. 265); or slight physical injuries (Art. 266), relationship is a
mitigating circumstance, if th e offended party is a relative of a lower
degree of th e offender; an d an ag grav atin g circumstance, if th e
offended party is a relative of a higher degree of the offender. Both
Art. 265 and Art. 26 6 do not have provisions to th e contrary, as in
Art. 263 .
When the crime against persons is homicide or murder, relationship is

aggravating even if the victim the crime is a relative of lower degree.
If th e co mmissio n of th e crime agains t person s resulte d in
th e death of the victim wh o is a relativ e of a lower degree of th e
offender, relationshi p i s a n agg rava tin g circumstance . Thi s rule
applies whe n th e crime committed is homicide (Art. 249) or murder.
(Art. 248 )
Thus , th e killin g of a stepdaughte r by he r stepmothe r is attended by
th e circumstance of relationship which is considered as aggravating. (People
vs. Portento, supra) The crime is not parricide, because th e relationship is not
by blood and in the direct line; but the relationship wa s considered by th e
Court to aggravate the penalty, notwithstanding th e fact that th e victim of
the crime wa s a relative of a lower degree.
Relationship is mitigating in trespass to dwelling.

Where a son-in-law, believing his wife to be in her father's
house, attempted to force an entry therein, the relationship is to be
considered in mitigation. (U.S. vs. Ostrea, 2 Phil. 93, 95)
Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating, when

relationship is an element of the offense.
When the qualification given to the crime is derived from the
relationship between the offender and offended party, it is neither
475
Relationship
mitigating nor aggravating, because it is inseparable from and inher•

ent in the offense.
Examples: Parricide, adultery and concubinage.
In crimes against chastity, relationship is always aggravat•

ing.
In crimes against chastity, like of (Art. 336),
relationship is aggravating, regardless of whether the offender is a
relative of a higher or lower degree of th e offended party.
In rape —
Relationship is aggravating in a case where a stepfather raped
his stepdaughter (People vs. De Leon, 50 Phil. 539, 545); or in a case
where a father raped his own daughter. (People vs. 58 Phil.
578-579; People vs. Lucas, G.R. No. 80102 , Jan . SCRA
316, 327)
Reason for the difference in the rule.

Why is relationship aggravating in crimes against chastity even if the
offended party is a relative of lower degree?
Becaus e of th e nature and effect of th e crime committed, it is considered
aggravating although th e offended party is a relative of lower degree. It is not
shocking to our moral sens e whe n we hear a father committed, for instance, th
e crime of slight physical injury against his daughter; but it certainly is very
shocking whe n we hear that a father committed acts of lasciviousness on th e
person of hi s own daughter.
The rule may be different because of the condition

While th e relationship of brothers-in-law is aggravating whe n
one commits a crime against th e other, suc h relationship is mitigat•
ing whe n th e accused killed hi s brother-in-law in vie w of th e conduct
pursued by th e latter in contracting adulterous relations wit h th e
wife of the accused. (U.S. vs. 1 Phil. 30, 32)
Also, in a case where th e deceased wa s suffering from an attack of
insanity and th e accused, hi s brother-in-law, in hi s desire to place
476
Intoxication
th e deceased under control, struck hi m with a club, exceeding the limits of hi

s discretion in th e hea t of th e struggle, it wa s held tha t relationship wa s
mitigating because th e cause of th e maltreatment wa s th e desire to render
service to a relative. (U.S. vs. Velarde, 36 Phil. 991 , 992-993)
The reason for th e difference in th e rule is th e "other condition
attending" th e commission of th e crime, which in case is
the conduct of th e deceased in havin g adulterous relations wit h the
wife of th e accused; and in th e Velarde case, th e desire of the accused
to render service to a relative.
Intoxication.
a. Mitigating — (1) if intoxication is not habitual, or (2) if
intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit a
felony.
b. Aggravating — (1) if intoxicatio n is habitual; or (2) if
it is intentional ( subsequen t to th e pla n to commi t a
felony).
It is intentional whe n th e offender drinks fully
knowing its effects, to find in the liquor a stimulant to
commit a crime or a mean s to suffocate any remorse.
Drunkennes s or intoxication is mitigatin g if accidental, not
habitual nor intentional, that is, not subsequent to the plan to commit
th e crime. It is aggravating if habitual or intentional. A habitual
drunkard is one given to intoxication by excessive us e of intoxicating
drinks. The habit should be actual and confirmed. It is unnecessary
that it be a matter of daily occurrence. It lessen s individual resistance
to evil though t and undermine s will-power makin g its victim a
potential evildoer. (People vs. Nos. L-36662-63, July 30,
1982, 115 SCRA 688, 699-700)
For an accused to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
intoxication, it mus t be shown tha t (a) at the time of the commission
of the criminal act, he ha s taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as
to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of control, and
(b) that such intoxication is not habitual, or subsequent to the plan
to commit the felony. (People vs. Boduso, Nos. Sept. 30,
1974, 60 SCRA 60, 70-71)
477
Intoxication
"When the offender has committed a felony in a state of in•

toxication."
The last paragraph of Art. 15 say s th e offender ha s
committed a felony in a state of by which clause is meant
that the offender's mental faculties must be affected by drunkenness.
Evidence for intoxication to be aggravating.

There is no showing of excessive and habitual use of intoxicating
drinks, or that the accused purposely got drunk in order to commit
the crime, where the witnes s merely declared tha t the accused were
drinking liquor on the night in question and were telling stories, sing•
ing, laughing, and shouting and were very jolly, although said witnes s
further testified tha t the accused used to drink liquor every Saturday
night, such testimony not being competent proof tha t th e accused
are drunkards whose habit is to get drunk, and whose inebriety ha s
become habitual. In such a case, intoxication is not aggravating but
mitigating. (People vs. Moral, No. Oct. SCRA
474, 488)
The accused's state of intoxication must be proved.

People vs. Noble, 77 Phil. th e defendant testified
that before th e murder, he took a bottle of win e and drank little by
little until he got drunk. The policeman wh o arrested th e accused
testified tha t the latter smelled of wine and vomited. Th e Court held
that th e evidence presented wa s not satisfactory to warrant a mitiga•
tion of th e penalty.
Intoxication wa s likewise not completely proved in a case where the only

evidence wa s tha t th e defendant ha d a gallon of tuba wit h him at the tim e
he committed th e crime. (People vs . Pardo, 79 Phil. 568, 579)
In another case, intoxication wa s not also proved wher e th e ac•

cused merely alleged tha t whe n he committed th e offense charged,
he wa s intoxicated although he wa s used to be drunk." Hi s self-
serving statemen t wa s uncorroborated and wa s dismisse d as devoid
of any probative value. (People vs. Apduhan, Jr., No . Aug.
30, 1968, 24 SCRA 798, 813-814)
To be mitigating, th e accused's state of intoxication mus t be proved.

Once intoxication is established by satisfactory evidence, in
478
Intoxication
th e absence of proof to th e contrary, it is presumed to be non-habitual

or unintentional. (People vs. Jr., supra, at 813, citing People
vs. Noble, 77 Phil. 93 and U.S. vs. Fitzgerald, 2 Phil. 419)
The accused merely alleged tha t whe n he committed the offense
charged, he wa s intoxicated although he wa s "not used to be
This self-serving statemen t stand s uncorroborated. Obviously, it is
devoid of an y probative value.
In People vs. Apduhan, Jr., 24 SCRA 798 , it wa s held tha t to
be mitigating , th e accused's stat e of intoxication mus t be proved.
Once intoxication is establishe d by satisfactory evidence (People
vs . Noble, 77 Phil. 93), in th e absenc e of proof to th e contrary, it is
presume d to be non-habitua l or unintentional . (U.S . vs. Fitzgerald,
2 Phil. 419 )
Where th e court below found tha t th e appellant wa s under the
influence of liquor in th e afternoon immediately preceding the incident
and there is no evidence indicating tha t he is a habitual drunkard,
th e mitigating circumstance of intoxication should be considered in
favor of th e appellant. (People vs. Gongora, Nos . July 31 ,
1963, 8 SCRA 472 , 482; People vs. De Gracia, No. Sept. 29,
1966, 18 SCRA 197, 207)
Note: In thes e cases, there wa s no evidence tha t th e intoxica•

tion wa s intentional or subsequent to the plan to commit
th e
Drunkenness must affect mental faculties.

The Code says nothing about th e degree of intoxication needed
to mitigate; but obviously to produce such an effect, it mus t diminish
the agent's capacity to know the injustice of his acts, and his will to
act accordingly. (Albert)
The amount of wine taken must be of such quantity as to blur the
offender's reason and deprive him of self-control. (People vs. Cabrera,
CA-G.R. No. Jun e 1, 1956)
Before d r u n k e n n e s s ma y b e co nsidere d a s a mi tig a t in g
circumstance, it mus t first be established that the liquor taken by
the accused wa s of such quantity as to have blurred his reason and
deprived him of self-control. It should be such an intoxication that
would diminish the agent's capacity to know the injustice of his acts,
479
Intoxication
and his will to act accordingly. (People vs. Ruiz, Nos. Oct.
30, 1979, 93 SCRA 739, 760-761)
Thus, if the amount of the liquor the accused had taken was
not of sufficient quantity to affect his mental faculties, he wa s not in
a state of intoxication. If the accused wa s thoughtful enough not to
neglect giving Don Vicente Noble his injection, the inference would be
that his intoxication wa s not to such a degree as to affect his mental
capacity to fully understand the consequences of his act. (People vs.
Noble, 77 Phil. 93, 101-102)
Also, a lthoug h th e accuse d ha d take n som e liquor o n th e

day of th e shooting , if he wa s aware of everything tha t occurred
on tha t day an d he wa s able to giv e a detailed account thereof,
intoxication is not mitigating . (People vs . Buenaflor, C.A., 53 O.G.
8879 )
And although th e persons participating in th e act of misap •
propriating public funds may, for some time prior thereto, ha d been
drinking freely of intoxicating liquor, yet if they were sufficiently sober
to know wha t the y were doing whe n committing the unlawful act, th e
mitigating circumstance of intoxication cannot be considered. (U.S.
vs. Dowdell, 11 Phil. 4
"When intoxication is habitual."

The mere fact that the accused had been drinking intoxicating
liquor about seven month s and tha t he had been drunk once or twice a
month is not constituting habitual drunkenness. A habitual drunkard
is one given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The
habit should be actual and confirmed, but it is not necessar y tha t it
be continuous or by daily occurrence. (People vs. Amena men , C.A.,
37 O.G. 2324)
In U.S. vs. McMann, 4 Phil. 561 , 565, a witnes s testified tha t

he saw th e defendant drunk twelv e time s or more. Held: He wa s a
habitual drunkard.
D r u n ke n n e s s wa s als o found t o b e ha bitua l wher e th e de•

fendant s a d mitt e d i n ope n court tha t before the y co mmitte d th e
crime, the y drank for thre e hour s an d often ha d a drinkin g party.
(People vs . M abila nga n , No . Jan . 30 , 1982 , SCR A
398 , 403 )
480
Intoxication
"Or subsequent to the plan to commit a felony."

Illustration:
A decided to kill B. A planned to commit the crime by preparing

th e mean s to carry it out. Whe n he wa s ready to kill B, A drank a
glas s of win e and whe n already intoxicated, he looked for B and
killed him. Not e tha t A drank win e to intoxicate after he had
planned th e commission of th e crime. In this case, the intoxication is
intentional.
Intoxication is mitigatin g wher e th e sam e wa s not habitual

nor intentional and th e crime wa s not th e offspring of planning and
deliberation but a fatal improvisation dictated by an impromptu
impulse. (People vs. Abalos, No . May 31 , 1974, 57 SCRA
330, 338)
Even if intoxication is not habitual, it is aggravating when

subsequent to the plan to commit the crime.
In a case where the trial court found th e commission of the crime of
murder to be attended by th e mitigating circumstance that the accused wa s
drunk, but not habitually so, it wa s held that it appearing tha t th e accused,
wh o ha d plotted th e death of the victim, drank wine in order to embolden
himsel f in th e carrying out of his evil plan, hi s intoxication cannot be
considered as a mitigating circumstance. (People vs. Hernandez, 91 Phil. 334,
344)
Reasons for the alternative circumstance of intoxication.

As a mitigating circumstance, it finds its reason in the fact that
whe n a person is under th e influence of liquor, his exercise of will
power is impaired.
As an aggravating circumstance, because it is intentional, the
reason is that the offender resorted to it in order to bolster his courage
to commit a crime.
It is aggravating whe n intoxication is habitual, because the
constant use of intoxicating liquor lessen s the individual resistance
to evil thoughts and undermines the will power making himself a
potential evildoer agains t whos e activities, society ha s the right
for its own protection to impose a more severe penalty. (People vs.
Amenamen, supra)
481
Degree of Instruction and Education of
Presumption is that intoxication is accidental.

The prosecution must prove that the intoxication of the offender is
habitual or intentional. (People vs. Dungka, 64 Phil. 421 , 426)
In the absence of proof to the contrary, it will be presumed that
intoxication is not habitual but accidental, and the fact that the ac•
cused was drunk at the time of the commission of the crime mus t
then be considered as a mitigating circumstance. (U.S. vs. Fitzgerald,
2 Phil. 419, 422; People vs. Dacanay, 105 Phil. 1265, 1266
citing People vs. Dungka, supra)
Non-habitual intoxication, lack of instruction and obfuscation

are not to be taken separately.
As non-habitual intoxication implies a disturbance of the reason• ing
powers of the offender, his lack of instruction cannot hav e any influence over
him, and obfuscation which ha s th e sam e effect on hi s reasoning powers
cannot be considered independently of non-habitual intoxication. (People vs.
Baterna, 49 Phil. 996, 997-998)
The trial court considered the m separately as thre e distinct
mitigating circumstances and imposed a penalty one degree lower.
The Supreme Court considered the m as one mitigatin g circumstance
only and modified the penalty imposed by th e trial court by raising
it and imposing th e proper penalty in th e minimu m period.
Degree of instruction and education of the offender.

Low degree of instruction and education or lack of it is generally
mitigating. High degree of instruction and education is aggravating, whe n the
offender avails himsel f of his learning in committing th e crime.
Lack of instruction, as mitigating.

Lack of instruction cannot be take n into account wher e th e
defendant admitted tha t he studied in th e first grade in a public
elementary school. Art. 15 applies only to hi m wh o really ha s not
received any instruction. (People vs. Mangsant , 65 Phil. 548, 552)
But th e accused lacks education and instruction, if he did not
finish eve n the first grade in elementar y school. (People vs.
88 Phil. 35, 44)
482
Degree of Instruction and Education of Offender
Lack of instruction is not mitigatin g wher e th e accused fin•

ishe d Grade Two and answere d in Tagalog, question s put to him
in English . (People vs . Luna , No . Jul y 31 , 1974, 58 SCRA
198, 208)
Having studied up to sixth grade is more tha n sufficient schooling

to give th e accused a degree of instruction as to properly apprise hi m
of wha t is right and wrong. (People vs. No. April
29, 1969, 27 SCRA 1185, 1189-1190)
Lack of sufficient intelligence is required in illiteracy.
No t illiteracy alone, bu t also lack of sufficient intelligence are necessar y

to invok e th e benefit of th e alternativ e circumstance of lack of instruction, th
e determinatio n of whic h is left to the trial court.
A person able to sign hi s nam e but otherwise so densely ignorant
and of suc h low intelligence tha t he does not fully realize the conse•
quences of hi s criminal act, ma y still be entitled to this mitigating
circumstance. On th e other hand, another person unable to write
because of lack of educational facilities or opportunities, ma y yet be
highly or exceptionally intelligent and mentall y alert that he easily
realizes th e full significance of hi s acts, in which case he may not
invoke this mitigatin g circumstance in hi s favor. (People vs. Ripas,
95 Phil. 63 , 70-71; People vs. No. L-35700, Oct. 15, 1973,
53 SCRA 246, 261-262)
Mere illiteracy is not sufficient to constitute a mitigating circum•

stance. There mus t be also lack of intelligence. (People vs. Retania,
No. Jan . 22, 1980, 95 SCRA 201 , 221 ; People vs. Abanes,
No. L-30609, Sept. 28, 1976, 73 SCRA 44, 47)
Lack of sufficient instruction is not mitigating when the of•

fender is a city resident who knows how to sign his name.
Appellant is guilty of murder with th e qualifying circumstance
of treachery and the aggravating circumstance of evident premedi•
The mitigating circumstance of lack of sufficient instruction
cannot be justified as appellant is a city resident and even knows
how to sign his name. The judgment is modified and appellant is
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. (People vs. Cabrito, 101 Phil. 1253,
1254
483
Lack of instruction must be proved by the defense.

The mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction mus t be
proved positively and directly and cannot be based on mere deduction
or inference. (People vs. Bernardo, C.A., 40 O.G. 1707)
Lack of education must be proved positively and cannot be based
on mere deduction or inference. (People vs. supra, citing
People vs. Bernardo, supra, and People vs. 61 Phil. 64)
Lack of instruction need s to be proven as all circumstances
modifying criminal liability should be proved directly and positively.
(People vs. No. Nov. SCRA 35, 38,
citing People vs. 59 Phil. 154)
In the absence of any basis on record on which to judge the degree of
instruction of the accused, no evidence having been taken relative thereto
because he entered a plea of guilty, the circumstance of lack of instruction
cannot be mitigating. (People vs. Macatanda, supra, at 39)
The question of lack of instruction cannot be raised for the

first time in appellate court.
It is for th e trial court rather tha n th e appellate court to find
and consider th e circumstance of lack of instruction. (People vs. Sari,
99 Phil. 1040
When th e trial court did not mak e an y findings as to th e degree
of instruction of the offenders, on appeal that alternative circumstance
cannot be considered in fixing th e penalty to be imposed on th e ac•
cused-appellants. (People vs. Diaz, No. L-24002, Jan . 21 , 1974, 55
SCRA 178, 187)
The trial court's appreciation of lack of instruction as a mitigat•

ing circumstance wa s not disturbed on appeal because th e said court
wa s in a position to gaug e appellant's level of intelligence from hi s
appearance, demeanor and manne r of answerin g questions. (People
vs. Manuel, Nos . L-23786-87, Aug. 29 SCRA 337, 346)
Ordinarily, low degree or lack of instruction is mitigating in

all crimes.
Lack of instruction or low degree of it is appreciated as mitigat• ing
circumstance in almost all crimes. (U.S. vs. Reguera, 41 Phil. 506,
520 [robbery wit h People vs . No. March

28, 1980, 96 SCRA, 556 , 562-56 3 [Anti-Subversion People vs.
65 Phil. 696, 707 People vs. Hubero, 61 Phil. 64, 66
Exceptions:
1. Not mitigating in crimes against property, such as estafa, theft,

robbery, arson. (U.S . vs . Pascual, 9 Phil. 491 , 49 5
People vs . De la Cruz, 77 Phil. 444 , 448; People vs .
Melendrez, 59 Phil. 154, 155-15 6 People vs.
Sa n Pedro, No . L-44274, Jan . 22 , 1980, 95 SCRA 306,
31 0 [robbery wit h People vs . Condemena, No.
L-22426, Ma y 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 910 , 92 0 [robbery with
Bu t in U.S. vs. Maqui, 27 Phil. 97, 101, lack of in• struction

wa s mitigatin g in theft of large cattle committed by a membe r of
an uncivilized tribe of Igorots or in Igorot land.
Bu t se e People vs. Macatanda, No. L-51368, Nov. 6,
SCRA where th e accused claimed that
he wa s a Moslem belonging to a cultural minority, and
th e hig h court said: later cases which categorically
held tha t the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction
does not apply to crimes of theft and robbery leave us with
no choice but to reject th e plea of appellant. Membership
in a cultural minority does not per se imply being an
uncivilized or semi-uncivilized state of th e offender, which
is the circumstance tha t induced th e Supreme Court in the
Maqui case, to apply lack of instruction to the appellant
therein who wa s charged also wit h theft of large cattle.
Incidentally, th e Maqui case is th e only case where lack of
instruction wa s considered to mitigate liability for theft, for
eve n long before it, in U.S. vs. Pascual, 9 Phil. 491 , a 1908
case, lack of instruction wa s already held not applicable
to crimes of theft or robbery. The Maqui case wa s decided
in 1914, whe n the state of civilization of the Igorots has
not advanced as it had in reaching its present state since
recent years, whe n it certainly can no longer be said of
any member of a cultural minority in the country that he
is uncivilized or
485
In robbery with homicide, where the accused wa s

illiterate, lack of instruction wa s held to be mitigating.
(People vs. Patricio, 79 Phil. People vs. Mantawar,
80 Phil. 817, 823)
But in another case, it wa s held that the benefit of lack
of instruction is unavailing to mitigate the crime of robbery
with homicide as this circumstance is not applicable to
the crime of theft or robbery, and much less to the crime
of homicide. No one, however unschooled he may be, is so
ignorant as not to know that theft or robbery, or assault
upon th e person of another is inherentl y wrong and a
violation of th e law. (People vs. Enot, No. Oct.
30, 1962, 6 SCRA 325, 329)
In a later case, also of robbery wit h homicide, it wa s
also held that belonging to the cultural minorities cannot
conceivably reduce, from the subjective point of view, the
defendants' awareness of the gravity of their offense, for
robbery and killing are by their very nature jus t as wrong to
the ignorant as they are to the enlightened. (People vs.
Mania, No. Nov. 30 SCRA 389, 397)
Not mitigating in crimes against such as rape and
adultery. No one is so ignorant as not to know tha t th e
crime of rape is wrong and in violation of th e law. (Malesa
vs. Director, 59 Phil. 406 , 408; U.S . vs . 9 Phil. 140,
141; People vs. Lopez, 107 Phil. 1039, 1042)
How about in treason?

No t mitigating, because love of country should be a natural
feeling of every citizen, however unlettered or uncultured he ma y
be. (People vs. Lansanas , 82 Phil. People vs. Cruz, 88 Phil.
684, 687-688)
But in another case, th e accused wa s also charged wit h treason. His

schooling wa s confined in studying and finishing caton only. Held: Lack of
instruction is mitigating. (People vs. Marasigan, 85 Phil. 427, 431)
Lack of education and instruction is not mitigating in murder.

Lack of education and instruction cannot mitigat e appellant's guilt
because to kill is forbidden by natural law which every rational
486
being is endowe d to kno w and feel. (People vs . Mutya , G.R. Nos . L-

11255-56, Sept. 30 , 1959
Exception:
Althoug h ordinarily lack of instruction is not considered as

an extenuatin g circumstance in th e crime of homicide or murder,
nevertheless, in th e instan t cases, th e sam e ma y be so considered
because th e crimes would probably not hav e been committed if the
accused were not so ignorant as to believe in witchcraft. The trial
court likewise did not err in failing to consider th e lack of instruction
as mitigatin g circumstance in th e crime of arson as th e same does
not extenuat e offenses against property. (People vs. Laolao, G.R. Nos.
Oct. 31 , 1959
It is also considered mitigatin g in murde r in th e following
case:
Th e crime wa s murder qualified by eviden t premeditation, the
defendant s ha vin g a lon g time" sough t th e encounter. There
wa s also abus e of superior strengt h — four me n wit h knive s against
one unarme d person. Bu t thi s is compensate d by lack of instruction,
thes e appellant s bein g "ignorant people livin g in a barrio almos t
2 0 kilometer s awa y from civilization." Consequently , th e mediu m
degree of th e penalt y for murde r — reclusion perpetua — becomes
imposable . (People vs . Mantala , G.R. No . Oct. 31 , 1959)
High degree of instruction, as aggravating.

Examples:
A lawyer, who, with abuse of his education and learning, com• mits
estafa.
A medical student who wa s convicted of slander by deed. (People vs.
Roque, C.A., 40 O.G. 1710)
Degree of instruction is aggravating when the offender availed

himself or took advantage of it in committing the crime.
Thus, a doctor, who, usin g his knowledge, prepared certain
kind of poison to kill his victim in such a way as to avoid detection,
may be considered as having taken advantage of his high degree of
instruction and education.
487
Art. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
But the fact that the accused was a lawyer was not considered
aggravating in physical injuries. (People vs. No. 21102-
R, Sept. 29, 1959) He did not take advantage of his high degree of
Title Two
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
FOR FELONIES
Art . 16. Who are criminally liable. — Th e followin g ar e crimi • nall y

liabl e fo r grav e an d les s grav e felonies :
1. . Principals .
2. Acco mplices .
3. Accessories .
Th e f o l l o w i n g ar e c r i m i n a l l y l i a b l e fo r lig h t fe l o n ie s :
1. Principals .
2. Acco mplices .
Treble division of persons criminally liable.

The treble division of persons criminally responsible for an offense rests
upon th e very nature of their participation in th e com• mission of th e crime.
Whe n a crime is committed by many, without being equally
shared by all, a different degree of responsibility is imposed upon each
and every one of them. In that case, the y are criminally liable either
as principals, accomplices, or accessories.
Accessories are not liable for light felonies.

In view of the omission of accessories in naming those liable for light
felonies, the accessories are not liable for light felonies.
Reason: In th e commission of light felonies, the social wrong
as well as the individual prejudice is so small that penal sanction is
deemed not necessary for accessories.
489
Art. 16 PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
FOR FELONIES
Rules relative to light felonies:

Light felonies are punishable only whe n they have been
consummated. (Art. 7)
2. But whe n light felonies are committed against persons or
property, they are punishable eve n if they are only in the
attempted or frustrated stage of execution. (Art. 7)
3. Only principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies.
(Art. 16)
4. Accessories are not liable for light eve n if the y are
committed against persons or property. (Art. 16)
Active subject and passive subject of crime.

In all crimes there are always two parties, namely: th e active
subject (the criminal) and th e passive subject (the injured party).
Art. 16 of th e Code enumerate s th e activ e subject s of th e crime.
Only natural persons can be active subject of crime.

Only natural persons can be th e active subject of crime because
of the highly personal nature of th e criminal responsibility.
Since a felony is a punishable act or omission which produces or
tends to produce a change in th e external world, it follows tha t only
a natural person can be th e active subject of th e crime, because he
alone by his act can set in motion a caus e or by his inaction can mak e
possible th e completion of a developing modification in th e external
world.
Only a natural person can be th e offender because —

(a) Th e Revise d Pena l Code require s tha t th e culprit should
hav e acted wit h personal malice or negligence. An ar•
tificial or juridical perso n canno t act wit h malic e or
negligence .
(b) A juridical person, like a corporation, cannot commit a
crime in which a willful purpose or a malicious intent is
required. (West Coast Life Co. vs. Hurd, 27 Phil. 401 ,
407-408)
490
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE Art. 16
FOR FELONIES
(c) There is substitution of deprivation of liberty (subsidiary

imprisonment) for pecuniary penalties in case of insolvency
of th e accused.
The Code requires tha t the culprit should have acted

wit h personal or negligence. An artificial
person cannot act wit h malice or negligence.
A corporation could not hav e co mmitte d a crime
in which a willful purpose or a malicious intent wa s re•
quired. (West Coast Life Ins. Co. vs . 27 Phil. 401)
There is th e substitutio n of deprivation of liberty (subsidiary
imprisonment) for pecuniary penalties in cases of insolvency.
(d) Othe r penaltie s consistin g in i mpriso nmen t and other
deprivation of liberty, like destierro, can be executed only
against individuals. (Albert)
Officers, not the corporation, are criminally liable.

A corporation can act only through its officers or incorporators,
and tha t as regards a violation of th e law committed by an officer
of a corporation, in the exercise of his duties, he answers criminally
for his acts, and not th e corporation to which he belongs, for being
an artificial person, it cannot be prosecuted criminally. (People vs.
Campos, C.A., 40 Sup. 12, 7)
Criminal actions are restricted or limited to the officials of the
corporation and never against the corporation itself. The
courts derived no authority to bring corporations before them in
criminal actions, nor to issu e processes for that purpose. In criminal
cases, defendants are brought before the court through warrants of
arrest, which are issued only against natural persons. (West Coast
Life Ins. Co. vs. Hurd, 27 Phil. 401 , 407-408)
Juridical persons are criminally liable under certain special

laws.
Under Act 1459 (Corporation Law), Com. Act No. 146 (Public Service
Law), the Securities Law, and the Election Code, corporations may be fined
for certain violations of their provisions.
491
Art. 16 PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
FOR FELONIES
Only the of the corporation who participated either as

principals by direct participation or principals by induction
or by cooperation, or as accomplices in the commission of
an act punishable by law are liable.
The partnership of M, A and B wa s granted a franchise to
operate an electric plant. C, wife of M, wa s th e manage r of th e
business . M and hi s son installe d electric wire s in th e house s of
their custo mers . A boy wh o wa s wit h hi s father for th e purpose of
buying salte d fish happene d to hold an uninsulate d portion of an
electric wire of th e electric plan t manage d by As th e wire wa s
charged with electricity, the boy wa s electrocuted and consequently
died.
Held: There is no evidence at all that C directly took part or aided in the
careless installation of th e electric wire, a portion of which wa s negligently
left uninsulated by M and his son.
As a general rule, a director or other officer of a corporation
is criminally liable for his acts, though in his official capacity, if he
participated in the unlawful act either directly or as an aider, abet•
tor or accessory, but is not liable criminally for th e corporate acts
performed by other officers or agents thereof.
The ruling enunciated in th e case of West Coast Life Co. vs.
Hurd, 27 Phil. 401 , 407-408, to th e effect tha t criminal actions are
restricted or limited to the officials of a corporation and never agains t
itself, indicates the procedure to be take n in a criminal action whe n
an official of a corporation is involved, but does not point hi s degree
of participation in order to hold hi m liable for a certain criminal act
as such corporate (People vs. Abdona A. Montilla, C.A., 52
O.G. 4327)
Manager of partnership is liable even if there is no evidence

of his participation in the commission of the offense.
In th e prosecution for a violation of Section 170, paragraph 2,
of th e Nationa l Internal Revenu e Code, th e manage r of th e partner•
ship is criminally liable, even in the absence evidence regarding hi s
direct participation in th e commissio n of th e offense. It is a settled
rule tha t since a corporation or partnership can only act throug h
its officers and their agents , th e president or manage r can be held
criminally liable for th e violation of a la w by th e entity. (People vs.
492
PRINCIPALS IN GENERAL Art. 17
Lao Chio, C.A., 59 O.G. 4859 , citing People vs. Manuel

C.A., 53 O.G. 3276)
Under the Motor Vehicle Law.
Th e presiden t and genera l manage r of a corporation which violated th

e Motor Vehicles Law wa s held criminally liable for the offense imputable to
th e corporation. (People vs. Cartesiano, C.A., 53
O.G. 3276)
Passive subject of crime.

The passive subject of a crime is the holder of th e injured right:
th e man , th e juristic person, th e group, and th e State.
Thus , whil e a corporation or partnership cannot be the active subject, it
can be a passive subject of a crime.
Corpse or animal cannot be passive subject.

Reason: The dead and th e animal s have no rights that ma y be injured.
Exception:
Unde r Art. 353, th e crime of defamation ma y be committed if
th e imputation tend s to blacken th e memory of one who is dead.
Art . 17. — Th e f o l l o w i n g ar e c o n s i d e r e d prin •

cip a l s :
1. . T h o s e w h o ta k e a d i r ec t par t i n th e e x e c u t i o n o f th e
act ;
2. T h o s e w h o d i r e c t l y fo rc e o r i n d u c e o t h er s t o c o m mi t
it .
3. T h o s e wh o c o o p e r a t e i n th e c o m m i s s i o n o f th e of•
fens e b y anothe r ac t withou t whic h i t woul d no t hav e bee n
accomplished .
493
Art. 17 PRINCIPALS IN GENERAL
Two or more persons participating in the crime.

When a single individual commits a crime, there is no difficulty
in determining his participation in the commission thereof. In fact, a
single individual committing a crime is always a principal, and one
by direct participation, because he must necessarily take direct part
in the execution of the act.
Thus, whe n a person kills another, there is no question as to
his participation and liability in the commission of the crime. He is
a principal by direct participation. But whe n two or more persons
are involved in killing another, it is necessar y to determine th e
participation of each. If they are all principals, all of the m ma y be
principals by direct participation (par. 1); or one may be a principal
by induction (par. 2); and the other a principal by direct participation;
or one may be a principal by direct participation and th e other a
principal by indispensable (par. 3)
of the three types of principals.

A, by promises of price and reward, induced B to kill a person
living on an island far from the mainland. D, th e owner of th e only
motor boat in the place and knowing th e criminal designs of A and
B, offered to transport and actually transported B to th e island. Once
there, B alone killed
Although he did not actually participate in th e killing of C,
A is a principal, because he directly induced B to kill B is also a
principal, because he took direct part in th e execution of th e felony by
personally killing D is also a principal, because he cooperated in
th e commission of th e offense by another act (transporting th e actual
killer to the island) without which the commission the offense would
not have been accomplished.
Difference between a principal under any of the three catego•

ries enumerated in Art. and a co-conspirator.
The difference betwee n an accused wh o is a principal under any
of the three categories enumerate d in Art. 17 of th e Revised Penal
Code and a co-conspirator who is also a principal is tha t whil e th e
former's criminal liability is limited to hi s own acts, as a general rule,
the latter's responsibility includes th e acts of hi s fellow conspirators.
(People vs. Peralta, No. Oct. 29, 1968, 25 SCRA 759, 777)
494
Principals by Direct Participation Par. 1
PAR. 1. - PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION.
who take a direct part in the execution of the
"Take a direct part in the execution of the act."

The principal by direct participation personally takes part in the
execution of the act constituting th e crime.
Thus, one wh o shoots at and kills another or one who burns

th e hous e of another, personally executes th e act of killing another
or th e act of burning th e hous e of another. He is a principal by direct
participation in th e crime of homicide (unlawfully killing another) or
in th e crime of arson (maliciously burning another's property).
One wh o only orders or induces another to commit a crime is
not a principal by direct participation, because he does not person•
ally execute th e act constituting th e crime. It is th e one personally
committing th e crime in obedience to tha t order or because of the
inducement, wh o is th e principal by direct participation.
A common-law wife wh o induced th e killing of another common-
law wife of her husban d by giving mone y to th e killer is a principal
by induction, whil e th e killer is a principal by direct participation.
(People vs. Lao, No. Jan . 28, SCRA 42 , 46-47, 51)
Two or more offenders as principals by direct participation.

Two or more persons ma y take direct part in the execution of the act, in
which case the y ma y be principals by direct participation.
Two or more persons who took part in the commission of the crime are
principals by direct participation, whe n the following req• uisites are present:
That they participated in the criminal resolution;
2. That they carried out their plan and personally took part
in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same
end. (People vs. Ong Lay, 60 Phil. 788, 790; People
vs. 44 Phil. 38, 45-46)
Thus, where the two accused each inflicted a serious wound
which contributed to the death of the victim, they are co-principals.
(People vs. Cagod, No. Jan. 18, 1978, 81 SCRA 110, 118)
495
Par. 1 Principals by Direct Participation
First requisite — Participation in the criminal resolution.

Two or more persons are said to have participated in the criminal
resolution when they were in conspiracy at the time of the commission
of the crime.
It is well-settled that a person may be convicted for the criminal
act of another where, between them, there ha s been conspiracy or
unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime charged.
(People vs. G.R. No. 44414 , Jan. SCRA
citing People vs. 77 Phil. 664; People vs. Serrano,
May 136 SCRA 899)
Conspiracy.
A conspiracy exists whe n two or more persons come to an agree• men t
concerning th e commission of a felony and decide to commit it. (Art. 8, par. 2)
The conspiracy contemplated in th e first requisite is not a felony, but
only a manne r of incurring criminal liability.
To be a party to a conspiracy, one must have the intention to partici•

pate in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common
design and purpose.
In order to hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of
conspiracy, it mus t be established tha t he performed an overt act in
furtherance of the conspiracy, either by actively participating in th e
actual commission of the crime, or by lending moral assistanc e to
his co-conspirators by being present at th e scene of th e crime, or by
exerting moral ascendancy over the rest of th e conspirators as to move
the m to executing th e conspiracy. (People vs. No .
May 31 , 1974, 57 SCRA 308, 316, citing People vs. Peralta,
Oct. 29, 1968, 25 SCRA 759, 777; People vs. No.
Oct. 28, 1974, 60 SCRA 303 , 318)
Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of th e act without

cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one
a party to a conspiracy, but tha t there mus t be intentional participa•
tion in the transaction with a view to th e furtherance of th e common
design and purpose. (People vs. 104 Phil. 690 , 697-698, citing
15 C.J.S. 1062; People vs. Cortez, supra; Taer vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
85204, Jun e 18, 1990, 186 SCRA 598, 604)
496
Silence does not make one a conspirator.

Silence is not a circumstance indicating participation in the same
criminal design. (People vs . Gensola, No . Sept. 29
SCRA 483 , 489)
Conspiracy transcends companionship.

It ha s bee n held tha t conspiracy transcends companionship. Hence, the
fact tha t th e two accused ma y have happened to leave together, and one of
the m left a closing warnin g to the victim, cannot instantl y support a finding
of conspiracy. (People vs. Padrones, G.R. No. 85823 , Sept. 13, 1990, 189 SCRA
496 , 506-507)
Existence of conspiracy.
Th e existenc e of conspiracy does not require necessarily an
agreemen t for an appreciable length of time prior to th e execution of
its purpose, since from th e legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at
th e tim e of th e commission of th e offense, th e accused had the same
purpose and were united in its execution. (People vs. Binasing, et
98 Phil. 908)
Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly
or impliedly, to commit th e felony and forthwith decide to pursue it.
Once this assen t is established, each and everyone of the conspirators
is made criminally liable for th e crime actually committed by anyone
of them. (People vs. Monroy, 104 Phil. 759, 764; People vs. G.R.
No. 44414 , Jan . 18, 1990, 181 SCRA 133, 148)
Proof of conspiracy.
a. The direct evidence of conspiracy ma y consist in the inter•
locking extrajudicial confessions of several accused and
th e testimony of one of the accused who is discharged and
made a witnes s against his co-accused who did not make
any confession.
In the absence of collusion among the declarants, their
confessions may form a complete picture of the whole situ•
ation and may be considered collectively as corroborative
confirmatory of the evidence independent therefrom.
(People vs. Castelo, No. May 30, 1964, SCRA
193, 221-222)
497
Two or more extrajudicial confessions given sepa•

rately, untainted by collusion, and which tally with one
another in all material respects, are admissible as evidence
of the conspiracy of the declarants. (People vs. Bernardo,
et C.A., 57 O.G. 8675)
To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be
proofs as to the previous agreement and decision to commit
the crime, it being sufficient that the malefactors shall have
acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. (People vs.
Sa n Luis, 86 Phil. 485, 497; People vs. Carpio, G.R. Nos .
82815-16, Oct. 31 , 1990, 191 SCRA 108, 118; People vs.
Cruz, Jr., G.R. No. 86217, Oct. 31 , 1990, 191 SCRA 127,
135; People vs. Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, Sept.
SCRA 700, 713)
Formal agreement or previous acquaintance among several

persons not necessary in conspiracy.
In conspiracy, no formal agreement among the conspirators is
necessary, not even previous acquaintance among themselves; it is suf•
ficient that their minds meet so as to bring about an
intelligent and deliberate agreement to commit th e offense charged.
It is sufficient tha t at the tim e of th e aggression, all th e accused
manifested by their acts a common intent or desire to attack so tha t
th e act of one accused becomes th e act of all. (People vs. Gupo, G.R.
No. 75814, Sept. 24, 1990, 190 SCRA
Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence. It need not be
shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express
terms to enter into and pursue a common design. Th e assen t of th e
minds ma y be and, from th e secrecy of the crime, usually inferred
from proof of facts and circumstances which, take n together, indicate
that the y are parts of some complete whole. If it is proved tha t two
or more persons aimed, by their acts, at th e accomplishment of the
same unlawful object, each doing a part so tha t their acts, though
apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative,
indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of
sentiment, a conspiracy ma y be inferred thoug h no actual meetin g
among the m to concert way s and mean s is proved. (People vs. Mateo,
Jr., G.R. Nos . 53926-29, Nov. 13, 1989, 179 SCRA 303 , 320, citing
People vs. Carbonell, 48 Phil. 868)
498
Thus, whe n it is show n tha t all th e accused were already armed

whe n they met, and that they wen t together in a jeep to the place where
they robbed the house of th e offended party and raped his maids, their
conspiracy is implied. Their conspiracy is implied, notwithstanding
th e claim of some of th e accused tha t their participation therein wa s
only of havin g accompanied th e other accused wh o had requested
the m to show th e hous e of th e offended party. (People vs. Garduque,
G.R. No. Jul y 31 , 1958
Conspiracy is show n wher e th e offenders were all present at

th e scene of th e crime, acted in concert in attacking th e victims,
assaultin g and beatin g the m u p and chasin g the m and stabbing
the m and in divesting the m of their watches , gold rings and money,
and after the bloody were done, the y fled from th e scene and
wen t their separate ways . By their concerted actions, the y showed
tha t the y acted in uniso n and cooperated wit h each other towards
th e accomplishment of a common felonious purpose which wa s to rob
and kill th e victims. (People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 71626, March 22 ,
SCRA 505, 516; People vs. Carcedo, G.R. No. 48085 , Jun e
SCRA 503 , 517)
Conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive

Bu t while conspiracy may be implied from th e circumstances
attending th e commission of th e crime, it is nevertheless a rule that
conspiracy mus t be established by positive and conclusive evidence.
The sam e degree of proof necessary to establish the crime is
required to establish a finding of criminal conspiracy, that is, proof
beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot be established by conjectures but
by positive and conclusive evidence. Since conspiracy mus t be proved
beyond peradventure of a doubt, it follows tha t it cannot be appreci•
ated where the facts can be consistent with the of
the accused in th e fancied cabal. (People vs. G.R. Nos.
90191-96, Jan. 28, 1991, 193 SCRA 471 , 481 ; People vs. Cruz, G.R.
No. 74048, Nov. 14, 1990, 191 SCRA 377, 384)
Thus , wher e th e defendant satisfactorily explained hi s pres•
ence wit h th e group tha t committe d th e robbery, he cannot be
considered a conspirator. (People vs . Rico, CA-G.R. No.
Jan . 12, 1950)
499
Thus, too, mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time
of its commission is not by itself sufficient to establish conspiracy.
(People vs. Taaca, G.R. No. 35652, Sept. 29, 1989, 178 SCRA 56,
70)
In order to hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of
conspiracy, it mus t be established that he performed an overt act in
furtherance of the conspiracy, either by actively participating in the
actual commission of the crime, or by lending moral assistance to
his co-conspirators by being present at the scene of the crime, or by
exerting moral ascendancy over the rest of the conspirators as to move
them to executing th e conspiracy. (People vs. Peralta, No .
Oct. 29, 1968, 25 SCRA 759, 777)
When there is no conspiracy, each of the offenders is liable

only for the act performed by him.
When policeman approached and Terencia
who were quarreling and told the m to stop th e fight, Guarino stabbed
Machica and ran away. Policeman Campos who pursued Guarino
overtook the latter and took hi m to the municipal building where
policeman Boco hit Guarino. Then, Chief of Police Castillo came and
shot to death Guarino in the presence of Machica, Campos and Boco
who had inflicted serious physical injuries on Guarino.
There wa s no competent proof tha t Machica, Campos and Boco

wante d or intended to kill Guarino. There wa s no previous indica•
tion tha t Castillo intende d to kill Guarino. Castillo jus t drew out
his gu n and fired, and Machica, Campo s and Boco could not hav e
stopped it eve n if the y wante d to. There bein g no conspiracy or
unit y of purpose and intentio n amon g th e four, Machica, Campos
and Boco did not participate in th e criminal resolution of Castillo.
Only Castillo wh o shot Guarino to deat h wa s found guilt y of murder
qualified by treachery. Machica, Campo s and Boco wer e held liable
for serious physical injuries only. (People vs . Castillo, 103 Phil.
In th e crime of homicide, immediate participation in th e

nal design entertained by th e slayer is essentia l to th e responsibility
of one who is alleged to hav e take n a direct part in th e killing, but
who ha s not himsel f inflicted an injury materially contributing to th e
death. (People vs. 44 Phil. 38, 46)
500
Participation in criminal resolution essential.

It is not enough tha t a person participated in the assaul t made by
another in order to consider hi m a co-principal in th e crime com• mitted. He
mus t also participate in th e criminal resolution of the other.
The cooperation which th e law punishe s is the assistance which

is knowingly or intentionally given and which is not possible without
previous knowledge of the criminal purpose. (People vs. Cruz, G.R.
No. 74048 , Nov. 14, 1990, 191 SCRA 377, 385)
People vs. Ortiz and Zausa

(55 Phil. 995)
Facts: Sotero the deceased, and accused Ortiz and Zausa

had known one another for many years at the time the crime was com•
mitted, for his wife and that of Ortiz were sisters. About noon September
8, 1930, the deceased accompanied by three laborers, companions of
his, was returning from a plantation belonging to Pio Brionson carry•
ing some corn he had gathered; on reaching the house preceding that
of the accused, as he felt thirsty, he attempted to ask the occupants
for water, but as they happened to be absent, he went to the house of
the accused, and while in front of the house called out to Ortiz for a
drink of water. The latter answered from within that they had no water
and could not serve him, to which the deceased replied: we not
drink your water?" Ortiz rejoined, "But we have no water. How can
you compel us to give you some water?" And immediately afterwards
he descended from the house carrying his shotgun, which he pointed
at the deceased. When the latter saw the aggressive attitude of Ortiz,
he flung himself upon him, caught hold of the weapon, and they both
struggled for it. At this juncture, Modesta Zausa, companion of
Ortiz, took a spear from within the house, rushed down and with it
attacked the deceased stabbing him on the left side of the abdomen, so
that the intestines protruded. (Dying declaration) The deceased fell to
the ground unconscious, was assisted, and that night died of peritoni•
tis.
Held: The defense contends that Ortiz should be acquitted,

because he did not take part in the attack made by Modesta Zausa,
and because, according to the facts, there was no previous agreement
between them to commit the crime. In this we believe the defense is
right. It has been indisputably shown by the ante mortem statement
(Exhibit D) that while the deceased and Ortiz were struggling for the
shotgun, Modesta Zausa caught up the spear, hurried downstairs, ap-
501
proached the deceased, and suddenly stabbed him with it. From this,
it appears that there was no plan or agreement between them to carry
out the attack which ended in the death of the victim, and that from
the time Modesta Zausa thought of wounding the deceased to the time
she actually did so, barely a few seconds elapsed, and this interval is
palpably insufficient to give rise to the criminal agreement alleged in
the information.
In the United States vs. Magcomot, 13 Phil. it wa s held:

"In the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a crime
the criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against
one and the same person is individual and not collective, and each of
the participants is liable only for the acts committed by
In the United States vs. Reyes and Javier, 14 Phil. 27 (Syllabus),
one of th e defendants, name d Reyes, suddenly and unexpectedly
inflicted certain mortal wounds wit h his club upon one Legaspi, while
the latter wa s being held by Javier, the other defendant. It wa s held:
"That Javier wa s neither principal nor accomplice in th e commission
of th e crime of homicide of which Reyes wa s convicted, it appearing
that there wa s no concerted action betwee n hi m and his co-defendant,
that he had no reason to believe tha t a homicidal attack wa s about to
be made, and that, in holding Legaspi, he wa s voluntarily cooperating
therein."
In these cases, there wa s no anterior conspiracy. There wa s no
unity of purpose and intention immediately before th e commission of
th e crime. Hence, their criminal responsibility is individual.
In the absence of concerted action pursuant to a common criminal
design, each of th e accused, is responsible only for th e consequences of his
own acts.
Thus, in a case where one accused inflicted th e mortal wound

by stabbing th e victim wit h a knife while th e other two assailant s
merely hit th e victim wit h a bamboo on th e left arm and th e head,
the former wa s held guilty of murder while th e latter wa s held liable
only for or slight physical injuries. In still another case
where two persons attacked a single victim, one inflicting a fatal
wound hacking th e victim wit h a almost a mputatin g th e left
arm completely, while th e other also usin g a bolo, struck th e victim
just below th e armpit causing a wound tha t would heal in te n (10)
days, the one who inflicted the mortal wound wa s convicted of murder
502
while th e other, only of les s serious physical injuries. Jr.

vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 43527, July 3, 1990, 187 SCRA 123,
133)
No conspiracy, as shown by the acts of the defendant.

Prosecutio n w it ne s s testifie d tha t after th e appellan t ha d
stabbed th e deceased, he immediatel y ran away, so that whe n his
brother cut off th e hea d of th e deceased, the appellant wa s
no longer present. If th e appellant had agreed with his brother to
liquidate th e deceased, instea d of fleeing after he had stabbed the
latter on the arm, he would hav e stayed and finished the deceased by
himsel f or wit h Mauricio. The mere act of th e appellant in stabbing
th e deceased once cannot conclusively prove conspiracy. It results
tha t th e appellant should be held answerable only for his individual
act. (People vs. Quiosay, 103 Phil. 1160-1161
The gunsho t wound inflicted by one of th e accused being slight
which did not caus e th e deat h of th e victim nor materially contribute
to it in order tha t he ma y be held liable for homicide, his liability is
limited to th e slight injury he caused. Since th e us e of a gu n fired
at another show s inten t to kill, he is liable for attempted homicide
and not merely for slight physical injury. (Araneta, Jr. vs. Court of
Appeals, supra, at 133-134)
The spontaneity of th e respective reactions of several accused,
resultin g in an attack wher e the y all participated, rules out the
existence of conspiracy. Their respective liabilities shall be determined
by the nature of their individual participations in the felonious act.
Thus, two of the m who cooperated in th e execution of the offense
by si multa neo u s act s which , althoug h not indispensabl e to th e
commission of the offense, bore a relation to the acts done by the
principals and supplied material or moral aid in the execution of
the crime in an efficacious way, aware of the criminal intent of the
principals, are liable only as accomplices. (People vs. Lacao, Sr., G.R.
No. 95320, Sept. 4, 1991, 201 SCRA 317, 329, 330-331)
The fact that two of the appellants were standing behind their co-
appellant whe n the latter fired shots at the did not make them
liable for the act of the latter, there being no proof of any conspiracy
among the three. They were not armed. They did nothing to help
their co-appellant. Their mere passive presence at the scene of the
503
crime did not make them liable either as co-principals or accomplices.

(People vs. Madera, No. May 31 , 1974, 57 SCRA 349, 355)
Conspiracy shown by circumstances.

Before the commission of the crime, Nelson drew aside
and said, "It is a good thing that you are here, because we are planning
an idea (sic) to kill while Norman said, "let us stab
Jesu s Varela." Sumpa y protested: "Why should we stab him whe n I
do not even know hi m and he has no fault?" and Norma n (now ap•
pellant) retorted: "Just go wit h me because he ha s committed a fault
against me."
Held: The presence of both brothers at the place and tim e of
the attack on Varela; their remark to Sumpa y jus t before th e crime
wa s committed; th e assaul t on the deceased by Nelso n Vinas, wh o
had no personal reason to bear any grudge against said Varela, were
circumstances showing tha t both brothers had conspired to carry out
the killing. (People vs. Vinas, No. October SCRA
682, 687)
These are telltale indicia of a community of design to kill: close
relationship among th e three accused brothers and nephew; their
common desire to avenge th e wrong done to their father (grandfather
in the case of th e third accused); their going together to th e latter's
house at lunchtime all armed; their concerted beating of th e victim;
their act of bringing hi m to the yard of one of th e brother's house, wit h
said brother dragging th e victim and the other two accused, father
and son, thrusting their rifles at his body, thu s showin g tha t he wa s
their common captive; and their presence at th e yard whe n policemen
arrived thereat to investigate th e killing. (People vs . Manzano, Nos .
L-33643-44, Jul y 31 , 1974, 58 SCRA 250, 259)
There wa s conspiracy under thes e facts: th e four accused were
together in th e yard of th e victim's hous e whe n one of the m called
hi m and deceived hi m as to their purpose in awakenin g hi m at three
o'clock in the morning. They were together whe n the y rushed inside
his house. As if implementin g a previously rehearsed plan, two of
them assaulted him, th e third took th e money, and th e fourth stood
guard. They left th e house together after they had accomplished their
malevolent mission. The four appellants were linked to each other
by friendship or some sort of relationship. (People vs. No.
L-27974, Feb. 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 427, 443)
504
Conspiracy ma y be show n by th e appellants' actuations imme•

diately prior to, during, and right after th e shooting of th e victim,
as whe n the y wer e not merely present at the scene of the crime but
were positively identified as among the armed me n who arrived there,
shot th e victim, and left together after accomplishing their purpose,
notwithstandin g tha t the y were not active participants in the killing
itself, but mad e no effort to prevent it, and in fact, drew their gun s
tha t were tucked on their waist s whe n th e victim, after being shot
for th e first time, tried to run. (People vs. Umbrero, G.R. No. 93021 ,
May 8, SCRA 821 , 829-830)
People vs. Timbol

(G.R. Nos. 47471-47473, Aug.
Facts: Gregorio Timbol, Timbol, Dalmacio Timbol and

Geronimo Buan were accused of the complex crime of assault upon an
agent of authority with murder.
The accused were armed and were menacingly pressing their
demand for the approval of the 60-40 participation in the mill, which
had been denied by the Board of Directors of Pasudeco. Subsequently,
Capt. Olivas who was then present, said that, as peace officer, it was
his duty to give De Leon and Gonzales protection. Gregorio Timbol drew
his gun and shot Capt. Olivas at his back. Gregorio Timbol then shot
De Leon. Buan shot Gonzales. Carmelino with teargas gun planted
himself at the door out of the room to forestall any help that might be
attempted on behalf of the victims. Dalmacio Timbol was not present
during the shooting, because when his confederates were in the threat•
ening attitude, he left the room.
Held: The conspiracy in the instant case appears conclusively

to have been proved by the following circumstances: (1) On July 2,
1939, Gregorio invited Buan to a "good time" in Manila. (2) On July
6, Gregorio and Carmelino came together to Manila. Gregorio bought
a teargas gun. He wrote a special delivery letter inviting Dalmacio to
see him without fail on July 8, the same date indicated to Buan. (3) On
the appointed date, July 8, the four accused came together to Manila.
(4) All of them carried firearms fully loaded. (5) Together, the four ac•
cused occupied one room in the Central Hotel and threw themselves
into an orgy; dancing, drinking, gambling, and hiring prostitutes, all
the expenses having been defrayed by Gregorio. (6) The four accused,
again together, returned to Pampanga on July 12, and upon reaching
San Fernando, together they went to the Pikes Hotel to embolden
themselves with whisky. (7) About half an hour later and after making
505
a redistribution of firearms among themselves, all of them together

left the hotel, went to the Pasudeco offices, and entered the office of
the President, Jose de Leon. (8) After a discussion with De Leon and
Gonzales, accused Gregorio Timbol ordered them not to leave the office
until his petition for a 60-40 participation shall have been acted upon
favorably. (9) When the three victims were killed, the three accused
fled, again together.
All these circumstances demonstrate conspiracy.
Conspiracy is implied when the accused had a common pur•

pose and were united in its execution.
There is unit y of purpose and unity of execution establishin g
conspiracy in this case: (1) a slapping incident preceded the shooting,
wherei n th e deceased slapped th e face of one of th e appellants; (2)
before th e two groups could engag e in a physical clash, the y were
pacified by th e carinderia owner wh o later flagged a taxicab for th e
three accused; (3) th e three boarded th e taxicab leavin g wit h th e
slapped accused's parting words, "Pare hintay kayo, babalik
(4) the y the n proceeded to Greenhills arriving at th e post
of a security guard who m the y persuaded to lend the m hi s carbine;
(5) in borrowing th e gun , the y all signed th e logbook an d whe n
th e carbine wa s being hande d to them , the y wer e grabbing it; (6)
after receiving th e gun , the y agai n boarded th e sam e taxicab and
returned to th e carinderia; (7) upon arrival, gunsho t wer e fired from
th e taxicab wit h th e thre e accused on board, hittin g th e victims; (8)
after havin g fired at th e victims, th e three returned th e weapon , and
proceeded to th e headquarter s of th e Securit y and Protective
Agency, to whic h the y belonged, wher e the y narrated th e incident.
(People vs . G.R. Nos . 41490-92 , Oct. 18, 1990, 190 SCRA
595, 612)
People vs. Delgado

(77 Phil. 11)
Facts: While Bragat and Ramon Chavez were occupying

a table in a store, the three accused arrived. All of a sudden, accused
Juanito Trinidad gave Bragat a fist blow on the back of his neck fol•
lowed by another to the mouth which blows sent him to the ground. In
the meantime, accused Edwin Delgado held Chavez by the shirt and
accused Ricardo Villanueva joined in hitting Bragat. Bragat tried to
run away, but he was overtaken by the three accused, was boxed by
506
Delgado, and the three accused trampled on Bragat's body. The ap•
pearance of the police made the three accused run away.
Held: The community of purpose on the part of the three accused
is plainly inferable from these circumstances: (1) The three accused came
together to the scene of the occurrence; (2) While accused Trinidad
struck the first blow, accused Delgado held Chavez, and accused
unsuccessfully attempted to hit Bragat; (3) As Bragat tried
to run away, he was pursued by the accused who trampled on his body
after he had been boxed by Delgado; (4) The three accused together left
Bragat unconscious on the ground and, together also, they went to the
house of Pepe
Unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime

is shown in the following cases:
a. Spontaneous agreement at th e moment of the commission of
th e crime is sufficient to create joint responsibility. (People
vs . Allado, 43 O.G. 1717, citing People vs. Caballero, 53
Phil. 585)
Example:
Thus, where th e deceased challenged the two accused,
wh o accepted, assaulte d and killed th e challenger, it wa s
said tha t th e acceptance of th e challenge by the two accused
and their concert of attack clearly showed a community of
purpose and design. (People vs. 77 Phil. 664, 665-
667, citing Viada, Dec. of Jun e 13, 1904)
b. Active cooperation by all the offenders in th e perpetration
of the crime will also create joint
(1) On th e occasion of a huego de anillo, where a number of
people wa s present , A steppe d up behind th e
deceased and struck him on the back of th e head
with a piece of wood. The deceased reeled under the
blow and turned inclining backwards. While in this
attitude, the deceased wa s struck on the upper lip
with a whip in the hands by B. At this moment, C
seized the deceased by the left hand and D seized him
by the right. While the deceased wa s still inclining
backwards with his hands held fast by C and D, E
placed himself in front of the deceased and plunged a
507
knife into the body of the latter. The injury inflicted

by E wa s almost instantly fatal, the deceased dying
immediately without speaking a word.
Held: There wa s no proof sufficient to establish
anything like an anterior But the manner
in which the accused cooperated in the perpetration
of th e homicide show s tha t the y wer e move d by
a common motive and tha t their intention wa s to
accomplish the death of the deceased.
Dissenting: There wa s only individual responsi• bility

in this case.
Whe n A gav e th e decease d th e first blow ,
producing a mere bruise, whe n B dealt hi m the second
blow, producing another slight bruise, whe n C later held th
e deceased by one arm and D by th e other, there wa s yet
nothing to indicate to the m tha t there wa s another who
sought to do away with the deceased; for it wa s subsequent
to all thes e tha t E wh o cam e from behind the m all, placed
himsel f in front of th e deceased and gave hi m th e mortal
blow. Non e of th e other accused did anything more after E
ha d stabbed th e victim.
No participation in criminal design when the

act of one came so close upon the heels of that of the
other.
Reason: He had no tim e to see tha t th e other
intended to caus e th e deceased th e woun d he did. (People
vs. Manalo, 52 Phil. 484 , 489-490)
per se is not a badge of conspiracy,
absent the requisite concurrence of wills. It is not
sufficient tha t th e attack is joint and simultaneous;
it is necessary tha t th e assailant s are animate d by
one and th e sam e purpose. Evidently, in a situation
where the assaults were not simultaneous but succes•
sive, greater proof is demanded to establish concert
of criminal design. (People vs. No .
Jun e 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 549, 555)
508
by Direct Participation Par. 1
(2) People vs. Macabuhay, 46 No. 11.

Facts: A, B, C, D, and E were in th e house of F.
Someone threw a stone towards tha t house. Then,
all th e five marched to th e residence of G, 40 yards
away, to aveng e th e stone-throwing. In th e house of
G, the y found th e deceased. Suspecting the deceased
as th e person wh o thre w the stone, the four of the m
suddenly seized and held fast the said victim and
th e 5t h stabbed th e victim wh o died thereafter. The
common motive is to aveng e th e stone-throwing.
Held: A, B, C, D, and E were all liable as prin• cipals

by direct participation for th e deat h of th e deceased.
(3) People vs . Cruz, Jr., G.R. No. 86217 , Oct. 31 , 1990,
191 SCRA 127, 135.
The fact of conspiracy is well-established where one of
th e appellant's companion s announced the holdup whil e th
e rest took th e personal effects of the victims, th e appellant
himsel f drawing out a bladed weapo n and proceeding to
rob th e victims as well.
(4) People vs. Carpio, G.R. Nos . 82815-16, Oct.
191 SCRA
Conspiracy is manifested in the coordinated acts of th
e assailants , of one of the m holding th e hand of th e victim
while another wa s stabbing him and a third delivering fist
blows on different parts of the body of the victim, and, whe
n th e victim wa s able to escape, of giving chase and the first
accused shooting th e deceased five (5) times.
Contributing by positive acts to the realization a common
criminal intent also creates joint
(1) People vs. Agbuya, 57 Phil. 238.
For several years, marked enmity existed be•
twee n two families, the Palisocs and Agbuyas. A and
D belonged to the Agbuya family, while C belonged
to the Palisoc family.
509
PRINCIPALS IN GENERAL
Principals by Direct Participation
A, preparatory to the commission of the crime,

cleaned his shotgun. While cleaning his shotgun, A
inquired from D whether he had seen Later, A
carried the gun from his house to a certain place ac•
companied by his son D to look for In that place,
D waited for C and, whe n the latter wa s coming, A
handed his shotgun to D. D fired at C, killing hi m
the n and there. Is A liable as principal or merely as
an accomplice?
Where the homicide wa s committed by the act of
one of the two accused in shooting the deceased with
a gun which wa s supplied by his co-accused, father of
th e actual slayer, and where it also appeared that the
latter contributed to the commission of the homicide
by various other significant acts, it wa s held that both
father and son were properly convicted as principals
in the
There wa s a common criminal intent in this case,
because there wa s bad blood betwee n th e Agbuyas and the
Palisocs and th e father and son took common cause.
People vs. Mancao, 49 Phil. 887.
The accused Mancao wa s th e instigator
and aggressor, Roberto Villela havin g done nothing
but to defend himself, first disarming th e former of
his stick with which he wa s assaulted, and later of his
bolo which he used after having been deprived of his
stick. Roberto Villela might hav e ha d th e advantage
in th e fight had not one of Crispino Mancao's laborers
come to his rescue, upon his cry for help, and struck
Roberto Villela on the thigh; the n another ma n of
Mancao struck Roberto Villela several time s on the
left knee , and, lastly, th e accused Aguilar
struck Roberto Villela several blows on th e back wit h
his sickle, one of which nearly severed hi s spine in
th e lumbar region which later caused hi s death.
Held: While it is true that th e wound s which

cause d Roberto Villela's deat h wer e not inflicted
by Crispino Mancao but by hi s co-accused Ciriaco
510
Aguilar , ye t sai d Crispin o Mancao , havin g bee n

th e instigator and aggressor and having called his
harvesters to his aid, amon g the m the said Ciriaco
Aguilar, wante d the m to carry out, as in fact the y did,
the criminal act started by him and, therefore, he is
liable not only for hi s own acts, but also for th e acts
of those wh o aided him.
Mancao contributed th e following positive acts:

(1) hi s being th e instigator, (2) hi s being the aggres•
sor, and (3) hi s havin g called his harvesters.
The common criminal inten t is shown by the unit y of
purpose and intention of all th e offenders.
d. Presence during th e commission of th e crime by a band and
lending moral support thereto, also create joint responsibil•
ity wit h th e material executors.
(1) U.S . vs . 1 Phil. 165.
There were 7 defendants in this case. They had
conducted the deceased to a certain place and there,
by order of A and B, the deceased wa s killed by C, D
and F and G posted themselve s wit h A and B at
some distance to watch the approach of any one, in
order to prevent th e discovery of th e crime.
Held: All of the m by previously concerted ac•
tion, me t together and witnesse d the capture and
later, th e violent killing of the deceased. Some took
a direct part in th e actual commission of th e crime,
others were determined instigators who induced the
former to commit it, while the remainder cooperated
in th e sam e by their presence and lending their moral
support. The four who were not the actual perpetra•
tors thereof, witnessed the commission of the crime,
lending to the murderers their moral support and,
therefore, all are thu s directly responsible for the
consequences and incidents of the same.
(2) U.S. vs. Santos, 2 Phil. 453.
Facts: A band composed of some 25 men suc• ceeded
in capturing 5 American soldiers and subse-
511
quently took them to a certain place and detained

them in a house there. Five of the band, among them
the accused, subsequently took the Americans from
the house in which they were living and led them
away. The Americans were killed by two members of
the band in the presence of the accused and the other
three of the same
Held: It is of no importance that the accused
did not himself strike the blow or blows by which
the prisoners were killed. It is sufficient that he was
present at the place the commission of the act, aug•
menting with his arms and presence the power of th e
band, thu s aiding the common act of all, for hi m to
be considered as a principal by direct participation
in the crime prosecuted.
Note: There is a band in these cases. This cir•
cumstance is presumptive of a previous understanding
between one offender and the others who formed the
band, whereby he voluntarily lent his assistance of
thought and action for the realization of the criminal
object, increasing at least with his personal coopera•
tion, in an effective manner, the offensive strength of
said band. (U.S. vs. 4 Phil.
Conspiracy is presumed when the crime is com•
mitted by a band.
Where the accused wa s a member of a band tha t
appeared at the house of the deceased for th e purpose of
killing the latter, as he wa s in fact killed by two
of th e shots fired by some members of th e band, th e
accused is liable for the resulting homicide although
there wa s no evidence tha t he fired a shot at th e
deceased. (U.S. vs. Asilo, 4 Phil. 176; U.S . vs.
Perez, 13 Phil. 287, 291)
But where at the start of the encounter betwee n

the constabulary forces and an insurgent band, the
accused, who wa s with the band, fled from the scene
of the fight and did not take part therein, he is not
criminally liable. (U.S. vs. 4 Phil. 522, 525)
512
Where the robbery wa s committed by a band, all

th e members of th e band are presumed to be conspira•
tors or co-principals also in the assaults committed by
the band unles s he who claims to be a non-conspirator
proves tha t he attempted to prevent th e assault. In
th e absence of a showin g tha t appellants attempted
to prevent th e killing of th e victim, they are equally
guilty of hi s deat h at th e hand s of their companions.
(People vs . Bazar, No. Jun e 27, 1988, 162
People vs. Cinco, G.R. No. 79497, Feb.
27, 1991 , 194 SCRA 535 , 543)
e. Where one of th e accused kne w of th e plan of the others to

kill th e tw o victims and he accepted th e role assigned to
him, which wa s to shoot one of th e victims, and he actually
performed tha t role, he is a co-principal by direct participa•
tion in the double murder. (People vs. De la Cruz, 100 Phil.
624, 632-633)
There may be conspiracy even if there is no evident premedi•

tation on the part of the accused.
Although th e presence of 10-year-old child, and
th e fact tha t appellants were unarmed ma y indicate lack of evident
premeditation on their part, thes e circumstances and the do
not necessarily negate the existence of conspiracy for the sam e does
not require necessarily an agreement for an appreciable time prior
to the occurrence. From th e legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at
th e time of th e commission of the offense, th e accused had the same
purpose and were united in its execution. (People vs. Binasing, 98
Phil. 902 , 908, citing U.S. vs. Ancheta, 1 Phil. 165; U.S. vs. Santos, 2
Phil. 453; People vs. Mandagay, 46 Phil. 838; People vs. Agbuya, 57
Phil. 238; People vs. 77 Phil. 664; People vs. Macabuhay, 83
Phil. 464; People vs. Sa n Luis, 86 Phil. 485)
Liability of participants where there is conspiracy.

Where there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. There
is collective criminal responsibility.
Where it appears that the defendants, after conspiring together to kill
the deceased, went to his house for the purpose of carrying
513
out their common intent and prepared to cooperate to that end,

and some of them actually killed the deceased, while the others
posted themselves around the building ready to prevent his escape
or render any assistance which might be necessary, all will be held
equally guilty as principals irrespective of the individual participation
of each in the material act of the murder. (U.S. vs. Bundal, 3 Phil.
89)
Wher e co nspira c y ha s bee n a d e q u a t e l y prov en , al l th e
conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and
character of their participation because in contemplation of law, the
act of one is th e act of all. The degree of actual participation by each
of the conspirators is immaterial. As conspirators, each is equally
responsible for th e acts of their co-conspirators. (People vs. De la
Cruz, G.R. No. 83798 , March 29, 1990, 183 SCRA 763, 778; People
vs. G.R. No. 48085 , Jun e SCRA 503, 517-518;
People vs. Alvarez, G.R. No. 88451 , Sept. 5, 1991, 20 1 SCRA 364,
380)
Liability of a conspirator for another conspirator's acts which differ

radically and substantially from that which they intended to com•
mit.
A conspirator should necessarily be liable for th e acts of another
conspirator eve n though such acts differ radically and substantially
from tha t which the y intended to commit. (See People vs .
58 Phil. 536; People vs. Rosario, 68 Phil. 720)
In a case, the Supreme Court said:
the circumstance that th e wound mad e wit h th e knife on
th e leg of the person assaulted wa s th e primary caus e of deat h and
tha t th e author of this injury ha s not been identified, th e attorneys
for the accused chiefly planted their defense, and in thi s connection
it is insisted tha t th e conspiracy to attack Gines contemplated only
beating hi m up and did not include th e infliction of injury by mean s
of a cutting instrument. Such an act, so it is said, wa s not withi n th e
scope of th e agreement; and it is insisted that only th e individual
who inflicted the cut (wound) could be held responsible for th e death,
if that person were known. It results, in this view, tha t none of th e
appellants can be held liable further tha n for th e bruises inflicted by
mean s of the iron bars. Thes e injuries, so it is claimed, would in th e
natural course of events hav e been curable in a few days.
514
"We are of th e opinion tha t this contention is not tenable. The

accused had undoubtedly conspired to do grave personal injury to the
deceased, and now tha t th e injuries actually inflicted have resulted
in death, the y cannot escape from th e legal effect of their acts on the
ground that one of th e wound s wa s inflicted in a different way from
that which had been intended. A blow inflicted by one of th e small
iron bars used in thi s assaul t migh t well hav e resulted in th e taking
of life, and th e circumstance tha t a knife wa s also used in striking
th e deceased does not relieve th e appellants from the consequence of
their joint acts. As ha s been said by th e Supreme Court of the United
States , a number of persons agree to commit, and enter upon th e
commission of a crime whic h will probably endanger huma n life such
as robbery, all of the m are responsible for th e death of a person that
ensue s as a (Boyd vs. U.S. , 142; U.S., 450; 35 Law
1077). In United States vs. Patten, th e Court said:
who join in a criminal attack on a defenseless ma n wit h dangerous
weapons , knock hi m down, and whe n he tries to escape, pursue him
wit h increased numbers, and continue th e assault, are liable for man•
slaughter whe n th e victim is killed by a knife wound inflicted by one
of the m during th e beating, although in th e beginning the y did not
contemplate th e us e of a (People vs . 58 Phil. 536,
542-543)
And in another case: "There is no question tha t th e four as•

sailants acted in conspiracy wit h each other. This wa s evident from
the time the y wen t to Bernardo's hous e pretending to look for a lost
carabao and, more convincingly, whe n they moved in concert to kill
Bernardo eve n as th e two witnesse s were pulled away by the hair,
after which all four of the m fled together. As conspirators, they are
each liable for the attack on Bernardo, regardless of who actually
pulled the trigger or wielded th e club that killed him." (People vs.
G.R. No. 80406, Nov. 191 SCRA 503, 507)
Suppose that three persons conspired to commit robbery only, but in
the course of th e robbery one of the m killed an inmate of the house, mus t all
of the m be held liable for robbery with homicide?
It seem s that the others mus t not be held responsible for
the homicide which wa s not contemplated in their conspiracy
and in which they did not take part. The reason for this opinion
is that Art. 296 of the Revised Penal Code defines the liability
of the offenders in robbery if committed by a band, that is, any
515
member of a band (at least four armed men) is liable for any
assault committed by the other member of the band, unless it
be shown that he attempted to prevent the same.
Hence, if the robbers are only three, or even more than three
but not more than three are armed, Art. 296 is not applicable
and the robber who does not take part in the assault is not liable
therefor.
Where there is conspiracy to commit a felony, all the conspira•

tors are liable for its consequences.
It is argued for appellant that inasmuch as there wa s no
conspiracy to kill Acuna, and inasmuc h as Barauel only hit hi m wit h
an iron bar, the latter may not be held responsible for the death. Held:
Since there wa s conspiracy to punis h Acuna, and th e death of Acuna
resulted, all th e conspirators are responsible for th e consequences
that arose from th e punishment. (People vs . Villamora, 86 Phil. 287,
291)
Note: The ruling is in accordance wit h th e provision of Article

4, paragraph 1, of th e Revised Pena l Code.
A conspirator is not liable for another's crime which is not

an object of the conspiracy or which is not a necessary and
logical consequence thereof.
In th e case of People vs. 96 Phil. 185, wher e only th e
Huks , allies of defendant Umali , committed robbery which wa s not
an object of the conspiracy, it wa s held tha t defendant Umal i wa s not
liable therefor, but liable for sedition, arson and murder, th e objects
of the conspiracy.
Other defendants not held liable for the killings persons not covered by
the conspiracy.
Appellant Sulpicio cannot be held liable for th e killing of

Cabizares, notwithstandin g a conspiracy betwee n hi m and Serapio
The conspiracy wa s to kill Rafael only and no one else.
Nothin g wa s said or agreed upon about th e member s of Rafael's
family. In fact, in executing their plan, appellants let th e two wome n
inside house leave unhur t and the y did no harm to th e
516
remaining companions of Rafael in th e Their target wa s solely

Rafael Cabizares. And th e rule ha s always been that co-conspirators
are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy. For other
acts done outside th e contemplation of th e co-conspirators or which
are not the necessary and logical consequence of th e intended crime,
only th e actual perpetrators are liable. (People vs. De la G.R.
No. October 30, 1967, 21 SCRA 569, 586, citing People vs.
89 Phil. 225; People vs . Daligdig, 89 Phil. 598; People vs.
Umali , 96 Phil. 185; People vs. Duenas , May and
I Reyes, The Rev. Pena l Code, 432-433)
The ruling in th e case of People vs. De la Cerna, supra, should be

distinguished from th e ruling in th e cases of People vs. 58
Phil. 536, and People vs. Rosario, 68 Phil. 720. Conspirators are liable
for the acts of another conspirator even though such acts differ radically
and substantially from tha t which they intend to commit. This is in
accordance with the provision of Art. 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal
Code. But whe n the conspirators selected a particular individual to be
their victim, and another person wa s killed by one of them, only that
conspirator who killed another person would be liable therefor.
Conspiracy may cover persons previously undetermined.

Even if th e conspiracy wa s only against Jos e de Leon and not
against Augusto Gonzales and Capt. Olivas whos e intervention wa s
merely accidental and could not hav e bee n foreseen by the accused
whe n the y were preparing their plan, th e accused are liable for all
the natural and inherent consequences of such plan, it appearing
that there wa s a general plan to kill anyone who might put up violent
resistance. (People vs. Timbol, supra)
A person in conspiracy with others, who had desisted before the

crime was committed by the others, is not criminally liable.
"Although this appellant (Dalmacio Timbol) wa s a member of the
conspiracy, yet he desisted therefrom before the intended crimes were
committed. He left the office of De Leon and the Pasudeco build• ing long
before th e killings took place.
"And since conspiracy alone, without the execution of its purpose,
is not a crime punishable by law, except in special instances (Art.
8), none of which is the case at bar, Dalmacio Timbol is not
517
liable." (People vs. Timbol, G.R. Nos. August

4, 1944)
It wa s held that the act of a conspirator who, as soon as the ag•
gression was started by his co-conspirators, ran away and called for
help of other persons who hurriedly responded, is an act of desistance
from taking an active part in the aggression which removes the case
from the operation of the established rule that whe n a conspiracy
is proved, the act of one co-conspirator is the act of all. (People vs.
Mappala, 40 O.G. 1681)
When there is conspiracy, it is not necessary to ascertain the

specific act of each conspirator.
It is not necessary to ascertain the specific acts of aggression committed
by each of the culprits, since, having participated in the criminal resolution,
the act of one is the act of all. (People vs. Mendoza, 91 Phil. 58, 63)
Conspiracy having been established, it is immaterial who of th e
conspirators fired th e fatal shot. (People vs. Canoy, G.R. Nos .
54, Jan. 30, 1953, 92 Phil. 1076
For indeed, it is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence tha t whe n
there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and all persons
taking part in th e crime shall be held guilty as principals. It is of no
momen t tha t not all the accused took part in th e actual commission
of every act constituting the crime. Each is responsible for all th e
acts of the others done in furtherance of th e conspiracy. The degree
of actual participation is immaterial. (People vs. G.R. Nos.
90672-73, Jul y SCRA citing earlier cases. Also
People vs. Base, G.R. No. SCRA 688, 696; People vs . Moka,
G.R. No. 88838, April 26, 1991, 196 SCRA 378, 385-386; People vs.
Catubig, G.R. No. 71626, March 22 , 1991, 195 SCRA 505 , 516-517)
Conspiracy having been established, it is immaterial whethe r it

wa s VC or SG wh o fired th e fatal shot. (People vs. Canoy, et G.R.
Nos. L-4653-4654, Jan . 30, 1953)
When there is conspiracy, the fact that an element of the offense

is not present as regards one of the conspirators is immaterial.
Thus, in th e complex crime of seduction by mean s of usurpation of
official functions, where one of the accused simulated and falsely
518
pretended to be a minister authorized to perform marriage ceremo•

nies and did simulat e tha t he wa s performing a marriage ceremony
betwee n his co-accused and a girl in order thu s the more easily to
deceive her and caus e her to live in marital relations with the other
accused, the elemen t of performance of official functions wa s present
as regards one of th e accused only; but th e Supreme Court declared
the other accused guilty of, and sentenced hi m to the penalty for, the
sam e crime complexed wit h seduction which he actually committed.
(U.S. vs. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109)
All are liable for the crime of abduction, even if only one acted with
lewd designs.
Lewd designs on th e part of th e offender is an essential element of th e
crime of abduction. (Art. 34 2 — forcible abduction; Art. 343
— consented abduction)
In a case where defendant conspired wit h his co-de•

fendant Loyola to forcibly abduct and, in furtherance of the
conspiracy, took a direct part by positive overt acts necessary to the
realization of th e abduction, it wa s held tha t it wa s of no momen t
that Loyola alone acted wit h lewd designs, for once conspiracy is
established, th e acts of one are considered th e acts of all. (People vs.
Loyola, C.A., 51 O.G. 253)
In multiple rape, each rapist is equally liable for the other

rapes.
In a line of cases, it ha s been held that in multiple rape, each
defendant is responsible not only for the rape personally committed
by him, but also for th e rape committed by the others, because each
of the m cooperated in th e commission of the rape perpetrated by the
others, by acts without which it would not have been accomplished.
(People vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 62116, March 22, 1990, 183 SCRA
511, 517-518)
Exceptions:
1. In the crime of parricide, the element of relationship must be
present as regards all the offenders.
If the wife and son of the deceased conspired to kill the latter and
did kill him, both the wife and the son are guilty of parricide. But if the
wife of the deceased and a stranger conspired
519
to kill him and did kill him, only the wife is guilty of parricide
and the stranger is guilty of homicide or murder, as the case
may be. (People vs. Patricio, 46 Phil. 875)
The reaso n for th e exceptio n is tha t Art. 62 , par. 3, provides
that aggravating circumstances which arise from the private relations of
the offender with the offended party shall serve to aggravate only the
liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant. This provision applies whe n the element
of the felony arises from the private relation of the offender with the
offended party.
2. In the crime of murder where treachery is an element of the

crime, all th e offenders mus t at least have knowledge of the
employment of treachery at th e time of the execution of th e act
or their cooperation therein.
Thus, if A and B who conspired to kill C, carried out their plan
without previously considering th e means , methods , or forms in killing
the latter, and only A employed treachery, since B wa s present during th
e killing and kne w th e employmen t of treachery by A, both are liable
for murder.
Bu t if B remained at th e gate of th e premises of C, and
only A actually killed C in th e latter's house wit h treachery, so
tha t B did not know of th e employment of treachery, only A is
liable for murder and B is liable for homicide.
The reason for thi s exception is tha t Art. 62 , par. 4, pro•
vides tha t th e circumstance s whic h consist i n th e materia l
execution of th e act, or in th e mean s employed to accomplish it,
shall serve to aggravate th e liability of those persons only wh o
had knowledge of the m at th e time of th e execution of th e act
or their cooperation therein. Treachery is either a qualifying or
a generic aggravating circumstance.
Participation in another's criminal resolution must either

precede or be coetaneous with the criminal act.
People vs. Tan Diong

(59 Phil. 539)
Facts: Tan Diong, to avoid the execution of the judgment against
him in a civil case, transferred his properties by unilateral deeds of
520
conveyance with fictitious consideration in favor of Eustaquio Baranda

whose participation was only his testifying falsely in court that he had
acquired the properties with sufficient consideration.
Held: As to Eustaquio Baranda, we note that the conveyances
by which these properties were conveyed to him were of a unilateral
character. Baranda did not participate in the conveyances, and his
alleged participation in the fraud consisted only in the fact that he
serted in the properties conveyed. In our opinion, this does not
justify his conviction as a participant in the fraud. His resolution to
accept the benefit of the fraudulent conveyances may have been
formed only after the act of Tan Diong. His guilt as a co-conspirator in
the fraud is, therefore, not proved.
Note: Baranda would have been liable as a co-principal, had he
concurred with Tan Diong at the time or before the execution of the
deeds of conveyance.
There could be no conspiracy to commit an offense through

negligence.
Since conspiracy presupposes an agreement and a decision to com•
mit a felony, whe n it appears that th e injuries inflicted on the offended
party were due to the reckless imprudence of two or more persons, it
is not proper to consider conspiracy betwee n or among them.
In cases of criminal negligence or crimes punishable by spe•

cial law, allowing or failing to prevent an act to be performed
by another, makes one a co-principal.
Thus, a professional driver of a passenger truck who allowed his
conductor to drive th e truck which, while being driven by the latter,
bumped a jeepney resulting in th e death of one jeepney passenger,
wa s held criminally liable as co-principal of homicide and damage to
property through reckless imprudence under Act No. 3992 and Art.
365 of the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Santos, C.A., 44 O.G. 1289)
Both the driver and th e conductor were held liable as co-principals.
Also, a wa s held criminally liable under the Pure
Food and Drugs Act for the act of his employee, in selling adulter•
ated coffee, although th e storeowner did not know that the coffee
wa s sold by his employee. (U.S. vs. Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong, 30
Phil. 577) Both the storeowner and the employee were held liable as
principals.
521
Second requisite — (Principals by direct participation)

That the culprits "carried out their plan and personally took part
in its execution, by acts which directly tended to the same
The principals by direct participation must be at the scene of

the crime, personally taking part in its execution.
A principal by direct participation mus t personally take part
in executing the criminal plan to be carried out. This mean s that he
must be at the scene of th e commission of the personally taking
part in its execution.
Thus, in the case People vs. Ong Chiat Lay, 60 Phil. 788, it
wa s held tha t one of th e accused wa s not a principal by direct par•
ticipation because he was absent from the scene of th e fire whe n th e
crime of arson wa s committed by th e other accused.
The exception to the rule tha t to be a principal by direct partici•
pation, th e offender mus t be at th e scene of th e commission of th e
is the case where there wa s conspiracy to kidnap and kill th e
victim and only one of th e conspirators kidnapped th e victim and,
after turning hi m over to hi s co-conspirators for execution, left the
spot where th e victim wa s killed. The one wh o kidnapped th e victim
wa s liable for murder committed by th e others. The reason for th e
exception is tha t by kidnapping th e victim, he already performed his
part and the killing wa s done by hi s co-conspirators in pursuance of
the conspiracy. (People vs. Santos, 84 Phil. 104)
The acts of each offender must directly tend to the same end.
While the principals by direct participation personally take part
in the execution of their common purpose, it is not necessary tha t
each of the m should perform a positive act directly contributing to
the accomplishment of their common purpose.
In a murder which th e offenders previously agreed to commit,
not only th e one who inflicts th e fatal wound is considered a principal,
but also the one wh o holds down th e victim and th e one wh o lies in
wait at the door to prevent an y help from being rendered. The acts of
each and every one of th e offenders in thi s case are all directed to th e
same end, that is, the killing of their victim. Criminal responsibility
in such a case is collective. (People vs. 46 Phil. 838)
522
One serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a principal

by direct participation.
The appellants were part of th e plot to rob the victim. At the
tim e of the robbery, the y stood guard outside th e house, while their
co-accused entered th e victim's dwelling. They are equally liable as
th e others. (People vs. No. July SCRA
301 , 308)
Thus, one wh o stand s guard outside th e house for the purpose of

keeping others away, or of warnin g hi s fellow-conspirators of danger
of discovery, whil e th e latter are murdering th e occupant, takes a
direct part in th e commission of th e crime of murder, and is guilty as
a principal by direct participation. He is in fact present, aiding, and
abetting in th e commission of th e crime. (U.S. vs. 22 Phil.
127; U.S . vs . 26 Phil. 133)
Exception:
People vs.
(77 Phil. 136)
Facts: The accused were jointly tried for the murder of three per•
sons. Said accused were members of a guerrilla unit and were charged
with having taken the deceased Lorenzana to their headquarters and
beating him to death while investigating him on charges of espionage for
the Japanese. The other accused admitted their guilty participation in
the crime. Accused Samano and Alcantara admitted that they acted as
guards near the place of the crime, but that they did so in obedience to
superior orders and without knowledge that the deceased who was then
under investigation would later be killed. There was no evidence that
there was conspiracy between those who pleaded guilty and the present
appellants.
Held: When there is no conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose
and intention indicating participation in the criminal resolution, mere
passive presence at the scene of another's crime does not constitute
complicity.
When the second requisite is lacking, there is only con•

spiracy.
The second requisite is that the persons who have participated
in the criminal resolution, must carry out their plan and personally
523
Par. 2 Principals by Induction
take part in its execution by acts which directly tend to the same
end.
If this second requisite is lacking, at most, there is only a con• spiracy
among the several defendants who participated in the CTiminal resolution,
and if the crime they agreed and decided to commit is not treason, rebellion
or sedition, they are not criminally liable.
Thus, if four of the accused merely attended the conferences and
entered no opposition to the nefarious scheme, merely assentin g out
of respect and fear, and after th e commission of the murders they
joined with th e other accused in celebrating with a fiesta, by wa y of
custom, they were neither co-principals nor accomplices. (People vs.
Asaad, 55 Phil. 697)
This is the reason wh y Dalmacio Timbol, who merely conspired

with hi s co-accused to kill the deceased but left th e place before his co-
accused began shooting the deceased, wa s acquitted of the charge of
murder. (People vs. Timbol, G.R. Nos . Augus t
Even if G's participation in the first meeting sufficiently involved
him in the conspiracy (as he wa s the one who explained th e location of
the house to be robbed in relation to the surrounding streets and th e
points thereof through which entrance and exit should be effected),
such participation and involvement, however, would be inadequate
to render hi m criminally liable as a conspirator. The reason for thi s
is tha t conspiracy alone, without th e execution of its purpose, is not
a crime punishable by law, except in special instance s (Article 8, Re•
vised Penal Code) which, however, do not include robbery. (People vs.
G.R. No. May cited in People vs. Peralta,
No. Oct. 29, 1968, 25 SCRA 759, 777-778)
PAR. 2. - PRINCIPALS BY INDUCTION.
who directly force or induce others to commit it."
Paragraph No. 2 of Art. provides for the second class of

principals.
The second class of principals, according to Article 17 of th e
Revised Penal Code, comprises "those wh o directly force or induce
others to commit it (the Those wh o directly induce others to
commit th e act are called "principals by inducement" or "principals
524
Principals by Induction Par. 2
by from th e Spanis h por induction." The

word "inducement" comprises, in th e opinion of Viada and the
Supreme Court of Spain, price, promise of reward, command, and
pacto. (People vs. Gensola, No. Sept. 30, 1969, 29 SCRA
483, 490)
The principal by induction becomes liable only when the

principal by direct participation committed the act induced.
Thus, in th e case of People vs. Ong Chiat Lay, 60 Phil. 788, it
wa s held tha t one cannot be held guilty of havin g instigated the com•
mission of the crime without first being show n tha t the crime wa s
actually committed by another.
Two ways of becoming principal by induction.

There are two way s of becoming a principal by induction under th e
second paragraph of Art. 17, namely:
(1) by directly forcing another to commit a crime, and
(2) by directly inducing another to commit a crime.
By directly forcing another to commit a crime.

There are two way s of directly forcing another to commit a crime.
They
a. By usin g irresistible force.
b. By causing uncontrollable fear.
In these cases, there is no conspiracy, not even a unity of crimi•
nal purpose and intention. Only the one using force or causing fear is
criminally liable. The material executor is not criminally liable because of Art.
12, pars. 5 and 6.
By directly inducing another to commit a crime.

There are two ways of directly inducing another to commit a crime.
They are:
a. By giving price, or offering reward or promise.
Both the one giving the price or offering reward or
promise and the one committing the crime in considera•
tion thereof are principals — the former, by inducement;
525
and the latter, by direct participation. There is collective

criminal
A wife, who induced the killing of the mistress of her
husband by giving money to the killer, is a principal by
induction. The killer is a principal by direct participation.
(People vs. Lao, No. Jan. 28, 1961, 1 SCRA 42)
b. By using words of command.
Both the person who used th e words of command and the
person who committed the crime, because of th e words of
command, are equally liable. There is also collective criminal
responsibility. (U.S. vs. Gamao, 23 Phil. 81)
Requisites:
In order that a person ma y be convicted as a principal by induce• ment,
th e following requisites mus t be present:
1. That th e inducement be made directly with the intention
of procuring th e commission of th e crime; and
2. That such inducemen t be th e determining cause of th e
commission of th e crime by th e material executor. (U.S. vs .
Indanan, 24 Phil. 203; People vs. 61 Phil.
609)
To constitute inducement, there mus t exist on th e part of th e
inducer th e most positive resolution and th e mos t persistent effort to
secure the commission of th e crime, together wit h th e presentation to
the person induced of the very strongest kind of temptatio n to commit
th e crime. (U.S. vs. Indanan, supra)
Illustration of the first requisite.

Whe n the accused, blinded by th e grudge which she bore against
the deceased, caused her co-accused thr u promise of pecuniary gain
to shoot th e victims wit h a gu n which sh e had furnished th e latter,
it is clear that she had the intention of procuring th e commission of
the crime. (People vs. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244)
In th e case of a married woma n wh o suggeste d to her paramour that

he kill her husband in order tha t thereafter the y migh t live together freely
and th e paramour, acting upon thes e suggestions,
526
killed him, it wa s held tha t th e proposition of the woma n constituted

something more than mere counsel or advice which her co-defendant
wa s entirely free to accept or not. It wa s coupled wit h a consideration
which, in vie w of th e relations existin g betwee n them , furnished a
motive strong enough to induce th e ma n to take the life of her husband.
(U.S. vs. Alcontin, 10 O.G. 1888, cited in U.S. vs. Indanan, supra;
People vs. Giron, 82 Phil. 783)
Th e case s cited als o illustrat e th e second requisite. I n th e

Otadora case, th e promise of pecuniary gain wa s the determining
caus e of th e commissio n of th e crime by th e principal by direct
participation. In th e Alcontin case, th e proposition of the woman, in
view of th e relations existin g betwee n her and th e other accused, wa s
th e determining cause of th e commission of th e crime by the latter.
A thoughtless expression without intention to produce the

result is not an inducement to commit a crime.
Bu t a thoughtless expression or act, without any expectation or intention
tha t it would produce th e result, is not an inducement to commit a crime.
Thus , a chance word spoken withou t reflection, a wrong ap•
preciation of a situation, an ironical phrase, a thoughtles s act, ma y
give birth to a though t of, or eve n a resolution to, crime in the mind
of one for some independent reason predisposed thereto without the
one who spoke the word or performed the act having any expectation
that his suggestion would be followed or any real intention that it
produce th e result. In such case, while th e expression wa s imprudent
and the results of it grave in th e extreme, the one who spoke the word
or performed the act would not be guilty of the crime committed by
the other. (U.S. vs. Indanan, supra)
Example of imprudent advice, not constituting sufficient

inducement.
In a decision by the Supreme Court of Spain rendered on the
10th of July, 1877, it wa s held that person who advised a married
woman whose husband wa s very stingy and treated her badly that
the only thing for her to do wa s to rob him, wa s not guilty of the
crime of robbery by inducement, for the reason that an imprudent
and ill-conceived advice is not (Cited in the case of U.S.
vs. Indanan, supra)
527
The person who gave the advice did not have the intention to
procure the commission of the crime.
The inducement may be by acts of command, advice, or through influ•

ence, or agreement for consideration.
The inducement and the commission of a crime whereby the
inducer becomes a principal, to the same extent and effect as if he
had physically committed the crime, may exist in acts of command,
sometimes of advice, or agreement for a consideration, or through an
influence so effective tha t it alone determines the commission of the
crime.
The words of advice or the must have actually

moved the hands of the principal by direct participation.
Thus, a person who persuaded an inexperienced boy of tender age
to steal certain jewel s of hi s grandmother wa s found guilty of theft by
inducement. cited in U.S. vs. Indanan, supra) Minors under 15
years of age are easily susceptible to th e suggestions of th e inducer,
because usually the y have no discernment or judgmen t of their own.
When induced to commit a crime, th e influence of th e inducer is th e
determining cause of th e commission of th e crime.
Words of command of a father may induce his son to commit a crime.

A distinction should be made betwee n th e words of command
of a father to his sons, under conditions which determine obedience,
and the excited exclamations uttered by an individual to who m obedi•
ence is not due. The moral influence of th e words of th e father ma y
determine the course of conduct of a son in case s wher e th e sam e
words coming from a stranger would mak e no impression. (People
vs. 44 Phil. 38, 57)
The accused, who, exercising dominance and ascendancy over

his 3-year-old son, compelled th e latter to hurl a stone at another boy,
causing injury to th e latter's eye, is clearly a principal by inducement.
(People vs. Bautista, C.A., 58 O.G. 5197)
Meaning of the second requisite.

It is necessary tha t th e inducemen t be th e determining cause
of the commission of th e crime by th e principal by direct
528
tion, tha t is, without such inducement the crime would not have been committed.
(Decision of th e Supreme Court of Spain, cited in U.S. vs. Indanan, supra)
Inducement exist s if th e command or advice is of such a nature
that, without its concurrence, th e crime would not have material•
ized. (People vs. Cruz, G.R. No . 74048 , Nov. SCRA 377,
385)
Thus, if the principal by direct participation had personal reason
to commit th e crime so tha t he would commit it jus t th e same even if
no inducement wa s mad e by another, thi s second requisite does not
exist.
The inducement must precede the act induced and must be so influ•
ential in producing the criminal act that without it, the act would not
have been performed.
Thus, th e price given to the principal by direct participation after
th e commission of th e crime, without prior promise to give a price or
reward, could not be an inducement.
If th e person wh o actually committed th e crime had a reason
of hi s own to commit th e crime, it cannot be said that the induce•
men t wa s influential in producing th e criminal act. In such case, the
one charged wit h havin g induced th e commission of the crime is not
criminally liable.
People vs. Castillo

(G.R. No. July 26, 1966)
Facts: Convicted by the trial court were appellant Castillo as

principal by inducement and Marincho Castillo as principal by direct
participation. It appears that before the commission of the crime at
bar, Marincho Castillo was slapped on the face by the now deceased
Juan Vargas as a result of an altercation between them. Two months
after, while appellant, holding gun, was talking face to face with Var•
gas, Marincho came from behind and hacked the latter on the head.
As Marincho was about to strike the victim a second blow, appellant
said: kill Marincho, accompanied by appellant, surrendered
himself to the authorities.
Issue: Whether appellant can be found guilty as principal by
inducement.
529
Held: In the case People vs. Dec. 29, 1960,

this Court held that in determining whether the utterances of an ac•
cused are sufficient to make him guilty as co-principal by inducement,
it must appear that the inducement was of such nature and was made
in such a way as to become the determining cause of the crime and
that such inducement was uttered with the intention of producing the
result. In this case, appellant was, of course, armed with a revolver
while talking with the deceased, but the firearm was not pointed at
the latter. Then he is alleged to have uttered the words "You kill
only after his son had already fatally boloed Vargas on the head. The
inducement to commit the crime was, therefore, no longer necessary
to induce the assailant to commit the crime. Appellant's guilt has not
been established beyond reasonable doubt.
By using words of command.

With respect to command, it mus t be th e moving cause of th e
offense. In the case at bar, the command shouted by Fidelina,
strike him!" wa s not the moving cause of th e act of Rufino Gensola.
The evidence shows that Rufino would have committed th e act at
his own volition, eve n without said words of command. (People vs .
Gensola, No. Sept. 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 483 , 490)
"Kill hi m and we will bury him" as an imprudent utterance said in th e
excitement of th e hour or in th e hea t of anger, and not, rather, in th e nature
of a command tha t had to be obeyed, does not mak e th e utterer a principal
by inducement. (People vs. Agapinay, G.R. No. 77776, Jun e 27, 1990, 186
SCRA 812 , 821)
In determining whether the utterances of an accused are sufficient

to make him guilty as co-principal by inducement, it mus t appear that
the inducement wa s of such nature and wa s made in such a wa y as to
become the determining cause of the crime and that such inducement
wa s uttered with the intention of producing the result. (People vs.
Castillo, No. 19238, July 26, 1966, 17 SCRA 721 , 723-724)
For the utterances of an accused to mak e hi m a principal by in•
ducement, it is necessary that the words be of such nature and uttered
in such manner as to become the determining cause of the crime, and
that the inducement precisely wa s intended to serve such purpose. In
other words, the inciting words mus t have great dominance and influ•
ence over the person who acts; they ought to be direct and as efficacious
or powerful as physical or moral coercion or violence itself. (People vs.
Nos. Aug. 46 SCRA 634, 651)
530
In order tha t a person usin g words of command ma y be held li• able as

principal under paragraph No . 2 of Art. 17, th e following five requisites mus t
all be present:
(1) That th e one uttering th e words of command mus t have
th e intention of procuring th e commission of th e crime.
(2) That th e one wh o mad e th e command mus t have an as•
cendancy or influence over th e person wh o acted.
Illustration of this requisite:
A wa s a poor, ignorant fisherman, dependent his

uncle B. On th e other hand , B wa s a ma n of great influence
in th e community. B wa s th e local political leader of his
party. In th e meetin g wher e th e plan to murder the priest
wa s discussed, B wa s th e prime mover and th e dominant
figure. B selected A wh o wa s present in the meetin g to
commit th e crime and directed hi m to do it. The influence
exercised by B over A wa s so great and powerful that the
latter could not resist it. (U.S. vs. Gamao, 23 Phil. 81)
(3) That th e words use d mus t be so direct, so efficacious, so
powerful as to amoun t to physical or moral coercion.
Illustration of this requisite:
(a) Efficacious —
One who make s th e accused believe that the person
to be killed wa s th e one who had stolen th e property of the
accused, is guilty as principal by inducement.
Note: It would see m tha t the material executor had
a reason to kill th e victim, but it wa s furnished by the
inductor who mad e hi m believe tha t th e deceased had
stolen his property.
(b) Powerful — (U.S. vs. Gamao, supra).
(4) The words of command mus t be uttered prior to the com•
mission of the crime.
Thus, whe n the commission of the crime has already been
commenced whe n the words of inducement are ut• tered, this
requisite is lacking.
531
In a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain, cited

in People vs. Kiichi 61 Phil. 609, it wa s held that a
father who simply said to his son who wa s at the time
engaged in a combat wit h another, "Hit wa s not
responsible for the injuries inflicted after such advice wa s
given.
(5) The material executor of the crime has no personal reason
to commit the crime.
If the principal by direct participation ha s a personal
reason to commit the crime, the supposed words of induce• men t
cannot be th e determining cause.
People vs. Kiichi Omine

(61 Phil. 611)
Facts: The witnesses for the prosecution contend that while the
injured party, Angel Pulido, was talking with Omine, Autor
attempted to intervene, but was prevented by Pulido with a
bolo, who did not wound him except on the left thumb; that Luis
and Agapito then held Angel Pulido by the arms, and when
Eduardo Autor approached, Omine shouted to him y
and Autor struck Angel Pulido in the breast with his bolo. Previously
Eduardo Autor had struck Angel Pulido with the fist and a blow in the
right
Held: Under the circumstances of this case, even if it were
satisfactorily proven that Kiichi Omine uttered the words in ques•
tion, we are of the opinion that they would not be sufficient to make
him a principal by induction, because it does not appear that the
words uttered by Kiichi Omine caused Eduardo Autor to strike Angel
Pulido. In the first place, as we have indicated, Eduardo Autor had
already other reasons for striking Angel Pulido when Omine uttered
the words of inducement. In the second place, the words in question
were not in this particular case sufficient to cause Eduardo Autor
to strike the offended party with his bolo. Although Eduardo Autor
was working under the direction of apparently, according to
the testimony of Angel Pulido, he was being paid by him (Pulido).
It does not appear that Omine had any particular influence over
Eduardo Autor.
Accused Autor was found guilty of serious physical injuries. Ac•

cused Omine was acquitted.
532
Requisites considered in determining the liability of a person accused

as principal by inducement.
Appellant wa s prosecuted allegedly for uttering the words: "You had

better kill him," at th e tim e whe n hi s co-accused wa s attacking hi s victim.
The Supreme Court stated:
"In th e presen t case , ther e i s nothin g t o sho w tha t appellan t

ha d an y reaso n a t all t o hav e Ange l killed (first requisite ,
no t present) . O n th e othe r hand , eve n before h e allegedly uttere d
th e words attributed to him , Caimbre, had already boloed
hi s victi m severa l time s (fourth requisite , no t present) . T o thi s w e
mus t add th e circumsta nc e tha t ther e i s n o evidenc e t o sho w tha t
appellan t ha d sufficient moral influence over Demetri o Caimbre
a s t o mak e th e latte r obe y hi m blindly" (secon d requisite , not
present) . Appellan t wa s acquitted . (People vs . Caimbre, 110 Phil.
Th e questio n whethe r a perso n presen t upon th e occasion of a

homicide but wh o take s no direct part in th e act can be held crimi•
nally liable for inciting an d encouragin g another wit h expressions,
suc h as , "go ahead," "hit him," "there yo u hav e him," "now is th e
etc., depend s upo n whethe r suc h words are spoken under
conditions whic h give the m a direct and determinative influence
upon th e min d of th e principal actor. (People vs . 44 Phil.
38, 56-57)
Ascendancy or as to amount to moral coercion is

not necessary when there is conspiracy.
To consider as principal by induction one who advises or incites
another to perpetrate an offense, it is essentia l to show that the
advisor had so great an ascendancy or influence that his words were
so efficacious and powerful as to amount to moral coercion. Proof of
such extremes is usually required to justify such conclusion. But such
proof is unnecessary where, as in this case, the principal actor admits
having been so impelled and says that he acted pursuant to a previous
plan or conspiracy to kill and promise to condone his indebtedness.
(People vs. Phil. 629, 633)
There is collective criminal responsibility whe n words of induce• ment
were used.
533
One who planned the crime committed by another is a prin•

cipal by inducement.
The persons who planned the crime committed by other persons are
guilty as authors by inducement. (People vs. Asaad, 55 Phil. 697
If the crime committed is not contemplated in the order given,

the inducement is not material and not the determining cause
thereof.
People vs.
(G.R. Nos. July 20, 1955)
Facts: Accused Lawas, as head of the home guards whose duty
was to preserve peace and order among the inhabitants in Barrio
Lanao, ordered his men to fire at the Moros suspected of having killed
Christian residents. In the course of the melee that followed, some
of the home guards fired at the women and children who were in the
second floor of the house.
Held: While the home guards were given an order by accused
was to fire at the Moros then on the ground, said order could not imply
or include an order to go up the house and massacre the innocent and
defenseless women and children. Lawas clearly did not intend that the
women and children inside the house should also be fired at. Lawas is
not guilty of murder for the killing of the women and children, because
to hold him liable as principal by induction, it is necessary (1) that the
inducement is and precedes the commission of the crime, and
(2) that such inducement is the determining cause thereof.
Principal by inducement in falsification.

While it is true tha t it wa s th e employee of th e office of th e
treasurer who performed th e overt act of writing th e false facts on th e
residence certificate of th e accused, it was , however, th e accused wh o
induced hi m to do so by supplying hi m wit h those facts. The accused
wa s a principal by inducement. The employee wa s a mere innocent
agent of the accused in the performance of th e act constituting th e
crime. (People vs. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913 , 919)
In this case, th e employee wa s not criminally liable, because
he had no knowledge of th e falsity of th e facts supplied by th e ac•
cused.
534
Distinguish principal by inducement from the offender who

made proposal to commit a felony.
1. In both, there is an inducement to commit a crime.
2. In th e first, th e principal by inducement becomes liable
only whe n the crime is committed by the principal by direct
participation; in the second, the mere proposal to commit a
felony is punishable in treason or rebellion. The person to
who m th e proposal is mad e should not commit the crime;
otherwise, th e proponent becomes a principal by induce•
ment.
3. In th e first, th e inducemen t involves any crime; in the
second, th e proposal to be punishable mus t involve only
treaso n or rebellion.
Effects of acquittal of principal by direct participation upon

the liability of principal by inducement.
Conspiracy is negatived by th e acquittal of co-defendant.
(2) One cannot be held guilty of having instigated th e commis•
sion of a crime without first being shown tha t the crime
ha s been actually committed by another. (People vs. Ong
60 Phil. 788, 790)
Bu t if th e one charged as principal by direct participa• tion
is acquitted because he acted without criminal intent or malice, hi
s acquittal is not a ground for the acquittal of th e principal by
inducement. (See People vs. Po Giok To, supra)
The reason for th e rule is that in exempting circum•
stances, such as whe n th e act is not voluntary because of lack of
intent on th e part of the accused, there is a crime committed, only
that th e accused is not a criminal. In in• tentional felonies, th e act
of a person does not make him criminal unles s his mind be
criminal.
Possessor of recently stolen property is a principal.

It is clear from Section 5(j), Rule 131, of the Rules of Court, that the
possessor of a recently stolen article is considered a principal, not
535
Par. 3 by Indispensable Cooperation
merely as an accessory or an accomplice, unless he proves in a satis•

factory manner that he is but an accessory or an accomplice thereto
and that another person, from whom the article came, is the one who
stole it from the owner thereof. (People vs. Javier, No. L-36509, Feb.
25, 1982, SCRA 186, 190)
PAR. 3. - PRINCIPALS BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERA•

TION.
"Those who cooperate in the commission the offense by another

act without which it would not have been
Meaning of the term "cooperate."

To cooperate mean s to desire or wish in common a thing. that
common will or purpose does not necessarily mea n previous under•
standing, for it can be explained or inferred from th e circumstances
of each case. (People vs. 56 Phil. 571 , 576)
Requisites:
1. Participation in th e criminal resolution, tha t is, there is
either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and
intention immediately before th e commission of th e crime
charged; and
2. Cooperation in th e commission of th e offense by perform•
ing another act, withou t whic h it would not hav e bee n
accomplished.
First requisite:
As in Par. 1 of Art. 17, this co-delinquency in paragraph 3 also requires

participation in th e criminal resolution, tha t is, there mus t be conspiracy. Bu
t concurrence wit h th e principal by direct participa• tion in th e purpose of
the latter is sufficient, because th e cooperation is indispensable to th e
accomplishment of th e commission of th e of• fense.
May there be cooperation by acts of negligence?

One who, by acts of negligence, cooperates in th e commission
of estafa through falsification or malversation through falsification,
536
Principals by Indispensable Cooperation Par. 3
without which negligent acts th e commission of the crime could not

hav e been accomplished, is a co-principal. Bu t th e one who cooper•
ated in th e commission of th e crime wa s held guilty of th e sam e crime
through reckless imprudence. (Samso n vs. Court of Appeals, 103 Phil.
277, 282-283; People vs. Rodis, 105 Phil. 1294, 1295
Second requisite:
The cooperation mus t be indispensable, that is, without which

th e commission of th e crime would not have been accomplished. If th e
cooperation is not indispensable, th e offender is only an accomplice.
"Cooperate xxx by another act"
The act of th e principal by indispensable cooperation should

be different from th e act of th e principal by direct participation. The
law say s another whic h mean s tha t it should not be the act
of one wh o could be classified as principal by direct participation.
Examples:
Where it appears tha t C seized th e hand s of a 12-year-old

girl, dragged her by force and violence to a place behind
a hous e wher e there were some tree s whence he called
to hi s confederate, J, th e person chiefly interested in the
perpetration of th e crime, wit h who m C mus t have had an
agreement beforehand, delivered her to him his arrival
at th e place, and the n wen t awa y from th e scene of the
crime so tha t J migh t freely consummat e the prearranged
rape, as th e latter did wit h violence and intimidation, it
wa s held that C cooperated in th e perpetration of the crime
by acts without which its commission would not have been
accomplished. (U.S. vs. Javier, 31 Phil. 235, 239-240)
(2) R, an employee of a bank, had th e duty to examine the

account of the drawer of a check, to determine whether or
not the drawer of th e check had sufficient balance to
credit to require the payment of the check, and to indorse
upon the check, if it wa s entitled to payment, the words
P.O. Luciano de Reyes." After the check
wa s marked in this manner, it would pass to the cashier
of the bank who, in reliance upon the indorsement, would
pay or order the same to be paid. R, in connivance with
B, and knowing that the latter had no sufficient funds in
537
Par. 3 Principals by Indispensable Cooperation
the bank, indorsed upon a check drawn by B the words

P.O. Luciano de The cashier, relying
upon the indorsement, ordered the payment of th e check,
thu s enabling B to draw the amount of the check. In this
case, R wa s a principal by indispensable cooperation. (U.S.
vs. Buanco, 14 Phil. 484)
In these two cases, it will be noted that the cooperation of the other
accused consisted in performing an act which is different from the act of
execution of th e crime committed by the other accused.
In the case of U.S. vs. Javier, the act of cooperation is the forcible taking
of th e girl to the place where the rape wa s committed by th e other accused.
In rape, the act of execution is the sexual intercourse with the woma n against
her will.
In th e case of U.S. vs. Lim Buanco, th e act of execution of th e
crime of estafa committed by th e principal by direct participation is
th e fraudulent cashing of th e check which resulted in th e damag e to
the bank. The act of cooperation of th e other offender is th e certifica•
tion that th e check wa s entitled to payment.
If the cooperation of one of the accused consists in performing an
act necessary in the execution of the crime committed, he is a principal
Thus, if in th e commission of homicide, one of th e offenders held the
victim while th e other wa s stabbing him, th e one wh o held the victim should
be a principal by direct participation.
But there are cases where the Supreme Court considered the ac•
cused who held the victim while being stabbed by the other accused as
a principal by indispensable cooperation under paragraph 3 of Art. 17.
The evidence amply demonstrates tha t said Plato n cooperated in the
execution of th e deed on trial by holding th e victim by th e right arm while hi
s brother and co-defendant inflicted th e wound s tha t produced death. The
responsibility he ha s incurred by virtue of such cooperation, without which th
e deed could not hav e bee n committed in th e wa y it was , is beyond doubt tha
t of principal. (U.S. vs. Cueva, 23 Phil. 553)
Appellants grabbed th e wais t of th e deceased and placed hi s hand s

around it, thereby pinning hi s (the deceased's) arms. It wa s
638
Principals by Indispensable Cooperation Par. 3
at thi s juncture whe n hi s co-accused Marcelino Mario stabbed the

deceased at hi s left breast above the nipple wit h his dagger (Exh.
C). Unde r th e circumstances, it is clear that appellant is a principal
to th e commission of th e crime of murder, as he cooperated in th e
execution thereof by another act, without which, it would not have
been committed (Art. 17[3], Revised Pena l Code). (People vs. Mario,
108 Phil. 574, 577; People vs . Labis, No. L-22087, Nov. 15, 1967, 21
SCRA 875, 885)
Liability of conspirators who took turns in raping a girl.

Four persons each took turn s in havin g sexual intercourse with a girl by
force. It wa s held tha t each of the m is responsible, not only for th e act of
rape committed personally by him, but also for the rape committed by the
others, because while one of the m wa s having sexual intercourse wit h th e
girl, th e others were holding her, so tha t each one of the m cooperated in th e
consummation of the rape committed by the others by acts without which it
could not have been accomplished. Four sentence s were imposed on each
accused. (People vs. Villa, 81 Phil. 193, 197; People vs . Alfaro, 91 Phil. 404,
408-409; People vs.
Fernandez, G.R. No. 62116 , March 22 , 1990, 183 SCRA 511 , 517)
To be liable as principals, the offender must fall under any of

the three concepts defined in Article
In its decision of December the Supreme Court of Spain
held that a person wh o assist s one wh o commits the crime of arson
and who know s th e latter's purpose, but whose participation in the
arson is not disclosed, ma y not be considered as a principal because
his acts were neither direct nor absolutely necessary for the commis•
sion of the offense nor did it induce the said commission. (2 Viada,
pp. 369-370) In another decision dated December it said that
where the accused accompanied the killer on a road where the victim
wa s going to pass and with open knife encouraged him (the killer)
with his presence, the former is not guilty of the crime as principal
because his participation is neither direct nor does it constitute the
inducement necessary to bring about the execution of the crime or
that of cooperation as his act is not indispensable in the commission
of the crime. pp. 383-384)
In People vs. Ubina, 97 Phil. 515, it wa s held that under the

circumstances, the accused does not fall under any of the three con-
539
Par. 3 Principals by Indispensable Cooperation
cepts in Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, and ma y only

be considered guilty as accomplice.
Collective criminal responsibility.

There is collective criminal responsibility whe n th e offenders
are criminally liable in the same manner and to the sam e extent.
The penalty to be imposed mus t be the same for all.
Principal s by direct participation hav e collective crimina l
responsibility. Principal by induction, except that who directly forced
another to commit a crime, and principal by direct participation
have collective criminal responsibility. Principal by indispensable
cooperation ha s collective criminal responsibility with th e principal
Individual criminal responsibility.

In th e absence of previous conspiracy, unity of criminal purpose
and intention immediately before th e commission of th e crime, or
community of criminal design, the criminal responsibility arising from
different acts directed against one and th e sam e person is individual
and not collective, and each of the participants is liable only for the
act committed by him. (U.S. vs. 13 Phil. 386, 390; U.S . vs.
Abiog, 37 Phil.
Where there is no pretension tha t there wa s an y conspiracy be•
tween the accused nor concerted action pursuant to a common CTiminal
design betwee n them , each is responsible only for th e consequences
of hi s own acts. (Araneta, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No . 43527 ,
July 187 SCRA 123, 133)
Example of individual responsibility.

The deceased wa s th e one wh o assaulted a group of three indi•
viduals wit h a knife, and in th e course of an incomplete self-defense,
two of the m caused les s serious physical injuries upon th e assailant,
while the third inflicted th e fatal wound. In thi s case, th e party who
inflicted the fatal wound would be th e only one responsible as principal
for the crime of homicide; th e other two would be held liable only for
less serious physical injuries. (Dec. Sup. Ct. of Spain, Jun e 2, 1874,
Jr. 1 Viada, Cod. 342-343; People vs. Martinez,
42 Phil. 85, 89; People vs. 44 Phil. 38, 44-45)
540
ACCOMPLICES Art. 18
Art . 18. Accomplices. — A c c o m p l i c e s ar e th e p e r s o n s w ho ,

no t b e i n g i n c l u d e d i n A r t i c l e 17, c o o p e r a t e i n th e e x e c u t i o n
o f th e o ffen s e b y p r e v i o u s o r s i m u l t a n e o u s acts .
Quasi-collective criminal responsibility.

Betwee n collectiv e crimina l responsibilit y and individua l criminal
responsibility, there is th e so-called quasi-collective criminal responsibility.
In quasi-collective criminal responsibility, some of the offenders

in th e crime are principals and th e others are
The participation of an accomplice presupposes the commis•

sion of the crime by the principal by direct participation.
The principal elemen t of every punishable complicity consists
in th e concurrence of th e will of th e accomplice wit h th e will of the
author of th e crime (People vs . 44 Phil. 49), and the accom•
plice cooperates by previous or simultaneou s acts in th e execution of
the offense by th e
"Not being included in Article

the participation or cooperation of th e accomplice is not
any one of those mentioned in Article 17, which defines the three
concepts of An accomplice does not fall under any of the
three concepts in Art. 17. (People vs. Ubina, 97 Phil. 515)
When there is no conspiracy between or among the defendants
but they were animated by one and the same purpose to accomplish
the criminal objective, those who cooperated by previous or simulta•
neous acts but cannot be held liable as principals are accomplices.
In case of doubt as to whether principal or accomplice.

In case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be consid• ered
that of an accomplice rather tha n that of a principal.
In the case of appellants Carlos and Pascual Clemente, while they
joined their brother in the pursuit of the fleeing Matnog, and in the attack on
him as he yet the prosecution eyewitness was unable
541
Art. 18 ACCOMPLICES
to assert positively that the two managed to hit the fallen man. There
being no showing of conspiracy, and the extent of their participation
in the homicide being uncertain, they should be given the benefit of
the doubt, and consequently, they are declared to be mere accomplices
in the crime. (People vs. G.R. No. L-23463, Sept.
21 SCRA 261, 270-271)
When the participation of an accused is not disclosed, he is

only an accomplice.
A person who assist s one who commits th e crime of arson and
who knows the latter's purpose, but whose participation in th e arson
is not disclosed, may not be considered as a principal, because hi s
acts are neither direct nor absolutely necessary for th e commission
of the offense, nor do the y induce th e said commission. (2 Viada, pp.
369-370, cited in People vs. 97 Phil. 515, 533)
In criminal cases, th e participation of th e accused mus t be es• tablished

by th e prosecution by positive and competent evidence. It cannot be
presumed.
An accomplice does not have previous agreement or under•

standing or is not in conspiracy with the principal by direct
participation.
An accomplice does not enter into a conspiracy wit h th e principal
b y direct participation . H e doe s no t hav e previo u s a g r ee me n t
or understandin g wit h th e principal to commi t a crime. Bu t he
participates to a certain point in th e common criminal design. (People
vs. 76 Phil. 571 , 576)
If there is conspiracy, all th e conspirators are equally liable for th e
crime actually committed by an y one of them . Th e sam e penalty shall be
imposed on each and every one of them .
On th e other hand, th e accomplice get s a penalty one degree
lower tha n that provided for th e principal in a consummate d felony.
(Art. 52)
Distinction between accomplice and conspirator.

Conspirators and accomplices hav e one thin g in common: the y know
and agree wit h th e criminal design. Conspirators, however,
542
ACCOMPLICES Art. 18
kno w th e criminal intention because they themselve s have decided

upon such course of action. Accomplices come to know about it after
th e principals hav e reached the decision, and only the n do the y agree
to cooperate in its execution. Conspirators decide that a crime should
be committed; accomplices merely concur in it. Accomplices do not
decide whethe r th e crime should be committed; they merely assen t to
the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. Conspirators are th e
authors of a crime; accomplices are merely instrument s who perform
acts not essentia l to th e perpetration of th e offense. (People vs. de
Vera, G.R. No. 128966, 18 Augus t 1999)
May a co-conspirator be held liable as an accomplice only?

In a case, th e Suprem e Court held: "It is true, strictly speak•
ing, tha t as Dable n and should be punished as
co-principals. However, since their participation wa s not absolutely
indispensable to th e consummatio n of th e murder, th e rule tha t the
court should favor th e milder form of liability ma y be applied to
In th e case People vs. No . L-39046, Jun e 30, 1975, 64

SCRA 729, 736, it wa s held tha t if th e overt acts of th e accused, al•
though done wit h knowledge of th e criminal intent of his co-accused
wa s not indispensable to th e homicidal assault, the accused should
be held liable only as an accomplice in th e killing of th e victim.
In some exceptional situations, having community of design with
the principal does not prevent a malefactor from being regarded as an
accomplice if hi s role in th e perpetration of th e homicide or murder
was, relatively speaking, of a minor character. (People vs. 76
O.G. 6600, No. 37, Sept.
Note:
1. The ruling in People vs. Nierra is inconsistent with the
ruling in People vs. Manzano, 58 SCRA 250, where it was
held that appellant's alternative contention that he should
be regarded only as an accomplice is untenable once it is
postulated that he conspired with Bernardo and to
kill Jose Quintos.
2. The fact that the role of a malefactor in the perpetration
of the homicide or murder wa s of a minor character is of
543
Art. 18 ACCOMPLICES
no consequence, since having been in conspiracy with the others,

the act of one is the act of all. (People vs. Mendoza, 91 Phil. 58,
63)
The ruling in People Nierra failed to distinguish between
"community of design" and "participation in the criminal
resolution" of two or more offenders.
The first does not necessarily mea n tha t there is
conspiracy, although it may develop into a conspiracy; th e second
implies conspiracy.
If a malefacto r entere d wit h th e other s into an
agreement concerning th e commissio n of a felony and
the decision to commit it, the malefactor and the others
participated in the criminal resolution. Such agreement and
decision may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of
the case. If there wa s no such agreement and decision, but,
knowing the criminal design of the others, th e malefactor
merely concurred in their criminal purpose, there is only
community of design. The malefactor, whos e role in the
perpetratio n of th e homicid e or murde r is of a mino r
character, ma y properly be held liable as accomplice.
In order that a person may be considered an accomplice, the

following requisites must concur.
1. That there be community of design; tha t is, knowing the criminal
design of th e principal by direct participation, he concurs with the
latter in hi s purpose;
That he cooperates in th e execution of th e offense by previ• ous or

simultaneous acts, with th e intention of supplying material or moral
aid in th e execution of th e crime in an efficacious way; and
3. That there be a relation betwee n th e acts done by th e
principal and those attributed to th e person charged as
accomplice. (People vs. 44 Phil. 38, 49)
First requisite:
Note that before there could be an accomplice, there mus t be

a principal by direct participation. Bu t th e principal originates th e
544
ACCOMPLICES Art. 18
criminal design. The accomplice merely concurs wit h the principal

in hi s criminal purpose.
The cooperation tha t th e law punishe s is th e assistance know•

ingly or intentionally rendered, which cannot exist without previous
cognizance of the criminal act intended to be executed by the principal
by direct participation. (U.S. vs. 11 Phil. 526, 528; People vs.
Cajandab, No. L-29598, Jul y 26, 1973 , 52 SCRA 161, 166)
The cooperation whic h th e law punishe s is th e assistance which

is knowingly or intentionally give n and whic h is not possible without
previous knowledge of the criminal purpose. (People vs. Cruz, G.R.
No. 74048, Nov. SCRA 377, 385, citing People vs. Bello,
11 Phil. 526 and People vs . Ortiz, 55 Phil. 993)
Thus, th e sentry is not liable as accomplice in thi s case:
Th e sentr y improperly permitte d certai n convicts to go out
of jail, accompanied by th e corporal of th e guards . Th e convicts
committed robbery. Wa s th e sentry an accomplice in th e crime of
robbery committed by th e convicts? No. When th e sentry permitted the
convicts to go at large, th e sentry had no knowledge of their intention
to commit any crime. (U.S. vs . Bello, supra)
But the driver of a taxicab who, knowing that his co-accused were going
to mak e a hold-up, permitted the m to us e th e taxicab driven by hi m in
going to a store where his said co-accused staged the hold-up, and waited for
the m until after th e hold-up, is an accomplice in the crime of robbery. (People
vs. Lingad, 98 Phil. 5, 12)
How an accomplice acquires knowledge of the criminal design of the

principal.
1. When th e principal informs or tells the accomplice of the
former's criminal purpose.
Thus, whe n the master told his servant that he would
abduct (abduction with consent) a girl under 18 years of
age and instigated his said servant to induce the girl to
leave her home for immoral purposes, and the servant as•
sisted in the commission of the crime by so inducing the
girl, the master wa s the principal by direct participation
and the servant wa s an accomplice. (U.S. vs. Sotto, 9 Phil.
231, 236)
545
Art. 18 ACCOMPLICES
Mariano Tadeo accompanied Crispino Tangbaoan

from Abra, to barrio Bacooc, and on
arriving there, Crispino revealed to Mariano that he wa s
going to kill one Guilay. It is likely that out of friendship
and companionship, Mariano did not leave Crispino after
Mariano learned intention. Mariano wa s with
Crispino whe n the latter killed Guilay. It wa s held that
Mariano wa s an accomplice in the crime committed by
Crispino. (People vs. Tangbaoan, 93 Phil. 686, 691)
2. When the accomplice saw the criminal acts of th e princi• pal.
In a quarrel, Ramon wa s choking th e deceased. Then,
Jose ran up and delivered a blow wit h a bamboo stick on
th e head of th e deceased. After the blow struck by Jose,
which Ramon saw, th e latter continued to choke the de•
ceased until life wa s extinct. The choking by Ramon wa s
not th e cause of death. It wa s th e blow delivered by Jose
which caused th e death of th e deceased. Held: Ramon is
an accomplice. The reason is tha t after th e deceased ha d
received th e fatal injury, Ramon continued to hold and
choke th e deceased until after life wa s extinct. It show s
tha t Ramon approved of th e blow struck by Jose, thereby
showing hi s participation in th e criminal design of Jose,
and this is sufficient to mak e Ramon responsible as an ac•
complice. (People vs. 44 Phil. 38, 42 , 49 , 54-55)
Another case: stabbed the deceased
after Alfredo Cagalingan had stabbed said deceased at th e
back, while Victor Jr. stabbed th e sam e deceased
while th e latter wa s already lying prostrate on th e ground.
While th e acts of Jovito Cagalingan and Victor Romina,
Jr. show a community of design wit h th e principal, Alfredo
Cagalingan, wh o inflicted th e fatal wound, and Jovito and
Victor cooperated in hastenin g th e victim's death, their
acts were not absolutely indispensable in th e commission
of the crime. A person wh o assail s a victim already fatally
wounded by another is only regarded as Jovito
Cagalingan and Victor Romina, Jr. are only accomplices.
(People vs. Cagalingan, G.R. No. 79168 , Aug. 319-
320)
546
ACCOMPLICES Art. 18
Where one of th e accused embraced th e victim and

rendered hi m helples s to stop hi m from further hitting
th e other accused, th e first accused should be held liable
as accomplice wher e he did not stop his co-accused from
further hittin g th e victim.
There is no showin g tha t th e attack wa s agreed upon

betwee n th e tw o accused No motive for it wa s
show n other tha n th e provocation given by th e deceased;
and such motive wa s true only insofar as the other accused
wa s concerned. Th e circumstances indicate that if the ac•
cused embraced th e deceased and rendered him helpless,
it wa s to stop hi m from further hitting th e other accused
wit h hi s fists. However, eve n after th e first knife thrust
had been delivered, he did not try to stop the other accused,
either by word or overt act. Instead, th e accused continued
to hold th e deceased, eve n forced hi m down on the bamboo
bed wit h th e other accused still pressing the attack. If the
initial intent of the accused was free from guilt, it became
tainted after he saw the first knife thrust delivered. (People
vs. Manansala , No . Feb. 31 SCRA 401 ,
405)
The criminal design to be considered in case there is

no conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention
between two or among several accused charged with a crime
against is th e criminal intent entertained by the
accused who inflicted the more or most serious wound on the
victim. In th e case People vs. supra, it wa s Jose
who had th e criminal intent, which is to kill the deceased.
Such intent to kill can be inferred from the nature of the
weapon used and th e part of the body which wa s injured.
When a bamboo stick wa s used in delivering a blow on the
head, death to th e victim can be expected.
Concurrence with the criminal purpose of another may make one a
Even if only one of the offenders originated the criminal design

and the other merely concurred with him in his criminal purpose,
but before the actual commission of the crime both of them agreed
and decided to commit it, the other is not merely an accomplice. He
547
Art. 18 ACCOMPLICES
is also a principal, because having agreed and decided to commit a felony

with another, he becomes a co-conspirator.
No knowledge of the criminal design of the principal — not an ac•

complice.
and were partners in the trade of raising and selling
Ireneo Ibanez wa s not directly involved in the business between
the two. A quarrel between Sixto and Cosme sprang simultaneously
out of a business discussion. Ireneo obtruded into th e discussion to
support th e interest of his brother Sixto. In th e course of th e quarrel,
one of th e trio mentioned the word Whereupon Cosme started
to run towards his house. Ireneo and Sixto pursued Cosme. When
they caught up with Cosme, Sixto held Cosme's neck from behind and
proceeded to tighten hi s grip. At this juncture, Ireneo stabbed Cosme
in such a sudden and unexpected manne r tha t th e eyewitnesse s did
not even notice tha t Ireneo's blow carried a dagger wit h it. And Sixto
showed surprise whe n later he saw th e bloodstained dagger of Ireneo,
and asked him, "What did you do?" Sixto immediatel y loosened hi s
grip on Cosme's neck.
Held: While it is true that the act of Sixto coincided wit h Ireneo's
act of stabbing, does not of itself demonstrate th e
concurrence will nor the unity of action and purpose which are th e
bases of th e responsibility of two or more individuals.
There is no proof tha t the y pursued Cosme because the y had
accepted a challenge coming from him. Apparently, their intention
wa s only to prevent hi m from taking from hi s hous e a weapo n wit h
which to carry out an attack. They were, therefore, jus t advancing a
legitimate defense by preventing an illegitimate aggression.
act of holding Cosme's neck from behind is no proof of intention to
kill. At tha t tim e he did not know yet wha t hi s brother's intention
was . It wa s not show n tha t Sixto kne w tha t hi s brother wa s armed.
(People vs. Ibanez, 77 Phil. 664)
Ciriaco Limbo wa s an employee of th e Bureau of Printing. He
stole several blank certificates used for th e registration of large cat•
tle from th e bookbinding department of tha t Bureau and sold the m
to one of hi s co-defendants, Pedro Flores, for th e su m of P1 5 each.
These registration certificates were used by Flores in effecting a sale
of the two horses for th e theft of which the y convicted.
548
ACCOMPLICES Art. 18
Limbo took no part, direct or indirect, either in th e stealing of

th e horses or in selling the m after the y had been stolen. He had no
knowledge of th e commission of th e crime of theft by his co-defend•
ants. He did not enter into any conspiracy or arrangement wit h the m
looking to th e commission of th e crime of theft of th e horses. He did
not receive any share of th e proceeds of th e sale of the horses.
Held: Limbo wa s liable only for th e theft of the blank certificates, but he
wa s neither a principal, an accomplice, nor an accessory in th e crime of theft
of th e horses committed by th e other defendants. (U.S. vs. Flores, 25 Phil. 595,
597)
The accomplice intends by his acts, to commit or take part

in the execution of the crime.
vs. People
(G.R. No. April
Facts: It appears that appellant is a close friend of Dr. Jesus

Lava, a top leader of the Communists, who was his classmate in the
high school, and who later on became the godfather of appellant's first
child. Appellant's wife and children were treated successfully by Dr.
Lava in 1939 and 1943 for various illnesses free of charge, and appel•
lant believed that his wife and children owe their lives to Dr. Lava. One
night in 1946, Dr. Lava arrived in the house of the appellant asking for
shelter. Appellant gave Lava accommodation for the night. The next
time that appellant heard from Dr. Lava was in May 1949, when he
received a note from the latter asking for some cigarettes, powdered
milk and canned goods. Appellant furnished in as small amounts as
he could send. It also appears that appellant, as a ranking employee of
the National City Bank of New York, helped the Huks to open accounts
and changed dollars to Philippine money for the Huks. The Court of
Appeals found him guilty as an accomplice in the crime of rebellion.
Held: There are two elements required, in accordance with the

definition of the term accomplice given in the Revised Penal Code
(Art. 18), in order that a person may be considered an accomplice to
a criminal act, namely, (1) that he takes part in the execution of the
crime by previous or simultaneous acts and (2) that he intends by said
acts to commit or take part in the execution of the crime. The crime of
rebellion is committed by rising publicly and taking up arms against
the Government for any of the purposes mentioned in Article 134 of
the Revised Penal Code. Appellant did not take up arms against the
Government. He did not openly take part in the commission of the
54 9
Art. 18 ACCOMPLICES
crime of rebellion by any other act without which said crime would not
have been committed. The act of sending cigarettes and food supplies
to a famous Huk does not prove intention to help him in committing
rebellion or insurrection. Neither is the act of having dollars changed
to pesos or in helping the Huks to open accounts, by themselves show
an intent or desire to participate or help in an uprising or rebellion.
Appellant was a public relations officer of the bank of which he was an
employee and the work above indicated performed by him was a part of
his functions as an employee of the bank. Good faith is to be presumed.
No presumption of the existence of a criminal intent can arise from the
above acts which are in themselves legitimate and legal. Said acts are
by law presumed to be innocent acts while the opposite has not been
proved. In the crime of treason, any act of giving comfort or moral aid
may be criminal, but such is not the case with rebellion where the Penal
Code expressly declares that there must be a public uprising and taking
up of arms in rebellion or insurrection. Granting for the sake of argu•
ment that appellant had the criminal intent of aiding the communists
in their unlawful designs to overthrow the Government, the assistance
thus extended may not be considered efficacious enough to help in the
successful prosecution of the crime of insurrection or rebellion so as to
make him an accomplice therein.
The community of design need not be to commit the crime

actually committed. It is sufficient if there was a common
purpose to commit a particular crime and that the crime
actually committed was a natural or probable consequence
of the intended crime.
1. In th e case of People vs. Largo, 99 Phil. 1061 , it appears tha
t Crispin Verzo caused Salazar and
Largo to load a time bomb in a PAL plane, which carried
Suzara. Verzo wa s th e paramour of Suzara's
wife. The bomb exploded whe n th e plane wa s in mid-air.
The plane fell into th e sea. All of its 13 passengers and crew
members were killed. It wa s held tha t Salazar and Largo
were accomplices in th e crime of which Crispin Verzo wa s
found guilty as principal, "because although the y cooper•
ated in th e execution of th e criminal act wit h knowledge
tha t somethin g illicit or forbidden wa s being done, there
is no evidence that the y kne w tha t th e act would, or wa s
intended to, cause th e destruction of th e plane and its pas•
sengers."
550
ACCOMPLICES Art. 18
2. In th e case of U.S. vs. De Jesus, 2 Phil. 514, three me n entere

d th e hous e of Ramo n Oset e for th e purpose of abductin g
hi s daughter , bu t instea d o f accomplishin g th e
abduction, the y killed Osete. While th e homicide wa s
bein g perpetrated, tw o other me n remaine d i n th e street
in front of th e victim's house , standin g by th e carriage
whic h ha d brought the m to th e scen e of th e crime. It wa s
held tha t th e tw o me n wh o wer e o n th e street ready t o
overcome an y opposition whic h the y migh t mee t were
accomplices.
Wher e th e accomplice s consen t to aid in th e com•

missio n of forcible abductio n (a crime in whic h th e us e
of force is involved) , the y will be responsibl e as suc h
accomplices for th e resultin g homicide , th e commissio n
of whic h migh t reasonabl y hav e bee n regarde d as a pos•
sibility in a t t e mpt in g to carry out th e abduction, and
thi s eve n i f i t appear s tha t th e purpos e t o commi t th e
homicid e on th e part of th e principal wa s unknown to
th e accomplices .
When the owner of the gun knew that it would be used to kill
a particular person, and the principal used it to kill another
person, the owner of the gun is not an accomplice as to the
killing of the other person.
Althoug h Serapio got th e carbine from Sulpicio, th e latter
cannot be considered a principal by indispensable cooperation or
an accomplice. There is no evidence at all that Sulpicio wa s aware
Serapio would us e th e rifle to kill Casiano. Presumably, he gave the
carbine to Serapio for him to shoot Rafael only as per their agreement.
Neither is there concrete proof tha t Sulpicio abetted the shooting of
Casiano. Sulpicio might have been liable if after the shooting of Rafael,
Serapio returned the carbine to him but upon seeing Casiano fleeing,
immediately asked again for the carbine and Sulpicio voluntarily
gave it to Serapio's criminal intention the n would be reasonably
apparent to Sulpicio and the latter's giving back of the rifle would
constitute his assen t thereto. But such wa s not the case. Sulpicio,
therefore, must be acquitted for the killing of Casiano
(People vs. De la G.R. No. October SCRA
569, 586-587)
551
Art. 18 ACCOMPLICES
Second requisite:
Like the principal by cooperation under par. 3 of Art. 17, the
accomplice cooperates wit h th e principal by direct participation. Bu t
the cooperation of an accomplice is only necessary, not indispensa•
ble.
However, if there is conspiracy betwee n two or among several persons,
even if th e cooperation of one offender is only necessary, the latter is also a
principal by conspiracy. The nature of th e cooperation becomes immaterial.
Examples of cooperation by accomplice:

a. By previous acts.
The exampl e of cooperation by previous act is th e lending of
a dagger or pistol to th e murderer, knowing th e latter's criminal
purpose.
In th e crime of rape, th e pharmacist who, knowing
th e criminal purpose of another, furnishes hi m th e drug
wit h which he will put hi s victim to sleep in order to rape
her, is also an accomplice in th e crime. (U.S. vs . Flores, 25
Phil. 595 , 597-598)
b. By simultaneous acts.
Th e defendant wh o held one of th e hand s of th e vic•
ti m and tried to tak e awa y th e latter's revolver, whil e hi s
co-defendant wa s attacking him , is an accomplice, for he
cooperated in th e execution of th e crime by simultaneou s
acts withou t an y previous agreemen t or understandin g
wit h hi s co-defendant. (People vs. 89 Phil. 520,
524)
The three persons wh o actually detained th e offended

woma n wer e principals in th e crime of illegal detentio n
and th e thre e other accused wh o hel d th e victim's com•
panion , i n order t o preven t th e latte r from renderin g
an y hel p to th e victim, wer e accomplices, ther e bein g no
conspiracy a mon g them . (People vs . Crisostomo, 46 Phil.
775, 784)
ACCOMPLICES Art. 18
The cooperation of an accomplice is not due to a conspiracy.
People vs. Francisco

(G.R. No. L-6270, Feb.
Facts: Francisco, then Mayor of Cordon, Isabela, accompanied by

his co-accused Badua, Dasalla and Tagasa, brought along
with them in a jeep, Ricardo Corpus, whose hands were tied at his
back and proceeded to the PC detachment where Francisco told the
officer of the day that he was leaving Corpus under the custody of the
constabulary because he was a bad man and wanted to take his life.
The Corporal told him that he could not accept Corpus, because there
was no detention cell there. Francisco and his co-accused left with
Corpus. Corpus disappeared and was not seen anymore. The evidence
shows that Francisco was the only one who had the criminal intention
to kidnap Corpus.
Held: The companions of Francisco (Berganio, Badua, Dasalla and

Tagasa) cannot be convicted as principals because of the failure of the
prosecution to prove the existence of conspiracy between them and
Francisco. But they are not entirely free from criminal liability for the
reason that they helped Francisco in bringing Corpus from the munici•
pal building to the PC detachment and ultimately to Barrio
These acts constitute cooperation by or previous
under Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code.
Once it is postulated that one of three accused had conspired
with his co-accused to kill the victim, he cannot be regarded only as
an accomplice. (People vs. Nos. L-33643-44, July 31, 1974,
58 SCRA 250, 259)
When the acts of the accused are not indispensable in the

killing, they are merely accomplices.
As to appellants and Alfredo, th e evidence as a whole
would show that the y were not entirely free from participation in
the killing of th e deceased. The numerous contusions inflicted on
th e deceased support the assertion that the y threw stones at the de•
ceased, but the throwing of the stones wa s done during the struggle
between Marciano and the deceased, after the latter had attacked
the former with the iron pipe. Absolutely no evidence exists to prove
that any stone thrown by either Emigdio or Alfredo inflicted any
mortal injury on Felix Jugo, nor does it appear that they joined Mar•
ciano in hitting the deceased after the latter crashed to the ground
553
Art. 18 ACCOMPLICES
from Marciano's blows. Thus, the form and manner of assistance by

Emigdio and Alfredo do not safely disclose that unity of purpose and
design and compulsion by a common motive that would make them co-
principals with the actual slayer, Marciano. The nature of the killing
as an offshoot of a spontaneous turn of events — not a previ• ously
conceived ambush — is seen by the us e of stones by Emigdio and
Alfredo, weapons unlikely to be chosen in the cool calculation of a
treacherous ambuscade. At most, the y could only be held liable as
accomplices, in that they cooperated in the execution of the offense
by simultaneous acts which were not indispensable. (People vs.
et 59 O.G. 7060, 7064)
The act of one, blocking people coming to the aid of th e victim

while being assailed is undoubtedly one of help and cooperation to the
assailants. But, it is not indispensable to the stabbing of th e victim.
Hence, he is merely an accomplice. (People vs. Resayaga, No.
March 30, 1988, 159 SCRA 426 , 432 ; People vs . No. L-39046,
June SCRA 729, 736 [hitting th e victim's companion with
a piece of wood, apparently to dissuade hi m from going to th e succor
of the
One who acted as a look-out or guard and also assisted in taking
th e stolen articles in the crime of robbery wit h homicide, absent a
conspiracy. (People vs. Parcon, Nos . Dec. 19, 1981 , 110
SCRA 425, 434, 435)
The accomplice merely supplies the principal with material

or moral aid without conspiracy with the latter.
Where the evidence does not prove tha t appellant conspired with
the malefactors, he cannot be considered as a principal. However, in
going with them, knowing their criminal intention, and in staying
outside of the house with the m while the others wen t inside the store to
rob and kill the victim, the appellant effectively supplied the criminals
with material and moral aid, making hi m guilty as an accomplice.
(People vs. Balili, No. Aug. SCRA People
vs. Doctolero, G.R. No. 34386, Feb. SCRA 632, 645)
The act of one of th e accused in inflicting wound upon th e victim
several times with a small knife only after th e latter had fallen to the
ground seriously wounded, if not already dead, is not necessary and
indispensable for the consummation of the criminal assault but merely
a or expression of sympathy or feeling of camaraderie with
554
ACCOMPLICES Art. 18
th e other accused. For suc h act, th e accused should be found guilty

only as accomplice. (People vs. Vicente, No. May 21 , 1969,
28 SCRA 247, 256-257)
The wounds inflicted by an accomplice in crimes against

persons should not have caused the death of victim.
The person charged as an accomplice should not have inflicted
a mortal wound. (People vs . 76 Phil. 571) If he inflicted a
mortal wound, he becomes a principal by direct participation.
Thus, whe n Z cut th e deceased on th e neck wit h a bolo and af•
terwards R likewise gave th e deceased another blow on the neck, both
wound s inflicted being mortal, eve n if only R originated the intention
to assault the deceased while Z did no more tha n to assist the action of
th e initiator of th e crime, th e tw o mus t be considered as co-principals
and therefore both are responsible for th e crime perpetrated. (U.S.
vs. Zalsos, 40 Phil. 96)
In th e following cases, th e other accused were held to be accom•

plices only, because th e wounds inflicted by the m were not the cause
of death:
People vs. 59 Phil. 580, because the wounds inflicted
by th e accused did not materially contribute to th e death
of th e deceased.
2. People vs. 56 Phil. 587, because th e wound in•
flicted by th e accused wa s not of a character that would
hav e resulted in th e death of th e deceased.
3. People vs. Cortes, 55 Phil. 143, because the accused who
were armed wit h clubs merely struck the victim, as he fell
by the fatal blow made by the principal, without causing
the victim serious injuries.
4. People vs. Antonio, 73 Phil. stoning the victim already
mortally wounded by other accused, the stoning not being
the cause of death.
People vs. Azcona

(59 Phil. 580)
Facts: Azcona induced the other accused to kill Cabili. The one
who fired the shot which killed Cabili was the principal by direct par-
555
Art. 18 ACCOMPLICES
ticipation and Azcona was the principal by induction. The two other
accused inflicted wounds after the fatal shot by the principal by direct
participation, when Cabili was either dead or in the throes of dissolu•
tion.
Held: The two other accused are merely accomplices.
People vs. Antonio

(73 Phil. 421)
Facts: One of the accused attacked and wounded the deceased,
inflicting upon the latter, lacerated wounds on the forehead and on
the neck. When the deceased was already prostrated on the ground
mortally wounded, accused Faustino threw stones against the
wounded man, inflicting contusions on his body. The cause of death
were the wounds on the forehead and neck.
Held: Faustino Divina is only an accomplice.
In these cases, the following rules are indicated:

The one who had the original criminal design is the person
who committed th e resulting crime.
Thus, in th e case, th e son wa s th e one
who entertained th e original criminal design, because it
wa s he who caused th e deat h of th e victim which gave
rise to th e crime of homicide.
The father, wh o continued choking th e victim after the fatal
blow wa s given, merely concurred in th e criminal purpose of hi s
son.
2. The accomplice, after concurring in the criminal purpose
of the principal, cooperates by previous or simultaneou s
acts.
Whe n th e cooperation is by simultaneou s act, th e

accomplice take s part whil e th e crime is being committed
by th e principal by direct participation or immediately
thereafter.
Thus, in th e case s mentioned, th e principal had al• ready
attacked th e victim before th e accomplice struck th e said victim.
3. The accomplice in crimes against persons does not inflict

th e more or most serious wounds.
556
ACCOMPLICES Art. 18
Problem: A gave a fist blow on th e face of B. Seein g wha t A had

done to B, C stabbed B to death. Is A an accomplice? No, because the
one who had the original criminal design wa s the wound inflicted by
C being the more serious. A could not hav e concurred in th e criminal
purpose of C, because A wa s th e first to strike B and A did nothing
more after C had stabbed B.
The criminal responsibility of A and C will be individual, tha t

is, each is responsible for th e act actually performed by him.
Bu t if C stabbed B first, and as B wa s in a dying condition, A gave a
first blow on B's face, the n A is an accomplice.
Reason: Whe n A gave a fist blow on th e face of B after the latter
had been mortally wounded by C, it show s that A concurred in the
criminal purpose of
Being present and giving moral support when a crime is being

committed will make a person responsible only as accomplice
in the crime committed.
Absent knowledge of the criminal purpose of the principal, giving
aid or encouragement, either morally or materially, in the commission
of the crime, mere presence at th e scene of th e crime does not make
one an accomplice. (People vs. Toling, No. L-28548, Jul y 91
SCRA 382 , 400)
People vs. Ubina

Phil. 515)
Facts: Ubina who was defeated by Aureliano Carag for

the mayorship of Solana, Cagayan, and whom Carag had insulted,
conspired with five persons to kill Carag. These five persons brought
along Romero Pagulayan, Pascual Escote, and Pablo to the
place where Carag was killed, but the actual killing was perpetrated
by the said five persons. Their participation in the act of killing Carag
was limited to being present and staying around the premises, while the
five conspirators fired at the victim and carried out their purpose.
Held: Other than being present and, perhaps, giving moral sup•
port, no act of Pagulayan, Escote, and Binayug may be said to constitute
a direct participation in the acts of execution. Neither did they induce
in any manner, the commission of the offense; they joined the conspira•
tors after the latter had decided to commit the act. Their presence and
557
Art. 18 ACCOMPLICES
company was not indispensable and essential to the perpetration of the

murder. They are only accomplices.
The moral aid may be through advice, encouragement or

agreement.
But the complicity which is penalized requires a certain degree
of cooperation whether moral, — through advice, encouragement,
or agreement, or material, — through external acts. In th e case of
accused there is no evidence of moral or material coopera•
tion, and none of an agreement to commit the crime in question. Her
mere presence and silence, while the y are simultaneous acts, do not
constitute cooperation, for it does not appear tha t the y encouraged or
nerved her co-accused Martin to commit the crime of arson; her failure
to give alarm, being a subsequent act, does not mak e her liable as an
accomplice. (People vs. Silvestre and Atienza, 56 Phil. 353 , 358)
The responsibility of th e accomplice is to be determined by acts

of aid and assistance, either prior to or simultaneo u s wit h th e com•
mission of th e crime, rendered knowingly for the principal therein ,
and not by th e mere fact of havin g bee n presen t at it s execution,
unless the object of such presence was to encourage the principal or
to apparently or really increase the odds against the victim.
an intent, concurring with some overt act, be specifically
shown by the evidence of the prosecution. (Decision of Supreme Court
of Spain, Jun e cited in U.S. vs. Guevara, 2 Phil. 528, 532)
Bu t th e advice, encouragement or agreemen t should not be the
determining cause of th e commission of th e crime by th e principal
by direct participation; otherwise, th e one wh o gave th e advice or
encouragement or th e one wh o entered into th e agreemen t would be
a principal by inducement. Whe n th e accomplice gives an
encouragement to, or enters into an agreemen t wit h th e principal,
he know s th e principal is going to commit th e crime.
Third requisite:
There must be a relation between the criminal act of the prin•

cipal and the act of the one charged as accomplice.
It is not enough tha t a person entertains an identical criminal
design as tha t of th e principal. There mus t be a relation betwee n the 558
ACCOMPLICES Art. 18
criminal act of th e principal by direct participation and that of the person

charged as accomplice.
People vs. De la Cruz

(61 Phil. 162)
Facts: A young lady was attacked by Reyes, her suitor, by throw•
ing her on the ground and passing his hand over her body. When they
learned of the incident, the parents of both parties agreed that the father
of Reyes would punish him. In the meantime, the brother of the young
lady, not knowing of such agreement, armed himself with a pistol and
looked for Reyes to avenge the honor of his sister. In the house of the
young lady, where Reyes was about to be punished, she immediately
stabbed him on the chest with a pen knife. At the time, the brother of the
young lady was under the house, again with his pistol, waiting for Reyes
to come down in order to kill him. For the death of Reyes, the brother of
the young lady was accused as accomplice.
Held: There can be no liability by reason of complicity if there

is no relation between the criminal act of the principal by direct
participation and that of the person charged as accomplice. The most
that could be said against the brother of the young lady, is that he
intended to kill the deceased but, even then, he did nothing in con•
nection with his sister's act of attacking and killing said deceased.
An accomplice may be liable for a crime different from that

which the principal committed.
1. A attacked B with treachery, the attack being sudden and
unexpected. When B wa s mortally wounded, father of A,
appeared, placed himsel f upon B's abdomen, and held his
hands . Later, D also appeared and held both knees of B,
C and D made it possible for A to search the body of B for
th e latter's revolver. It wa s not shown that C and D knew
of th e manner A attacked B. What the y knew wa s that A
had unlawfully attacked and wounded B. It wa s held that
A wa s guilty of murder qualified by treachery (Art. 248)
and C and D were guilty as accomplices in the crime of
homicide. (Art. 249) Art. 62, paragraph 4, provides that
the circumstances which consist in the material execu•
tion of the act or in th e mean s employed to accomplish it
(among them being treachery), shall serve to aggravate the
liability (or qualify the crime) only of those persons who
had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the
559
ACCOMPLICES
act or their cooperation therein. (See People vs. Babiera,

52 Phil. 98)
2. A, a guard, asked C to help him (A) remove from
the NARIC warehouse some sacks of rice belonging to the
NARIC, and sold them to D.
The qualifying circumstance of grave abuse of confi•
dence which in the case of A makes the crime qualified theft
(Art. 310) does not apply to C, who wa s not in confidential
relations with the C is guilty as accomplice in the
commission of the crime of simple theft (Art. 308) only. (See
People vs. Valdellon, 46 Phil. 245, 252)
Where the appellants ma y be said to have joined only
in the plan to rob, by providing th e banca used in the rob•
bery, which make s the m accomplices, they are not liable
for the killing committed by the principals in the course
of th e robbery. Havin g been left in the banca, the y could
not have tried to prevent th e killing, as is required of one
seeking relief from liability for assault s committed during
th e robbery. (People vs. No. L-30028, May
114 SCRA 131, 148, 149)
Art. 62, par. 3, provides that aggravating circumstances
which arise from the private relations of the offender wit h
the offended party shall aggravate the liability (or qualify
the crime) of th e principals, accomplices and accessories
as to whom such circumstances are attendant.
Distinguish accomplice from principal in general.

An accomplice is one who does not take a direct part in the com•
mission of th e act, who does not force or induce others to commit it,
or who does not cooperate in the commission of the crime by another
act without which it would not have been accomplished, yet cooper•
ates in the execution of th e act by previous or simultaneou s actions.
(People vs. Silvestre, 56 Phil. 353 , 356)
Distinguish an accomplice from a principal by cooperation.

The participation of the offender in a case of complicity, although
necessary, is not indispensable as in the case of a co-principal by coop-
560
ACCOMPLICES Art. 18
eration. For example, if one lends his dagger or pistol to a murderer

fully knowing tha t th e latter will commit murder, he undoubtedly
cooperates in th e commission of th e crime of murder with a previous
act which, however, cannot be considered indispensable for the reason
tha t even though th e offender did not lend his dagger or pistol, the
murderer could hav e obtained it somewher e else or from some other
person. In such a case, th e participation of th e offender is that of an
accomplice by virtue of th e provisions of this article. (See 1 Viada,
Cod. 370)
Where the accused struck th e deceased on th e forehead with a

piece of wood, rendering th e latter unconscious, thereby facilitating
the subsequent slayin g of th e deceased by th e other accused, the
former mus t be deemed responsible as an accomplice in the killing.
(People vs. 106 Phil. 1003, 1007)
Note: The accused wh o struck th e deceased on th e forehead

must have knowledge of the intention of the other ac•
cused to kill th e deceased before he struck the deceased.
If he ha d no such knowledge, he is not an accomplice
in th e killing of th e deceased. He is principal by direct
participation in th e crime he personally committed, say,
physical injuries.
While th e act of holding th e victim by Romeo wa s one of help and

cooperation, it is not indispensable for th e commission of the offense
by the others wh o boloed th e victim, as th e hacking could have been
committed jus t th e sam e without his holding the victim. Romeo is
only an accomplice. (People vs. Geronimo, No. L-35700, Oct.
53 SCRA 246, 259)
Note: If there wa s conspiracy between Romeo and the others,

he would be liable as notwithstanding the fact
that hi s cooperation wa s not indispensable.
Distinguish an accomplice from a principal by direct partici•

pation.
In both, there is community of criminal design.
By the overwhelming weight of authority, the same
community of purpose and intention is necessary to jus-
561
Art. 18 ACCOMPLICES
tify the conviction of an accused person in the character of

accomplice that is necessary to sustain conviction in the
character of principal. (People vs. 44 Phil. 38, 49)
We mus t bear in mind that unity of purpose and of
action must exist, not only among the principals themselves,
but also between the principals and the accomplices, and
that wha t distinguishes the latter from the former is that
the accomplices cooperate in the execution of the offense
by previous or simultaneous acts other tha n those which
would characterize the m as principals, pursuant to Article
17 of the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. C.A.,
46 O.G.
The person wh o entertain s th e owner of a hous e while
robbers are assaulting it, so that he will not return thereto until
after th e robbery ha s bee n consummated, is an accomplice in th
e crime, inasmuc h as he cooperated therein by simultaneous act,
although not an indispensable one for its accomplishment. (I Viada
370, cited in U.S. vs. Diris, 133, 136)
This case implies that the owner of th e house wa s
entertaine d at some distance from the place wher e th e
robbery wa s committed. If tha t person wa s in th e same
place, sa y under th e house, talkin g wit h th e owner of th e
house in order to distract his attention from wha t wa s going
on upstairs, he wa s a principal by direct participation,
serving as guard to warn his companions in case there
should arise any necessity for giving an alarm.
(2) As to th e acts performed, there is no clear-cut distinction

betwee n th e acts of the accomplice and those of th e prin•
cipal by direct participation. That is why, in case of doubt,
it shall be resolved in favor of lesser responsibility, tha t is,
tha t of mere accomplice.
(3) Betwee n or among principals liable for th e sam e offense,
there must be conspiracy; but betwee n th e principals and
the accomplices, there is no conspiracy. (People vs.
76 Phil. 571 , 575)
562
ACCESSORIES Art. 19
Art . 19. Accessories. — A c c e s s o r i e s ar e t h o s e w h o , h a v i n g

k n o w l e d g e o f th e c o m m i s s i o n o f th e c r i me , an d w i t h o u t hav •
in g p a r t i c i p a t e d t h e r e i n , e i t h e r a s p r i n c i p a l s o r a c c o mp l i c e s ,
ta k e par t s u b s e q u e n t t o it s c o m m i s s i o n i n an y o f th e fo llo w in g
ma nners :
1 . B y p ro f it i n g t h e m s e l v e s o r a s s i s t i n g th e o f f e n d e r t o
profi t b y th e effect s o f th e cri me ;
2 . B y c o n c e a l i n g o r d e s t r o y i n g th e bo d y o f th e cri m e
o r th e effect s o r i n s t r u m e n t s t hereo f , i n o rd e r t o p r e v e n t it s
discovery ;
3 . B y h a r b o r i n g , c o n c e a l i n g , o r a s s i s t i n g i n th e esca p e
o f th e p r i n c i p a l o f th e cri me , p r o v i d e d th e a c c e s s o r y act s wit h
a b u s e o f hi s p u b l i c f u n c t i o n s o r w h e n e v e r th e a u t h o r o f th e
c r i m e i s g u i l t y o f t r e a s o n , p a r r i c i d e , m u r d e r , o r a n a tt e mp t t o
t a k e th e lif e o f th e C h i e f E x e c u t i v e , o r i s k n o w n t o b e habitu •
all y g ui lt y o f s o m e o t h e r c r i me .
An accessory does not participate in th e criminal design, nor

cooperate in the commission of th e felony, but, wit h knowledge of the
commission of the crime, he subsequently take s part in three ways: (a)
by profiting from th e effects of th e crime; (b) by concealing the body,
effects or instrument s of th e crime in order to prevent its discovery;
and (c) by assisting in th e escape or concealment of th e principal of
the crime, provided he acts wit h abuse of hi s public functions or the
principal is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take
th e life of the Chief Executive, or is know n to be habitually guilty of
some other crime. (People vs. Verzola, No. L-35022, Dec. 21, 1977,
80 SCRA 600, 608)
IMPORTANT WORDS AN D PHRASE S IN ART. 19.
"Having knowledge."
An accessory mus t have knowledge of the commission of
the crime, and having that knowledge, he took part subsequent
to its commission.
In the absence of positive proof, direct or circumstantial,
of hi s knowledge tha t th e goods wer e of illegal origin or
563
Art. 19 ACCESSORIES
fraudulentl y acquire d b y th e vendor s a t th e tim e o f th e

transaction, a customer who purchases such goods cannot be held
criminally responsible as accessory. (People vs. Labrador, C.A., 36
O.G. 166)
Thus, if A buys a stolen property, not knowing that it was stolen,
he is not liable.
Mere possession of stolen property does not make the ac•

cused an accessory where the thief was already convicted.
The legal principle that unexplained possession of stolen articles
is sufficient evidence to convict one of theft is not applicable where
the principal or author of the robbery ha s already been convicted
and where there is no proof that th e alleged accessory knew of the
commission of the crime and that he profited himsel f by its proceeds.
It is within the realm of possibilities tha t he received it honestly, in
the legal course of transactions without knowing tha t it wa s stolen.
(People vs. 40 O.G. 279)
Note: If there ha s been no one convicted as th e thief, th e pos• sessor

should be prosecuted as principal of th e crime of theft.
Entertaining suspicion that a crime has been committed is

not enough.
Entertaining suspicion tha t th e carabao wa s a stolen object,
is not of itself proof of knowledge tha t a crime ha s bee n committed.
"Knowledge" and "suspicion" are not synony mou s terms . "The word
is defined as being th e imaginatio n of th e existence of
something without proof, or upon very slight evidence, or upon no
evidence at (Cook vs. Singer, 32 P. 2d. 430 , cited in Words and
Phrases, Vol. 40, p. 929)
If the accused had entertained some suspicion, it wa s only at
that time whe n th e truck driven by hi m wit h its load of a carabao
had already left th e camarin and on th e wa y to Lantangan. Bu t his
suspicion wa s merely th e product of hi s imagination founded on a
fact that of itself, and under ordinary circumstances, will not give
rise to a belief tha t th e carabao wa s stolen, because transporting at
nighttime is not an uncommon happening in everyday life, especially
564
ACCESSORIES Art.
whe n the trip wa s done in obedience to an order of his superior which

he cannot ignore or disobey. The suspicion of under the
circumstances, wa s but a flickering thought based on nothing more
tha n th e product of imagination. Upo n the foregoing facts, we are of
th e opinion, and so hold, tha t th e appellant is entitled to acquittal.
(People vs. Batuampo, C.A., 62 O.G. 6269-6270)
Knowledge of the commission of crime may be acquired

subsequent to the acquisition of stolen property.
U.S. vs.
(3 Phil. 110)
Facts: The robbers took and carried away carabaos belonging to
another. These animals were found in the possession of A who acquired
them without knowing that they had been illegally taken. When the
owners of the carabaos informed A that they were illegally deprived
of their animals, A demanded the payment of one-half of what he had
paid for them. The owners promised to come back with the money.
When the owners came back, A informed them that he had returned
the animals to the persons from whom he had bought them.
Held: To declare the accused guilty as accessory, it is not neces•

sary that he should have acquired the property, knowing at that time
that it had been stolen. It is sufficient that after acquiring that knowl•
edge, he concealed or disposed of the property, thereby depriving the
owner thereof.
Knowledge of the commission of crime may be established

by circumstantial evidence.
When a person kne w tha t his co-accused had no legitimate
business; that some of th e goods were taken to him as early as 5:00
to 6:00 o'clock in the morning; and that said co-accused wa s neither
a barber nor the owner of a sari-sari store such as would induce in
him a rational belief that the latter's possession of said goods (among
them barber's utensils) wa s legitimate; the conclusion is that he had
knowledge of their illegal source. (People vs. Dalena, CA-G.R. Nos.
and Oct. 25, 1954)
2. "Commission of the crime."

The crime committed by th e principal mus t be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
565
Art. 19 ACCESSORIES
Thus, where it is doubtful whether a woman killed her

husband maliciously, as it is possible that she might have acted
in self-defense, the fact that their servant took part in the burial
of the deceased in a secluded place would not make the servant
an accessory in parricide, an offense which wa s not conclusively
proven. (See People vs. Pardito, G.R. No. March
3. "Without having participated therein either as principals or ac•

complices."
A attacked and fatally wounded B. Seeing B fall to the ground as a
result of the fatal blow made by A, C and D hit B with a piece of wood
each wa s carrying. When B died, A, C, and D buried the corpse to
prevent the authorities from discovering the crime.
Can be held liable as an accessory? No, because he already
participated as principal. Are C and D accessories? No, because
the y already participated as accomplices.
4. "Take part subsequent to its commission."
The accessory take s part after the crime ha s been com• mitted.
Note that paragraphs Nos . 1, 2 and 3 of Art. 19, which describe the
different acts of the accessory, refer to those acts performed after th e
crime had been committed.
acts of accessories.
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of
the crime.
The crime committed by the principal under this paragraph ma y
be any crime, provided it is not a light felony.
a. By profiting themselves by the effects of the crime.
Examples:
A person who received any property from another, and
used it, knowing tha t th e sam e had bee n stolen, is guilty
of th e crime of theft as an accessory. (People vs.
76 Phil. 463 , 467)
In murder, one who shared in th e reward given for
th e commission of th e crime (U.S. vs. Empainado, 9 Phil.
613) profited by th e effects of th e crime.
566
ACCESSORIES Art. 19
Bu t one wh o received from th e owner of a sto•

len jeep , as a reward for locating it in th e possession of
someon e wh o ha d bought it, is not an accessory, because
th e amoun t of P20 0 wa s in th e nature of a reward and
not fruits or effects of th e crime. (People vs. Yatco,
51 O.G. 260 )
The accessory should not take the property without the

consent of the principal.
In profiting by th e effects of the crime, the accessory
mus t receive th e property from th e principal. He should
not take it without th e consent of th e principal. If he took it
without th e consent of th e principal, he is not an accessory
but a principal in th e crime of theft. Theft ma y be commit•
ted by takin g wit h inten t to gain, personal property from
one wh o stole it, withou t th e latter's consent.
When is profiting by the effects the crime punished as the

act of principal, and not the act of accessory?
Whe n a perso n knowingl y acquire d or receive d property
take n by th e brigands. (Art. 307, Revised Penal Code)
b. Assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
Examples:
A person who receives any property from another,
which he know s to have been stolen, and sells the same for
the thief to who m he gives the proceeds of the sale, is guilty
of the crime of theft, as an accessory. (U.S. vs. Galanco,
Phil. 575)
In kidnapping for ransom, those who acted as run• ners or
couriers in obtaining the ransom money (People vs. Magsino,
G.R. No. L-3649, Jan. 29, 1954) assisted the offenders to profit by
th e effects of the crime.
One who takes part in cattle rustling by profiting
himself by its effects with knowledge of the crime is only
an accessory after the fact. (Taer vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 85204, June 18, 1990, 186 SCRA 598, 604-605)
567
Art. 19 ACCESSORIES
An accessory should not be in conspiracy with the princi•

pal.
A conspired with others to steal certain goods in the
customhouse. A agreed to pay, as in fact he paid them,
a substantial sum of money upon delivery of th e stolen
goods in his warehouse from the wagons on which his co•
conspirators loaded the goods at the customhouse. It wa s
held that A wa s guilty of the crime of theft as a principal
and not merely as an accessory. (U.S. vs. Tan Tiap Co., 35
Phil.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime to prevent its discovery.

The crime committed by the principal under this paragraph ma y
be any crime, provided it is not a light felony.
"Body of the crime."

Sam e as "corpus delicti."
It mean s tha t a specific offense wa s in fact committed by
someone. (People vs. Marquez, 43 O.G. No. 5)
Examples of concealing the body of the crime.

a. Those who assist in the burial of th e victim of a homicide to
prevent the discovery of the crime incur the responsibilities
of accessories. (U.S. vs. Leal, 1 Phil. 118)
In homicide or murder, it is necessar y to prove tha t a
particular person is th e victim. Th e victim mus t be prop• erly
identified. Thus , if th e body of th e victim cannot be found, th e
crime cannot be proved. Hence , th e concealing of th e body of th e
victim is in effect concealing th e crime itself.
b. Furnishing th e mean s to mak e it appear tha t th e deceased
wa s armed, by placing a weapo n in his hand whe n already
dead, and tha t it wa s necessary to kill hi m on account of
hi s resistance to the constabulary men; or makin g it ap•
pear tha t the deceased wh o had been arrested ran away.
(U.S. vs. Cuison, 20 Phil. 433 ; People vs. Saladino, G.R.
No. May 23 , 1958)
568
ACCESSORIES Art. 19
This example ma y serve to illustrate the body

of the crime."
The mere act of a person of carrying th e cadaver of one

unlawfully killed, whe n it wa s buried to prevent the discovery
of th e crime, is to mak e hi m responsible as an acces•
sory under paragraph 2 of Art. 19. (People vs. Galleto, 78 Phil.
820)
There must be an attempt to hide the body of the crime.

With respect to appellant he should be acquitted. Ac•
cording to hi s affidavit — th e only evidence against him — he
wa s merely ordered to board th e jeepney, not knowing, not even
suspecting, th e reason or purpose of th e ride. He did not take
part in th e killing, neither did he profit by it, nor try to conceal
th e sam e from th e authorities. It is true tha t he helped his com•
panions in removing th e two dead bodies from th e and
throwing the m into the ditch; but there wa s no attempt to bury
or hide said bodies, not even cover the m with grass or bushes. In
fact, the evident design and plan of the culprits as unfolded during
the trial wa s not to hide the bodies, but to jus t leave them on the
roadside so as to make it appear that the two victims were killed
by Huk s in an encounter with th e Government forces. (People vs.
De la Cruz, 100 Phil. 624, 633)
Concealing or destroying the effects or instruments of the crime

to prevent its discovery.
A person wh o received personal property knowing that it
had been stolen, for th e purpose of concealing the same, as in
fact he concealed it, is guilty of the crime of theft as an acces•
sory. (U.S. vs. Villaluz, 32 Phil. 376)
He is guilty of the crime of homicide as an accessory, under
paragraph No. 2 of Art. 19, who received a pistol or a knife, know• ing
that it had been used in killing th e deceased, and concealed it.
The stolen property is the effect of the crime. The pistol or knife
is the instrument of the crime.
A person who destroyed the ladder which he knew had
been used by another in climbing the wall of the house where
569
Art. 19 ACCESSORIES
the latter had committed robbery, is guilty of the same crime as

accessory. The ladder is an instrument of the crime.
prevent its discovery."

The pronoun refers to the word "crime." In the case of
U.S. vs. 32 Phil. 376, 380, the Supreme Court stated:
"Such facts also show that her concealment of said articles wa s
for the purpose of preventing and defeating the discovery of the
crime."
Note that the concealing or destroying of th e body of the crime,
the effects or instruments thereof, mus t be done in order to prevent the
discovery of the crime. Note also tha t wha t is concealed is the body of
the crime, the effects or instruments thereof, not the principal who
committed the crime. If th e prin• cipal is concealed, paragraph 3 of Art.
19 applies.
Simply assisting the principal in bringing the body down
the house to the foot of the stairs and leaving said for anyone
to see, cannot be classified as an attempt to conceal or destroy
the body of th e crime. The concealing or destroying of th e body
of th e crime, th e effects or instrument s thereof, mus t be done
to prevent th e discovery of th e crime. In this case, th e body wa s
left at th e foot of the stairs at a place where it wa s easily visible
to the public. (People vs. Verzola, No. L-35022, Dec. 21 , 1977,
80 SCRA 600, 609)
Is a person who merely received a property knowing it to be

stolen liable as an accessory?
In People vs. Tanchoco, 76 Phil. 463 , it wa s held: "A person
who receives any property from another, knowin g tha t th e sam e had
been stolen, is guilty of th e crime of theft, as an accessory after th e
fact A person wh o receives any property from another,
which he know s to hav e bee n stolen, for th e purpose of sellin g th e
sam e and to share in th e proceeds of th e sale, is guilty of th e crime of
theft, as an accessory after th e fact. (U.S. vs. Galanco, Phil. 575 )
In th e sam e manne r tha t a person wh o receives stolen property for
th e purpose of concealing th e same , is likewis e guilty of th e crime
of theft as an accessory after th e fact." (U.S. vs. Villaluz, 32 Phil.
376)
570
ACCESSORIES Art. 19
Note: Is it sufficient tha t th e purpose to profit exist? Is it

ficient tha t there is a purpose to conceal?
3. By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the prin• cipal of

the crime.
Two classes of accessories are contemplated in paragraph

of Article 19.
a. Public officers wh o harbor, conceal or assis t in the escape of th e
principal any crime (not light felony) with abuse his public
functions.
Requisites:
(1) The accessory is a public officer.
(2) He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the princi•

pal.
(3) The public officer acts with abuse of hi s public functions.
(4) The crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided
it is not a light felony.
b. Private persons who harbor, conceal or assis t in the escape of
th e author of th e crime — guilty of treason, parricide, murder,
or an attempt against the life of the President, or who is known
to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
Requisites:
(1) The accessory is a private person.
(2) He harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the author
of the crime.
(3) The crime committed by the principal is either: (a) treason,
(b) parricide, (c) murder, (d) an attempt against the life
of the President, or (e) that the principal known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.
"Habitually guilty of some other crime."

Thus, if a person wa s previously punished three times for less
serious physical injuries and now commits estafa, the one
571
Art. 19 ACCESSORIES
who helps in his escape is liable as an accessory although the accessory

is a private individual.
But the accessory must have knowledge of the principal
being habitually guilty of some other crime, because the law
says "or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime."
A mayor who refused to prosecute offender is accessory.

Abusing his public office, the president of the town of Cabiao re•
fused to prosecute the crime of homicide and thus made it possible for
the principal offender to escape. He refused to make an investigation
of the serious occurrence, of which complaint wa s made to him . The
municipal president wa s found as accessory. (U.S. vs . Yacat, 1
Phil. 443)
One who kept silent with regard to the crime he witnessed is

not an accessory.
A person who saw th e commission of a crime, say murder, by another
who m he knew, kept silent wit h regard to it, and did not report it to any of th
e authorities is not liable eve n as an accessory. (U.S. vs. Caballeros, 4 Phil.
350; U.S. vs. Callapag, 21 Phil. 262)
The reason for this ruling is tha t such an omission is not one
of the different acts enumerated in Art. 19 of th e Code. Suc h omis•
sion is not harboring, or concealing or assistin g in th e escape of th e
principal. (Art. 19, par. 3)
But if that person wen t to th e authorities and volunteered false
information which tended affirmatively to deceive th e prosecuting
authorities and thu s to prevent th e detection of th e guilty parties
and to aid the m in escaping discovery and arrest, he is liable as an
accessory. (U.S. vs. 15 Phil. 408, 415)
Where the accused wa s present whe n her husban d wa s shot,
but she did not only enjoin her daughter not to reveal to anyone wha t
the latter knew, but also warned her daughter tha t sh e would kill
her if she would tell it to somebody, and whe n th e peace officers who
repaired to their hous e to investigate wha t had happened asked her,
she (the accused) claimed that she had no suspects in mind, th e ac•
cused thereby concealed or assisted in th e escape of th e principal in
the crime, which made her liable as an accessory, under paragraph
572
ACCESSORIES Art. 19
3 of Article 19 of th e Revised Penal Code, to the crime of murder.

(People vs. Talingdan, No. Jul y 6, 1978, 84 SCRA 19,
liability is subordinate and subsequent.

Where the alleged incendiary wa s acquitted, it is neither proper
nor possible to convict the defendant as accessory. The responsibil•
ity of the accessory is subordinate to tha t of th e principal in a crime,
because th e accessory's participation therein is subsequent to its
commission, and hi s guilt is directly related to that of the principal
delinquent in th e punishable act. If the n th e facts alleged are not
proven in th e prosecution instituted, or do not constitute a crime, no
legal grounds exist for convicting a defendant as an accessory after
the fact for a crime not perpetrated. (U.S. vs. Mendoza, 23 Phil. 194,
196)
When is conviction of accessory possible, even if principal

is acquitted?
Conviction of an accessory is possible notwithstanding the ac•
quittal of the principal, if th e crime wa s in fact committed, but the
principal wa s not held criminally liable, because of an exempting
circumstance (Art. 12), such as insanit y or minority. In exempting
circumstances, there is a crime committed. Hence, there is a basis
for convicting th e accessory.
Thus, if a minor, eight years old, stole a ring worth and
B, knowing that it ha s been stolen, buys it for P200.00, B is liable
as accessory in the crime of theft, even if th e principal (the minor) is
exempt from criminal liability. (See U.S. vs. Villaluz, 32 Phil. 376)
Apprehension and conviction of the principal is not necessary

for the accessory to be held criminally liable.
Even if the principal is still unknown or at large, the accessory
may be held responsible provided the requisites prescribed by law for
the existence of the crime are present and that someone committed
it.
May the trial of an accessory proceed without awaiting the result of the
separate charge against the principal? The answer is in the affirmative. The
corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice and accessory are
distinct from each other. As long as
573
Art. 19 ACCESSORIES
the commission of the offense can be duly established in evidence,

the determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can
proceed independently of that of the principal. (Vino vs. People, G.R.
No. 84163, Oct. 19, 1989, 178 SCRA 626, 632)
When the alleged principal is acquitted, may the accessory

be convicted?
In United States vs. Villaluz, supra, a case involving the crime
of theft, it wa s ruled that notwithstanding the acquittal of the prin•
cipal due to the exempting circumstance of minority or insanity, the
accessory ma y nevertheless be convicted if th e crime wa s in fact
established.
Corollary to this is United States vs. Mendoza, supra, where it
wa s held in an arson case tha t the acquittal of th e principal mus t
likewise result in the acquittal of th e accessory where it wa s show n
that no crime wa s committed inasmuc h as th e fire wa s th e result of
an accident. Hence, there wa s no basis for the conviction of th e ac•
Where th e commission of th e crime and th e responsibility of

the accused as an accessory are established, the accessory can be
convicted, notwithstanding the acquittal of th e principal. (Vino vs .
People, supra, at 632-634)
People vs. Billon

(C.A., 48 O.G. 1391)
Facts: Felicisimo Billon alias Billon was prosecuted,

together with Gorgonio who was not brought to trial for be•
ing at large, in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for murder.
Billon positively testified that it was Advincula who shot De Castro to
death. On the other hand, he admitted that he had harbored him at his
house on 861 B. Hidalgo, Manila, after the commission of the crime,
which was clearly one of murder. Billon also admitted that he assisted
in the escape of Advincula. Billon was found guilty as accessory instead
of as principal. On appeal, he contended that he could not be declared
as an accessory because Advincula, the principal, was not yet tried and
found guilty.
Held: Art. 19, paragraph 3, is stated in Spanish as follows:

ocultando o en fuga al autor del
delito, cuando el encubridor hace con abuso de funciones publicas o
574
ACCESSORIES Art. 19
cuando de parricidio, asesinato, atentado contra

la vida del Jefe Ejecutivo, o reo habitual de otro delito."
(las cursivas nuestras.)
From the wordings of the above quoted legal provision, it is not

necessary that the principal should be first declared guilty before the
accessory can be made liable as such. Apparently, the opposite is the
rule, contended by the appellant's counsel, following the English
text of the law.
By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape

of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with
abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime
is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the
life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of
some other crime." (Italics
However, the Spanish text should prevail.
The accused cannot be held liable as accessory under para•

graph 3 of Art. if the principal charged with murder died
before trial, because had he been alive he might have been
found guilty only of homicide.
We note at once that a person ma y be held guilty as an accessory
after th e fact under pars. 1 and 2 of Article 19, even if the principal of
the crime is unknown or it cannot be proven who committed the crime,
provided tha t th e accessory after th e fact kne w of the perpetration of
the offense, because under the phraseology of th e said paragraphs,
it seem s to us clear enough that th e prosecution prove that a crime
wa s committed without being put to prove who committed it, and
that the person sought to be held guilty as accessory after the fact
profited from the effects thereof or concealed the body of the crime or
the instruments used in the commission thereof in order to impede its
discovery. Thus, a person, knowing the illegal source of a thing that
is stolen, benefits therefrom, is guilty as an accessory after the fact,
even if the author of the theft ha s not been discovered. But is
here charged with having assisted in the escape of Balisi, not with
having profited from, or having concealed the effects or instruments of
the crime. The principle we have jus t stated cannot apply to a person
who is sought to be implicated as an accessory after the fact because he
concealed the principal of the crime or assisted him in escaping when
the said principal is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, an attempt
on the life of the Chief Executive or is otherwise habitually known
575
Art. 19 ACCESSORIES
to have committed another crime. And we draw this conclusion from

the very wording of the law itself. It is our view that not only must
the crime be proven, but as well the identity of the author
be established, and both these in a full-dress criminal trial. In this
case before us, Balisi wa s not tried, nor was final judgment rendered
against him, because of his death prior to arraignment. (People vs.
C.A., 59 O.G. 2474)
Reasoning in the Barlam case refuted.

As far as the accused who actually stands trial and is found
guilty as accessory is concerned, he is given a full hearing. Whether
the principal is brought to court or is the prosecution has to
prove the commission of the crime charged, with the same quantum
of evidence, and the participation in it of all the persons named in the
information. The accessory is accorded the opportunity to refute the
evidence of the prosecution establishing the crime and the participation
of the alleged principal. Upon the evidence adduced by both parties
and for purposes of conviction of the accessory, the court can make a
finding as to whether the crime charged ha s been established and the
other accused is the principal thereof, without pronouncing judgment
on him. (People vs. Inovero, 65 O.G. [March 31 , 1969 issue] 3168)
The arraignment, trial and conviction of accessory during

the pendency of a separate case against the principal are
null and void.
The arraignment, trial and conviction of an accessory after the
fact without th e principal of th e crime havin g first bee n tried and
convicted in the separate case filed and pending at th e time of the
arraignment, trial and decision of the case against th e accessory, is
not proper and violates th e legal syste m of procedural orderliness.
In view of all the foregoing, the arraignment, trial and conviction
of th e appellant Gaw Lin are hereby declared null and void. The case
is remanded to the court below so that, in th e event th e defendants in
Criminal Case No. 6887 4 are tried and convicted by final judgmen t of
the crime of qualified theft, th e defendant Gaw Lin in Criminal Case
No. 71278, who allegedly purchased th e stolen goods wit h knowledge
of th e commission of the crime, ma y be arraigned and tried, and th e
proper judgmen t rendered by th e trial court. (People vs. Gaw Lin
alias Jua n Gaulin, C.A., 63 O.G. 3821 , 3824)
576
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
But when the principal is not yet the accessory

may be prosecuted and convicted.
In a case, the accused wa s prosecuted as accessory to the crime
of qualified theft by profiting himsel f assisting the offender to
profit by th e effects of th e crime, under par. 1 of Art. 19.
It may be asked whethe r or not appellant ma y be legally con•
victed as accessory after th e fact of th e crime of qualified theft, whe n
up to now the principal ha s not ye t been prosecuted for failure to
identify and apprehend him. We believe tha t th e answer should be
in the affirmative. The crime of qualified theft ha s been proved; the
nonprosecution of th e principal for the reason that his identity has not
as yet been discovered, cannot serve as basis to free appellant from
the liability incurred by hi m as an accessory after th e fact. (People
vs. Ramos, C.A., 62 O.G. 6862)
For one to be found guilty an d punishe d as an accessory, it is

not necessar y tha t there be a principal duly convicted (Cuello
Codigo Penal , I, page s 515-516, Octava Edicion). Neithe r the
letter nor th e spirit of th e law requires tha t th e principal be convicted
before one ma y be punished as an accessory. As long as the corpus
delicti is proved and th e accessory's participation as such shown, he
can be held criminally responsible and mete d out th e corresponding
penalty. (Inovero vs . Coronel, 65 O.G. 3160)
Can there be an accessory even after the principal was con•

victed?
Yes, by presenting oneself to serve out the sentence in lieu of
the real culprit. Bu t the crime committed by the real culprit mus t
be treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the
President, that he is know n to be habitually guilty of some other
crime, because this is possible only whe n the accessory is a private
individual.
Heavy penalties for accessories in robbery and theft.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1612
SECTION Title. — This decree shall be known as the Anti-
Fencing Law.
577
SEC. 2. of Terms. — The following terms shall mean

as follows:
a. is the act of any person who, with intent to
gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep,
acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in
any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of
value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
b. "Fence" includes any person, firm, association, cor•
poration or partnership or other organization who/which commits
the act of fencing.
3. Penalties . — Any person guilty of fencing shall be pun•
ished as hereunder indicated:
a. The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the
property involved is more than pesos but not exceeding
pesos; if the value of such property exceeds the latter
sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in
its maximum period, adding one year for each additional
pesos, but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not
exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed
reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto
provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.
b. The penalty correccional in its medium and

maximum periods, if the value of the property robbed or stolen is
more than pesos but not exceeding pesos.
The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods, if the value of the property involved is more
than P200 pesos but not exceeding pesos.
d. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period
to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value of
the property involved is over pesos but not exceeding
pesos.
e. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if
such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding P50 pesos.
f. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period,
if such value does not exceed P5 pesos.
SEC. 4. Liability of Officials of Juridica l Persons . — If the
fence is a partnership, firm, corporation or association, the president
or the manager or any officer thereof who knows or should have known
the commission of the offense shall be liable.
578
SEC. 5. Presumptio n of Fencing . — Mere possession of any

goods, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the
subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fenc• ing.
SEC. 6. to Sell/Used Secon d Hand Arti•
cles. — For purposes of this Act, all stores, establishments or entities
dealing in the buy and sell of any good, article, item, object or anything
of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall
before offering the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clear•
ance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National
Police* in the town or city where such store, establishment or entity
is located. The Chief of Constabulary/Director General, Integrated
National shall promulgate such rules and regulations to carry
out the provisions of this section. Any person who fails to secure the
clearance or permit required by this section or who violates any of the
provisions of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall
upon conviction be punished as fence.
SEC. 7. Repealin g Clause. — All laws or parts thereof, which are

inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly.
SEC. 8. — This Decree shall take effect upon ap•
proval.
Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of March, in the year of
Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-nine.
(Sgd.) FERDINAND E. MARCOS

President of the Philippines
Note: In other crimes punishable by th e Revised Penal Code,

the penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by
law for th e consummated felony shall be imposed upon
th e accessories to th e commission of a consummated
felony. (Art. 53, Revised Penal Code)
Accessory distinguished from principal and from accomplice.

The accessory does not take direct part or cooperate in, or
induce, the commission of the crime.
*Now, Philippine National Police (PNP).

**Now, Director General, PNP .
579
Art. 20 ACCESSORIES EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
2. The accessory does not cooperate in the commission of the

offense by acts either prior thereto or simultaneous there•
with.
3. The participation of the accessory in all cases always takes
place after the commission of the crime.
An accessory does not participate in th e criminal
design, nor cooperate in the commission of th e felony, but,
with knowledge of th e commission of the crime, he subse•
quently take s part in any of the three way s mentioned in
Article 19. (People vs. Verzola, No. L-35022, Dec.
80 SCRA 608)
Art . 20 . Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability.

— Th e p e n a l t i e s p r e s c r i b e d fo r a c c e s s o r i e s sha l l no t b e im •
p o s e d u p o n t h o s e wh o ar e suc h w it h r e s p e c t t o thei r s p o u s e s ,
a s c e n d a n t s , d e s c e n d a n t s , l e g i t i m a t e , n a t u r a l , an d a d o p t e d
b r o t h e r s an d s i s t e r s , o r r e l a t i v e s b y affinit y w i t h i n th e sa m e
d e g r e e s , w it h th e sing l e e x c e p t i o n o f a c c e s s o r i e s withi n
th e p r o v i s i o n s o f p a r a g r a p h 1 o f th e n e x t p r e c e d i n g a rt i c l e .
Ground for exemption.

The exemption provided for in this article is based on th e ties
of blood and th e preservation of the cleanliness of one's name , which
compels one to conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as those
mentioned in this article.
Principals related to accessories exempt from criminal li•

ability.
An accessory is exemp t from criminal liability, whe n th e prin• cipal is
his —
spouse, or
(2) ascendant, or
(3) descendant, or
(4) legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or relative
by affinity within th e sam e degree.
580
ACCESSORIES EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL Art. 20
LIABILITY
Eve n if only tw o of th e principals guilt y of murder are th e brothers of

th e accessory and th e others are not related to him, such accessory is exemp t
from criminal liability. It appeared tha t some time after the crime wa s
committed, th e accused (accessory) accom• panied some of the other accused
to th e place where th e bodies of th e victims were concealed on th e nigh t of
th e murder, and helped the m to remove and bury thes e bodies at another
and more remote spot. (U.S. vs. Abanzado, 37 Phil. 658 , 669 )
Nephew or niece not included among such relatives.

A nephew, wh o had witnesse d th e killing by hi s uncle of the deceased,
helped in burying th e dead body. Is th e nephe w criminally liable as an
accessory? Yes , because th e relationship of uncle and nephew is not included
in Art. 20.
In th e case of U.S. vs. 15 Phil. 358, it wa s held that

the relationship betwee n uncle and niece does not come within any
of th e degrees of relationship of spouse, or ascendant, descendant,
legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity
in th e sam e degree.
Accessory is not exempt from criminal liability even if the

principal is related to him, if such accessory profited by
the effects of the crime, or (2) assisted the offender to
by the effects of the crime.
The last part of Article 20 says , th e single exception of
accessories falling withi n th e provisions of paragraph 1 of the next
preceding article." The preceding article is Article 19.
Paragraph 1 of Article 19, covers th e accessories who take part
subsequent to th e commission of th e crime in any of the following manners:
1. By profiting by the effects of the crime.
2. By assistin g th e offender to profit by the effects of the
crime.
If the accessory ha s performed any of those acts, he is liable,
even if the principal is his spouse, ascendant, descendant, brother
or sister, or father-in-law, or son-in-law, or brother-in-law, because
such acts are prompted not by affection but by a detestable greed.
581
Art. 20 ACCESSORIES EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
The daughter stole the earrings and the mother pawned them as
a pledge for her debt. Held: The mother is an accessory for although
she had no part in stealing th e earrings, she took steps to obtain gain
and profit from the effects of the crime. The relationship does not
exempt her from liability, because she assisted in obtaining profit
from the theft. (U.S. vs. 14 Phil. 595, 601)
Only accessories under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 19

are exempt from criminal liability if they are related to the
principals.
A son who helps his father bury the body of a person who m the
latter has murdered, in order to prevent its discovery; a grandson who,
having knowledge of the commission of robbery by hi s grandfather,
conceals or destroys the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments
thereof, in order to prevent its discovery; and a person wh o
conceals, or assists in the escape of his brother who committed treason,
do not incur any liability, because the acts of th e accessories in those
cases are covered by paragraphs 2 and 3 of Art. 19. No t one of the m
falls under paragraph 1 of Art. 19, because none of those accessories
profits or assist s the offender to profit by th e effects of th e crime.
Does the concealing of the effects of the crime, not to prevent

its discovery, but to obtain gain, fall under paragraph 2 of
Art. 19?
Paragraph 2 of Article 19 requires tha t th e purpose of th e con•
cealment is to prevent the discovery of the crime. On th e other hand,
paragraph 1 says, "by profiting themselves by the effects of the crime."
Does paragraph 1 mea n tha t the accessory should actually profit from
the effects of the crime? That seem s to be th e meaning . Bu t suppose
a husband conceals the property stolen by hi s wife in order to profit
from it later, is he liable as accessory?
It would see m tha t he ma y be held liable as accessory, because
his said act is prompted not by affection but by a detestable greed.
In that case, his purpose in concealing th e stolen property is not to
prevent th e discovery of th e crime.
But suppose A, who committed parricide by killing his wife, went

to his adopted brother to hide in th e latter's hous e and his adopted
brother harbored and concealed A because he gave his adopted brother
582
ACCESSORIES EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL Art. 20
LIABILITY
is th e adopted brother an accessory? Is he criminally

liable?
He is an accessory, because knowing that A committed
he harbored and concealed him . Bu t he is not criminally liable,
because he did not profit by th e effects of the crime. The
received by him from A wa s not th e effect of th e crime of parricide.
Liability of a public officer when related to the principal.

Is a public officer who, wit h evident abuse of his office, furnished the
mean s of escape to hi s brother wh o had committed murder crimi• nally liable
as accessory?
Suc h a public officer does not incur an y criminal liability. Ties
of blood or relationship constitutes a more powerful incentive tha n
the call of duty.
Furthermore, Article 20 does not grant th e benefits of exemption
only to accessories wh o profited or helped the offender profit by the
effects of th e crime. This is th e only case where th e accessory who is
related to th e offender incurs criminal liability.
583
Title Three
PENALTIES
Chapter One
PENALTIES IN GENERAL
Penalty, defined.
Penalty is th e suffering tha t is inflicted by th e State for the
transgression of a law.
Concept of penalty.
Penalty in its general sens e signifies pain; especially considered
in th e juridical sphere, it mean s suffering undergone, because of
the action of huma n society, by one wh o commits a crime. (Pessina,
Elementos de Penal, pp. 375-376)
Different juridical conditions of penalty:

Must be productive of suffering, without however affecting
th e integrity of th e huma n personality.
2. Must be commensurate with th e offense — different crimes
mus t be punished wit h different penalties.
3. Must be personal — no one should be punished for the
crime of another.
4. Mus t be legal — it is th e consequence of a judgmen t ac•
cording to law.
5. Mus t be certain — no one ma y escape its effects.
6. Must be equal for all.
7. Must be correctional.
584
PENALTIES
Thes e are th e juridical conditions of penalty according to the classical

school on which th e Code is mainl y based.
What is the purpose of the State in punishing crimes?

T o secur e j ust ice . Th e Stat e ha s a n existenc e o f it s ow n
to maintain, a conscience of its own to assert, and moral principles to
be vindicated. Pena l justice mus t therefore be exercised by th e State
in th e service and satisfaction of a duty, and rests primarily on the
moral rightfulness of th e punish men t inflicted. (Albert)
Theories justifying penalty:

(a) Prevention — The Stat e mus t punis h th e criminal to pre•
ven t or suppress th e danger to th e Stat e arising from the
criminal acts of th e offender.
(b) Self-defense — The State ha s a right to punish th e criminal
as a measur e of self-defense so as to protect society from
th e threat and wrong inflicted by th e criminal.
(c) Reformation — The object of punishmen t in criminal cases
is to correct and reform th e offender.
(d) Exemplarity — Th e criminal is punished to serve as an
example to deter others from committing crimes.
(e) Justice — That crime mus t be punished by th e State as
an act of retributive justice, a vindication of absolute right
and moral law violated by th e criminal.
Social defense and exemplarity justify the penalty of death.

When a person ha s proved himself to be a dangerous enem y of
society, the latter mus t protect itself from such enem y by taking his
life in retribution for hi s offense and as an example and warning to
others. (People vs. 85 Phil. 611 , 635)
The penalty under this Code has three-fold purpose.

(a) Retribution or expiation — The penalty is commensurate
with the gravity of the offense.
(b) Correction or reformation — as shown by the rules which
regulate the execution of the penalties consisting in dep•
rivation of liberty.
585
Art. 21 PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED
(c) Social defense — shown by its inflexible severity to recidi•

vists and habitual delinquents.
Constitutional restriction on penalties.

The Constitution directs that "excessive fines shall not be im• posed,
nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted."
The punishment is "cruel and unusual" so disproportionate
to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of all reasonable
men as to what is right and proper under the circumstances.
Example: Those inflicted at the whipping post, or in pillory,
burning at the stake, breaking on th e wheel, and the like. (People
vs. De la Cruz, 92 Phil. 906, 908)
Appellant, who ha s been tried, and sentenced to suffer
one month imprisonment for collecting without legal authority bets for
a daily double race, an offense penalized by Rep. Act No . 306 3 by "a
fine of not less tha n One thousand pesos nor more tha n Two thousand
pesos or by imprisonment for not less tha n one mont h or more tha n
six or both, in the discretion of the court," maintain s tha t the
penalty as applied to his offense infringes the constitutional provision
against excessive or cruel and unusua l punishment. Held: Neithe r
fines nor imprisonment constitute in themselve s cruel and unusua l
punishment, for the constitutional stricture ha s bee n interpreted as
referring to penalties that are inhuma n and barbarous, or shocking
to the conscience vs. U.S., 217 U.S. 349) and fines or impris•
onment are definitely not in this category. (People vs . Dionisio, G.R.
No. March 27, 1968, 22 SCRA 1299, 1301)
Art . 21 . Penalties that may be imposed. — No felon y shal l be punishabl

e b y an y penalt y no t prescribe d b y la w prio r t o it s commission .
Art. 21 simply announces the policy of the State as regards

punishing crimes.
This article is general in its provisions and in effect prohibits
the Government from punishing any person for any felony wit h any
penalty which ha s not been prescribed by the law.
586
PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED Art. 21
It ha s no application to any of th e provisions of th e Revised

Penal Code for the reason tha t for every felony defined in th e Code,
a penalty ha s been prescribed.
The provisions of Art. 21 can only be invoked whe n a person
is being tried for an act or omission for which no penalty ha s been
prescribed by law.
Art. 21 is not a penal provision. It neither defines a crime nor
provides a punishmen t for one. It ha s simply announced the policy of
the Government wit h reference to the punishmen t of alleged criminal
acts. It is a guaranty to th e citizen of this country that no act of his,
will be considered criminal until th e Government ha s made it so by
law and ha s provided a penalty. It is a declaration tha t no person
shall be subject to criminal prosecution for any act of hi s until after
the State ha s th e crime and ha s fixed a penalty therefor. (U.S.
vs. Parrone, 24 Phil. 29, 35)
Reason for the provision.

An act or omission cannot be punished by th e State if at the
time it wa s committed there wa s no law prohibiting it, because a law
cannot be rationally obeyed unles s it is first shown, and a ma n cannot
be expected to obey an order tha t ha s not been given.
No penalty prescribed by law prior to its commission.

A wa s charged wit h "fraud or infringement of literary rights or
because A allegedly reproduced and sold fraudulent copies
of another's literary work. At that time, we had no copyright law. Can
be punished for such act? No, because there wa s no law at that time
defining and penalizing the act. (U.S. vs. Yam Tung Way, 21 Phil.
67)
Subsidiary penalty for a crime cannot be imposed, if it was

"not prescribed by law prior to its commission."
U.S. vs. Macasaet
(11 Phil. 447)
Facts: Macasaet was charged with and convicted of a violation of

the Internal Revenue Law (Act No. punishable by a fine. That
587
Art. 22 RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS
law did not provide imprisonment for failure to pay the fine by reason
of insolvency. While the case was pending trial, Act No. 1732 took ef•
fect. This new law provides subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay
the fine under the old law (Act No. 1189). The court in imposing the
payment of the fine also imposed subsidiary imprisonment in view of
the provisions of the new law.
Held: Inasmuch as Act No. 1732 did not go into force until after
the commission of the crime by Macasaet, subsidiary imprisonment
cannot be lawfully imposed.
22 . Retroactive effect penal laws. — Pena l law s shal l hav e

a retro a ctiv e effec t i n s o fa r a s the y favo r th e p e r so n guilt y o f
a felo ny , wh o i s no t a h a b i t u a l cr i mi na l , a s thi s ter m i s define d
i n Rul e 5 o f Articl e 6 2 o f thi s Code , a l t h o u g h a t th e tim e o f th e
p u b l i c a t i o n o f suc h law s a f ina l s e n t e n c e be e n p r o n o u n c e d
an d th e c o n v i c t i s s e r v i n g th e sa me .
Art. 22 is not applicable to the provisions of the Revised

Penal Code.
This provision clearly ha s no direct application to the provisions
of the Revised Penal Code. Its application to the Revised Penal Code
can only be invoked where some former or subsequent law is under
consideration. It must necessarily relate to penal laws existing prior
to the Revised Penal Code, in which the penalty wa s less severe tha n
those of the Code; or (2) to laws enacted subsequent to th e Revised
Penal Code, in which the penalty is more favorable to the accused.
It is not believed, therefore, tha t th e Legislature in enacting
Art. 10 (first clause) of the Revised Penal Code intended to provide
that Art. 22 should not be applicable to special laws.
If by an amendmen t to th e Revised Penal Code or by a later
special law, the punishmen t for an act is made les s severe tha n by
the provisions of the Code, the n the accused person migh t invoke the
provisions of Art. 22. (See U.S. vs. Parrone, 24 Phil. 29, 35-36)
General rule is to give criminal laws prospective effect.

Before Art. 365 of the Revised Pena l Code wa s amended, slight physical
injuries (a light felony) through reckless imprudence wa s not
588
RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS Art. 22
punishable. On September the offended party suffered slight

physical injuries through th e reckless imprudence of the accused. On
Jun e 21 , 1957, before the case against the accused could be finally
decided, Republic Act No. 1790 wa s approved, amending Art. 365 and
making slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence punish•
able. It wa s held tha t since th e act involved occurred long the
enactment of th e amendatory legislation, it cannot be applied as it
is axiomatic tha t a criminal law ma y not be given retroactive effect.
(People vs. Changco, 54 O.G. 6749)
Exception — to give them retroactive effect when favorable

to the accused.
Before Republic Act No. 587, amendin g th e Motor Vehicle Law
took effect (on Januar y Section 68 of th e Motor Vehicle Law
specifically provides tha t conviction thereunder shall not bar prosecu•
tion for other offenses under another law.
Th e accused, driver of a bus , wa s convicted of th e crime of

homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence
for th e death of one passenger and for th e injuries suffered by two
other passengers of the bus. He wa s also convicted of th e crime of
damage to property through reckless imprudence for the destruction
caused to the other bus. The act of the accused which gave rise to
the two crimes occurred before Republic Act No. 587 took effect. The
information for homicide wit h serious physical injuries alleged facts
sufficient to constitute such crime as that defined and penalized by
Section 67(d) of the Motor Vehicle Law, wherea s the information for
damage to property is under Art. 365 of the Code.
As amended, the Motor Vehicle Law provides in its Section 67(d) that
"if, as the result of negligence or reckless or unreasonably fast driving any
accident occurs resulting in death or serious bodily injury to any person, the
motor vehicle driver at fault shall, upon conviction, be punished under the
provisions of the Penal Code."
It wa s held that although Republic Act No. 587 took effect af•
ter the incident in question, the same may be applied, it being more
favorable to the accused. (Lapuz vs. Court of Appeals, 94 Phil. 710,
713)
Republic Act No. 587 is favorable to the accused, because instead of
being liable for two separate crimes under the Motor Vehicle Law
589
and under the Code, respectively, he is liable for one complex crime under
the Code only.
The exception applies to a law dealing with prescription of crime.

Art. 22 applies to a law dealing with prescription of an offense which is
intimately connected with that of the penalty, for the length of time for
prescription depends upon the gravity of the offense. (People vs. Moran, 44
Phil. 387, 400)
Whe n th e ne w la w reduce s th e period o f prescriptio n o f
criminal actions or esta blishe s easie r requirement s to give th e
prescription effect, the reduction conceded by the ne w law implies
an acknowledgment on the part of the sovereign power tha t the more
severe requirements of th e former law were unjust in regard to th e
essence of the criminal action. (People vs. 44 Phil. 437, 442)
Reason for the exception.

Th e sovereign , i n ena ctin g a su bs eq ue n t pena l la w mor e
favorable to the accused, ha s recognized that the greater severity
of the former law is unjust. The sovereign would be inconsistent if
it would still enforce its right under conditions of th e former law,
which ha s already been regarded by conscientious public opinion as
juridically burdensome. (People vs. Moran, 44 Phil. 387, 414)
The new law may provide otherwise.

Thus, Rep. Act No. 4661 , reducing th e period of prescription
of criminal action for libel from two years to one year, specifically
provides that "The provisions of thi s amendatory Act shall not apply
to cases of libel already filed in court at th e tim e of approval of thi s
amendatory Act."
Revised Penal Code was not given retroactive effect.

People vs. Carballo
(62 Phil. 651)
Facts: On January the accused who had been convicted of
bigamy accepted a conditional pardon extended to him by the Governor
General. During that year, he committed violations of the Revised
Ordinances of Manila and was convicted thereof by final judgment on
March 18, 1931.
590
Prior to January 1, 1932, when the Revised Penal Code took ef•
fect, there was no law punishing the violation of a conditional pardon as
a crime.
Held: The provisions of the Revised Penal Code cannot be given
retroactive effect.
Giving a law retroactive effect, if unfavorable to accused, will

violate the constitutional inhibition as to ex post facto laws.
An act which whe n committed wa s not a crime, cannot be made so by
statut e withou t violating th e constitutional inhibition as to ex post facto laws.
(People vs. Carballo, 62 Phil. 651 , 653)
An ex post facto law is one which: make s criminal an act done

before th e passag e of th e law and which wa s innocent whe n done, and
punishe s such an act; (2) aggravates a crime, or make s it greater than
it was , whe n committed; (3) change s th e punishmen t and inflicts a
greater punishmen t tha n th e law annexed to the crime whe n commit•
ted; (4) alters th e legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction
upon les s or different testimon y tha n th e law required at th e time of
th e commission of th e offense; (5) assumin g to regulate civil rights
and remedies only, in effect impose s penalty or deprivation of a right
for something which whe n done wa s lawful; and (6) deprives a person
accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he ha s become
entitled, such as th e protection of a former conviction or acquittal,
or a proclamation of amnesty . (Mejia vs. Pamaran , Nos.
April 160 SCRA 457, 472)
"Although at the time of the publication of such laws a final

sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving
the same."
The provision of Art. 22 that penal laws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor th e person guilty of a felony is applicable even if the
accused is already serving sentence. (Escalante vs. Santos, 56 Phil. 483 , 485)
Illustration:
Unde r th e old Pena l Code, ple a of guilt y wa s not a mitigating
circumstance. A person accused of estafa under the old Penal Code
pleaded guilty upon arraignment. He began to
591
serve sentence. While serving sentence, the Revised Penal Code

took effect. In the petition for habeas corpus, the Supreme Court
took into account the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty
provided for in Art. 13, par. 7, of the Revised Penal Code, as
such mitigating circumstance had the effect of decreasing the
penalty already imposed. (Rodriguez vs. Director of Prisons, 57
Phil. 133, 135-136)
The favorable retroactive effect of a new law may find th e de•

fendant in one of thes e three situations:
The crime ha s been committed and prosecution begins;
2. Sentence ha s been passed but service ha s not begun;
3. The sentence is being carried out. (Escalante vs . Santos,
supra)
In any case, the favorable ne w statute benefits hi m and should apply to
him.
"Who is not a habitual criminal?"

Bu t whe n th e culprit is a habitual delinquent, he is not entitled
to th e benefit of the provisions of th e ne w favorable statute . (People
vs. Alcaraz, 56 Phil. 520, 522)
A person shall be deemed to be a habitual delinquent if withi n
a period of ten years from th e date of his release or last conviction of
the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft,
estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty of an y said crimes a third
tim e or oftener. (last paragraph of Rule 5, Art. 62)
Not applicable to civil liability.

The principle that criminal statutes are retroactive so far as they
favor the culprit does not apply to th e latter's civil liability, because
the rights of offended persons or innocent third parties are not within
the gift of arbitrary disposal of th e State.
Suppose th e indemnity in favor of the heirs of the person unlaw•
fully killed is reduced t by a ne w law, ma y th e accused who
committed th e crime before th e ne w law is enacted demand tha t he
be allowed to pay only instead of as provided in th e
592
Civil Code? Since this question refers to civil liability, the new law
eve n if favorable to hi m cannot be given retroactive effect.
But a new law increasing the civil liability cannot be given

retroactive effect.
Act No. 284, which increased the minimu m indemnity for
the death of a person by reason of th e commission of a crime from
P1,000 to was not given retroactive effect. (People vs. Pana-
C.A., 40 O.G. 207)
Both laws must refer to the same deed or omission, having

the same end.
In order that a subsequent statute ma y have a retroactive effect,
it mus t in the first place refer to th e sam e deed or omission penalized
by the former statute and mus t seek th e sam e end and purpose. (U.S.
vs. Macasaet, 11 Phil. 447, 449)
When new law is expressly made inapplicable.

The rule tha t criminal law s hav e retroactive effect whe n favora• ble to
the accused ha s no application wher e th e ne w law is expressly made
inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action. (Tavera vs. Valdez,
1 Phil. 468, 470-471)
Rule applied to special laws.

The provisions of this article are applicable even to special laws
which provide more favorable conditions to the accused. (U.S. vs.
36 Phil. 5)
Republic Act No. 9346 given retroactive effect.

Republic Act No. 9346 which wa s enacted on Jun e 24, 2006 prohibited
the imposition of the death penalty.
Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 9346 which provides that the penalty
of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed in lieu of the death penalty
likewise affects death sentences, whether or not already affirmed by
the Supreme Court. As Justice Callejo, Sr. points out in his ponencia
People v. Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code mandates
that laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor
593
the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal

although at the time of the publication of such laws, a final sentence
has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same." Persons
previously convicted by final judgment to death should enjoy the
beneficial retroactive effect of Rep. Act No. 9346 which is reduction of
the death penalty to either life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua, as
the case may be. The conclusion is confirmed by Section 3 of the law,
which makes reference to "persons whose sentences will be reduced to
reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act." (Concurring Opinion
in People vs. Tubongbanua, G.R. No. 171271, Aug. 31 , 2006)
Art. 22 and Art. 366 compared.

Art. 366. Application laws enacted prior to this Code. Without
prejudice to the provisions contained in Art. 22 of this Code, felonies
and misdemeanors committed prior to the date of effectiveness of this
Code shall be punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force
at the time of their commission.
Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal law s shall have
retroactive effect insofar as the y favor th e person guilty of a felony,
who is not a habitual criminal, although at the tim e of the pub•
lication of such laws a final sentence ha s been pronounced and the
convict is serving th e same.
These two articles mea n tha t while felonies and misdemeanors
committed prior to the date of effectiveness of th e Revised Penal
Code shall be punished in accordance wit h th e Code or Acts in force
at th e time of their commission, the sam e should not be th e case if
such Code or Acts are unfavorable to the guilty party, for th e general
principle on the retroactivity of favorable penal laws , recognized in
Art. 22 , should the n apply.
Lagrimas case and case compared.

Lagrimas vs. Director of Prisons
(57 Phil. 249)
Facts: This is a petition for habeas corpus. The petitioner slapped
and use offensive language to a teacher in the public school. The ac•
cused, now petitioner, was found guilty of assault upon a public official
and sentenced to the penalty of Art. 251 of the old Penal Code. Article
149 of the Revised Penal Code does not prescribe a penalty for the crime
penalized by Art. 251 of the old Code.
594
Art. of the old Penal Code is concordant to Art. 149 of the

Revised Penal Code with the difference that the latter contains no penal
sanction for the offense laying hands upon agents of the authorities
or upon public officials.
Question: Whether the petitioner, who was sentenced under the
provision of the former Code, may be set at liberty on the ground that
the Revised Penal Code provides no penalty for the crime committed
under the former Code.
Held: The intention of the Legislature in embodying this provision
of Art. 366 in the Revised Penal Code was to insure that the elimination
from this Code of certain crimes penalized by former acts before the
enforcement of this Code should not have the effect of guilty
persons who were serving their sentences for the commission of such
crimes. Petition denied.
Dissenting: If the new law totally eliminates the penalty, it is
decidedly favorable to the accused and the new law should be applied
in accordance with Art. 22.
People vs.
(61 Phil. 226)
Facts: The accused was convicted in the Justice of the Peace

Court for the violation of Sec. 2, Municipal Ordinance No. 5, Series
of 1932, of Magsingal, Ilocos Sur. While his appeal was pending, the
Municipal Council repealed Sec. 2 in question, with the result that the
act complained of was no longer a crime. The accused moved for the
dismissal of the action.
Held: A person cannot be prosecuted, convicted, and punished
for acts no longer criminal. The case was dismissed.
It would see m that in the Lagrimas case, the Legislature re-

enacted in the Revised Penal Code th e provision of Art. of the old
Penal Code, with the difference that Art. 149 of the Revised Penal
Code does not punish an assault upon a public school teacher. If this
is the case, Art. 149 of the Revised Penal Code did not absolutely
repeal Art. 251 of the old Code. On the other hand, in the Tamayo
case, the repeal (completely eliminating Section 2 of the Ordinance
under which the accused wa s being prosecuted) wa s absolute. When
the repeal is by reenactment, the court ha s jurisdiction to try and
punish an accused person under the old law. (U.S. vs. Cuna, 12 Phil.
241, 247)
595
Criminal liability under former law is obliterated when the

repeal is absolute.
The repeal in the case of People vs. Tamayo is absolute, and
not a reenactment or repeal by implication. Nor is there any saving
clause.
Criminal liability under the repealed law subsists:

When the provisions of the former law are or
(2) When the repeal is by implication; or
(3) When there is saving clause. (U.S. vs. Cuna, 12 Phil. 241,
supra; Wing vs. U.S., 218 U.S. 272)
The right to punis h offenses committed under an old penal law
is not extinguished if th e offenses are still punished in th e repealing
penal law. (U.S. vs. Cuna, supra; People vs . Rosenthal, 68 Phil.
328)
The repeal of penal law which impliedly repealed an old penal law
revives the old law.
When a penal law, which impliedly repealed an old law, is itself repealed,
the repeal of th e repealing law revives th e prior penal law, unless the
language of th e repealing statut e provides otherwise.
Illustration:
Act 1697 impliedly repealed th e provisions of th e old Penal Code

on perjury, but later, Act 1697 wa s itself repealed by th e old
Administrative Code. The penalty provided in th e old Pena l Code,
which wa s lighter tha n th e penalty provided in Art. 1697, wa s imposed
on th e accused. (U.S. vs. Soliman, supra)
No retroactive effect of penal laws as regards jurisdiction of

court.
People vs. Pegarum

(58 Phil. 715)
Facts: A committed estafa involving an amount of P94.35. Under

the law then in force, the penalty for that crime was arresto mayor
596
PARDON THE OFFENDED PARTY Art. 23
in its medium period to correccional minimum. This penalty

cannot be imposed by the justice of the peace court. The Court of First
Instance has jurisdiction over the case. At the time the complaint was
filed, the Revised Penal Code took effect. The penalty now for that crime
is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, a penalty which
the justice of the peace court can impose.
Held: The justice of the peace court has jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to be

determined by the law in force at the time of instituting th e action,
not at the time of th e commission of th e crime. (People vs. Romualdo,
90 Phil. 739, 744)
Jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the allega•

tions of the complaint or information.
The jurisdiction of th e courts in criminal cases is determined
by the allegations of th e complaint or information, and not by the
findings the court ma y mak e after trial. (People vs. Mission, 87 Phil.
641 , 642)
What penalty may be imposed for the commission of a

felony?
Only that penalty prescribed by law prior to th e commission of
the felony ma y be imposed. (Art.
Felonies are punishable under th e law s in force at the time of their
commission. (Art. 366)
But the penalty prescribed by a law enacted after the commis•
sion of the felony may be imposed, if it is favorable to the offender.
(Art. 22)
Art . 23 . Effect of pardon by the offended party. — A p a r d o n by

th e o ffe nd e d pa rt y do e s no t e x t i n g u i s h cri mi na l actio n excep t
a s p r o v i d e d i n Articl e 34 4 o f thi s Code ; bu t civi l liabilit y wit h
reg a r d t o th e i n t e r e s t o f th e injure d part y i s e x t i n g u i s h e d b y
hi s e x p r e s s w a i v e r .
597
Art. 23 PARDON THE OFFENDED PARTY
"A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal

action."
Even if the injured party already pardoned the offender, the fiscal can
still prosecute the offender. Such pardon by th e offended party is not even a
ground for the dismissal of the complaint or in• formation.
Reason: A crime committed is an offense against th e State. In
criminal cases, the intervention of the aggrieved parties is limited
to being witnesse s for the prosecution. (People vs. Despavellador, 53
O.G. 21797) Only the Chief Executive can pardon th e offenders. (Art. 36)
Compromise does not extinguish criminal liability.

It is well-settled that criminal liability for estafa is not affected
by compromise, for it is a public offense which mus t be prosecuted
and punished by the Government on its own motion eve n though
complete reparation should hav e been made of th e damag e suffered
by the offended party. (People vs. 59 O.G. 1407)
There ma y be a compromise upon th e civil liability arisin g

from an offense; but such compromise shall not extinguis h th e pub•
lic action for th e imposition of th e legal penalty. (Art. 2034 , Civil
Code)
A contract stipulating for th e renunciation of th e right to pros•
ecute an offense or waivin g th e criminal liability is void. Th e consid•
eration or subject-matter is illegal. (See Arts. 1306, 1352 and 1409
of the ne w Civil Code.)
"Except as provided in Art. 344 of this Code."

The offended party in th e crimes of adultery and concubinage cannot
institute criminal prosecution, if he shall hav e consented or pardoned the
offenders. (Art. 344 , par. 2)
The pardon here ma y be implied, as continued inaction of the offended
party after learning of th e offense.
The second paragraph of Art. 34 4 requires also tha t both offend• ers
mus t be pardoned by th e offended party. (People vs. Infante, 57 Phil. 138,
139)
598
PARDON THE OFFENDED PARTY Art. 23
In the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lascivious• ness ,

there shall be no criminal prosecution if th e offender ha s been expressly
pardoned by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, as
th e case ma y be. The pardon here mus t be express.
Pardon under Art. 344 must be made before institution of

criminal prosecution.
Bu t th e pardon afforded th e offenders mus t come before th e
institution of the criminal prosecution. (People vs. Infante, 57 Phil.
138 — adultery; People vs. Miranda, 57 Phil. 27 4 — seduction)
Thus, whe n the complaint for adultery, concubinage or seduction, rape,
acts of lasciviousness, or abduction ha s already been filed in court, a motion to
dismis s based solely on th e pardon by th e offended party, given after th e
filing of th e complaint, will be denied by the court.
The only act that, according to Art. 344 , extinguishe s the penal
action after the institution of criminal action, is th e marriage between
th e offender and th e offended party.
Pardon under Art. 344 is only a bar to criminal prosecution.

Even under Art. 344 , th e pardon by th e offended party does not
extinguish criminal liability; it is only a bar to criminal prosecution. Art. 89,
providing for total extinction of criminal liability, does not mention pardon by
th e offended party as one of th e causes of totally extinguishing criminal
liability.
"But civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured

party is extinguished by his express waiver."
As a general rule, an offense causes two classes of injuries: (1)
social injury, produced by the disturbance and alarm which are the
outcome of the offense; and (2) personal injury, caused to the victim of
the crime who suffered damage either to his person, to his property,
to his honor or to her chastity.
The social injury is sought to be repaired through the imposi•
tion of the corresponding penalty. The State has an interest in this
class of injury. The offended party cannot pardon the offender so as
to relieve him of the penalty.
599
Art. 24 MEASURES OF PREVENTION NOT PENALTIES
But since personal injury is repaired through indemnity, which

is civil in nature, the offended party may waive it and the State ha s
no reason to insist in its payment.
The waiver, however, mus t be express.
Art. 24 . Measures of prevention or safety which are not considered

penalties. — f o l l o w i n g shal l no t b e c o n s i d e r e d a s penal •
ties .
1. . Th e a rres t an d t e m p o r a r y d e t e n t i o n o f a c c u s e d
per • so ns , a s wel l a s thei r d e t e n t i o n b y reaso n o f i n s a n i t y o r
i mbe • cility , o r illn e s s r e q u i r i n g t hei r c o n f i n e me n t i n a
hospital .
2 . Th e c o m m i t m e n t o f a mi n o r t o an y o f th e i n s ti t u •
t io n s m e n t i o n e d i n Ar t icl e an d fo r th e p u r p o s e s specifie d
therein .
3 . S u s p e n s i o n fro m th e e m p l o y m e n t o r p u b l i c offic e
d u r i n g th e tria l o r i n o r d e r t o i n s t i t u t e p r o c e e d i n g s .
4 . F i n e s an d o t h e r c o r r e c t i v e m e a s u r e s w h i c h , i n th e
e x e r c i s e o f t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r d i s c i p l i n a r y p o w e r s , supe •
rio r official s ma y i m p o s e u p o n t h e i r s u b o r d i n a t e s .
5 . D e p r i v a t i o n o f r i g h t s an d th e r e p a r a t i o n s w h i c h th e
civ i l la w ma y e s t a b l i s h i n p e n a l f orm .
"As well as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility."

Paragraph No. 1 of Article 24 contains th e above phrase. This
paragraph does not refer to the confinement of an insan e or imbecile
who ha s not been arrested for a crime. It refers to "accused persons"
who are detained "by reason of insanit y or imbecility." Th e word
"their" in th e second clause of paragraph No. refers to "accused
persons" in th e first clause.
Why are they not considered penalties?

They are not penalties, because the y are not imposed as a result
of judicial proceedings. Those mentioned in paragraphs Nos . and
4 are merely preventive measure s before conviction of offenders.
Art. P.D. No. 603 (after Art. 80 in this Book).

600
MEASURES OF PREVENTION NOT PENALTIES Art. 24
The commitment of a minor mentioned in paragraph 2 is not a penalty,

because it is not imposed by the court in a judgmen t of con• viction. The
imposition of th e sentence in such case is suspended.
The fines mentioned in this article should not be imposed

by the court.
The "fines" mentioned in paragraph 4 are not imposed by the
court, because whe n imposed by th e court, the y constitute a penalty.
(See Art. 25)
The Commissioner of Civil Service may, on certain grounds, fine an
employee in an amoun t not exceeding six months' salary.
Example of deprivation of rights established in penal form.

The deprivation of rights established in penal form by the civil laws is
illustrated in the case of parents who are deprived of their parental authority if
found guilty of th e crime of corruption of their minor children, in accordance
wit h Art. 33 2 of the Civil Code.
601
Chapter Two
CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES
Art . 25 . Penalties which may be imposed. — Th e p e n a l t i e s

w h i c h ma y b e i m p o s e d , a c c o r d i n g t o thi s Code , an d thei r dif•
f eren t c l a s s e s , ar e t h o s e i n c l u d e d i n th e f o l l o w i n g :
SCAL E
PRINCIPA L PENALTIE S
Capital punishment:
Deat h
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusio n perpetu a
Reclusio n tempora l
Perpetua l o r tempo rar y absolut e disqualifica tio n
Perpet ua l o r te mpora r y specia l disqualificatio n
mayor
Correctional penalties:
Prisio n correcciona l
A r r e s t o ma y o r
Suspensio n
Light penalties:
Arrest o
Publi c censur e
Penalties common to the three preceding classes:

Fine , an d
Bon d t o kee p th e peace .
602
CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES Art. 25
ACCESSOR Y PENALTIE S
Perpetua l o r temporar y absolut e disqualificatio n Perpetua l o

r temporar y specia l disqualificatio n
Suspensio n fro m publi c office , th e righ t t o vot e an d b e vote d for , th e
professio n o r callin g
Civi l i n t e r d i c t i o n
Inde mnificatio n
Forfeitur e o r confiscatio n o f instrument s an d proceed s o f th e offens e
Paymen t o f cost .
"The penalties which may be imposed, according to this Code,

are those included" in Art. 25 only.
A sentence of "five years in Bilibid" is defective, because it does not
specify the exact penalty prescribed in the Revised Penal Code. (U.S. vs.
Avillar, 28 Phil. 131, 134-135)
The penalty of hard labor in addition to imprisonment cannot
be imposed, because it is not authorized by th e Revised Penal Code.
(U.S. vs. Mendoza, 14 Phil. 198, 203; People vs. 88 Phil. 35,
43-44)
The penalty of life imprisonment or perpetua imposed
by the trial court is an erroneous designation. The correct term is
reclusion perpetua. The penalty of cadena perpetua wa s abolished by
the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Abletes, No. L-33304, July 31,
1974, 58 SCRA 241 , 248)
"Life imprisonment" should be denominated reclusion perpetua since
that technical term is the penalty that carries with it the impo• sition of the
accessory penalties. (People vs. De la Cruz, No. L-45485, Sept. 19, 1978, 85
SCRA 285, 292)
It is error to impose cadena perpetua. That penalty, which was
imposed by the Spanish Penal Code of 1870, was repealed by the
Revised Penal Code. That barbarous, cruel and unusual punishment
belongs to a bygone era and is no longer imposed in this enlightened
age. (People vs. Lugtu, No. L-52237, Sept. 30, 1981, 108 SCRA 84,
91, Concurring Opinion of Justice Aquino)
603
Art. 25 CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES
The Revised Penal Code does not prescribe the penalty of life
imprisonment for any of the felonies therein defined, that penalty
being invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized not by the
Revised Penal Code but by special law. Reclusion perpetua entails
imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict
becomes eligible for parole. It also carries with it accessory penalties,
namely: perpetual special disqualification, etc. It is not th e same as
life imprisonment which, for one thing, does not appear to have any
definite extent or duration. (People vs. Penillos, 205 SCRA 546, citing
People vs. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459)
Note: Under R.A. No. 7659, the duration of reclusion perpetua

is now from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years.
Republic Act No. 9346 prohibited the imposition of the death

penalty.
Republic Act No. 9346 which wa s signed into law on Jun e 24,
2006 prohibited the imposition of the death penalty, and provided for
the imposition of th e penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death,
whe n the law violated make s use of the nomenclature of th e penalties
of the Revised Penal Code. (Secs. l and 2, Rep. Act No. 9346)
Art. 25 classifies penalties into principal and accessory.

This article classifies penalties into:
Principal penalties — those expressly imposed by th e court
in the judgmen t of conviction.
2. Accessory penalties — those tha t are deemed included in
the imposition of the principal penalties.
The principal penalties may be classified:
According to their divisibility.
1. Divisible.
2. Indivisible.
Indivisible penalties are those which have no fixed duration.
The indivisible penalties are:
1. Death.
604
CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES Art. 25
2. Reclusion perpetua.
3. Perpetual absolute or special disqualification.
4. Public censure.
Divisible penalties are those tha t have fixed duration and are divisible
into three periods.
Classification of penalties according to subject-matter:

Corporal
2. Deprivation of freedom prision, arresto).

3. Restriction of freedom (destierro).
4. Deprivation of rights (disqualification and
5. Pecuniary (fine).
Classification of penalties according to their gravity:

1. Capital,
2. Afflictive,
3. Correctional,
4. Light.
This classification corresponds to the classification of the felonies in Art.
9, into grave, les s grave and light.
Public censure is a penalty.

Censure, being a penalty, is not proper in acquittal. (People vs.
Abellera, 69 Phil. 623 , 625)
In a criminal case, there is only one issue, viz.: whether the ac•
cused is guilty or not guilty. If he is found guilty, the court acquires
jurisdiction to impose a penalty; if he is found not guilty, no court has
the power to mete out punishment; a finding of guilt mus t precede
the punishment. (Gomez vs. Concepcion, 47 Phil. 717, 723)
Court acquitting the accused may criticize his acts or conduct.

But a competent court, while acquitting an may permit
itself nevertheless to criticize or reprehend his acts and conduct in
605
Art. 26 FINE, WHEN AFFLICTIVE, CORRECTIONAL
OR LIGHT
connection with the out which the accusation arose. The

court may, with unquestionable propriety, express its disapproval or
reprehension of those acts to avoid the impression that by acquitting
the accused it approves or admires his conduct.
In the case of People vs. Abellera, the accused wa s reprimanded
by the court in his capacity as clerk of court for various acts not mate•
rial to the issue, such as his acceptance of free meals and transporta•
tion from litigants, while the charge wa s infidelity in th e custody of
public documents, of which he wa s acquitted. (People vs. Meneses,
74 Phil. 119, 125, 127)
Penalties that are either principal or accessory.

Perpetual or temporary disqualification, perpetual or
temporary special disqualification, and suspension ma y be principal
or accessory penalties, because the y are formed in th e tw o general
classes.
Art. 236, punishing the crime of anticipation of duties of a public office,
provides for suspension as a principal penalty.
Arts. 226, 227 and 228, punishing infidelity of public officers in
th e custody of documents, provide for temporary special disqualifica•
tion as a principal penalty.
Art . 26 . Fine — When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty.

- A fine , w h e t h e r i m p o s e d a s a s i n g l e o r a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e
p e n a l t y , sha l l b e c o n s i d e r e d a n a f f lict iv e p e n a l t y , i f i t e x c e e d s
6,00 0 p e s o s ; a c o r r e c t i o n a l p e n a l t y , i f i t doe s no t e x c e e d 6,00 0
p e s o s bu t i s no t les s t ha n 20 0 peso s ; an d a lig h t p e n a l t y , i f i t
b e les s t ha n 20 0 p e s o s .
"Whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty."

Fines are imposed in man y articles of this Code as an alternative
penalty. Example: In Art. 144, punishing disturbance of proceedings,
the penalty is arresto mayor or a fine ranging from P20 0 to
Example of fine as a single penalty is a fine of to
606
FINE, WHEN AFFLICTIVE, CORRECTIONAL Art. 26
OR LIGHT
Penalties cannot be imposed in the alternative.

The Court of First Instance of Quezon found Alejandro Mercade-
ja s guilty of a violation of Republic Act No. 145 and sentenced hi m
"to pay a fine of or to suffer an imprisonment of two years,
and to pay th e
Held: The law does not permit an y court to impose a sentence

in the alternative, its duty being to indicate th e penalty imposed
definitely and positively. (People vs. Mercadejas, C.A., 54 O.G. 5707;
People vs. Tabije, 59 O.G. 1922)
Art. 26 merely classifies fine and has nothing to do with the

definition of light felony.
A felony punishable by arresto or a fine not exceeding
P20 0 is a light felony. (Art. 9, par. 3) Whe n th e penalty is correctional,
it is a les s grave felony. (Art. 9, par. 2) It is a light penalty if the
amoun t of th e fine imposed is les s tha n P200 , and it is a correctional
penalty if it is not less tha n P20 0 and does not exceed (Art.
26) If th e fine prescribed by th e la w for a felony is exactly P200 , is it
a light felony or a les s grave felony? It is a light felony because Art.
9, par. 3, which defines light felony should prevail.
Fine is:
1. Afflictive - over
2. Correctional - P200.0 0 to
3. Light penalty — les s tha n P200.0 0
Bond to keep the peace is by analogy:

1. Afflictive — over P6,000.0 0
2. Correctional - P200.0 0 to
3. Light penalty - les s tha n P200.0 0 (Albert)
607
Chapter Three
DURATION AND EFFECT OF PENALTIES
Sectio n One . — Duratio n o f Penaltie s
Art . 27 . Reclusion perpetua. — Th e p e n a l t y of reclusion per•

petua sha l l b e fro m t w e n t y y ea r s an d on e da y t o fort y y e a r s .
Reclusion temporal. — Th e p e n a l t y of reclusion temporal sha l l
b e fro m t w e l v e y ea r s an d on e da y t o t w e n t y y e a r s .
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. — Th e d u r a t i o n
o f th e p e n a l t i e s prision mayor an d t e mp o r a r y d i s q u a l i f i ca tio n
sha l l b e fro m si x y e a r s an d on e da y t o t w e l v e y e a r s , e x c e p t
w h e n th e p e n a l t y o f d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i s i m p o s e d a s a n a c ce s •
so r y p e n a l t y , i n w h i c h ca se , it s d u r a t i o n sh a l l b e tha t o f th e
principa l penalty .
Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. — Th e d u r a t i o n
of th e p e n a l t i e s of prision correccional, suspension, an d destierro
shal l b e fro m si x mo n t h s an d on e da y t o si x y ears , e x c e p t w h e n
s u s p e n s i o n i s i m p o s e d a s a n a c c e s s o r y p e n a l t y , i n w h i c h ca se ,
it s d u r a t i o n shal l b e tha t o f th e p r i n c i p a l p e n a l t y .
Arresto mayor. — Th e duratio n of th e penalt y of arresto mayor shal
l b e fro m on e mont h an d on e da y t o si x months .
Arresto — Th e d u r a t i o n of th e p e n a l t y of arresto
shal l b e fro m on e da y t o thirt y days .
Bond to keep the peace. — Th e b o n d to k e e p th e p e a c e sha l l
b e r e q u i r e d t o c o v e r s u c h p e r i o d o f ti m e a s th e c o u r t ma y
d e t e r m i n e . (As amended by No. 7659, approved on December
13, 1993)
Duration of each of different penalties.

Reclusion perpetua — 20 and 1 day to 40
2. Reclusion temporal — 12 yrs. and 1 day to 20 yrs.
608
DURATION OF PENALTIES Art. 27
3. Prision mayor and temporary disqualification — 6 yrs. and

1 day to 12 except whe n disqualification is accessory
penalty, in which case its duration is tha t of th e principal
penalty.
4. Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro — 6
and 1 day to 6 except whe n suspension is an accessory
penalty, in which case its duration is that of the principal
penalty.
5. Arresto mayor — 1 mo. and 1 day to 6 mos.
6. Arresto menor — 1 day to 30 days.
Bond to keep the peace — the period during which the bond
shall be effective is discretionary on th e court.
Temporary and suspension, when imposed as

accessory penalties, have different durations — they follow
the duration of the principal penalty.
Thus, if th e penalty imposed is arresto mayor, th e duration of
the accessory penalty of suspension of th e right to hold office and the
right of suffrage (Art. 44) shall be that of arresto mayor.
Not e th e clause s in paragraph s 3 and 4 whic h sa y "except
whe n the penalty (of disqualification or suspension) is imposed as
an accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall be that of the
principal penalty."
In what cases is destierro imposed?

In the following:
1. Seriou s physica l injurie s or deat h unde r exceptional
circumstances. (Art. 247)
2. In case of failure to give bond for good behavior. (Art.
284)
3. As a penalt y for th e concubine in concubinage. (Art.
334)
4. In cases where after reducing the penalty by one or more
degrees destierro is the proper penalty.
609
Art. 28 COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES
Bond to keep the peace is not specifically provided as a penalty for any
felony and therefore cannot be imposed by the court.
Since according to Art. 21 no felony shall be punishable by any
penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission, and bond to
keep the peace is not specifically provided for by the Code for any
felony, that penalty cannot be imposed by the court.
Bond for good behavior under Art. 284 of the Code, which is
required of a person making a grave or light threat, is not required
to be given in cases involving other crimes.
Art . 28 . Computation of penalties. — If th e o f fende r shal l be

i n p r i s o n , th e t er m o f th e d u r a t i o n o f th e t e m p o r a r y penal •
tie s sha l l b e c o m p u t e d fro m th e da y o n w h i c h th e j u d g m e n t
o f c o n v i c t i o n sha l l ha v e b e c o m e final .
I f th e o f fe n d e r b e no t i n p r i s o n , th e ter m o f th e d u r a t i o n
o f th e p e n a lt y c o n s i s t i n g o f d e p r i v a t i o n o f libert y shal l b e com •
p u t e d fro m th e da y t ha t th e o f f e n d e r i s p l a c e d a t th e d i s p o s a l
o f th e j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s fo r th e e n f o r c e m e n t o f th e p e n a l t y .
Th e d u r a t i o n o f th e o t h e r p e n a l t i e s s ha l l b e c o m p u t e d o nl y
fro m th e da y o n w h i c h th e d e f e n d a n t c o m m e n c e s t o serv e hi s
sentence .
Rules for the computation of penalties.

The Director of Prisons or the warden should compute the penal• ties
imposed upon the convicts, observing th e following rules:
When the offender is in prison — th e duration of temporary
penalties is from th e day on which th e judgmen t of convic• tion
becomes final.
When the offender is not in prison — the duration penalty
consisting in deprivation is from th e day tha t the
offender is placed at the disposal judicial authorities for
the enforcement of the penalty.
The duration of other penalties — th e duration is from

th e day on which the offender commences to serve his sen•
tence.
610
COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES Art. 28
If th e accused, wh o wa s in custody, appealed, his service of

sentence should commence from the date of the promulgation of the
decision of the appellate court, not from th e date the judgmen t of the
trial court wa s promulgated. vs. Court of Appeals, 97 Phil.
949 No. L-7469, Ma y 6, 1955)
The service of a sentence of one in prison begins only on the
day the judg men t of conviction becomes final. (Baking vs. Director
of Prisons, No. L-30603, Jul y 28, 1969, 28 SCRA 851 , 856)
The accused could not be considered as committed or placed
in jail by virtue of the decision of th e Court of Appeals, although he
wa s already in jail whe n tha t judgmen t wa s received. The fact of
his custody as a mere appellant pending appeal continued, and the
receipt of th e decision of th e Court of Appeals did not change the
detention of th e accused into service of th e judgment. The reading of
the sentence of th e Court of Appeals to the accused wa s still a neces•
sary step previous to th e actual commit men t of th e accused. (People
vs. Enriquez, 107 Phil. 201 , 207)
Examples of temporary penalties:

(1) Temporary absolute disqualification.
(2) Temporary special disqualification.
(3) Suspension.
Rules in cases of temporary penalties:

If offender is under detention, as whe n he is undergoing preven• tive
imprisonment, Rule No. 1 applies.
If not under detention, because th e offender ha s been released
on bail, Rule No. 3 applies.
Examples of penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty:

(1) Imprisonment.
(2) Destierro.
Rules in cases of penalties consisting in deprivation of lib•

erty.
When the offender is not in prison, Rule No. 2 applies.
611
Art. 29 PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
If the offender is undergoing preventive imprisonment, th e

computation of the penalty is not from the day that the offender is
placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities for the enforcement
of the penalty. Rule No. 3 applies, that is, the duration of the penalty
shall be computed from the day on which the defendant commences
to serve his sentence.
But the offender is entitled to a deduction of full time or four- fifths
(4/5) of the time of his detention.
Reaso n fo r Rul e No .
The duration of temporary penalties shall be computed only from
the day the judgmen t of conviction becomes final, and not from the
day of his detention, because under Art. 24 th e arrest and temporary
detention of the accused is not considered a penalty.
Art . 29 . Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term

o f imprisonment. — O f f en d e r s o r a c c u s e d w h o h a v e u n d e r g o n e
p r e v e n t i v e i m p r i s o n m e n t sha l l b e c r e d i t e d i n th e s e r v i c e o f
t hei r s e n t e n c e c o n s i s t i n g o f d e p r i v a t i o n o f l i b e rt y , w i t h th e
ful l tim e d u r i n g w h i c h t he y h a v e u n d e r g o n e p r e v e n t i v e im •
p r i s o n m e n t i f th e d e t e n t i o n p r i s o n e r a g r e e s v o l u n t a r i l y i n
w r i t i n g t o a b i d e b y th e s a m e d i s c i p l i n a r y r u l e s i m p o s e d upo n
c o n v i c t e d p r i s o n e r s , e x c e p t i n th e f o l l o w i n g c a s e s :
1 . Whe n t h e y ar e r e c i d i v i s t s , o r h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d
p r e v i o u s l y t w i c e o r mo r e t i me s o f an y c r i me ; an d
2 . Whe n u p o n b e i n g s u m m o n e d fo r th e e x e c u t i o n o f
t he i r s e n t e n c e t h e y ha v e f a ile d t o s u r r e n d e r v o l u n t a r i l y .
I f th e d e t e n t i o n p r i s o n e r do e s no t a g r e e t o a b i d e b y th e
sa m e d i s c i p l i n a r y r u le s i m p o s e d u p o n c o n v i c t e d p r i s o n e r s ,
h e sha l l b e c r e d i t e d i n th e s e r v i c e o f hi s s e n t e n c e w i t h four -
f i f t h s o f th e ti m e d u r i n g w h i c h h e ha s u n d e r g o n e p r e v e n t i v e
i mpri so n ment .
W h e n e v e r a n a c c u s e d ha s u n d e r g o n e p r e v e n t i v e i mpris •
o n me n t fo r a p er io d equa l t o o r mo r e tha n th e p o s s i b l e maxi •
mu m i m p r i s o n m e n t o f th e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d t o w h i c h h e ma y
b e s e n t e n c e d an d hi s ca s e i s no t ye t t e r m i n a t e d , h e sha l l b e
r e l e a s e d i m m e d i a t e l y w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o th e c o n t i n u a t i o n
o f th e tria l t h e r e o f o r th e p r o c e e d i n g o n a p p e a l , i f th e s a m e i s
612
PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT Art. 29
u n d e r r e v i e w . I n ca s e th e m a x i m u m p e n a l t y t o w h i c h th e ac •
c u s e d ma y b e s e n t e n c e d i s destierro, h e sha l l b e r e l e a s e d afte r
t hi rt y (30) da y s of p r e v e n t i v e i m p r i s o n m e n t . (As amended by
Rep. Act No. 6127, and Exec. Order No. 214)
When is there preventive imprisonment?

The accused undergoes preventive imprisonment whe n the of•
fense charged is nonbailable, or eve n if bailable, he cannot furnish
the required bail.
The time or of the time during which offenders

have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be deducted
the penalty imposed.
Offenders who hav e undergone preventive imprisonment shall be
credited in th e service of their sentenc e wit h th e full time during which they
have undergone preventive imprisonment, if th e detention prisoner agrees
voluntarily in writing to abide by th e sam e discipli• nary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be cred•
ited in the service of hi s sentence wit h four-fifths of th e time during
which he ha s undergone preventive imprisonment.
The appellant should be credited wit h th e full time of his pre•
ventive imprisonment upon a showing tha t he agreed to abide by the
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners; otherwise,
he shall be credited with four fifths (4/5) of the time of such preven•
tive imprisonment. (People vs. No. L-32785, May 21 , 1973,
51 SCRA 31, 39; People vs. Abanes, No. Sept. 28, 1976, 73
SCRA People vs. Lingao, No. L-28506, Jan. 75 SCRA
130, 135-136; People vs. No. L-33490, Aug. 30, 1974, 58
SCRA 742, 749)
Under Art. 197 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code (Presiden•
tial Decree No. 603), the youthful offender shall be credited in the
service of his sentence with the full time he spent in actual confine•
ment and detention. It is not necessary that he agreed to abide by
the disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
613
Illustration of the application of this article.

A wa s accused of homicide punishable by reclusion temporal.
Because he could not put a bail A wa s detained pending
his trial which lasted for two years. If after trial, A wa s found guilty
and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 6 years and 1 day
to 12 years and 1 day, the full period of A's preventive imprisonment
of 2 years shall be deducted from 12 years and 1 day, if he agreed
voluntarily in writing before or during the time of his temporary deten•
tion to abide by the sam e disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners. Bu t if A did not agree to abide by th e sam e disciplinary
rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, only of th e 2 years during
which he ha s undergone preventive imprisonment will be deducted
from 12 years and 1 day.
Must preventive imprisonment be considered in perpetual

penalties?
This allowance should be mad e eve n in th e case of perpetual
punishment. This article does not mak e an y distinction betwee n temporal and
perpetual penalties.
Thus, eve n if th e accused is sentenced to life imprisonment, he
is entitled to th e full tim e or 4/5 of th e tim e of th e preventive impris•
onment. (See U.S. vs . 38 Phil. 341 , 345)
The credit is given in the service of sentences "consisting of

deprivation of liberty."
Thus, if the offense for which th e offender is undergoing preven•
tive imprisonment is punishable by imprisonment or a fine, and upon
conviction th e court imposed on hi m only a fine, there is no credit to
be given.
Illustration:
A wa s accused of a violation of Art. 143 of th e Revised
Pena l Code. The penalty provided for in tha t Article is prision
correccional or a fine from to or both. During
the pendency of hi s trial, A wa s detained for te n days. Havin g
been found guilty, A wa s sentenced to pay a fine of P500 . Can
A successfully claim tha t hi s fine should be reduced because of
his preventive imprisonment for te n days?
614
PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT Art. 29
No, because his sentence does not consist in deprivation of liberty.
Destierro constitutes "deprivation of liberty."

Althoug h destierro doe s no t impriso nmen t (whic h
is a typical exa mpl e of deprivatio n of liberty), it is no netheles s a
deprivation of liberty. It follows tha t Article 29 is applicable whe n
th e penalt y is Th e accuse d shoul d be credited wit h th e
tim e durin g whic h h e ha s undergon e preventiv e imprisonment .
(People vs . B a sta sa , No . L-32 792 , Feb . 2 , 1979 , 8 8 SCRA 184,
193)
Convict to be released immediately if the penalty imposed

after trial is less than the time or of the time of
the preventive imprisonment.
Thus , if A ha s bee n det a in e d for 5 mo n th s an d 10 day s
pending hi s trial for les s serious physical injuries and after trial he
is sentenced to 4 month s of arresto mayor, he should be released im•
mediately. (See People vs. Quiosay, 103 Phil.
The accused need not serve th e penalt y destierro, for havin g
satisfied th e condition s laid dow n i n Articl e 2 9 o f th e Revise d
Pena l Code, h e shoul d b e entitle d t o credit for th e preventiv e
imprisonmen t whic h h e ha s undergon e since August , 1970. (People
vs . M agonawal , No . L-35783 , Marc h 6 3 SCRA 106,
113)
Accused shall be released immediately whenever he has

undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to
or more than the possible maximum imprisonment for the
offense charged.
Illustration:
A is accused of the crime of les s serious physical injuries
punishable by imprisonmen t from 1 mont h and 1 day to 6 months. He
ha s been under detention in jail for 6 months, pending his trial. In that
case, A should be released immediately, but the trial of his case will
continue.
615
If the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sen•

tenced is destierro.
Illustration:
A is accused of a crime punishable by a penalty from
arresto menor to destierro (6 months and 1 day to 6 years). A
has been detained for 30 days since his arrest. In that case, A
should be released immediately after 30 days from his arrest
and detention, even if th e duration of destierro, the maximu m
penalty to which he ma y be sentenced, is from 6 month s and 1
day to 6 years. The reason for this is that in destierro, the accused
sentenced to that penalty does not serve it in prison. He is free,
only that he cannot enter th e prohibited area specified in the
sentence.
Offenders not entitled to the time or of the time

of preventive imprisonment.
The following offenders are not entitled to be credited wit h th e
full time or of th e time of preventive imprisonment:
1. Recidivists or those convicted previously twice or more
time s of an y crime.
2. Those who, upon being summoned for th e execution of their
sentence, failed to surrender voluntarily.
Before Art. 29 wa s amended by Rep. Act No. 6127, those who
were convicted of robbery, theft, estafa, malversation of public funds,
falsification, vagrancy or prostitution were not credited with any part of
the time during which they underwent preventive imprisonment. Those
offenses are enumerated in paragraph No. 3 of the original Art. 29.
In view of the elimination in Rep. Act No. 6127 of paragraph
No. 3 of the original Art. 29, those convicted of robbery, theft, estafa,
malversation, falsification, vagrancy or prostitution are now to be
credited in the service of their sentence wit h th e full time or 4/5 of the
time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment.
Habitual delinquent is included in paragraph No.

A habitual delinquent is not entitled to th e full time or 4/5 of th e
time of preventive imprisonment, because a habitual delinquent is
necessarily a recidivist or tha t at least he ha s been "convicted
616
EFFECTS OF PENALTIES Art. 30
twice or more time s of any crime." (See People vs. Gona, G.R.
No. 47177, Nov. 4, 1940)
"They have failed to surrender voluntarily."

Note tha t paragraph No. 2 does not refer to failure to surrender
voluntarily after the commission of th e crime. It says, "when upon
being summone d for th e execution of their sentence."
Example:
A wa s arrested for serious physical injuries inflicted on

and, pending hi s investigation and trial, he wa s detained for
one year. He wa s able to go out on bail after one year. Later, he
wa s summoned for th e execution of his sentence, he having been
found guilty. Becaus e he failed to appear, th e court issued an
order for hi s arrest and confiscation of hi s bond. Although, he is
not covered by paragraph No . 1 of Art. 29, as amended, A will
not be credited in th e service of his sentence for serious physical
injuries wit h one yea r or four-fifths of one yea r preventive
imprisonment.
S e c t i o n Tw o . — Ef f ect s o f th e p e n a l t i e s a c c o r d i n g
t o thei r respectiv e natur e
Art . 30 . Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary abso•

lute disqualification. — Th e p e n a l t i e s o f p e r p e t u a l o r t e mp o r a r y
a b s o l u t e d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n fo r p u b l i c offic e sha l l p r o d u c e th e
f o l l o w i n g effect s :
1 . Th e d e p r i v a t i o n o f th e p u b l i c office s an d e mp lo y •
me n t s w h i c h th e o f f e n d e r ma y ha v e held , ev e n i f co nferre d
by popula r election .
2 . Th e d e p r i v a t i o n o f th e rig h t t o vot e i n an y electio n
fo r an y p o p u la r e l e c t i v e offic e o r t o b e e l e c t e d t o suc h
3. . Th e d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n fo r th e office s o r publi c
e mplo y • me n t s an d fo r th e e x e r c i s e o f an y o f th e rig ht s
mentioned .
I n ca s e o f t e mp o r a r y d i s q u a l i f i ca t io n , suc h disqua lifica •
tio n a s i s c o mp r i s e d i n p a r a g ra p h s 2 an d 3 o f thi s Articl e shal l
las t d u r i n g th e t er m o f th e s e n t e n c e .
617
Arts. 31-33 EFFECTS OF PENALTIES
4. . Th e los s o f al l rig ht s t o r e t i r e me n t pa y o r o the

r sio n for an y office f o r me r l y held .
Art . 31 . Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special

disqualification. — Th e penaltie s o f perpetua l o r temporar y specia l
disqualificatio n fo r publi c office, profession , o r callin g shal l produc e th e
followin g effects :
Th e o f th e office, e m p l o y me n t ,
o r ca l l i n g a ffect ed .
2. . Th e d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n fo r h o l d i n g s i mi l a r office s
o r e m p l o y m e n t s e i t h e r p e r p e t u a l l y o r d u r i n g th e ter m o f
th e s e n t e n c e , a c c o r d i n g t o th e e x t e n t o f s u c h d i s q u a li fi ca ti o n
.
Art . 32 . Effects the penalties of perpetual or temporary special

disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage. — Th e per •
p e t u a l o r t e m p o r a r y s p e c i a l d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n fo r th e e x e r c i s e
o f th e rig h t o f suf f ra g e sha l l d e p r i v e th e o f f e n d e r p e r p e t u a l l y
o r d u r i n g th e t er m o f th e s e n t e n c e , a c c o r d i n g t o th e n a t u r e
o f sai d p e n a l t y , o f th e r ig h t t o v o t e i n an y p o p u l a r e l e c t i o n
fo r an y p u bli c offic e o r t o b e e l e c t e d t o su c h office . M o r eo v er ,
th e o f f e n de r sha l l no t b e p e r m i t t e d t o ho l d an y p u b l i c offic e
d u r i n g th e p e r i o d o f hi s d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n .
Art . 33 . Effects of the penalties of suspension any public of•

fice, profession, or calling, or the right of suffrage. — Th e s u s p e n s i o n
fro m p u bl i c office , p r o f e s s i o n , o r c a l l i n g , an d th e e x e r c i s e o f
th e rig h t o f suf f rag e shal l disqua lif y th e offende r fro m h o l d i n g
su c h offic e o r e x e r c i s i n g suc h p r o f e s s i o n o r ca l l i n g o r righ t o f
su f fra g e d u r i n g th e t er m o f th e s e n t e n c e .
Th e p e r s o n s u s p e n d e d fro m h o l d i n g p u b l i c offic e sha l l
no t hol d a n o t h e r h a v i n g s i mi l a r f u n c t i o n s d u r i n g th e per io d
o f hi s s u s p e n s i o n .
618
EFFECTS OF PENALTIES Arts. 34-35
Art . 34 . Civil interdiction. — Civi l i n t e r d i c t i o n sha l l d e p r iv e

th e o f f e n d e r d u r i n g th e t i m e o f hi s s e n t e n c e o f th e r i g h t s o f
p a r e n t a l a u t h o r i t y , o r g u a r d i a n s h i p , e i t h e r a s t o th e p e r so n
o r p r o p e r t y o f an y w a r d , o f ma r i t a l a ut ho r ity , o f th e righ t
t o m a n a g e hi s p r o p e r t y , an d o f th e rig h t t o d i s p o s e o f s uc h
p r o p e r t y b y an y ac t o r an y c o n v e y a n c e inter vivos.
Art . 35 . Effects bond to keep the peace. — It shal l be th e dut y

o f an y p e r s o n s e n t e n c e d t o g iv e b o n d t o k e e p th e p e a c e , t o
p r e s e n t tw o s u f f i c i e n t s u r e t i e s w h o sha l l u n d e r t a k e tha t suc h
p e r s o n wil l no t c o m m i t th e o f f e n s e s o u g h t t o b e p r e v e n t e d ,
an d tha t i n ca s e s u c h o f f e n s e b e c o m m i t t e d the y wil l pa y th e
a mo u n t d e t e r m i n e d b y th e co ur t i n it s j u d g m e n t , o r o t h e r w i s e
t o d e p o s i t s u c h a m o u n t i n th e offic e o f th e cler k o f th e cour t
t o g u a r a n t e e sa i d u n d e r t a k i n g .
Th e c o u r t sha l l d e t e r m i n e , a c c o r d i n g t o it s d i s c r et io n ,
th e p e r i o d o f d u r a t i o n o f th e b o n d .
S h o u l d th e p e r s o n s e n t e n c e d fai l t o g iv e th e bo n d a s
r e q u i r e d h e sha l l b e d e t a i n e d fo r a p e r i o d w h i c h sha l l i n n o
ca s e e x c e e d si x m o n t h s , i f h e sha l l h a v e b ee n p r o s e c u t e d fo r
a g ra v e o r les s g rav e felo ny , an d shal l no t e x c e e d thirt y days ,
i f fo r a lig h t fe lo ny .
Outline of the effects of penalties under Arts. 30-35.

1. The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disquali•
fication for public office produce the following effects:
a. Deprivation of public offices and employments, even
if by election.
b. Deprivation of right to vote or to be elected.
Disqualification for the offices or public employments and
for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned.
d. Loss of right to retirement pay or pension for any
office formerly held. (Art. 30)
619
Arts. 30-35 EFFECTS OF PENALTIES
Note: Perpetual absolute disqualification is ef•

fective during the lifetime of the convict and even
after the service of the sentence. Temporary absolute
disqualification lasts during the term of the sentence,
and is removed after the service of the same, except
deprivation of th e public office or employment;
and (2) loss of all rights to retirement pay or other
pension for any office formerly held. (See Art. 30, par.
No. 3.)
2. The penalties of perpetual or temporary special disquali•

fication for public office, profession or calling produce the
following effects:
a. Deprivation of th e office, employment, profession or
calling affected.
b. Disqualification for holding similar offices or employ•
ment s perpetually or during th e term of th e sentence.
(Art. 31)
3. The penalties of perpetual or temporary special disquali•
fication for the exercise of the right of suffrage produce the
following effects:
a. Deprivation of th e right to vote or to be elected to any
public office.
b. Cannot hold an y public office during the period of
disqualification. (Art. 32)
4. The penalties of suspension from public office, profession or
calling or the right of suffrage produce the following effects:
a. Disqualification from holding such office or exercising
such profession or calling or right of suffrage during
th e term of th e sentence.
b. If suspended from public office, th e offender cannot
hold another office having similar functions during
th e period of suspension. (Art. 33)
5. Civil interdiction shall produce the following effects:
a. Deprivation of th e rights of parental authority or
guardianship of any ward.
620
EFFECTS OF PENALTIES 30-35
b. Deprivation of marital authority.

Deprivation of th e right to manag e his property and
of th e right to dispose of such property by any act or
an y conveyance inter (Art. 34)
Note: Bu t he can dispose of such property by will or

donation mortis causa.
6. Bonds to keep the peace.

a. The offender mus t present two sufficient sureties who
shall undertak e tha t th e offender will not commit
th e offense sought to be prevented, and tha t in case
such offense be committed the y will pay the amount
determined by th e court; or
The offender mus t deposit such amount with the clerk
of court to guarante e said undertaking; or
The offender ma y be detained, if he cannot give the
bond, for a period not to exceed 6 months if prosecuted
for grave or less grave felony, or for a period not to
exceed 30 days, if for a light felony. (Art. 35)
Note: Bond to keep th e peace is different from

bail bond which is posted for th e provisional release
of a person arrested for or accused of a crime.
Disqualification is withholding of privilege, not a denial of

right.
The manifest purpose of the restrictions upon the right of suf•
frage or to hold office is to preserve the purity of elections. The pre•
sumption is that one rendered infamous by conviction of felony, or
other base offenses indicative of moral turpitude, is unfit to exercise
the privilege of suffrage or to hold office. The exclusion must for this
reason be adjudged a mere disqualification, imposed for protection
and not for punishment, the withholding of a privilege and not the
denial of a personal right. (People vs. Corral, 62 Phil. 945, 948)
In this case, the accused, who wa s sentenced in 1910 by final
judgment to suffer 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor for an offense
and who wa s not granted plenary pardon, voted at the general elec•
tions held on June 5, 1934. It wa s held that the right of the State to
621
Art. 36 PARDON THE PRESIDENT
deprive persons of the right of suffrage by reason of their having been

convicted of crime, is beyond question.
The accessory penalty of temporary absolute disqualification
disqualifies the convict for public office and for the right to vote, such
disqualification to last only during the term of the sentence. (Lacuna
vs. Abes, No. Aug. 27, 1968, 24 SCRA 780, 784)
"Perpetually or during the term of the sentence, according to

the nature of said penalty."
The word and th e phrase "during th e term of
the sentence" should be applied distributively to their respective
antecedents; thus , the word "perpetually" refers to th e perpetual
kind of special disqualification, while the phrase "during th e term
of the sentence" refers to the temporary special disqualification. The
duration betwee n the perpetual and th e temporary (both special) are
necessarily different because th e provision, instead of merging their
durations into one period, state s that such duration is to
th e nature of said penalty" — which mean s according to whethe r th e
penalty is the perpetual or th e temporary special disqualification.
(Lacuna vs. Abes, supra, at 784)
What suspension from exercise of profession covers.

Suspension, which deprives th e offender of th e right of exercis•
ing any kind of profession or calling, covers such calling or trade as
for instance tha t of broker, master plumber, etc.
Bond to keep the peace is not bail bond.

Bond to keep th e peace or for good behavior is imposed as a
penalty in threats. (Art. 284) This is different from a bail bond (Rule
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure) to secure th e provisional
release of an accused person after hi s arrest or during trial but before
final judgmen t of conviction.
Art . 36 . Pardon; its effects. — A p a r d o n sha l l no t w o r k th e

r e s t o r a t i o n o f th e r i g h t t o ho l d p u b l i c o r th e rig h t o f
suf fra g e , u n l e s s suc h rig ht s b e e x p r e s s l y r e s t o r e d b y th e term s
o f th e p a r d o n .
622
PARDON THE PRESIDENT Art. 36
A pardo n i n n o c a s e e x e m p t th e c u l p r i t fro m th e
p a y m e n t o f th e civ i l i n d e m n i t y i m p o s e d u p o n hi m b y th e
sentence .
Effects of pardon by the President.

A pardon shall not restore th e right to hold public office or
th e right of
Exception: Whe n any or both such rights is or are expressly

restored by th e term s of th e pardon.
2. It shall not exemp t th e culprit from th e payment of the
civil indemnity. The pardon cannot mak e an exception to
thi s rule.
Limitations upon the exercise of the pardoning power:

That th e power can be exercised only after conviction;
2. That such power does not extend to cases of impeachment. (Cristobal
vs . Labrador, 71 Phil. 34 , 38)
Pardon may be granted only "after conviction by final judg•

ment."
The by final limitation under Section 19,
Article VII of th e present Constitution prohibits th e grant of pardon,
whethe r full or conditional, to an accused during th e pendency of
his appeal from hi s conviction by th e trial court. An y application
therefor, if one is made , should not be acted upon nor th e process
toward its grant be commenced unles s th e appeal is withdrawn.
Accordingly, th e agencies or instrumentalitie s of th e Government
concerned mus t require proof from th e accused tha t he ha s not ap•
pealed from his conviction or that he ha s withdrawn his appeal. Such
proof may be in th e form of a certification issued by th e trial court
or th e appellate court, as th e case ma y be. The acceptance of the
pardon shall not operate as an abandonment or waiver of the
and the release of an accused by virtue of a pardon, commutation of
sentence, or parole before the withdrawal of an appeal shall render
those responsible therefor administratively liable. (People vs. Salle,
Jr., 250 SCRA 592)
623
Art. 36 PARDON BY THE PRESIDENT
Pardon granted in general terms does not include accessory

penalty.
the principal penalty is remitted by pardon, only the ef•
fect of that principal penalty is extinguished, but not the accessory
penalties attached to it.
For instance, a person sentenced to prision mayor (which car•
ries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification
from the right of suffrage) is pardoned by the President. Such pardon
does not restore to the ex-convict the right to vote, unles s such right
be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
Exception :
When an absolute pardon is granted after the term of imprison•
men t ha s expired, it removes all tha t is left of th e consequences of
conviction. (Cristobal vs. Labrador, supra)
Although the rule is that a pardon does not restore the right to
hold public office or the right of suffrage, unles s expressly stated in the
pardon, the exception is where the facts and circumstances of the case
already show that the purpose of the Chief Executive is precisely to
restore those rights. For instance, whe n it appears that the respond•
ent mayor-elect committed the offense more tha n 25 years ago; that he
wa s granted conditional pardon in 1915; that thereafter he exercised
the right of suffrage, wa s elected councilor for th e period from 1918 to
that he was elected municipal president three times in succession
(1922 to 1931); that he wa s elected mayor in 1940; it is evident that
the purpose in granting hi m absolute pardon, after the election of 1940
but before the date fixed by law for assumin g office, wa s to enable him
to assum e the position in deference to th e popular will. (Pelobello vs.
Palatino, 72 Phil. 441 , 443; Cristobal vs. Labrador, supra)
Pardon after serving 30 years does not remove perpetual

absolute disqualification.
Suppose a pardon is granted upon a convict undergoing life im•
prisonment after serving 30 years . Is th e convict likewise pardoned from the
penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification which is an accessory to life
imprisonment?
No, because Art. 30 is silent as to th e maximu m duration of
perpetual disqualification and Art. expressly provides tha t a
624
COST Art. 37
don shall not work th e restoration of th e right to hold public office or th e

right of suffrage, unles s such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the
pardon. (Guevara)
Pardon by the Chief Executive distinguished from pardon by

the offended
1. Pardon by th e Chief Executive extinguishe s the criminal
liability of th e offender; such is not th e case whe n the par•
don is given by th e offended party.
2. Pardon by th e Chief Executive cannot include civil liability

which th e offender mus t pay; but th e offended party can
waive th e civil liability which th e offender mus t pay.
3. In case s wher e th e la w allows pardon by th e offended
party (Art. 344), th e pardon should be given before the
institution of criminal prosecution and mus t be extended
to both offenders; whereas , pardon by th e Chief Executive
is granted only after conviction and ma y be extended to
any of th e
Art . 37 . Costs — What are included. — Co st s sha l l i n c l u d e

fee s an d i n d e m n i t i e s i n th e c o u r s e o f th e j u d i c ia l p r o c e e d i n g s ,
w h e t h e r t h e y b e f ixe d o r u n a l t e r a b l e a m o u n t s p r e v i o u s l y
d e t e r m i n e d b y la w o r r e g u l a t i o n s i n fo rce , o r a mo u n t s no t
su bj ec t t o s c h e d u l e .
The following are included in costs:

1. Fees, and
2. Indemnities, in the course of judicial proceedings.
Costs are chargeable to the accused in case of conviction.

Costs which are expenses of litigation are chargeable to the ac•
cused only in cases of conviction. In case of acquittal, the costs are
de each party bearing his own expenses.
Thus, of three accused, two were convicted while the third wa s
acquitted. Only one of the two convicted appealed. His conviction
625
Art. 38 PECUNIARY LIABILITIES
wa s affirmed. He wa s ordered to pay one-third of th e costs. (People vs.

Bongo, No. L-26909, Feb. 22, 1974, 55 SCRA 547, 548, 555)
No costs against the Republic, unless the law provides the

contrary.
No costs shall be allowed against the Republic of the Philippines, unless
otherwise provided by law. (Sec. 1, Rule 142, Rules of Court)
Payment of costs is discretionary.

The payment of costs is a matter that rests entirely upon the
discretion of courts. Appeal will hardly lie to interfere wit h the dis•
cretion. (Roque vs. Vda. de Cogan, 40 10th 35; Bacolod-
Murcia Planters' Assn., Inc. vs. Chua, 84 Phil. 596, 599)
Whether costs should be assesse d against th e accused lie within
the discretion of the court. The Government ma y request the court
to asses s costs against the accused, but not as a right. No attorney's
fees shall be taxed as cost against the adverse party. (Sec. 6, Rule
142, Rules of Court)
Art . 38 . Pecuniary liabilities — Order of payment. — In ca s e

th e p r o p e r t y o f th e o f f e n d e r s h o u l d no t b e s u f f i c ie n t fo r th e
p a y m e n t o f al l hi s p e c u n i a r y l ia bi l it i e s , th e sa m e shal l b e me t
i n th e f o l l o w i n g o rder :
1. Th e r e p a r a t i o n o f th e d a m a g e c a u s e d .
2. I n d e m n i f i c a t i o n o f th e c o n s e q u e n t i a l d a m a g e s .
3. Th e fine .
4. Th e c o s t s o f th e p r o c e e d i n g s .
What are the pecuniary liabilities of persons criminally li•

able?
They are:
The reparation of th e damag e caused.

2. Indemnification of th e consequential damages .
626
PECUNIARY LIABILITIES Art. 38
3. Fine.
4. Costs of proceedings.
When is Art. 38 applicable?

It is applicable "in case th e property of th e offender should not
be sufficient for the paymen t all hi s pecuniary The order
of payment is provided in thi s article.
Hence, if th e offender ha s sufficient or no property, there is no

use for Art. 38.
The order of payment of pecuniary liabilities in Article 38

must be observed.
Thus, in robbery wit h violence agains t persons, A inflicted upon
B serious physical injuries and took th e latter's watch and ring worth
As a result of the physical injuries inflicted, B wa s hospitalized
and wa s not able to atten d to hi s work for one month. For hospital
bills, he paid For hi s failure to earn his salary for one month,
he lost If A, after conviction, had only property not exempt
from execution worth it shall be applied to the payment of
the watch and ring, which could not be returned, because the y are
covered by th e of th e damage caused" and it is No. 1 in
the order of payment.
The hospital bills in th e amount of and the salary which
he failed to earn in th e su m of are covered by the "indemnifica•
tion of the consequential damages" which is only No. 2 in the order
of payment.
Courts cannot disregard the order of payment.

Whe n responden t judg e permitte d th e accuse d t o pay th e
fine ahead and postponed the payment of the indemnity of
to some other date, he obviously deviated from the express
mandates of the law. Indemnity is No. 2 and fine is No. 3 in the order
of payment. What wa s done wa s exactly the opposite of what the law
What the court should have done wa s to commit the accused
to jail for a period not exceeding six months (Art. 39, par. 2) upon the
nonpayment on the date scheduled for its execution of the indemnity
imposed by the sentence. (Domalaon vs. Yap, C.A., 59 O.G. 6675)
627
Art. 39 SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
There is reparation in the crime of rape when the dress of the woman
was torn.
In a case where the accused wa s convicted of rape, that part of
the judgment ordering the defendant to pay the value of th e woman's
torn garments is reparation for the damage caused to her property
and is distinct from indemnity. (U.S. vs. 4 Phil. 204, 206)
Liability of conjugal partnership assets.

Fines and indemnities imposed upon either husband or wife may be
enforced against the partnership asset s after th e responsibilities enumerated
in Article 161 of th e Civil Code hav e bee n covered, if the spouse who is
bound should have no exclusive property or if it should be insufficient, which
presupposes tha t the conjugal partnership is still existing. (People vs.
Lagrimas, No. L-25355, Aug. 28, 1969, 29
SCRA 153, 158)
Art . 39 . Subsidiary penalty. — I f th e c o n v i c t ha s n o p r o p e r t y

w it h w h i c h t o me e t th e fin e m e n t i o n e d i n p a r a g r a p h 3 o f th e
nex t p r e c e d i n g A r t i c le , h e sha l l b e s u b j e c t t o a s u b s i d i a r y
p e r s o n a l l i a b i l i t y a t th e rat e o f on e da y fo r e a c h e ig h t p e s o s ,
su bj ec t t o th e f o l l o w i n g r u l e s :
I f th e p r i n c i p a l p e n a l t y i m p o s e d b e prision correccional
o r arresto an d fine , h e sha l l r e m a i n u n d e r c o n f i n e me n t unti l
hi s fin e r e f e r r e d i n th e p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h i s sa tisf ie d , bu t
hi s s u b s i d i a r y i m p r i s o n m e n t sha l l no t e x c e e d o n e - t h i r d o f
th e ter m o f th e s e n t e n c e , an d i n n o ca s e sha l l i t c o n t i n u e fo r
mo r e tha n on e y ea r , an d n o f r a c t i o n o r par t o f a da y shal l b e
c o u n t e d a g a i n s t th e p r i s o n e r .
2 . Whe n th e p r i n c i p a l p e n a l t y i m p o s e d b e o nl y a fine ,
th e s u b s i d i a r y i m p r i s o n m e n t shal l no t e x c e e d si x mo n t h s ,
i f th e culp ri t sha l l h a v e b e e n p r o s e c u t e d fo r a g r a v e o r les s
g r a v e felo ny , an d sha l l no t e x c e e d f if tee n d a y s , i f fo r a lig h t
f elo ny .
3 . Whe n th e p r i n c i p a l p e n a l t y i m p o s e d i s h i g h e r t h a n
prision correccional n o s u b s i d i a r y i m p r i s o n m e n t sha l l b e im •
p o s e d u p o n th e c ul pr it .
628
SUBSIDIARY PENALTY Art. 39
4 . I f th e p e n a l t y i mp o s e d i s no t t o b e e x e c u t e d
b y c o n f i n e m e n t i n a p e n a l i n s t i t u t i o n , bu t s u c h p e n a l t y i s o f
fixe d d u r a t i o n , th e c o n v i c t , d u r i n g th e p e r i o d o f ti m e e sta b •
l i s h e d i n th e p r e c e d i n g r u l e s , sha l l c o n t i n u e t o s uffe r th e
s a m e d e p r i v a t i o n s a s t h o s e o f w h i c h th e p r i n c i p a l p e n a l t y
consists .
Th e subsidiar y persona l liabilit y whic h th e convic t suffere d

b y reaso n o f hi s insolvenc y shal l no t reliev e
hi m fro m th e fin e i n ca s e hi s f i n a n c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s s h o u l d
i m p r o v e . (As amended by Rep. Act No. 5465, which lapsed into law
on April
What is subsidiary penalty?

It is a subsidiary personal liability to be suffered by the convict who ha s
no property with which to meet the fine, at the rate of one day for each eight
pesos, subject to th e rules provided for in Article 39.
Judgment of conviction must impose subsidiary imprison•

ment.
An accused cannot be mad e to undergo subsidiary imprison•
men t in case of insolvency to pay th e fine imposed upon hi m whe n
the subsidiary imprisonmen t is not imposed in th e judgmen t of con•
viction. (Ramos vs . Gonong, No . Aug. 31 , 1961 , 72 SCRA
559, 565)
No subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of other pecuniary

liabilities.
As Article 39 is now worded, there is no subsidiary penalty
for nonpayment of: (1) the reparation of the damage caused, (2) in•
demnification of the consequential damages, and (3) the costs of the
proceedings. (See Ramos vs. Gonong, supra, at 566)
Retroactive application of RA 5465.

In that it eliminated the pecuniary liabilities of the accused,
other than fine, in Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, Rep. Act 5465
is favorable to the It ha s retroactive application. (Buiser vs.
629
People, No. L-32377, Oct. SCRA 750, 752, citing People

vs. 55 SCRA 435)
"If the convict has no property with which to meet the

fine."
Article 39 applies only whe n the convict ha s no property with
which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of Article 38.
It would see m that the convict, who ha s property enough to meet
the fine and not exempt from execution, cannot choose to serve the
subsidiary penalty, instead of for th e fine.
A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty,
should not and cannot be reduced or converted into a prison term.
There is no rule for transmutation of th e amount of a fine into a term
of imprisonment. (People vs. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. 45127 , May
173 SCRA 90, 101)
The word "principal" should be omitted.

The word referring to th e penalty imposed is not
the correct translation. The words used in Spanis h la pena
impuesta" (when th e penalty imposed) should be controlling. (People
vs. Concepcion, 59 Phil. 518, 522)
Subsidiary imprisonment is not an accessory penalty.

Subsidiary imprisonment is not an accessory That sub•
imprisonment is a penalty, there can be no doubt, for according
to Article 39, it is imposed upon th e accused and served by hi m in
lieu of the fine which he fails to pay on account of insolvency.
Therefore, th e culprit cannot be made to undergo subsidiary
imprisonment unles s th e judgmen t expressly so provides. (People vs. Fajardo,
65 Phil. 539, 542)
Illustration:
A wa s convicted of bribery and sentenced to 2 month s and 1

day arresto mayor as minimum , to 1 year, 8 month s and 21 days
correccional, as maximum , to pay a fine of P40.00 , wit h th e accessories
of th e law, and to pay th e costs. Since th e decision does not provide
for subsidiary imprisonment in th e even t of inability of
630
A to pay the fine A cannot be required to serve subsidiary

imprisonment, if he appears to be insolvent.
Article 73 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the

courts shall impose a penalty which, by provision of law, carries wit h
it other penalties, according to th e provisions of Articles 40, 41 , 42 ,
43 , 44, and 45 of this Code, it mus t be understood tha t the accessory
penalties are also imposed upon th e convict." Subsidiary imprison•
men t is not covered by an y of those articles. (People vs.
C.A., 52 O.G. 244)
Rules as to subsidiary imprisonment:

If th e penalty imposed is prision correccional or arresto and
fine — subsidiary imprisonment, not to exceed 1/3 of the
term of th e sentence , and in no case to continue for more
tha n one year. Fraction or part of a day, not counted.
When the penalty imposed is fine only — subsidiary impris•

onment, not to exceed 6 months, if th e culprit is prosecuted
for grave or les s grave felony, and not to exceed 15 days,
if prosecuted for light felony.
3. Whe n th e penalty imposed is higher tha n prision correc•
tional — no subsidiary imprisonment.
4. If th e penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement,
but of fixed duration — subsidiary penalty shall consist in
th e sam e deprivations as those of th e principal penalty,
under th e sam e rules as in Nos . 1, 2 and 3 above.
5. In case the financial circumstances of the convict should
improve, he shall pay th e fine, notwithstanding the fact
tha t th e convict suffered subsidiary personal liability
therefor.
Examples of the application of the rules:

(1) Rule 1 (Applicable only when the penalty imposed is im•
prisonment not exceeding 6 years): A is convicted of falsi•
fication by private individual (Art. 172) and sentenced to
4 years, 9 months and 10 days of prision correccional, as
the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty, and to
pay a fine of
631
If A has no property with which to meet the fine, he

will have to suffer subsidiary imprisonment at the rate
of one day for each which he cannot pay, but not to
exceed 365 days, computed as follows:
365 days in one year
x4 years
1,460 — days in 4 years
270 — days in 9 months
10 — days
3) 1,740 — days in 4 years, 9 months and 10 days
580 — days, which represent the penalty
imposed
- amount fine
500 — days, which are les s tha n 1/3 of th e
penalty imposed (580 days)
Although the quotient of 500 days does not exceed 1/3 of th e

term of th e penalty imposed, yet A can be mad e to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment only for 365 because "in no case shall it continue
for more tha n one year."
The subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed one-third of the penalty

imposed and not to exceed one year.
Whe n th e quotient , after dividin g th e amoun t of th e fine by
is one yea r or les s and suc h quotien t doe s no t excee d 1/3
of th e penalt y imposed , th e whol e period of i mpriso n men t repre•
sente d by th e quotient mus t be served by th e convict as subsidiary
penalty.
Illustration:
A is convicted of a crime and sentenced to 3 years prision

correccional, as the maximu m term of the indeterminate penalty,
and to pay a fine of P2,000.00 , which A could not pay. P2,000.0 0
P8.0 0 25 0 days. Since 1/3 of th e penalty imposed is 1 year and
the quotient is 250 days, which does not exceed 1 year, all the 250
days imprisonment mus t be served by A for nonpayment of the
fine, in addition to th e penalty of 3 years for th e crime he
committed.
632
Where th e defendant wa s sentenced to 21 days of imprisonment

and a fine th e subsidiary imprisonment cannot exceed
7 days. 125 days. Bu t since th e subsidiary im•
prisonment cannot exceed 1/3 of th e penalty imposed, he cannot be
required to serve all th e 125 days of imprisonment for failure to pay
th e fine .
No subsidiary imprisonment if the indemnity is less than

If the indemnity which the accused should pay is less than
no subsidiary imprisonment should be imposed for its non-payment.
(See People vs. Abad, C.A., 36 O.G. 65 3 and U.S. vs. Ballesteros, 1
Phil. 208)
(2) Rule 2 (Applicable when the penalty imposed is fine only): A is
sentenced to pay a fine of for a crime punishable by
a fine not exceeding In case of insolvency, A
shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment at th e rate of one day
for every whic h he cannot pay. To divide
by will be 100 days. Since A is prosecuted for a less
grave felony, th e fine provided by law being not les s tha n
and not more tha n (Art. 26), the dura•
tion of hi s subsidiary imprisonment shall be all the 100
days or 3 month s and 10 days, th e sam e not exceeding 6
months.
But suppose is sentenced to pay a fine for
a crime punishable by a fine not exceeding what
is the duration of th e subsidiary imprisonment? Why? It
cannot exceed 15 days, because he is prosecuted for a light
felony, th e fine provided by law not exceeding
(Art. 9)
When the penalty is fine only, the phrases, the culprit shall
have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony" and "if for a
light felony," are controlling.
When the penalty prescribed by the Code for the crime is
fine only, the duration of th e subsidiary penalty is based on the
classification of the felony.
When the fine provided by the Code, as the penalty for the
offense, is exactly P200.00 , apply Art. 9 in determin• ing the
classification of the felony, because that article, in
633
light felony, states that the fine is "not exceeding When

the amount of the fine fixed by the Code
as the penalty for the offense is more than apply
Art. 26 to determine the classification of the felony.
(3) Rule 4: A is sentenced to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days of
destierro and to pay a fine If A ha s no money
with which to pay the fine, he shall suffer an additional
period of destierro at the same rate of one day for every
The same rule is to be applied whe n the principal
penalty is suspension and fine.
The penalty imposed must be prision correccional, (2) ar•

resto mayor, (3) arresto menor, (4) suspension, (5) destierro,
or (6) only.
Hence, if the penalty imposed by th e court is not one of them ,
subsidiary penalty cannot be There is no subsidiary penalty,
if th e penalt y impose d by th e court is prision mayor, reclusion
temporal, or reclusion perpetua.
Six years and one day is prision mayor.

Will there be subsidiary imprisonment if th e penalty imposed
is 6 years and 1 day?
No, because whe n one day is added to 6 years, it raises the prison
sentence from prision correccional to prision mayor; hence, no subsidiary
imprisonment. (Rosares vs . Director of Prisons, 85 Phil. 730, 731)
Additional penalty for habitual delinquency should be in•

cluded in determining whether or not subsidiary penalty
should be imposed.
Even if the penalty imposed is not higher than prision correccional,
if the accused is a habitual delinquent who deserves an additional
penalty of 12 year s and 1 day of reclusion temporal, there is no
subsidiary imprisonment. (People vs. Concepcion, 59 Phil. 518, 522)
"If the principal penalty imposed."

Whe n the penalty prescribed for the offense is imprisonment, it
is the penalty actually imposed by the Court, not the penalty provided
634
for by the Code, which should be considered in determining whether

or not subsidiary penalty should be imposed.
Thus, eve n if th e penalt y provided for by th e Code for th e crime
is prision mayor but there are two mitigating circumstances without
any aggravating circumstance (Art. 64, par. 5), and the court imposes
2 years, 11 month s and 11 days prision correccional, subsidiary
penalty may be imposed for nonpaymen t of the fine.
Penalty not to be executed by confinement, but has fixed

duration.
Unde r Art. 236 , th e penalt y of suspension and fine from
to shall be imposed upon an y person wh o shall assum e the
performance of th e dutie s and powers of any public office without
first bein g sworn in or havin g give n bond required by law. Such
suspensio n shall las t unti l he shall hav e complied wit h th e for•
malities . If he cannot pay th e fine, althoug h he already complied
wit h th e formalities required by said Art. 236 , hi s suspensio n shall
continue until th e a moun t of th e fine is covered at th e rate of one
day suspensio n for every
Penalty not to be executed by confinement and has no fixed

duration.
Example:
The penalty is fine not exceeding and censure. (Art.

365, par. 4)
If the accused cannot pay the fine, there is no subsidiary liability,
because th e penalty of censure ha s no fixed duration and is not to be
executed by confinement.
Rule No. Art. 39, specifically mentions the penalty prision
correccional or arresto and fine"; Rule No. 2 of the same article speaks
of fine only; and Rule No. 4 mentions penalty of "fixed duration."
Hence, when fine goes with a penalty not to be executed by impris•
onment or destierro and which ha s no fixed duration, there is no
subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of the fine. (People vs. Laure, 19
CAR [2s] 977,
In a case where th e accused wa s charged with the crime of slight
physical injuries and wa s sentenced by the trial court to pay
635
a fine of 530.00 and public censure, with subsidiary imprisonment in

case of insolvency, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court is not
authorized to impose subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
(People vs. Garcia, CA-G.R. No. 25764-R, O.G. 4938)
The subsidiary penalty is "the same deprivations as those of

which the principal penalty consists."
If the penalty imposed is imprisonment, the subsidiary penalty
must be imprisonment also. If the penalty imposed is destierro, the
subsidiary penalty mus t be destierro also. If the penalty imposed is
suspension, the subsidiary penalty mus t be suspension also. This is
so, because paragraph No. 4 of Art. 39 state s tha t the convict "shall
continue to suffer the sam e deprivations as those of which th e prin•
cipal penalty
The convict who served subsidiary penalty may still be re•

quired to pay the fine.
It will be noted from paragraph No. 5 of Art. 39, as amended,
that the convict who suffered subsidiary penalt y for nonpaymen t
of the fine is not relieved from paying th e fine should hi s financial
circumstances improve.
Before Art. 39 wa s amended, once a convict suffered subsidiary penalty
for nonpayment of th e fine, he wa s forever relieved from pay• ing the fine.
Subsidiary imprisonment is not imprisonment for debt.

The laws which prohibit imprisonment for debt relate to th e
imprisonment of debtors for liability incurred in th e fulfillment of contracts,
but not to th e case s seekin g th e enforcement of penal statutes tha t provide
for th e paymen t of money as a penalty for th e commission of crime. (U.S. vs.
Cara, 41 Phil. 828 , 834-837)
Thus, the civil liability arising from libel is not a "debt" within
the purview of th e constitutional provision against imprisonment for
nonpayment of "debt." Insofar as said injunction is concerned, "debt"
mean s an obligation to pay a su m of money "arising from contract,"
express or implied. In addition to being part of th e penalty, th e civil
liability in libel arises from a tort or crime; hence, from law. As a
consequence, the subsidiary imprisonment for nonpaymen t of said
636
liability does not violate th e constitutional injunction. vs.

Court of Appeals, No. L-22794, Jan . 16, 1968, 22 SCRA 44, 47)
No subsidiary penalty in the following cases:

When th e penalty imposed is higher than prision correc•
cional. (Par. 3, Art. 39; People vs. Bati, G.R. No. 87429,
Aug. SCRA People vs. Domingo, G.R.
No. 82375 , April vs.
Pablo, Matter No . Feb. SCRA
731 , 732)
2. For failure to pay th e reparation of th e damage caused,
indemnification of th e consequential damages , and th e
costs of th e proceedings.
3. When th e penalty imposed is fine and a penalty not to he
executed by confinement in a penal institution and which
ha s no fixed duration.
Subsidiary imprisonment under special law.

Act No. 1732 of the Philippine Commission provides for the rules
in case the court shall impose a fine as th e whole or as a part of the
punishmen t for any criminal offense made punishable by any special
law.
Rules:
Whe n the court merely imposes a fine, the subsidiary li•
ability shall not exceed 6 months, at the rate of one day of
imprisonment for every
2. In case both fine and imprisonment are imposed, the sub•
sidiary liability shall not exceed 1/3 of the term of impris•
onment, and in no case shall it exceed 1 year.
3. In case the imprisonment is for more than 6 years in addi•
tion to a fine, there shall be no subsidiary imprisonment.
4. When a fine is imposed for violation of any municipal
ordinance or ordinances of the City of Manila, the rate is
one day for every until the fine is satisfied, provided
that the total subsidiary imprisonment does not exceed 6
637
months, if the penalty imposed is fine alone; and not more than
1/3 of the principal penalty, if it is imposed together with
imprisonment.
The provisions of Act No. 1732 are applicable to offenses made
punishable by acts of the Philippine Legislature. (U.S. vs. Esteban,
42 Phil. 1, 2)
Act No. is not applicable to offenses made punishable

by the Act of the United States Congress.
Subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed on th e defendant
convicted of violating Sec. 2 of th e Act of U.S. Congress of Jul y 16,
1918, for failure to pay the fine, because said Act contains no provi•
sion authorizing the imposition of subsidiary penalty. Neithe r Art.
39 of the Revised Penal Code nor Act No. 1732 is applicable. (People
vs. Tan, 51 Phil. 71, 75)
Since the Tax Code does not provide for the imposition of
a subsidiary penalty in case of insolvency, no subsidiary
imprisonment can be imposed.
Where th e defendant is charged wit h havin g failed to pay on or
before May 15 or Augus t 15 of certain years hi s taxes , as required
by paragraphs (b) and (c), Section 51 of th e Tax Code, th e provision
of law relative to th e imposition of subsidiary imprisonmen t in case
of insolvency is Section 35 3 of th e Tax Code. The subsidiary penalty
provided in said section refers only to non-payment of th e fine and
not of the taxe s due. In other words, while th e appealed decision is
correct as regards th e imposition of th e subsidiary imprisonment in
case of failure to pay th e fine, th e sam e is erroneous wit h respect to
the imposition of such subsidiary penalty for nonpaymen t of taxe s
due. (People vs. Balagtas , 105 Phil. 1362-1363
No subsidiary imprisonment for nonpayment of income tax.

As the Internal Revenue Code fails to provide for th e collection
of the income tax in criminal proceedings, conviction for failure or
neglect to pay such ta x does not include pay men t of indemnit y to th e
State in the amount of th e tax not paid, nor can subsidiary imprison•
men t be imposed in case of insolvency. (People vs. Arnault, 92 Phil.
252, 262)
638
Subsidiary imprisonment under special laws.

Persons convicted of violation of special laws are liable to subsidi•
ary imprisonment in case of insolvency in the paymen t of indemnity,
except where th e indemnit y consists in unpaid internal revenue tax.
(People vs. Domalaon, C.A., 56 O.G. 5072 , citing People vs. Moreno,
60 Phil. 712 and People vs. Arnault, 92 Phil. 252)
Subsidiary imprisonment, like accessory penalties, not es•

sential in determining jurisdiction.
The accused wa s prosecuted for violation of the Usur y Law.
The penalty for such violation is a fine of not les s tha n nor more
tha n or imprisonment for not les s tha n 10 days nor more than
6 months, or both, and also th e return of th e entire su m received as
interest from th e party aggrieved, and in case of nonpay men t to suf•
fer subsidiary imprisonment. It wa s argued by th e Solicitor General
that in view of the possible subsidiary imprisonment which mus t be
added to the principal penalty of 6 months , th e justice of the peace
court ha s no jurisdiction in cases involving th e Usur y Laws.
Held: The return of th e usurious interest is a civil liability and is

not a part of th e penalty provided for th e offense. (People vs. Caldito,
72 Phil. 262 , 264-265)
What determines jurisdiction of the Court in criminal cases is
the extent of the penalty which the law imposes for th e crime charged
in the information or complaint. (People vs. Fajardo, 49 Phil. 206,
210)
It is settled rule that subsidiary imprisonment, like accessory
penalties, is not essential in the determination of the criminal juris•
diction of a court. (People vs. Caldito, supra, at 267)
The decision need not state that there should not be any
subsidiary imprisonment when the law forbids it.
Counsel for appellee submits that, view of the principal
penalty imposed, the decision should state that there should not
be any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency." The recom•
mendation is not well taken because Article 39, No. 3, Revised Penal
Code provides that whe n the principal penalty is higher than prision
correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency shall
639
Arts. 40-4 3 PENALTIES IN WHICH OTHER ACCESSORY
PENALTIES ARE INHERENT
be imposed. Hence, it is not necessary for the decision to state

the law expressly forbids. We are aware of the practice of courts
making such statement although unnecessary and find nothing
in the superfluity. However, a judgment which does not include
pronouncement is in accordance with law. (People vs. Rivera, 1 Rep. 38)
Sectio n Three . — Penaltie s i n whic h othe r accessor y penaltie s

ar e inheren t
Art . 40 . Death — Its accessory penalties. — Th e deat h penalty , whe n i

t i s no t execute d b y reaso n o f commutatio n o r pardo n shal l carr y wit h i
t tha t o f perpetua l absolut e disqualificatio n an d tha t o f civi l interdictio n
durin g thirt y year s followin g th e dat e o f sentence , unles s suc h accessor y
penaltie s hav e bee n expressl y remitte d i n th e pardon .
Art . 41 . Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal — Their

accessory penalties. — Th e pena lt ie s of reclusion perpetua and reclusion
temporal shal l carr y wit h the m tha t o f civi l int erdict io n fo r or
du ri n g th e pe rio d o f th e s e n t e n c e a s th e cas e ma y be , an d tha t
o f p e r p et u a l a bso l ut e d i s q u a l i f i ca t io n w h i c h th e o ffende r shal l
suffe r ev e n t h o u g h p a r d o n e d a s t o th e principa l penalty , unles s
th e sa m e shal l ha v e bee n e x p r e s s l y r e mi t t e d i n th e p a r d o n .
Art . 42 . Prision mayor — Its accessory penalties. — Th e penalt y prision

mayor shal l carr y wit h i t tha t o f temporar y absolut e disqualificatio n an d
tha t o f perpetua l specia l disqualificatio n fro m th e righ t o f suffrag e whic h
th e offende r shal l suffe r al• thoug h pardone d a s t o th e principa l penalty ,
unles s th e sam e
shal l hav e bee n expressl y remitte d i n th e pardon .
Art . 43 . Prision correccional — Its accessory penalties. — Th e

penalt y prision correccional shal l ca rr y w it h i t tha t o f s u s p e n •
sio n fro m pu bl i c office , fro m th e rig h t t o fo llo w a p r o f e s s i o n
640
PENALTIES IN WHICH OTHER ACCESSORY Arts. 40-44
o r c a ll i n g , an d t ha t o f p e r p e t u a l s pecia l d i s q u a l if ica t io n fro m

th e rig h t o f s u f f r a g e , i f th e d u r a t i o n o f sai d i m p r i s o n m e n t
shal l e x c e e d e i g h t e e n m o n t h s . Th e o f f e n d e r suffe r th e
d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n p r o v i d e d i n t hi s a r t i c l e a l t h o u g h p a r d o n e d
a s t o th e p r i n c i p a l p e n a l t y , u n l e s s th e sa m e sha l l ha v e b e e n
e x p r e s s l y r e m i t t e d i n th e p a r d o n .
Art . Arresto — Its accessory penalties. — Th e p e n a l t y ar•

resto shal l ca rr y w it h i t tha t o f s u s p e n s i o n o f th e righ t hol d of•
f ic e an d th e rig h t o f su f f ra g e d u r i n g th e ter m o f th e s e n t e n c e .
Outline of accessory penalties inherent in principal penalties:

1. Death , whe n not executed by reason of commutation or
pardon — (1) perpetual absolute disqualification; and (2)
civil interdiction for 30 years, if not expressly remitted in
the pardon.
2. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal — civil in•

terdiction for life or during th e sentence; and (2) perpetual
absolute disqualification, unles s expressly remitted in the
pardon of the principal penalty.
3. Prision mayor — (1) temporary absolute disqualification;
and (2) perpetual special disqualification from suffrage,
unles s expressly remitted in the pardon of the principal
penalty.
4. Prision correccional — (1) suspension from public office,
profession or and (2) perpetual special disqualifica•
tion from suffrage, if the duration of imprisonment exceeds
18 months, unles s expressly remitted in the pardon of the
principal penalty.
Note: There is perpetual special disqualification from suffrage, only
whe n the duration of the imprisonment exceeds 18 months.
5. Arresto — suspension of the right to hold office and the
right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
641
Arts. 40-44 PENALTIES IN WHICH OTHER ACCESSORY
Destierro has no accessory penalty.

The Code does not provide for any accessory penalty for
Is there accessory penalty attached to death penalty?

None, for obvious reasons.
It is only whe n the death penalty is not executed by reason of
commutation or pardon that the accessory penalty provided for in
Art. 40 shall be suffered by th e convict.
"Unless expressly remitted in the pardon."

The accessory penalties mentioned in Articles 40 to 43 mus t
be suffered by the offender, although pardoned as to th e principal
penalties. To be relieved of the accessory penalties, th e sam e mus t
be expressly remitted in the pardon.
Persons who served out the penalty may not have the right
to exercise the right of suffrage.
Absolute pardon for any crime for which one year imprisonment
or more wa s mete d out restores th e prisoner to hi s political rights.
Where the penalty is les s tha n one year, disqualification does not
attach, except whe n the crime committed is one against property.
For illustrations: (1) A wa s prosecuted for physical injuries and con•
demned to suffer 10 month s imprisonment. Though not pardoned, he
is not disqualified. (2) B wa s prosecuted for theft and sentenced to
imprisonment for 10 months . He cannot vote unles s he is pardoned.
(3) C wa s prosecuted and sentenced to 4 years for physical injuries, or estafa.
C ha s to be pardoned if he is to exercise th e right of suffrage. The nature of th
e crime is immaterial whe n th e penalty imposed is one year imprisonment or
more. (Pendon vs. Diasnes , 91 Phil. 848, explaining paragraphs a and b of
Section 99 of Rep. Act No. 180, as amended by Rep. Act No. 599)
Accessory penalties need not be expressly imposed; they

are deemed imposed.
The accessory penalties are understood to be alway s imposed upon the
offender by the mere fact that th e law fixes a certain penalty for a given crime.
642
CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE Art. 45
Article 73 provides tha t wheneve r th e courts shall impose a penalty

which, by provision of law, carries with it other penalties, according to th e
provisions of Articles 40, 41 , 42 , 43 , 44, and 45 of this Code, it mus t be
understood tha t th e accessory penalties are also imposed upon th e convict.
Thus, whe n th e law provides tha t those guilty of homicide shall
be punished by reclusion temporal, it is understood that it includes
civil interdiction during th e period of th e sentence and perpetual
absolute disqualification.
Accessory penalties do not determine jurisdiction.

The accused wa s charged with estafa, and wa s sentenced to arresto
mayor wit h th e accessory penalty of suspension from public office and the
right of suffrage during th e term of his sentence by the justice of the peace
court.
The accused raised th e question of jurisdiction of the justice of th e
peace court.
Held: The justice of th e peace court ha s jurisdiction. The acces•
sory penalties do not affect th e jurisdiction of th e court in which the
information is filed, because the y do not modify, or alter the nature
of the penalty provided by th e law. What determines jurisdiction in
criminal cases is th e exten t of the principal penalty which the law
imposes for the crime charged in the information or complaint. (People
vs. Fajardo, supra; People vs. Caldito, supra)
Note: Under Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 7691 , the ha s exclusive

original jurisdiction over offenses punishable with im•
prisonment not exceeding 6 years irrespective of the
amount of the fine, and regardless of other imposable
accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability
arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irre•
spective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof.
Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture the proceeds or instruments

of the crime. — Ev er y p e n a l t y i m p o s e d fo r th e c o m m i s s i o n of a
f elo n y shal l carr y w it h i t th e f o rf e itur e o f th e p r o c e ed s o f th e
cri m e an d th e i n s t r u m e n t s o r to ol s w it h w h i c h i t wa s com •
mi tt ed .
643
Art. 45 CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE
Suc h p r o c e e d s an d i n s t r u m e n t s o r to o l s sha l l b e confis •

ca t e d an d fo rfe it e d i n favo r o f th e G o v e r n m e n t , u n l e s s the y
b e th e p r o p e r t y o f a t hir d p e r s o n no t lia bl e fo r th e offense ,
bu t tho s e a r t ic l e s w h i c h ar e no t subj ec t o f la w fu l c o m m e r c e
sha l l b e d e s t r o y e d .
Outline of the provision of this article.

Every penalty imposed carries with it th e forfeiture of th e
proceeds of th e crime and th e instrument s or tools used in th e
2. The proceeds and instrument s or tools of th e crime are
confiscated and forfeited in favor of th e Government.
3. Property of a third person not liable for th e offense, is not
subject to confiscation and forfeiture.
4. Property not subject of lawful commerce (whether it belongs
to th e accused or to third person) shall be destroyed.
No forfeiture where there is no criminal case.

Where the slot machine s wer e seized under a search warrant
and there is no criminal case as ye t agains t their operator for viola•
tion of th e gambling law, and there is only a civil case brought by th e
operator to enjoin th e municipal officials from bannin g th e operation
of the slot machines, th e court cannot order th e destruction of th e
machines as not subject of lawful commerce. (Philips vs. Municipal
Mayor, 105 Phil. 1344 No. Ma y 30, 1959)
The ruling is based on th e phrase penalty imposed." A
penalty cannot be imposed unles s there is a criminal case filed, th e
case is tried, and th e accused is convicted.
The forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of th e crime cannot be
ordered if the accused is acquitted, because no penalty is imposed.
Courts cannot order the confiscation of property belonging

to a third person if the latter is not indicted.
Under Article 45 of th e Revised Pena l Code, which authorizes the
confiscation and forfeiture of th e proceeds of th e crime and th e
644
instrument s or tools wit h which it wa s committed except whe n they

are property of a third person not liable for the the court
cannot order the forfeiture of goods th e owner of which is not indicted
although there is sufficient ground to hold hi m guilty of the acts for
which the accused ha s bee n convicted. (People vs. Delgado, C.A., 64
O.G. 785)
Where the smuggle d goods are owned by a third person, they cannot be
ordered forfeited as instrumen t of th e crime because Ar• ticle 45 of the
Revised Pena l Code authorizes th e confiscation and forfeiture of th e proceeds
of th e crime and th e instrumen t or tools with which it wa s committed except
whe n the y are "the property of a third person not liable for th e offense,
although th e owner could have been convicted if he ha d bee n indicted wit h
th e accused." (People vs. Delgado, 9 CAR [2s], 960 , 979-980)
Third party ownership wa s considered established under the
following set of facts: tha t th e car in question wa s registered in the
nam e of th e third party, who, in th e absence of strong evidence to
th e contrary, mus t be considered as th e lawful owner thereof; that
th e only basis in concluding tha t th e said car belongs to th e accused
were th e latter's statement s during th e trial of th e criminal case to
that effect; tha t th e said statement s wer e not, however, intended to
be, nor could constitute, a claim of ownership over th e car adverse to
his mother, wh o is th e third party, but were mad e simply in answer
to questions propounded in court for th e sole purpose of establishing
the identity of th e defendant who furnished th e car used by the ap•
pellants in th e commission of th e crime; tha t th e chattel mortgage on
the car and its assignmen t in favor of th e th e assignee of
the chattel mortgage, were made several month s before th e date of
the commission of the crimes charged, which circumstance forecloses
the possibility of collusion to prevent th e State from confiscating the
car. (People vs. Jose, No. L-28232, Feb. 6, 1971, 37 SCRA 450, 481)
Instruments of the crime belonging to innocent third person

may be recovered.
U.S. vs. Bruhez
(28 Phil. 305)
Facts: Lorenzo Uy was an employee and during the absence of
his employer and without the latter's knowledge, Lorenzo Uy drew out
645
a check for against the bank account of the employer and used
the money consisting of seven P500 bills to bribe Bruhez.
Held: Where the money used to bribe a customs official to permit
the illegal importation of opium belongs to an innocent third party, it
should not be confiscated. The person who owns the money used in the
commission of the crime has a right to intervene in the proceeding in the
court having jurisdiction of the offense for the purpose of determining
his rights in the premises.
Confiscation can be ordered only if the property is submitted

in evidence or placed at the disposal of the court.
U.S. vs. Filart
(30 Phil. 80)
Facts: The accused planned to sell 450 tickets, each representing a

chance on an automobile to be given as a prize to the one who would
draw the lucky number. The trial court ordered the confiscation of the
automobile and the money obtained from the sale of the tickets which
were not before the court or in the possession of any of the parties to the
action at the time the order of confiscation was made.
Held: Where it appears that in a prosecution for violation of the
Gambling Law, the automobile as well as the money used in commit•
ting such violation was not in the possession of the court, or of any
of the parties to the action, the court has no jurisdiction to order the
confiscation of the property.
Articles which are forfeited, when the order of is al•

ready cannot be returned even in case of an acquittal.
Com. of Customs vs. Encarnacion

(95 Phil. 439)
Facts: A crew member of the PAL, coming from Madrid, brought

with him certain dutiable articles. As they were not declared, the collec•
tor of Customs decreed that said articles be forfeited to the Government.
The order of forfeiture became final. Said crew member was charged
with violation of the Revised Administrative Code for his failure to
declare dutiable articles, but after trial, he was acquitted on the ground
of insufficiency of evidence, the Court ordering at the same time the
Bureau of Customs to return to him said articles upon prior payment
of the customs duties due thereon.
646
Held: The respondent judge erred in ordering the release of the

dutiable articles, because said articles already ceased to belong to the
crew member, as they had been forfeited to the Government.
Confiscation and forfeiture are additional penalties.

After several defendants ha d pleaded guilty to a charge of gam•
bling, the court sentenced each of the m to pay a fine. Immediately after
the sentence wa s read to them , the y paid th e fine. Subsequently, the
fiscal discovered tha t a certain su m of mone y use d by th e defendants
in gambling had not bee n ordered confiscated. He moved th e court to
modify the judg men t by issuin g an order confiscating the money. Can
th e court properly issu e suc h order? No, because the confiscation of
th e money is an additional penalty and as th e sentence ha s become
final, th e court cannot modify, alter or change tha t sentence. (U.S.
vs. Hart, 24 Phil. 578, 581-582)
This Court ha s held in People vs. Alejandro Velasco, 100

Phil. 357, tha t wher e th e penalty imposed did not include the con•
fiscation of th e dollars involved, th e confiscation or forfeiture of the
said dollars as is sought in th e Government's appeal, would be an
additional penalty and would amoun t to an increase of th e penalty
already imposed, thereby placing th e accused in double jeopardy. And
under Rule (now Rule 122), Section 2, of th e Rules of Court, the
Government cannot appeal in a criminal case if th e defendant would
be placed thereby in double jeopardy. (People vs. Sanchez, 101 Phil.
745, 747-748)
When the accused has appealed, confiscation and forfeiture

not ordered by the trial court, may be imposed by the
late court.
Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code (providing for the confiscation
or forfeiture of th e instruments or tools employed in the commission
of a crime) ha s repeatedly been applied to crimes penalized by special
laws, in default of a contrary mandate therein. While this Court in
the case People vs. 53 O.G. and People vs. Sanchez, supra,
refused to entertain the Government's appeal from the refusal of the
Court to decree such a forfeiture, it did so, not because Art. 45 of the
Penal Code did not apply but exclusively on the ground that in a
criminal case wherein the accused had not appealed, no appeal can be
interposed by the Government with a view to increasing the penalty
647
imposed by the Court below; and confiscation being an additional

penalty, the accused would be placed twice in jeopardy of punishment
for the same offense, should the Government's appeal be entertained.
But in the present case, the accused's own appeal ha s removed all bars
to the review and correction of the penalty imposed by the court below,
even if an increase thereof should be th e result. Judgmen t modified
by ordering that th e unlicensed money found in th e possession of
the appellant be declared forfeited to th e Government. (People vs.
Exconde, 101 Phil. 1125, 1133-1134)
Forfeiture and confiscation of instrument s and proceeds of the offense
are accessory penalties. Are the y not deemed imposed?
Chapter Four
APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
S e c t i o n One . — R u l e s fo r th e a p p l i c a t i o n o f p e n a l t i e s t o
th e p e r s o n s c r i m i n a l l y lia b l e fo r th e
g r a d u a t i o n o f th e s a me .
Art . 46 . Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general. — Th e

penalt y prescribe d b y fo r th e c o m m i s s i o n o f a felo n y shal l
b e i m p o s e d u p o n th e p r i n c i p a l s i n th e c o m m i s s i o n o f s uc h
f elo ny .
Wheneve r th e la w prescribe s a penalt y fo r a felon y i n genera l terms
, i t shal l b e understoo d a s applicabl e t o th e consummate d felony .
Penalty prescribed in general terms — general rule.

The penalty prescribed by law in general terms shall be im•
posed:
Upon th e principals.
2. For consummated felony.
In Art. 249, for instance, the penalty of reclusion temporal is provided
for the crime of homicide. That penalty is intended for the principal in a
consummated homicide.
Exception — when the law fixes a penalty for frustrated or

attempted felony.
The exception is whe n the penalty to be imposed upon the prin• cipal
in frustrated or attempted felony is fixed by law.
649
Art. 47 WHEN DEATH PENALTY NOT TO BE IMPOSED
Whenever it is believed that the penalty lower by one or two

degrees corresponding to said acts of execution is not in proportion
to the wrong done, the law fixes a distinct penalty for the principal
in frustrated or attempted felony.
Example: The penalty prescribed by the Code for robbery
with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death (Art.
294, No. but the penalty to be imposed upon the
offender in case the homicide wa s consummated
but the robbery wa s attempted or frustrated is not
two degrees or one degree lower tha n said penalty,
but reclusion temporal in its maximu m period to
reclusion perpetua as prescribed in Art. 297.
Graduation of penalties by degrees or by periods.

The graduation of penalties by degrees refers to stages of ex•
ecution (consummated, frustrated or attempted) and to the degree
of the criminal participation of th e offender (whether as principal,
accomplice, or accessory).
Th e divisio n of a divisibl e penalt y int o thre e periods , as maximum,
mediu m and minimum , refers to th e proper period of the penalty which
should be imposed whe n aggravating or mitigating circumstances attend the
Art . 47 . In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed;

Automatic review of death penalty cases. — Th e d e a t h p e n a l t y
sha l l b e i m p o s e d i n al l c a s e s i n w h i c h i t mu s t b e i m p o s e d
u n d e r e x i s t i n g la w s , e x c e p t w h e n th e g u i l t y p e r s o n i s b e l o w
y e a r s o f ag e a t th e t im e o f th e c o m m i s s i o n o f th e crim e o r i s
mo r e t h a n s e v e n t y y e a r s o f ag e o r w h e n u p o n a p p e a l
o r a u t o m a t i c r e v i e w o f th e ca s e b y th e S u p r e m e Co urt , th e
r e q u i r e d ma j o r i t y v o t e i s no t o b t a i n e d fo r th e i m p o s i t i o n o f
th e d e a t h p e n a l t y , i n w h i c h c a s e s th e p e n a l t y shal l b e reclusion
perpetua.
I n al l c a s e s w h e r e th e d e a t h p e n a l t y i s i m p o s e d b y th e
tria l co u rt , th e r e c o r d s sha l l b e f o r w a r d e d t o th e S u p r e m e
Co ur t fo r a u t o m a t i c r e v i e w a n d j u d g m e n t b y th e c o u r t e n
banc, w i t h i n t w e n t y (20) da y s bu t no t e a r l i e r tha n fiftee n (15)
650
WHEN DEATH PENALTY NOT TO BE IMPOSED Art. 47
da y s afte r p r o m u l g a t i o n o f th e j u d g m e n t o r n o ti c e o f denia l
o f an y mo t i o n fo r ne w tria l o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Th e t r a n sc r i p t
sha l l als o b e f o r w a r d e d w i t h i n te n da y s afte r th e filin g
t h e r eo f by th e s t e n o g r a p h i c r e p o r t e r . (As amended by No.
7659)
Majority vote of the Supreme Court is required for the imposi•

tion of the death penalty.
Since the Supreme Court is composed of 15 members (Sec. 4[1],
Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution), the vote of eight (8) members is required
to impose the death penalty.
Court of Appeals to Review Death Penalty Cases.

U p unti l now, th e Suprem e Court ha s a ssume d th e direct
appellate review over all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed
is death , reclusion perpetua or life i mp riso n men t (or lower but
involving offenses committed on th e sam e or arising out of
th e sam e occurrence tha t gave rise to the more serious offense for
which th e penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment
is imposed).
It mus t be stressed, however, tha t the constitutional provision

is not preclusive in character, and it does not necessarily prevent
the Court, in th e exercise of its rule-making power, from adding an
intermediate appeal or review in favor of th e accused.
In passing, during th e deliberations among the members of the
Court, there ha s been a marked absence of unanimity on the crucial
point of guilt or innocent of herein appellant. Some are convinced
that the evidence would appear to be sufficient to convict; some would
accept the recommendation of acquittal from the Solicitor General
on the ground of inadequate proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Indeed, the occasion best demonstrates the typical dilemma, the
determination and appreciation of primarily factual matters, which
the Supreme Court ha s had to face with in automatic review cases;
yet, it is the Court of Appeals that ha s aptly been given the direct
mandate to review factual issues.
While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by
the Supreme Court of cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion
651
perpetua, life impriso nment , or death , nowhere , however , ha s

it proscribed an inter mediat e review. If only to ensur e utmos t
circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment is imposed, th e Court now deem s it wis e and
compelling to provide in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals
before the case is elevated to th e Supreme Court. Where life and
liberty are at stake, all possible avenue s to determine hi s guilt or
innocence must be accorded an and no care in the evaluation
of the facts can ever be overdone. A prior determination by th e Court
of Appeals on, particularly, th e factual issues , would minimiz e the
possibility of an error of judgment . If th e Court of Appeals should
affirm the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
it could the n render judg men t imposin g th e corresponding penalty
as th e circumstances so warrant, refrain from enterin g judg men t
and elevat e th e entire records of th e case to th e Suprem e Court for
the its final disposition. (People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos . 147678-87 ,
Jul y 7, 2004)
The 1987 Constitution merely suspended the imposition of

the death penalty.
Section 19(1), Article III of th e 1987 Constitutio n provides
that: fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuma n punish men t inflicted. Neithe r shal l th e deat h penalt y b e
imposed, unless , for compelling reason s involving heinou s crimes,
the Congress hereafter provides for it. An y deat h penalt y already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion A readin g of said
Section will readily sho w tha t ther e is really nothin g therei n whic h
expressl y declares th e abolition of th e deat h penalty . Th e 1987
Constitution merel y suspende d th e imposition of th e deat h penalty.
(People vs. G.R. Nos . 38969-70 , Feb. SCRA 107,
120, 121)
R.A. No. restored the death penalty while R.A. No. 9346
prohibited the imposition of the death penalty.
Republic Act No. 7659 which took effect on 31 December 1993,
restored the death penalty for certain heinous crimes. Republic Act
No. 9346 which wa s enacted on Jun e 24, 2006 prohibited th e impo•
sition of the death penalty, and provided for th e imposition of th e
penalty reclusion perpetua in lieu of death.
652
Death penalty is not imposed in the following cases:

When the guilty person is below 18 years of age at the time of the
2. When th e guilty person is more tha n 70 years of age.
3. Whe n upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the
Supreme Court, the vote of eight members is not obtained
for th e imposition of th e death penalty.
Death penalty shall not be imposed when guilty person is

over 70 years.
At the tim e th e trial court rendered its decision on March
1967, Manosca wa s 64 years old. He should now be 74. Article 47 of
the Revised Pena l Code prohibits the imposition of th e death penalty
whe n th e guilty person is more tha n sevent y years of age. (People vs.
Alcantara, No. Nov. 21 SCRA 906, 913-914)
Exceptional cases in which the death penalty was not im•

posed.
Considering th e circumstances under which the offense in
question wa s perpetrated in th e light of the deplorable con•
ditions existing in the national penitentiary which had been
previously take n cognizance of by this Court, imposition of
the penalty of death is believed unwarranted. (People vs.
Cruz, No. L-46397, May SCRA
citing People vs. Santos, 14 SCRA 4702 and People
vs. Garcia, 96 SCRA 497)
(2) Appellant has already been detained for almost eight years
now and is presently confined at the National Peniten•
tiary awaiting the outcome of our review of the judgment
rendered by the trial court. The facts of the case tend to
show that the crime wa s not the result of any deliberate
and well-formed nefarious conspiracy of a criminal group.
It wa s rather a crime clumsily conceived on the spur of
the moment. Appellant obviously did not fully realize the
gravity of the crime he and his companions were embarking
upon. The extreme penalty of death imposed on appellant is
inappropriate. Under the given circumstances, the penalty
653
that should be imposed should be reduced to life imprison• ment.

(People vs. Marcos, No. L-65048, Jan. 9, 1987, 147 SCRA 204,
217)
What is the justification for death penalty?

Social defense and exemplarity justify the penalty of death.
ha s proved himself to be a dangerous enem y of society. The
death penalty imposed upon hi m is a warning to others. (People vs.
Carillo, 85 Phil.
Death penalty not cruel and unusual.

The death penalty, as such, is not excessive, unjust or cruel,
within the meanin g of tha t word in th e Constitution. Punish ment s
are cruel whe n the y involve torture or lingering death. Cruel punish•
men t implies somethin g inhuma n and barbarous, so mething more
than th e mere extinguishmen t of life. (People vs. Marcos, supra, at
216, citing People vs. SCRA 688)
Rep. Act No. 296 can be given retroactive effect.

Republic Act No. 296, providing tha t eight justices mus t concur in the
imposition of death penalty is retroactive.
Rep. Act No. 296 is procedural and not substantive, and tha t it
is applicable to cases pending in th e courts at th e time of the approval
of said Act and to crimes committed before its approval. (People vs.
Jame s Young, 83 Phil. 702)
In what crimes is death penalty imposed?

In (1) treason, (2) piracy, (3) qualified piracy, (4) qualified bribery,
(5) parricide, (6) murder, (7) infanticide, (8) kidnapping and serious
illegal detention, (9) robbery wit h homicide, (10) destructive arson,
rape wit h homicide, plunder, certain violations of th e
Dangerous Drugs Act, and
"Death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must

be imposed under existing law."
The accused, without any provocation, hacked to death three
girls in their house. The court refused to impose th e death penalty,
654
believing and statin g tha t "a quick death would see m to be too swee t
a medicine for hi m and he should be put to death slowly but
and imposed life imprisonment at hard labor, without hope whatso•
ever of any pardon or reprieve.
Is the pronouncement of th e court in accordance wit h law?
No, because as long as th e death penalty remains in the statute
books, it is th e duty of th e judicial officers to respect and apply the
law regardless of their private opinion. (People vs. 88 Phil.
35, 43)
The trial court must require the prosecution to present

evidence, despite plea of guilty when the crime charged is
punished with death.
The fact tha t there were no stenographic notes take n of the
proceedings and that th e lower court made only a brief reference to
the plea of guilty in the decision did not speak well of the trial court's
conduct in so serious a matter involving a huma n life. The essence of
judicial review in capital offenses is that while society allows violent
retribution for heinous crimes committed against it, it always must
make certain that the blood of the innocent is not spilled, or that the
guilty are not made to suffer more tha n their jus t measure of the
punishment and retribution. Thus, a sentence of death is valid only
if it is susceptible of a fair and reasonable examination by this court.
This, however, is impossible if no evidence of guilt wa s taken after a
plea of guilty. (People vs. Busa, No. L-32047, Jun e 51 SCRA
Death penalty is not imposed in view of certain circum•

stances.
Precisely because of the limited nature of his schooling and of
the effect upon his general outlook, of the unenlightened environment
prevailing in the community of Ilongots to which he belongs, as well
as of the circumstance that the deceased Fontanilla had
been a former municipal mayor, whose act in clearing and working
on a land claimed by the Ilongots was seemingly regarded by these
non-Christians as one of oppression and abuse of authority, the Court
feels that Santos should not be dealt with the severity due to persons
otherwise circumstanced. (People vs. Santos, Nos. Feb.
28, 1967, 19 SCRA 445, 454)
655
Art. 48 PENALTY FOR COMPLEX CRIMES
Where the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed, in lieu of

the death penalty, there is a need to perfect an appeal.
Since the death penalty's imposition is now prohibited, there
is a need to perfect an appeal, if appeal is desired, from a judgment
of conviction for an offense where the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua in lieu of the death penalty. (People vs. Salome, G.R. No.
169077, Aug. 31 , 2006)
The records of all cases imposing the penalty of death, reclu•

sion perpetua or life imprisonment shall be forwarded by the
Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court for review.
Pursuant to the ruling of the Supreme Court in People vs. Mateo,
G.R. Nos. 147678-87, Jul y 7, 2004 , if the Court of Appeals should af•
firm the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, it
could then render judg men t imposing th e corresponding penalty as
the circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering judgmen t and
elevate the entire records of th e case to th e Supreme Court for its
final disposition.
Art . 48 . Penalty for complex crimes. — W h e n a s i n g l e ac t

c o n s t i t u t e s tw o o r mo r e g rav e o r les s g ra v e fe lo n ie s , o r w h e n
a n o ffens e i s a n e c e s s a r y me a n s fo r c o m m i t t i n g th e other , th e
p e n a l t y fo r th e mo s t s e r i o u s cri m e sha l l b e i mp o s e d , th e sa m e
to be a p p l i e d in it s m a x i m u m p e r i o d . (As amended by Act No.
4000.)
At least two crimes must be committed.

Art. 48 requires th e commissio n of at leas t tw o crimes. Bu t
th e two or more grave or less grave felonies mus t be th e result of a
single act, or an offense mus t be a necessary means for committing
the other.
A complex crime is only one crime.

In complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually
committed, they constitute only one crime in th e eye s of the law as
well as in the conscience of th e offender. The offender ha s only one
656
PENALTY FOR COMPLEX CRIMES Art. 48
criminal intent. Eve n in the case where an offense is a necessary

mean s for committing th e other, th e evil intent of the offender is only
one. (People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515) Hence, there is only one
penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime.
Two kinds of complex crimes:

1. Whe n a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies.
When an offense is a necessary mean s for committing th e

other.
The first is otherwise know n as compound crime. The second is
the complex crime proper.
But ordinarily, both are referred to as complex
"When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less

grave felonies."
Requisites:
1. That only a single act is performed by the offender.
That the single act produces two or more grave felonies,
or (2) one or more grave and one or more less grave felonies,
or (3) two or more less grave felonies.
The single act of throwing a hand grenade producing murder

and multiple attempted murders.
Guillen, by a single act of throwing a highly explosive hand grenade at
President Roxas resulting in the death of another person, committed several
grave felonies, namely:
(1) murder, of which Simeon Varela wa s the victim; and
multiple attempted of which President Roxas and
four others were the injured parties. (People vs. Guillen,
85 Phil. 307, 318)
Murder is committed whe n a person is killed by means of ex•
plosion. (Art. 248) The penalty for the crime committed is death, the
maximum of the penalty for murder, which is the graver offense.
The penalty for each of the attempted murder is two degrees lower,
657
which is still an afflictive penalty. The attempted murders are grave felonies.
Placing a time bomb in a plane, which caused it to explode in
mid-air, killing 13 persons therein, constitutes a complex crime of
multiple murder and destruction of property. (People vs. Largo, 99
Phil. 1061-1062
Several shots from Thompson sub-machine gun causing

several deaths, although caused by a single act of pressing
the trigger, are considered several acts.
The accused fired his Thompson sub-machine gun at several persons.
The first burst of shots hit three persons. The accused let loose a second burst
of shots wounding two others.
Held: For each death caused or physical injuries inflicted upon
the victims corresponds a distinct and separate shot fired by th e
accused, who thus made himself criminally liable for as man y offenses
as those resulting from every single act tha t produced the same.
(People vs. C.A., 45 O.G. 4542)
Although each burst of shots wa s caused by one single act of
pressing th e trigger of the sub-machine gun, in view of its special
mechanism the person firing it ha s only to keep pressing th e trigger
with hi s finger and it would fire continually. Hence, it is not the act
of pressing the trigger which should be considered as producing the
several felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced
them.
No single act in the following cases.

Bu t whe n the acts are wholly different, not only in themselves ,
but also because the y are directed against two different persons, as
whe n one fires hi s revolver twice in succession, killing one person
and wounding another (U.S. vs. Ferrer, 1 Phil. 56), or whe n two per•
sons are killed one after the other, by different acts, although thes e
two killings were the result of a single criminal impulse (People vs.
47 Phil. 1), th e different acts mus t be considered as distinct
crimes.
The eight killings and the attempted murder were perpetrated by mean s
of different acts. Hence, the y cannot be regarded as consti-
658
tuting a complex crime under Article 48 of th e Revised Penal Code

which refers to cases where "a single act constitutes two or more grave
felonies, or whe n an offense is a necessary mean s for committing the
(People vs. Toling, No. L-27097, Jan . 17, 1975, 62 SCRA 17,
34)
The infliction of th e four fatal gunshot wound s on Siyang and of
th e wound in the palm of the mayor's right hand wa s not the result
of a single act. The injuries were th e consequences of two volleys of
gunshots. Hence, th e assault s on Siyan g and th e mayor cannot be
categorized as a complex crime. (People vs. Nos.
Jan. 21 , 1974, 55 SCRA 153, 176)
Althoug h severa l independen t act s wer e performed b y th e
accused in firing separat e shot s from thei r individua l firearms,
it wa s not possible to determin e wh o amon g the m actually killed
victim Rolando Tugadi. Moreover, there is no evidence tha t accused-
appellants intende d to fire at eac h and every one of th e victims
separatel y and distinctl y from eac h other. On th e contrary, th e
evidence clearly show s a singl e criminal impuls e to kill Marlon
Tugad's group as a whole. Thus, one of accused-appellants exclaimed
in frustration after th e ambush: "My gosh, we were not able to kill all
of them." Where a conspiracy animate s several persons wit h a single
purpose, their individual acts done in pursuance of tha t purpose
are looked upon as a single act, th e act of execution, giving rise to a
single complex offense. (People vs . Sanidad, G.R. No. 146099, April
"Two or more grave or less grave felonies."

In the case of a compound crime, the offenses involved should
be either both grave or both less grave, or one of them a grave felony
and the other less grave.
Light felonies produced by the same act should be treated

and punished as separate offenses or may be absorbed by
the grave felony.
Several light felonies resulting from one single act — not
complex.
Thus, in a collision between two automobiles driven
in a careless and negligent manner, resulting in the slight
659
physical injuries of th e passenger s and light felony of

damage to property, there is no complex because the
crime of slight physical injuries, as well as that of damage
to property, is a light felony. (People vs. 50 Phil.
1001, 1002)
In this case, there are as many crimes as there are persons
injured with light physical injuries and as many penalties as there
are light felonies committed, even if they are produced by a single
act of the offender.
2. When the crime is committed by force or violence, slight physical
injuries are absorbed.
a. Where the person in authority or his agent, who wa s
attacked while in th e performance of his duty, suf•
fered slight physical injuries only, th e crime of slight
physical injuries is absorbed in th e crime of direct
assault. (Art. 148) This is th e ruling in th e cases of
People vs. Benitez, 73 Phil. People vs.
57 Phil. 614.
b. Whe n in th e co mmissio n of rape, sligh t physical
injuries are inflicted on the girl's genital organ, the
crime of slight physical injuries is absorbed in the
crime of rape. (People vs. Apiado, 53 Phil. 325, 327)
Th e reaso n for th e ruling s is tha t th e slight
physical injuries are th e necessary consequence of
the force or violence inherent in the crimes of direct
assaul t and rape.
Examples of compound crime:

(a) The single act of in firing a shot, th e same bullet
causing the death of two persons wh o were standing on the
sam e line of the direction of th e bullet. (People vs. Pama,
C.A., 44 O.G. 3339)
Homicide, which is th e unlawful killing of a person,
is punishable by reclusion temporal, an afflictive penalty.
Hence, in killing two persons, Pam a committed two homi•
cides, which are grave felonies. (See Art. 9) Since the y
were the result of one single act of firing a shot, a complex
crime wa s
660
(b) The act of raping a girl, causing her physical injuries which
required medical attention for about twent y days. (U.S.
vs. 34 Phil. 690) This is a complex crime of rape
with les s serious physical injuries. (Arts. 266-A and 265
in relation to Art. 48) The Supreme Court considered the
crime of less serious physical injuries (the laceration of the
genital parts which required medical attendance for about
twent y days) as necessary to th e commission of the crime
of rape.
Wit h du e respect , i t i s believe d tha t ther e bein g

onl y on e act of forcible sexua l interco urs e whic h pro•
duced th e tw o crimes , th e accuse d co mmitte d a com•
poun d crime .
Less serious physical injuries is a less grave felony, because it
is punishable by arresto mayor, a correctional penalty. (See Art. 9)
The Court of Appeals ha s a different ruling:
The les s serious physical injuries inflicted on that
complainant cannot be mad e to complex th e offense of
attempted rape, because thes e injuries were th e result of
the force exerted by the appellant to subdue her and force
her to submit to his vile desires. (People vs. De la Cruz,
C.A., 61 O.G. 5384)
(c) After a justice of the peace had read to the accused the
sentenc e of conviction , th e latte r took a dagge r and
stabbed said justice of the peace in th e back, th e wound
incapacitating him for ordinary work for more than 30
days. This is a complex crime of direct assault with serious
physical injuries, th e single act of stabbing the justice of
the peace constituting the two less grave felonies of direct
assault and serious physical injuries. (U.S. vs. Montiel, 9
Phil. 162, 167-168)
(d) Where the victim wa s killed while discharging his duty as
barangay captain to protect life and property and enforce
law and order in his barrio, the crime is a complex crime
of homicide with assault upon a person in authority. (G.R.
No. 57415, Dec. 15, 1989, 180 SCRA 102, 107)
661
(e) Where the stabbing and killing of the victim which caused likewis e
th e deat h of th e fetus arose from th e single criminal intent of
killing the victim, as shown by accused's pursuit of the victim
after she wa s able to escape, the crime committed is the complex
crime of murder with abortion. (People vs. Lopez, G.R. No.
136861, Nov. 15, 2000)
Rape with homicide is a special complex crime not covered

by Art. 48.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed,
or when the rape is frustrated or attempted and a homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion thereof, Art. 266-B shall apply.
Therefore, the ruling in th e case of People vs. Matela, 58 Phil.
that raping a girl and killing her afterwards constitute two
distinct offenses which mus t be punished separately, is no longer
controlling.
Likewise, the ruling in the case of People vs. Acosta, 60 Phil.
158, that raping a girl transmitting to her a venereal disease which
caused her death or tha t killing the victim of rape whe n she tried to
shout, People vs. Yu, 1 SCRA 199, is a complex crime of rape with
homicide under Art. 48, is no longer controlling.
Under Art. 266-B, the facts in both cases would constitute a special
complex crime of rape with homicide punished wit h death.
When in obedience to an order several accused simultane•

ously shot many persons, without evidence how many each
killed, there is only a single offense, there being a single
criminal impulse.
Lawas ordered the Moros to be tied in order to be brought to
another place. When one of the guards approached Datu Lomangcolob,
the latter refused, thereupon, Lawa s fired his revolver at him and or•
dered the guards to fire; the guards following instructions fired at th e
Moros including those who tried to escape. After a short time, Lawa s
ordered his me n to "cease fire" and the firing stopped. The evidence
positively shows tha t the killing wa s the result of a single impulse,
which wa s induced by th e order of th e leader to fire, and continued
with the intention to comply therewith, as the firing stopped as soon
662
as the leader gave the order to tha t effect. There wa s no intent on

th e part of the appellants to fire at each and everyone of the victims
separately and distinctly from each other. The Supreme Court held
"that if the act or acts complained of resulted from a single criminal
impulse, it constitutes a single offense." The Court continued by stat•
ing, "it may also be added tha t there is absolutely no evidence as to
th e number of persons killed by each and every one of the appellants,
so even if we were induced to hold each appellant responsible for each
and every death caused by him, it is impossible to carry tha t desire
into effect as it is impossible to ascertain the individual deaths caused
by each and everyone. We are, therefore, forced to find th e appellants
guilty of only one offense of multiple homicide for which the penalty
to be imposed should be in th e maximu m period." (People vs. Lawas,
G.R. Jun e 30, 1955, 97 Phil. 975
The ruling in the Lawas case applies only when there is no evidence
at all to show the number of persons killed by each of several defend•
ants.
The ruling in th e Lawas case that each of the appellants wa s

guilty only of th e complex crime of homicide, notwithstanding the
fact that about fifty persons were killed by th e appellants who fired
at them with their gun s a number of shots, because th e killings were
the result of a single impulse, does not apply whe n the appellant
alone killed all the six victims, one after another, wit h one shot each.
(People vs. 109 Phil. 607, 612)
People vs. Abella, No. L-32205, Aug. 31 , 1979, 93 SCRA 25,

76 O.G. 1091, sixteen members of the OXO gang, who were prison•
ers occupying three small cells on one side of the jailhouse, were able
to break into th e big cell opposite theirs and, in that big cell, killed
fourteen inmates who were members of th e Sigue-Sigue gang.
The fiscal and the trial court treated the fourteen killings and
injuries inflicted on the three other victims as a complex crime of
multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder, the court imposing
one penalty of death on all of the accused.
In sustaining the trial court, the Supreme Court said:
"In the De Los Santos case, (supra), which involved two riots
on two successive days in the national penitentiary wherein nine
prisoners were killed (five on the first day and four on the second
663
day), the fourteen members of the gang who took part

in the killing were convicted of multiple murder (a complex crime)
and not of nine separate x x x."
"The ruling in the De Los Santos case is predicated on the theory
that for the attainmen t of a single purpose (underscoring
supplied) which constitutes an offense, various acts are executed,
such acts mus t be considered only as one a complex crime
(People vs. 66 Phil. 682, 687; See also People vs. Cu Unjieng,
61 Phil. 236, 302 and 906) where the falsification of one hundred
twenty eight warehouse receipts during the period from November
30 to July 6, 1931, which enabled the accused to swindle th e bank
in the su m of one million four hundred thousand pesos wa s treated
as only one complex crime of estafa through multiple falsification of
mercantile documents and only one penalty wa s imposed." (See also
People vs. Garcia, No. March 13, 1980, 96 SCRA 497, 504,
which applied the sam e "same motive" rule.)
Note: The "single-criminal-impulse," "same motive" or th e

"single-purpose" theory ha s no legal basis , for Article
48 speaks of "a single act." However, th e theory is ac•
ceptable whe n it is not certain who amon g th e accused
killed or injured each of th e several victims.
When it is within the scope of possibility that the two victims

were killed by one and the same missile.
When there is no evidence as to ho w man y wound s th e victims
received and it is withi n th e scope of possibility tha t the y were killed
by one and th e sam e missil e as they were riding astride th e sam e
carabao, and the y were shot by th e accused in tha t position, in th e
absence of a showing tha t th e victims died from more tha n one bullet,
the crime should be classified as a complex crime of double murder.
(People vs. G.R. No. L-3098, March 5, 1951)
Ruling in th e Bersamin case is applicable only whe n there is no evidence
as to how man y wounds the victims received and there is possibility tha t the y
were killed by one and the sam e missile.
Thus, whe n th e two victims each received more than one bullet
wound, they were not close to each other whe n fired at, and their
bodies were found in different places, the ruling is not applicable. In
664
such case, the presumption is that th e victims were killed by different shots,
and, therefore, the accused are liable for two separate murders. (People vs.
Basarain, G.R. No. L-6690, May 24, 1955)
There is no complex crime of arson with homicide under Art.

48.
The ruling in the case of U.S. vs. Burns, 41 Phil. 418, that under
an information charging the accused with setting fire to an automobile
in th e basemen t of an inhabite d house , whereby said house wa s
destroyed and one of its inmate s burned to death, the accused is guilty
of a complex crime of arson wit h homicide, is no longer applicable to
such case, Art. 32 0 of th e Revised Pena l Code, as amended by Rep.
Act No. 7659, havin g provided one penalty therefor.
Applicable to crimes through negligence.

Thus , a municipa l mayo r wh o accidentally discharge d hi s revolver
during a school program, killing a girl and injuring a boy requiring medical
attendance for more tha n 30 days, wa s found guilty of a complex crime of
homicide wit h les s serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence.
(People vs. Castro, 40 O.G., Supp. 12, 83)
The reason for thi s ruling is tha t in view of the definition of
felonies in Article 3 of the Code, that is, "Acts and omissions punishable
by committed either "by mean s deceit or "by mean s of
fault it is clear tha t Article 48 which speaks of "felonies" is
applicable to violations under Article 365 which defines and penalizes
criminal negligence, a felony by mean s of fault (culpa).
A ma n while pouring gasoline in the tank of his passenger bus
in a garage used a candle to light the place. The gasoline caught
and the house wa s burned. His mother-in-law, who jumped from a
window during the fire, died due to burns and injuries and another
person suffered serious physical injuries.
Held: The crimes of arson, homicide, serious physical injuries, and
damage to property constitute a complex crime within the mean• ing of Art.
48. (People vs. Pacson, C.A., 46 O.G. 2165)
The accused, who drove a cargo truck at a fast rate without sounding
its horn and without lights in th e evening, caused his
665
truck to collide with a bicycle which wa s thrown to a group of pedes• trians.

Two of them died and several other persons were seriously injured.
Held: The two deaths and several serious physical injuries re•
sulted from his single act of reckless driving. Hence, only one penalty
should be imposed upon him. (People vs. Villamora, C.A., 40 O.G.
768)
Theft of and illegal possession of same do not

form a complex crime — they are two distinct crimes.
While in stealing a firearm the accused mus t necessarily come
into possession thereof, th e crime of illegal possession of firearm
is not committed by mere transient possession of th e weapon. It
requires something more: there mus t be not only intention to own
but also intent to use (People vs. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647), which is
not necessarily the case in every theft of firearm. Thus , stealing a
firearm with intent not to use but to render th e owner defenseless,
would not justify a charge of illegal possession of th e firearm. (People
vs. 98 Phil. 413 , 414)
The other reason is tha t Art. 48 speaks of two or more grave or less
grave felonies resulting from a single act, which excludes crimes punishable by
special laws , like the law punishin g illegal possession of firearms.
"When an offense is a necessary means for the
Although th e law use s th e term "offenses," th e Suprem e Court, in the

case of People vs. Araneta, 48 Phil. 650, held tha t this kind of complex crime
does not exist whe n the two crimes are punished under different statutes .
Requisites:
That at least two offenses are committed.
2. That one or some of the offenses mus t be necessary to com•
mi t th e other.
That both or all th e offenses mus t be punished under the
sam e statute.
666
At least two offenses must be committed.

Examples:
(a) Falsification of a public documen t by an accountabl e
officer (alterin g th e duplicat e of th e cedulas alread y
issue d to other person s by erasin g th e na me s originally
writte n thereo n and writin g in their places ne w names )
is an offense whic h is necessar y to commit malversation
(collecting from each of the m and misappropriating
th e amount), which is another offense. (People vs. Barbas,
6 0 Phil. 241 , 243)
The falsification of th e cedula certificate, which is a
crime under Art. 171, wa s necessary to commit the crime
of malversation under Art. 217, because th e accused had
to falsify the duplicate of the cedulas to obtain from the
taxpayers th e mone y which he later misappropriated.
(b) Simple seduction by mean s of usurpation of official func•
tions. (U.S. vs. Hernandez, 29 Phil. 109)
U.S. Hernandez
(29 Phil. 109)
Fact: Accused Hernandez, in order to seduce a girl, 15 years old,

had a talk with accused Bautista. Between them they concocted a plan
and then accused Hernandez proposed marriage to the girl. She agreed.
In a house in accused Bautista, under the name of
de Castro and pretending to be a Protestant minister, solemnized a
fictitious marriage between the girl and accused Hernandez. There•
after, they lived as a married couple. Later, accused Hernandez and
Bautista were prosecuted for seduction through usurpation of public
Held: Without legal authority, accused Bautista performed an act

properly pertaining to a person in authority by assuming the
character of a minister of a religious sect in order to make the girl
believe that she was legally married to accused Hernandez who had
the intention to seduce her. The girl would not have been seduced were
it not for the act of accused Bautista.
Note: The crime of usurpation of official function (Art. 177) was
a necessary means for committing the crime of simple seduction. (Art.
338)
667
Abduction as a necessary means for committing rape.

A girl, 19 years of age, who had worked in the rice fields in
Calamba, Laguna, wa s on her way home in the afternoon. When in
an uninhabited place, the two accused forcibly abducted her against
her strong protest and resistance, took her to the woods in Silang,
and other places where she wa s raped by one of the accused
while her hands were being held by the other. The crime of forcible
abduction (taking a woman against her will with lewd designs — Art.
342) wa s a necessary mean s for committing the crime of rape (having
sexual intercourse with a woman by using force, etc. — Art. 266-A).
(See People vs. Manguiat, 51 Phil. 406)
The phrase "necessary means" does not mean "indispensa•

ble means."
Th e phras e "necessar y mea ns " use d i n Art. 4 8 ha s bee n
interpreted not to mea n indispensable means , because if it did, the n
the offense as a "necessary means" to commit another would be an
indispensa bl e elemen t o f th e latte r an d woul d b e a n ingredien t
thereof. Th e phras e merel y signified that , for instance , a crime
such as simpl e estaf a can be an d ordinarily is committe d in th e
manne r defined in th e Pena l Code; but if th e "estafador" resort s
to or employ s falsification, merel y to facilitat e an d insur e hi s
committin g estafa , the n he is guilt y of th e comple x crime of estaf a
throug h falsification. ( Dissent in g Opinion, Peopl e vs . Hernandez ,
9 9 Phil. 515 , 557)
In complex crime, when the offender executes various acts,

he must have a single
The accused received 17 money orders wit h a letter, all in one
envelope, addressed to th e offended party. The accused presented
the m to th e post office for cashin g on one occasion, after havin g
falsified th e signature of th e remitter on each and every one of the
17 money orders.
Held: In all th e acts performed by th e accused, there wa s only

one criminal intent. To commit estafa, th e accused had to commit 17
Thes e falsifications were necessary mean s to commit
estafa. (People vs. Gallardo, C.A., 52 O.G. 3103)
The crime committed is only one complex crime of estafa
668
through multipl e falsifications, and not seventee n separate estafas and

seventee n separate falsifications.
But if a person falsified 27 vouchers, not to commit estafa or
malversation, he is liable for 27 falsifications, because th e various
acts of falsification were not executed for the attainmen t of a single
purpose. (See Gonzales vs . City Fiscal, CA-G.R. No. March
20, 1957)
In this case, one or more offenses are not necessary mean s for
committing th e
When in the definition of a felony one offense is a means to com•

mit the other, there is no complex crime.
In murder wher e th e killing of a person is qualified by the
circumstance tha t it wa s committed by means of fire or by means of
explosion (Art. 248, par. 3) which in themselve s are felonies defined
and penalized in Art. 321 and Art. 324, as arson and crimes involv•
ing destruction, respectively, there is no complex crime. The crime
is murder, plain and simple.
Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible abduction with

rape, are separate acts of rape.
Wher e th e co mplainin g wit nes s wa s forcibly abducted b y th e
four accused and violate d on board a truck by one of the m wit h
th e assistanc e of th e thre e others , an d after reachin g a hous e in
th e evening , th e four of the m alternatel y ravishe d her insid e th e
hous e thre e time s eac h an d one eac h th e following morning, there
wa s only one forcible abduction wit h rape whic h wa s th e one com•
mitted in th e truck, and th e subsequen t acts of intercourse in th e
hous e agains t her will are separate acts of rape. The reason for
th e ruling is tha t whe n th e first act of rape wa s committed in th e
truck, th e crime of forcible abduction wa s already consummate d so
tha t each of th e succeedin g rapes committed in th e hous e cannot
legally be considered as still connected wit h th e abduction. The
crimes co mmitted are one (1) forcible abduction wit h rape and
sixtee n (16) separate rapes. (People vs. Bohos, No. L-40995, June
25, 1980, 98 SCRA 353, 364)
Even while th e first act of rape was being performed, the

crime of forcible abduction was already consummated, so that each
669
of the three succeeding rapes cannot be wit h forcible

abduction. (People vs. Jose, No. L-28232, Feb. 6, 1971 , 37 SCRA
450, 475)
No complex crime when trespass to dwelling is a direct means

to commit a grave offense.
When trespass to dwelling (Art. 280) is a direct mean s to commit
a graver offense, like rape, homicide or murder, there is no complex
crime of trespass to dwelling with rape, homicide or murder. The tres•
pass to dwelling will be considered as the aggravating circumstance
of unlawful entry under par. 18, or of breaking a part of the dwelling
under par. 19, of Art. 14. (People vs. Abedosa, 53 Phil. 788, 791)
Note: Trespass to dwelling is committed whe n a private person shall
enter the dwelling of another against the latter's will.
No complex crime, when one offense is committed to conceal

the other.
But whe n one of th e offenses wa s committed for th e purpose of
concealing the commission of th e other, there is no complex crime.
Examples:
(a) After committing homicide, the accused, in order to conceal
the crime, set fire to th e hous e where it had bee n perpe•
trated. (People vs. Bersabal, 48 Phil. 439 , 442)
Note: Settin g fire to th e house is arson. (Art. Bu t in

this case, neither homicide nor arson wa s necessary
to commit th e other.
(b) A postmaster received from the offended party to be

transmitted as a telegraph money order to a third person.
He failed to send th e money and whe n th e complainant
dema nde d it s return , h e returne d onl y havin g
already misappropriated th e difference of He the n
forged the signature of th e complainant to a receipt made
by him (the accused), reciting therein that said complainant
had already received from hi m th e entire amount.
Held: The amount appropriated to himsel f wa s in th e
possession and at the disposal of the accused and he could
670
have appropriated it to himsel f without the necessity of

the falsified document. Two crimes were committed. The
falsification wa s a mean s to conceal, not to commit, th e
malversation. (U.S. vs. Geta, 43 Phil. 1009, 1013)
When the offender had in his possession the funds which he

misappropriated, the of a public or docu•
ment involving said funds is a separate offense.
The accused, a municipal treasurer of Batac, Ilocos Norte, misap•
propriated belonging to th e public funds. He made it appear
in the payroll tha t several municipal teachers of Batac received their
salaries whe n in fact the y did not receive the sum s indicated in the
payroll as received by them . It wa s held tha t the accused wa s guilty
of malversation and falsification, two separate crimes, because the
falsification wa s not a necessary mean s for th e commission of the
malversation, but wa s committed only to conceal th e malversation.
(People vs. Cid, 66 Phil. 354, 363)
Th e municipa l president , municipa l treasurer , an d a private

individua l signe d tw o official payroll s on April 30 for and
on May 2 for where it wa s made to appear that certain per•
sons worked as laborers in street projects, whe n in fact no work wa s
done and those persons were not entitled to pay. The three spent the
money for their own personal benefit. It wa s held that the falsifica•
tion of the payrolls were not necessary mean s for the commission of
malversation. (Regis vs. People, 67 Phil. 43 , 47)
The municipal treasurer having in his possession the funds, the
same could be misappropriated by him and his co-accused without
the necessity of falsifying any document. Hence, the falsification was
not a necessary mean s for committing the malversation. The falsifi•
cation of the payrolls wa s committed to conceal the malversation, in
the sense that it wa s made to appear that the amounts were lawfully
disbursed.
But when the offender had to falsify a public or official document to

obtain possession the funds which he misappropriated, the falsifica• tion
is a necessary means to commit the malversation.
Thus , whe n the special deputy of th e provincial treasurer
collected from two individuals the amount of each in payment
671
of their cedula tax, which he wa s able to do by altering the duplicates

of the cedulas, which he had already issued to other persons, and
issuing the altered duplicates to the two individuals, the falsification
of the duplicates wa s necessary to obtain the from th e two
individuals and wa s th e mean s to commit th e malversatio n by
misappropriating th e amount. (People vs. Barbas, 60 Phil. 241 ,
244)
No complex crime where one of the offense is penalized by

a special law.
Although the evidence shows that a crime ha s been committed
for the express purpose of committing another, as whe n a public of•
ficer misappropriates public funds for which he is accountable through
falsification of public document, yet both crimes should be punished
separately where it appears that they are punished under different
statutes, i.e., the Administrative Code and the Penal Code. (People
vs. 48 Phil. 650, 654)
Note: Before the Revised Penal Code took effect, th e crime of

malversation wa s punished under the Administrative Code.
Illegal possession of firearm is not a necessary means to

commit homicide.
The accused wa s previously convicted of homicide for th e perpe•
tration of which he used a .30 caliber rifle. Later, he wa s prosecuted
for illegal possession of said firearm.
Held: The accused committed two different acts wit h two sepa•
rate criminal intents, to wit, th e desire to take unlawfully th e life
of a person, and the willful violation of th e law which prohibits th e
possession of a firearm without the required permit. (People vs. Alger,
92 Phil. 227, 229-230)
Note: The other reason is that homicide and illegal possession

of firearm are punished under different statutes .
Illegal possession of when considered a special

gravating circumstance.
With th e passag e of Rep. Act No. 829 4 on Jun e 6, 1997, th e
use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is no w consid-
672
ered, not as a separat e crime, but merel y a special aggravating

circumstance. (People vs. Castillo, G.R. Nos. February
15, 2000)
Illegal possession of firearm absorbed in rebellion.

People vs. Rodriguez
(G.R. April 25, 1960)
Facts: The accused was charged with illegal possession of

and ammunition. The accused filed a motion to quash on
the ground that the crime with which he was charged was already
alleged as a component ingredient of the crime of rebellion with
which he was already charged in the Court of First Instance of
Manila.
Held: This gun was introduced by the prosecution as evidence
in the case of rebellion. On October 24, 1951, the case for rebellion
was filed in the Court of First Instance. On the other hand, the in•
formation in the present case was filed on October 30, 1956, which
involves the charge of illegal possession of the same firearm and
same ammunition. Considering that "any or all of the acts described
in Art. 135, when committed as a means to or in furtherance of the
subversive ends described in Art. 134, become absorbed in the crime
of rebellion, and can not be regarded or penalized as distinct crimes
in themselves x x x and cannot be considered as giving ris e to a
separate crime that, under Art. 48 of the Code, would constitute a
complex one with that of rebellion (People vs. Geronimo, L-8936, Oct.
23, 1956), the conclusion is inescapable that the crime with which
the accused is charged in the present case is already absorbed in
the rebellion case and so to press it further now would place him
in double jeopardy. While it is true that in the crime of rebellion,
there is no allegation that the firearm in question is one of those
used in carrying on the rebellion and that the same was borne by
the accused without a license, the same would not make the present
charge different from the one included in the crime of rebellion, for it
appears from the record that one of the firearms used in furtherance
thereof is the same pistol with which the accused is now charged.
In fact, that pistol was presented in the rebellion case as evidence.
Nor is the fact that there is no allegation in the rebellion case that
the carrying of the firearm by the accused was without license of
any consequence, for it can be safely assumed that it was so, not
only because the accused was a dissident but because the firearm
was confiscated from his possession."
673
When two or more crimes are committed but not by a single

act, or (2) one is not a necessary means for committing the
other, there is no complex crime.
The accused compelled the pilot to direct the airplane from Laoag
to instead of Aparri, and for not complying with such illegal
demand, the accused shot him to death.
Held: The accused committed two separate crimes of frustrated
coercion (Arts. 6 and 286) and murder (Art. 248). They do not con•
stitute a complex crime of grave coercion with murder, because the
accused could have killed the pilot, without necessity of compelling
him to change the route of the airplane; the coercion wa s not neces•
sary for the commission of murder. Neither wa s murder necessary to
commit coercion. The accused executed two distinct acts, and not only
one. Compelling the pilot to change the route of th e airplane is one
act. Shooting him whe n he did not comply wit h tha t order is another
act. (People vs. Cho 95 Phil. 475, 478)
There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson,

robbery, or other common crimes.
Murder, arson and robbery are mere ingredients of th e crime of
rebellion, as mean s "necessary" for the perpetration of th e offense.
vs. G.R. No. 92163 , Jun e 5, 1990, 186 SCRA 217,
229) Such common offenses are absorbed or inherent in th e crime
of rebellion. (People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515) Bu t a rebel who,
for some independent or personal motives, commits murder or other
common offenses in addition to rebellion, ma y be prosecuted for and
convicted of such common offenses. (People vs. Geronimo, 100 Phil.
90, 99)
When two crimes produced by a single act are respectively

within the exclusive jurisdiction of two courts of different
jurisdiction, the court of higher jurisdiction shall try the
complex crime.
Through reckless imprudence committed in one single act, th e accused
caused damage to property, punishable by a fine which only the Court of First
Instance can impose and les s serious physical injuries which ordinarily is
within th e exclusive jurisdiction of th e municipal court.
674
Held: The Court of Firs t Instanc e should try th e case charging

a complex crime. Sinc e bot h crime s wer e th e resul t of a singl e act,
th e information canno t be spli t into two; one for physical injuries,
and anothe r for damag e to property. (Angele s vs . Jose , 96 Phil.
151)
An accused should not be harasse d wit h various prosecutions
based on th e sam e act by splitting th e sam e into various charges.
(People vs. Lizardo, No. Dec. SCRA
reiterating People vs. No. Jan . 30, 1962, 4 SCRA
95)
People vs.
(G.R. No. May 24, 1966)
Facts: Defendant was accused of the crime of damage to property

with multiple physical injuries, thru reckless imprudence. The infor•
mation alleges that, thru reckless negligence of the defendant, the bus
driven by him hit another bus causing upon some of its passengers,
serious physical injuries and upon still others slight physical injuries, in
addition to damage to property.
Held: The information does not purport to complex the offense of
slight physical injuries thru reckless negligence with that of damage
to property and serious and less serious physical injuries thru reckless
imprudence. It is merely alleged that, thru reckless negligence of the
defendant, the bus driven by him hit another bus causing upon some
of its passengers, serious physical injuries, upon others less serious
physical injuries and upon still others slight physical injuries, in ad•
dition to damage to property.
From the viewpoint both of trial practice and justice, it is
doubtful whether the prosecution should split the action against the
defendant, by filing against him several informations, one for damage
to property and serious and less serious physical injuries, thru reck•
less imprudence, before the court of first instance, and another for
slight physical injuries thru reckless negligence, before the justice of
the peace or municipal court. Such splitting of the action would work
unnecessary inconvenience to the administration of justice in general
and to the accused in particular, for it would require the presentation
of substantially the same evidence before two courts. In the
event of conviction in the municipal court and appeal to the court of
first instance, said evidence would still have to be introduced once
more in the latter court.
675
The (now, RTC) of Manila retained jurisdiction in a charge

of abduction with rape, although abduction, which was com•
menced in Manila, was not proven, and the rape which was
committed in Cavite, was the only matter proved.
Although the forcible abduction, which wa s supposedly com•
menced in Manila, wa s not proven, and although the rape, which
was proven, wa s actually committed in Cavite, still the CFI of Manila
had jurisdiction to convict the accused of rape. The complex crime
of forcible abduction with rape wa s charged in the complaint on the
basis of which the case wa s tried. (People vs. No. L-36435, Dec.
20, 1977, 80 SCRA 589, 598)
Art. 48 is intended to favor the culprit.

In directing tha t th e penalty for the graver offense shall be im• posed in
its maximu m period, Art. 48 could have had no other purpose tha n to
prescribe a penalty lower tha n th e aggregate of th e penalties for each offense,
if imposed separately. The reason for thi s benevolent spirit of Art. 48 is
readily discernible. When two or more crimes are th e result of a single act,
the offender is deemed les s perverse tha n whe n he commits said crimes
through separate and distinct acts. (People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515, 542-
543)
Note: If a person fired a shot and killed two persons wit h th e
same shot, were it not for Art. 48, he would be sentenced to reclusion
temporal for each homicide. Bu t under Art. 48, he shall be sentenced
to th e maximu m period of one reclusion temporal only. Reclusion
temporal ha s a duration of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years.
The penalty for complex crime the penalty for the most serious
crime, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
Thus, in th e complex crime of direct assaul t wit h homicide, the
penalty for homicide, being th e more serious crime, shall be imposed
and the penalty is to be applied in its maximu m period. The penalty
for direct assault is at most correccional in its mediu m and
maximu m periods; whereas , th e penalty for homicide is reclusion
temporal.
The penalty for the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a
person in authority is the maximu m period of the penalty for the
676
more serious crime — That penalty is th e maximu m period

reclusion temporal. (People vs. G.R. No. 57415, Dec. 15,
SCRA 102, 109-110)
If the different crimes resulting from one single act are punished with
the sam e penalty, th e penalty for an y one of the m shall be im• posed, th e
sam e to be applied in th e maximu m period.
The sam e rule shall be observed whe n an offense is a necessary mean s

for committing th e other.
A complex crime of th e second form ma y be committed by two

persons, as in seductio n throug h usurpatio n of official functions
where one of th e accused committed usurpation of official
by simulatin g th e performance of a marriage ceremony without legal
right betwee n th e victim and hi s co-accused wh o thereafter seduced
th e victim. Both accused, being in conspiracy, were sentenced to the
ma ximu m period of th e penalty for usurpation of official functions, an
offense more serious tha n th e crime of seduction. (U.S. vs. Hernandez,
29 Phil. 109, 113-114)
But when one of the offenses, as a means to commit the other, was
committed by one the accused by reckless imprudence, that accused
who committed the offense by reckless imprudence is liable for his act
only.
Ther e i s n o q u e s t i o n t ha t a p p e l l a n t c o o p e ra t e d i n th e
commissio n of th e comple x offense of estaf a throug h falsification
by reckles s imprudenc e by act s withou t whic h it could not hav e
bee n a cco mp l i sh ed , an d thi s bein g a fact, ther e woul d b e n o
reason t o exculpat e hi m from liability. Eve n a ssu min g tha t h e
ha d no intentio n to defraud th e offended party if hi s co-defendants
su cce ed e d i n a t t a i n i n g th e p ur po s e so ug h t b y th e culprits ,
appellant' s participatio n together wit h th e participation of hi s co-
defendants in th e commissio n of th e offense completed all the element
s necessar y for th e perpetration of th e complex crime of estafa
through falsification of commercial document. (Article 172, Revised
Pena l Code) Anywa y and for th e purpose of th e penalty tha t wa s
actually imposed upon appellant, it is immaterial that he be
considered only guilt y of falsification of a commercial document
through reckless negligence, becaus e th e penalt y for th e crime of
falsification of a commercial document under Article No. of
677
the Revised Penal Code, is prision correccional in its mediu m and

maximu m periods and a fine of not more tha n whic h
under the provisions of Articles 25 and 26 of th e sam e Code is a
correctional penalty. Consequently, if in the cases at bar th e crimes
of falsification were due to reckless imprudence, th e corresponding
penalt y woul d be arresto mayor in it s min i mu m an d mediu m
periods (Article 365 , openin g paragraph , of th e Revise d Pena l
Code), whic h co mprehends th e penalt y imposed by th e Court of
Appeals upon appellant. (Samso n vs . Court of Appeals , 103 Phil.
277, 282-283)
When the homicide, physical injuries, and the burning of a house are
the result of one single act of negligence, there is only one penalty, but
there are three civil liabilities.
In the case People vs. Pacson, C.A. 46 O.G. 2165, Roque Pacson
and Francisco, who poured gasoline from one container to
another near a lighted candle, causing the burning of th e house of
Aurelio de Leon, valued at th e injury of Romualdo de Leon,
who wa s confined in th e hospital at th e cost of and th e death
of Paula were sentenced each to suffer from four (4) month s
of arresto mayor to two (2) years and 4 (four) month s of prision cor•
reccional, to indemnify jointly and severally th e heirs of Paul a Elhino
in the su m of Romualdo de Leon in th e su m of and
Aurelio de Leon in the su m of
When the penalty for one of the crimes resulting from a single act is
beyond the jurisdiction of the municipal court, there should be ad•
ditional penalty for the other.
The third paragraph of Article 365 reads as follows:

the execution of th e act covered by this article shall hav e
only resulted in damage to th e property of another, th e offender shall
be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to th e value of
said damage to three times such value, but which shall in no case be
les s tha n 25 pesos."
The above-quoted provision simply mean s tha t if there is only damage

to property, the amount fixed therein shall be imposed, but if there are also
physical injuries, there should be an additional penalty for the latter. (Angeles
vs. Jose, 96 Phil. 151, 152)
678
When two felonies constituting a complex crime are punish•

able by imprisonment and fine, respectively, only the penalty
of imprisonment should be imposed.
When a single act constitutes two grave or les s grave felonies,
or one grave and anothe r les s grave, and th e penalt y for one is
imprisonment while tha t for th e other is fine, th e severity of the
penalt y for th e more seriou s crime shoul d not be judged by th e
classification of each of th e penalties involved, but by the nature of
the penalties. (People vs. Yongco, CA-G.R. No. January
26, 1977)
Even if th e fine for damag e to property through reckless im•
prudence is an afflictive penalty, and th e penalty for
physical injuries resulting from th e sam e act is only four (4) months
of arresto mayor, a correctional penalty, th e latter penalty should be
imposed.
This opinion is based on th e following observation:
In th e order of severity of the penalties, arresto mayor and ar•
resto are considered more severe tha n (Article 70,
and arresto menor is higher in degree tha n destierro (Article
71 , R.P.C) , even if both arresto mayor and destierro are classified as
correctional penalties, and arresto menor is only a light penalty.
On the other hand , fine is not included in the list of penalties
in th e order of severity, and it is the last in the graduated scales in
Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code.
The ruling in Angeles vs. 96 Phil. that if damage
to property and physical injuries resulted from a single act of the
defendant there should be an additional penalty for the latter, is in
disregard of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that
only one penalty should be imposed for a complex crime.
Generally, the penalty for complex crime is intended to favor
the offender. (People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515)
In People vs. Pacson, 46 O.G. 2165, the Court of Appeals held
that the penalty for a complex crime, causing the burning of a house
valued at and the death of one of the inmates of the
house through reckless imprudence, is from four (4) months of arresto
mayor to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional,
679
to indemnify the owner of the house and the heirs of the deceased in the
amounts stated, without fine.
Art. 48 applies only to cases where the Code does not provide
a definite specific penalty for a complex crime.
The accused inflicted les s serious physical injuries on th e
municipal mayor in the cockpit where at the time there were man y
people present. There wa s a manifest intent to insult the mayor and
of adding ignominy to the offense.
The prosecution charged the accused with a complex crime of
serious slander by deed with less serious physical injuries, because
Art. 359 considers as slander by deed any act "which shall cast dis•
honor, discredit, or contempt upon another person," and since said
act resulted in th e infliction of les s serious physical injuries, it is also
covered by Art. 265.
Held: The act cannot come under Art. 48 for th e simple reason that in
this particular case, tha t act is specifically covered by para• graph 2 of Art.
265.
Under Art. 265, par. 2 of th e Revised Pena l Code, wheneve r
an act ha s been committed which inflicts upon a person les s serious
physical injuries with th e manifest intent to insult or offend hi m or
under circumstances adding ignominy to th e offense, the offender
should be prosecuted under tha t article and, if convicted, should be
sentenced to th e penalty therein prescribed.
The acts complained of cannot constitute a complex crime of slander by
deed wit h les s serious physical injuries, because complex crime exists only in
cases where th e Code ha s no specific provision penalizing th e sam e wit h
defined specific penalty. (People vs. Lasala,
G.R. No. Jan . 4 SCRA 61 , 62 , 64-65)
One information should be filed when a complex crime is
Thus, even if several persons were killed, only one information should be
filed if th e victims were killed by a single act.
Bu t if four crimes of murder and a frustrated murder resulted from the
firing of several shots at five victims, th e crimes are not complex. Five
informations should be filed. (People vs. Pineda, G.R.
680
No. L-26222, July 20 SCRA 748, 750, 754) In case of convic•

tion, five penalties shall be imposed.
The same ruling applies whe n one of the offenses committed is
not a necessary mean s for committing the other, as whe n one offense is
committed to conceal the other. In that case, two informations will have
to be filed and in case of conviction, two penalties shall be imposed.
When a complex crime is charged and one offense is not

proven, the accused can be convicted of the other.
Whe n a complex crime is charged and th e evidence fails to sup•
port th e charge as to one of th e component offenses, th e defendant
can be convicted of th e other. (People vs . No. L-47500,
April 29, 1987, 149 SCRA 292 , 300-301 , 304)
Art. 48 does not apply when the law provides one single
penalty for special complex crimes.
Thus, in robbery wit h homicide (Art. 294, par. 1), robbery with
rape (Art. 294, par. 2), or kidnapping wit h serious physical injuries
(Art. 267, par. 3), or kidnapping wit h murder or homicide (Art. 267,
last or rape wit h homicide (Art. 335), Art. 48 does not apply
because th e Revised Pena l Code provides for one single penalty for
each of those special complex crimes.
Special Complex Crime of Kidnapping with Murder or Homi•

cide.
Prior to 31 December the date of effectivity of No.
7659, the rule wa s that where the kidnapped victim wa s subsequently
killed by his abductor, the crime committed would either be a complex
crime of kidnapping wit h murder under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal
Code, or two (2) separate crimes of kidnapping, and murder. Thus,
where the accused kidnapped th e victim for the purpose of killing
him, he wa s in fact killed by his abductor, the crime committed
wa s the complex crime of kidnapping and murder under Art. 48 of
the Revised Penal Code, as the kidnapping of the victim wa s a nec•
essary means of committing the murder. On the other hand, where
the victim wa s kidnapped not for the purpose of killing him but was
subsequently slain as an afterthought, 2 separate crimes of kidnap•
ping and murder were committed.
681
However, No. 7659 amended Art. 267 of the Revised Penal

Code by adding thereto a last paragraph which provides — When the
victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped,
or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty
shall be imposed.
This amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept
complex of kidnapping with murder or homicide. It
effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts between
those cases where the killing of the kidnapped victim wa s purposely
sought by the accused, and those where the killing of the victim wa s
not deliberately resorted to but wa s merely an afterthought.
Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person kidnapped is
killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing
was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping
and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor
be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex
crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by R.A. No.
7659. (People vs. Ramos, 297 SCRA 618, Parulan vs. Rodas)
Plurality of crimes.
Plurality of crimes defined.
Plurality of crimes consists in th e successive execution by the same
individual of different criminal acts upon any of which no con• viction ha s yet
been declared. (Guevara)
Kinds of plurality of crimes.

There are two kinds of plurality of crimes: (1) formal or ideal
plurality, and (2) real or plurality.
Art. 48 provides for two cases of formal or ideal plurality of
crimes. There is but one criminal liability in this kind of plurality.
In real or material plurality, there are different crimes in law
as well as in the conscience the offender. In such cases, the offender
shall be punished for each and every offense tha t he committed.
Example of real or material plurality.

A stabbed B with a knife. Then, A also stabbed There are two
crimes committed. Note that there are two acts performed.
682
Plurality of crimes distinguished from recidivism.

In recidivism, there mus t be conviction by final judgmen t of the first or
prior offense; in plurality of crimes, there is no conviction of any of the crimes
committed.
Plural crimes of the formal or ideal type are divided into three
groups.
A person committing multiple crimes is punished with ONE penalty in th
e following cases:
1. Whe n th e offender commits any of th e complex crimes

defined in Art. 48 of th e Code.
2. Whe n th e law specifically fixes a single penalty for two or
more offenses committed.
Examples:
(1) Robbery wit h homicide (Art. 294);
(2) Kidnapping wit h serious physical injuries. (Art. 267,
par. 3)
3. Whe n th e offender commits continued crimes.
Continued crime.
A continued (continuous or continuing) crime is a single crime, con•
sisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution.
A continuing offense is a continuous, unlawful act or series of
acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an
force, however long a tim e it ma y occupy. (22 C.J.S., 52)
Although there is a series of acts, there is only one crime com• mitted.
Hence, only one penalty shall be imposed.
Examples of continued crimes:

1. Thus, a collector of a commercial firm misappropriates for
his personal use several amounts collected by him from
different persons. There is here one crime only, because
the different and successive appropriations are but the
different moments during which one criminal resolution
arises and a single defraudation develops.
683
But if it does not appear that when the malversa•

tion and the falsification were committed on April 30, it
wa s already the intention of the appellant to commit also
the falsification and the malversation of May 2, 1931, the
same being necessary to justify the finding that, although
they were committed on different dates, a single intention
determined the commission of both, the appellant is liable
for each and every one of those offenses. (Regis vs. People,
67 Phil. 43, 47)
2. Likewise, a thief who takes from the yard of a house two
gam e roosters belonging to two different persons com•
mits only one crime, for the reason that there is a unity of
thought in the criminal purpose of the offender. There is
no series of acts here for the accomplishment of different
purposes, but only of one (purpose) which is consummated,
and which determines the existence of only one crime.
(People vs. De Leon, 49 Phil. 437, 439-441)
In getting hold of the two roosters, it is not done by

a single act of taking, but by two separate acts. There is,
however, a unity of thought and action in takin g th e two
roosters.
The taking of six roosters from coop is a single offense of
theft. The assumption is that the accused were animated by single
criminal impulse. (People vs. Jaranilla, No. L- 28547, Feb. 22 ,
1974, 55 SCRA 563, 575)
Eight robberies as component parts of a general plan. While
the inhabitants of a barrio were working in a sugar mill,
seven armed persons, who had a general plan to commit
robbery against all those in the entered th e mill and
while two of th e bandits guarded the people wit h gun s lev•
elled at them, five of the m ransacked the house s for their
personal properties.
Held: The several acts of ransacking th e different
house s were not unconnected and entirely distinct from
one another. They formed component parts of th e general
plan to despoil all those within the vicinity. There is only
one crime of robbery in this case. (People vs. De la Cruz,
G.R. May 23, 1950)
684
4. The accused and his companion ran amok in th e passen•

section of th e upper deck of a motorboat. Eleven per•
sons were killed and twent y other persons were seriously
wounded by hi m and his companion who wa s later killed
by a patrolman. The accused confessed that he and his
companion had a common motive to run amok. It wa s held
tha t since th e killings were th e result of a single impulse
and tha t neither th e accused nor his companion had in
mind killing any particular individual, the acts complained
of should be considered as resulting from a single criminal
impulse and constituting a single offense. (People vs. Emit,
CA-G.R. No. Jan . 31 , 1956)
Not one continuing crime, but three separate crimes.

People vs. Enguero
(100 Phil. 1001)
Facts: Appellants were charged with the crime of robbery in band

in three separate informations, committed by robbing one house, then
proceeded to another house where the second robbery was committed
and then to another house where the third robbery was committed.
Held: Appellants argue that they are guilty of one crime only,
citing in support of their contention the case of People vs. De Leon, 49
Phil. 437. The contention is without merit. In the case cited, defendant
entered the yard of a house where he found two fighting cocks belong•
ing to different persons and took them. In the present case, appellants,
after committing the first crime, went to another house where they
committed the second and then proceeded to another house where they
committed the third. Obviously, the rule in the case cited cannot be
invoked and applied to the present.
The series of acts born of a single criminal impulse may be

perpetrated during a long period of time.
A sent an anonymous letter to B, demanding under
threats of death and burning the latter's house. B sent to A.
Two months later, A sent again another letter to B, demanding the
balance of and making the same threats. B sent to
A. Four months later, A sent again another letter to B, demanding
the amount and making the same threats. B sent P1,000.
Six months thereafter, A sent another letter to B, demanding the
685
remaining and making the same threats. This time, A wa s

arrested for grave threats.
It was held that the different acts of sending letters of demand
for money with threats to kill and burn the house of the offended
party constitute only one and the same crime of grave threats born
of a single criminal impulse to attain a definite objective. (See People
vs. Moreno, C.A., 34 O.G. 1767)
When two acts are deemed distinct from one another although
proceeding from the same criminal impulse.
Where the accused, after uttering defamatory words against
the offended party, attacked and assaulted the latter, resulting in
slight physical injuries, two offenses were committed, for while the
insults as well as the assault were the product of the sam e criminal
impulse, the act of insulting is entirely different and distinct from
that of inflicting physical injuries, although the two offenses may have
taken place on the sam e occasion, or that one preceded th e other.
The act of insulting cannot be deemed included in tha t of inflicting
physical injuries, because the offense of insult is an offense against
honor, whereas slight physical injuries is an offense against persons.
Hence, prosecution of the accused for the two offenses cannot place
him in danger of double jeopardy. (People vs. Ramos, 59 O.G. 4052)
Slander (uttering defamatory words) is defined and penalized
in Art. 358. Slight physical injuries is defined and penalized in Art.
266.
A continued crime is not a complex crime.

A continued crime is not a complex crime, because th e offender
in continued or continuous crime does not perform a single act, but a
series of acts, and one offense is not a necessary mean s for committing
th e other.
No t being a complex crime, the penalty for continued crime is not to be

imposed in th e maximu m period.
There is no provision in the Revised Penal Code or any other penal law
defining and specifically penalizing a continuing crime. The principle is
applied in connection wit h two or more crimes committed with a single
intention.
686
PENALTY FOR CRIME NOT INTENDED Art. 49
Thus , in the case of People vs. De Leon, supra, the theft of the
two gam e roosters belonging to two different persons wa s punished
with one penalty only, th e Supreme Court holding tha t there being
only one criminal purpose in th e takin g of th e two roosters, only one
crime wa s committed.
A continued crime is different from a transitory crime.

A continued, continuous or continuing crime is different from a
transitory crime in criminal procedure to determine An exam•
ple of transitory crime, also called a "moving crime," is kidnapping a
person for th e purpose of ransom, by forcibly takin g the victim from
Manila to Bulacan where ransom wa s demanded. The offenders could
be prosecuted and tried either in Manila or in Bulacan.
Whe n a transitory crime is committed, th e criminal action may be
instituted and tried in th e court of th e municipality, city or prov• ince wherei
n any of th e essentia l ingredients thereof took place. The singlenes s of th e
crime, committed by executing two or more acts, is not considered.
Distinguish real or material plurality from continued crime.

In real or material plurality as well as in continued there
is a series of acts performed by th e offender.
While in real or material plurality, each act performed by the
offender constitutes a separate crime, because each act is generated
by a criminal impulse; in continued crime, the different acts consti•
tute only one crime because all of th e acts performed arise from one
criminal resolution.
Art . 49 . Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime

committed is different from that intended. — In c a s e s in w h i c h th e
f elo n y c o m m i t t e d i s d i f f er e n t fro m t ha t w h i c h th e o ffende r
intende d to th e f o l l o w i n g rule s sha l l b e o b s e r v e d .
1 . I f th e p e n a l t y p r e s c r i b e d fo r th e felo n y c o m mi t t e d
b e h i g h e r tha n tha t c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o th e offens e w h i c h th e
a c c u s e d i n t e n d e d t o c o m mi t , th e p e n a l t y c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o
th e la tt e r shal l b e i m p o s e d i n it s m a x i m u m p erio d .
687
Art. 49 PENALTY FOR CRIME NOT INTENDED
2 . I f th e p e n a l t y p r e s c r i b e d fo r th e felon y c o m m i t t e d
b e lo w e r tha n tha t c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o th e on e w h i c h th e ac •
c u s e d i n t e n d e d t o c o m mi t , th e pe n a lt y fo r th e forme r shal l
b e i mp o s e d i n it s m a x i m u m per io d .
3. rul e e s t a b l i s h e d b y nex t p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h
shal l no t b e a p p l i c a b l e i f th e act s c o m m i t t e d b y th e g uilt y
p e r s o n sha l l a ls o c o n s t i t u t e a n a t t e m p t o r f r u s t r a t i o n o f
a n o t h e r cri me , i f th e la w prescri be s a hig he r pena lt y fo r eithe r
o f th e la tte r o ff e n s e s , i n w h i c h ca s e th e p e na lt y p r o v i d e d fo r
th e a t t e mp t o r th e f r u s t r a t e d cri m e sha l l b e i m p o s e d i n th e
ma x i mu m period .
Rules as to the penalty to be imposed when the crime com•

mitted is different from that intended.
If the penalty for the felony committed be higher than the
penalty for the which the accused intended to commit,
the lower penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty for the felony committed be lower tha n the
penalty for the which the accused intended to commit,
the lower penalty shall be imposed in its maximu m period.
3. If th e act co mmit t e d also co n stit ute s an a tt e mp t or
frustration of another crime, and th e la w prescribes a
highe r penalt y for eithe r of th e latter, th e penalt y for
the attempted or frustrated crime shall be imposed in its
ma ximu m period.
Art. 49 has reference to the provision of the paragraph

of Art. 4.
When the crime actually committed is different from tha t in•
tended, as contemplated in the first paragraph of Art. 4, th e penalty
to be imposed mus t be governed by th e rules provided in Art. 49 , be•
cause th e opening sentence of Art. 49 specifically mention s "cases in
which th e felony committed is different from tha t which th e offender
intended to commit." On the other hand, Art. 4 in its paragraph 1
provides that criminal liability shall be incurred "by any person com•
mitting a felony (delito) although th e wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended."
688
Art. 49 applies only when there is a mistake in the identity of the

victim of the crime, and the penalty for the crime committed is
different from that for the crime intended to be committed.
Paragraph 1 of Art. 4 covers (1) aberratio ictus (mistake in the
blow), (2) error in personae (mistake in th e identity of the victim),
and (3) praeter intentionem (where a more serious consequence not
intended by th e offender befalls th e sam e person).
(1) Aberratio ictus —
Example: A fired hi s gu n at hi s father, wit h intent to kill him,
but he misse d and hit C, killing th e latter.
In thi s case, two crimes were actually committed:
homicide, of which C wa s th e victim; and (2) attempted
parricide, of whic h A's father wa s th e offended party. One
who fires a gu n at hi s father wit h intent to kill is guilty
of attempte d parricide, eve n if th e latter is not injured at all.
The two crimes actually committed were the result

of a single act; hence, A committed a complex crime of
consummate d homicide wit h attempted parricide. There
being a complex crime, Art. 48 , not Art. 49 , is applicable.
Thus, th e Supreme Court in the case of Guillen, 85 Phil.
307, said: "We think it is (Art. 48) and not paragraph
1 of Article 49 tha t is applicable. The case before us is
clearly governed by th e first clause of Article 48 because
by a single act, tha t of throwing a highly explosive hand
grenade at President Roxas, the accused committed several
grave felonies, namely: (1) murder, of which Simeon Valera
wa s the victim; and (2) multiple attempted murder, of which
President Roxas, Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro and
were the injured parties."
(2) Error in personae —

Examples:
A, thinking that the person walking in a dark alley
wa s B, a stranger, fired at that person, who wa s killed as
a result. It turned out that person wa s C, the father of A.
689
Art. 49 PENALTY FOR CRIME NOT INTENDED
In this the crime actually committed is parricide,

punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The crime which
A intended to commit is homicide, punishable by reclusion
temporal. In view of rule No. 1 provided for in Art. 49, the
penalty for homicide shall be imposed in its maximu m
period.
Bu t suppose tha t A wanted to kill hi s father and
waited for the latter in a dark alley where he used to pass
in going home; whe n A saw a person coming and think•
ing that he wa s his father, A shot him; and it turned out
that that person wa s a stranger. In this case, A should be
punished with the penalty for homicide to be applied in its
maximu m period.
Note that in either case, the lesser penalty is always to be
imposed, only that it shall be imposed in th e maximu m period.
(3) Praeter intentionem —
Example: A, withou t inten t to kill, boxed B from behind on
the back part of the latter's head. B fell to th e cement pavement
wit h hi s head striking it. B died due to the fracture of th e skull.
In this case, th e deat h of B wa s not intended by A.
Art. 49 has no application to cases where a more serious consequence

not intended by the offender befalls the same person.
A wanted only to inflict a wound on the face of B tha t would
leave a permanent scar on his face or one that would compel th e latter
to remain in the hospital for a wee k or two, but never intended to
kill him. Bu t as A did not have control of his right arm on account
of paralysis, the blow, although intended for the face, landed at the
base of the neck, resulting in the fatal wound in tha t part of th e body
of B, who died as a consequence. (People vs. Albuquerque, 59 Phil.
In this case, there is praeter intentionem and th e crime not

intended by the offender befell the same person. Not e tha t in th e
examples under error in personae, the crime not intended by th e of•
fender befell a different person.
690
From th e foregoing example s and discussions, it will be noted

that th e rules stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Art. 49 cannot apply
to cases involving aberratio ictus or praeter intentionem.
On the other hand, in error in personae, since only one crime is pro•
duced by the act of the offender, there could be no complex which
presupposes the commission of at least two crimes. In the two examples
of error in personae, it will be noted that only one person wa s affected by
the single act of the offender; hence, only one crime was produced. For
this reason, it is Art. 49, and not Art. 48, that is applicable.
Art. 49 is applicable only when the intended crime and the crime
actually committed are punished with different penalties.
The rules prescribed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Art. 49 contemplate
of cases where the intended crime and th e crime actually commit•
ted are punished wit h different penalties by reason of relationship
betwee n the offender and the offended party, which qualifies one of
the crimes.
If the intended crime and the crime actually committed are pun• ished
wit h the same or equal penalties, Art. 49 is not applicable.
Thus, if A, intendin g to kill B, a stranger, actually killed C, another
stranger, Art. 49 is not applicable, because whethe r it wa s B or it wa s C who
wa s killed, th e crime committed wa s homicide. There is no difference in th e
penalty.
Art. 49 distinguished from Art. 48.

In Art. 49, the lesser penalty is to be imposed, to be applied in
the maximum period (Pars. 1 and 2); in Art. 48, the penalty for the
more or most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied
in its maximum period.
Rule No. 3 in Art. 49 is not necessary.

The rule in paragraph 3 of Art. 49 is not necessary because the
cases contemplated in that paragraph may well be covered by Art.
48, in view of the fact that the same act committed by the guilty
person, which gives rise to one crime, also constitute(s) an attempt
or a frustration of another crime.
691
Arts. 50-55 PENALTIES
Art . 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated

crime. — Th e p e n a lt y nex t low e r i n deg re e tha n tha t p re s cr i b e d
b y la w fo r th e c o n s u m m a t e d felon y shal l b e i mp o s e d u po n th e
p r i n c i p a l s i n a f r u s t r a t e d f elo ny .
Art . 51 . Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted

crime. — Th e p e n a l t y l o w e r b y tw o d e g r e e s t h a n tha t pre •
s c r i b e d b y la w fo r th e c o n s u m m a t e d felo n y shal l b e i mp o s e d
upo n th e p r i n c i p a l s i n a n a t t e mp t t o c o m m i t a felo ny .
Art . 52 . Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in a consum•

mated crime. — Th e p e n a l t y nex t l o w e r i n d e g r e e t h a n tha t pre •
s c r i b e d b y la w fo r th e c o n s u m m a t e d felo n y shal l b e i mp o s e d
u p o n th e a c c o m p l i c e s i n th e c o m m i s s i o n o f a c o n s u m m a t e d
f elo ny .
Art . 53 . Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission

of a consummated felony. — Th e p e n a l t y l o w e r by tw o d e g r e e s
t ha n tha t p r e s c r i b e d b y la w fo r th e c o n s u m m a t e d felo n y shal l
b e i m p o s e d u p o n th e a c c e s s o r i e s t o th e c o m m i s s i o n o f a con •
s u m m a t e d felo ny .
Art . 54 . Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated

crime. — Th e p e n a l t y n ex t l o w e r i n d e g r e e tha n tha t p r e s c r i b e d
b y la w fo r th e f r u s t r a t e d f e l o n y sha l l b e i m p o s e d u p o n th e
a c c o m p l i c e s i n th e c o m m i s s i o n o f a f r u s t r a t e d f e lo n y .
Art . 55 . Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated

crime. — Th e p e n a l t y l o w e r b y tw o d e g r e e s t h a n tha t pre •
scribe d b y fo r th e f r us t ra t e d f elo n y shal l b e i mp o s e d upo n
th e a c c e s s o r i e s t o th e c o m m i s s i o n o f a f r u s t r a t e d felo ny .
692
PENALTIES Arts. 50-57
56 . Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted

crime. — Th e p e n a l t y nex t l o w e r i n d e g r e e tha n tha t p r e s c r i b e d
b y la w fo r a n a t t e m p t t o c o m m i t a f e l o n y sha l l b e i m p o s e d
u p o n th e a c c o m p l i c e s i n a n a t t e m p t t o c o m m i t th e felo ny .
Art . 57 . Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted

crime. — Th e p e n a l t y l o w e r b y t w o d e g r e e s t h a n tha t pre •
s c r i b e d b y la w fo r th e a t t e m p t s h a l l b e i m p o s e d u p o n th e
a c c e s s o r i e s t o th e a t t e m p t t o c o m m i t a felo ny .
Diagram of the application of Arts. 50 to 57.
Consummated Frustrated Attempted
Principals 0 2
Accomplices 1 2 3
Accessories 2 3 4
represents th e penalty prescribed by law in a

which is to be imposed on th e principal in a consummated offense,
in accordance wit h the provisions of Article 46. The other figures
represent the degrees to which th e penalty mus t be lowered, to meet
the different situations anticipated by law.
In Articles 50, 51, 52 and 53 of the Revised Penal Code, the basis
for reduction of the penalty by one or two degrees, is invariably the
penalty prescribed by law for the consummated crime, while under
Articles 54 and 55, the basis for the reduction is the penalty prescribed
by law for the frustrated felony; and under Articles 56 and 57, the
basic penalty to be used for reduction by one or two degrees is that
for the attempted felony. From all of these, it will also be observed
that in making any reduction by one or two degrees, the basis used is
that already prescribed, not as already reduced. It will also be noticed
that under Article the penalty for an attempted crime is that for
the consummated felony, reduced by two degrees, not the penalty
693
Arts. 50-57 PENALTIES
for the frustrated felony, reduced by one degree. (De Angeles vs.
People, 103 Phil. 295, 298-299)
Examples:
A is convicted of attempted homicide for havin g shot B with
intent to kill the latter, but without inflicting a mortal wound.
Th e penalt y for consummate d homicid e is reclusion temporal.
(Art. 249, Book II, Revised Penal Code) The penalty lower by one or
more degrees is indicated in Scale No. 1 of Art.
71. The crime committed by A being attempted homicide, the
penalty to be imposed on him is that penalty lower by two degrees
tha n reclusion temporal (No. 3 in Scale No. 1, Art. 71), and the
penalty two degrees lower is prision correccional (No. 5 in the
same Scale No. 1).
To find the penalty for frustrated homicide, whic h is one
degree lower tha n reclusion temporal, use also Scale No . 1 of
Art. 71, and that penalty one degree lower is prision mayor (No.
4 in the Scale).
A, as principal, B, as accomplice, an d C, as accessory,
are convicted of co nsumma t e d homicide. Th e penalt y for A
is reclusion temporal, he bein g th e principal. (Art. 46) Th e
penalt y for B is prision mayor, th e penalt y nex t lowe r in
degree tha n tha t prescribed for th e co nsu mma te d homicide .
(Art. 52) The penalt y for C is prision correccional, it bein g
two degree s lower tha n tha t prescribed for co n s u mma t e d
homicide. (Art. 53)
In th e examples, the penalty for th e principal in th e attempted
homicide, and th e penalties for th e principal, accomplice and acces•
sory in the commission of consummate d homicide shall be imposed
in the proper period and shall be subject to th e provisions of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Exceptions to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57.

Arts. 50 to 57 shall not apply to cases where th e la w expressly
prescribes th e penalty for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be
imposed upon accomplices or accessories. (Art. 60)
694
PENALTIES 50-57
The penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide may be two

degrees lower; and the penalty for attempted parricide, murder, or
homicide may be three degrees lower.
The courts, in vie w of th e facts of th e case, ma y impose upon the
person guilty of the frustrated crime parricide, murder, or homicide, a
penalty lower by one degree tha n tha t which should be imposed
under the provisions of Art. 50; and ma y reduce by one degree, the
penalty which under Art. 51 should be imposed for an attempt to
commit any of such crimes. (Art. 250)
What are the bases for the determination of the extent of

penalty to be imposed under the Revised Penal Code?
The stage reached by the crime in its development (either
attempted, frustrated or consummated).
The participations therein of th e persons liable.
3. The aggravating or mitigatin g circumstances which at•
tended th e commission of th e crime.
In the different stages of execution in the commission of the crime and in
the participation therein of th e persons liable, the penalty is graduated by
degree.
What is a degree in relation to penalty?

A degree is one entire penalty, one whole penalty or one unit of
the penalties enumerated in the graduated scales provided for in Art.
71. Each of th e penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal,
prision mayor, etc., enumerated in th e graduated scales of Art. 71,
is a degree.
Whe n there is mitigatin g or aggravatin g circumstance, the penalty is
lowered or increased by period only, except whe n the penalty is divisible and
there are two or more mitigating and without aggravating circumstances, in
which case the penalty is lowered by degree.
What is a period of penalty?

A period is one of the three equal portions, called minimum, medium,
and maximum, of a divisible penalty. (See Art. 65)
695
Art. 58 ADDITIONAL PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED
UPON CERTAIN ACCESSORIES
A period of a divisible penalty, when prescribed by the Code

as a penalty for a felony, is in itself a degree.
In Art. 140, the penalty for the leader of a sedition is prision mayor in
its minimu m period and fine.
It being a degree, the penalty next lower tha n tha t penalty is
prision correccional in its maximu m period. (People vs. 60
Phil. 796, and People vs. Haloot, 64 Phil. 739)
Art . 58 . Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain

accessories. — T h o s e a c c e s s o r i e s f a lli n g w i t h i n th e t e r m s o f
p a r a g r a p h 3 o f Art icl e 1 9 o f t hi s Co d e w h o s h o u l d ac t w i t h
a b u s e o f t h e i r p u b l i c f u n c t i o n s , sha l l suffe r th e a d d i t i o n a l
p e n a l t y o f a b s o l u t e p e r p e t u a l d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i f th e p ri n c i pa l
o f f e n d e r sha l l b e g u i lt y o f a g ra v e felony , an d tha t o f a b s o l u t e
t e m p o r a r y d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i f h e sha l l b e g u il t y o f a les s grav e
f elo ny .
Additional penalties for public officers who are guilty as ac•

cessories under paragraph 3 of Article
Public officers who help th e author of a crime by misusing their office
and duties shall suffer th e additional penalties of:
Absolute perpetual disqualification, if the principal offender
is guilty of a grave felony.
Absolute temporary disqualification if the principal

is guilty of less grave felony.
Why does this article limit its provisions to grave or les s grave
felonies? Becaus e it is not possible to have accessories liable for light
felonies. (Art. 16).
This article applies only to public who abused their

public
The accessories referred to in Art. 58 are only those falling within the
term of paragraph 3 of Art. 19.
696
PENALTY FOR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME Art. 59
The additional penalty prescribed in this article will be imposed only on

those accessories whose participation in the crime is charac• terized by the
misuse of public office or authority. This is so, because Art. 58 says "who
should act wit h abuse of their public functions."
Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime

because the means employed or the aims sought are impossible.
— W h e n th e p e r s o n i n t e n d i n g t o c o m m i t a n o f f e n s e ha s
a l r e a d y p e r f o r m e d th e a ct s fo r th e e x e c u t i o n o f th e sa m e bu t
n e v e r t h e l e s s th e c r i m e wa s no t p r o d u c e d b y r e a s o n o f th e
fac t tha t th e ac t i n t e n d e d wa s b y it s n a t u r e on e o f i mp o s s i b l e
a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o r b e c a u s e th e m e a n s e m p l o y e d b y s u c h
p e r s o n ar e e s s e n t i a l l y i n a d e q u a t e t o p r o d u c e th e r e s u l t
d e s i r e d b y hi m , th e co urt , h a v i n g i n mi n d th e so cia l d a n g e r
an d th e d e g r e e o f c r i m i n a l i t y s h o w n b y th e o f f e n d er , shal l
i m p o s e u p o n hi m th e p e n a l t y o f arresto mayor o r a fin e r a n g i n g
fro m 20 0 t o 50 0 p e s o s .
Penalty for impossible crime.

The penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor or a fine rang•
ing from 200 to 500 pesos.
Basis for imposition of proper penalty: social danger, and

(2) degree of criminality shown by the offender.
The court mus t take into consideration the social danger and the
degree of criminality shown by th e offender. (Art. 59)
Thus, a person wh o fired a revolver upon his enemy from a
distance of one kilometer, show s stupidity rather tha n dangerous-
ness. According to the theory, such person should not be
punished, because there is neither "social danger" nor any "degree of
shown by such person. Hi s said act is absolutely harm•
less. Even subjectively, a ma n with a little common sense will know that he
cannot hit a person by firing a revolver one kilometer away. (Guevara)
But one who discharged a shotgun at another from a distance
of 200 yards, is guilty of discharge of firearm under Art. 254, not of
697
Art. 60 EXCEPTIONS TO ARTICLES 50-57
impossible crime, there being no proof of intent to kill on the part of

the offender and it being possible of accomplishing the evil intent of
the offender (to frighten the offended party). People vs. Agbuya,
57 Phil. 238, 243)
Is the penalty for impossible crime proper?

The fixing of the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of to
P50 0 is subject to criticism, because this article use s the words "of•
fense" and "crime" which include light felony. So, he who attempts to
commit a light felony of impossible materialization may be punished
by a penalty of arresto mayor which is higher tha n tha t prescribed
for the consummated light felony, which is arresto menor. (Albert)
Bu t the provision of Article 59 is limited to those cases where
th e act performed would be grave felonies or les s grave felonies.
(Guevara)
Art . 60. Exceptions to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57.

— Th e c o n t a i n e d i n Art icle s 5 0 t o 57, inclusive , o f thi s
Cod e shal l b e a p p l i c a b l e t o ca se s i n w h i c h la w expres sl y
p r e s c r i b e s th e p e n a l t y p r o v i d e d fo r a f r u s t r a t e d o r a t t e m p t e d
f elony , o r t o b e i mp o s e d u po n a c c o m p l i c e s o r a c c e s s o r i e s .
Arts. 50 to 57 do not apply when the law expressly prescribes

the penalty for a frustrated or attempted felony or to be im•
posed upon accomplices or accessories.
Thus, whe n on the occasion or in consequence of an attempted
or frustrated robbery, th e offender commits a homicide, th e law
provides in Art. 297 tha t th e special penalty of reclusion temporal in
its maximu m period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the
offender.
Were it not for this provision in Art. 60, the penalty to be im• posed
would be reclusion temporal which is the penalty nex t lower in degree tha n
reclusion perpetua to death, the penalty for consummated offense of robbery
wit h homicide.
Because of the enormity of the offense of attempted or frustrated
robbery wit h homicide, the law provides a special penalty therefor.
698
EXCEPTIONS TO ARTICLES Art. 60
Accomplice, punished as principal.

Again, under the general rule, an accomplice is punished by a penalty
one degree lower than the penalty imposed upon the principal. Bu t in two
cases, th e Code punishe s an accomplice with the same penalty imposed upon
the principal. They are:
1. The ascendants , guardians , curators, teachers and any

person wh o by abuse of authority or confidential relation•
ship, shall cooperate as accomplices in the crimes of rape,
acts of lasciviousness , seduction, corruption of minors,
white slave trade or abduction. (Art. 346)
2. One wh o furnished th e place for the perpetration of the
crime of slight illegal detention. (Art. 268)
Furnishing th e place for the perpetration of the crime is ordinar• ily the
act of an accomplice.
Accessory punished as principal.

Knowingly concealing certain evil practices is ordinarily an act
of the accessory, but in Art. 142, such act is punished as the act of
the principal.
Certain accessories are punished with a penalty one degree

lower, instead of two degrees.
In certain crimes, th e participation of the offender is that of an
accessory because he perpetrates the act after someone has committed
counterfeiting or falsification. But the penalty for the act perpetrated
is one degree lower instead of two degrees lower in the following
crimes:
Knowingly using counterfeited seal or forged signature or stamp
of the President. (Art. 162)
2. Illegal possession and use of a false treasury or bank note.
(Art. 168)
3. Usin g a falsified document. (Art. 173, par. 3)
4. Usin g a falsified dispatch. (Art. 173, par. 2)
699
Art. 61 RULES FOR GRADUATING PENALTIES
Art . 61 . Rules for graduating penalties. — Fo r th e p u r p o s e of

g r a d u a t i n g th e p e n a l t i e s w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o th e p r o v i s i o n s
o f Article s fift y t o f if t y- sev en , inclusiv e , o f thi s Code , ar e t o b e
i mp o s e d upo n p e r s o n s g uilt y a s p r i n c i p a l s o f an y f r u st ra t e d
o r a t t e mp t e d felo ny , o r a s a c c o m p l i c e s o r a c c e s s o r i e s , th e fol•
l o w i n g rule s sha l l b e o b s e r v e d :
1 . Whe n th e penalt y prescribe d fo r th e felon y i s singl e an d

indivisible , th e penalt y nex t lowe r i n degre e shal l b e tha t immediatel y
followin g tha t indivisibl e penalt y i n th e respec • tiv e graduate d scal e
prescribe d i n Articl e 7 1 o f thi s Code .
2 . Whe n th e p e n a l t y p r e s c r i b e d fo r th e c rim e i s com •
p o s e d o f tw o i n d i v i s i b l e p e n a l t i e s , o r o f on e o r mo r e divis •
ibl e p e n a l t i e s t o b e i m p o s e d t o t hei r ful l e x t e n t , th e p e n a l t y
ne x t l o w e r i n d e g r e e sha l l b e t ha t i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g th e
l e s s e r o f th e p e n a l t i e s p r e s c r i b e d i n th e r e s p e c t i v e g r a d u a t e d
sca le .
3 . Whe n th e p e n a l t y p r e s c r i b e d fo r th e c r i m e i s co m •
p o s e d o f on e o r tw o i n d i v i s i b l e p e n a l t i e s an d th e
p e r i o d o f a n o t h e r div i sib l e p e n a l t y , th e p e n a l t y nex t l o w e r i n
d e g r e e sha l l b e c o m p o s e d o f th e m e d i u m an d m i n i m u m peri •
od s o f th e p r o p e r d i v i s i b l e p e n a l t y an d th e m a x i m u m p e r i o d
o f tha t i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g i n sa i d r e s p e c t i v e g r a d u a t e d
sca le .
4 . Whe n th e p e n a l t y p r e s c r i b e d fo r th e c r i m e i s co m •
p o s e d o f s e v e r a l p e r i o d s , c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o d i f f er e n t d iv i si b l e
p e n a l t i e s , th e p e n a l t y nex t l o w e r i n d e g r e e sha l l b e c o m p o s e d
o f th e p e r i o d i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g th e m i n i m u m p r e s c r i b e d
an d o f th e tw o nex t f o l l o w i n g , w h i c h sha l l b e t a k e n fro m th e
p e n a l t y p r e s c r i b e d i f p o s s i b l e ; o t h e r w i s e fro m th e p e n a l t y
i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g i n th e a b o v e m e n t i o n e d r e s p e c t i v e
g r a d u a t e d sca le .
5 . Whe n th e la w p r e s c r i b e s a p e n a l t y fo r a c r i m e i n
so m e m a n n e r no t s pe cia ll y p r o v i d e d fo r i n th e fou r p r e c e d i n g
r u l e s , th e c o u r t s , p r o c e e d i n g b y a n a l o g y , s ha l l i m p o s e th e
c o r r e s p o n d i n g p e n a l t i e s u po n t ho s e guilt y a s p r i n c i p a l s o f th e
f r u s t r a t e d felo ny , o r o f a t t e mp t t o c o m m i t th e s a me , an d upo n
a c c o m p l i c e s an d a c c e s s o r i e s . (As amended by Com. Act No.
700
RULES FOR GRADUATING PENALTIES Art. 61
Art. 61 provides for the rules to be observed in lowering the

penalty by one or two degrees.
According to Art. 46 , th e penalt y prescribed by la w in gen •
eral term s shal l be impose d upo n th e principal in a consummated
felony. According to Arts . 50 to 57 , th e penalt y prescribed by law
for the felony shall be lowered by one or two degrees, as follows:
For th e principal in frustrated felony — one degree low•
er;
(2) For th e principal in attempte d felony — two degrees low•
er;
(3) For th e accomplice in consummate d felony — one degree
lower; and
(4) For th e accessory in consummate d felony — two degrees
lower.
The rules provided for in Art. should also apply in determining
the minimum of th e indeterminate penalty under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. The minimum of th e indeterminate penalty is within
the range of the penalty next lower tha n that prescribed by the Revised
Penal Code for th e offense.
Those rules also apply in lowering th e penalty by one or two de•
grees by reason of th e presence privileged mitigating circumstance
(Arts. 68 and 69), or whe n the penalty is divisible and there are two
or more mitigating circumstances (generic) and no aggravating cir•
cumstance. (Art. 64)
The lower penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale

in Art.
Scale No. 1 in Art. enumerate s the penalties in the following order:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
701
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Destierro,
8. Arresto menor,
9. Public censure,
10. Fine.
The indivisible penalties are: (1) death, (2) reclusion perpetua,
and public censure.
The divisible penalties are reclusion temporal down to arresto
menor.
The divisible penalties are divided into three periods, namely:
(1) the minimum, (2) the medium, (3) the maximum.
Illustrations of the rules:

First rule:
When the penalty is single and indivisible.

A single and indivisible penalty is reclusion perpetua. This is
the penalty for kidnapping and failure to return a minor. (Art. 270)
In Scale No. 1 in Art. th e penalty immediately following reclusion
perpetua is reclusion temporal. The penalty next lower in degree,
therefore, is reclusion temporal.
Second rule:
When the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties.

Two indivisible penalties are reclusion perpetua to death. This is
the penalty for parricide. (Art. 246) The penalty immediately following
th e lesser of th e penalties, which is reclusion perpetua, is reclusion
temporal. (See Scale No. 1 in Art. 71)
When the penalty is composed of one or more divisible penal•

ties to be imposed to their full extent.
One divisible penalty to be imposed to its full extent is reclusion
and two divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent
are prision correccional to prision mayor. The penalty immediately
702
following the divisible penalty of reclusion temporal in Scale No. 1

of Art. is mayor; and the penalty immediately following
th e lesser of the penalties prision correccional to mayor is
arresto mayor. (See Scale No. 1 in Art. 71)
Third rule:
When the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties

and the maximum of a divisible penalty.
The penalty for murder (Art. 248) is reclusion temporal in its
maximu m period to death. Reclusion perpetua, being between re•
clusion temporal and death, is included in th e penalty.
Thus, the penalty for murder consists in two indivisible penalties
of death and reclusion perpetua and one divisible penalty reclusion
temporal in its maxi mu m period.
The proper divisible penalty is reclusion temporal. The penalty
immediately following reclusion temporal is mayor.
Under th e third rule, th e penalty nex t lower is composed of the
medium and minimu m periods of reclusion temporal and the maxi•
mu m of prision mayor.
This is th e penalty computed in th e case of People vs. Ong Ta,
70 Phil. 553, 555.
Illustration:
Death
Reclusion perpetua (1) Penalty for the princi•
pal in consummated
murder.
1. Maximum
Reclusion
temporal 2. Medium
3. Minimum (2) Pena lt y for accom•
plice; or penalty for
1. Maximum
the principal in frus•
Prision mayor 2. Medium trated murder.
3. Minimum
703
When the penalty is composed of one indivisible penalty and

the maximum period of a divisible penalty.
Example: Reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
perpetua. The same rule shall be observed in lowering the penalty by
one or two degrees.
Fourth rule:
When the penalty is composed of several periods.

The word "several" in relation to the number of periods, mean s
consisting in more tha n two periods. Hence, the fourth rule contem• plates a
penalty composed of at least three periods.
The several periods mus t correspond to different divisible penal•
ties.
The penalty which is composed several periods corresponding
to divisible penalties is prision mayor in its mediu m period
to reclusion temporal in its minimu m period. The period immediately
following the minimum , which is prision mayor in its mediu m period,
is prision mayor in its minimum period. The two periods next following
are the maximu m and mediu m periods of prision correccional, th e
penalty next following in the scale prescribed in Art. since it cannot
be taken from the penalty prescribed.
Illustration :
Reclusion temporal
Penalty for the prin•

cipal in the consum•
Prision mayor mated felony.
Penalty for the accom•

Prision correccional 2. plice; or penalty for th
e principal in th e
frustrated felony.
704
Fifth rule: (by analogy, because "not specially provided for in th e

four preceding
When the penalty has two periods.

Certain offenses in the Code are punished with a penalty
composed of two periods, either of th e sam e penalty —
(1) For abduction 343) — prision correccional in its mini•

mu m and mediu m periods;
or of different penalties —
(2) For physical injuries (Art. 263 , subsection 4) — arresto
mayor in its ma xi mu m period to prision correccional in its
minimu m period.
In thes e cases, th e penalty lower by one degree is formed by two
periods to be take n from th e sam e penalty prescribed, if possible, or
from th e periods of th e penalty numerically following th e lesser of
the penalties prescribed.
Thes e case s are not covered by th e fourth rule, because th e

penalty contemplated in th e fourth rule mus t contain at least three
periods. The penalty under the fifth rule (by analogy) contains one
or two periods only.
Example :
The penalty next lower tha n prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods is arresto mayor in its mediu m and maximu m periods.
Maximu m —
Medium — The penalty prescribed for
Minimum — the felony.
Arresto -
Minimum
When the penalty has one period.

If the penalty is any one of the three periods of a divisible penalty,
the penalty next lower in degree shall be that period next following
the given penalty. Thus, the penalty immediately inferior to
705
mayor in its maximum period is prision mayor in its medium period.

(People vs. Co 58 Phil. 545, 551)
If the penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period, the
penalty next lower in degree is reclusion temporal in its minimu m
period. (People vs. 60 Phil. 796, 810)
The penalty prescribed by the Code for a felony is a degree. If the
penalty prescribed for a felony is one of the three periods of a divisible
penalty, that period becomes a degree, and the period immediately below is
the penalty next lower in degree.
Simplified rules:
The rules prescribed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Art. 61 may be simplified,
as follows:
(1) If th e penalty prescribed by th e Code consist s in three
periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties, th e
penalty nex t lower in degree is th e penalty consisting in
the three periods down in th e scale.
(2) If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in two periods,
the penalty next lower in degree is th e penalty consisting
in two periods down in th e scale.
(3) If the penalty prescribed by th e Code consists in only one
period, the penalty nex t lower in degree is th e nex t period
down in th e scale.
If the given penalty is composed of one, two or three periods, th e
penalty next lower in degree should begin where th e given penalty
ends, because, otherwise, if it were to skip over intermediate ones, it
would be lower but not next lower in degree. (People vs. Haloot, 64
Phil. 739, 744)
In th e case of U.S. vs. Fuentes, 4 Phil. 404, 405 , it wa s held tha t

th e penalty next lower in degree to correccional in its mediu m
period is arresto mayor in its mediu m period.
The reason for this ruling is tha t a degree consists in one whole
or one unit of th e penalties enumerate d in th e graduated scales men •
tioned in Art. To lower a penalty by one degree, it is necessary to
keep a distance of one whole penalty or one unit of th e penalties in
Art. 71 betwee n one degree and another.
706
EFFECTS OF MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING Art. 62
CIRCUMSTANCES, ETC.
In the cases of People vs. Co Pao and People vs. there is

a distance of only one-third of a degree. Bu t the ruling in the
case ha s been superseded by th e rulings in those cases.
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are disregarded in

the application of the rules for graduating penalties.
It will be noted that each paragraph of Art. 61 begins with the
phrase, the penalty prescribed for the felony" or "crime." Hence,
in lowering the penalty, the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal
Code for the crime is the basis, without regard to the mitigating or ag•
gravating circumstances which attended the commission of the crime.
It is only after th e penalty nex t lower in degree is already deter•
mined that th e mitigatin g aggravating circumstances should
be considered.
S e c t i o n Tw o . — R u l e s fo r th e a p p l i c a t i o n o f p e n a l t i e s
wit h regar d t o th e mitigatin g an d ag • gravatin
g circumstances , an d habitua l delinquency .
Art . 62 . Effects of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating

circumstances and of habitual delinquency. — M i t i g a t i n g or aggra •
v a t in g c i r c u m s t a n c e s an d h a b i t u a l d e l i n q u e n c y shal l b e ta ke n
int o a c c o u n t fo r th e p u r p o s e o f d i m i n i s h i n g o r i n c r e a s i n g th e
p e n a l t y i n c o n f o r mi t y w i t h th e f o l l o w i n g rule s :
1 . Aggravatin g c i r c u mst a n c e s whic h i n themselve s
c o n s t i t u t e a c r i m e s p e c i a l l y p u n i s h a b l e b y la w o r w h i c h ar e
i n c l u d e d b y th e la w i n a c r i m e an d p r e s c r i b i n g th e
p e n a l t y t h e r e f o r sha l l no t b e t a ke n int o a c c o u n t fo r th e pur •
po s e o f i n c r e a s i n g th e p e n a l t y .
1(a). Whe n i n th e c o m mi s s i o n o f th e crime , a dv a ntag e
wa s t a ke n b y th e of f ende r o f hi s publi c po sitio n , th e pen •
alt y t o b e i m p o s e d shal l b e i n it s m a x i m u m r e g a r dl e s s o f
mitigatin g circu msta nces .
Th e maximu m penalt y shal l b e impose d i f th e offens e wa s
committe d b y an y perso n wh o belong s t o a n organ • ized/syndicate
d crim e group .
707
Art. 62 EFFECTS OF MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES, ETC.
An crim e g ro u p me a n s a grou p
o f tw o o r mo r e p e r s o n s c o l l a b o r a t i n g , c o n f e d e r a t i n g o r
m u t u a l l y h e l p i n g on e a n o t h e r fo r p u r p o s e s o f gai n i n th e
c o m m i s s i o n o f an y crime .
2 . Th e sa m e rul e shal l a ppl y w it h respe c t t o an y aggra •
v a tin g c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n h e r e n t i n th e crim e t o suc h a d eg re e
tha t i t mus t o f n e c e s s i t y a c c o m p a n y th e c o m m i s s i o n thereof .
3 . Aggravatin g o r mi tigatin g c i r c u mst a n c e s whic h
a ris e fro m th e mo ra l a t t r i b u t e s o f th e o ffend er , o r fro m hi s
p r i v a t e r e l a t i o n s w it h th e o f f e n d e d pa rty , o r fro m an y o t he r
p e r s o n a l c a u s e , sha l l o nl y s e rv e t o a g g r a v a t e o r mi t i g a t e th e
lia bi lit y o f th e p r i n c i p a l s , a c c o m p l i c e s , an d a c c e s s o r i e s a s t o
w h o m s uc h c i r c u m s t a n c e s ar e a t t e n d a n t .
4 . Th e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h c o n s i s t i n th e ma t e r i a l
e x e c u t i o n o f th e act , o r i n th e me a n s e m p l o y e d t o a c c o mp l i s h
it, sha l l serv e t o a g g r a v a t e o r mi t i g a t e th e l i a b i l it y o f t h o s e
p e r s o n s o nl y w h o ha d k n o w l e d g e o f t h e m a t th e ti m e o f th e
e x e c u t i o n o f th e ac t o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n t h e r e i n .
5 . H a b i t u a l d e l i n q u e n c y sha l l h a v e th e f o l l o w i n g ef•
fects :
(a) U p o n a t hi r d c o n v i c t i o n , th e c u l p r i t s ha l l b e sen •
t e n c e d t o th e p e n a l t y p r o v i d e d b y la w fo r th e la s t c r i m e o f
w h i c h h e b e f o u n d g u i l t y an d t o th e a d d i t i o n a l p e n a l t y o f
prision correccional i n it s m e d i u m an d m a x i m u m p e r i o d s ;
(b) U p o n a f o ur t h c o n v i c t i o n , th e culpri t shal l sen •
t e n c e d t o th e p e n a l t y p r o v i d e d fo r th e las t cri m e o f w h i c h h e
b e f o u n d g ui lt y an d t o th e a d d i t i o n a l p e n a l t y o f prision mayor
i n it s m i n i m u m an d m e d i u m p e r i o d s ; an d
(c) U p o n a fifth o r a d d i t i o n a l c o n v i c t i o n , th e c u l p r i t
sha l l b e s e n t e n c e d t o th e p e n a l t y p r o v i d e d fo r th e las t cri m e
o f w h i c h h e b e f o u n d g u i lt y an d t o th e a d d i t i o n a l p e n a l t y o f
mayor i n it s m a x i m u m p e r i o d t o reclusion temporal i n it s
mi n i mu m period .
N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g th e p r o v i s i o n s o f thi s a r t i c l e , th e tota l
o f th e tw o p e n a l t i e s t o b e i mp o s e d u po n th e o ffender , i n con •
f o r mi t y h e r e w i t h , shal l i n n o ca s e e x c e e d 3 0 y e a r s .
708
CIRCUMSTANCES, ETC.
Fo r th e p u r p o s e s o f t hi s a rt ic le , a p e r s o n sha l l b e d e e me d
t o b e h a b i t u a l d e l i n q u e n t , i f w i t h i n a p e r i o d o f te n y e a r s
fro m th e da t e o f hi s r e l e a s e o r las t c o n v i c t i o n o f th e c r i me s
o f s e r i o u s o r les s s e r i o u s p h y s i c a l i n j u r i e s , robo, hurto, estafa,
o r falsification, h e i s f o u n d g u i l t y o f an y o f sai d c r i m e s a thir d
t i m e or (As amended by Republic Act No. 7659.)
Effect of the attendance of aggravating or mitigating circum•

stances or of habitual delinquency.
Aggravating circumstances (generic and specific) have the
effect of increasing the penalty, without, however, exceeding
th e maxi mu m provided by law.
2. Mitigating circumstances hav e th e effect of diminishing
the
3. Habitual delinquency ha s th e effect, not only of increas•
ing the penalty because of recidivism which is generally
implied in habitual delinquency, but also of imposing an
additional penalty.
Rules regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances:

Par . 1 -
Aggravating circumstances which (1) in themselves constitute
a crime especially punished by law or which (2) are included by the
law in defining a crime and prescribing th e penalty therefor are not
to be taken into account to increase th e penalty.
Examples:
Whic h i n t h e m s e l v e s c o n s t i t u t e a cri me .
That th e crime be committed "by mean s of fire" (Art.
14, par. 12), is not considered as aggravatin g in arson;
and that the crime be committed by mean s of "derailment
of a locomotive" (Art. 14, par. 12), is not considered as
aggravating in th e crime described in Art. 330 known
as "Damages and obstruction to mean s of communica•
tion."
709
CIRCUMSTANCES, ETC.
Art. 330 punishes the act of damaging any railway resulting

in derailment of cars.
(2) Whic h ar e i n c l u d e d b y la w i n a cri me .
That the crime wa s committed in the dwelling of the
offended party is not aggravating in robbery with force upon
things (Art. 299); abuse of confidence is not aggravating in
qualified theft committed with grave abuse of confidence. (Art.
310)
Neither can the aggravating circumstance tha t the
crime wa s committed by mean s poison (Art. 14, par. 12)
be considered in the crime of murder committed by mean s
of poison, since using poison to kill th e victim is included
by law in defining th e crime of murder. (Art. 248, par. 3)
Whe n maximu m o f th e penalt y shal l b e imposed .

The maximu m of th e penalty shall be imposed in th e following cases:
When in th e commission of the crime, advantage wa s taken
by th e offender of hi s public position;
2. If the offense wa s committed by an y person wh o belongs
to an crime group.
Wha t i s a n crim e group ?

An crime group mean s a group of two or
more persons collaborating confederating or mutuall y helpin g one
another for purposes of gain in th e commission of any crime.
Par . 2 -
The same rule applies with respect to aggravating circumstances which

are inherent in the crime.
Example: Eviden t premeditation is inheren t in robbery and
theft. (U.S. vs. Castroverde, 4 Phil. 246, 248)
Par . 3 -
Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from (1)

the moral attributes of the offender, or (2) from his private relations
710
CIRCUMSTANCES, ETC.
with the offended party, or (3) from any other personal cause, serve
to aggravate or mitigate th e liability of th e principals, accomplices
and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.
Examples:
F ro m th e mo r a l a t t r i b u t e s o f th e o ffen de r :
A and B killed A acted with evident premeditation,
and B wit h passion and obfuscation.
Th e circumst a nce s o f eviden t premeditatio n and

passion and obfuscation arise from th e moral attributes
of th e offenders. Ev iden t premeditatio n shoul d affect
and aggravate only th e penalty for A, while passion and
obfuscation will benefit B only and mitigate hi s liability.
Note: The state s of their minds are different.
(2) Fro m hi s p r i v a t e r e l a t i o n s w it h th e o f f e n d e d party :
A and C inflicted slight physical injuries on B. A is
th e son of B. C is th e father of B. In this case, the alterna•
tive circumstance of relationship, as aggravating, shall be
take n into account agains t A only, because he is a relative
of a lower degree tha n th e offended party, B. Relationship
is mitigating as regards he being a relative of a higher
degree tha n the offended party, B.
Also, if A assiste d th e wife of B in killing th e latter,
only th e wife is guilty of parricide and A for homicide or
murder, as th e case ma y be. (People vs. Bucsit, 43 Phil.
184, 185; People vs. Patricio, 46 Phil. 875, 879)
V, a confidential clerk in the American Express Co.,
learned of the description of the turns of the combination of
his employer's safe. B cooperated as accomplice in the com•
mission of the crime of qualified theft by V. It was held that
the qualifying circumstance of breach of confidence which
in the case justifies the imposition of a penalty
one degree (now two degrees) higher than that prescribed for
simple theft does not apply to B who was not in confidential
relations with the offended party and who therefore should
be punished as an accomplice in the crime of simple theft.
(People vs. Valdellon, 46 Phil. 245, 252.)
711
CIRCUMSTANCES, ETC.
Note: This ruling holds true even if there wa s conspiracy

between V and B. The rule that in conspiracy the
act of one is the act of all, does not mea n that the
crime of one is the crime of
(3) Fro m an y o t h e r p e r s o n a l ca u se :
A and B committed a crime. A wa s under 16 years of age
and B wa s a recidivist.
Par . 4 -
The circumstances which consist (1) in the material execution
of the act, or (2) in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve
to aggravate or mitigate th e liability of those persons only who had
knowledge of them at the tim e of th e execution of th e act or their
cooperation therein.
Examples:
(1) M a t e r i a l e x e c u t i o n o f th e act :
A, as principal by induction, B, and C agreed to kill
D. B and C killed D wit h treachery, which mode of com•
mitting th e offense had not been previously agreed upon
by the m wit h A. A wa s not present whe n B and C killed D
with treachery.
The aggravating circumstance of treachery should not
be taken into account against A, but against B and C only.
(People vs. De Otero, 51 Phil. 201) Bu t if A wa s present
and had knowledge of th e treachery wit h which th e crime
wa s committed by B and C, he is also liable for murder,
qualified by treachery.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery should not be
considered against th e principal by induction whe n he left
to the principal by direct participation the means, modes or
methods of the commission of the felony. (U.S. vs.
23 Phil. 81 , 96)
(2) M e a n s t o a c c o m p l i s h th e c r i me :
A ordered B to kill B invited C to eat with him.
B mixed poison wit h th e food of C, wh o died after he had
eaten th e food. A did not know that B used poison to kill
712
CIRCUMSTANCES, ETC.
In this case, th e aggravating circumstance that th e crime be

committed by mean s of poison is not applicable to A.
There is no mitigating circumstance relating to the means

employed in the execution of the crime.
Insofar as relates to th e mean s employed in the execution of the
crime and other acts incident to th e actual perpetration thereof, it
is impossible to conceive of any mitigatin g circumstance which can
properly be considered as to one of th e defendants, but is not equally
applicable to th e others, eve n to those wh o had no knowledge of the
sam e at the time of th e commission of th e crime, or their cooperation
therein. (U.S. vs . 15 Phil. 470 , 482 , citing Groizard)
Difference between circumstances relating to the persons

participating in the crime and (2) circumstances consisting
in the material execution or means employed.
S induced four Igorots to kill B. S instructed the m to hide in
the bushe s until night whe n the y should go to the house of B and
kill him. The crime wa s committed by the four Igorots as they were
instructed. The trial court considered th e aggravating circumstance
of against th e four Igorots but not against S.
Is th e ruling of th e trial court correct?
No, nocturnity being a circumstance in the material execution of
the deed and one of the means employed to accomplish its commission,
and S having knowledge of its use, should be considered against S.
The circumstances attending the commission of a crime relate
either (1) to the persons participating in the same, or (2) to its mate•
rial execution, or to the mean s employed.
The former (1), do not affect all the participants in the crime,
but only those to who m the y particularly apply.
The latter (2), have a direct bearing upon the criminal liability
of all the defendants who had knowledge thereof at the time of the
commission of the crime, or of their cooperation therein. (U.S. vs.
Ancheta, supra)
though forming part of the conspiracy
of kidnapping, were not the ones who actually kidnapped the victim
at nighttime; and, under Art. paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal
713
Art. 62 EFFECTS OF HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
they are not bound or affected by the aggravating circumstance

of nighttime unless they knew that it would be availed of in accom•
plishing the offense, and there is no proof of said knowledge. (People
vs. Villanueva, 98 Phil. 339)
7s it necessary that there be proof of cooperation or participation with

regard to the act of
The aggravating circumstance of cruelty, while it ma y be con•
sidered as against one accused, may not be appreciated as against
another accused, where there is no sufficient proof of conspiracy in
the commission of the mai n act, nor is there proof of cooperation or
participation on the part of the latter with regard to the act of cruelty.
(People vs. Vocalos, 59 O.G. 693)
If cruelty is a means employed to accomplish the act, cooperation
or participation with regard to the act of cruelty is not necessary, as
only knowledge of it is required by Art. 62, par. 4, of the Code.
Note, however, tha t as cruelty is in Art. 14, par. 21 ,
the act of cruelty (the other wrong) is "not necessary th e "com•
mission" of the crime. It would see m that cruelty consists neither
"in the material execution of the act" nor "in th e mean s employed to
accomplish it." If this is th e case, the ruling in People vs. Vocales is
correct, because Art. 62 , par. 4, would not be applicable.
Par . 5 -
Wh o i s a habitua l delinquent ?
A person is a habitual delinquent if withi n a period of te n years
from the date of his (last) release or last conviction of th e crimes of (1)
serious or less serious physical injuries, (2) robo, (3) hurto, (4) estafa,
or (5) falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third
time or oftener.
The crimes are specified in habitual delinquency.

The crimes mentioned in th e definition of habitual delinquency are:
serious or less serious physical injuries (Arts. 26 3 and 265), rob• bery (Arts.
293-303), theft (Arts. 308-311), estafa (Arts. 315-318), and falsification (Arts.
170-174).
Thus, if A wa s convicted of and served sentence for theft in 1935; after
his release he committed homicide (Art. 249), wa s convicted in
714
EFFECTS OF HABITUAL DELINQUENCY Art. 62
1937, and wa s released in 1951; and in 1957 wa s convicted of rape

(Art. 335); he is not a habitual delinquent eve n if he wa s convicted
the third time. Homicide and rape are not mentioned in the definition
of habitual delinquency. (See Molesa vs. Director of Prisons, 59 Phil.
406, 408)
If the accused is convicted of a violation of Art. 155 (Llobrera
vs. Director of Prisons, 87 Phil. 179), or of Art. 190 (People vs. Go Ug,
67 Phil. 202), he is not a habitual delinquent, eve n if he ha s previous
convictions of theft, estafa, robbery, falsification, or serious or less
serious physical injuries.
Requisites of habitual delinquency.

Tha t th e offender had bee n convicted of any of the crimes
of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft,
estafa, or falsification.
2. That after tha t conviction or after serving his sentence, he
again committed, and, withi n 10 years from his release or
first conviction, he wa s again convicted of any of the said
crimes for th e second time.
That after his conviction of, or after serving sentence the
second offense, he agai n committed, and, within 10 years
from his last release or last conviction, he wa s again con•
victed of any of said offenses, th e third time or oftener.
Computation of ten-year period.

With respect to the period of te n years, th e law expressly men•
tions th e defendant's last conviction or (last) release as the starting
point from which th e ten-year period should be counted.
For instance, a person ha s the following criminal records:
Crimes Committed Date of Conviction Date of Release

Theft June, 1915 July, 1916
Estafa May, 1920 Oct., 1922
Attempted Robbery July, 1928 Aug., 1930
Theft 1937 Sept., 1940
Crime charged Oct., 1946
715
With respect to the conviction for estafa in May, 1920, the start•
ing point would be the date of his conviction for theft, which is June,
1915, or the date of his release, which is July, 1916; and the date of
his conviction for estafa, which is May, 1920, or the date of release,
which is Oct. 1922, should be the starting point with reference to the
conviction for attempted robbery in July, 1928, etc.
The ten-year period should not be counted from the date of con•
viction for theft, which is June, 1915, or the date of release, which
is July, 1916, in relation to the last crime of which th e offender wa s
found guilty in October, 1946, because June, 1915, or July, 1916, is
not the date of defendant's last conviction or last release. The date of
last conviction with respect to the crime charged is August, 1937, for
theft. The date of last release is September, 1940.
Bu t if A wa s convicted of theft in 1920, of robbery in 1922, of
swindling in 1935, and of theft again in 1936, only th e crime of swin•
dling, of which he wa s convicted in 1935 can be take n into account
in the imposition of th e penalty for theft in 1936 and, therefore, A is
not a habitual delinquent but only a recidivist.
Why the starting point is date of release or date of last con•

viction.
Suppose, a convict ha s th e following criminal records:
Offenses Date of Date of Date of

Commission Conviction Release
Theft Aug., 1914 April, 1915 Sept., 1915
Estafa Nov., 1920 April, 1923 April, 1925
Robbery July, 1932 April, 1934
Not e tha t as regards the crime of estafa committed in Novem •

ber, 1920, th e starting point ma y be th e date of conviction for theft
(April, 1915) or th e date of release (Sept., 1916), because betwee n
April, 1923 and April, 1915 there is only a difference of 8 years or
between April, 1923 and Sept., 1916, there is only a difference of 7
years. Bu t as regards robbery committed in July, 1932, if we hav e to
make th e date of last conviction (April, 1923) as th e starting point
to determine the ten-year period to April, th e date whe n th e
offender wa s found guilty of robbery, there is already a difference of
years. In this case, it seem s tha t he is not a habitual delinquent.

Bu t the law say s the date of hi s release or last So,
we can count the ten-year period from April, 1925. The difference will
be only 9 years. He is the n a habitual delinquent.
If the starting point is only th e date of last conviction, there
will be a case where th e offender cannot be considered a habitual
delinquent. Suppose tha t in connection wit h th e three crimes herein•
before mentioned, th e offender wa s sentenced one after another to
12 years for each, eve n if he should commit th e subsequent offense
immediately after release, he cannot be a habitual delinquent.
"The culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by

law for the last crime of which he be found guilty."
Thus , if th e accused is tried for robbery and previously he wa s
convicted of theft and estafa, robbery is th e last and if found
guilty, th e penalty for robbery shall be imposed upon him. In view of
hi s two previous convictions of theft and estafa, he will be declared
a habitual delinquent upon hi s conviction of robbery and he will be
sentenced also to th e additional penalty of correccional in its
mediu m and maximu m periods.
Additional penalty for habitual delinquency:

1. Upon a third conviction, th e culprit shall be sentenced to
the penalty provided by law for th e last crime of which
he is found guilty and to the additional penalty of
correccional in its medium and maximu m periods.
2. Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall also be sentenced
to the additional penalty prisidn mayor in its
minimum and medium periods.
Upon a fifth or additional the culprit shall also
be sentenced to th e additional penalty of prisidn mayor in
its minimu m period to reclusion temporal in its minimum
period.
Total penalties not to exceed 30 years.

The total of the two penalties shall not exceed 30 years. The
two penalties refer to (1) the penalty for the last crime of which he
is found guilty and (2) the additional penalty for being a habitual
delinquent.
717
Reason for imposing additional penalty in habitual delinquency.

If, after undergoing punishment for the first time for any of
those crimes, instead of abandoning his ways he goes on to commit
again any of them, this second offense is punished with the maximum
period of the penalty provided by law. He may be a recidivist.
If such graver punishment for committing the second offense
has proved insufficient to restrain his proclivities and to amend his
life, he is deemed to have shown a dangerous propensity to crimes.
Hence, he is punished with a severer penalty for committing any
of those crimes the third time or oftener. An additional penalty is
imposed on him.
Purpose of the law in imposing additional penalty.

The purpose of the law in imposing additional penalty on habitual
delinquents is to render more effective social defense and the reforma•
tion of (People vs. Abuyen, 52 Phil. 722, 725)
Subsequent crime must be committed AFTER CONVICTION

of former crime.
Thus, although the accused wa s six time s previously convicted
of estafa, yet if (1) th e second crime wa s committed before his first
conviction, and (2) the fourth before his third conviction, and (3) the
fifth and sixth were committed on th e sam e day, th e six convictions
are equivalent to three only. (People vs. Ventura, 56 Phil. 1, 5-6)
Illustration:
Date of Date of
Offenses Commission Conviction
(1) Theft January, 1920 October, 1921

(2) Estafa September, 1921 December, 1921
(3) Robbery January, 1930 March, 1931
(4) Falsification February, 1931 December, 1931
(5) Serious phys•
ical injuries Nov. 1, 1932 Dec. 4, 1932
(6) Less serious
physical injuries Nov. 1, 1932 Dec. 7, 1932
718
Note that whe n th e crime of estafa wa s committed in Septem•

ber, 1921, the offender wa s not yet convicted of theft because the
date of conviction is October, 1921. Whe n the crime of falsification
wa s committed in February, the offender wa s not yet convicted
of robbery, because th e date of conviction in the crime of robbery is
March, 1931.
In order tha t an accused ma y be legally deemed a habitual

criminal, it is necessary tha t he committed th e second crime after hi s
conviction of, or after service of sentence for, the first crime; that he
committed th e third crime after hi s conviction of, or after service of
sentence for, th e second crime; th e fourth crime, after his conviction
of, or after service of sentence for, th e third crime, etc. (People vs.
Santiago, 55 Phil. 266, 272)
In the information must be alleged:

1. The dates of th e commission of th e previous crimes.
2. The date of th e last conviction or release.
3. The dates of th e other previous convictions or releases.
(People vs. Venus , 63 Phil. 435 , 440)
The allegation of habitual delinquency in the information should be, as
follows:
That th e accused is a habitual delinquent, under the provisions of
paragraph 5 of Art. 62 of th e Revised Penal Code, having been previously
convicted of theft and estafa, to wit:
Previous Date of Date of Date of

Offenses Commission Conviction Release
Theft Jun e 7, 1930 July 5, 1931 Oct. 3, 1931
Estafa April 9, 1935 Sept. 14, 1936 Dec. 14, 1937
Effect of plea of guilty when allegations are insufficient.

A plea of guilty to an information which fails to allege the dates
of commission of previous offenses, and of releases is not
an admission that the offender is a habitual delinquent, but only a
recidivist. (People 63 Phil. 92, 93-94; People vs. Flores,
63 Phil. 443, 444-445)
719
Effect of failure to object to admission of decision showing dates of

previous convictions.
However, failure to allege said dates in the information is deemed
cured where the accused did not object to the admission of decisions
for previous offenses which show the dates of his convictions. (People
vs. Nava, C.A., 58 O.G. 4750)
Date of release is not absolutely necessary.

If the preceding conviction is les s tha n 10 years from the date
of the conviction in the offense complained of, th e date of last release
is not important, because the release comes after conviction. (People
vs. Tolentino, 73 Phil. 643 , 644)
Habitual delinquency distinguished from recidivism.

As to the crimes committed. In recidivism, it is sufficient
tha t th e accused on th e date of hi s trial, shall have been
previously convicted by final judg men t of another crime
embraced in th e sam e title of th e Code; in habitual delin•
quency, th e crimes are specified.
(2) As to the period of time the crimes are committed. In recidi•
vism, no period of time between the former conviction and
the last conviction is fixed by law; in habitual delinquency,
the offender is found guilty of any of the crimes specified
within ten years from hi s last release or last conviction.
(3) As to the number of crimes committed. In recidivism, the

second conviction for an offense embraced in th e sam e title
of the Code is sufficient; in habitual delinquency, the accused
mus t be found guilty the third time or oftener of any of the
crimes specified. (People vs. 63 Phil. 750, 755)
(4) As to their effects. Recidivism, if not offset by a mitigating
circumstance, serves to increase th e penalty only to th e
maximum ; whereas , if there is habitual delinquency, an
additional penalty is also imposed.
Rulings on habitual delinquency:

1. Ten-yea r period co mput e d eithe r from last conviction
or last Th e la w on habitua l delinquenc y does
720
not contemplate th e exclusion from th e computation of

prior convictions those falling outside the ten-year period
immediately preceding th e crime for which the defendant
is being tried, provided eac h conviction is followed by
another transgression within ten years from one conviction
to another. (People vs. Lacsamana, 70 Phil. People
vs. Rama, 55 Phil. 981 , 982-983)
Ten-year period is counted not to th e date of commission

of subsequent offense, but to th e date of conviction thereof
in relation to the date of hi s last release or last conviction.
(People vs. Morales, 61 Phil. 222 , 224)
The definition of a habitual delinquent in the last

paragraph of Art. 62 says , "if withi n a period years
x x x, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time
or oftener."
Thus, if A wa s convicted of theft in 1920; after his
release he committed and wa s convicted of estafa in 1922;
wa s released on December 5, 1923; and on December 4,
1933, he committed robbery, and wa s convicted thereof
in January, 1934; he is not a habitua l delinquent. The
reason for thi s is tha t whe n he wa s convicted of robbery
in January, 1934 , more tha n 10 year s had elapsed. The
period of te n year s from Decembe r 5, 1923, should not be
counted up to th e commissio n of robbery on December 4,
1933, but to th e date of A's conviction thereof, which is
January, 1934.
When an offender ha s committed several crimes mentioned
in the definition of habitual delinquent, without being first
convicted of any of the m before committing the others, he
is not a habitual delinquent. (People vs. Santiago, 55 Phil.
269-270)
Convictions on the same day or about the same time are
considered as one only. (People vs. Liong, 57 Phil. 839,
841-842) Convictions on March 3 and are considered
one only. (People vs. Lopido, C.A., 38 O.G. 1907)
The reason for this ruling lies in the fact that the additional
penalties fixed by law for habitual delinquency are reformatory in
character and that their application
721
should be gradual, and this can be carried out only whe n

the second conviction takes place after the first or after
service of sentenc e for th e first crime, etc. (People vs .
Santiago, supra, at
5. Crimes committed on the same date, although convictions
on different dates 29 and Sept. are considered
only one. (People vs. Albuquerque, 69 Phil. 608-609)
The reason for this ruling lies in the fact that until
the offender ha s served the additional penalty provided in
his case, and ha s committed or abstained from committing
another crime, it cannot be known if said additional penalty
ha s or ha s not reformed him. (People vs. Santiago, supra,
at 271)
6. Previous convictions are considered every tim e a ne w of•
fense is committed.
On February 12, 1935, defendant wa s convicted of
estafa. In said case, defendant's two previous convictions
were take n into consideration for th e imposition of th e
additional penalty. In April, 1935 , defendan t wa s also
found guilty of estafa committed on October and
his two previous convictions were also considered for th e
imposition of the additional penalty. Defendant contended
that he could be sentenced only to one additional penalty
which wa s already imposed in th e first case.
Held: The contention of defendant is untenable. Ruling
in People vs. Santiago, 55 Phil. 266, reversed. (People vs.
De la Rama, G.R. No. 43744 , Jan . 31 , 1936, 62 Phil. 97 2
The commission of any of those crimes need not be consum•

mated. He wh o commits a crime, whethe r it be attempted
or frustrated, subjectively reveals th e sam e degree of de•
pravity and perversity as one who commits a consummated
crime. (People vs. Abuyen, 52 Phil. 722, 725-726)
8. Habitual delinquency applies to accomplices and acces• sories. Their
participation in committin g thos e crimes (serious or less serious
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification) repeatedly,
whethe r as principals,
722
accomplices or accessories, reveals th e persistence in them

of the inclination wrongdoing, and of th e perversity of
character that had led the m to commit the previous crimes.
(People vs. Sa n Juan , 69 Phil. 347, 349)
9. If one crime wa s committed during the minority of the offender,
suc h crime shoul d not be considered for th e purpose of
treating hi m as a habitual offender, because the
proceedings as regards tha t crime were suspended.
10. The imposition of th e additional penalty prescribed by
law for habitua l delinquent s is mandatory. (People vs.
51 Phil. 857, 860-861)
The imposition of additional penalty is not discretion• ary.
(People vs . Navales , 59 Phil. 496 , 497)
Modifying circumstances applicable to additional penalty.
In th e case People vs. De Jesus, 63 Phil. 760, 764-

765, it wa s hel d tha t th e additional penalt y is subject
to the general rules prescribed by Art. 64, that is, that
such additional penalty is to be imposed in its minimum,
medium or maximu m period according to th e number and
nature of th e modifying circumstances present. When the
law prescribed th e additional punishmen t for habitual
delinquency in suc h form as to mak e it susceptible of
division into periods, it mus t have been for no other reason
tha n to tak e into account all th e circumstances which
may exist in a given case with th e end in view of avoiding
arbitrariness in the selection of th e period in which the
punishment is to be imposed.
This case being the latest is controlling. The ruling

in this case upholds the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice
Avanceha and Justic e Villamor in th e Tanyaquin and
Sanchez cases.
12. Habitual delinquency is not a crime. It is simply a fact or
circumstance which, if present in a given case with the
other circumstances enumerated in Rule 5 of Art. gives
rise to the imposition of the additional penalties therein
prescribed. (People vs. De Jesus , supra, at 767; People vs.
Blanco, 85 Phil. 296, 297)
723
13. Penalty for habitual delinquency is a real penalty that

determines jurisdiction. (People vs. Costosa, 70 Phil. 10,
11-12)
14. A habitual delinquent is necessarily a recidivist. (People
vs. Tolentino, 73 Phil. 643, 644)
Recidivis m i s inheren t i n ha bitua l delinquenc y
and shall be considered as aggravating circumstance in
imposing the principal penalty. (People vs. Espina, 62 Phil.
607, 608; People vs. De Jesus , 63 Phil. 760, 764)
Reason for the rule:
The purpose of the law in imposing additional penalty
on a habitual delinquent is to punish hi m more severely.
If in imposing th e additional penalty, recidivism could not
be considered as aggravating circumstance in fixing the
principal penalty, the imposition of th e additional penalty
would mak e the penalty lighter, instead of more severe,
contrary to th e purpose of the law. (People vs . Tolentino,
supra)
Illustration:
A wa s previously twice convicted of theft withi n te n
years. Within te n years after service of hi s last sentence,
he wa s convicted of robbery under Art. 294, subsection 2,
of th e Code, punished by reclusion temporal in its mediu m
period to reclusion perpetua.
Being a habitual delinquent, A should suffer 2 years, 4

months, and 1 day of prision correctional, as an additional penalty.
Without taking into consideration th e aggravating

circumstance of recidivism, th e principal penalt y to be imposed
would be 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, th e
mediu m of th e penalty prescribed for the crime. If we add 2 years,
4 month s and 1 day (additional penalty) to th e principal penalty,
th e total would be 19 years, 8 month s and 2 days.
Bu t if th e additional penalt y is not impose d and
recidivism is take n into consideration in fixing the
724
RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF Art. 63
INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES
penalty, it would be reclusion perpetua, which is the

maximu m of th e penalty prescribed by law.
But in imposing th e additional recidivism is not
aggravating because inasmuch as recidivism is a qualifying
o r inheren t circumst a nc e i n ha bitua l delinquency , i t
cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance at th e
sam e time . Consequently , th e additional penalt y to be
imposed upon th e accused mus t be th e minimu m of that
prescribed by law as , wit h th e exception of recidivism, no
other circumstance or fact justifying th e imposition of said
penalty in a higher period ha s been present. (People De
Jesus , 63 Phil. 760, 766-767; People vs. Tolentino, 73 Phil.
643 , 644)
Can a convict be a habitual delinquent without being a re•

cidivist?
Yes, whe n no two of th e crimes committed are embraced in th e sam e
title of th e Code.
Illustration:
A wa s convicted of falsification in 1920 and served sentence
in the same year. Then, he committed estafa, convicted, and served
sentence in 1925. Hi s last crime wa s physical injuries committed in
1930. Falsification is a crime against public interests; estafa, against
property; physical injuries, against person.
The imposition of additional penalty for habitual delinquency

is constitutional.
It is neither an ex post facto law nor an additional punishment
for former crimes. It is simply a punishmen t on future crimes, the
penalty being enhanced on account of the criminal propensities of the
accused. (People vs. Montera, 55 Phil. 933-934)
Art. 63 . Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all

ca se s i n w h i c h th e la w p r e s c r i b e s a singl e in div i sib l e pena lty ,
i t shal l b e a p p l ie d b y th e co urt s r e g a r d l e s s o f an y mi t i g a t i n g
o r a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s tha t ma y ha v e a t t e n d e d th e
c o m m i s s i o n o f th e deed .
725
Art. 63 RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF
I n al l c a s e s i n w h i c h th e la w p r e s c r i b e s a p e n a l t y
c o mp o s e d o f tw o i n d i v i s i b l e pena lt ie s th e fo llow in g rule s shal l
b e o b s e r v e d i n th e a p p l i c a t i o n thereof :
Whe n i n th e commissio n o f th e dee d ther e i s presen t onl y
on e aggravatin g circumstance , th e greate r penalt y shal l b e applied .
2 . Whe n ther e ar e n e i t h e r m i t i g a t i n g no r a g g r a v a t i n g
c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n th e c o m m i s s i o n o f th e dee d , th e l e s se r pen •
alt y shal l b e a p p l i e d .
3 . Whe n th e c o m m i s s i o n o f th e ac t i s a t t e n d e d b y s o m e
m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e an d t her e i s n o a g g r a v a t i n g circu m •
s t a n c e , th e l e s s e r p e n a l t y sha l l b e a p p l i e d .
4. bo t h mi t i g a t i n g an d a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s
a t t e n d e d th e c o m m i s s i o n o f th e act , th e court s shal l r e a so na b l y
a llo w the m t o of fse t on e a n o t h e r i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f thei r
n u m b e r an d i m p o r t a n c e , fo r th e p u r p o s e o f a p p l y i n g th e
p e n a l t y i n a c c o r d a n c e w it h th e p r e c e d i n g ru le s , a c c o r d i n g t o
th e resul t o f suc h c o m p e n s a t i o n .
Outline of the rules.

1. Whe n th e penalt y is single it shal l be applied
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
2. When the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, the
following rules shall be observed:
(a) Whe n there is only one aggravating circumstance, th e
greater penalty shall be imposed.
(b) Whe n t her e i s n e i t h e r mi t i g a t i n g no r a g g r a v a t i n g
circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be imposed.
(c) Whe n ther e is a mitigating circumsta nc e and no ag•
gravating c i rc u ms t a n c e , th e lesser pe na lt y shal l be
imposed.
(d) Whe n both mitigatin g an d aggravatin g circumstance s
are present, th e court shall allow the m to offset one an•
other.
726
Art. 63 applies only when the penalty prescribed by the Code

is either one indivisible penalty or two indivisible penalties.
Art. 63 does not apply whe n th e penalt y prescribed by th e
Code is reclusion temporal in its maximu m period to death, because
although this penalty includes the two indivisible penalties of death
and reclusion perpetua, it ha s three periods; namely, the minimu m
(reclusion temporal maximum); the mediu m perpetua);
and the maximu m (death).
In this case, Art. 64 shall apply.
Example of single and indivisible penalty.

In kidnapping and failure to return a minor (Art. 270) and in
rape (Art. 266-B), the penalty is reclusion perpetua, a penalty which
is single and indivisible.
Death as a single indivisible penalty is imposed for kidnapping
and serious illegal detention whe n th e purpose of the offender is to
extort ransom (Art. 267, as amende d by Rep. Act No. 7659) and for
rape with homicide. (Art. 266-B)
Example of two indivisible penalties.

Reclusion perpetua to death. This penalty is imposed for par•
ricide (Art. 246), robbery with homicide (Art. 294, par. 1), kidnapping
and serious illegal detention without intention to extort ransom (Art.
267), and rape committed wit h the us e of a deadly weapon or by two
or more persons. (Art. 266-B)
When the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties,

the penalty cannot be lowered by one degree, no matter how
many mitigating circumstances are present.
When there are two or more mitigatin g circumstances and
no aggravating circumstance, th e court cannot proceed by analogy
to the provisions of subsection 5 of Art. 64 and impose the penalty
lower by one degree. (U.S. vs. Guevara, 10 Phil. 37, 38; U.S. vs.
Relador, 60 Phil. 593 , 603-604; People vs. 87 Phil. 658,
663-664)
In a case, the commission of the crime of parricide punishable with

reclusion perpetua to death wa s attended by the two mitigating
727
circumstances of illiteracy and lack of intention to commit so grave

a wrong as that committed, without any aggravating circumstance.
The lower court imposed the penalty next lower, which is reclusion
temporal, applying Art. 64, paragraph No. 5.
Held: The penalty imposed is not correct. The rule applicable
in this case is found in Art. 63 and not in Art. 64. (U.S. vs. Relador,
supra)
Exceptio n —
When a privileged mitigating circumstance under Art. 68 or Art. 69

is present.
Bu t if the circumstance present is a privileged mitigating cir•
cumstance under Art. 68 or Art. 69 , since a penalty lower by one or
two degrees shall be imposed upon th e offender, he ma y yet get a
penalty one or two degrees lower.
Thus, if a woma n wh o wa s being boxed by he r husban d stabbed
him wit h a knife in th e chest, causin g hi s death, she is entitled to
a penalty one degree lower from reclusion perpetua to death. The
penalty one degree lower is reclusion temporal.
The penalty for the crime of rape is reclusion perpetua.
The accused being entitled to th e privileged mitigatin g circumstance
of minority, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium
period, absent any other mitigatin g or aggravating circumstance.
(People vs. Galang, G.R. No. 70713 , Jun e 29, 1989, 174 SCRA 454,
460-462)
Moral value, not numerical weight, of circumstances should

prevail.
As regards paragraph No. 4 of Art. 63 , th e moral value rather
tha n th e numerical weight should prevail. (U.S. vs. 25 Phil.
U.S. vs. Antonio, 31 Phil. 205, 212; U.S . vs. Reguera, 41 Phil.
506, 521-522)
Mitigating circumstance is not necessary to impose

perpetua when the crime is punishable with two indivisible
penalties of perpetua to death.
The reason is tha t under Art. 63 , whe n th e crime is penalized with two
indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua to death, th e lesser
728
DIVISIBLE PENALTIES
penalty should be imposed eve n whe n there is no mitigating circum•

stance present. (People vs. 91 Phil. 118, 122; People vs.
Laureano, 71 Phil. 530, 537)
Art . 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three
periods. — I n c a s e s i n w h i c h th e p e n a l t i e s p r e s c r i b e d b y la w
c o n t a i n t h r e e p e r i o d s , w h e t h e r i t b e a s i n g l e div is ib l e p e n a lt y
o r c o m p o s e d o f t hr e e d i f f e re n t p e n a l t i e s , e a c h on e o f w h i c h
fo rm s a p e r i o d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h th e p r o v i s i o n s o f Article s
7 6 an d 77, th e c o u r t s sha l l o b s e r v e fo r th e a p p l i c a t i o n o f th e
p e n a l t y th e f o l l o w i n g r u l e s , a c c o r d i n g t o w h e t h e r ther e ar e
o r ar e n o m i t i g a t i n g o r a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s :
Whe n t h e r e ar e n e i t h e r a g g r a v a t i n g no r m i t i g a t i n g
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t he y s ha l l i m p o s e th e p e n a l t y p r e s c r i b e d b y
la w i n it s m e d i u m p e r i o d .
2 . Whe n o nl y a m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e i s p r e s e n t i n
th e c o m m i s s i o n o f th e act , t he y sha l l i m p o s e th e p e n a l t y i n
it s m i n i m u m p e r i o d .
3 . Whe n o nl y a n a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e i s p r e se n t
i n th e c o m m i s s i o n o f th e act , t he y shal l i mp o s e th e pe na lt y i n
it s m a x i m u m p e r i o d .
4 . Whe n bot h m i t i g a t i n g an d a g g r a v a t i n g circ u m •
s t a n c e s ar e p r e s e n t , th e c o u r t s h a l l r e a s o n a b l y offse t tho s e
o f on e cla s s a g a i n s t th e o t h e r a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r r e l a t i v e
weight .
5 . Whe n t h e r e ar e tw o o r mo r e m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m •
s t a n c e s an d n o a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s ar e p r e s e n t , th e
co ur t shal l i mp o s e th e p e n a l t y nex t l o w e r t o tha t p re s c ri b e d
b y law , i n th e p er i o d tha t i t ma y d e e m a pp lica bl e , a c co r d i n g
t o th e n u mb e r an d n a t u r e o f suc h c i r c u m s t a n c e s .
6. . Wha t ev e r ma y b e th e n u m b e r an d na tur e o f th e
ag• g ra v a tin g c i r c u ms t a n c e s , th e co urt s shal l no t i mpo s e a
g rea te r pena lt y tha n tha t p r e s c r i b e d b y law , i n it s ma x i m u m
perio d .
7. . Withi n th e li mit s o f ea c h per io d , th e co urt s
shal l d e t e r mi n e th e e x t e n t o f th e p e n a l t y a c c o r d i n g t o th e
n u mb e r
729
DIVISIBLE PENALTIES
an d natur e o f th e aggravatin g an d mitigatin g circumstance s an d th e

greate r o r lesse r exten t o f th e evi l produce d b y th e crime .
Art. 64 applies only when the penalty has three periods.

Thus, Art. 64 applies whe n the penalty prescribed by law for
the offense is temporal, mayor, prisidn correccional,
arresto mayor, arresto menor, or prisidn correccional to reclusidn tem•
poral, etc., because they are divisible into three periods (minimum,
medium and maximum).
When the law prescribes a single divisible penalty, as reclusidn temporal
for homicide, which according to Art. 76, is understood as distributed in three
equal parts, each part forms a period called minimum, medium and maximum
.
If the penalty is made up of three different penalties, as prisidn
correccional to reclusidn temporal, each forms a period according
to Art. 77. Thus, prisidn correccional will be th e minimum ; prisidn
mayor, the medium; and reclusidn temporal, th e ma ximum . Prisidn
mayor is included because it is betwee n prisidn correccional and
reclusidn temporal in Scale No . 1 of Art. 71 .
Outline of the rules:

1. No aggravating and no mitigatin g — mediu m period.
2. Only a mitigating — minimu m period.
3. Only an aggravating — ma xi mu m period.
As no generic aggravating and mitigatin g circumstances were
proven in this case, the penalty for murder should be imposed in its
medium period or reclusidn perpetua. The death penalty imposed by
the trial court wa s not warranted. (People vs. Toling, No. L-27097,
Jan. 17, 1975, 62 SCRA 17, 35)
Th e Revise d Pena l Code provides tha t whe n th e penaltie s

prescribed by la w contai n thre e periods, w hethe r it be a singl e
divisible penalt y or composed of thre e different penalties , whe n
neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attend, th e penalty
prescribed by law shall be imposed in its mediu m period. (Taer vs.
730
DIVISIBLE PENALTIES
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85204 , Jun e SCRA

607; People vs. Centeno, G.R. No. 33284 , April 20, 1989, 172 SCRA
607, 612)
Illustrations 2 and 3:
A is co nv ict e d of ho mici d e p u n i s h a b l e by
temporal, whic h ha s thre e periods (minimum , medium , and
ma ximum) .
a. If there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance — the
penalty is reclusidn temporal mediu m (14 years, 8 months
and 1 day).
If A pleaded guilty and there is no aggravating circumstance
to offset th e mitigatin g circumstance of plea of guilty, the
penalty is reclusidn temporal minimu m (12 years and 1
day).
If A committed th e crime of homicide in th e dwelling of the
deceased, and there is no mitigating circumstance to offset
the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the penalty to be
imposed on hi m is reclusidn temporal maximu m (17 years,
4 month s and 1 day).
When there are two (2) aggravating circumstances and
there is no mitigating circumstance, the penalty prescribed
by law for th e crime should be imposed in its maximu m
period. (People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 53926-29, Nov. 13,
1989, 179 SCRA 303 , 324)
Unde r Article 248 of th e Revised Penal Code, the
penalty for murder is reclusidn temporal in its maximum
perio d t o d ea t h . Ther e bein g onl y on e m i t i g a t i n g
circumstance and no aggravating circumstance to offset
the same, the imposable penalty is the minimum pursuant
to Article 64, paragraph 2, of the same Code, which is the
maximum period of reclusidn temporal. The Indeterminate
Sentence Law applies which provides for a minimum term
within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to be
fixed in any of its periods in the discretion of the court.
Under Article 61 , paragraph 3, of the same Code, when
the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one
or two indivisible penalties, as in this case, the penalty
731
64 RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF
DIVISIBLE PENALTIES
next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and

minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the
maximum of that immediately following in the scale. The
penalty next lower in degree in the instant case ranges
from the maximu m of mayor to the medium degree
of temporal. (People vs. No. L-30956,
Nov. 23, 1971, 42 SCRA 238, 248-249)
When there are aggravating and mitigating — th e court shall offset
those of one class against the other according to their relative weight.
Illustration:
A committed homicide in the nighttime, purposely sought for by
him and which facilitated the commission of th e crime. He surrendered
to the mayor of th e town and whe n tried pleaded guilty to the charge.
One mitigating circumstance (either voluntary surrender or plea
of guilty) will offset th e aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
The remaining mitigating circumstance will result in the
imposition of th e minimu m period of th e penalty of reclusidn
temporal, th e penalty for homicide.
Th e mi t i g a t i n g c irc u ms t a n c e mus t b e ordinary , no t
privileged; th e aggravating circumstance mus t be generic or
specific, not qualifying or inherent.
A qualifying circumstanc e (treachery) cannot be offset
by a generic mitigatin g circumstance (voluntary surrender).
(People vs. Abletes , No . L-33304, Jul y 5 8 SCRA 241 ,
247-248)
Two or more mitigating and no aggravating — penalty next
lower, in the period applicable, according to th e number and
nature of such circumstances.
The penalty for the offense is reclusidn temporal ma ximu m
to reclusidn perpetua. (Par. 4, Art. 217, RPC, as amende d by RA
That penalty should be lowered by one degree because of
the presence of two mitigating So, th e maximu m
of th e indetermina t e penalt y should be take n from prisidn
732
DIVISIBLE PENALTIES
mayor maximu m to temporal medium. (Par. 5, Art.

64, RPC) And the minimu m penalty should be take n from
prision correccional maximu m to prisidn mayor medium.
(Ramirez vs. Sandiganbayan, No. 56441 , Jul y
SCRA 709, 710-
711)
Any or both of the two mitigating circumstances should
not be considered for th e purpose of fixing th e proper penalty
to be imposed, since the y were already take n into account in
reducing th e penalty by one degree lower. (Basa n vs. People,
No. L-39483, Nov. 29, 1974, 61 SCRA 275, 277)
Question:
A wa s once convicted by final judgmen t of th e crime of
serious physical A now committed homicide wit h three
mitigating circumstances. Is A entitled to a penalty one degree
lower?
No , becaus e ther e i s a n aggravatin g circumstanc e o f

recidivism. Physical injuries and homicide are embraced in the sam e
title of th e Revised Pena l Code. In thi s case, paragraph 4 applies.
No penalty greater tha n th e maximu m period of th e penalty
prescribed by law shall be imposed, no matte r how man y ag• gravating
circumstances are present.
Thus , eve n if four generi c a gg ravatin g circumstance s
attended the commission of homicide without any mitigating
circumstance, the court cannot impose the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, which is higher tha n reclusidn temporal, the penalty
for homicide.
Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating
circumstances, the courts may not impose a greater penalty than
that prescribed by law in its maximu m period. (Art. 64, par. 6,
Revised Penal Code; People vs. Manlolo, G.R. No. 40778, Jan.
26, 1989, 169 SCRA 394, 400-401)
The court can determine the extent of the penalty within the
limits of each period, according to the number and nature of the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater or
lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
733
DIVISIBLE PENALTIES
Example:
A crime punishe d wit h arresto mayor wa s committed
with the concurrence of three circumstances, two aggravating
and one mitigating. Under rule 4, th e penalty arresto mayor
in its maximu m period (4 and 1 day to 6 shall be
imposed.
Under Rule the court can impose an intermediate penalty
between 4 month s and 1 day to 6 months. It may impose 4
months and 1 day, 5 months, or 6 months.
The court has discretion to impose the penalty within the

limits fixed by law.
The penalty prescribed by the Code for th e offense is prision
mayor or 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. The court imposed 8 years
and 1 day as the maximu m of the indeterminate penalty. The defense
contended that the court should have imposed a maximu m lower tha n
8 years. Is this contention correct?
The contention of th e defense is not correct. Where a penalty
imposed is withi n th e limits fixed by law, th e charge tha t it wa s
excessive is without foundation, as th e court imposing th e penalty
may exercise discretion in its imposition. (People vs . Recto, et CA-
G.R. No. December 13, 1954)
The court imposed th e mediu m period of mayor. The
mediu m period of tha t penalt y is from 8 year s and 1 da y to 10
years.
"Extent of the evil produced."

V deposited in a bank certain checks of no value and later know•
ing that he had no money in said bank, issue d checks against it. V
wa s convicted of estafa.
How would you apply paragraph 7 of this article?
Taking into account th e exten t of th e injury produced by the
offense which, in a certain degree, disturbed th e economic life of a
banking institution, it is proper, in accordance with Article 64, par.
7, to impose upon th e accused, th e maximum of th e mediu m degree
of the penalty. (People vs. Velazco, 42 Phil. 75, 81)
734
DIVISIBLE PENALTIES
Art. 64 is not applicable when the penalty is indivisible or

prescribed by special law or
Art. 64 does not apply to (1) indivisible penalties, (2) penalties prescribed
by special laws, and (3) fines. As to Nos. (2) and (3), see People vs. Ching Kuan,
74 Phil. 23.
In what cases are mitigating and aggravating circumstances

not considered in the imposition of penalty?
In th e following cases:
1. Whe n th e penalty is single and indivisible. (Art. 63)
2. In felonies thru negligence. The rules for the application
of penalties prescribed by Article 64 are not applicable to
a case of reckless imprudence under Art. 365. (People vs.
C.A., 43 O.G. 2214; Art. 365)
3. The penalt y to be impose d upon a Moro or other non-
Christian inhabitants. It lies in the discretion of the trial
court, irrespective of th e attendin g circumstances. (Sec.
106, Code of Mindanao and People vs. Moro
88 Phil. 120, 124)
The term "non-Christian" refers not only to religious
belie f bu t i n a wa y t o g eo g ra phica l are a and , mor e
particularly, directly to Philippine natives of a low grade
of civilization. (De vs. Saito, 55 Phil. 831 , 838)
Sec. 106 does not apply to a Moro who ha s lived in
a Christian province for man y years. (People vs. Salazar
alias Darquez, 105 Phil. 1058)
Acts Nos. 279 8 and 291 3 extended Sec. 106 to the
Mountain Province. (People vs. Tumbali, C.A., 39 O.G.
214; People vs. G.R. No. L-7250, March 31, 1955,
96 Phil. 972
4. When the penalty is only a fine imposed by an ordinance.
For violation of an ordinance, the accused was sen•
tenced to pay a fine of after a plea of guilty. Is he
entitled to a mitigating circumstance? No, because the
penalty imposed being only a fine, the rules established in
735
Art. 65 RULES IN CASES OF PENALTY NOT
COMPOSED OF THREE PERIODS
Arts. 63 and 64 cannot be applied. (People vs. Ching Kuan, 74

Phil. 23, 24)
5. When the penalties are prescribed by special laws.
vs. Respecia, 58 O.G. 458)
Art . 65 . Rules in cases in which the penalty is not composed of

three periods. — I n c a s e s i n w h i c h th e p e n a l t y p r e s c r i b e d b y la w
i s no t c o m p o s e d o f t hr e e p e r i o d s , th e c o u r t s sha l l a ppl y th e
rule s c o n t a i n e d i n th e f o r e g o i n g a rt icles , int o thre e
eq ua l p o r t i o n s th e tim e i n c l u d e d i n th e p e n a l t y p r e s c r i b e d ,
an d f o r mi n g on e p e r i o d o f e a c h o f th e t h r e e p o r t i o n s .
Meaning of the rule.

1. Compute and determine first th e three periods of th e entire
penalty.
2. The time included in th e penalty prescribed should be divided
into three equal portions, after subtracting the minimu m (elimi•
nate the 1 day) from th e ma xi mu m of th e penalty.
3. The minimu m of the minimu m period should be th e minimu m
of the given penalty (including the 1 day).
4. Th e quotien t shoul d be adde d to th e mi n i mu m prescribed
(eliminate the 1 day) and the total will represent the maximu m of
the minimum period. Take the maximu m of the minimu m period,
add 1 day and mak e it the minimu m of th e mediu m period; the n
add th e quotient to the minimu m (eliminate th e 1 day) of th e
mediu m period and th e total will represent the maximu m of the
medium period. Take th e ma xi mu m of the mediu m period, add
1 day and mak e it the minimu m of th e maximu m period; the n
add the quotient to the minimu m (eliminate th e 1 day) of th e
maximu m period and the total will represent the maximu m of
the maximu m period.
Illustration of the computation when the penalty has three

periods.
Let us take as an example mayor which ha s a duration
of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years.
736
RULES IN CASES OF PENALTY NOT Art. 65
(2) Subtract the minimu m (disregarding the 1 day) from the maxi•
mum , thu s —
12 years - 6 years 6 years.
(3) Divide the difference by 3, thu s —

6 years 3 2 years.
(4) Us e the minimu m of 6 years and 1 day of mayor as

the minimu m of th e minimu m period. The n add 2 years to the
minimu m (disregarding th e 1 day) to get the maximu m of the
minimu m period. Thu s — we hav e 8 years as the maximu m
of the minimu m period. The range of th e minimu m period is,
therefore, 6 years and 1 day to 8 years.
(5) Us e the maximu m of th e minimu m period as th e minimu m of
the mediu m period, and add 1 day to distinguish it from the
maximu m of the minimu m period; we have — 8 years and 1
day. Then add 2 years to th e minimu m of th e medium period
(disregarding th e 1 day) to get th e maximu m of the medium
period. The range of th e mediu m period is, therefore, 8 years
and 1 day to 10 years.
(6) Us e the maximu m of th e mediu m period as th e minimu m of
th e maximu m period, and add 1 day to distinguish it from the
maximu m of the mediu m period; we have — 10 years and 1
day. The n add 2 years to th e minimu m of th e maximu m period
(disregarding the 1 day) to get the maximu m of the maximu m
period. Hence, th e range of the maximu m period is — 10 years
See Art. 76. The computation is not followed in the division of
arresto mayor.
Illustration of the computation when the penalty is not com•

posed of three periods.
Not e tha t Art. 65 provides for th e rule to be applied whe n
th e penalt y prescribed by th e Code is not compose d of thre e pe•
riods.
Prision correccional in its medium and maximu m periods is
the penalty prescribed by the Code for infanticide committed by the
mother to conceal her dishonor. (Art. 255, par. 2)
737
Art. 65 RULES IN CASES OF PENALTY NOT
Computation:
The duration prisidn correccional is 6 months and 1 day to 6
years. 6 years - 6 months 5 years and 6 months = 1 year and
10 months.
Min. — 5 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months.
Med. — 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 year s an d 2
months.
Max. — 4 years, 2 month s and 1 day to 6 years.
Since the duration of th e penalty correccional in its
medium and maximu m periods is 2 years, 4 month s and 1 day to 6
years, the time included in tha t penalty should be divided into three
equal portions. Thus —
5 years and 12 mos. (or 6

2 years and 4 mos.
3) 3 years and 8 mos. (1 2 mos. and 20 days)
3 years 6 mos.
2 mos. or 60 days
The duration of each portion after dividing th e duration of th e penalty

into three equal portions is 1 year, 2 month s and 20 days.
Since th e minimu m prescribed by law is 2 years and 4 months ,
and the duration of each portion is 1 year, 2 month s and 20 days, th e
time comprised in th e minimu m is from 2 years, 4 month s and 1 day
to 3 years, 6 month s and 20 days. Computation: The minimu m of th e
minimu m is 2 years, 4 month s and 1 day. To obtain th e ma ximu m
of th e minimu m we hav e to add 1 year, 2 month s and 20 days to 2
years and 4 months. Therefore, th e maximu m of th e mini mu m is 3
years, 6 month s and 20 days, computed as follows:
2 years, 4 months (and 1 day) — The minimum of the minimum.
1 year, 2 months and 20 days — The duration of each portion.

3 years, 6 months and 20 days — The maximum of the minimum.
To obtain th e minimu m of th e medium , add 1 day to th e maxi• mu m

of the minimu m and mak e it th e minimu m of th e medium.
738
IMPOSITION OF FINES Art. 66
Then, to obtain th e maximu m of th e medium , we compute as follows:
3 6 m. and 21 d. — The minimu m of the medium.

1 2 m. and 20 d. — The duration of each portion.
4 9 m. and 10 d. — The maximu m of th e medium.
To obtain the minimu m of th e maximum , we have to add 1 day to the

maximu m of th e mediu m and mak e it th e minimu m of the maximum .
To obtain the maximu m of th e maximum , we have to add 1 year, 2
month s and 20 days to 4 years, 9 month s and 11 days, as follows:
4 9 and 11 d. — Th e minimu m of the maximum .
1 2 and 20 d. The duration of each portion.

6 years The maximu m of the maximum .
Hence, th e maximu m is from 4 years, 9 months, and days to

6 years.
Art . 66 . Imposition of fines. — In i m p o s i n g fine s th e co urt s

ma y fi x an y a m o u n t w i t h i n th e li mi t s e s t a b l i s h e d b y law ; i n
f i x i n g th e a mo u n t i n e a c h ca s e a t t e n t i o n sha l l b e g i v e n , no t
o nl y t o th e mi t i g a t i n g an d a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , bu t
mo r e p a r t i c u l a r l y t o th e w e a l t h o r m e a n s o f th e cu lp rit .
Outline of this provision:

The court can fix any amount of the fine within the limits estab• lished
by law.
2. The court mus t consider —
a. The mitigating and aggravating circumstances; and
b. More particularly, the wealth or means of the culprit.
739
Art. 66 IMPOSITION OF FINES
When the minimum of the fine is not fixed.

Whe n th e la w does not fix th e minimu m of th e fine, th e
determination of the amount of the fine to be imposed upon the culprit is left
to the sound discretion of the court, provided it shall not exceed the maximum
authorized by law. (People vs. Quinto, 60 Phil. 351, 357-358)
Fines are not divided into three equal portions.

The courts are not bound to divide the amount of fine
by law into three equal portions as in the case of imprisonment
imposed in relation to a divisible penalty.
Wealth or means of culprit is main consideration in fine.

The wealth or mean s of the culprit is emphasized, because a
fixed amount of fine for all offenders of a particular crime, will result
in an inequality. to a rich ma n is chicken-feed; but certainly,
that amount is something to a poor man .
To an indigent laborer, for instance, earning a day or
about a month, a fine would undoubtedly be more
severe tha n a fine of to an office holder or property owner with
a monthly income of
Obviously, to impose th e sam e amoun t of a fine for th e sam e
offense upon two persons thu s differently circumstanced would be
to mete out to the m a penalty of unequal severity; hence, unjustly
discriminatory. (People vs. Ching Kuan, 74 Phil. 23 , 24)
But mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not entirely

disregarded. Factors other than condition of accused
may be considered by the court.
Art. 66 says tha t th e court ma y also consider mitigating and
aggravating circumstances.
The court may also consider, in th e imposition of the proper
amount of the fine, other factors, such as the gravity or seriousness
of the crime committed, th e heinousnes s of its perpetration, and the
magnitude of its effects on th e offender's victims. (People vs. Manuel,
CA-G.R. Nos. Jul y 6, 1957)
740
PENALTY FOR INCOMPLETE CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 67
OF ACCIDENT
Position and standing of accused considered aggravating

in gambling.
a. Where a person found guilty of violation of the Gambling Law
is a ma n of station or standin g in th e community, the maximu m
penalty should be imposed. (U.S. vs. 39 Phil. 102,
113)
b. Because the accused in a gamblin g case wa s a municipal treas•
urer, the Court imposed a fine of and one year imprison•
ment, the maximu m penalty provided by law. (U.S. vs. Mercader,
41 Phil. 930, 932)
Art . 67 . Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of ex•

emption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12 are present. — Whe n
al l th e c o n d i t i o n s r e q u i r e d i n c i r c u m s t a n c e n u m b e r 4 o f Ar•
t icl e 1 2 o f thi s Co d e t o e x e m p t fro m c r i m i n a l l i a b i li t y ar e no t
p r e s e n t , th e p e n a l t y o f arresto mayor i n it s m a x i m u m per io d
t o prision correccional i n it s m i n i m u m p e r i o d sha l l b e i m p o s e d
upo n th e cu l prit , i f h e shal l b e e n g uilt y o f a g rav e felony ,
an d arresto mayor i n it s m i n i m u m an d m e d i u m p e r i o d s , i f o f a
les s g ra v e felo ny .
Art. 67 applies only when all the requisites of the exempting

circumstance of accident are not present.
Circumstance No. 4 of Art. 12 refers to the exempting circum• stance of
accident.
The conditions necessary to exempt from liability under Subsec• tion 4
of Art. 12 are four:
That the act causing the injury be lawful; that is, permitted not
only by law but also by regulations.
That it be performed with due care.
3. That the injury be caused by mere accident, i.e., by an
unforeseen event.
4. That there be no fault or intention to cause the injury.
741
Art. 68 PENALTY FOR PERSONS UNDER
18 YEARS
If all thes e condition s are not present , th e act should be

considered as reckless imprudence if the act is executed without
takin g thos e precautions or mea sure s which th e mos t common
prudence would require; and simple imprudence, if it is a mere lack
of precaution in those cases where either th e threatened harm is
not imminen t or the danger is not openly visible. The case will fall
under Art. 365, par. 1.
The penalty provided in Art. 67 is the sam e as that in Art.
365.
Art . 68 . Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen

years of age. — Whe n th e o f f e n d e r is a mi n o r u n d e r e i g h t e e n
y e a r s an d hi s ca s e i s on e c o m i n g u n d e r th e p r o v i s i o n s o f th e
p a r a g r a p h ne x t t o th e las t o f Art icl e 8 0 o f thi s Co de , th e fol•
l o w i n g rule s sha l l b e o b s e r v e d :
1. Upo n a perso n unde r bu t o v e r nin e y e a r s o f

age , wh o i s no t e x e m p t e d fro m lia bilit y b y r e a s o n o f th e co ur t
h a v i n g d e c l a r e d tha t h e a c t e d w i t h d i s c e r n m e n t , a d i s c r et io n •
ar y p e n a l t y shal l b e imp o s e d , bu t a l w a y s l o w e r b y tw o d e g r e e s
a t lea s t t h a n tha t p r e s c r i b e d b y la w fo r th e c r i m e w h i c h h e
committed .
2 . U p o n a p e r s o n o v e r fiftee n an d u n d e r e i g h t e e n y e a r s
o f ag e th e p e n a l t y nex t lo w e r t ha n tha t p r e s c r i b e d b y la w shal l
b e i m p o s e d , bu t a l w a y s i n th e p r o p e r
Article 68 has been partly repealed by Republic Act No. 9344.

Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code which prescribes the penalty
to be imposed upon a person under eightee n (18) years of age ha s
been partly repealed by Rep. Act No . 934 4 which provides tha t (1) a
child fifteen years and under is exemp t from criminal responsibility,
and (2) a child above fifteen (15) years but below eightee n (18) years
of age is exempt from criminal liability unles s he/she ha s acted wit h
discernment. (Sec. 6, Rep. Act No. 9344)
repealed by Republic Act No. 934 4 Justice and Welfare Act of

2006). See explanations, infra.
742
PENALTY FOR INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR Art. 69
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
While an offender over nine (9) years but under fifteen (15)
years who acts with discernment is not exempt from criminal liability
under Art. 68, and a discretionary penalty shall be imposed which
shall be always lower by two degrees tha n that prescribed by law for
the crime committed, said offender is exemp t from criminal liability
under Rep. Act No. 9344; hence, no penalty shall be imposed.
When an offender is over fifteen (15) but under eighteen (18)
years of age, th e penalty nex t lower tha n tha t prescribed by law
shall be imposed under Art. 68, while under Rep. Act No. 9344, the
offender shall be exemp t from criminal liability unles s he/she acted
wit h discernment.
If the offender acted wit h discernment, he/shall shall undergo diversion
programs provided under Chapter 2 of Rep. Act No. 9344.
If the court finds tha t th e objective of th e disposition measures
imposed upon th e child in conflict wit h th e la w ha s not been fulfilled,
or if the child in conflict wit h th e law ha s willfully failed to comply
with the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program,
the child in conflict wit h th e law shall be brought before the court for
execution of judgment. (Sec. 40, Rep. Act No. 9344) The penalty to be
imposed on th e child in conflict wit h the law shall be that provided
for in paragraph 2 of Art. 68, tha t is, the penalty next lower tha n that
prescribed by law.
Probation as an alternative to imprisonment.

The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child
in conflict with th e law, and upon application at any time, place the
child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into
account the best interest of th e child. For this purpose, Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the "Probation Law
of is hereby amended accordingly.
Art . 69 . Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is

not wholly excusable. — A p e n a l t y l o w e r by on e or tw o d e g r e e s
t ha n tha t p r e s cr i b e d b y la w shal l b e i mp o s e d i f th e dee d i s no t
w h o l l y e x c u s a b l e b y re a s o n o f th e lac k o f so m e o f th e co ndi •
t io n s r e q u i r e d t o justif y th e sa m e o r t o e x emp t fro m cri mina l
l i a b i l i t y i n th e s e v er a l c a s e s m e n t i o n e d i n A r ticl e s 1 1 an d
743
Art. 69 PENALTY FOR INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
12, p r o v i d e d tha t th e ma jorit y o f suc h c o n d i t i o n s b e present .

Th e court s shal l i mp o s e th e p e na lt y i n th e perio d w h i c h ma y
b e d e e m e d pro per , i n v i e w o f th e n u m b e r an d n a t u r e o f th e
condition s o f exe mptio n presen t o r lacking .
aggression is indispensable in self-defense, defense

of relatives and defense of stranger.
The first circumstance in self-defense, etc. (Subsections 1, 2 and
3 of Art. which is unlawful aggression mus t be present.
For instance, B, who wa s challenged by A to a fight, wa s th e first
to attack A with a whereupon A with similar weapon retaliated
by stabbing B, but in th e struggle, B killed A.
Can B be given a reduction of one or two degrees lower tha n the penalty
prescribed for homicide?
Althoug h th e greater numbe r of th e conditions required to
justify the deed, that is, (1) reasonableness of the mean s employed
and (2) lack of sufficient provocation, is present, since th e essential
or primordial elemen t of unlawful aggression is lacking, he is not
entitled to a reduction. (See U.S . vs. Navarro, 7 Phil. 713)
There wa s n o unlawfu l aggression , becaus e ther e wa s a n agreement
to fight between A and B. The latter accepted th e challenge by attacking th e
challenger A.
"In the several cases mentioned in Articles 11 and

Th e p r i v i l eg e d m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o n t e m p l a t e d
i n Article 6 9 includ e th e inco mplet e justifyin g an d inco mplet e
exemptin g circumstances , provided th e majority of thei r conditions
is present.
"Provided the majority of such conditions be present."

In th e case of People vs. Alvarez, 44 O.G. 946 , the Court of
Appeals refused to apply this article because there wa s only unlawful
aggression on the part of th e victim, but th e mean s employed by
th e accused wa s not reasonabl e an d h e (accused) provoked th e
aggression.
744
SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCES Art. 70
Let us take a case of homicide in which the provocation and un•

lawful aggression came from the deceased, but th e mean s employed
by the offender wa s not reasonable.
In this case, there are present more tha n one of the requisites
of self-defense. (Guevara)
When two of the essential requisites for justification are present,
the penalty lower by two degrees ma y be imposed. (People vs. Dorado,
43 Phil. 240, 244-245; People vs. Lucero, 49 Phil. People vs.
48 Phil. 268, 276)
Where only unlawful aggression is present, th e penalty next

lower may be imposed. (People vs . Cabellon, 51 Phil. 846, 852)
This decision is contrary to th e provision of this Article which says:
"provided, th e majority of such conditions be present."
pe na lt y l o w e r b y on e o r tw o d e g r e e s tha n tha t p re s c ri b e d b y
la w shal l b e i m p o s e d x i n th e p e r i o d w h i c h ma y b e d e e m e d
pro per , i n v ie w o f th e n u m b e r an d n a t u r e o f th e c o n d i t i o n s o f
exemptio n presen t or
In view of this clause in Art. 69, th e court ha s the discretion to impose

one or two degrees lower tha n tha t prescribed by law for the offense.
But in determining the proper period of th e penalty one or two degrees
lower, the court mus t consider the number and nature of the conditions of
exemption or justification present or lacking.
When the majority of the requisites of self-defense and two

mitigating without aggravating circumstances are present,
the penalty is three degrees lower.
Thus, if th e accused charged wit h homicide punishable by reclusion
temporal proved unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased and another
requisite of self-defense; plus two mitigating circumstances of surrender and
obfuscation, without any aggravating circumstance, the proper penalty for
him is arresto mayor medium or from 2 months and 1 day to 4 months.
Art. 70. Successive service of sentences. — Whe n th e culpri t ha s

t o serv e tw o o r mo r e p e n a l t i e s , h e shal l serv e the m s i mu l t a n e -
745
Art. 70 SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCES
i f th e n a t u r e o f th e p e n a l t i e s wil l s o per mit ; o t h e r w i s e ,

th e f o l l o w i n g rule s shal l b e o b s e r v e d :
I n th e i m p o s i t i o n o f th e p e n a l t i e s , th e o rd e r o f t h ei r
r e s p e c t i v e s e v e r i t y sha l l b e f o l l o w e d s o tha t the y ma y b e ex •
e c u t e d s u c c e s s i v e l y o r a s nea rl y a s ma y b e po ss ib le , s h o u l d a
p a r d o n ha v e b e e n g r a n t e d a s t o th e pe n a l t y o r p e n a l t i e s
i mp o s e d , o r s h o u l d t he y ha v e b e e n s e r v e d out .
Fo r th e p u r p o s e o f a p p l y i n g th e p r o v i s i o n s o f th e
nex t p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h th e r e s p e c t i v e s e v e r i t y o f th e pen •
a lt ie s sha l l b e d e t e r m i n e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h th e f o l l o w i n g
sca le :
1. Death ,
2. perpetua,
3. temporal,
4. Prisidn mayor,
5. correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro ,
9. Perpetua l absolut e disqualification ,
10. Temporar y absolut e disqualification ,
11. . S u s p e n s i o n fro m p u b l i c office , th e r ig h t t o vot e
an d b e v o t e d for , th e rig h t t o fo llo w p r o f e s s i o n o r
ca ll ing , an d
12. Publi c censure .
N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g th e p r o v i s i o n s o f th e rul e nex t pr ece d •
ing , th e m a x i m u m d u r a t i o n o f th e s e n t e n c e shal l no t
b e mo r e tha n t h r ee f o l d th e l e n g t h o f ti m e c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o
th e mo s t s e v e r e o f th e p e n a l t i e s i m p o s e d u p o n hi m . N o o t he r
p e n a l t y t o w h i c h h e ma y b e lia bl e sha l l b e inf li cte d afte r th e
su m o f t h o s e i m p o s e d e q u a l s th e sa i d m a x i m u m p e r i o d .
S u c h m a x i m u m p e r i o d s h a l l i n n o c a s e e x c e e d fo rt y
y ea rs .
746
SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCES Art. 70
I n a p p l y i n g th e p r o v i s i o n s o f t hi s rul e th e d u r a t i o n o f
p e r p e t u a l p e n a l t i e s (pena perpetua) sha l l b e c o m p u t e d a t th irt y
y e a r s . (As amended by Com. Act No.
Outline of the provisions of this Article:

When the culprit ha s to serve two or more penalties, he shall
serve the m simultaneousl y if th e natur e of th e penalties will so
permit.
2. . Otherwise , th e order o f thei r respectiv e sev erit y
shal l b e followed.
3. The respective severity of th e penalties is as follows:
a. Death ,
b. Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
d. mayor,
e. Prisidn correccional,
f. Arresto mayor,
g. Arresto menor,
h. Destierro,
i. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
j. . Temporary absolute disqualification,
k. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, the right to follow profession or calling, and
1. Public censure.
Th e penaltie s whic h ca n b e simultaneousl y serve d are :

(a) Perpetual absolute disqualification,
(b) Perpetual special disqualification,
(c) Temporary absolute disqualification,
(d) Temporary special disqualification,
747
Art. 70 THREE-FOLD RULE IN SERVICE
OF SENTENCES
(e) Suspension,
(f) Destierro,
(g) Public censure,
(h) Fine and bond to keep the peace,
(i) Civil interdiction, and
Confiscation and paymen t of costs.
The above penalties, except destierro, can be served simultane• ously
with imprisonment.
Penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty cannot be served
simultaneously by reason of the nature of such
The order of the respective severity of the penalties shall be

followed so that they may be executed successively.
Thus, where th e convict wa s sentence d on October 28, 1905,
to imprisonmen t for 6 month s for one offense, and on Novembe r
1905, he wa s sentence d to imprisonmen t for 4 month s and 1 day
for another offense, it wa s held tha t he should serve th e two term s
successively and th e time of the second sentence did not commence
to run until th e expiration of th e first. (Gordon vs . Wolfe, 6 Phil. 76,
78)
Where th e defendant wa s sentence d to thre e distinct term s

of imprisonment for th e separate offenses of frustrated homicide,
trespass, and less serious physical injuries, the three penalties should
be served successively in the order of their severity. (People vs.
59 Phil. 134, 138)
Imprisonment mus t be served before destierro. Arresto menor
is more severe tha n destierro. (People vs . Misa, C.A., 36 O.G. 3697)
The three-fold rule.

According to the three-fold rule, the maximu m duration of the sentence
shall not be more tha n three times the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him.
Example: A person is sentenced to suffer — 14 years, 8 month s
and 1 day for homicide; 17 years, 4 month s and 1 day in another case;
748
THREE-FOLD RULE IN SERVICE Art. 70
OF SENTENCES
14 years and 8 month s in th e third case; and in a case of frustrated homicide,

he is sentenced to 12 years, or a total of 59 years, 8 months and 2 days.
Th e mos t sever e of thos e pena lt ie s is 17 years , 4 month s
and 1 day. Three time s tha t penalt y is 52 year s and 3 days. Bu t
since the la w ha s limited th e duration of th e ma xi mu m term of
imprisonment to not more tha n 40 years , th e accused will hav e to
suffer 40 years only. (See People vs. Alisub, 69 Phil. 362 , 366; People
vs . Lagoy, G.R. No . Ma y 94 Phil. 1050
The phrase "the most severe of the penalties" includes equal

penalties.
Thus, the petitioner for habeas corpus who had been sentenced
in six (6) different cases of estafa, in each of which he was penalized
with 3 months and 11 days of arresto mayor, cannot be made to suffer
more tha n 3 months and days multiplied by 3 or 9 months and 33
days.
Hence, the petitioner who wa s in jail for one year and three
months remained there beyond th e period allowed under the three•
fold rule. (Aspra vs . Director of Prisons, 85 Phil. 737, 738)
The three-fold rule applies only when the convict has to serve
at least four sentences.
If only two or three penalties corresponding to different crimes
committed by the convict are imposed, it is hardly possible to apply
the three-fold rule.
Illustration: A wa s convicted of three crimes of homicide for each
of which he wa s sentenced to 12 years and 1 day of temporal.
Adding all the three penalties, you will find a total of 36 years and 3
days; or multiplying one of th e penalties, each of 12 years and 1 day,
by 3 you will find the sam e result.
Suppose, for the first homicide A wa s sentenced to 12 years and
1 day; for the second, 14 years, 8 months and 1 day; and for the third,
17 years, 4 months and 1 day; in this case, the total of all the penalties
is 44 years and 3 days. On the other hand, 17 years, 4 months and
1 day multiply by 3 equals 52 years and 3 days. The three-fold rule
does not apply, because the total of all the penalties is less than the
most severe multiplied by 3.
749
70 THREE-FOLD RULE IN SERVICE
OF SENTENCES
But if A was convicted of four crimes of homicide, for each of which he

was sentenced to 12 years and 1 day or to different penalties, the three-fold
rule can properly be applied.
Follow the same computation on the basis of four the
fourth penalty at least equal to any one of the penalties mentioned,
and you will find that the most severe multiplied by 3 is les s tha n
the sum total of all the penalties.
If the sum total of all the penalties does not exceed the most severe
multiplied by 3, the three-fold rule does not apply.
Thus, if A wa s sentenced to 1 year for theft, 2 years for robbery, 1
year for estafa, 4 months for physical injuries, and 4 months 1 day
for slander, the total of all the penalties being only 4 years, 8 months and
1 day, which is less than 2 years multiplied by 3 or 6 years, the three•
fold rule does not apply. The three-fold rule applies only whe n the total
of all the penalties imposed exceeds the most severe multiplied by 3.
All the penalties, even if by different courts at different times,

cannot exceed three-fold the most severe.
This rule, for the reason stated, should be followed irrespective of the fact
that the different offenses are charged in several informations, or are included
in a single prosecution, or the several cases are tried before the sam e court or
in different courts. (People vs. Geralde, 50 Phil. 823, 829)
The three-fold rule applies although the penalties were imposed
for different at different and under separate informa•
tions. (Torres vs. Superintendent, 58 Phil. 847, 848)
Reason for the ruling.

The Rules of Court specifically provide that an information mus t not
charge more tha n one offense. Necessarily, th e various offenses punished wit h
different penalties mus t be charged under different informations which may
be filed in th e sam e court or in different courts, at the sam e time or at
different times .
Duration of the convict's sentence refers to several penalties

for different offenses, not yet served out.
Note, however, tha t this rule applies only whe n th e convict ha s to serve
continuous imprisonment for several offenses. If th e convict
750
THREE-FOLD RULE IN SERVICE Art. 70
OF SENTENCES
already served sentence for one that imprisonment will not be

considered, for the purpose of the three-fold rule, if after this release
he commits again and is convicted of ne w offenses. Note the opening
sentence of Article 70 which says: "When the culprit ha s to serve two
or more penalties, he shall serve the m simultaneously if the nature
of the penalties will so permit." Only penalties which have not yet been served
out can be served simultaneously.
No prisoner shall be required to remain in prison continuously

for more tha n 40 years. The duration of perpetual penalties is 30
years.
If the sentence is indeterminate, the maximum term is to be consid•

ered.
If th e sentence is indeterminate, th e basis of the three-fold rule is the
maximu m term of th e sentence. (People vs. Desierto, C.A., 45
O.G. 4542)
Subsidiary imprisonment forms part of the penalty.

Th e impositio n of three-fold maximu m penalt y unde r Art.
70 does not preclude subsidiary imprisonmen t for failure to pay a
fine.
The rule is to multiply th e highes t penalty by 3 and the result
will be the aggregate principal penalty which the prisoner ha s to
plus the paymen t of all indemnities with or without subsidiary
provided the principal penalty does not exceed 6 years.
(Bagtas vs. Director of Prisons, 84 Phil. 692, 698)
Example: A wa s found guilty in 17 criminal cases, the most
severe of the 17 sentences being 6 month s and 1 day plus a fine of
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
After serving 18 months and 3 days in prison, A filed a peti•
tion for habeas corpus, contending that under Art. 70, the maximum
duration of his sentence cannot exceed three-fold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him,
which in this case wa s 18 months and 3 days. A further contended
that the subsidiary imprisonment for nonpayment of the fine should
be eliminated, because Art. 70 provides that "no other penalty to which
he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed
equals the maximum period."
751
OF SENTENCES
The subsidiary imprisonment for nonpayment of the fine cannot be

eliminated so long as the principal penalty is not higher tha n 6 years of
imprisonment.
The provision of Art. 70 that "no other penalty to which he may
be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals
the said maximum period," simply mean s that the convict shall not
serve the excess over the maximu m of three-fold the most severe
penalty. For instance, if the aggregate of the principal penalties is
six years and that is reduced to two years under the three-fold rule,
he shall not be required to serve the remaining four years.
If the petitioner would not be able to pay the fine, th e maximu m

duration of his imprisonment shall be 18 month s and 3 days of the principal
penalty plus 6 months and 1 day of subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay
th e fine, or a total of 2 years and 4 days. (See Bagtas vs. Director of Prisons,
supra)
Indemnity is a penalty.
The accused contended tha t in applying th e three-fold rule, the
court should not hav e take n into account th e indemnity of or
its corresponding subsidiary imprisonment.
Held: This contention is without merit for an indemnity, to all
intents and purposes, is considered a penalty, although pecuniary in
character. Art. 70 makes no distinction betwee n th e principal penalty
and subsidiary imprisonment. vs . Director of Prisons, G.R.
No. 47326)
Court must impose all the penalties for all the crimes of which
the accused is found guilty, but in the service of the same,
they shall not exceed three times the most severe and shall
not exceed 40 years.
Th e three-fold rule is applied, not in th e impositio n of th e
penalties, but in connection with the service of the sentences imposed.
(People vs. Escares, 102 Phil. 677, 679; People vs . Jose, No. L-28232,
Feb. 6, 37 SCRA 450 , 477; vs. Sandiganbayan, No. L-
74652, May 21 , 1987, 150 SCRA 138, 143)
Article 70 of th e Revised Penal Code is concerned exclusively with th e

"service" of sentence; it speaks of "duration" of penalty and
752
RULE IN SERVICE Art. 70
OF SENTENCES
penalty to It ha s nothing to do with the imposition of the

proper penalty. Nowher e is it there envisioned tha t th e court should
make a computation and, in its decision, sentence the culprit to not
more tha n three-fold th e mos t severe of th e penalties imposable upon
him. Computation is for th e prison authorities to undertake. (People
vs. Salazar, C.A, 61 O.G. 5913)
In the case of People vs. Mendoza, G.R. May 5, 1950, it
wa s held that th e accused were guilty of murders and that each of
the m mus t be sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua for each of the
five murders, although th e duration of th e aggregate penalties shall
not exceed 40 years. In this case, after serving one reclusion perpetua,
which is computed at 30 years, th e accused will serve 10 years more.
All the other penalties will not be served.
In the case of People vs. Lagoy, G.R. May the
accused were sentenced to perpetua for each of the three
murders, to be served continuously and successively, provided that,
under Art. 70 of th e Revised Pena l Code, th e maximu m or total period
shall not exceed forty (40) years. (See also People vs. Macatembal,
Nos. Feb. 13 SCRA 328 , 333)
In the case of U.S. vs. 37 Phil. 305, 311 , the accused

committed four crimes, but th e trial court imposed only death penalty
for one of them.
Held: "All the penalties corresponding to the several violations of
law" should be imposed, to wit: th e penalty of death for parricide
of his wife; (2) the penalty of life imprisonment for the murder of L;
(3) the penalty of life imprisonment for th e murder of I; and (4) the
penalty of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal for the frustrated
murder of T.
Two or more death penalties imposed on one convict.

Multiple death penalties are not impossible to serve because
they will have to be executed simultaneously. A cursory reading of
Article 70 will show that there are only two modes of serving two or
more (multiple) penalties: simultaneously or successively. The first
rule is that two or more penalties shall be served simultaneously if the
nature of the penalties will so permit. In the case of multiple capital
the nature of said penal sanctions does not only permit but
actually necessitates simultaneous service.
753
OF SENTENCES
The imposition of multiple deat h penalties , far from being a

useles s formality, ha s practical importance. The sentencin g of an
accused to several capital penaltie s is an indelible badge of hi s
extreme criminal perversity, which ma y not be accurately projected
by the imposition of only one death sentenc e irrespective of th e
number of capital felonies for whic h he is liable. Showin g thu s th e
reprehensible character of th e convict in its real di mensions , the
possibility of a grant of executive clemency is justifiably reduced in
no small measure . Hence , th e impositio n of multipl e deat h penal•
tie s could effectively serve as a deterren t to an improvident grant
of pardon or commutation . Faced wit h th e utte r delinquency of
suc h a convict, th e proper penitentiar y authoritie s would exercise
judicious restrain t in reco mmendin g clemenc y or lenienc y in hi s
behalf.
Granting, however, that the Chief Executive, in th e exercise

of hi s co nstitutio na l powe r to pardo n (one of th e presidentia l
prerogatives which is almost absolute) deem s it proper to commute
the multiple death penalties to multiple life imprisonments, the n
the practical effect is that the convict ha s to serve th e maximu m of
forty (40) years of multiple life sentences. If only one death penalty
is imposed, and the n is commuted to life imprisonment, th e convict
will have to serve a ma ximu m of only thirty years corresponding to a
single life sentence. (People vs. Peralta, No. Oct. 29, 1968,
25 SCRA 759, 785-786; People vs . Jose, No. L-28232, Feb. 6, 1971 ,
37 SCRA 450, 479)
Different systems of penalty.

There are three different system s of penalt y relative to th e execution of
two or more penalties imposed on one and th e sam e accused. They are:
The material accumulation system;

(2) The juridical accumulation system; and
(3) The absorption syste m (the lesser penalties are absorbed
by the graver penalties).
The material accumulation system.

Previous legislation adopted the theory of absolute accumulation of
crimes and penalties and established no limitation whateve r and,
754
GRADUATED SCALES OF LOWERING Art. 71
PENALTIES
accordingly, all the penalties for all th e violations were imposed eve n if they
reached beyond th e natural span of huma n life. (Guevara)
Pars. 1, 2 and 3 of Art. 70 follow th e material accumulation system.
The juridical accumulation system.
Pars. 4, 5 and 6 of Art. 70 are in accordance wit h the juridical

accumulation system. The service of th e several penalties imposed
on one and the sam e culprit is limited to not more tha n three-fold
the length of time corresponding to th e most severe and in no case to
exceed 40 years.
The absorption system.

The absorption syste m is observed in th e imposition of th e
penalty in complex crimes (Art. 48), continuing crimes, and specific
crimes like robbery wit h homicide, etc.
Art . 71 . Graduated scales. — I n th e c a s e s i n w h i c h th e la w

p r e s c r i b e s a p e n a l t y l o w e r o r h i g h e r b y on e o r mo r e d e g r e e s
t h a n a n o t h e r g i v e n p e n a l t y , th e r u l e s p r e s c r i b e d i n Ar tic l e
sha l l b e o b s e r v e d i n g r a d u a t i n g s u c h p e n a l t y .
Th e lowe r o r highe r penalt y shal l b e take n fro m th e graduate d
scal e i n whic h i s comprise d th e give n penalty .
Th e co ur ts , i n a p p l y i n g s u c h l o w e r o r h i g h e r p e n a l t y ,
sha l l o b s e r v e th e f o l l o w i n g g r a d u a t e d s ca l e s :
SCAL E NO . 1
1. Deat h
2. Reclusion perpetua
3. Reclusion temporal
4. Prision mayor
5. Prision correccional
6. Arresto mayor
7. Destierro
755
Art. 71 GRADUATED SCALES OF LOWERING
PENALTIES
8. Arresto menor
9. Publi c censur e
10. Fine .
SCAL E NO . 2
1. . Perpetua l absolut e disqualificatio
n 2. Temporar y absolut e disqualificatio n
3 . S u s p e n s i o n fro m p u bl i c office, th e righ t t o vot e an d
b e v o t e d for, an d th e rig h t t o fo llo w a p r o f ess io n o r
callin g
4. Publi c censur e
5. Fin e .
Death shall no longer form part of the equation in the gradu•

ation of penalties, pursuant to Rep. Act No. 9346.
The negation of th e word "death" as previously inscribed in
Article will hav e th e effect of appropriately downgrading th e
proper penalties attaching to accomplices, accessories, frustrated and
attempted felonies to th e level consistent wit h th e rest of our penal
laws. Thus, a convicted accomplice in kidnapping for ransom, would
now bear th e penalty of reclusion temporal, th e penalt y one degree
lower th e (reclusion perpetua).
Such sentence would be consistent wit h Article 52 of th e Revised
Penal Code, as well as Article 71 , as amended, to remove th e
reference to "death." Moreover, th e prospect of th e accomplice
receiving the sam e sentence as th e principal, an ano malou s notion
withi n our penal laws, would be eliminated. Thus , th e sam e
standard would prevail in sentencing principals and accomplices to
th e crime of kidnapping in as tha t prescribed to th e crime of simple
kidnapping.
The harmonization tha t would result if Rep. Act No . 9346 were

construed as having eliminated th e reference to "death" in Article
71 would run across th e board in our penal laws . Consistent with
Article 51 of th e Revised Pena l Code, those convicted of attempted
qualified rape would receive th e penalty two degrees lower tha n that
prescribed by law, now Rep. Act No . 9346 , for qualified rape.
Ther e are principle s i n s t a t u t o r y co nstr uct i o n tha t wil l

sanction, even mandate , thi s interpretation of Rep. Act
756
PENALTIES
No. 9346. The maxim interpretare et concordare legibus est

interpretandi embodies th e principle tha t a statut e should be so
construed not only to be consistent wit h itself, but also to harmonize
with other laws on the sam e subject matter, as to form a complete,
coherent and intelligible uniform syste m of jurisprudence.
and harmonizing law s wit h law s is th e best method of
x x x This manne r of construction would provide a
complete, consistent and intelligible syste m to secure the rights of
all persons affected by different legislative and quasi-legislative acts."
There can be no harmony betwee n Rep. Act No. 934 6 and the Revised
Penal Code unless the later statute is construed as having downgraded
those penalties attached to death by reason of th e graduated scale
under Article Only in tha t manne r will a clear and consistent rule
emerge as to the application of penalties for frustrated and attempted
felonies, and for accessories and accomplices.
It is also a well-known rule of legal hermeneutic s that penal or
criminal laws are strictly construed against th e state and liberally
in favor of the accused. If th e languag e of the law were ambiguous,
th e court will lean more strongly in favor of th e defendant tha n it
would if the statute were remedial, as a mean s of effecting substantial
justice. The law is tender in favor of th e rights of an individual. It is
this philosophy of caution before th e Stat e ma y deprive a person of
life or liberty that animate s one of the most fundamental principles
in our Bill of Rights, tha t every person is presumed innocent until
proven guilty.
For purposes of legal hermeneutics , th e critical question is whether

Rep. Act No. 934 6 intended to delete the word "death" as expressly provided
for in the graduated scale of penalties under Article 71.
Since Article 71 denominate s "death" as an elemen t in the

graduated scale of penalties, there is no question that the operation
of Article 71 involves the actual application of the death penalty as
a means of determining the extent which a person's liberty is to be
deprived. Since Rep. Act No. 9346 unequivocally bars the application
of the death penalty, as well as expressly repeals all such statutory
provisions requiring the application of the death penalty, such effect
757
Art 71 GRADUATED SCALES OF LOWERING
PENALTIES
necessarily extends to its relevance to the graduated scale of penal• ties under
Article 71.
We cannot find basis to conclude that Rep. Act No. 9346 intended
to retain the operative effects of the death penalty in the graduation
of the other penalties in our penal laws.
Henceforth, "death," as utilized in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code,

shall no longer form part of the equation in th e graduation of penalties.
(People vs. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, Oct. 30, 2006)
Example.
In the case of an appellant convicted of attempted rape, the deter•
mination of his penalty for attempted rape shall be reckoned not from
two degrees lower tha n death, but two degrees lower tha n reclusion
perpetua. Hence, the maximu m term of his penalty shall no longer
be reclusion temporal, as ruled by the Court of Appeals, but instead,
prision mayor. (People vs. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, Oct. 30, 2006)
What is the penalty next lower in degree from arresto

Art. provides in Scale No. 1 tha t th e penalty nex t lower in
degree from arresto mayor is destierro.
The ruling in the case of Rivera vs. Geronimo, 76 Phil. 838, to
the effect that th e penalty nex t lower from arresto mayor is arresto
may be considered overruled by the ruling in th e case of Uy
Chin Hua vs. Dingalasan, 47 O.G., Supp. 12, 233 .
According to the case of Uy Chin Hua vs. Dingalasan, the scale

of penalties in Art. which places destierro below arresto mayor
cannot be disregarded and th e respective severities of arresto mayor
and destierro mus t not be judged by the duration of each of thes e
penalties, but by the degree of deprivation of liberty involved. The
penalty next lower in degree from arresto mayor is destierro.
The metropolitan and municipal courts can impose destierro.

Offenses penalized by destierro fall under the jurisdiction of justice of the
peace and municipal courts. (People vs. Santos, 87 Phil.
758
PENALTIES
Destierro, a lt ho ug h a co rrect io na l pena lt y c o n s i s t i n g in

banishment (Art. 87) wit h a duration of 6 month s and 1 day to 6
years (Art. 27) is considered not higher tha n arresto mayor which is
imprisonment of 1 mont h and 1 day to 6 months.
Unde r th e J udic ia r y R e o r g a n i z a t i o n Ac t o f 1980 , Ba ta s
Pambansa 129, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691 , metropolitan
trial courts, municipa l trial courts , an d municipa l circuit trial
courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective
of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or
other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses
or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount
thereof: Provided, however, Tha t in offenses involving damage to
property throug h crimina l negligenc e the y shal l hav e exclusive
original jurisdiction thereof.
Must destierro be applied only when it is imposed

by law?
No. Destierro ma y be imposed whe n it is th e penalty next lower and the
circumstances require th e imposition of a penalty one degree lower.
The penalty two degrees lower from arresto mayor in its medium
and maximum periods is destierro in its minimum and medium pe•
riods.
Penalty prescribed by law.

Arresto mayor
One degree lower.
Destierro
Two degrees lower.
Arts. 25, 70 and

Under Art. 25, penalties are classified into (1) principal and
(2) accessory penalties. The principal penalties are subdivided into
capital, afflictive, correctional, and light.
Art. 70 classifies the penalties, for the purpose of the successive service
of sentences, according to their severity.
759
Art. 72 PREFERENCE IN THE PAYMENT OF
THE CIVIL LIABILITIES
Art. 71 provides for the scales which should be observed in

graduating the penalties by degrees in accordance with Art. Note
that in Art. destierro is placed above arresto menor. The reason
for this is that destierro, being classified as a correctional penalty, is
higher than arresto menor, a light penalty. Art. par. 2, speaks of
or higher" penalty. Art. 70 speaks of "severity."
Under Art. 70, destierro is placed under arresto menor, accord•
ing to their respective severity. Destierro is considered lighter than
arresto menor. Under Art. 25, destierro is placed above arresto menor,
because it is classified as a correctional penalty.
In Art. the different principal penalties provided for in Art.
25 are classified and grouped into two graduated scales. Unde r Scale
No. 1, all personal penalties, such as deprivation of life and liberty,
are grouped together. Unde r Scale No. 2 are grouped all penalties
consisting in deprivation of political rights.
Art . 72 . Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities. — Th e

civi l l ia b il iti e s o f a p e r s o n f o un d guilt y o f tw o o r mor e o ffense s
sha l l b e s a t i s f i e d b y f o l l o w i n g th e c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r o f th e
d a t e s o f th e fina l j u d g m e n t s r e n d e r e d a g a in s t him , b e g i n n i n g
w it h th e first i n o r d e r o f t i me .
The person guilty of two or more offenses has two or more

civil liabilities.
This article applies whe n the offender who is found guilty of two or more
offenses is required to pay th e corresponding civil liabilities resulting from
different offenses.
The order of payment of civil liabilities is based on dates of

final judgments.
The order of paymen t of civil liabilities is not based on th e dates of the
commission of th e offense.
While criminal liability is satisfied by successive service of sentences
in the order of respective severity (Art. 70), civil liability is satisfied by
following the chronological order of the dates of the final judgments.
760
PRESUMPTION AS TO ACCESSORY PENALTIES Arts. 73-74
WHEN DEATH IS THE HIGHER PENALTY
Sectio n Three . — P r o v i s i o n c o m m o n t o th e las t tw o pre •

cedin g sections .
Art . 73 . Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory

penalties. — W h e n e v e r th e c o u r t s shal l i m p o s e a p e n a l t y w h i c h
b y p r o v i s i o n o f law , ca rr i e s w it h i t o t he r p e n a l t i e s , a c c o r d i n g
t o th e p r o v i s i o n s o f A r t i c l e s 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , an d 4 5 o f thi s
Co de , i t mu s t b e u n d e r s t o o d t ha t th e a c c e s s o r y p e n a l t i e s ar e
a ls o i m p o s e d u p o n th e c o n v i c t .
Accessory penalties are deemed imposed.

The accessory penalties provided for in Arts. 40 to 45 are deemed
imposed by th e courts without th e necessit y of makin g an express
pronouncement of their imposition.
In a case, the Solicitor General suggested that the decision below
be modified to show expressly tha t appellants were also sentenced to
the accessory penalties provided by law. It wa s held that there wa s no
necessity for such modification, as th e accessory penalties are deemed
imposed. (People vs. Baltazar, CA-G.R. No. May 25, 1956)
According to th e case of People vs. Perez, 47 984, accessory
penalties are never presumed to be imposed. This is because under
Art. 90 of the old Penal Code, the accessory penalties are to be imposed
expressly.
Subsidiary imprisonment, not an accessory penalty.

Subsidiary imprisonment is not an accessory penalty and there• fore,
the judgment of conviction mus t expressly state that the offender shall suffer
the subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. (People vs. Fajardo, 65
Phil. 539, 542)
Art . 74 . Penalty higher than perpetua in certain cases.

— I n ca s e s i n w h i c h th e la w p r e s c r i b e s a p e n a l t y hi g he r tha n
a n o t h e r g iv e n p e n a l t y , w i t h o u t spec ifi ca l l y d e s i g n a t i n g th e
na m e o f th e fo r mer , i f s u c h h i g h e r p e n a l t y s h o u l d b e tha t o f
dea t h , th e sa m e p e n a l t y an d th e a cc e s so r y pena ltie s o f Articl e
40 , shal l b e c o n s i d e r e d a s th e nex t h i g h e r p e na l t y .
761
Art. 75 INCREASE OR REDUCTION OF FINE
Death cannot be the penalty next higher in degree when not

provided by law.
Suppose that an employee of the Registry Section of the Bureau
of Posts stole a registered package of diamonds worth The
penalty for simple theft involving that amount is reclusion temporal.
(Art. 309) The property stolen being mail matter, the crime is qualified
theft and "shall be punished by the penalties (penalty) next higher
by two (Art. 310) Under Art. 71, "in th e cases in which the
law prescribes a penalty x x x higher by one or more degrees tha n
another given penalty," two degrees higher tha n temporal
would be death according to Scale No. 1 in said article.
Bu t under the provisions of Art. 74, whe n a given penalty ha s

to be raised by one or two degrees and th e resulting penalty is death
according to th e scale, but is not specifically provided by law as a
penalty, the latter cannot be imposed. The given penalty (reclusidn
temporal) and the accessory penalties of death whe n not executed by
reason of commutation or pardon (Art. 40) shall be imposed.
Application of this article.

The Code ha s mean t t o sa y her e tha t th e judg men t should
provide tha t th e convict should not be given th e benefit of Art. 27
(that he should be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for 30 years)
until 40 years hav e elapsed; otherwise, there would be no difference
at all betwee n reclusidn perpetua whe n imposed as th e penalty next
higher in degree and whe n it is imposed as the penalty fixed by law.
(Albert) In this opinion, th e given penalty is reclusidn perpetua.
Reason for the provision of this article.

The penalty higher tha n reclusidn perpetua cannot be death,
because th e penalty of death mus t be specifically imposed by law as
a penalty for a given crime.
Art . 75 . Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more

degrees. — Wheneve r i t ma y b e necessar y t o increas e o r reduc e th e
penalt y o f fin e b y on e o r mor e degrees , i t shal l b e increase d o r reduced
, respectively , fo r eac h degree , b y one - fourt h o f th e maximu m amoun t
prescribe d b y law , withou t however , changin g th e minimum .
762
INCREASE OR REDUCTION OF FINE Art. 75
Th e sa m e ru le s shal l b e o b s e r v e d wit h reg ar d t o fine s tha t

d o no t c o n s i s t o f a fixe d a m o u n t , bu t ar e ma d e p r o p o r t i o n a l .
Fines are graduated into degrees for the accomplices and ac•
cessories and for the principals in frustrated and attempted
felonies.
Fines are also graduated into degrees for th e imposition of the proper
amount of the fine on accomplices and accessories or on the principals in
frustrated or attempted felonies. (Arts. 50 to 57)
Examples of reducing fine by one or two degrees.

Suppose the fine is from P20 0 to P2,000 . To find each degree is
to take 1/4 of P2,00 0 or The minimu m of P20 0 is not changed.
For each degree, take P50 0 from th e maximu m of the next higher
degree.
Therefore, one degree lower would be P20 0 as minimu m to
a s maximum .
And two degrees lower would be P20 0 as minimu m to P1,00 0
as maximum.
For the guidance of th e bench and bar, in reducing the penalty of
fine by one or more degrees, th e basis for the reduction of the first as
well as the second degree mus t necessarily be th e penalty prescribed
by law for th e consummated felony. Thus, where the maximu m fine
fixed for the consummated offense is not more tha n the fine
for the frustrated felony is determined by reducing the maximu m by
one-fourth, which is Reducing it further by one degree
for attempted felony, the second reduction by one-fourth should be
based on P2,000 , not on the penalty as reduced (Pl,500.00 ) so that
the maximum fine as reduced by two degrees would be (De
Angeles vs. People, 103 Phil. 295, 297-298)
Example of increasing fine by one degree.

Let us suppose that a certain crime is punished with a fine of
not less than P20 0 and not more tha n P6,000 . One-fourth of the
maximum of P6,000 is Pl,5 0 0 . The fine immediately higher in degree
in accordance with this article will be from P200.0 0 to
763
Art. 75 INCREASE OR REDUCTION OF FINE
"Without changing the minimum."

This article specifically mentions the word "minimum" of the fine.
Under this article, the fine mus t have a minimum and a maximum
fixed by law.
A, a minor fifteen year s and tw o month s old, committe d acts
tending to prevent the meetin g of a provincial board under Art. 143.
The penalty is prision correccional or a fine from P20 0 to or
both. Bein g a minor, A mus t be give n a penalt y one degree lower
in accordance wit h Article 68. Th e penalt y one degree lower is
arresto mayor or a fine from P2 0 0 to Unde r Art. 75 , th e
court cannot chang e th e mini mu m of P2 00 , eve n if th e offender is
a poor man . (See People vs . Rodriguez, G.R. No . April 20,
1954)
This article, therefore, does not apply whe n th e la w does not fix the
minimu m of the fine.
Determination of amount of reduced

There are cases where it becomes necessary to reduce th e fines, because
th e penalty ha s to be lowered by one or tw o degrees. In determining th e
amount of th e reduced fine, a distinction should be made betwee n cases wher
e th e minimu m of th e fine is fixed by law and those where th e minimu m is
not fixed by law.
In Articles 143, 144 and 150, for instance, th e Code fixes th e minimu m
as well as th e maximu m of th e fines. In Articles 114, 115 and 129, for
instance, th e minimu m of th e fine is not fixed.
When the minimum is not fixed by law.

Whe n only th e maximu m of th e fine is fixed, th e determination of the
amount to be imposed is left to th e sound discretion of th e courts, without
exceeding th e maximu m authorized by law. (People vs. Quinto, 60 Phil. 351 ,
357)
Distinctions between fine with a minimum and fine without

a minimum.
In both, th e law fixes th e ma ximu m of th e fine.
2. When the law fixes th e minimu m of th e fine, th e court cannot
change tha t minimum; whereas , whe n th e law does not state
764
LEGAL PERIOD OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES Art. 76
the minimu m of th e fine but only the maximum , the court can impose
any amoun t not exceeding such maximum .
3. When the law fixes both th e minimu m and the maximum , the
court can impose an amount higher tha n the maximum; whereas,
whe n only the maximu m is fixed, it cannot impose an amount
higher tha n th e maximum .
Asto tha t d o no t c o n s i s t o f a fixe d a mo u n t , bu t ar e ma d e
The last paragraph of thi s article speak s of fines which are not of fixed
amount, but are mad e proportional.
Examples:
Whe n th e negligen t act resulte d in da mag e to property of
another, the fine shall be from an amoun t equal to th e value of the
damage to three times such value, but shall in no case be less than
25 pesos. (Art. 365, par. 3)
In the crime of direct bribery (Art. 210) involving a bribe of
P2,300 , the maximu m fine is (three time s the value of the
gift), and that amount should be th e basis for lowering the
penalty by two degrees, which is th e penalty for attempted bribery.
(De Angeles vs. People, 103 Phil. 295, 298-299)
In this case, the minimum of the fine is and the maximum
is The fine for attempted bribery is determined, as follows:
Take one-fourth of P6,900 , which is Reducing the maximu m
by one-fourth, we have Reducing it further by one-fourth of
the maximum, we have This amount is the maximu m of the
fine for attempted bribery. The court can fix any amount of the fine
from to
Art. 76 . Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. — Th e

lega l per io d o f d u r a t i o n o f d i v i s i b l e p e n a l t i e s shal l b e con •
s i d e r e d a s d i v i d e d int o t hre e pa rt s , fo r mi n g thre e periods ,
th e m i n i m u m , th e me d i u m , an d th e m a x i m u m i n th e ma n n e r
s h o w n i n th e f o l l o w i n g ta ble . (See p . 768)
765
Art. 76 LEGAL PERIOD OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES
Article 76 shows the manner divisible penalties are divided

into three periods.
For instance, the time included in each of the periods of
temporal is determined, as follows:
(1) temporal has a duration of from 12 years and 1 day as the
minimum, to 20 years, as the maximum.
(2) Subtract the minimu m (disregarding th e 1 day) from the
maximum; thu s —
20 years - 12 years 8 years
(3) Divide the difference by 3; thu s —
8 years 3 = 2 years and 8 months.
(4) Us e th e mini mu m of 12 year s an d 1 day of reclusidn
temporal as th e mi ni mu m of th e mini mu m period. The n
add 2 year s and 8 month s to th e mi ni mu m (disregarding
th e 1 day) to ge t th e ma xi mu m of th e mi ni mu m period.
Thus , w e hav e 1 4 year s and 8 month s a s th e ma ximu m
o f th e mi n i mu m period. Th e rang e o f th e mi n i mu m
period is , therefore, 12 year s and 1 da y to 14 year s and
8 months .
Us e the maximu m of the minimu m period as the minimu m

of the mediu m period, and add 1 day to distinguish it from
the maximu m of th e minimu m period; we hav e 14 years,
8 month s and 1 day. The n add 2 years and 8 month s to
the minimu m of th e mediu m period (disregarding th e 1
day); we have 17 years and 4 months , as th e maximu m
of the mediu m period. The range of the mediu m period is,
therefore, 14 years, 8 month s and 1 day to 17 years and 4
months.
Us e the maximu m of the medium period as the minimu m of

the maximu m period, and add 1 day to distinguish it from
the ma ximu m of th e mediu m period; we hav e 17 years, 4
month s and 1 day. The n add 2 years and 8 month s to the
minimu m of the maximu m period (disregarding th e 1 day);
and we have 20 years. Hence, th e range of the maximu m
period is 17 years, 4 month s and 1 day to 20 years.
766
When the penalty is composed of three periods correspond•

ing to different divisible penalties.
If th e Revised Pena l Code prescribes th e penalty of prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods to prisidn mayor in its minimum period,
what is the duration of each of its three periods?
The time included in th e prescribed penalty is from 2 years, 4 months
Must the duration of each of th e three periods of the prescribed penalty

be that of th e period of th e corresponding divisible penalty included in the
prescribed penalty, as follows:
Minimum — 2 years, 4 month s and 1 day to 4 years and 2
month s (the mediu m of prisidn correccional),
Medium — 4 years, 2 month s and 1 day to 6 years (the
ma xi mu m prisidn correccional), and
Maximum — 6 years and 1 day to 8 years (the minimu m of
prisidn mayor),
or mus t the time included in th e prescribed penalty be divided into three

equal portions, each to form one period, as follows:
Minimum — 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years, 2 months
and 20 days,
Medium — 4 years, 2 month s and 21 days to 6 years, 1
month and 10 days, and
Maximum — 6 years, 1 month and days to 8 years?
It will be noted that, in the first, the duration of the minimum
period of the penalty is the time included in the medium period of
prisidn correccional; the duration of the medium period of the penalty
is the time included in the maximu m period of prisidn correccional;
and the duration of the maximu m period is the time included in the
minimum period of prisidn mayor. The penalty is not divided into
three equal parts to form the three periods. While the time included
in its minimum and medium periods is 1 year and 8 months, the time
included in its maximum period is 2
It seem s tha t th e intention of the Legislature whe n it enacted the law
(Revised Pena l Code) is to give th e three periods of a di-
767
TABL E SHOWIN G TH E DURATIO N O F DIVISIBL E PENALTIE S AN D
TH E TIM E INCLUDE D I N EAC H O F THEI R PERIOD S
altie s Time include d in Time include d Time included Time inclu

th e penalt y in its in its minimu m in its mediu m in its maxi
entirety period period period
F r o m 1 2 y e a r s From 12 year s an d Fro m 14 years , 8 Fro m 17 y e

and 1 day to 20 1 day to 14 years months and 1 day months an
years. and 8 months . to 17 years and 4 to 20 years
months .
mayor, ab• From 6 year s an d 1 From 6 years an d 1 From 8 years and 1 From 10 yea
disquali• day to 12 years . day to 8 years . day to 10 years. 1 day to 12
io n an d
l tempo •
disqualifi•
.
Fro m 6 mo n t h s 6 months and Fro m 2 years , 4 Fro m 4 ye
suspen • an d 1 da y t o 6 1 day to 2 year s months and 1 day months an
and years. an d 4 months . to 4 years and 2 to 6 years.
months .
mayor. Fro m 1 mo n t h Fro m 1 to 2 Fro m 2 mo n t h s 4 month
an d 1 da y t o 6 months . an d 1 da y t o 4 day to 6 m
months . months .
menor. From 1 to 30 days. From 1 to 10 days. From to 20 days. From to 3
visible penalt y equal or uniform duration . Eve n in case s in whic h

th e penalt y prescribed by la w is not composed of thre e periods,
th e courts shall divide "into thre e equal portions th e tim e included
in th e penalt y prescribed, x x x forming one period of eac h of th e
thre e portions." (Art. 65)
It is noted tha t Art. 76 provides tha t "divisible penalties shall
be considered as divided into three parts, forming three
without stating tha t th e three parts mus t be the three equal portions
of th e tim e included in th e divisible penalties , but th e tim e included
in each of th e divisible penaltie s mentione d in th e table in tha t
article, except tha t of arresto mayor, is divided into three equal
portions.
It may be argued tha t th e duration of each of the periods of those
divisible penalties is fixed by Art. 76 and mus t be maintained even if
it is included in a different three-period penalty. Bu t Art. 76 does not
eve n remotely sugges t it. On th e contrary, th e phrase in that article,
which reads: "in the manner shown in the following table," indicates
merely the wa y or metho d of dividing into three periods the divisible
penalties as those mentioned in th e table.
Those whic h are fixed in th e tabl e are respectivel y th e pe•
riods of th e divisible pena lt ie s ment io ne d therein . To ma intai n
th e duration s of thos e periods eve n whe n one or tw o of the m form
part of a prescribed three-period penalt y is to giv e th e periods of
th e prescribed penalt y different duration s as earlier indicated. It
would be th e only divisible penalt y wher e th e duration of one of its
three periods is not equal to tha t of th e others. Whe n the prescribed
penalty does not hav e thre e periods, it ha s to be divided into three
equal portions for th e application of th e rule s contained in Art.
64. Whe n th e penalt y prescribed is an y of th e divisible penaltie s
enumerate d in Art. 25 , it s thre e periods, except thos e of arresto
mayor, are th e thre e equal portions of th e divisible penalty. The
penalt y composed of severa l periods corresponding to different
divisible penaltie s cannot be th e exception, for there is no legal or
practical basi s for th e exception.
It is clear that the duration of each of the periods of the divisible
penalties as fixed in the table in Art. 76 of the Revised Penal Code
is not controlling when the penalty prescribed is composed of three
periods corresponding to divisible penalties.
769
Art. 7 7 COMPLEX PENALTY
The division of arresto mayor into three equal periods does

not follow the rule.
According to the table prepared under Art. 76, the three periods of
arresto mayor are:
Minimum period — 1 month and 1 day to 2 months. Medium
period — 2 month s and 1 day to 4 months. Maximum period
— 4 month s and 1 day to 6 months.
Distinction between and "degree."

Penal Code, unlike the old Pena l Code, clearly es•
tablishes a distinction betwee n "period" and "degree," by designating
as a "period" each of th e three equal parts of a divisible penalty and
as a "degree" the diverse penalties mentioned by nam e
in the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Padilla, 36 O.G. 2404)
Art . 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three

distinct penalties. — I n c a s e s i n w h i c h th e la w p r e s c r i b e s a
p e n a l t y c o m p o s e d o f t h r e e d i s t i n c t p e n a l t i e s , e a c h on e sha l l
for m a perio d ; th e l i g h t e s t o f t he m shal l b e th e m i n i m u m , th e
nex t th e m e d i u m , an d th e mo s t s e v e r e th e m a x i m u m p e r i o d .
W h e n e v e r th e p e n a l t y p r e s c r i b e d do e s no t h a v e on e o f
th e form s s p e c i a ll y p r o v i d e d fo r i n thi s Code , th e p er io d s shal l
b e d i s t r i b u t e d , a p p l y i n g b y a n a l o g y th e p r e s c r i b e d r u l e s .
What is a complex penalty?

It is a penalty prescribed by law composed of three distinct penalties,
each forming a period; the lightest of the m shall be th e minimum, the next the
medium , and th e most severe th e maximu m period. (Art. 77)
When the penalty is composed of three distinct penalties.

the prescribes a penalty composed of three distinct
penalties, each one shall form a period.
770
COMPLEX PENALTY Art. 77
Example: temporal to death (Art.

Maximum — Death.
Medium — perpetua (this is betwee n reclusidn
temporal and death).
Minimum — reclusidn temporal.
Application by analogy of the rules.

Examples:
1. Art. 114, par. 3, provides a penalty of prisidn mayor to
death. The penalty is composed of four distinct penalties,
namely , prisidn mayor, reclusidn temporal, reclusidn
perpetua, and death.
Th e ma x i m u m perio d mus t b e dea th , i t bein g
indivisible; th e mediu m period mus t be reclusidn perpetua,
it being also indivisible; and th e minimu m period mus t be
composed of prisidn mayor and reclusidn temporal.
2. Art. 294, par. 2, provides a penalty of reclusidn temporal
in its mediu m period to reclusidn perpetua. The penalty is
composed of two distinct penalties.
Th e m a x i m u m is reclusidn perpetua, it bein g
indiv isible ; th e me di u m is reclusidn temporal in it s
maximu m period; and th e minimu m is reclusidn temporal
in its mediu m period.
771
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
(Act No. 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225)
AN T O P R O V I D E FO R A N I N D E T E R M I N A T E SEN •
TENC E AN D PAR O L E FO R AL L P E R S O N S C O N V I C T E D O F
CERTA I N CR IM E S B Y TH E C O U RT S O F TH E P H I L I P P I N E
ISLANDS ; T O CREAT E A BOAR D O F I ND E T ERM INA T E SEN •
TENC E AN D T O P R O V I D E F U N D S T H E R E F O R AN D FO R
O TH E R P U R P O S E S .
SECTION 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an

offense punished by th e Revised Penal Code, or its amendments , the
court shall sentence th e accused to an indeterminate sentence the
maximu m term of which shall be tha t which, in view of th e attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under th e rules of th e said
Code, and the minimu m of which shall be withi n th e range of the pen•
alty nex t lower to tha t prescribed by th e Code for th e offense; and if
th e offense is punished by an y other law, th e court shall sentence th e
accused to an indeterminate sentence, th e ma ximu m term of which
shall not exceed th e ma ximu m fixed by said la w and th e minimu m
shall not be les s tha n th e minimu m term prescribed by th e same . (As
amended by Act No. 4225)
SECTION 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of
offenses punished wit h death penalty or life-imprisonment; to those
convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those
convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to
those convicted of piracy; to those wh o are habitual to
those wh o shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; to
those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Execu•
tive shall hav e violated th e term s thereof; to those whose maximu m
term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, nor to those already
sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except
as provided in Section five hereof. (As amended by Act No. 4225)
SECTION 3. There is hereby created a Board of Pardons and Parole to
be composed of the Secretary of Justice who shall be its
772
chairman, and four members to be appointed by the President, with

th e consent of the Commission on Appointments who shall hold office
for a term six years: Provided, That one member of the board shall
be a trained sociologist, one a clergyman or educator, one psychiatrist
unles s a trained psychiatrist be employed by the board, and the other
members shall be persons qualified for such work by training and
experience. At least one membe r of the board shall be a woman. Of
the members of the present board, two shall be designated by the
President to continue until December thirty, ninetee n hundred and
sixty-nine. In case of any vacancy in the membershi p of the Board, a
successor may be appointed to serve only for the unexpired portion of
the term of the respective members. (As amended by R.A. No. 4203,
approved June 19, 1965.)
SECTION 4. The Board of Pardons and Parole is authorized to
adopt such rules and regulations as ma y be necessary for carrying
out its functions and duties. The Board is empowered to call upon
any bureau, office, branch, subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
of the Government for such assistanc e as it ma y need in connection
with the performance of its functions. A majority of all the members
shall constitute a quorum and a majority vote shall be necessary to
arrive at a decision. An y dissent from the majority opinion shall be
reduced to writing and filed with th e records of th e proceedings. Each
member of the Board, including the Chairman and Executive Officer,
shall be entitled to receive as compensation Fifty pesos for each
meeting actually attended by him, notwithstanding the provisions
of Sec. 259 of the Revised Administrative Code, and in the addition
thereto, reimbursement of and necessary traveling expenses
incurred in the performance of duties: Provided, however, That the
Board meeting will not be more tha n three times a week. (As amended
by R.A. No. 4203, approved June 19, 1965.)
SECTION 5. It shall be the duty of the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence to look into the physical, mental and moral record of the
prisoners who shall be eligible to parole and to determine the proper
time of release of such prisoners. Whenever any prisoner shall have
served the minimum penalty imposed on him, and it shall appear to
the Board of Indeterminate Sentence, from the reports of the prison•
er's work and conduct which may be received in accordance with the
rules and regulations prescribed and from the study and investigation
made by the Board itself, that such prisoner is fitted by his training
for release that there is a reasonable probability that such prisoner
773
will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that
such release will not be incompatible with the welfare of society, said
Board of Indeterminate Sentence may, in its discretion, and in accord•
ance with the rules and regulations adopted hereunder, authorize the
release of such prisoner on parole, upon such terms and conditions as
are herein prescribed and as may be prescribed by the Board. The said
Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall also examine the records and
status of prisoners who shall have been convicted of any offense other
than those named in Section two hereof, and have been sentenced for
more than one year by final judgmen t prior to the date on which this
Act shall take effect, and shall make recommendations in all such
cases to the Governor General (President of the Philippines) with
regard to the parole of such prisoners as the y shall deem qualified
for parole as herein provided, after the y shall have served a period
of imprisonment not less tha n the minimu m period for which they
have been sentenced under this Act for the sam e offense.
SECTION 6. Every prisoner released from confinement on parole
by virtue of this Act shall, at such time s and in such manne r as may
be required by the conditions of hi s parole, as ma y be designated by
the said Board for such purpose, report personally to such government
officials or other parole officers hereafter appointed by the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence for a period of surveillance equivalent to
the remaining portion of the maximu m sentenc e imposed upon him
or until final release and discharge by th e Board of Indeterminate
Sentence as herein provided, x x x. The limits of residence of such
paroled prisoner during his parole ma y be fixed and from time to time
changed by the said Board in its discretion. If during th e period of sur•
veillance such paroled prisoner shall show himself to be a law-abiding
citizen and shall not violate any of th e law s of th e Philippine Islands,
the Board of Indeterminate Sentence ma y issu e a final certification
of release in his favor, which shall entitle hi m to final release and
discharge.
SECTION 7. The Board shall file wit h th e court which passed

judgmen t on the case and wit h th e Chief of Constabulary, a certi•
fied copy of each order of conditional or final release and discharge
issued in accordance wit h the provisions of th e next preceding two
sections.
SECTION 8. Whenever any prisoner released on parole by virtue of this

Act shall, during th e period of surveillance, violate any of the
774
of his parole, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may

issue an order for his arrest which ma y be served in any part of the
Philippine Islands by any police officer. In such case the prisoner so
rearrested shall serve the remainin g unexpired portion of the maxi•
mu m sentence for which he wa s originally committed to prison, unless
the Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall, in its discretion, grant a
new parole to the said prisoner. (As amended by Act No. 4225) x x x
The court must determine two penalties.

The court must, instea d of a single fixed penalty, determine
two penalties, referred to in th e Indeterminate Sentence Act as the
"MAXIMUM" and "MINIMUM" terms .
The law should be applied in imposing a prison sentence for a
crime punishable either by special law or by the Revised Penal Code.
When the crime is punished by a special law —

If th e offense is punishe d by a special law, th e court shall
sentence th e accused to an indeterminat e penalty, the maximum
term of which shall not exceed th e maximu m fixed by said law and
the minimum term shall not be les s tha n th e minimu m prescribed
by the same. (Sec. 1, Act No. 4103)
When the crime is punished by the Code —

If th e offense is punishe d by th e Revise d Pena l Code, th e
court shall sentence th e accused to an indeterminate penalty, the
maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the
Revised Penal Code, and the minimum term of which shall be within
the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for
the offense. (Sec. 1, Act No. 410 3 as amended by Act No. 4225)
The court cannot put the minimu m penalty in the same period
and the same degree as the maximu m penalty, because the minimum
penalty "shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense."
The penalty next lower mus t be based on the penalty prescribed by the
Code for the offense, without considering in the meantime the
775
modifying circumstances, such as, the mitigating or aggravating

circumstances. (People vs. Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549, 552)
In determinin g th e "minimum" penalty , Act No . 4103 , as
amended, confers upon the courts in fixing the penalties the widest
discretion that the courts have ever had. (People vs. Ducosin, 59 Phil.
Basan vs. People, No. L-39483, Nov. SCRA 275,
277)
In determining the minimu m term, it is left entirely within
the discretion of the court to fix it anywhere within the range of the penalty
next lower without reference to the periods into which it may be subdivided.
(People vs. Ducosin, supra, at 117)
Unde r th e Indeterminat e Sent enc e Law (Act No . 4103 , a s
amended), if th e offense is punishabl e under th e Revised Pena l
Code, the minimu m penalty should be withi n any of th e periods of
the penalty next lower in degree to tha t prescribed by law, and the
maximum thereof should be within the proper period of the penalty
that may be imposed were the sentence is a straight penalty. (Basa n
vs. People, supra, 277)
Note: This is not in accordance wit h th e ruling in People vs.

Ducosin, supra.
The mitigatin g or a g grav atin g circumstanc e is required to

be considered only in the imposition of th e maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence. (People vs. De Joya, 98 Phil. 238, 240)
Hence, if th e minimum term of th e indeterminat e sentenc e
is arresto mayor in its minimu m and mediu m periods, which ha s
a duratio n of 2 mo nth s and 1 da y to 4 mo nths , th e court ma y
impose 4 month s of imprisonment, eve n if there is no aggravating
circumstance.
For the sam e reason, the ma y impose 2 month s and 1 day,
even if there is an aggravating circumstance, it being discretionary to
the court to impose th e minimu m term anywher e withi n its range.
When there is a privileged mitigatin g circumstance, so that
the penalty ha s to be lowered by one degree, th e starting point for
determining the term of the indeterminate penalty is the
penalty next lower from that prescribed by th e Code for th e offense.
(People vs. Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549, 552)
776
Examples of application of Indeterminate Sentence Law —

Under Special law:
A is convicted of illegal possessio n of firearm punishable by
imprisonment from one year and one day to five years.
The court can impose an indeterminat e sentence from 2 years
and 1 day, as th e minimu m term, to 4 years, as th e maximu m term;
2 years and 1 day to 3 years; or 3 year s and 1 day to 5 years.
The ma xi mu m ter m of eac h of th e different exa mple s does
not exceed th e ma ximu m of 5 year s prescribed by th e law, and th e
minimu m term is not les s tha n th e minimu m of 1 year and 1 day
prescribed by th e said law.
Under the Revised Penal Code:

A is convicted of falsification of official document committed by
a public officer penalized by prision mayor. There is one mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilty.
To determine the penalty nex t lower, disregard first the miti•
gating circumstance of plea of guilty. prision mayor in its full
extent, the penalty prescribed by th e Code for th e offense, should
be th e basis, and not prision mayor minimum, because it is not the
penalty "prescribed by th e Code for th e
Prision mayor mi n i mu m become s th e proper penalt y only
because of the presence of th e mitigatin g circumstance of plea of
guilty. The penalty next lower is correccional.
Therefore, the indeterminate sentence will be:
MAXIMUM — mayor minimum, its proper period after

considering th e mitigating circumstance.
MINIMUM — prisidn correccional, in any of its periods or
anywhere within the range prision correccional
without reference to any of its periods.
The maximum term is determined according to the rules of

the Code.
The maximum term of the indeterminate penalty is determined in any
case punishable under the Revised Penal Code in accordance
777
with the rules and provisions of the Code exactly as if the Indeter• minate
Sentence Law had never been enacted.
The rules and provisions which must be applied to determine the
maximum term of the indeterminate penalty are those provided in Arts. 46,
48, 50 to 57, 61 , 62 (except par. 5), 64, 65, 68, 69, and 71.
The rules of the Code are not applicable in fixing the mini•
mum term.
The rules and provisions in those articles, particularly Arts. 50
to 57, 62, 64 and 65, are not applicable in fixing the minimu m term
of the indeterminate penalty. The duration of th e minimu m term is
within the range of the penalty next lower to tha t prescribed by the
Code for the offense, without regard to its three periods. The court ha s
the discretion to fix as the minimu m term any period of imprisonment
within the penalty next lower to tha t prescribed by th e Code for the
offense.
When modifying circumstances considered.

Under the Indeterminate Sentenc e Law, th e maximu m term
of the penalty shall be which, in view of th e attendin g circum•
stances, could be properly under the Revised Penal Code, and
the minimu m shall be th e range of th e penalty nex t lower to
that for the offense, without first considering any modifying
circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. The determi•
nation of the minimu m penalty is left by la w to th e sound discretion
of the court and it can be anywhere withi n th e range of th e penalty
next lower without any reference to th e periods into which it might
be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in
the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.
(People vs. Gabres, 267 SCRA 581)
Illustrations of indeterminate penalty based on Arts. 61,

64, 68, 69, etc. of the Revised Penal Code.
1. Indeterminate penalty, when neither mitigating circumstance
nor aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the
crime. (Art. 64, par. 1)
A wa s prosecuted for, and wa s found guilty after a regular trial

of, homicide under Art. 249 which prescribes the penalty
778
temporal. There being no mitigating or

circumstance, the maximum term of the
which is temporal, should be imposed in the medium
period. (Art. 64, par. The minimum term of the
penalty is anywhere within the range prisidn mayor, the penalty
next lower from reclusidn temporal (Art. 71), with or without
reference to the period into which it may be
Indeterminate penalty, when there is one ordinary mitigating
circumstance. (Art. 64, par. 2)
In the preceding example, if A pleaded guilty before the
presentatio n of evidence by th e prosecution, there being no
aggravating circumstance to offset it, th e maximum term of the
indeterminate penalty, which is reclusidn temporal, should be
imposed in th e minimu m period. (Art. 64, par. 2) The minimum
term of th e indeterminate penalty is also anywhere within the
range of prisidn mayor, the penalty next lower from reclusidn
temporal, with or without reference to th e period into which it
ma y be subdivided. Hi s plea of guilty is required to be considered
(by wa y of mitigation) only in the imposition of the maximu m
term of hi s sentence. (People vs. De Joya, 98 Phil. 238, 240)
Indeterminate penalty, when there is only an aggravating cir•

cumstance. (Art. 64, par. 3)
In th e exampl e unde r No . 1, if in th e execution of th e
crime concurred th e generi c a ggravat in g circumstance s of
relationship (Art. 15, R.P.C.) and tha t it wa s committed with
insult or in disregard of th e respect due th e offended party on
account of hi s rank or age (Art. 14, No. 3, R.P.C) , which shall
be merged into one circumstance (People vs. Kho Choc, 50 O.G.
1667), the penalty imposable on A is reclusidn temporal in its
maximu m period. (Art. 64, No. 3, R.P.C.) The minimu m term of
the indeterminate penalty is also anywhere within the range of
prisidn mayor with or without reference to the period into which
it may be subdivided.
Indeterminate penalty, when there are mitigating and aggravat•
ing circumstances. (Art. 64, par. 4)
In the example under No. 1, if after committing homicide
at nighttime purposely sought by A to better accomplish his
purpose (Art. 14, par. 6), he surrendered voluntarily to the agent
779
of authority and during the arraignment pleaded guilty to the

charge (Art. 13, par. 7), there is one mitigating circumstance
left after offsetting the aggravating circumstance of nighttime
with the two mitigating circumstances. Hence, the penalty of
temporal should be imposed in the minimu m period.
(Art. 64, par. 4)
The MAXIMUM of the indeterminate penalty is reclusion
temporal minimu m and th e MINIMUM is prision mayor in any
of its periods or anywhere within its range.
Indeterminate penalty, when the crime committed is complex
under Art. 48.
A wa s convicted of a complex crime of frustrated homicide
with assaul t upon an agent of a person in authority under Art.
249, in relation to Art. 6, Art. 148, and Art. 48 of the Revised
Penal Code. The penalty for homicide is temporal.
Bein g frustrated , th e penalt y shoul d b e one degre e lower
(Art. 50) or mayor. The penalty for assaul t is prisidn
correccional in its mediu m and ma xi mu m periods. Therefore,
the penalty for th e complex crime is prisidn mayor, th e penalty
for the graver offense, th e sam e to be applied in its maximu m
period. The MAXIMUM of th e indeterminate penalty is prisidn
mayor maximu m and th e MINIMU M is prisidn correccional in
its maximu m period. (People vs. 92 Phil. 877)
In Lontoc vs. People, 74 Phil. 513 , 520, wher e th e accused

wa s convicted of complex crime of estafa through falsification of
a public document (Art. 315, case No. 4, in connection wit h Arts.
171 and 48 of th e Code), and th e penalty is prisidn mayor to be
applied in its maximu m period plus a fine not to exceed
(the penalty for falsification which is th e graver offense), the
MAXIMUM of the indeterminate penalty is within the maximum
period of prisidn mayor and th e MINIMU M is withi n tha t nex t
lower in degree to prisidn mayor, namely, prisidn correccional.
Indeterminate penalty, when the penalty is next lower by two
degrees than that prescribed by law for the crime threatened and
there is one aggravating circumstance.
A threatened to kill B if th e latter would not give hi m a
certain su m of money. A failed to attain hi s purpose, because
he wa s arrested by th e police upon complaint by B. Unde r Art.
780
282, No. 1, of the Revised Penal Code, th e crime of grave threats,

whe n the offender did not attain hi s purpose, is punishable with
a penalty nex t lower by two degrees tha n tha t prescribed by law
for the crime which in this case is homicide. The
penalty for homicide is temporal. In the execution of
the crime concurred th e generic aggravating circumstances of
relationship (Art. 15, R.P.C.) and tha t it wa s committed wit h
insult or in disregard of th e respect due th e offended party on
account of hi s rank or age (Art. 14, No. 3, R.P.C) , which shall
be merged into one circumstance.
Held: The penalty imposable on A is correccional
in its ma ximu m period or from 4 years, 2 month s and 1 day to
6 years. (People vs. Kho Choc, 50 O.G. 1667)
It will be noted tha t th e penalty of reclusidn temporal, the
penalty for th e crime threatened to be committed, is lowered
first by two degrees to determine th e penalty for the crime of
grave threats actually committed by A, before fixing th e latter
penalty in its proper period. The penalty of prisidn correccional
wa s fixed in its maximu m period, because of th e presence of one
aggravating circumstance of relationship or disregard of respect
due th e offended party.
Therefore, the maximu m term of the indeterminate penalty
is prisidn correccional in its ma ximu m period and the minimu m
term of the indeterminate penalty is anywhere within the range
of arresto mayor, th e penalty nex t lower from prisidn correc•
cional.
7. Indeterminate penalty, when the accused is convicted a complex
crime and there are two mitigating circumstances without any
aggravating circumstance. (Arts. 48, and 64, par. 5)
The crime committed is estafa thru falsification by a public
officer under No. 4, Art. 315, in connection with Art. 171, of the
Revised Penal Code. The penalty to be imposed is that which is
provided for the more serious offense to be applied in its maximum
period, pursuant to Art. 48, it being a complex crime. The penalty
for the more serious offense, which is falsification, is prisidn
mayor in its full extent and fine. There being two mitigating
circumstances of (1) voluntary surrender and (2) plea of guilty,
without any aggravating circumstance, the penalty next lower to
that provided by law should be imposed. (Art. 64, par. 5)
781
For purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the

penalty next lower should be determined without regard as
to whether the basic penalty provided by the Code should be
applied in its maximu m or minimu m period as circumstances
modifying liability may require.
When however — and this may be the only exception to the
rule — the number of the mitigating circumstances is such as to
entitle the accused to the penalty next lower in degree, this penalty
in the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be
the starting point for the determination of the penalty next lower
in degree (the MINIMUM of the indeterminate penalty).
For the purpose of determining the penalty next lower in
degree, the penalty that should be considered as the starting
point is the whole mayor, it being th e penalty prescribed
by law for th e crime of falsification (Art. and not
mayor in its maximu m period which happen s to be the penalty,
because th e crime committed is complex under Art. 48.
Th e penalt y nex t lower from prisidn mayor is prisidn correccional
and this latter penalty should be applied in its maximu m period, a s th e
MAXIMU M o f th e indeterminat e penalty. The MINIMUM of th e
indeterminate penalty is arresto mayor, the penalty nex t lower in degree,
which ma y be imposed by the court in any of its periods.
The penalty nex t lower in degree (the MINIMUM of the
indeter mi na t e penalty ) shoul d b e determine d first, before
imposing the penalty prescribed by law for the offense in its
proper period, because Sec. 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
provides that the MINIMUM of the indeterminate penalty "shall
be within the range of the penalty nex t lower to that prescribed
by the Code for the offense."
Although the penalty prescribed by th e Code for the offense

is prisidn mayor in its full extent, in this case, it should not be
the starting point for determining th e MINIMUM, because there
is a privileged mitigating circumstance. This is the exception to
the general
The penalty next lower in degree should be th e starting

point for determinin g th e M INIM U M of th e indeterminat e
penalty.
782
Thu s — correccional will be th e starting point.

Arresto mayor wil l be th e penalt y nex t lower. (People vs .
Gonzalez, 73 Phil. 549, 552)
Whe n the accused is guilty a complex crime, the penalty

immediately lower is th e nex t below the penalty provided for
the gravest crime. (People vs. Caburao, C.A., 54 O.G. 8261)
In the case of People vs. Fulgencio, 92 Phil. 1069, where the
accused, a minor 17 years old, committed two crimes of parricide
resulting from a single act of exploding a home-made bomb under
the house occupied by hi s the Supreme Court held
that since th e penalty for th e crime committed is death (Art. 48),
it being th e ma ximu m of th e penalty of perpetua to
death for parricide (Art. 246), and there is a privileged mitigat•
ing circumstance of minority (Art. 68), the penalty next lower
is reclusion perpetua.
It will be noted tha t th e penalty of perpetua to

death wa s first applied in th e maximu m (death), the crime being
complex, and the n lowered by one degree from the maximum.
This ruling does not follow th e ruling in the case of People
vs. Gonzalez, supra, which requires tha t th e penalty prescribed
by the Code for the offense be lowered first by one degree, because
of the privileged mitigating circumstance, and the n the lower
penalty to be applied in its maximu m period. Had this ruling in
the Gonzalez case been followed, the penalty imposed would have
been prisidn mayor in any of its periods, as the MINIMUM, to
reclusidn temporal in its maximu m period, as the MAXIMUM.
The penalty nex t lower from reclusidn perpetua to death is
reclusidn temporal. (Art. 61 , par. 2) Reclusidn temporal is applied
in its maximu m period, because the accused wa s found guilty of
complex crime.
The accused pleaded guilty to and wa s convicted of the
crime of direct assault upon a person in authority with homicide.
This being a complex crime, the penalty for the more serious
crime should be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period. (Art. 48, Revised Penal Code) The more serious crime is
homicide punishable by reclusidn
The accused, wh o wa s 17 years, 9 month s and 12 days
old on th e date of th e commissio n of the crime, ha s to his
783
credit two mitigatin g circumstances: the special or privileged

mitigatin g circumstance of minority (Art. 68 , par. 2) and the
ordinary mitigatin g circumstanc e of plea of guilty. (Art. 13,
par. 7) Therefore, under Art. 64, par. 5 (should be Art. 68, par.
2) of the Revised Pena l Code, th e penalt y imposable is the
penalt y nex t lower to tha t prescribed by law. Unde r Article
71 , Revised Pena l Code, th e penalt y nex t lower to
temporal is mayor. Becaus e of th e complex natur e of
th e crime committe d by th e accused, th e penalt y of prisidn
mayor is to be applie d in it s ma xi mu m period. However ,
havin g in hi s favor th e ordinary mitigatin g circumstanc e of
plea of guilty without any offsetting aggravating circumstance,
applying Art. 64 , par. 2 of th e Revised Pena l Code, th e penalty
of prisidn mayor ma xi mu m should be impose d in its minimu m
range.
Parenthetically, We mus t state tha t th e lower court erred
in the imposition of th e correct penalty — despite its proper
appreciatio n o f th e privilege d mit ig a ti n g circu msta nc e o f
minority and the ordinary circumstance of plea of guilty in favor
of the appellant — because it applied first th e imposable penalty
to its ma xi mu m degree, i.e., reclusidn temporal ma xi mu m ,
and the n imposed th e penalty immediatel y inferior to it, i.e.,
reclusidn temporal medium. This latter penalty is imposed as
the ma ximu m of th e indeterminat e sentence, but applied in th e
minimum range because of the ordinary mitigating circumstance
of plea of guilty. As the minimu m of th e indeterminate sentence,
it imposed th e minimu m of th e penalty nex t lower, reclusidn
temporal minimum .
The proper metho d is to start from th e penalt y imposed
by th e Revise d Pena l Code, i.e., reclusidn temporal; the n
apply th e privileged mit igatin g circumstanc e of minority and
determin e th e penalt y immedia tel y inferior in degree, i.e.,
prisidn mayor; an d finally apply th e sam e in it s maxi mu m
degree but withi n th e mini mu m rang e thereof becaus e of th e
ordinary mitigatin g circumsta nc e of plea of guilty. Prisidn
mayor being th e ma xi mu m of th e indeter minat e sentence , th e
mini mu m of th e indeterminat e penalt y is withi n th e range of
th e penalt y nex t lower to it as prescribed by th e Revised Pena l
Code, i.e., prisidn (People vs . Gonzalez, 73 Phil.
549 , 551-552)
784
All told, and applying now the Indeterminate Sentence

Law, the accused should be sentenced to an indeterminate pen•
alty of not les s tha n years of correccional, to not
more tha n te n years and eight (8) month s of mayor.
(People vs. Cesar, G.R. No. March 13, 1968, 22 SCRA
1024, 1028)
8. Indeterminate sentence, when there are privileged mitigating
and ordinary mitigating circumstances. (Arts. 68 and 64)
Whe n there is a privileged mitigatin g circumstance (such
as , minority or incomplet e defense ) and ordinary mitigatin g
circumstanc e (suc h as , ple a of guilt y or voluntar y surrender
to th e authorities) , th e rul e is: lower first th e penalt y pre•
scribed by the Code for the offense by one degree (because of
th e privileged mit iga tin g circumstance) , usin g th e scale i n
Art. and mak e th e penalt y nex t lower a s th e startin g point
for determinin g th e M INIM U M of th e indetermina t e penalty.
Once th e M INIM U M is det ermined , by lowerin g by another
degree, th e penalt y nex t lower, th e penalt y whic h i s made
th e startin g poin t shoul d be impose d in th e proper period.
Tha t penalt y in th e proper period wil l be th e MAXIMUM of
th e indetermina t e penalty .
Problem:
A, a minor years and 2 months old, wa s found guilty
of murder upon a plea of guilty. The court suspended the
sentence and ordered th e commitment of the minor to the
Training School for Boys in the in accordance
wit h Article 80. Becaus e he became incorrigible in the
Training School for Boys, A wa s returned to the court for
the imposition of th e proper penalty. (Art. 68) The court
imposed an indeterminate penalty of from five (5) years of
prisidn correccional, as the MINIMUM, to ten (10) years
and one (1) day prisidn mayor, as the MAXIMUM. Is
this penalty correctly imposed?
Yes. The penalty for murder is reclusidn temporal in
its maximu m period to death. (Art. 248) The penalty next
lower in degree is prisidn mayor in its maximum period to
reclusidn temporal in its minimum and medium periods
(Art. 61 , par. 3), computed as follows:
785
Death
Penalty for murder
Reclusidn perpetua
Max.
temporal M
Meedd. .
(12 years and 1 day to Min. One degree lower — MAXIMUM
20 years) of indeterminate sentence
Max.
Prisidn mayor Med..
(6 years and 1 day to Min. MINIMUM of indeterminate
12 years) sentence
Max.
Prisidn correccional Med.
(6 month s and 1 day Min.
to 6 years)
There being a mitigatin g circumstance of plea of guilty,

without any aggravating circumstance to offset it, th e penalty
one degree lower (prisidn mayor in it s ma xi mu m period to
reclusidn temporal in its minimu m and mediu m periods) should
be imposed in its minimu m period, whic h is prisidn mayor in its
maximu m period.
Prisidn mayor maximu m ha s a duration of from te n (10)

years and one (1) day to twelv e (12) years. Prisidn correccional
in its maximu m period to prisidn mayor in its minimu m and
mediu m periods ha s a duration of from four (4) years, two (2)
month s and one (1) day to te n (10) years. Hence, th e sentence
imposed (from 5 years to 10 years and 1 day) by th e court is
withi n the limits of th e penalty prescribed by law. (See People
vs. Ong Ta, 70 Phil. 553 , 555; People vs. Cesar, supra)
9. Indeterminate penalty, when there are two privileged mitigating and
ordinary mitigating circumstances. (Arts. 68 and 69)
A, a minor under 18 years, killed B wh o wa s th e unlawful
aggressor. A did not give sufficient provocation to B. Bu t the
mean s employed by A to defend himsel f wa s not reasonable.
After killing B, A surrendered to th e authorities.
786
Held: There are tw o privileged mitigatin g circumstance s

i n thi s case , na mely : (1) minorit y unde r Art. 68 , an d (2)
incomplete self-defense unde r Art. 69. The reclusion
temporal prescribed for homicid e shoul d be lowered by two
degree s or prision correccional, whic h should be applied in
th e mi n i mu m period , i n vie w o f on e ordinar y mi t i g a t i n g
circu msta nc e o f v o l un t a r y surrender . Th e i n d e t e r mi n a t e
penalty is not les s tha n 2 month s and days of arresto mayor
and not more tha n 1 year , 1 mont h and 11 day s of prision
correccional. (Peopl e vs . G.R. No . Oct. 18,
1954 , 9 6 Phil. 96 3
10. Indeterminate penalty, when there is incomplete defense, without

any ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstance. (Art.
69)
A woma n who stabbed and killed a ma n wh o had placed his
hand on her upper thigh, withou t an y provocation on her part,
wa s given a reduced penalty by two degrees. (Art. 69) The pen•
alty for homicide is temporal. Two degrees lower (Art.
61 , in relation to Art. 71) is correccional; and pursuant
to the Indeterminate Sentenc e Law, th e indeterminate penalty
is from arresto mayor in its mediu m period, as th e MINIMUM,
to prisidn correccional in its mediu m period, as the MAXIMUM.
(People vs. Jaurigue, 76 Phil. 174, 183)
Indeterminate penalty, when there is incomplete defense with two

ordinary mitigating circumstances, and without any aggravating
circumstance. (Arts. 69 and 64, par. 5)
A killed B in incomplete self-defense. There wa s unlawful
aggression on th e part of B and lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of A. Bu t the mean s employed by A in defending
himself wa s not reasonable. A acted with obfuscation and, after
killing B, surrendered himself to th e authorities. There wa s no
aggravating circumstance.
Held: The penalt y of reclusidn temporal for homicide
should be reduced by two degrees (Art. 69) and because of two
ordinary mitigating circumstances without any aggravating
circumstance, the reduced penalty should be further reduced
by another degree or arresto mayor in its medium period or 2
months and 1 day. (People vs. Nicolas, C.A., 50 O.G. 2133)
787
12. Indeterminate penalty, when the penalty prescribed by the Code

is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death (penalty
for murder) and there are two or more mitigating circumstances
and no aggravating circumstance. (Art. 64, par. 5)
A committed murder, qualified by treachery, with the miti• gating
circumstances of voluntary plea of guilty and voluntary surrender, and
without any aggravating circumstance.
Held: Under Art. 64, No. 5 of th e Revised Penal Code, the
next lower penalty should be imposed, that is, prision mayor in
its maximu m period to temporal in its mediu m period
or from 10 years and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months. (People
vs. Soriano, 70 Phil. 334)
Th e penalt y for murde r is temporal in it s

ma xi mu m period t o death . (Art. 248 ) On e degree lower i s
mayor in its ma ximu m period to temporal in its
mediu m period, in accordance wit h Art. 61 , No. 3, of th e Code.
The penalty prisidn mayor maximum to reclusidn temporal

medium should be subdivided into three periods, as follows:
Time included in Time included in Time included in Time included in

the entire pen• its minimum it s mediu m its maximum
alty period period period
From 10 From 10 From 12 From 14 10

and 1 day to 17 and 1 day to 12 5 mos. and 11 mos. and 21 days
yrs. and 4 mos. 5 mos. and days to 14 to 17 yrs. and 4
10 days. 10 mos. and 20 mos.
days.
The penalty next lower, as the MAXIMUM of the indetermi•

nate penalty, is to be imposed in th e mediu m period, because the
two mitigating circumstances are already considered in lowering
th e penalty by one It is not proper to consider any one or
both of the m agai n in fixing th e proper period of th e penalty to
be imposed. Therefore, as regards th e penalty nex t lower, there
is neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance.
Hence, th e MAXIMUM of th e indeterminate penalty is the
medium period prisidn mayor maximu m to reclusidn temporal
medium or 12 years, 5 months and days to 14 years, 10 months
788
and 20 days (at th e discretion of th e court). The MINIMUM of

the indeterminate penalty is anywhere within the range of the
penalty next lower or correccional maximu m to
mayor medium. (Art. 61 , par. 3)
13. Indeterminate penalty, when the crime committed is robbery in inhabited
house, and the penalty is to be lowered by one degree.
A pleaded guilty to th e charge of robbery in an inhabited
house and penalized in Art. 299 of the Code. The penalty
for robbery in an inhabited hous e is temporal. There
being no allegation tha t A wa s armed and it appearing that the
value of the property take n did not exceed P250 , the penalty to
be imposed is the minimu m period of th e penalty next lower,
that is, prisidn mayor in its minimu m period. That penalty is to
be imposed in the mediu m period, there being no aggravating or
mitigating circumstance. The MINIMU M of th e indeterminate
penalty is withi n th e range of th e penalty next lower in degree
from prisidn mayor in its full extent (disregard first the fact that
it shall be imposed in th e minimu m period). The MAXIMUM
of th e indeterminate penalty is the mediu m period of prisidn
mayor minimu m or 6 years, 8 month s and 1 day to 7 years and
4 months. (People vs . De Lara, 98 Phil. 584, 586)
Not applicable when unfavorable to the accused.

A wa s convicted of illegal possessio n of greas e gun s and 2 Thompson
sub-machine guns punishable by imprisonment from 5 years to 10 years. The
trial court imposed a sentence that the accused should suffer imprisonment of
5 years and 1 day. Is this penalty correct?
Yes , becaus e in case s wher e th e application of th e law on
indeterminate sentence would be unfavorable to the accused, resulting
in the lengthening of his prison sentence, said law on indeterminate
sentence should not be applied. If we had no law on indeterminate
sentence, considering the plea of guilty entered by the appellant, the
trial court could well and lawfully have given him a prison sentence
of five (5) years. If we are to apply the law, the prison term would
have to be more than five (5) years, as the minimum could not be less
than five years. (People vs. Nan g Kay, 88 Phil. 515, 519)
The law on indeterminate sentence as a rule is intended to favor
the defendant in a criminal case particularly to shorten his term of
imprisonment depending upon his behavior, etc.
789
Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable to the following:

Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life
imprisonment.
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to com•
mit treason.
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition
or espionage.
4. Those convicted of piracy.
5. Those who are habitual delinquents.
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded
sentence.
7. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted
to the m by the Chief Executive.
8. Those whose maximu m ter m of imprisonment does not
exceed one year.
9. Those who, upon th e approval of th e law (December 5,
1933), had been sentenced by final judg ment. (Sec. 2, Act
No. 4103)
10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension.
"Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty

or life imprisonment."
The trial court did not err in convicting th e appellant of simple
rape which is penalized with perpetua. Bu t it erred in giving
him the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentenc e Law. Article 63 of the
Revised Penal Code (not its Article 64[1], which wa s cited by the lower
court), applies to the case. (People vs. No. L-32996, Aug. 21 ,
1974, 58 SCRA 505, 510-511)
A is accused and convicted of murder punishable with the penalty
of temporal in its maximu m period to death. Two mitigat•
ing circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty are to be
considered in favor of A. Is he entitled to an indeterminate penalty?
The Indeterminate Sentence Law use s th e word

not the word "punishable." It would see m tha t it is th e penalty actu-
790
ally imposed, not the penalty tha t ma y be imposed, that should be considered.
In the case of People vs. Roque, 90 Phil. 142, 146, the accused,
who wa s years old and convicted of murder, wa s sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor
to 17 years, 4 month s and 1 day reclusion temporal.
In the case People vs. 103 Phil. th e accused
wa s also year s old and convicted of murder, but th e provisions of
th e Indeterminate Sentenc e Law wer e not applied because he wa s
convicted of an offense punishe d wit h death , although the penalty
actually imposed wa s imprison men t of 12 year s and 1 day.
In imposing an indeterminate sentence upon the accused, the
Court hereby overrules th e contrary doctrine in People vs. Colman,
et 103 Phil. 6, Resolution of March 26, 1958, pp. 19-20, holding
that the Indeterminate Sentenc e Law (Act No. 4103 , as amended by
Act No. 4225) is not applicable to a case similar to that of the accused.
The penalty actually imposed upon thi s accused not being death, he
is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (People
vs. Moises, No. L-32495, Aug. 66 SCRA People vs.
G.R. No. 66324 , Jul y 6, 1990, 187 SCRA 248, 256)
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to recidivist.

While habitual delinquents are not entitled to an indeterminate
sentence, a recidivist for th e first time ma y be given the benefits of
the law. (People vs. Yu Lian, C.A., 40 O.G. 4205; People vs. Venus,
63 Phil. 435, 442)
"Those who evaded the service of the sentence."

A wa s sentenced to destierro. While serving sentence, A entered
the prohibited area and committed robbery therein. Is A entitled to
an indeterminate sentence in case he is found guilty of robbery? No,
because by entering the prohibited area, he evaded the service of his
sentence. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable.
Defendant wa s found guilty of robbery. By his own admission,
appearing in his confession, Exhibit F, it appears that defendant is
an escaped prisoner. Held: He is not entitled to the benefits of the
determinate Sentence Law. (People vs. Rivera, C.A., 44 O.G. 123)
791
"Those who shall have escaped from confinement."

A minor who escaped from the Philippine Training School for Boys
does not acquire the status of escaped prisoner as to be excluded from
the benefits bestowed by the Indeterminate Sentence Law, because
his confinement therein is not considered imprisonment. (People vs.
Perez, C.A., 44 O.G. 3884, citing People vs. 63 Phil. 868)
While there is evidence that prior to the incident in question the
appellant ha s had several brushes with the law, there is no showing that he ha
s been prosecuted and found guilty thereof. It appears that he wa s an escapee
from the National Mental Hospital. Later, th e appellant wa s convicted of
homicide. Is he entitled to th e benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law?
It is true, as provided in Section 2 thereof, tha t th e Indeter•
minate Sentence Law shall also not apply "to those who shall have
escaped from confinement or evaded sentence." However, we do not
think that the appellant's escape from th e Nationa l Mental Hospital
falls within th e purview of said provision. Confinement as a patient
in the National Mental Hospital is not imprisonment. By escapin g
from said hospital, th e appellan t did not acquire th e statu s of an
escaped prisoner as to be excluded from th e benefits bestowed by th e
Indeterminate Sentenc e Law. (People vs. Co, C.A., 67 O.G. 7451)
Those whose maximum period of penalty does not exceed

one year.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to non-divis• ible
penalties. It covers only divisible penalties and does not include indivisible
penalties. (People vs . Gonzales, 148 SCRA 649)
Application of th e Indeterminate Sentenc e Law is mandatory
where imprisonment would exceed one year. (People vs. Lee, Jr., 132
66)
A is convicted of a crime for which th e penalty imposed is eight

(8) months prision correccional. Is A entitled to an indeterminate
penalty? No, because th e penalty imposed does not exceed one year.
(People vs. Arellano, 68 Phil. 678 , 683)
Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to destierro.

In view of the nature of the penalty of destierro, the convict is
not entitled to the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
792
since the benefits of th e law are expressly granted to those wh o are

sentenced to imprisonment exceeding one year. (People vs.
No. 1583, Jun e
This ruling applies to th e penalty of suspension.
The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is based

on the penalty actually imposed.
Thus , if th e accused wa s charged wit h th e crime of acts of
punishable correccional (Art. 336), the duration
of which is from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years, and the court imposed
him 6 months and 1 day, the minimum correccional, the
Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply, because the application of
that law is based upon the penalty actually imposed in the discretion of
the court. (People vs. 92 Phil. 239, 242; People vs. Moises,
No. Aug. 66 SCRA
Purpose.
The purpose of th e Indeterminate Sentence Law is uplift
and redeem valuable huma n material, and prevent unnecessary and
excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic
(People vs. Ducosin, 59 Phil.
The Indeterminat e Sentenc e La w aim s to individualize th e
administration of our criminal law.
Factors to be taken into consideration by the court in fixing

the minimum penalty.
It is necessary to consider th e criminal, first, as an individual and,
second, as a member of society.
Considering the criminal as an individual, some of the factors
tha t should be considered are: (1) hi s age, especially with reference
to extreme youth or old age; (2) general healt h and physical
conditions; (3) his mentality, heredity and personal habits; (4) his
previous conduct, environment and mode of life (and criminal record,
if any); (5) his previous education, both intellectual and moral; (6)
his proclivities and aptitudes for usefulness or injury to society; (7)
his demeanor during trial and his attitude wit h regard to the crime
committed; (8) the manner and circumstances in which the crime
793
wa s committed; (9) th e gravity of the offense. (Note that Section 2 of Act No.
410 3 excepts certain grave crimes — thi s should be kept in mind in assessin
g th e minimu m penalties for analogous crimes.)
In co nsiderin g th e crimina l as a me mbe r of society , hi s
relationship, first, toward his dependents, family and associates and
their relationship with him, and second, his relationship towards
society at large and the State, are important factors. The State is
concerned not only in the imperative necessity of protecting the social
organization agains t th e criminal acts of destructive individuals
but also in redeeming the individual for economic usefulness and
other social ends. In a word, the Indeterminate Sentence Law aims
to individualize the administration of our criminal law to a degree
not heretofore known in this country. With th e foregoing principles
in mind as guides, th e courts can give full effect to th e beneficent
intention of the Legislature. (People vs. Ducosin, 59 Phil.
Reason for fixing the MINIMUM and MAXIMUM penalties in

the indeterminate sentence.
Whenever an y prisoner shall hav e served th e minimum penalty
imposed on him, and it shall appear to th e Board of Indetermi• nate
Sentence tha t such prisoner is fitted for release, said Board ma y
authorize th e release of such prisoner on parole, upon such terms and
conditions as ma y be prescribed by the Board.
2. Whenever such prisoner released on parole shall, during th e
period of surveillance, violate an y of th e conditions of hi s parole,
th e Board ma y issu e an order for hi s arrest. In such case, the
prisoner so rearrested shall serve th e remainin g unexpired por•
tion of the ma xi mu m sentence. 5 and 8, Act No. 4103)
3. Even if a prisoner ha s already served th e minimum, but he is

not fitted for release on parole, he shall continue to serve im•
prisonment until th e end of th e maximum.
Mandatory.
It is mandatory in th e case s specified therein, for it employs th e
phrases "convicts shall be sentenced" and "the court shall sentence
the accused to an indeterminate sentence." (People vs. Yu Lian, C.A.,
40 O.G. 4205)
794
PROBATION LAW
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 968,

AS AMENDED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1257,
AND AS FURTHER AMENDED BY
BATAS BLG. 76 AND
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1990
ESTABLISHING A PROBATION SYSTEM, APPROPRIATING

FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
SECTION Title an d Scop e of th e Decree. - This
Decree shall be known as the Probation Law of 1976. It shall
apply to all offenders except those entitled to the benefits under
the provisions of Presidential Decree Numbered Six Hundred
and Three and similar laws.
SEC. 2. Purpose . — This Decree shall be interpreted so
as to:
(a) Promote the correction and rehabilitation of an of•
fender by providing him with individualized treatment;
(b) Provide an opportunity for the reformation of a peni•
tent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a
prison sentence; and
(c) Prevent the commission of offenses.
SEC. 3. Meanin g of Terms. — As used in this Decree,
the following shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be
construed thus:
(a) is a disposition under which a defendant,
after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions
imposed by the court and the supervision of a probation
officer.
(b) means a person placed on probation.
(c) Officer" means one who investigates for
the court a referral for probation or supervises a probationer or
both.
SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of
this Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced a defendant and upon application by said defendant
within the period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution
of the sentence and place the defendant on probation for such
period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best:
Provided, That no application for probation shall be entertained
795
PROBATION LAW
or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the

judgment of conviction.
Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a
term of imprisonment or a fine only. An application for probation
shall be filed with the trial court. The filing of the application
shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal.
An order granting or denying probation shall not be
able. (As amended by PD 1257 and by PD 1990, Oct.
The provisions of Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968,
as above amended, shall not apply to those who have already
filed their respective applications for probation at the time of the
of this Decree. (Sec. 3 of PD 1990)
SEC. 5. Post-sentenc e Investigation. — No person shall
be placed on probation except upon prior investigation by the
probation officer and a determination by the court that the ends
of justice and the best interest of the public as well as that of the
defendant will be served thereby.
SEC. 6. Form of Investigation Report. — The inves• tigation
report to be submitted by the probation officer under Section 5
hereof shall be in the form prescribed by the Probation
Administrator and approved by the Secretary of Justice.
SEC. 7. Period for Submission of Investigation Report.
— The probation officer shall submit to the court the investigation
report on a defendant not later than sixty days from receipt of
the order of said court to conduct the investigation. The court
shall resolve the application for probation not later than fifteen
days after receipt of said report. (As amended by PD 1257, Dec.
1, 1977)
Pending submission of the investigation report and the

resolution of the petition, the defendant may be allowed on
temporary liberty under his bail filed in the criminal case:
Provided, That in case where no bail was filed or that the defendant
is incapable of filing one, the court may allow the release of the
defendant on recognizance to the custody of a responsible member
of the community who shall guarantee his appearance whenever
required by the court.
SEC. 8. Criteria for Placin g an Offender on Probation.
— In determining whether an offender may be placed on probation,
the court shall consider all information relative to the character,
antecedents, environment, mental and physical condition of the
796
PROBATION LAW
offender, and available institutional and community resources.

Probation shall be denied if the court finds that:
(a) The offender is in need of correctional treatment that
can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institu•
tion; or
(b) There is an undue risk that during the period of pro•
bation the offender will commit another crime; or
(c) Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the of•
fense committed.
SEC. 9. Disqualified offenders. — The benefits of this Decree
shall not be extended to those:
Sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment
of more than six (6) years;
(b) Convicted of subversion or any crime against the
national security or the public order;
(c) Who have previously been convicted by final judg•
ment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one
month and one day and/or a fine of not less than Two Hundred
Pesos;
(d) Who have been once on probation under the provisions
of this Decree; and
(e) Who are already serving sentence at the time the
substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant
to Section 33 hereof. (As amended by BP 76, and PD 1990,
Oct.
SEC. 10. Conditions of Probation. — Every probation order

issued by the court shall contain conditions requiring that the
probationer shall:
(a) present himself to the probation officer designated to
undertake his supervision at such place as may be specified in
the order within seventy-two hours from receipt of said order;
(b) report to the probation officer at least once a month
at such time and place as specified by said officer.
The court may also require the probationer to:
(a) cooperate with a program of supervision;
(b) meet his family responsibilities;
797
PROBATION LAW
(c) devote himself to a specific employment and not to

change said employment without the prior written approval of
the probation officer;
(d) undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric ex•
amination and treatment and enter and remain in a specified
institution, when required for that purpose;
(e) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational train•
ing;
(f) attend or reside in a facility established for instruc•
tion, recreation or residence of persons on probation;
(g) refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute;
(h) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to ex•
cess;
(i) permit the probation officer or an authorized social
worker to visit his home and place of work;
reside at premises approved by it and not to change
his residence without its prior written approval; or
(k) satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilita•
tion of the defendant and not unduly restrictive of his liberty or
incompatible with his freedom of conscience.
11. of Probatio n Order. — A probation
order shall take effect upon its issuance, at which time the
court shall inform the offender of the consequences thereof and
explain that upon his failure to comply with any of the conditions
prescribed in the said order or his commission of another offense,
he shall serve the penalty imposed for the offense under which
he was placed on probation.
SEC. 12. Modification of Condition s of Probation .

— During the period of probation, the court may, upon application
of either the probationer or the probation revise or modify the
conditions or period of probation. The court shall notify either the
probationer or the probation officer of the filing of such an applica•
tion so as to give both parties an opportunity to be heard thereon.
The court shall inform in writing the probation officer and
the probationer of any change in the period or conditions of pro•
bation.
SEC. 13. Control an d Supervisio n of Probationer .
— The probationer and his probation program shall be under
798
PROBATION LAW
the control of the court who placed him on probation subject to

actual supervision and visitation by a probation officer.
Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in a place
under the jurisdiction of another court, control over him shall be
transferred to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance
of that place, and in such a case, a copy of the probation order,
the investigation report and other pertinent records shall be fur•
nished said Executive Judge. Thereafter, the Executive Judge to
whom jurisdiction over the probationer is transferred shall have
the power with respect to him that was previously possessed by
the court which granted the probation.
SEC. 14. Perio d of Probation . —
(a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of not more than one year shall not exceed
two years, and in all other cases, said period shall not exceed six
years.
(b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the of•
fender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of insol•
vency, the period of probation shall not be less than nor be more
than twice the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment
as computed at the rate established in Article thirty-nine of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended.
SEC. 15. Arrest of Probationer; Subsequen t Disposi•
tions. — At any time during probation, the court may issue a
warrant for the arrest of a probationer for any serious violation
of the conditions of probation. The probationer, once arrested
and detained, shall immediately be brought before the court for
a hearing of the violation charged. The defendant may be admit•
ted to bail pending such hearing. In such case, the provisions
regarding release on bail of persons charged with a crime shall
be applicable to probationers arrested under this provision.
In the hearing, which shall be summary in nature, the
probationer shall have the right to be informed of the violation
charged and to adduce evidence in his favor. The court shall not
be bound by the technical rules of evidence but may inform
self of all the facts which are material and relevant to ascertain
the veracity of the charge. The State shall be represented by a
prosecuting officer in any contested hearing. If the violation is
established, the court may revoke or continue his probation and
modify the conditions thereof. If revoked, the court shall order
the probationer to serve the sentence originally imposed. An or•
der revoking the grant of probation or modifying the and
799
PROBATION LAW
conditions thereof shall not be appealable. (As amended by PD

1257)
SEC. 16. Termination of Probation. — After the period of
probation and upon consideration of the report and recom•
mendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final
discharge of the probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the
terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon, the case is
deemed terminated.
The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to
restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his
conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed
as to the offense for which probation was granted.
The probationer and the probation officer each be
furnished with a copy of such order.
SEC. 17. Confidentiality of Records. — The investigation
report and the supervision history of a probationer obtained under
this Decree shall be privileged and shall not be disclosed directly or
indirectly to anyone other than the Probation Administration or
the court concerned, except that the court, in its discretion, may
permit the probationer or his attorney to inspect the afore•
mentioned documents or parts thereof whenever the best interest
of the probationer makes such disclosure desirable or helpful:
Provided, further, That any government office or agency engaged in
the correction or rehabilitation of offenders may, if necessary,
obtain copies of said documents for its official use from the proper
court or the Administration.
SEC. 18. The Probatio n Administration. — There is

hereby created under the Department of Justice an agency to be
known as the Probation Administration herein referred to as the
Administration, which shall exercise general supervision over all
probationers.
The Administration shall have such staff, operating units
and personnel as may be necessary for the proper execution of
its functions.
SEC. 19. Probatio n Administrator. — The Administra• tion
shall be headed by the Probation Administrator, hereinafter
referred to as the Administrator, who shall be appointed by the
President of the Philippines. He shall hold office during good
behavior and shall not be removed except for cause.
The Administrator shall receive an annual salary of at least
Forty thousand pesos. His powers and duties shall be to:
800
PROBATION LAW
(a) Act as the executive officer of the

(b) Exercise supervision and control over all probation
officers;
(c) Make annual reports to the Secretary of Justice, in
such form as the latter may prescribe, concerning the operation,
administration and improvement of the probation system;
(d) Promulgate, subject to the approval of the Secretary
of Justice, the necessary rules relative to the methods and pro•
cedures of the probation process;
(e) Recommend to the Secretary of Justice the appoint•
ment of the subordinate personnel of his Administration and
other offices established in this Decree; and
Generally, perform such duties and exercise such pow•
ers as may be necessary or incidental to achieve the objectives of
this Decree.
SEC. 20. Assistant Probatio n Administrator. — There shall
be an Assistant Probation Administrator who shall assist the
Administrator and perform such duties as may be assigned to him
by the latter and as may be provided by law. In the absence of the
Administrator, he shall act as head of the Administration.
He shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines
and shall receive an annual salary of at least Thirty-six thousand
pesos.
SEC. 21. of th e Administra to r an d
As s ista n t P r o b a t i o n A d mi n i s t r a t o r . — To be eligible
for appointment as Administrator or Assistant Probation
Administrator, a person must be at least thirty-five years of age,
holder of a master's degree or its equivalent in either criminology,
social work, corrections, penology, psychology, sociology, public
administration, law, police science, police administration, or
related fields, and should have at least five years of supervisory
experience, or be a member of the Philippine Bar with at least
seven years of supervisory experience.
SEC. 22. Regional Office; Regional Probation Officer.
— The Administration shall have regional offices organized in
accordance with the field service area pattern established under
the Integrated Reorganization Plan.
Such regional offices shall be headed by a Regional Proba•
tion Officer who shall be appointed by the President of the
801
PROBATION LAW
ippines in accordance with the Integrated Reorganization Plan

and upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
The Regional Probation Officer shall exercise supervision
and control over all probation officers within his jurisdiction and
such duties as may be assigned to him by the Administrator. He
shall have an annual salary of at least Twenty-four thousand
pesos.
He shall, whenever necessary, be assisted by an Assist•
ant Regional Probation Officer who shall also be appointed by
the President of the Philippines, upon recommendation of the
Secretary of Justice, with an annual salary of at least Twenty
thousand pesos.
SEC. 23. Provincia l an d City Probatio n Officers.
— There shall be at least one probation officer in each province
and city who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon
recommendation of the Administrator and in accordance with civil
service law and rules.
The Provincial or City Probation Officer shall receive an an•
nual salary of at least Eighteen thousand four hundred pesos.
His duties shall be to:
(a) Investigate all persons referred to him for investiga•
tion by the proper court or the Administrator;
(b) Instruct all probationers under his supervision or
that of the probation aide on the terms and conditions of their
probation;
(c) Keep himself informed of the conduct and condition
of probationers under his charge and use all suitable methods to
bring about an improvement in their conduct and conditions;
(d) Maintain a detailed record of his work and submit
such written reports as may be required by the Administration
or the court having jurisdiction over the probationer under his
supervision;
(e) Prepare a list of qualified residents of the province or city
where he is assigned who are willing to act as probation aides;
(f) Supervise the training of probation aides and oversee
the latter's supervision of probationers;
(g) Exercise supervision and control over all field assist•
ants, probation aides and other personnel; and
802
PROBATION LAW
(h) Perform such duties as may be assigned by the court

or the Administration.
SEC. 24. Miscellaneous Power s of Provincial and City
Probation Officers. — Provincial or City Probation Officers shall
have the authority within their territorial jurisdiction to
administer oaths and acknowledgments and to take depositions in
connection with their duties and functions under this Decree. They
shall also have, with respect to probationers under their care, the
powers of a police officer.
SEC. 25. Qualifications of Regional , Assistan t Re•
gional, Provincial, an d City Probation Officers. — No person
shall be appointed Regional or Assistant Regional or Provincial
or City Probation Officer unless he possesses at least a bachelor's
degree with a major in social work, sociology, psychology, criminol•
ogy, penology, corrections, police science, police administration, or
related fields and has at least three years of experience in work
requiring any of the above-mentioned disciplines, or is a member
of the Philippine Bar with at least three years of supervisory
experience.
Whenever practicable, the Provincial or City Probation

Officer shall be appointed from among qualified residents of the
province or city where he will be assigned to work.
SEC. 26. Organization . — Within twelve months from the
approval of this Decree, the Secretary of Justice shall organ• ize
the administrative structure of the Administration and the other
agencies created herein. During said period, he shall also
determine the staffing patterns of the regional, provincial and city
probation offices with the end in view of achieving maxi• mum
efficiency and economy in the operations of the probation system.
SEC. 27. Fiel d Assistants , Subordinat e Personnel .
— Provincial or City Probation Officers shall be assisted by such
field assistants and subordinate personnel as may be necessary
to enable them to carry out their duties effectively.
SEC. 28. Probation Aides. — To assist the Provincial or
City Probation Officers in the supervision of probationers, the
Probation Administrator may appoint citizens of good repute and
probity to act as probation aides.
Probation Aides shall not receive any regular compensation
for services except for reasonable travel allowance. They shall
hold office for such period as may be determined by the Probation
803
PROBATION LAW
Administrator. Their and maximum case loads shall

be provided in the rules promulgated pursuant to this Decree.
SEC. 29. Violation of Confidential Nature of
tion Records. — The penalty of imprisonment ranging from
six months and one day to six years and a fine ranging from six
hundred to six thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who violates Section hereof.
SEC. 30. Appropriations. — There is hereby authorized
the appropriation of the sum of Six Million Five Hundred Thou•
sand Pesos or so much as may be necessary, out of any funds in
the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry out
the purpose of this Decree. Thereafter, the amount of at least
Ten Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos or so much as may
be necessary shall be included in the annual appropriations of
the national government.
SEC. 31. Repealin g Clause. — All provisions of existing
laws, orders and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with this
Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
SEC. 32. Separability of Provisions . — If any part, sec• tion
or provision of this Decree shall be held invalid or unconsti•
tutional, no other parts, sections or provisions hereof, shall be
affected thereby.
SEC. 33. Effectivity. - This Decree shall take effect
upon its approval; Provided, however, That the application of
its substantive provisions concerning the grant of probation
shall only take effect on January 3, 1978. (As amended by PD
1257)
Done in the City of Manila, this 24th day of July in the year
of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-six.
(SGD.) FERDINAND E. MARCOS

President of the Philippines
Presidential Decree No. 1257, whic h amende d Sections 4, 7,

15 and 33 of P.D. No. 968, took effect on December 1, 1977.
76, which amende d Section 9 of P.D. No. 968, took
effect on Jun e 13, 1980. P.D. No. 1990 which amended 4 and 9
of P.D. No. 968, took effect on October 5, 1985.
804
PROBATION LAW
Probation, defined.
Probation is a disposition under which a defendant, after convic•
tion and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed by the
court and to the supervision of a probation
Probation may be granted even if the sentence imposed a

fine only, but with subsidiary imprisonment.
Probation may be granted whethe r th e sentence imposes a term of
imprisonment or a fine with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Upon application by defendant for probation, the court may

suspend the execution of the sentence.
Subject to th e provisions of th e Decree (No. 968), the court may,
after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant and upon
his application within the period for perfecting an appeal, suspend
the execution of said sentenc e and place th e defendant on probation
for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem
best.
for filing application for probation; purpose and effect.

What the law requires is that the application for probation must
be filed within th e period for perfecting an appeal. The need to file
it within such period wa s intended to encourage offenders, who are
willing to be reformed and to avail of probation at the
first opportunity. Such provision wa s never intended to suspend the
period for the perfection of an appeal, and the filing of the application
for probation operates as a waiver of the right to appeal. (Palo vs.
Militante, G.R. No. 76100, April 18, 1990, 184 SCRA 395, 400)
In sharp contrast with Section 4 as amended by P.D. No. 1257,

in its present form, Section 4 establishes a much narrower period
during which an application for probation may be filed with the trial
court: [the trial court] shall have convicted and sentenced a
defendant and — within the period for perfecting an appeal." As if to
provide emphasis, a new proviso wa s appended to the first paragraph
of Section 4 that expressly prohibits the grant of an application for
probation "if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment
of conviction." It is worthy of note too that Section 4 in its present
form, i.e., as amended by P.D. No. 1990, has dropped the phrase
805
PROBATION LAW
which said that the filing of an application for probation mean s "the
automatic withdrawal of a pending (Llamado vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 848, Jun e 29, 1989, 174 SCRA 566, 574)
Note: The convict is not immediately placed on probation, for
no person shall be placed on probation except upon prior
investigation by the probation officer and a determina•
tion by the court. (Sec. 5)
Where application for probation filed.

An applicatio n for probatio n shal l be filed wit h th e trial court.
Convict who an application for probation cannot appeal.

The filing of the application for probation is a waiver of th e right to
appeal.
Inappealability of resolution on application for probation.

An order granting or denying probation is not appealable.
Nature of order granting probation.

An order placing defendant on "probation" is not a "sentence"
but is rather in effect, a suspension of th e imposition of sentence.
It is not a final judgmen t but is rather an "interlocutory judgment"
in the nature of a conditional order placing th e convicted defendant
under the supervision of the court for hi s reformation, to be followed
by a final judgmen t of discharge, if th e conditions of the probation
are complied with, or by a final judg men t of sentence if th e conditions
are violated. (Baclayon vs. Mutia, No. L-59298, April 30, 1984, 129
SCRA 148, 154)
Probation officer to submit the investigation report not later

than days and the court to resolve the application for pro•
bation not later than fifteen days after receipt of the report.
The probation officer shall submit to the court the investiga•
tion report on a defendant not later tha n sixty days from receipt of
the order of said court to conduct the investigation. The court shall
resolve the application for probation not later tha n fifteen days after
receipt of said report.
806
PROBATION LAW
Pending submission of report and resolution of the petition,

defendant may be released under his bail filed in the criminal
case.
Pending submission of th e investigation report and the resolu• tion of
the petition, the defendant may be allowed on temporary liberty under his bail
filed in th e criminal case.
Defendan t ma y be release d on recognizanc e to th e custody
of a responsible membe r of th e co mmunity , (1) in case wher e no
bail wa s filed, or (2) in cas e wher e defendan t is incapable of filing
a bail.
The member of th e communit y wh o take s custody of defendant on
recognizance guarantee s only th e latter's appearance whenever required by
the court.
Criteria for placing an offender on probation.

The court shall consider (1) all information relative to the —
(a) character,
(b) antecedents,
(c) environment,
(d) mental, and
(e) physical
condition of the offender, and (2) available institutional and com• munity
resources.
When probation shall be denied.

Probation shall be denied if the court finds that:
(a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can
be provided most effectively by his commitment to an in•
stitution; or
(b) there is an undue risk that during the period of probation,
the offender will commit another crime; or
(c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense
committed.
807
PROBATION LAW
The grant or denial of an application for probation does not rest

solely on the offender's potentiality to reform but also on the observ•
ance of demands of justice and public interest. These are expressed in
statutes enacted by the lawmaker. vs. People, No. L-76258,
May 23, 1988, 161 SCRA 436, 440, citing Tolentino vs. Alconcel, 121
SCRA 92)
Who are the offenders disqualified from being placed on

probation?
The benefits of the Decree shall not be extended to —
(a) those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment
of more than six years;
(b) those convicted of subversion or an y crime agains t th e
national security or public order;
(c) those who were previously convicted by final judgmen t of
an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one
month and one day or a fine of not more than two
hundred pesos;
(d) those who have been once on probation under the provisions
of the Decree; and
(e) those who are already serving sentence at th e time the
substantive provisions of th e Decree became applicable
pursuant to Section 33 thereof.
Previous offense punished by imprisonment of not less than

1 month and 1 day and/or a fine of not more than
A wa s previously sentenced for an offense punished by 30 days
imprisonment by a fine of A ma y be placed on proba•
tion, if convicted of a ne w offense. Bu t if A wa s previously sentenced
to 1 month and 1 day imprisonment and/or to pay a fine of
he is disqualified from being placed on probation if convicted of a ne w
offense.
What are the conditions of probation?

Every probation order issued by th e court shall contain condi• tions
requiring the probationer to:
808
PROBATION LAW
(a) present himself to th e probation officer designated to un•

dertake his supervision at such place as may be specified
in the order withi n 72 hours from receipt of th e order;
(b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such
time and place as specified by said officer.
The court may also require the probationer to do any of those enu•
merated in sub-paragraphs (a) to (k) of Section 10 of the Decree.
The conditions which trial courts may impose on a probationer
may be classified into general or mandatory and special or discretion•
ary. The mandatory conditions, enumerated in Section 10 of the Proba•
tion Law, require that the probationer should (a) present himself to the
probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at such place
as may be specified in the order within 72 hours from receipt of said
order, and (b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at
such time and place as specified by said officer. Special or discretionary
conditions are those additional conditions, listed in the same Section
10 of the Probation Law, which th e courts may additionally impose
on the probationer towards his correction and rehabilitation outside
of prison. The enumeration, however, is not inclusive. Probation stat•
utes are liberal in character and enable courts to designate practically
any term it chooses as long as th e probationer's constitutional rights
are not jeopardized. There are innumerable conditions which may be
relevant to the rehabilitation of the probationer whe n viewed in their
specific individual context. It should, however, be borne in mind that
the special or discretionary conditions of probation should be realistic,
purposive and geared to help the probationer develop into a law-abiding
and self-respecting individual. should be interpreted with
flexibility in their application and each case should be judged on its
own merits — on the basis of the problems, needs and capacity of the
probationer. The very liberality of the probation should not be made a
tool by trial courts to stipulate instead unrealistic terms. (Baclayon vs.
Mutia, No. L-59298, April 30, 1984, 129 SCRA 148, 152-153; Salgado
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. Aug. 30, 1990, 189 SCRA 304,
311)
Example of condition that may not be imposed.

The court may not impose as a condition for the grant of proba• tion
that the probationer should refrain from continuing her teaching profession.
(Baclayon vs. Mutia, supra)
809
PROBATION LAW
Discretion of the court on probation.

Even if a convicted person falls within the classes of those qualified
for probation, the grant of probation is not automatic or ministerial.
Probation is a privilege and its grant rests upon the discretion of the
court. The discretion is exercised primarily for the benefit of society
as a whole and only secondarily for the personal advantage of the ac•
cused. vs. People, No. L-76258, May 436,
443)
Effect of probation on accessory penalties.

Accessory penalties are deemed suspended once probation is granted.
(Baclayon vs. Mutia, supra, at 154)
What are the effects of violation of probation order?

Upon the failure of th e probationer to comply with any of the conditions
prescribed in the order, or upon hi s commission of another offense, he shall
serve the penalty imposed for th e offense under which he wa s placed on
probation.
For how long may a convict be placed on probation?

If th e convict is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
not more than one year, th e period of probation shall not
exceed two years.
2. In all other cases, if he is sentenced to more than one year,
said period shall not exceed six years.
3. When th e sentence impose s a fine only and th e offender
is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment, th e period of
probation shall be twice th e total number of days of sub•
sidiary imprisonment.
When may a probationer be arrested, and what is the disposi•

tion once he is arrested?
At any time during probation, th e court ma y issu e a warrant for
the arrest of a probationer for any serious violation of th e conditions
of probation. The probationer, once arrested and detained, shall im•
mediately be brought before th e court for a hearing of th e violation
charged. The defendant may be admitted to bail pending such hearing.
In such a case, the provisions regarding release on bail of persons
810
PROBATION LAW
charged with a crime shall be applicable to probationers arrested under this

provision.
I n th e hea ring , whic h shal l b e s u m ma r y i n na ture , th e
probationer shall hav e th e right to be informed of th e violation
charged and to adduce evidence in hi s favor. The court shall not be
bound by th e technical rules of evidence but ma y inform itself of all
th e facts which are material and relevant to ascertain the veracity of
the charge. The Stat e shall be represented by a prosecuting officer in
any contested hearing. If th e violation is established, the court may
revoke or continue hi s probation and modify th e conditions thereof.
If revoked, th e court shall order th e probationer to serve the sentence
originally imposed. An order revokin g th e gran t of probation or
modifying th e term s and conditions thereof shall not be appealable.
Notes:
The violation of th e conditions of probation mus t be serious to
justify th e issuanc e of a warrant of arrest.
2. The defendant ma y be admitted to bail pending hearing.
3. The hearin g is summar y in nature, but the probationer
shall hav e th e right to be informed of the violation charged and to
adduce evidence in hi s favor.
4. Court is not bound by th e technical rules of evidence.
5. If the violation is established, th e court ma y revoke or con•
tinue hi s probation and modify th e conditions thereof.
6. If revoked, th e court shall order th e probationer to serve
the sentence originally imposed.
The order revoking th e grant of probation or modifying the
term and conditions thereof is not appealable.
When and how probation is terminated, and what are the ef•
fects of the termination?
After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report
and recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the
final discharge of the probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled
the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is
deemed terminated.
811
PROBATION LAW
The discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to

him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and
to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense
for which probation wa s granted.
Th e expiratio n o f th e probatio n perio d alon e doe s no t
automatically terminate probation. Probation is not coterminous with its
period. There mus t first be issued by the court, an order of final discharge
based on the report and recommendation of the probation officer. Only from
such issuance can the case of th e probationer be deemed terminated. (Bala vs.
Martinez, G.R. No. 67301 , Jan . 29, 1990, 181 SCRA 459, 465-466)
Purpose of the Decree establishing a probation system.

The three-fold purpose of the Decree is to —
(a) promote th e correction and rehabilitation of an offender by
providing hi m wit h individualized treatment;
(b) provide an opportunity for th e reformation of a penitent
offender, which might be les s probable if he were to serve
a prison sentence; and
(c) prevent th e commission of offenses.
Probation affects only the criminal aspect of the case.

Probation affects only th e criminal aspec t of th e case. Th e
suspension of the sentence imposed on th e accused wh o is granted
probation ha s no bearing on hi s civil liability. The court mus t hear
the civil aspect. (Budlong vs. Apalisok, No. Jun e 24, 1983,
122 SCRA 935, 942-943, 945)
Penalty on Moros and Non-Christians (Sec. Administra•

tive Code of Mindanao and
106. S e n t e n c e s u p o n M o ro s an d N o n - C h r i s t i a n s . — I n
pronouncing sentence upon a Moro or other non-Christian inhabit•
ants of th e Department convicted of crime or misdemeanor, th e judge
or justice ma y ignore any minimu m penalty provided by law for the
offense, and ma y impose such penalty not in excess of the highest pen•
alty provided by law, as, in his opinion, after taking into consideration
all the circumstances of the case, including the state of enlightenment
812
PENALTY ON MOROS AND NON-CHRISTIANS
of the accused and th e degree of moral turpitude which attaches to

the offense among his own people, will best subserve the interest of
justice. The judge or justice ma y also, in his discretion at any time
before the expiration of the period allowed for appeal, suspend the
execution of any penalty or part thereof so imposed, subject to such
condition as he ma y prescribe.
The application of Section of the Administrative Code of

Mindanao and is discretionary to the court.
In the imposition of penalty to non-Christian inhabitants, it is
within th e discretion of the trial court to apply th e special provision
of Section 106 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu.
(People vs. Pawin, 85 Phil. 528, 532)
Where th e accused-appellant is a M oha mmedan , inhabitant
of Mindanao, the penalty to be imposed upon him, regardless of
the attending circumstances, lies in th e discretion of the trial court
pursuant to Section 106 of th e Administrative Code of Mindanao
and Sulu. Ruling in People vs. Pawin, supra, reiterated. (People vs.
88 Phil. 120, 124)
In the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu, th e court is
granted discretion to impose th e proper penalty taking into account
the degree of instruction of th e Moros without following a fixed rule.
The Igorots are in worse condition tha n the Moros; the latter are
Mohammedans and the former Pagans ; their culture in embryonic
stage is subject to their savage spirit. The lack of instruction among
the Igorots should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. (People
vs. 96 Phil.
He cannot eve n invoke in his favor what Sec. 106 of the Admin•
istrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu accords to a Moro who commits
a crime and is convicted, for even then, said section gives to the court
ample discretion to determine the penalty to be imposed considering
the circumstances of the case, the degree of his instruction, and the
nature of the crime committed, the court being justified in imposing
the penalty which would best serve the interest of justice. This is
a case where th e degree of perversity of the criminal warrants not
mercy but the enforcement of the law to the full extent. (People vs.
Salazar, 105 Phil. 1058, 1065)
813
Chapter Five
EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES
S e c t i o n One . — G e n e r a l p r o v i s i o n s
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. — No p e n a l t y

sha l l b e e x e c u t e d e x c e p t b y v i r t u e o f a fina l j u d g m e n t .
A p e n a l t y sha l l no t b e e x e c u t e d i n an y o t h e r for m tha n
tha t p r e s c r i b e d b y law , no r w it h an y o t he r c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r
i n c i d e n t s tha n t h o s e e x p r e s s l y a u t h o r i z e d t h e r e b y .
I n additio n t o th e provision s o f th e law , th e specia l regu • lation s
prescribe d fo r th e governmen t o f th e institution s i n whic h th e penaltie s
ar e t o b e suffere d shal l b e observe d wit h regar d t o th e characte r o f th e
wor k t o b e performed , th e tim e o f it s performance , an d othe r incident s
connecte d therewith , th e relation s o f th e convict s amon g themselve s an d
othe r persons , th e relie f whic h the y ma y receive , an d thei r diet .
Th e r e g u l a t i o n s sha l l ma k e p r o v i s i o n fo r th e s e p a r a t i o n
o f th e s e x e s i n dif f ere n t i n s t i t u t i o n s , o r a t lea s t int o differ en t
d e p a r t m e n t s , an d als o fo r th e c o r r e c t i o n an d refo r m o f th e
c o n v ic t s .
Only penalty by final judgment can be executed.

Paragraph one of this Article provides tha t "no penalty shall be
executed except by virtue of a final judgment."
The judg men t mus t be final before it can be executed, because
the accused ma y still appeal withi n 15 days from its promulgation.
But if the defendant ha s expressly waived in writing his right to
appeal, th e judgmen t becomes final immediately. (Rule 120, Sec. 7,
Rules of Court)
If the judgmen t does not condemn th e accused to suffer subsidi• ary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, the accused cannot be required
81 4
SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION OF PENALTIES Art. 79
DUE TO INSANITY
to suffer the sam e in case of inability to pay the fine imposed upon
him. (People vs. 52 O.G. 249)
Art . 79 . Suspension the execution and service of the penalties

in case of insanity. — Wh e n a c o n v i c t sha l l b e c o m e i n s a n e or an
i mb e c i l e afte r fina l s e n t e n c e ha s b ee n p r o n o u n c e d , th e exec u •
t io n o f sa i d s e n t e n c e sha l l b e s u s p e n d e d o nl y w it h regar d t o
th e p e r s o n a l p e n a l t y , th e p r o v i s i o n s o f th e s e c o n d p a r a g r a p h
o f c i r c u m s t a n c e n u m b e r 1 o f A r t i c l e 1 2 b e i n g o b s e r v e d i n th e
correspondin g cases .
I f a t an y t i m e th e c o n v i c t sha l l r e c o v e r hi s r e a s o n , hi s
s e n t e n c e sha l l b e e x e c u t e d , u n l e s s th e p e n a l t y sha l l ha v e
p r e s c r i b e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h th e p r o v i s i o n s o f thi s Code .
Th e respectiv e provision s o f thi s sectio n shal l als o b e observe d i f th
e insanit y o r imbecilit y occur s whil e th e convic t i s servin g hi s sentence .
Rules regarding execution and service of penalties in case

of insanity.
1. When a convict becomes insan e or imbecile after final sen•
tence ha s been the execution of said sentence
is suspended only as regards the personal penalty.
2. If he recovers his reason, his sentence shall be executed,
unles s the penalty ha s prescribed.
3. Even while serving his sentence, the convict becomes in•
sane or imbecile, th e above provisions shall be observed.
4. But the payment of his civil or pecuniary liabilities shall
not be suspended.
Only execution of personal penalty is suspended in case of

insanity; civil liability may be executed even in case of insan•
ity of convict.
After the judgment of conviction has become final, the accused
becomes insane. He ha s enough property to cover the civil liability.
815
Art. 80 SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE OF MINORS
Can the offended party ask for the execution of the judgment with respect to
civil liability?
Yes, because while the execution of the sentence is suspended
as regards the personal penalty, the payment of his civil or pecuniary
liability shall not be suspended.
An accused person may become insane:

1. At the time of the commission of the offense;
2. At the time of trial;
3. At the time of final judgment; or
4. While serving sentence.
If he wa s insane at th e time of the commission of the offense, he
is exempt from criminal liability. (Art. 12, par. 1) If he wa s san e at
the time of the commission of the offense but subsequently becomes
insane during th e trial of th e case, in such a wa y tha t he cannot have
a fair trial or mak e proper defense eve n wit h th e help of counsel (U.S.
vs. Guendia, 37 Phil. 337, 345), th e court shall suspen d proceedings
and order his confinement in a hospital until he recovers hi s reason.
(Art. 12, par. 1) If hi s insanity should come after final sentence or
while serving his sentence, the execution thereof shall be suspended
with regard to th e personal penalty only.
Art . 80 . Suspension of sentence of minor delinquents. —

ev e r a mi n o r o f e i t h e r u n d e r s i x t e e n y e a r s o f ag e a t th e
dat e o f th e c o m m i s s i o n o f a g ra v e o r les s g ra v e felo ny , i s ac •
c u s e d thereo f , th e co urt , a ft e r h e a r i n g th e e v i d e n c e i n th e
p r o p e r p r o c e e d i n g s , i n s t e a d o f p r o n o u n c i n g j u d g m e n t o f con •
v i c t i o n , sha l l s u s p e n d al l f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s an d shal l com •
mi t s u c h mi n o r t o th e c u s t o d y o r ca r e o f a p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e ,
benevolen t o r charitabl e institution , establishe d unde r la w
fo r th e care , c o r r e c t i o n , o r e d u c a t i o n o f o r p h a n e d , h o me l e s s ,
d e f e c t i v e , an d d e l i n q u e n t c h i l d r e n , o r t o th e c u s t o d y o r car e
o f an y o t h e r r e s p o n s i b l e p e r s o n i n an y othe r pla c e subjec t
t o v i s i t a t i o n an d s u p e r v i s i o n b y th e D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c Wel•
far e o r an y o f hi s a g e n t s o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , i f ther e b e any ,
o r o t h e r w i s e b y th e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f p u b l i c s c h o o l s o r hi s
816
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE OF MINORS Art. 80
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , s u bj e c t t o suc h c o n d i t i o n s a s ar e p r e s c r i b e d
unt i l s u c h mi n o r sha l l ha v e r e a c h e d hi s major •
it y o r fo r suc h les s p e r i o d a s th e co u r t ma y d e e m pro per . (As
amended by No. 47.)
Th e co urt , i n c o m m i t t i n g sai d mi n o r a s p r o v i d e d a b o v e ,
sha l l tak e int o c o n s i d e r a t i o n th e r e l i g i o n o f su c h mi no r , hi s
p a r e n t s o r ne x t o f kin , i n o r d e r t o a v o i d hi s c o m m i t m e n t t o
an y p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n no t u n d e r th e c o n t ro l an d s u p e r v i s i o n
o f th e r e l i g i o u s sec t o r d e n o m i n a t i o n t o w h i c h the y b e l o ng .
Th e D i r e ct o r o f P ubli c Welfar e o r hi s dul y a u t ho r iz e d rep •
r e s e n t a t i v e s o r a g e n t s , th e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f publ i c scho o l s
o r hi s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , o r th e p e r s o n t o w h o s e c u s t o d y o r car e
th e mi n o r ha s bee n c o m mi t t e d , shal l s u b mi t t o th e cour t ever y
fou r mo n t h s an d a s ofte n a s r e q u i r e d i n s p e c ia l ca ses , a writ •
te n repo r t o n th e g o o d o r ba d c o n d u c t o f sa i d mi n o r an d th e
mo ra l an d i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o g r e s s ma d e b y hi m .
Th e s u s p e n s i o n o f th e p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t a mi n o r ma y
b e e x t e n d e d o r s h o r t e n e d b y th e co ur t o n th e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n
o f th e D i r e c to r o f P u bl i c Welfar e o r hi s a u t h o r i z e d repre senta •
t iv e s o r a g e n t s , o r th e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f publi c s c h o o l s o r hi s
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , a c c o r d i n g a s t o w h e t h e r th e c o n d u c t o f suc h
mi n o r b e e n g o o d o r no t an d w h e t h e r h e ha s c o mp l i e d wit h
th e c o n d i t i o n s i mp o s e d upo n him , o r not . Th e pro v i s io n s o f th e
first p a r a g r a p h o f t hi s a r t i c l e sha l l not , h o w e v e r , b e affecte d
b y tho s e c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n .
I f th e mino r ha s b ee n c o m m i t t e d t o th e cu sto d y o r car e o f
an y o f th e instit ut io n s me n t i o n e d i n th e first pa ra gra p h o f thi s
article , wit h th e appro va l o f th e Directo r o f Publi c Welfar e an d
subjec t t o suc h c o n d i t i o n s a s thi s official i n a cco rda nc e wit h la w
ma y dee m pro pe r t o impo se , suc h mino r ma y b e allowe d t o sta y
e l s e w he r e unde r th e car e o f a r e s p o n s i b l e perso n .
I f th e mi no r ha s b e h a v e d pro perl y an d ha s co mpl ie d wit h
th e c o n d i t i o n s i m p o s e d upo n hi m d u r i n g hi s co nf in e me nt , i n
a c c o r d a n c e w it h th e p r o v i s i o n s o f thi s a rticle , h e shal l b e re•
t ur ne d t o th e co ur t i n o rde r tha t th e sa m e ma y orde r hi s
relea se .
I n ca s e th e mi n o r fail s t o b e h a v e p ro p e r l y o r t o co mpl y
w it h th e r e g u l a t i o n s o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n t o w h i c h h e ha s bee n
817
YOUTHFUL OFFENDER UNDER THE CHILD
AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE AND JUVENILE
JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006
c o m m i t t e d o r w it h th e c o n d i t i o n s i mp o s e d upo n hi m w he n
h e wa s c o m m i t t e d t o th e car e o f a r e s p o n s i b l e p e r s o n , o r i n
ca s e h e s h o u l d b e f o un d i n co rrig i bl e o r hi s c o n t i n u e d sta y i n
suc h i n s t i t u t i o n s h o u l d b e i n a d v i s a b l e , h e sha l l b e r e t u r n e d
t o th e cour t i n o rde r tha t th e sa m e ma y re n de r th e j u d g me n t
c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o th e c ri m e c o m m i t t e d b y him .
Th e e x p e n s e s fo r th e m a i n t e n a n c e o f a mi n o r d e l i n q u e n t
co nf in e d i n th e i n s t i t u t i o n t o w h i c h h e ha s b e e n c o m m i t t e d ,
shal l b e b o r n e t o t a ll y o r pa r t ia l l y b y hi s p a r e n t s o r r e la t iv e s
o r tho s e p e r s o n s l ia b l e t o s u p p o r t him , i f the y ar e abl e t o d o
so , i n th e d i s c r e t i o n o f th e co urt : Provided, Tha t i n ca s e hi s
p a r e n t s o r r e l a t i v e s o r t h o s e p e r s o n s lia b l e t o s u p p o r t hi m
ha v e no t b e e n o r d e r e d t o pa y sai d e x p e n s e s , th e m u n i c i p a l i t y
i n w h i c h th e o ff ens e wa s c o m mi t t e d shal l pa y o ne- thir d o f sai d
e x p e n s e s ; th e p r o v i n c e t o w h i c h th e mu n i c i p a l i t y belo ng s shal l
pa y o n e - t h i r d ; an d th e r e m a i n i n g o n e - t h i r d shal l b e bo rn e b y
th e N a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t : Provided, however, Tha t w h e n e v e r
th e S e c r e t a r y o f F i n a n c e c e r t i f i e s t ha t a m u n i c i p a l i t y i s no t
abl e t o pa y it s s h a r e i n th e e x p e n s e s a b o v e m e n t i o n e d , s u c h
s h a r e w h i c h i s no t pa i d b y sa i d m u n i c i p a l i t y sha l l b e b o r n e
b y th e N a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t . C h a r t e r e d c itie s shal l pa y two -
t hi rd s o f sa i d e x p e n s e s ; an d i n ca s e a c h a r t e r e d cit y ca n n o t
pa y sai d e x p e n s e s , th e int er na l r e v e n u e a l l o t me n t s w h i c h ma y
b e du e t o sa i d cit y shal l b e w i t h h e l d an d a p p l i e d i n s e t t l e me n t
o f sai d i n d e b t e d n e s s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n fiv e h u n d r e d
an d e i g h t y - e i g h t o f th e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Co de . (As amended b y
Com. Act No. 99 and Rep. Act No. 47)
The provisions of Article of the Revised Penal Code have

been repealed by Chapter Three of P.D. No. 603, as amended
(The Child and Youth Welfare Code), and by the provisions of
Rep. Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006).
Child in Conflict with the Law.
Unde r Sec. 4 of Rep. Act No. 9344 , a "Child" is as "a
person under eightee n years" while a "Child In Conflict with the
Law" refers to "a child who is alleged as , accused of, or adjudged as,
having committed an offense under Philippine laws."
818
Under P.D. No. 603 , a youthful offender is a minor or

youth, including one wh o is emancipated in accordance with law, who
is over nine years but under eightee n years of age at th e tim e of th e
commission of the (Art. 189,
Rep. Act No. 934 4 repealed P.D. No. 603 on th e matter although both
cover children wh o are under 18 years of age.
Minimu m Ag e o f Crimina l Responsibility .
A child fifteen (15) year s of age or under at the tim e of th e commission
of the offense shall be exemp t from criminal liability. However, the child shall
be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of thi s Act.
A child above fifteen (15) year s but below eightee n (18) years of age
shall likewise be exemp t from criminal liability and be subjected to an
intervention program, unles s he/she ha s acted with discern• ment, in which
case, such child shall be subjected to th e appropriate proceedings in
accordance wit h thi s Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not
include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance
with existing laws . (Sec. 6, Rep. Act No. 9344)
Intervention Program.
If it ha s been determined tha t the child taken into custody is
fifteen years old or below, the authority which will have an initial
contact with the child ha s th e duty to immediately release the child to
the custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof,
the child's nearest relative.
Said authority shall give notice to the local social welfare and
development officer who will determine the appropriate programs
in consultation with the child and to th e person having custody over
the child. If the parents, guardians or nearest relatives cannot be
located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to
any of the following: a duly registered nongovernmental or religious
organization; a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Coun•
cil for the Protection of a local social welfare and
development officer; or, whe n and where appropriate, the DSWD.
If the child referred to herein ha s been found by the Local So• cial
Welfare and Development Office to be abandoned, neglected or
819
abused by his parents, or in the event that the parents will not com•
ply with the prevention program, the proper petition for involuntary
commitment shall be filed by the or the Local Social Welfare
and Development Office pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603,
otherwise known as "The Child and Youth Welfare (Sec. 20,
Rep. Act No. 9344)
Diversion Programs for children over 15 and under 18 who

acted with discernment. (Refer to Par. 2, Art.
Automatic suspension of sentence under Rep. Act No. 9344.
Once the child who is under eightee n (18) years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense
charged, the court shall determine and ascertain an y civil liability
which may have resulted from th e offense committed. However, in•
stead of pronouncing th e judg men t of conviction, th e court shall place
the child in conflict wit h th e la w under suspended sentence, without
need of application: Provided, however, That suspensio n of sentence
shall be applied eve n if th e juvenile is already eightee n (18) years of
age or more at th e tim e of th e pronouncement of his/her guilt. (See
Sec. 38, Rep. Act No. 9344)
Compared to P.D. No.

Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility
Unde r P.D. No. 603 , a child nine (9) years of age or under at
th e tim e of th e commission of th e offense, and a child over nine
(9) years and under fifteen (15) years of age unles s he acted wit h
discernment, shall be exemp t from criminal liability (Sec. 189, P.D.
No . 603) Unde r Rep. Act No. 9344 , a child under fifteen (15)
years of age, shall be exemp t from criminal liability, regardless of
whethe r or not he/she acted wit h discernment.
2) Discernment
If a child over nine (9) years and under fifteen (15)

years of age acted wit h discernment, the court shall hear
th e evidence in th e proper proceedings and if it finds the
youthful offender to hav e co mmitte d th e act s charged
agains t him , th e court shal l determin e th e imposabl e
820
penalty, including any civil liability chargeable against
However, instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction,
the court, upon application of the youthful offender and it
if finds that the best interest of the public as well as that of
the offender will be served thereby, may suspend all further
proceedings and shall commit such minor to the custody or
care of the DSW D or to any training institution operated
by the government, or duly licensed agencies or any other
responsible person, until he shall have reached twenty-one
years of age or, for a shorter period as the court may deem
proper. (Sec. 189 and 192, P.D. No. 603) Under Rep. Act No.
9344, a child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18)
years of age wh o acted wit h discernment shall be subjected
to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with the Act.
3) Suspension of Sentence
Unde r P.D. No. 603 , there is no automatic suspension
of sentence . Th e youthfu l offender shoul d apply for a
suspended sentenc e and it is discretionary on the court
to approve th e application. The order of th e court denying
an application for suspensio n of sentenc e shall not be
appealable. (Sec. 193, P.D. No . 603) Under Rep. Act No.
9344, suspension of sentence is automatic.
COURT PROCEEDINGS.
Bail.
For purpose of recommending the amount of bail, the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority shall be considered. (Sec. 34, Rep. Act No.
9344)
Release on Recognizance.
Where a child is detained, the court shall order:
(a) the release of the minor on recognizance to his/her parents
and other suitable persons;
(b) the release of the child in conflict with the law on bail; or
(c) the transfer of the minor to a youth detention home/youth
rehabilitation center.
821
The court shall not order the detention of a child in a jail pend• ing
trial or hearing of his/her case. (Sec. 35, Rep. Act No. 9344)
Detention of the Child Pending Trial.

Children detained pending trial ma y be released on ball or
recognizance. In all other cases and whenever possible, detention
pending trial may be replaced by alternative measures , such as close
supervision, intensive care or placement with a family or in an edu•
cation setting or home. Institutionalization or detention of the child
pending trial shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for
the shortest possible period of time.
Whenever detention is necessary, a child will always be detained in
youth detention home s established by local governments, pursu• ant to Section
8 of the Family Courts Act, in the city or municipality where the child resides.
In the absence of a youth detention home, th e child in conflict
with the law ma y be committed to the care of th e DSW D or a local
rehabilitation center recognized by th e government in the province,
city or municipality within the jurisdiction of th e court. The center
or agency concerned shall be responsible for th e child's appearance
in court wheneve r required. (Sec. 36, Rep. Act No . 9344)
Diversion Measures.
Where the maximu m penalty imposed by law for the offense
with which the child in conflict wit h th e la w is charged is imprison•
men t of not more tha n twelve (12) years, regardless of th e fine or
fine alone regardless of the amount, and before arraignment of the
child in conflict with the law, the court shall determine whethe r or
not diversion is appropriate. (Sec. 37, Rep. Act No. 9344)
Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law.

Upon th e recommendation of the social worker who ha s custody
of the child, the court shall dismis s th e case against th e child whose
sentence ha s been suspended and against who m disposition measures
have been issued, and shall order th e final discharge of th e child if
it finds that the objective of th e disposition measure s hav e been ful•
filled.
822
The discharge of the child in conflict with the law shall not af•
fect the civil liability resulting from the commission of the offense,
which shall be enforced in accordance with law. (Sec. 39, Rep. Act
No. 9344)
Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court.

If the court finds tha t th e objective of the disposition measures imposed
upon the child in conflict wit h the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in
conflict wit h th e law ha s willfully failed to comply with the conditions of
his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict wit h th e
law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.
If said child in conflict wit h th e law ha s reached eighteen (18)
years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall deter•
mine whether to discharge th e child in accordance with this Act, to
order execution of sentence, or to extend th e suspended sentence for
a certain specified period or until th e child reaches the maximu m age
of twenty-one (21) years. (Sec. 40, Rep. Act No. 9344)
Credit in Service of Sentence.

The child in conflict wit h th e law shall be credited in the service of
his/her sentence with th e full time spent in actual commitment and detention
under this Act. (Sec. 41 , Rep. Act No. 9344)
Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment.

The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a
child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time, place
the child, or probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking
into account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section
4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the "Probation
Law of 1976," is hereby amended accordingly. (Sec. 42, Rep. Act No.
9344)
REHABILITATION AND REINTEGRATION.

Objective of Rehabilitation and Reintegration.
The objective of rehabilitation and reintegration of children
in conflict with the law is to provide them with interventions, ap-
823
and strategies that will enable them to improve their social
functioning with the end goal of reintegration to their families and
as productive members of their communities. (Sec. 44, Rep. Act No.
9344)
Court Order Required.

No child shall be received in any rehabilitation or training facil• ity
without a valid order issued by th e court after a hearing for the purpose. The
details of this order shall be immediately entered in a register exclusively for
children in conflict with the law. No child shall be admitted in any facility
where there is no such register. (Sec. 45, Rep. Act No. 9344)
Separate Facilities from Adults.

In all rehabilitation or training facilities, it shall be mandatory that
children shall be separated from adults unles s the y are mem • bers of the sam
e family. Unde r no other circumstance shall a child in conflict with th e law be
placed in the sam e confinement as adults.
The rehabilitation, training or confinement area of children in conflict
with the law shall provide a home environment where children in conflict wit h
th e law can be provided wit h quality counseling and treatment. (Sec. 46, Rep.
Act No. 9344)
Female Children.
Female children in conflict wit h th e law placed in an institu•
tion shall be given special attention as to their personal need s and
problems. They shall be handled by female doctors, correction officers
and social workers, and shall be accommodated separately from male
children in conflict wit h the law. (Sec. 47 , Rep. Act No. 9344)
Care and Maintenance of the Child in Conflict with the Law.

The expense s for the care and maintenanc e of a child in conflict
with the law under institutional care shall be borne by his/her parents
or those persons liable to support him/her: Provided, That in case
his/her parents or those persons liable to support him/her cannot pay
all or part of said expenses , th e municipality where th e offense wa s
committed shall pay one-third (1/3) of said expense s or part thereof;
the province to which the municipality belongs shall pay one-third
824
and the remaining one-third shall be borne by the national
government. Chartered cities shall pay two-thirds (2/3) of said ex•
penses; and in case a chartered city cannot pay said expenses, part
of the internal revenue allotments applicable to the unpaid portion
shall be withheld and applied to th e settlemen t of said obligations:
Provided, further, That in th e event tha t the child in conflict with
the law is not a resident of th e municipality/city where the offense
wa s committed, th e court, upon its determination, ma y require the
city/municipality where th e child in conflict wit h th e law resides to
shoulder the cost.
Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps

and other Training Facilities.
A child in conflict wit h th e la w may , after conviction and upon order
of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confine• men t in a
regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities
tha t ma y be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by th e Burea
u of Corrections, in coordination with the Department of Social Welfare and
Development. (Sec. 51 , Rep. Act No. 9344)
Rehabilitation of Children in Conflict with the Law.

Children in conflict with the law, whose sentences are suspended may,
upon order of th e court, undergo any or a combination of dispo• sition
measures best suited to th e rehabilitation and welfare of the child as provided
in th e Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
If the community-based rehabilitation is availed of by a child in
conflict with the law, he/she shall be released to parents, guardians,
relatives or any other responsible person in the community. Under
the supervision and guidance of th e local social welfare and develop•
ment officer, and in coordination with his/her parents/guardian, the
child in conflict with the law shall participate in community-based
programs, x x x
In accordance therewith, the family of the child in conflict with the law
shall endeavor to actively participate in the community-based rehabilitation.
825
Based on the progress of the youth in the community, a final report will
be forwarded by the local social welfare and development officer to the court
for final disposition of the case.
If the community-based programs are provided as diversion measures
under Chapter II, Title V, the programs enumerated above shall be made
available to the child in conflict with the law. (Sec. 52, Rep. Act No. 9344)
Youth Rehabilitation Center.

The youth rehabilitation center shall provide 24-hour group
care, treatment and rehabilitation services under th e guidance of
a trained staff where resident s are cared for under a structured
therapeutic environment wit h th e end view of reintegrating the m in
their families and communities as socially functioning individuals. A
quarterly report shall be submitted by th e center to th e proper court
on the progress of th e children in conflict wit h th e law. Base d on the
progress of the youth in th e center, a final report will be forwarded to
the court for final disposition of th e case. The DSW D shall establish
youth rehabilitation centers in each region of th e country. (Sec. 53 ,
Rep. Act No. 9344)
Civil Liability of Youthful Offenders.

The civil liability for acts committed by a youthful offender
shall devolve upon th e offender's father and, in case of hi s death or
incapacity, upon th e mother, or in case of her death or incapacity,
upon the guardian. Civil liability ma y be voluntarily assume d
by a relative or family friend of th e youthful offender. (Art. 201 , P.D.
No. 603)
Liability of Parents or Guardian or Any Person in the Com•

mission of Delinquent Acts by Their Children or Wards.
A person whethe r the parent or guardian of th e child or not,
who knowingly or willfully,
(1) Aids, causes , abets or connives with th e commission by 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
826
HOW DEATH PENALTY IS EXECUTED Art. 81
punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred pesos or to

imprisonment for a period not exceeding two or both
such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.
(Art. 204, P.D. No. 603)
Confidentiality of Records and Proceedings

All records and proceedings involving children in conflict with
the law from initial contact until final disposition of th e case shall be
considered privileged and confidential. The public shall be excluded
during the proceedings and th e records shall not be disclosed directly
or indirectly to anyone by any of the parties or the participants in the
proceedings for any purpose whatsoever, except to determine if the
child in conflict wit h th e law ma y hav e his/her sentence suspended
or if he/she may be granted probation under the Probation Law, or
to enforce the civil liability imposed in th e criminal action.
The component authorities shall undertake all measures to protect
this confidentiality of proceedings, including non-disclosure of records to
the media, maintaining a separate police blotter for cases involving chil•
dren in conflict with the law and adopting a system of coding to conceal
material information which will lead to the child's identity. Records of a
child in conflict with the law shall not be used in subsequent proceedings
for cases involving the same offender as an except when beneficial
for the offender and upon his/her written consent.
A person who has in conflict with the law as a child shall not be
held under any provision of law, to be guilty of perjury or of concealment
or misrepresentation by reason of his/her failure to acknowledge the
case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made
to him/her for any purpose. (Sec. 43, Rep. Act No. 9344)
P.D. No. 1179, amending P.D. No. 603 by providing that Article
192 shall not apply to those convicted of an offense punishable by
death or life imprisonment perpetua) took effect in
1977, after the decision of the Court of First Instance.
S e c t io n Two . — E x e c u t i o n o f p r i n c i p a l p e n a l t i e s
Art. 81 . When and how the death penalty is to be executed.

— Th e d e a t h s e n t e n c e shal l b e e x e c u t e d w it h p r e f e r e n c e t o
827
Art. 81 HOW DEATH PENALTY IS EXECUTED
an y o t h e r p e n a l t y an d shal l c o n s i s t i n p u t t i n g th e p e r s o n
u n d e r s e n t e n c e t o d e a t h b y let ha l i n j e c t i o n . Th e d e a t h sen •
t enc e shal l b e e x e c u t e d un de r th e a u t h o r it y o f th e Directo r o f
th e B u r e a u o f C o r r e c t i o n s , e n d e a v o r i n g s o fa r a s p o s s i b l e t o
mi t i g a t e th e s u f f e r i ng s o f th e p e r s o n u n d e r s e n t e n c e d u r i n g
th e letha l i n je c t i o n a s wel l a s d u r i n g th e p r o c e e d i n g s prio r
t o th e e x e c u t i o n .
Th e D i r e c t o r o f th e B u r e a u o f C o r r e c t i o n s sha l l ta k e
st e p s t o e n s u r e tha t th e letha l i n j e ct io n t o b e a d mi n i s t e r e d i s
sufficien t t o c a u s e th e i n s t a n t a n e o u s d e a t h o f th e c o n v i c t .
P u r s u a n t t o this , al l p e r so n n e l i nv o l v e d i n th e administra •
tio n o f letha l sha l l b e t r a i n e d prio r t o th e perfo r m •
a nc e o f suc h task .
Th e authorize d physicia n o f th e Burea u o f Corrections , afte r
thoroug h examination , shal l officiall y mak e a pronounce • men t o f th e
convict' s deat h an d shal l certif y theret o i n th e record s o f th e Burea u o f
Corrections .
Th e d e a t h s e n t e n c e sha l l b e c a r r i e d ou t no t ea rlie r tha n
on e (1) y ea r no r lat e r t ha n e i g h t e e n mo n t h s afte r th e judg •
me n t ha s b e c o m e fina l an d e x e c u t o r y w i t h o u t p r ej u d ic e t o th e
e x e r c i s e b y th e P r e s i d e n t o f hi s e x e c u t i v e c l e m e n c y p o w e r s
at al l t i me s . (As amended by Republic Act No. 7659 and Republic
No. 8177)
Rep. Act No. 9346 expressly repealed Rep. Act No. which
prescribed death by lethal injection.
Section 1 of Rep. Act No. 9346 provides as follows:
"SECTION The imposition of th e penalty of death is
hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand
One Hundred Seventy-Seve n (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known
as the Act Designatin g Deat h by Lethal Injection, is hereby
repealed. Republic Act No. Seve n Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-
Nin e (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise know n as th e Deat h Penalty
Law, and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as
they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended
accordingly."
828
HOW DEATH PENALTY IS EXECUTED Art. 82
In view of the enactment of Rep. Act No. 9346, the death

penalty may not be imposed. Thus, Arts. 81 to of the
Revised Penal Code have no application.
Death sentence shall be executed with preference to any
other penalty.
According to Art. 81 , th e deat h sentence shall be executed with
preference to any other penalty. This is in accordance with Art. 70
providing for successive service of sentences. Deat h penalty is No. 1
in the order of the severity of th e penaltie s listed there.
Death sentence is executed by lethal injection.

Under Republic Act No. which wa s approved on March 20,
1996, the death sentence shall be executed by mean s of lethal injec•
tion. Prior to th e enactmen t of R.A. No. 8177, th e death sentence wa s
executed by electrocution.
When death sentence shall be carried out.

The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier tha n 1 year nor later
tha n 18 month s after th e judgmen t becomes final and executory, without
prejudice to th e exercise by the President of his executive clemency powers.
Art. 82 . Notification and execution of the sentence and assistance

to the culprit. — Th e co ur t shal l d e s i g n a t e a w o r k i n g da y fo r th e
e x e c u t i o n , bu t no t th e ho u r thereof ; an d suc h d e s i g n a t i o n shal l
no t b e c o m m u n i c a t e d t o th e off ende r befor e su n r i s e o f sai d
an d th e e x e c u t i o n shal l no t tak e pla c e unti l afte r th e e x p i r a t io n
o f a t leas t eig h t ho u r s f o l l o w i n g th e no t if ica t io n , bu t befo r e
sunset . D ur in g th e i n t e r v a l b e t w e e n th e no tif i ca tio n an d th e
e x e c u t i o n , th e c ul pr i t shall , i nso f a r a s p o s s i b l e , b e f u r n i s h e d
suc h a s s i s t a n c e a s h e ma y r e q u e s t i n orde r t o b e a tt e n d e d i n
hi s las t mo m e n t s b y pr ie st s o r mi n i s t e r s o f th e relig io n h e pro •
f esse s an d t o co ns ul t l a w y e r s , a s wel l a s i n o rde r t o ma k e a wil l
an d confe r w it h me m b e r s o f hi s fa mil y o r p e rs o n i n cha rg e o f
th e ma n a g e m e n t o f hi s b u s i n e s s , o f th e a d mi n i s t r a t i o n o f hi s
pro perty , o r o f th e car e o f hi s d e s c e n d a n t s .
829
Art. 83 SUSPENSION OF DEATH SENTENCE
A convict sentenced to death may make a will.

Such convict shall have the right to consult a lawyer and to make a will
for the disposition of his property.
May a convict sentenced to death dispose of his property by

an act or conveyance inter
According to Art. 40, one of the accessory penalties of death
is civil interdiction. According to Art. 34, civil interdiction shall
deprive the offender of the right to dispose of his property by any act
or conveyance inter vivos. Bu t Art. 40 specifically provides that civil
interdiction is its accessory penalty only whe n th e death penalty is
not executed by reason of commutation or pardon.
Problem:
A had been sentence d to deat h whic h wa s affirmed by th e Supreme
Court. After he wa s notified of th e date of execution, A asked for his friend B
and by mean s of a deed of donation inter vivos, transferred all his property to
hi m who accepted th e donation. If A had no forced heirs, is the transfer valid?
It seem s tha t the transfer is valid, because if A wa s put to death
subsequently, he wa s not suffering civil interdiction at th e time he
executed the deed of donation inter
Complication may arise if A wa s not executed by reason of com•
mutation or pardon, for in tha t case, he would suffer civil interdiction. A
question may be asked whethe r th e deed of donation inter vivos could still be
considered valid.
Art . 83 . Suspension the execution of the death sentence. — Th e

d e a t h s e n t e n c e sha l l no t b e i n f l i c t e d u p o n a w o m a n w i t h i n
on e (1) y ea r afte r no r upo n an y p e r s o n ove r s e v e n t y
y e a r s o f age . I n thi s las t case , th e d e a t h s e n t e n c e shal l b e com •
m u t e d t o th e p e n a l t y o f reclusion perpetua w it h th e a c c e s s o r y
p e n a l t i e s p r o v i d e d i n Art i cl e 40 .
I n al l c a s e s w h e r e th e d e a t h s e n t e n c e ha s b e c o m e final ,
th e r e c o r d s o f th e ca s e sha l l b e f o r w a r d e d i m m e d i a t e l y b y
th e S u p r e m e Co ur t t o th e Offic e o f th e P r e s i d e n t fo r p o s s i b l e
830
SUSPENSION OF DEATH SENTENCE Art. 83
e x e r c i s e of th e p a r d o n i n g p o w e r . (As Amended by Republic Act

No. 7659)
Death sentence shall be suspended when the accused is a —

(1) Woman, while pregnant;
(2) Woman, withi n one year after delivery;
(3) Person over 70 years of age.
The suspension of th e execution of th e death sentence
as regards a person over 70 years old is necessary to give
the President tim e to act, because only th e President can
commute th e sentence.
The accused wa s fifty-six years old whe n he testified
in 1962. An agent of th e National Bureau of Investigation
reported tha t in 1972, he wa s already seventy years old.
The death penalty cannot be imposed upon any person over
seventy years of age. It should be commuted to
perpetua wit h the accessory penalties provided in Article
40. (People vs. Yu, No . L-29667, Nov. 29, 1977, 80 SCRA
The appellant wa s found guilty of th e complex crime

of murder with frustrated murder wit h the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation, craft and dwelling
and wa s sentenced to death. However, since he wa s already
more tha n 70 years old, the penalty perpetua
wa s imposed. (People vs. Miraflores, Nos. July
30, 1982, SCRA 570, 593-594; People vs. Del Mundo,
No. Jun e 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 719, 724)
(4) Convict who becomes insane after final sentence of death
ha s been pronounced. (See Art. 79)
But when he recovers his reason and before the penalty has
prescribed, he may be put to death.
Distinguish Art. 83 from Art. 47.

Art. 47 provides for cases in which death penalty is not to be
imposed. They are:
831
Art. 83 SUSPENSION OF DEATH SENTENCE
When the guilty person is more tha n 70 years of age;

2. When upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme
Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for imposing the
death penalty; and
When the convict is a minor under years of
Note: This No. 3 may be added in view of Art. 68.
On the other hand, Art. 83 provides for suspension only of the execution
of death sentence.
Regional Trial Court (formerly CFI) can suspend execution

of death sentence.
The Regional Trial Court which imposes death penalty has the
power to suspend temporarily the execution of th e sentence, after the
judgment ha s become final, and after th e date ha s been fixed for ex•
ecution, upon petition on behalf of th e prisoner, based upon grounds
arising after judgmen t ha s become final, th e adjudication of which
does not challenge th e validity of th e judgmen t or involve a review
or reconsideration of th e proceedings.
Among such grounds are th e alleged (1) insanity or pregnancy of
the convict, the alleged of th e prisoner with th e person
actually convicted and sentenced, (3) th e alleged lack of a suitable
opportunity to be heard on an application for executive clemency, and
the like. (Director of Prisons vs . Judg e of First Instance of Cavite, 29
Phil. 265, 271-274)
But the court cannot grant indefinite, permanent or conditional suspensio

n of th e execution of sentence s pronounced in criminal cases.
Execution of death sentence after delivery of pregnant woman.

Under the old Code, th e death sentenc e could be executed only after the
lapse of 40 days from delivery.
Under R.A. No. 7659, th e execution of th e death sentenc e upon
a pregnant woma n will be carried out only one (1) yea r after her
delivery.
832
PLACE OF EXECUTION Arts. 84-85
CORPSE OF PERSON EXECUTED
Records to be forwarded to the of the President, when

the death sentence has become final.
In all cases where the death sentenc e ha s become final, th e
records of the case shall be forwarded to the Office of th e President
for possible exercise of the pardoning power. (Art. 83, par. 2)
Art . 84 . Place of execution and persons who may witness the

same. — Th e e x e c u t i o n sha l l t a k e p l a c e i n th e p e n i t e n t i a r y
o r B ilib i d i n a s p a c e c l o s e d t o th e p u b l i c v i e w an d sha l l b e
witnesse d b y th e p r i e s t s a s s i s t i n g th e o f fe n d e r an d b y
hi s l a w y e r s an d b y hi s r e l a t i v e s , no t e x c e e d i n g six , i f h e s o
r e q u e s t s , b y th e p h y s i c i a n an d th e n e c e s s a r y p e r s o n n e l o f th e
pe na l e s t a b l i s h m e n t , an d b y s u c h p e r s o n s a s th e D i r e c t o r o f
P r i s o n s ma y a u t h o r i z e .
Place of execution.
The execution shall take place in th e penitentiary or Bilibid in
a space closed to th e public view.
Persons who may witness execution.

1) priests assistin g th e offender,
2) offender's lawyers,
3) offender's relatives, not exceeding six, if so requested,
4) physician, and
5) necessary personnel of penal establishment.
A person below 18 years of age ma y not be allowed to witness
an execution. (Sec. 23, par. 2, Amended Rules and Regulations to
Implement Rep. Act No. 8177)
Art. 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of the person executed

and its burial. — U n l e s s c l a i me d by hi s fa mily , th e co r p s e of
th e culpri t shall , upo n th e c o mp l e t i o n o f th e lega l p r o c e e d i n g s
833
Arts 86-87 EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF OTHER PENALTIES
DESTIERRO
s u b s e q u e n t t o th e e x e c u t i o n , b e t u r n e d o ve r t o th e i n stitut e
o f l e a r n i n g o r s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h f irs t a p p l y i n g fo r it , fo r
th e p u r p o s e o f s t u d y an d i n v e s t i g a t i o n , p r o v i d e d tha t suc h
i n s t i t u t e shal l tak e c h a rg e o f th e d ec e n t buria l o f th e r e ma i n s .
O t h e r w i s e , th e D i r e c t o r o f P r i s o n s sha l l o r d e r th e b uria l
o f th e bo d y o f th e culpri t a t g o v e r n m e n t e x p e n s e , g r a n t i n g
p e r m i s s i o n t o b e pr e se n t t h er ea t t o th e me m b e r s o f th e famil y
o f th e cul pri t an d th e f r i e n d s o f th e la tter . I n n o cas e shal l
th e buria l o f th e bo d y o f a p e r s o n s e n t e n c e d t o de a t h b e hel d
w it h po mp .
The "burial of the body of a person sentenced to death"

should not "be held with pomp."
The last sentence of Art. 85 prohibits th e burying of th e corpse
of a person sentenced to death wit h pomp. This is penalized under
Art. 153. The purpose of th e law is to prevent anyone from making a
hero out of a criminal.
Art . 86 . Reclusidn perpetua, temporal, prisidn mayor,

prisidn correccional and arresto mayor. — Th e p e n a l t i e s of reclusidn
perpetua, reclusidn temporal, prisidn mayor, prisidn correccional an d
arresto mayor, sha l l b e e x e c u t e d an d s e r v e d i n th e p l a c e s an d
p e n a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s p r o v i d e d b y th e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Cod e
i n fo rc e o r w h i c h ma y b e p r o v i d e d b y la w i n th e fut ure .
Art . 87. Destierro. — An y p e r s o n s e n t e n c e d t o destierro sha l l

no t b e p e r m i t t e d t o e n t e r th e p l a c e o r p l a c e s d e s i g n a t e d i n
th e s e n t e n c e , no r w i t h i n th e r a d i u s t h e r e i n s p e c i f i e d , w h i c h
sha l l b e no t mo r e t h a n 25 0 an d no t les s t h a n 2 5 k i l o m e t e r s
fro m th e p l a c e d e s i g n a t e d .
Illustration of destierro imposed as a penalty.

A wa s sentenced to th e penalty of destierro, according to which
he should not enter th e place withi n th e radius of 25 kilometers from
834
SERVICE OF ARRESTO MENOR Art. 88
the City Hall of Manila, for a period of two years, four month s and
one day.
In this case, A wa s not completely deprived of his liberty, as
he could go freely to whateve r place except withi n the radius of 25
kilometers from th e City Hall of Manila.
Destierro is imposed:
When death or serious physical injuries is caused or are inflicted
under exceptional circumstances. (Art. 247)
2. When a person fails to give bond for good behavior. (Art.
284)
As a penalty for th e concubine in th e crime of concubinage.
(Art. 334)
4. When after lowering th e penalty by degrees, destierro is
the proper penalty.
Entering the prohibition area is evasion of the service of the

sentence.
Facts: For the crime committed, th e accused wa s sentenced to
the penalty of destierro, according to which he should not enter while
serving the sentence withi n th e radius of 25 kilometers of the City
Hall of Manila. (Art. 87). In tha t penalty of destierro, th e convict could
freely go to whatever place, except withi n th e radius of 25 kilometers
from the City Hall of Manila. Bu t th e accused entered Manila while
serving the sentence of destierro.
Held: There is evasion of the service of th e sentence of destierro.

(People vs. De Jesus , 80 Phil. 748, 750)
Art . 88 . Arresto menor. — Th e p e n a l t y of arresto menor

sha l l b e s e rv e d i n th e m u n i c i p a l jail , o r i n th e h o u s e o f th e
d e f e n d a n t h i ms e l f u n d e r th e s u r v e i l l a n c e o f a n office r o f th e
law , w h e n th e co ur t s o p r o v i d e s i n it s d e c i s i o n , t a ki n g int o
c o n s i d e r a t i o n th e h e a l t h o f th e o f f e n d e r an d o the r r ea s o n s
w h i c h ma y see m s a t i s f a c t o r y t o it .
835
Art. 88 SERVICE ARRESTO MENOR
Penalty that may be served in the house of defendant.

This article provides that the penalty of arresto menor may be served in
the house of the defendant.
But it is required as a condition that it should be under the surveillance
of an officer of the law.
"When the court so provides in its decision."

Note the use of the clause in the law.
Hence, unles s the court make s a statemen t in its decision that
the accused can serve the sentence in his house, the accused cannot
be permitted to do so by th e jailer.
The grounds are the health of the offender and other reasons
satisfactory to the court.
It is not a satisfactory, plausible reason tha t th e accused is a
woman of 50 years, respectable membe r of th e community and that
her mean s of subsistence and tha t of her husban d are a retail store.
(People vs. Torrano, C.A., 40 O.G., 12th 18)
But where th e accused wa s sentenced to 30 days imprisonment
under Act 3992 and he wa s suffering from tuberculosis, requiring
outside treatment, he wa s allowed to serve hi s sentence in hi s house.
(People vs. C.A., 40 11th 280)
Title Four
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Chapter One
TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art . 89 . How criminal liability is totally extinguished. —

Crimina l liabilit y i s totall y extinguished :
1 . B y th e d e a t h o f th e c o n v i c t , a s t o th e p e r s o n a l
p e n a l t i e s ; an d a s t o p e c u n i a r y p e n a l t i e s , l i a b i li t y therefo r
i s e x t i n g u i s h e d onl y w h e n th e d e a t h o f th e o f f e n d e r o c c u r s
bef o r e fina l j u d g m e n t ;
2. B y s e r v i c e o f th e s e n t e n c e ;
3. B y a m n e s t y , w h i c h c o m p l e t e l y e x t i n g u i s h e s th e
p e n a l t y an d al l it s ef f ect s ;
4. By absolut e pardon ;
5. B y p r e s c r i p t i o n o f th e c r i me ;
6. B y p r e s c r i p t i o n o f th e p e n a l t y ;
7. B y th e ma r r i a g e o f th e o f f e n d e d w o ma n , a s p r o v i d e d
i n Articl e 34 4 o f thi s Co de .
Extinction of criminal liability does not automatically extin•

guish the civil liability.
Extinction of criminal liability does not necessarily mean that the civil
liability is also extinguished. (Petralba vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 81337,
Aug. 16, 1991, 200 SGRA 644, 649)
Causes of extinction of criminal liability distinguished from

causes of justification or exemption.
Causes of extinction of criminal liability arise after the commis• sion of
the offense; while the causes of justification or exemption from
837
Art. 89 TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
criminal liability arise from circumstances existing either before the

commission of the crime or at the moment of its commission.
That criminal liability is totally extinguished is a ground for

motion to quash.
Under Sec. 3(g) of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
one of the grounds for motion to quash is that the criminal action ha s been
extinguished. The order sustaining a motion to quash on this ground
constitutes a bar to another prosecution for the same offense. (Sec. 6, Rule
117)
By the death of the convict.

The death of the convict, whether before or after final judgment,
extinguishes criminal liability, because one of the juridical conditions
of penalty is that it is personal.
Civil liability is extinguished only when death occurs before

final judgment.
The death of the convict also extinguishes pecuniary penalties
only whe n the death of th e offender occurs before final judg ment.
Hence, if th e offender dies after final judgment , th e pecuniary penalties
are not extinguished.
Where a person is charged wit h homicide, for instance, th e civil
liability for indemnity is based solely on th e finding of guilt. If he is
acquitted because of self-defense, th e heirs of th e deceased have no
right to indemnity. Should the offender die before final judgment,
their right to indemnity is likewise extinguished as there is no basis
for the civil liability. Civil liability exists only whe n th e accused is
convicted by final judgment.
Criminal and civil liability is extinguished when the offender

dies before final judgment.
When the accused died while th e judgmen t of conviction against
him wa s pending appeal, his civil and criminal liability wa s extin•
guished by his death. (People vs. Castillo, C.A., 56 O.G. 4045; People
vs. Alison, No. April 27, 1972, 44 SCRA 523 , 525)
In view of the death of th e accused during th e pendency of this case he
is relieved of all personal and pecuniary penalties attendant
838
TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Art. 89
to his crime, his death occurring before rendition of final judgment.

vs. Jose, No. L-28397, Jun e 17, 1976, 71 SCRA 273,
Definition of "final judgment."

The term "final judgment" employed in the Revised Penal Code
mean s judgment beyond recall. As long as a judgmen t ha s not become
executory, it cannot be truthfully said tha t defendant is definitely
guilty of the felony charged agains t him. (People vs. Bayotas, G.R.
No. 152007, September 23 6 SCRA 239) Section 7, Rule 16 of
the Rules of Court likewise state s tha t a judgmen t in a criminal case
becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal or
whe n the sentence ha s been partially or totally satisfied or served, or
the defendant ha s expressly waived in writing hi s right to appeal.
Effect of the death of the accused pending appeal on his

criminal and civil liability.
General rule —
Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extin•
guishes his criminal liability as well as th e civil liability based solely
on the offense committed.
Exception —
The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of
accused, if the sam e ma y also be predicated on a source of obligation
other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-
delicts. (People vs. Bayotas, supra)
Examples:
a) The claim for civil liability based on law may also be made
— in the offense of physical injuries, since Article 33 of the
Civil Code establishes a civil action for damages on account
of physical injuries, entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action (See vs. Polinar, No. L-24098,
November 18, 1967, 21 SCRA 700);
b) Claim for civil liability based on contract may also be made
— in the offense of estafa whe n the civil liability springs
neither solely nor originally from the crime itself but from
a civil contract of purchase and sale (as when accused had
swindled the vendees of the property subject matter of the
839
contract of sale). (See vs. Court of Appeals, No.

L-40336, October 24, 1975, 67 SCRA 394)
Where action for recovery of damages must be filed, when

civil liability survives.
If the private offended party, upon extinction, of the civil liability
ex delicto, desires to recover damages from the same act or omission com•
plained of, he must, subject to Section Rule of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, file a separate civil action, this time predicated not
on the felony previously charged but on other sources of obligation. The
source of obligation upon which the separate civil action is premised
determines against whom the same shall be enforced. Thus —
a) If the sam e act or omission complained of also arises from
quasi-delict or may, by provision of law, result in an injury
to person or property (real or personal), th e separate civil
action mus t be filed against the executor or administrator
of the estate of the accused pursuan t to Sec. 1, Rule 87 of
the Rules of Court.
b) If the sam e act or omission complained of also arises from
contract, th e separate civil action mus t be filed against the
estate of the accused, pursuant to Sec. 5, Rule 86 of the
Rules of Court. (People vs. Bayotas, supra)
Right of offended party to separate civil action not lost by

prescription when accused dies pending appeal.
The private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to
file the separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the
prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private
offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such
case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted
during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions
of Article 1155 of the Civil Code. (People vs. Bayotas, supra)
Death of the offended party does not extinguish the criminal

liability of the offender.
The death of the offended party does not extinguish the criminal liability
of the offender, because th e offense is committed against the State. (People vs.
Misola, 87 Phil. 830, 833)
840
By service of sentence.
Crime is a debt incurred by th e offender as a consequence of his
wrongful act and the penalty is but th e amoun t of hi s debt. When payment is
made, the debt is extinguished.
Service o f sent enc e doe s no t ext i ng u i s h th e civil liability.
(Salgado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No . 89606 , Aug. 30, 1990, 189
SCRA
By amnesty.
Amnesty,
It is an act of th e sovereign power granting oblivion or a general
pardon for a past offense, and is rarely, if ever, exercised in favor of
a single individual, and is usuall y exerted in behalf of certain classes
of persons, who are subject to trial but hav e not yet been convicted.
(Brown vs. Walker, 161 U.S . 602)
Amnesty completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects.
Note the clause in paragraph 3 of Art. 89, which says:

completely extinguishes th e penalty and all its
Amnesty may be granted after conviction.

The amnest y proclamatio n in favor of th e Hukbalahap s is applicable
to those already undergoing sentence upon th e date of its promulgation.
(Tolentino vs. Catoy, 82 Phil. 300)
Examples of amnesty:
1. Proclamation No. 51 , dated January by President
Roxas, granting amnest y to those who collaborated with
the enemy during World War II. (See 44 O.G. 408)
2. Proclamation No. 76, dated Jun e 21 , 1948, by President
Quirino , e x t e n d i n g a mn e s t y t o th e Huk s and PKM
( P a mb a n s a n g K a i s a h a n n g M a g bubukid) , wh o
committed rebellion, sedition, illegal association, etc. (See
44 O.G. 1794)
3. Proclamation No. 80, dated February by President
Aquino, extending amnesty to those who, in the furtherance
of their political beliefs, ma y have committed treason,
841
conspiracy or proposal to commit the crime of treason, misprision

of treason, espionage, rebellion or insurrection, conspiracy and
proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection, inciting to rebellion
or insurrection, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to
sedition, illegal assemblies, illega l associations , direc t assault ,
indirec t assault , resistance and disobedience to a person in
authority or agents of such person or persons, subversion, and
illegal possession of firearms and explosives.
Civil liability not extinguished by amnesty.

While amnest y wipe s out all traces and vestige s of the crime,
it does not extinguis h th e civil liability of th e offender. (U.S. vs.
Madlangbayan, 2 Phil. 426 , 428-429)
By absolute pardon.
Pardon, defined.
It is an act of grace proceeding from th e power entrusted wit h the
execution of the law s which exempt s th e individual on who m it is bestowed
from th e punishmen t th e la w inflicts for th e crime he ha s committed.
Kinds of pardon:
(a) Absolute pardon.
(b) Conditional pardon.
A pardon, whethe r absolute or conditional, is in th e nature of a deed,
for the validity of which delivery is an indispensable requisite. Until accepted,
all that may hav e bee n done is a matte r of intended favor and ma y be
cancelled. Bu t once accepted by th e grantee, th e pardon already delivered
cannot be revoked by th e authority which granted it.
Pardon in adultery case.
A wa s charged with the crime of adultery with a married woman. The

married woman , after conviction of both accused, wa s pardoned by th e Chief
Executive.
Does th e pardon of th e woma n hav e th e effect of extinguishing the
criminal liability of A?
842
No, becaus e (1) th e power to exten d executiv e clemency is

unlimited, and (2) that th e exercise of tha t power lies in the absolute
and uncontrolled discretion ofth e Chief Executive. (U.S. vs.
30 Phil. 85, 87)
Bu t if th e one givin g th e pardon is th e offended spous e in adultery,
both offenders mus t be pardoned by th e offended party if said pardon is to be
effective. (People vs. Infante, 57 Phil. 138, 139)
Pardon of murder after evasion of service of sentence.

A wa s convicted of murder. Subsequently, A evaded th e service of the
sentence. A wa s prosecuted for and convicted of evasion. The President
thereafter pardoned A of th e murder.
Held: The pardon refers only to th e crime of murder and does
not have the effect of remitting th e penalty for evasion of the service
of the sentence committed prior to said pardon. (Alvarez vs. Director
of Prisons, 80 Phil. 43)
Amnesty and pardon distinguished.

Pardon includes an y crime and is exercised individually by the
President; amnest y is a blanket pardon to classes of persons or
communities wh o ma y be guilty of political offenses.
2. Pardon is exercise d whe n th e perso n is already convicted;
amnesty ma y be exercised eve n before trial or investigation is
had.
3. Pardon look s forward an d relieve s th e offender from th e
consequences of an offense of whic h he ha s been convicted,
that is, it abolishes or forgives th e punishment , and for that
reason it does work th e restoration of th e rights to hold
public office or th e right of suffrage, unles s such rights be
expressly restored by th e term s On the other
hand, amnest y looks backward and abolishes and puts into
oblivion the offense itself; it so overlooks and obliterates the
offense with which he is charged tha t the person released by
amnest y stand s before th e la w precisely as though he had
committed no offense. et vs. Fernandez, 82
Phil. 642 , 646-647)
Thus -
843
(a) Pardon does not alter the fact that the accused is a recidi•
vist, because it produces the extinction only of the personal
effects penalty. (U.S. vs. Sotelo, 28 Phil. 147, 160)
(b) Amnesty make s an ex-convict no longer a recidivist, be•
cause it obliterates the last vestige crime. (U.S. vs.
Francisco, 10 Phil. 185, 187)
4. Both do not extinguish the civil liability of the offender. (Art.
113)
5. Pardon, being a private act of the President, mus t be pleaded
and proved by the person pardoned; while amnest y being by
Proclamation of the Chief Executive wit h th e concurrence of
Congress, is a public act of which the courts should take judicial
notice. (Barrioquinto, et vs. Fernandez, supra)
By prescription of crime and by prescription of penalty.

By prescription, the State or th e People loses th e right to pros• ecute th
e crime or to demand th e service of the penalty imposed. (Santos vs.
Superintendent, 55 Phil. 345)
Definitions.
Prescription ofthe crime is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to
prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain time.
Prescription of the penalty is th e loss or forfeiture of the right
of the Government to execute th e final sentence after th e lapse of a
certain time.
Two conditions necessary in prescription of penalty.

(a) That there be final judgment.
(b) That th e period of time prescribed by law for its enforce•
men t ha s elapsed.
By the marriage of the offended woman.

Marriage of th e offender wit h th e offended woma n after the
commission of any crimes of rape, seduction, abduction or acts
of as provided in Art. 344 , mus t be contracted by
the offender in good faith. Hence, marriage contracted only to avoid
844
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES Art. 90
criminal liability is devoid of legal effects. (People vs. Santiago, 51

Phil. 68, 70)
Art . 90 . Prescription of crimes. — C r i m e s p u n i s h a b l e by

death , perpetua or temporal sha l l p r e s c r i b e in
t w e n t y y ea r s .
Crime s punishabl e b y othe r afflictiv e penaltie s shal l prescrib e i n
fiftee n years .
Thos e punishabl e b y a correctiona l penalt y shal l prescrib e i n te n
years ; wit h th e exceptio n o f thos e punishabl e b y arresto mayor, whic h shal
l prescrib e i n fiv e years .
Th e crim e o f libe l o r othe r simila r offense s shal l prescrib e i n on e
year .
Th e offense s o f ora l defamatio n an d slande r b y dee d shal l prescrib
e i n si x months .
Ligh t offense s prescrib e i n tw o months .
Whe n th e p e n a l t y f i x e d b y la w i s a c o m p o u n d o ne , th e
h i g h e s t p e n a l t y sha l l b e ma d e th e b a s i s o f th e a p p l i c a t i o n o f
th e r ul e s c o n t a i n e d i n th e first , s e c o n d , an d thi r d p a r a g r a p h s
of thi s a r t ic l e . (As amended by Rep. Act No. 4661)
Rep. Act No. 4661 not applicable to cases already filed in

court prior to June
The provision of this amendatory Act (reducing the prescriptive
period crime of libel or other similar offenses, from two years to
one year) shall not apply to cases of libel already filed in court at the
time of approval of this amendatory Act. (Sec. 2, Rep. Act No. 4661,
approved June 18, 1966)
In computing the period of prescription, the day is to be

excluded and the last day included.
Facts: The accused committed slight physical injuries on May
28, 1953. An information wa s filed on July 27, 1953. This crime, be-
846
Art. 90 PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
a light offense, prescribes in two months according to Art. 90.

The Municipal Court sustained the motion to quash and dismissed
the case, holding that the information wa s filed on the 61st day, not
on the 60th day from May 28, 1953, "the day on which the crime is
discovered by the offended party."
Held: The information should be considered as filed on the 60th day. In
the computation of a period of time withi n whic h an act is to be done, the law
in this jurisdiction ha s always directed that the first day be excluded and th e
las t included. (See Art. 13, Civil Code.)
A month is computed as the regular 30-day month. The running
of the prescriptive period should commence from the day following
the day on which the crime wa s committed. (People vs. Del
97 Phil. 67, 70)
But as regards the month of February of a leap year, February
28 and 29 should be counted as separate days in computing periods
of prescription. (Namarco vs. Tuazon, 29 SCRA 70, cited in People
vs. Ramos, No. L-25644, May 9, 1978, 83 SCRA 1, 13)
Thus, where th e prescriptive period wa s supposed to commence
on December th e filing of th e action on December
wa s done after th e ten-year period had elapsed — since 1960 and
1964 were both leap years, and th e case wa s thu s filed two (2) days
too late.
Rule where the last day of the prescriptive period falls on a

Sunday or legal holiday.
Where th e las t day of th e prescriptiv e period for filing an
information falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, th e information can
no longer be filed on the next day as the crime ha s already prescribed.
vs. No. Jun e SCRA
713)
Prescription of oral defamation and slander by deed.

As to the prescription of oral defamation and slander by deed, distinction
should be made between simple and grave slander. Simple slander prescribes
in two months. Grave slander prescribes in six months. (People vs. Maceda, 73
Phil. 679, 681)
846
Crimes punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding

P200 prescribe in two months.
The lower court ruled tha t the offense charged wa s a light felony
under par. 3 of Art. 9 of th e Revised Penal Code, which, as provided
in Art. 90, prescribes in two months . The Solicitor General cites Art.
26 of the sam e Code and contends tha t inasmuc h as the penalty
imposable under Art. 195 Code is arresto menor, or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos, the n a fine pesos, imposable as a single or
as an alternative penalty, ma y be considered as a correctional penalty
and so under Art. 90, th e offense charged prescribes in ten years and
not two months . This Court ha s already ruled tha t a violation of Art.
195 of th e Revised Pena l Code, punishable wit h arresto menor or a
fine not exceeding is a light felony under Art. 9 of said Code
and prescribes in two months , according to Art. 90, par. 6, of the same
Code. (People vs. Canson, 101 Phil. 537, 538-539, citing People vs. Yu
99 Phil. 725, and People vs . Aquino, 99 Phil. 1059)
Two months in Art. 90, regarding the prescriptive period for light
felonies, mean s 60 days. (People vs . Del 97 Phil. 67, 71)
Penalty for attempted bribery is destierro, which prescribes

in 10 years, being a correctional penalty.
The period of prescription of th e offense of attempted bribery,
penalized with destierro, is 10 according to Article 90, for the
reason that destierro is classified a correctional penalty under Art.
25. vs. 92 Phil. 1042, 1043)
Prescription of crimes punishable by fines.

Fines are also classified as afflictive, correctional, or light pen• alty.
(Art. 26)
The crimes punishable by fines shall prescribe in 15 years, if the
fine is afflictive; or in 10 years, if it is correctional; or in two months,
if the fine is light. The subsidiary penalty for nonpayment fine
should not be considered in determining the period of prescription of
such crimes. (People vs. Basalo, 101 Phil. 57, 61-62)
Note: Since light felony is specifically defined in Art. 9 as an infraction
of the law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding P200 ,
847
or both, is provided, a fine of P20 0 provided for a light felony

should not be considered correctional.
When the penalty is a compound one, the highest penalty is

the basis of the application of the rules in Art. 90.
There is no merit in the contention that the crime of perjury,
which is punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimu m period, ha s already prescribed. Where
the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall,
according to the last paragraph of Art. 90, be made the basis of the
application of the rules contained therein. The penalty for the crime
of perjury being a compound one, the higher of which is correctional,
said crime prescribes in te n years. (People vs. Cruz, 108 Phil. 255,
259)
When fine is an alternative penalty higher than the other

penalty which is by imprisonment — prescription of the crime
is based on the fine.
Unde r Art. 31 9 of th e Code, th e penalt y for th e offense is
arresto mayor or a fine double th e valu e of th e property involved.
The accused sold 80 cavan s of wit h a valu e P320 , whic h he
had mortgaged to th e PNB , withou t th e knowledg e and consent of
th e mortgagee.
Held: The period of prescription applicable is te n years, instead
of five years. True, the offense under Art. 31 9 insofar as it is penalized
with arresto mayor prescribes in five (5) years, but the fine equivalent
to double the amount of the property involved ma y also be imposed
as a penalty, and whe n said imposable penalty is either correctional
or afflictive, it should be made th e basis for determining th e period
of prescription. (People vs. Basalo, 101 Phil. 57, 61)
The ruling in the Basalo case applies even if the penalty is

arresto mayor and fine.
When the penalty prescribed by th e Code is arresto mayor and
fine (Art. 316, par. 2), and th e fine is afflictive to
the fine should be th e basis application of th e rules in Art. 90.
(People vs. G.R. No. Aug. 31 , 1962, 5 SCRA
1048, 1052-1053)
848
Prescriptive periods of offenses punished under special laws

and municipal ordinances.
Act No. 3763 , amendin g Act No. 3326, provides:
Offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for
not more tha n one month, or both, prescribe after 1 year;
2. Offenses punishe d by imprisonmen t for more than one
month, but less than two years — after 4 years;
3. Offenses punished by imprisonment for two years or more
but les s tha n six years — after 8 years;
4. Offenses punished by imprisonment for six years or more
— after 12 years;
5. Offenses under Internal Revenue Law — after 5 years;
6. Violations of municipal ordinances — after 2 months;
7. Violations regulations or conditions of certificate of
convenience by th e Public Service Commission — after 2
months.
Act No. 3326 is not applicable where th e special law provides
for its own prescriptive period. (People vs . Ramos, No. L-25265, May
9, 1978, 83 SCRA 1, 12)
Prescription of violations penalized by special laws and

ordinances — when it begins to run.
Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission
violation law, and if th e sam e be not known at the time,
from the discovery thereof and th e institution of judicial proceedings
for its investigation and punishment. (Sec. 2, Act No. 3326)
When interrupted.
The prescription shall be interrupted whe n proceedings are instituted
against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are
dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. (Sec. 2, Act No. 3326)
Defense of prescription may be raised during the trial or dur•

ing the appeal.
The rule in Section 10, Rule of the Rules of Court (now
Section 9, Rule 117 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure) that
849
if the accused failed to move to quash before pleading, he mus t be

deemed to have waived all objections, which are grounds of a motion
to quash, cannot apply to the defense of prescription, which under
Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code extinguishes criminal liability.
(People vs. Castro, 95 Phil. 462, 464-465)
Prescription, although not invoked in the trial, may be invoked
on appeal. (People vs. Balagtas, 105 Phil. 1362-1363
The accused cannot be convicted of an offense lesser than

that charged if the lesser offense had already prescribed at
the time the information was filed.
Where an accused ha s been found to hav e committed a lesser
offense includible within the offense charged, he cannot be convicted of
the lesser offense, if it ha s already been prescribed. To hold otherwise
would be to sanction th e circumvention of the law on prescription by
the simple expedient of accusing the defendant graver offense.
(Francisco vs. CA, 122 SCRA 545)
People vs. Rarang

(C.A., 62 O.G. 6458)
Facts: Defendant Dominador Rarang was charged with the crime

of grave slander in an information filed on October for having
allegedly proffered and uttered, on or about July slanderous
words and expressions against complainant Fausto Carlos, Jr., such as
natatakot sa inyo, tulisan." He filed a motion to quash
the information on the ground that the crime had prescribed because the
offense alleged in the information, although designated as grave slander,
should properly be classified as slight oral defamation which prescribes
in two months; but said motion, opposed by the prosecution, was denied.
After hearing the evidence, the Court of First Instance of Manila
found that "there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the herein
accused slandered the complainant, as established by the prosecution,
the said offense, however, being slight in nature as it arose from the
heat of anger, the same being defined and penalized under Article 358
of the Revised Penal Code," but instead of dismissing the case, the
Court sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
Held: The accused cannot be convicted of the offense of slight oral
defamation necessarily included in the offense of grave slander charged
850
COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES Art. 91
in the information, where the lesser offense had already prescribed at

the time the information filed.
Prescription does not divest court of jurisdiction; it is a

ground for acquittal of the accused.
When there is a plea of prescription by th e defense and the same
appears from the allegation of th e information or is established, th e court mus
t exercise jurisdiction, not inhibit itself, holding the action to have prescribed
and absolving th e defendant. (Santos vs. Super• intendent, 55 Phil. 345, 349)
Art . 91 . Computation of prescription of offenses. — Th e p er i o d

o f p r e s c r i p t i o n sha l l c o m m e n c e t o ru n fro m th e da y o n w h i c h
th e crim e i s d i s c o v e r e d b y th e o f f e n d e d pa rty , th e a u t ho r it i e s ,
o r t hei r a g e n t s , an d sha l l b e i n t e r r u p t e d b y th e filin g o f th e
c o mp l a i n t o r i n f o r m a t i o n , an d sha l l c o m m e n c e t o ru n a g a i n
w h e n s uc h p r o c e e d i n g s t e r m i n a t e w i t h o u t th e a c c u s e d b e i n g
c o n v i c t e d o r a c q u i t t e d , o r ar e u n j u s t i f i a b l y s t o p p e d fo r an y
r e a s o n no t i m p u t a b l e t o hi m .
Th e o f p r e s c r i p t i o n shal l no t ru n w h e n th e o ffende r
i s a b s e n t fro m th e P h i l i p p i n e A r c h i p e l a g o .
Outline of the provisions:

The period of prescription commences to run from the day
on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the
authorities or their agents.
2. It is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or informa•
tion.
3. . I t co mme nce s t o ru n agai n whe n suc h
proceeding s terminate without the accused being convicted
or acquitted or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason
not imputable to him.
4. The term of prescription shall not run when the offender
is absent from the Philippines.
851
Art. 91 COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES
Illustration of rules Nos. 2 and 3.

A committed serious oral defamation against Ki n March, 1935.
As K came to know of the act complained of only on March 4, 1936,
K filed the complaint on that date.
Because his official duties needed him to be in Mindanao, K wa s not
able to attend the hearing of the case. Upon motion of defendant A, the case
wa s dismissed on January 21 , 1937, without prejudice to the fiscal filing
again the same action.
On February the case wa s revived by the fiscal by filing
a new information. Serious oral defamation prescribes in 6 months.
From wha t date mus t the six-month period be counted?
It mus t be counted from Januar y 21 , 1937. (People vs. Aquino, 68 Phil.
588, 590)
It cannot be counted from March, 1935, whe n th e crime wa s
committed, because it wa s discovered by th e offended party only on
March 4, 1936, and the running of th e period of prescription stopped
on that date by the filing complaint in court. Hence, it mus t be
counted from January because whe n the case wa s dismissed
on that date, the period of prescription commenced to run again. Note
that the proceedings terminated without th e accused being convicted
or acquitted.
The period of prescription commences to run from the date

of commission of crime if it is known at the time of its com•
mission.
Thus, if there is nothing tha t wa s concealed or needed to be
discovered, because th e entire series of transactions wa s by public
instruments, duly recorded, th e crime of estafa committed in connec•
tion with said transactions wa s know n to th e offended party whe n
it wa s committed and th e period of prescription commenced to run
from the date of its commission. (People vs. Dinsay, 40
12th 50)
The offended party had constructive notice of th e forgery after

the deed of sale, where his signature had been falsified, wa s registered
in the Office of th e Register of Deed s on Augus t (Cabral vs.
Puno, No. April 30, 1976, 70 SCRA 606, 609)
852
From the date of commission or from the date of discovery.

The period of prescription of crime commences to run from the
commission of th e offense or its discovery, if the commission of the
same wa s unknown. (People vs. 40 O.G. 2313)
The period of prescription for th e offense of failure to register with the
SS S shall begin from the day of th e discovery of the viola• tion if this wa s not
know n at th e tim e of its commission. A contrary view would be dangerous as
th e successful concealment of an offense during th e period fixed for its
prescription would be th e very mean s by which th e offender ma y escape
punishment . (People vs. Monteiro, G.R. No. 49454, Dec. 21 , 1990, 192 SCRA
548 , 551)
It is discovery of crime, not discovery of offender.

The discovery of th e crime should not be confused wit h the dis• covery
of the offender. The fact tha t th e culprit is unknow n will not prevent the
period of prescription from commencing to run.
It is not necessary tha t th e accused be arrested. (People vs.
Joson, 46 Phil. 380, 384)
Period of prescription of continuing crime never runs.

Facts: The accused wa s charged wit h violation of a municipal
ordinance i n tha t h e constructe d dike s i n navigabl e waterway s
(river and creek) of the public domain without authorization from
the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. The dikes were
constructed in 1939 while th e wa s filed in 1947. Did the crime
prescribe?
Held: The prescriptive period of continuing crime, cannot begin
to run because there could be no termination of continuity and the
crime does not end. The case would have been different had the infor•
mation alleged that the dikes existed until such date obstructing the
course streams, because the crime ended on that date. (Arches
vs. Bellasillo, 81 Phil. 190, 192)
The crime is discovered by the offended party, (2) the

authorities or (3) their agents.
A saw the killing with treachery of B by After the commission
crime, C threw the dead body of B into the river. The dead body
853
of B was never seen again or found. A wa s neither an authority nor an

agent of an authority, nor a relative of B. For 25 years, A kept silent
as to what he witnessed. After 25 years, A revealed to the authorities
that C murdered B.
May C be prosecuted for murde r eve n if 25 year s already elapsed?
Yes, because the period of prescription did not commence to
run. The commission of the crime wa s known only to A, who wa s
not the offended party, an authority or an agent of an authority. It
was discovered by the authorities only whe n A revealed to the m the
Period of prescription was interrupted when preliminary ex•

amination was made by municipal mayor but accused could
not be arrested because he was in hiding.
The accused killed a ma n on Jun e 19, 1911 . Th e municipal
president, who began the preliminary investigation because the justice
of the peace wa s absent, issued a warrant of arrest. The accused
could not be arrested because the y fled to an unknow n place. The
information for homicide wa s filed on Jun e Accused Isidro
Parao wa s captured in July, 1927. Did th e offense prescribe?
Held: No . Th e preliminar y inv e st ig a tio n conducte d by th e
municipal president, in th e absence of th e justic e of th e peace or
auxiliary justice of th e peace, partakes of th e natur e of a judicial
proceeding. Judicial proceedings havin g bee n take n agains t th e
accu and his arrest having been ordered, which could not be carried
into effect on account of his default, th e crime ha s not prescribed.
(People vs. Parao, 52 Phil. 712 , 715)
The crime of homicide prescribed in 15 years under th e old Penal

Code. The proceedings in this case were stopped for reasons imput•
able to the accused, tha t is, the y fled to an unknow n place, makin g
it difficult to arrest the m for further proceedings.
Filing of complaint with the prosecutor's office interrupts

running of period of prescription of offense charged.
Section 1, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides:
854
Institution of criminal actions. — Criminal actions shall

be instituted as follows:
For offenses wher e a preliminary investigation is required
pursuant to Section 1 of Rule by filing the complaint
with th e proper officer for th e purposes of conducting the
requisite preliminary investigation;
(b) For all other offenses, by filing th e complaint or information
directly wit h th e Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts or th e complaint with the office of
th e prosecutor. In Manila and other chartered cities, the
complaint shall be filed wit h th e office of the prosecutor
unles s otherwise provided in their charters.
The institution of th e criminal action shall interrupt the period
of prescription of th e offense charged unles s otherwise provided in
special (Emphasi s supplied.)
The of the complaint in the municipal court, even if it be

merely for purposes of preliminary examination or investiga•
tion, interrupts the period of prescription.
In view of thi s diversity of precedents, and in order to provide
guidance for Bench and Bar, this Court ha s re-examined the question
and, after mature consideration, ha s arrived at the conclusion that the
true doctrine is, and should be, th e one established by the decisions
holding that the filing of th e complaint in the Municipal Court, even if
it be merely for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation,
should, and does, interrupt th e period of prescription of the criminal
responsibility, even if the court where the complaint or information is
filed can not try the case on its merits. Several reasons buttress this
conclusion: first, th e text of Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, in
declaring that the period of prescription "shall be interrupted by the
filing complaint or information" without distinguishing whether
the complaint is filed in the court for preliminary examination or
investigation merely, or for action on the merits. Second, even if the
court where the complaint or information is filed may only proceed to
investigate the case, its actuations already represent the initial step
proceedings against the offender. Third, it is unjust to deprive
the injured party of the right to obtain vindication on account of de•
lays that are not under his control. All that the victim offense
855
may do on his part to initiate the prosecution is to file the requisite

complaint.
And it is no argument that Article 91 also expresses that the
interrupted prescription "shall commence to run again when such pro•
ceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or
thereby indicating that the court in which the complaint or information
is filed must have power to acquit or convict the accused.
Precisely, the trial on the merits usually terminates in convic• tion or
acquittal, not otherwise. Bu t it is in the court conducting a preliminary
investigation wher e th e proceedings ma y terminat e without conviction or
acquittal, if th e court should discharge the ac• cused because no prima facie
case ha s been shown.
Considering the foregoing reasons, th e Court hereby overrules
the doctrine cases of People vs. Del Rosario, Decem•
ber 29, 1960, and People vs. Coquia, promulgated Jun e 29 ,
1963. (People vs. No. Feb. 28 , 1967, 19 SCRA 494,
500-501)
The complaint or information that will interrupt the period

of prescription must be the proper information or complaint
corresponding to the offense.
On April 1, 1959, Felipe Abuy wa s charged in th e Municipal
Court of Zamboanga City wit h th e crime of trespas s to dwelling com•
mitted against Carpio. Upo n motion of th e prosecution, the
case wa s dismissed on th e ground that th e evidence so far presented
would not sustai n accused's conviction. Subsequently, on Nov. 13,
1959, Abuy wa s charged before th e sam e court wit h th e crime of un•
jus t vexation committed on the person of Michaela de Magadia. Abuy
filed a motion to quash the information on th e ground of prescription.
The court sustained th e motion.
The complaint or information that will interrupt the period mus t

be th e proper information or complaint corresponding to th e offense.
the first information wa s for trespas s to dwelling, th e element s
of which are entirely different from th e element s of th e offense of
unjust vexation. There is nothing to show that th e two offenses are
related to each other. Consequently, th e filing of one does not inter•
rupt the prescriptive period as to th e other. (People vs. Abuy, G.R.
No. May 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 222 , 226-227)
856
Effect of amended complaint or information upon period

of prescription.
If th e original complain t or information is filed withi n th e
prescriptive period and th e a mendmen t wa s made after said period,
a distinctio n shoul d be mad e bet w e e n a ne w and different act
complained of and mere correction or ne w specifications to amplify
and give greater precision to th e allegations in support of the cause
originally presented.
If it is merely a correction of a defect, the date of the original
complaint or information should be considered. (LTB vs. Ramos, G.R.
No. 41399, 9, 1934)
The filing of the information in the court of Batangas for

estafa, even if erroneous, because it had no territorial
jurisdiction over the offense charged, tolls the running of
the prescriptive period of the crime, since the jurisdiction
of a court is determined in criminal cases by the allegations
of the complaint or information, and not by the result of
proof.
In a case , respo nden t judge , in s u s t a i n i n g th e groun d of
prescription, ruled that there wa s no interruption of th e prescriptive
period during the pendency of th e case in hi s court, because it had
no territorial jurisdiction over the offense charged, and that
proceedings contemplated by Article are proceedings which are
valid and before a competent court."
Held: Settle d is th e rule tha t th e jurisdiction of a court is
determined in criminal case s by th e allegations of the complaint
or information, and not by th e resul t of proof. It follows that the
Batangas court wa s vested wit h lawful jurisdiction over the criminal
complaint filed wit h it, which expressly alleged that the offense wa s
committed "in the Municipality of Batangas , Province of Batangas,"
and that the proceedings therein were valid and before a competent
court, until the same court issue d its order, dismissing the case and
declaring itself without territorial jurisdiction on the basis of the
evidence presented to it by both the prosecution and the accused.
(People vs. Galano, No. L-42925, Jan . 31 , 1977, 75 SCRA 193,
198)
857
"Proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted

or acquitted."
In the case of People vs. Aquino, 68 Phil. 588, 590, whe n the
case wa s dismissed upon petition of accused Aquino, th e proceeding
terminated without the accused being convicted or acquitted. The
period of prescription commenced to run again.
Suppose, the case wa s dismissed without the consent or over
the objection of the accused who had already been arraigned?
In this case, th e dismissal is final. A cannot be prosecuted any more for
the same offense, even within th e prescriptive period, on the ground of double
jeopardy.
The termination of a criminal case contemplated in Article

91 on prescription of crimes refers to a termination that is
as to amount to a jeopardy that would bar a subsequent
prosecution.
One wa s charged wit h th e crime of grave oral defama•
tion which wa s discovered on December 15, 1973. The information
wa s filed in court on Januar y On March th e court,
on motion to dismiss, issue d an order of dismissal, on th e
ground that the preliminary investigation conducted by th e fiscal
did not comply wit h th e requirements of Presidential Decree No. 77.
Lauron had not been arraigned. The case wa s refiled in court under
a ne w information on March Th e crime of grave oral defama•
tion prescribes in six months .
Said th e Supreme Court:

"We hold tha t th e terminatio n of a criminal case
contemplated in Article refers to a termination that is
final, in th e sens e of being beyond reconsideration, as in
th e case s of an unappealed conviction or an acquittal."
Comment: Article provides tha t th e period of prescription (of
offenses) "shall commence to run again whe n such proceedings (the
filing complaint or information) terminate without the accused
being convicted or (italics supplied)
If th e "termination x x x refers to a termination tha t is final, x x
x as in the cases of an unappealed conviction or an acquittal," there
858
would be no occasion to speak of prescription of offenses, no matter how long a

time ha s elapsed, because th e accused is already convicted (and he does not
appeal) or acquitted.
Article 91 ma y be considered only whe n the accused, who invokes
it, is being charged with and prosecuted for an offense that allegedly
ha s already prescribed. If the proceedings, which began with the filing
of th e complaint or information, terminat e in th e conviction of the
accused or in his acquittal (the termination being final), how ma y the
question of prescription arise? Or, wha t period of prescription
commence to run again?"
This is wh y th e la w "without th e accused being convicted
or acquitted." In suc h case, th e accused ma y still be prosecuted,
but wit h th e previous terminatio n of th e proceedings, th e question
of prescription ma y still arise, becaus e th e period of prescription
ran again. At th e tim e of th e ne w prosecution, th e crime ma y hav e
already prescribed.
"Or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable

to him."
Thus, if the proceedings are stopped for a reason imputable to the
accused, the period of prescription does not commence to run again.
Example:
Whe n the accused ha s evaded arrest and th e case ha s to be ar•
chived by the court, th e proceedings are stopped because fault
of the accused. The case cannot be tried if he is not present.
(See also the case People vs. Parao, 52 Phil. 712)
The term of prescription does not run when the offender is

absent from the Philippines.
A published a libel in a newspaper and immediately left for Hongkong
where he remained for three years. Later, he returned to the Philippines. Can
A be prosecuted for libel upon his return to his country?
Yes, because the crime of libel did not prescribe. A was absent from the
Philippines during the period when the crime would have prescribed.
859
Prescription of election offenses — if discovery of offense

is incidental to judicial proceedings, prescription begins
when such proceeding terminates; otherwise, (2) from date
of commission of offense.
If the discovery of the offense is incidental to judicial proceed• ings in
election contest, prescription begins whe n such proceedings terminate.
But, if the falsification committed by the inspectors in connection
with the counting of the votes and the preparation of election returns
wa s known to the protestants and their election watchers before the
filing of the election protests, the period of prescription began from
the date of the commission of the offense. (People vs. 56 Phil.
109, 114)
Art. 91 may apply when a special law, while providing a pre•

scriptive period, does not prescribe any rule for the applica•
tion of that period.
Thus, in a case where the accused is prosecuted for violation
of the Usury Law, there being no rule in Act No. 476 3 regarding
the enforcement of the period of prescription established thereby,
pursuant to Article 10 of th e Revised Pena l Code, the rule provided
for in Article 91 of said Code shall be applied, according to which the
period of prescription of crimes shall commence to ru n from th e time
of the perpetration of th e offense and in case th e commission of th e
sam e is unknown, from th e day on which th e crime is discovered by
the offended party, the authorities or their agents. (People vs.
C.A., 40 O.G. 2313)
Prescription of the offense of false testimony — from time

principal case is finally decided.
With regard to the crime of false testimony against the defendant
(Art. 180), considering tha t th e penalties provided therefor are made
to depend upon the conviction or acquittal of th e defendant in the
principal case, the act of testifying falsely does not therefore consti•
tute an actionable offense until th e principal case is finally decided.
And before an act becomes a punishable offense, it cannot possibly
be discovered as such by the offended party, th e authorities or their
agents. (People vs. Maneja, 72 Phil. 256, 257-258)
860
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES Art. 92
This is true only whe n th e false testimony is against the defend•

ant. As regards false testimon y in favor of th e defendant, there is a
specific penalty which does not depend on th e conviction or acquittal
defendant. (Art. 181)
Art . 92 . When and how penalties — Th e p e n a l t i e s

i m p o s e d b y fina l s e n t e n c e p r e s c r i b e a s f o l lo w s :
1. . D e a t h an d reclusion perpetua, i n t w e n t y
y ea rs ; 2 . O t h e r a ff lict iv e p e n a l t i e s , i n fiftee n
years ;
3 . C o r r e c t i o n a l p e n a l t i e s , i n te n y e a r s , w i t h th e e x c e p •
t io n o f th e p e n a l t y o f arresto mayor, w h i c h p r e s c r i b e s i n fiv e
y ea rs ;
4. L i g h t p e n a l t i e s , i n on e y e a r .
The penalties must be imposed by final sentence.

Note th e first sentence of thi s article which specifically requires that the
penalties mus t be "imposed by final sentence." Hence, if the convict appealed
and thereafter fled to the mountains, the penalty imposed upon him would
never prescribe, because pending the appeal, the sentence is not final.
In prescription of crimes, it is the penalty prescribed by law

that should be considered; in prescription of penalties, it is
the penalty imposed that should be considered.
A committed the crime of falsification punishable by
mayor. Twelve years elapsed since the crime wa s discovered by the
authorities. Then, the fiscal filed an information for falsification. A was
arrested and prosecuted. During the trial, A proved two mitigating
circumstances without any aggravating circumstance. Did the crime
prescribe?
No, because although the proper penalty to be imposed is prision
correccional, the penalty one degree lower, in view of the privileged
mitigating circumstance (Art. 64, par. 5), is the penalty of prision
mayor which is prescribed by the law for the crime that should be
861
Art. 92 PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
considered. Art. 90 use s the words, punishable Hence,

the crime did not prescribe, because the time that elapsed is not more
than 15 years.
But suppose that in the same problem, A commenced to serve
the sentence and after a month, he escaped and remained at large for
twelve years, in case he is captured thereafter, can he be required to
serve the remaining period of hi s sentence? No, because the penalty
correccional already prescribed. Art. 92 use s the words
penalties imposed by final
Fine as a light penalty.

Under Art. 26, a fine of les s tha n is a light penalty, and
if not less tha n it is a correctional penalty. Unde r Art. 9, par.
3, a light felony is punishable by a light penalty, whos e fine does not
exceed Under Art. 90, light offenses prescribe in two months. If
the fine imposed be exactly should it prescribe in two month s
as a light penalty or in te n years as correctional penalty?
In the case of People vs. Hu Hai @ Haya, 99 Phil. 725, 727,
the Supreme Court held tha t wher e th e questio n a t issu e i s th e
prescription of a crime and not th e prescription of a penalty, Art.
9 should prevail over Art. 26. Art. 26 ha s nothin g to do wit h th e
definition of offenses but merely classifies fine whe n imposed as a
principal penalty.
Illustrations:
A committed a crime for whic h th e la w provides a fine of

as a penalty. What is th e prescriptive period of th e crime? Two
The issue here is not the prescription of penalty, because
there is no final sentence and A ha s not evaded th e sentence.
Art. 9 shall prevail. Since th e fine does not exceed th e
crime committed is a light felony.
2. Bu t suppose tha t A wa s convicted, he could not pay th e fine of
and wa s made to serve subsidiary imprisonment. Then,
while serving subsidiary imprisonment, he escaped, thereby
evading the service of hi s sentence. What is th e prescriptive
period? Ten years. The issu e here is prescription of penalty.
Art. 26 prevails. Since th e fine is not les s tha n P200 , it is a cor•
rectional penalty.
862
COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES Art. 93
The subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of the fine is im•

material.
A fine of being a correctional penalty, prescribes in 10
years. That the subsidiary imprisonment could not exceed six months
is immaterial. (People vs . Salazar, 98 Phil. 663 , 665)
Art . 93. Computation prescription of penalties. — Th e

p e r i o d o f p r e s c r i p t i o n o f p e n a l t i e s s ha l l c o m m e n c e t o ru n
fro m th e dat e w h e n th e culpr i t s h o u l d e v a d e th e s e rv i c e o f hi s
s e n t e n c e , an d i t s ha l l b e i n t e r r u p t e d i f th e d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d
g iv e h i ms e l f up , b e c a p t u r e d , s h o u l d g o t o so m e f o r ei g n coun •
tr y w it h w h i c h t hi s G o v e r n m e n t ha s n o e x t r a d i t i o n treaty ,
o r s h o u l d c o m m i t a n o t h e r c r i m e b e f o r e th e e x p i r a t i o n o f th e
perio d o f prescriptio n .

The period of prescription of penalties commences to run from
the date whe n th e culprit evaded the service of hi s sentence.
2. It is interrupted if th e convict —
(1) Gives himsel f up,
(2) Be captured,
(3) Goes to a foreign country wit h which we have no extradi•
tion treaty, or
(4) Commits another crime before the expiration of the period
of prescription.
The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to
run again whe n the convict escapes again, after having been
captured and returned to prison.
Elements:
1. That the penalty is imposed by final sentence;
That the convict evaded the service of the sentence by escaping during
the term of his sentence;
863
Art. 93 COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
3. That the convict who escaped from prison has not given himself
up, or been captured, or gone to a foreign country with which
we have no extradition treaty, or committed another crime;
4. That the penalty ha s prescribed, because of the lapse of time
from the date of the evasion of the service of the sentence by the
convict.
Evasion of the service of the sentence is an essential element

of prescription of penalties.
According to Art. 93, the period of prescription of penalties commences
to run from the date whe n the culprit should evade the service of his sentence.
Infante vs. Warden

(92 Phil. 310)
Facts: In this case, the accused was convicted of murder and
sentenced to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusidn temporal. After
serving 15 years, 7 months and 11 days, on March 6, 1939, he was
granted a conditional pardon. The condition of his pardon was that he
should not commit any crime in the future. On April 25, 1949, he was
found guilty of driving without license. He was committed to prison
for violation of said conditional pardon. Between March 6, 1939, and
April 25, 1949, more than 10 years elapsed.
The accused interposed the defense of prescription, contending
that since the remitted portion of his original penalty was less than 6
years (like correccional), the prescriptive period of that penalty
was only 10 years.
Held: The defense of prescription will not prosper because there
was no evasion of the service sentence. There was no evasion of the
service sentence in this case, because such evasion presupposes
escaping during the service of the sentence consisting in deprivation
of liberty.
Period of prescription that ran during the time the convict

evaded service of sentence is not forfeited upon his capture.
The period of prescription tha t ran during th e evasion is not
forfeited, so that if the culprit is captured and evades again the service
of his sentence, the period of prescription tha t ha s run in his favor
should be taken into account. (Albert)
864
COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES Art. 93
Example :
A committed a crime by prision correccional. He wa s
convicted after trial. While serving sentence for one month, A escaped.
He remained at large for 5 years. Then, he wa s captured. After staying
in prison for two months , he escaped again and remained at large for
6 years. In this case, if captured again, A cannot be required to serve
the remaining portion of his sentence, because th e penalty prision
correccional prescribes in te n years. On two occasions, A evaded the
service of his sentence for a total of eleven years.
"Should go to some foreign country with which this Govern•

ment has no extradition treaty."
Suppose the Government ha s extradition treaty with the country to
which the offender escaped, but the crime committed is not included in the
treaty, will tha t fact interrupt the running of th e prescriptive period?
It is believed tha t it would interrupt th e running prescrip•
tive period.
"Should commit another crime before the expiration of the

period of prescription."
Thus, if A, sentenced to suffer 4 month s and days of
mayor, escaped from jail and remained at large for 4 years, months
and 28 days, but on the next day he committed theft and wa s arrested
6 months after, A can be required to serve th e remaining period of
his sentence of 4 month s and days. The reason is that A commit•
ted a crime (theft) before the expiration of five years, the period of
prescription of th e penalty of arresto mayor.
Evading the service of the sentence is not committing a

crime before the expiration of the period of prescription of
penalties.
It has been asked whether or not the evasion of the service of
the sentence, being in itself a crime (Art. 157), should interrupt the
running period of prescription of penalties.
The clause commit another crime before the expiration
of the period of prescription" refers to crime committed when the
865
Art. 93 COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
period of prescription ha s already commenced to run. On the other

hand, Art. 93 specifically provides that period of prescription
of penalties shall commence to run from the date whe n the culprit
should evade the service of his
Hence, this evasion of the service sentence, which is a requi•
site in the prescription of penalties, must necessarily take place before
the running of the period of prescription and cannot interrupt it.
Acceptance of conditional pardon interrupts the prescriptive

period.
The acceptance of a conditional pardon also interrupts th e
prescriptive period, likening such acceptance to the case of one who
flees from this jurisdiction. (People vs. Puntillas, G.R. No. 45269 ,
Jun e 15, 1938)
Reason why evasion of service of sentence is taken in favor

of the convict in prescription of penalties.
"If a convict unde r confinement, at th e risk of bein g killed,
succeeds in breaking jail and also succeeds in evading re-arrest for a
certain period of tim e which by no mean s is short, despite th e efforts
of all the instrumentalitie s of th e Government including so metime s
the setting of a prize or reward on hi s head, which thereby enlist s th e
aid citizenry, th e la w calls off th e search for him, and condones
the penalty. Bu t during that period of prescription th e escaped convict
lives a life of a hunte d animal, hiding mostly in th e mountain s and
forests in constant mortal fear of being caught. Hi s life far from being
happy, comfortable and peaceful is reduced to a mere existence filled
with fear, discomfort, loneliness and misery. As th e distinguished
penal law commentator Viada said, th e convict wh o evade s sentence
is so metimes sufficiently punishe d by hi s voluntary and self-imposed
banishment , and at times , tha t voluntar y exile is more grievous
tha n the sentence he wa s trying to avoid. (Viada y Villaseca, Codigo
Penal, Vol. p. 41 , 5t h ed.) And all th e tim e he ha s to utilize every
ingenuity and mean s to outwit th e Government agencies bent on
recapturing him. For all this, th e Government extend s to hi m a sort
of condonation or (Infante vs. Provincial Warden, 92 Phil.
310, 325, Concurring and Dissentin g Opinion of Montemayor, J.)
866
Chapter Two
PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
Art . 94 . Partial extinction of criminal liability. — C r i mi n a l

liabilit y is e x t i n g u i s h e d partially :
By conditiona l pardon ;
2. B y c o m m u t a t i o n o f th e s e n t e n c e ; an d
3 . Fo r g o o d c o n d u c t a l l o w a n c e s w h i c h th e c u l p r i t ma y
ear n w h i l e h e i s s e r v i n g hi s s e n t e n c e .
Nature of conditional pardon.

Conditional pardon delivered and accepted is considered a con• tract
betwee n th e sovereign power of th e executive and the convict that th e
former will releas e th e latter upon compliance with the condition.
Usual condition imposed upon the convict in conditional

pardon.
In conditional pardon, th e condition usually imposed upon the
convict is that shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the
Philippines."
Commutation of sentence.
It is a change of the decision of th e court made by the Chief
Executive by reducing the degree of the penalty inflicted upon the
convict, or by decreasing the length imprisonment or the amount
of the fine.
867
Art. 94 PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Specific cases where commutation is provided for by the

Code.
1. When the convict sentenced to death is over 70 years of
age. (Art. 83)
2. When eight justices of the Supreme Court fail to reach a
decision for the affirmance of the death penalty.
In either case, the degree of the penalty is reduced from death
to reclusion perpetua.
In commutation of sentence, consent offender is not neces•
sary. The public welfare, not his consent, determines wha t shall be
done. (Biddle vs. 274 U.S. 480)
For good conduct allowances.

Allowances for good conduct are deductions from th e term of th e
sentence for good behavior. (Art. 97)
This is different from tha t provided in Art. 29 whic h is an extraordinary
reduction of full tim e or four-fifths of th e preventive imprisonment from th e
term of th e sentence.
A prisoner is also entitled to special tim e allowance for
(Art. 98) A deduction of 1/5 of th e period of hi s sentence is granted to
a loyal prisoner. (See Art. 158.)
Parole should be added as No. 4 in the enumeration of causes

of partial extinction of criminal liability.
The parole granted to a convict by th e Parole Board should be added. A
parole may be granted to a prisoner after serving th e mini• mu m penalty
under th e Indeterminate Sentenc e Law.
of parole.
Parole consists in th e suspension of th e sentence of a convict af•
ter serving th e minimu m term of th e indeterminate penalty, without
granting a pardon, prescribing th e term s upon which th e sentence
shall be suspended.
If th e convict fails to observe th e conditions of th e parole, the

Board of Pardons and Parole is authorized to direct hi s arrest and
868
CONDITIONAL PARDON Art. 95
return to custody and thereafter to carry out his sentence without

deduction time that ha s elapsed betwee n the date parole
and the subsequent arrest.
Is conviction necessary to revoke parole?

The mere commission , no t convictio n by th e court, of any crime is
sufficient to warrant parolee's arrest and reincarceration. (Guevara)
In a petitio n for habeas corpus, it wa s contended tha t th e
recommitment order wa s premature, because it came down before
his convictions of th e series of estafa committed by hi m during the
period of the parole. It wa s held tha t it wa s now rather academic,
even assumin g tha t final conviction is necessary in order to constitute
a violation of th e condition parole. vs. Director, 80
Phil. 187, 189)
Conditional pardon distinguished from parole.

1. Conditional pardon, which ma y be given at any time after final
judgment, is granted by the Chief Executive under the provisions
of th e Administrative Code; parole, which ma y be given after
the prisoner ha s served th e minimu m penalty, is granted by
the Board of Pardons and Parole under the provision of the
Indeterminate Sentenc e Law.
2. For violation of th e conditional pardon, th e convict ma y be
ordered rearrested or reincarcerated by th e Chief Executive, or
may be prosecuted under Art. 159 of the Code; for violation of
the terms of the parole, th e convict cannot be prosecuted under
Art. 159. He can be rearrested and reincarcerated to serve the
unserved portion of his original penalty.
Art. 95 . Obligation incurred by a person granted conditional

pardon. — An y p e r s o n wh o ha s b e e n g r a n t e d c o n d i t i o n a l par •
do n shal l inc u r th e o b l i g a t i o n o f c o m p l y i n g strictl y wit h th e
c o n d i t i o n s i m p o s e d t h e r e i n , o t h e r w i s e , hi s n o n c o m p l i a n c e
w it h an y o f th e c o n d i t i o n s specif ie d shal l resul t i n th e revoca •
tio n o f th e p a r do n an d th e p r o v i s i o n s o f Articl e shal l b e
a pp li e d t o him .
869
Art. 96 COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE

1. He must comply strictly with the conditions imposed in the
pardon.
2. . Failur e t o comply wit h th e condition s shal l resul t i n
th e revocation of the pardon. Under Sec. 64(i), R.A.C., the
Chief Executive may order his arrest and reincarceration.
(People vs. Aglahi, 61 Phil. 233, 235)
3. He becomes liable under Art. 159. This is th e judicial remedy.
Condition of pardon is limited to the unserved portion of the

sentence, unless an intention to extend it beyond that time
is manifest.
The duration of the conditions subsequent, annexed to a pardon, would
be limited to the period of th e prisoner's sentence, unles s an intention to
extend it beyond th e term of hi s sentence wa s manifest from the nature of the
condition or th e languag e in which it wa s imposed. (Infante vs. Warden, 92
Phil. 310, 314)
Illustration:
Thus, if a convict wa s sentenced to 12 years and 1 day
as the ma ximu m term of th e indeterminat e penalty, and
after servin g 5 year s he wa s grante d a conditional pardon, th e
condition being tha t he should not commit an y crime in th e future,
that condition mus t be complied wit h by hi m until th e end of th e 7
years from the grant of th e conditional pardon, it being th e unserved
portion of his sentence. If he commits a crime after th e expiration of
the 7 years, he is not liable for violation of th e conditional pardon.
The condition of the pardon is no longer operative whe n he commits
a new offense.
But if he commits a crime before th e expiration of th e 7 years,

he is liable for violation of the conditional pardon.
Art . 96 . Effect of commutation — Th e c o m m u t a t i o n

o f th e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c e fo r a n o t h e r o f a d iff e r e n t l e n g t h an d
n a t u r e sha l l ha v e th e leg a l ef f ec t o f s u b s t i t u t i n g th e latte r i n
th e pla c e o f th e f o r mer .
870
ALLOWANCE FOR GOOD CONDUCT Art. 97
Art . 97 . Allowance good conduct. — Th e g o o d c o n d u c t of

an y p r i s o n e r i n an y p e n a l i n s t i t u t i o n sha l l e n t i t l e hi m t o th e
f o l l o w i n g d e d u c t i o n s f ro m th e p e r i o d o f hi s s e n t e n c e :
D u r i n g th e firs t tw o y e a r s o f i mp r i s o n ment , h e shal l
b e a l lo w e d a d e d u c t i o n o f fiv e da y s fo r ea c h mo nt h o f goo d be •
havior ;
2 . D u r i n g th e t h i r d t o th e f if t h y ea r , i n c l u s i v e , o f hi s
i m p r i s o n m e n t , h e s ha l l b e a l l o w e d a d e d u c t i o n o f e ig h t day s
fo r ea c h mo n t h o f g o o d b e h a v i o r ;
3 . D u r i n g th e f o l l o w i n g y e a r s u n ti l th e t e n t h y ea r , in •
c l u s i v e , o f hi s i m p r i s o n m e n t , h e s ha l l b e a l l o w e d a d e d u c t i o n
o f te n da y s fo r e a c h m o n t h o f g o o d b e h a v i o r ; an d
4 . D u r i n g th e e l e v e n t h an d s u c c e s s i v e y e a r s o f hi s im •
p r i s o n m e n t , h e sha l l b e a l l o w e d a d e d u c t i o n o f f if te e n day s
fo r ea c h mo n t h o f g o o d b e h a v i o r .
Application of the provisions of Art. 97.

The release of appellee Ta n by the provincial warden, after an
imprisonment of only 2 years, 8 month s and 21 days, wa s premature.
Under paragraph No. 1, Article 97 Revised Penal Code, he may
be allowed a deduction of five (5) days for each month of good behavior
during his first two years of imprisonment, which would be 24 months
multiplied by 5, or 120 days; under paragraph No. 2, he may be allowed
a deduction of eight (8) days a month for the next three years. For the
balance of eight (8) months, multiplied by 8, we have 64 days; so that
the total credit for good behavior would be 184 days, equivalent to 6
months and 4 days. The prisoner's actual confinement of 2 years, 8
months and 21 days, plus his possible total credit of 6 months and 4
days, would give th e result of 3 years, 2 month s and 25 days. Since
the maximum term of hi s sentence is 4 years and 2 months, appellee
Tan ha s an unserved portion of 11 months and 5 days. (People vs.
Tan, No. Feb. 25, 1967, 19 SCRA 433, 437)
No allowance for good conduct while prisoner is released

under conditional pardon.
The reason is that the good conduct time allowance is given
in consideration of the good conduct observed by the prisoner while
871
Art. 98 ALLOWANCE FOR LOYALTY
serving his sentence. In this case, the accused wa s enjoying liberty

under a conditional He wa s not serving the remitted penalty
in prison. (People vs. Martin, 68 Phil. 122, 125)
By a consideration of the terms of Article 97 alone, and also in
conjunction with other parts of the Revised Penal Code, the phrase
prisoner" in Article 97 thereof is to be regarded as referring only
to a prisoner serving sentence. (Baking vs. Director of Prisons, No. L-
30603, July 28, 1969, 28 SCRA 851 , 860)
Art . 98 . Special time allowance for loyalty. — A d e d u c t i o n of

on e fifth o f th e p e r i o d o f hi s s e n t e n c e sha l l b e g r a n t e d t o an y
p r i s o n e r w ho , h a v i n g e v a d e d th e s e r v i c e o f hi s s e n t e n c e un •
de r th e c i r c u m s t a n c e s m e n t i o n e d i n A rt i c l e 15 8 o f thi s Code ,
g i v e s h i ms e l f u p t o th e a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h i n 4 8 h o u r s f o l l o w i n g
th e i s s u a n c e o f a p r o c l a m a t i o n a n n o u n c i n g th e p a s s i n g a w a y
o f th e c a l a m i t y o r c a t a s t r o p h e r e f e r r e d t o i n sa i d a r ti c l e .
What is special time allowance for loyalty of prisoner?

It is a deduction of 1/5 of th e period sentence of a prisoner
who, having evaded th e service of his sentenc e during the calamity
o r catastroph e ment io ne d i n Art. 158 , give s hi msel f u p t o th e
authorities within 48 hours following the issuance proclamation
by the President announcing the passin g awa y of th e calamity or
catastrophe.
The deduction of one-fifth is based on the original sentence.

While this article mentions "the period of his sentence," it should be
understood that the convict is to be credited for loyalty with 1/5 of his original
sentence, not of the unexpired portion of his sentence.
Art. provides for increased penalty.

Under Art. 158, a convict who evaded th e service of his sentence by
leaving the penal institution where he had been confined, on th e occasion of
disorder resultin g from a conflagration, earthquake , explosion or similar
catastrophe or during a mutin y in which he did
872
WHO GRANTS TIME ALLOWANCE Art. 99
not participate, is liable to an increased penalty of the time still

remaining to be served — not to exceed 6 months), if he fails to give
himself up to the authorities withi n hours following the
issuance of a proclamation by th e Chief Executive announcing the
passing away of the calamity.
Art . 99 . Who grants time allowance. — W h e n e v e r l a w f u l l y

j ustified , th e D i r e c t o r o f P r i s o n s sha l l g r a n t a l l o w a n c e s fo r
g o o d c o n d u c t . S u c h a l l o w a n c e s o n c e g r a n t e d sha l l no t b e
r e v o ke d .
The allowance for good conduct is not an automatic right. It

mus t be granted by th e Director of Prisons.
Allowances for good conduct once granted by the Director of Prisons
cannot be revoked by him.
The authority to grant time allowance is exclusively vested

in the Director.
There is no justification for th e provincial warden's usurping the
authority Director of Prisons in crediting the prisoner with good
conduct time allowance. Such authority is exclusively vested in the
Director. (People vs. Tan, G.R. No. Feb. SCRA
873
Title Five
CIVIL LIABILITY
Chapter One
PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
A s a genera l rule , a n offens e c a u s e s tw o cla s se s o f injuries :

Social injury, produced by the disturbance and alarm which are
th e outcome of th e offense.
2 Personal injury, caused to th e victim crime wh o ma y
have suffered damage, either to hi s person, to hi s property,
to his honor, or to her chastity.
The social injury is sought to be repaired through th e imposi• tion of the

corresponding penalty; whil e th e personal injury, through indemnity, which
is civil in nature.
Art . 100 . Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — E v e r y

p e r s o n c r i m i n a l l y lia b l e fo r a f e l o n y i s als o ci v i l l y lia ble .
Civil liability arising from offenses.

Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage
to another, shall indemnify th e latter for th e same . (Article 20, Ne w Civil
Code)
Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses shall be governed by the

penal laws. (Article 1161 , Ne w Civil Code)
The civil liability arising from negligence under th e Revised
Penal Code is entirely separate and distinct from th e responsibility
for fault or negligence called a quasi-delict. (Article 2176, Ne w Civil
874
CIVIL LIABILITY Art. 100
Code) But the party claiming pay men t for th e damage done cannot
recover twice for the sam e omission of the defendant. (Article
Ne w Civil Code)
Thus, if A wa s convicted of serious physical injuries through
negligence under the Revised Pena l Code, and B, th e injured party,
wa s indemnified in th e criminal case for th e damage s caused to him,
the latter cannot recover da mage s in a separate civil action for the
sam e act or omission of A.
Civil liability under th e Revised Penal Code includes restitu•
tion, (2) reparation of th e damag e caused, and (3) indemnification for
consequential da mages . (Article 104, Revised Penal Code)
Basis of civil liability.

Underlying th e legal principle tha t a person who is criminally
liable is also civilly liable is th e vie w tha t from th e standpoint of its
effects, a crime ha s dual character: (1) as an offense against the state
because of the disturbance social order; and (2) as an offense
against the private person injured by th e crime unles s it involves the
crime of treason, rebellion, espionage, contempt and others wherein no
civil liability arises on th e part of the either because there are
no damages to be compensated or there is no private person injured by
the crime. In the ultimate analysis, wha t gives rise to the civil liability
is really the obligation of everyone to repair or to make whole the
damage caused to another by reason of hi s act or omission, whether
done intentionally or negligently and whethe r or not punishable by
law. (Occena vs. G.R. No. 82146, Jan . 22, 1990, 181 SCRA
328, 333)
Damages that may be recovered in criminal cases.

In crimes against property, damages based on the price of the thing and
its special sentimental value to th e injured party may be recovered, if the
thing itself cannot be restored. (Article 106, in relation to Article 105, Revised
Penal Code)
In crimes against persons, like the crime of physical injuries,
the injured party is entitled to be paid for whatever he spent for the
treatment of his wounds, doctor's fees, and for medicine, as well as
the salary or wages unearned by him because of his inability to work
due to his injuries.
875
Art. 100 CIVIL LIABILITY
Damages may also be recovered for loss or impairment earning

capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury. (Article
2205, new Civil Code)
Moral damages may be recovered in a criminal offense result•
ing in physical injuries, in the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape
or other lascivious acts, adultery or concubinage, illegal or arbitrary
detention or arrest, illegal search, libel, slander or any other form of
defamation, and in malicious prosecution. (Article 2219, ne w Civil
Code)
Exemplary damages as a part of th e civil liability ma y be im• posed
whe n the crime wa s committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.
(Article 2230, new Civil Code)
Damages for death caused by a crime hav e bee n raise d to
(People vs. Ravelo, G.R. Nos . 78781-82, Oct. 15, 1992,
202 SCRA 655, 673 People vs. Velaga, G.R. No. 87202 ,
July 23, 1991, 199 SCRA 518, 524 and in addition:
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning
capacity of the deceased, unles s th e deceased, on account
of permanen t physical disability not caused by th e defend•
ant, had no earning capacity;
(2) He shall be liable to give support the deceased was obliged
to give support under Article 291 ne w Civil Code, to
one not an heir of th e deceased;
(3) He shall pay moral damages for menta l anguis h to the
spouse , l eg it i ma t e an d il leg iti ma t e d e s c e n d a n t s an d
ascendants. (Article 2206, Ne w Civil Code)
But if there is no damage caused by the commission of the

crime, the offender is not civilly liable.
Thus, if the felony committed could not or did not cause any damage to
another, th e offender is not civilly liable eve n if he is criminally liable for the
felony committed.
Example: A slapped th e face of th e mayor wh o wa s the n in the
performance of his duty. Under Art. 148, the crime committed is direct
assault. As the slapping did not cause an y injury to th e mayor, A is
not civilly liable.
876
A person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. Civil liability
arising from crimes (ex delicto) shall be governed by the penal sub•
ject to the provisions of Arts. 29 to and
2216, 2230, 2233, and 2234 (regulating damages) Civil Code and
to the provisions of Rule Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Since a person criminally liable is also civilly liable, does his ac•
quittal in a criminal case mean extinction of his civil liability?
The Revised Penal Code is silent on this point. Bu t the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure provide:
"The extinction of th e penal action does not carry with it extinc•
tion of the civil. However, th e civil action based on delict shall be
deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgmen t in the
criminal action that th e act or omission from which th e civil liability
ma y arise did not (Sec. 2, par. 4, Rule III, Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure)
Thus, the dismissal of th e information or th e criminal action
does not affect th e right of the offended party to institute or continue
the civil action already instituted arising from th e offense, because
such dismissal or extinction of th e penal action does not carry with it
the extinction civil one. (People vs. 77 Phil. 1027) In this
case, there wa s a pending separate civil action, arising out of the same
offense, filed by th e offended party against the sam e defendant.
Though th e death of an accused-appellant during the pendency
of an appeal extinguished hi s criminal liability, his civil liability
survives. Extinction of criminal liability does not necessarily mea n
that the civil liability is also extinguished. Only the criminal liability,
including the fine, which is pecuniary, but not civil, of the accused is
extinguished by his death, but the civil liability remains. (Petralba
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 81337, Aug. 16, 1991, 200 SCRA 644,
649-650, citing People vs. Navoa, 132 SCRA 410 and People vs. Sen-
daydiego, 81 SCRA 120)
Civil liability may exist, although the accused is not held

criminally liable, in the following cases:
1. Acquittal on reasonable doubt. — When the accused in a
criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his
877
guilt ha s not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action

for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. (Art.
29, Civil Code)
Award in judgment of acquittal.

Th e court ma y acquit a n accuse d o n reasonabl e
doubt and still order paymen t of civil da mage s already
proved in th e sam e case withou t nee d for a separat e civil
action. The reaso n i s th e accused ha s bee n accorded due
process. To require a separat e civil action woul d mea n
needles s clogging of court dockets an d unnecessa r y du•
plication of litigatio n wit h all it s a ttenda n t los s of time ,
effort and mone y on th e part of all concerned. (Maxim o
vs . Gerochi, Jr., Nos . L-47994-97 , Sept . 24 , 1986 , 144
SCRA 326 , 329 , citing Padill a vs . Court o f Appeal s [12 9
SCRA
2. Acquittal from a cause of nonimputability. — Th e ex•

emptio n from criminal liability in favor of an imbecile or
insan e person, and a person unde r fifteen year s of age, or
one over fifteen but unde r eightee n year s of age, wh o ha s
acted withou t discernment , an d thos e actin g unde r th e
compulsion of an irresistible force or unde r th e impuls e
of an uncontrollable fear of an equa l or greater injury,
does not include exemptio n from civil liability. (Art.
Revised Pena l Code)
3. Acquittal in the criminal action for negligence does not

preclude th e offended party from filing a civil action to
recover damages , based on th e ne w theory tha t th e act is
a quasi-delict. (Art. 2177, Civil Code)
4. When there is only civil responsibility. — Whe n th e court finds
and so state s in its judgmen t tha t there is only civil
responsibility, and not criminal responsibility, and tha t
this finding is th e caus e of acquittal. (De Guzma n vs. Alva,
51 O.G. 1311)
5. In cases of independent civil actions. (Arts. 31 , 32 , 33 , and

34, Civil Code)
878
PROSECUTIO N O F CIVI L ACTIO N

ARISIN G FRO M CRIM E
Provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule

on the prosecution of civil action arising from offenses:
Institution of criminal and civil actions. — (a) When a criminal
action is instituted, th e civil action for th e recovery of civil liability
arising from th e offense charged shall be deeme d instituted wit h
th e criminal action unles s th e offended party waive s the civil action,
reserves th e right to institut e it separately, or institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action. (Sec. l[a] , 1st par.)
The criminal action for violation of Bata s Pambansa 22 shall

be deemed to include th e corresponding civil action. No reservation
to file such civil action shall be allowed. (Sec. l[b] , 1st par.)
When civil action may proceed independently. — In the cases

provided for in Articles 32 , 33 , 34 and 217 6 Civil Code
Philippines, th e independen t civil action ma y be brought by the
offended party. It shall proceed independently criminal action
and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case,
however, ma y th e offended party recover damage s twice for the same
act or omission charged in th e criminal action. (Sec. 3)
When separate civil action is suspended. —
(a) After the criminal action ha s been commenced, the separate
civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until
final judgmen t ha s been rendered in the criminal action;
(b) If th e criminal action is filed after the said civil action has
already been instituted, th e latter shall be suspended in
whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the
merits. Th e suspensio n shall last until final judgment
is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before
judgmen t on th e merits is rendered in the civil action,
th e sam e may , upon motion of th e offended party, be
consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying
the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence
alread y adduce d in th e civil action shal l be deemed
automatically reproduced in the criminal action without
prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine
879
th e witnesse s presented by th e offended party in th e criminal

case and of th e parties to present additional evidence. The
consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided
jointly. (Sec. 2)
Judgment in civil action not a bar. — A final judgment rendered
in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability is not bar
to a criminal action against the defendant for the sam e act or omis•
sion subject of the civil action. (Sec. 5)
Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. — A petition
for suspension of th e criminal action based upon th e pendency of a
prejudicial question in a civil action ma y be filed in the office of the
prosecutor or the court conducting th e preliminary investigation.
When the criminal action ha s been filed in court for trial, the peti•
tion to suspend shall be filed in the sam e criminal action at any time
before the prosecution rests. (Sec. 6)
Exception to the rule that extinction of the criminal action

does not extinguish civil action.
The civil action reserved by the complainant during the prosecu•
tion of the criminal action will be allowed after the termination of
the criminal proceedings, only whe n he ha s th e right thereto, tha t is
to say, whe n the judg men t rendered is one of conviction, or, in case
the accused is acquitted, the complaint is based on some other fact
or ground different from the criminal act. For instance, a defendant
wa s charged with the crime of estafa thru falsification of commercial
documents. The court acquitted hi m from the charge on th e ground
that money had been received or retained by hi m pursuant to an ar•
rangement betwee n the latter and th e offended party, and tha t th e
liability of the defendant for th e return of th e amoun t so received
arises from a civil contract, not from a criminal act, and ma y not be
enforced in the criminal case. (People vs. Miranda, No. Aug.
31, 1962, 5 SCRA 1067, 1068-1069)
Since the court acquitted the accused on the ground that the
money had been received or retained by appellant pursuan t to an
arrangement betwee n the latter and the offended party, in order to
conceal the transaction from the other offended party, it wa s improper
and unwarranted to impose a civil liability in the sam e criminal action.
The liability defendant for the return amount so received
880
arises from a civil contract, not from a criminal act, and ma y not be
enforced in the criminal case but in a separate civil action. (People
vs. Miranda, supra; People vs. Pantig, 51 O.G. 5627)
In People vs. 70 O.G. 4671 , where the complainant
appealed, through her private prosecutor, from th e decision of the
lower court, acquitting the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt,
the Court of Appeals held:
"With respect to th e award of da mage s in favor of the

complainant, th e rule is tha t in a criminal case, th e accused is
civilly liable only if he is found guilty. Bu t not if he is declared
innocent. In th e case before us , th e accused wa s acquitted
crime charged. Therefore, th e award of damage s in favor of the
complainant should be set aside."
The ruling is erroneous for two reasons: (1) under Article 29 of
the new Civil Code, whe n the accused in a criminal prosecution is
acquitted on th e ground tha t hi s guilt wa s not proved beyond reason•
able doubt, a civil action for damage s for th e sam e act or omission
may be instituted; and (2) according to Section 2(b), Rule of the
Rules of Court, extinction of th e penal action does not carry with it
extinction of the civil, and in tha t case th e lower court did not make
any declaration tha t th e fact from which th e civil ma y arise did not
exist.
Commencement of criminal action not a condition precedent

to the filing and prosecution of civil action arising from
crime.
The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure permit the institution of a
civil action to demand civil responsibility arising from crime before the
institution of the criminal prosecution.
A contrary doctrine would render the right of the injured party
to indemnity a myth, and justice a farce, for the guilty party would be
able to dispose of his property. (Alba vs. 53 Phil. 380, 387)
But the civil action arising from crime cannot be instituted or pros•
ecuted in the following cases:
After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate
civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final
881
judgment ha s been entered in the criminal action. (Sec. 2,

Rule Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
2. If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action ha s
already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in
whatever stage it may be found before judgmen t on the
merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is
rendered in the ciminal action. (Sec. 2[a], Rule Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure)
The rule which requires the suspension civil case
after the criminal action ha s been commenced, refers to the
commencement of the criminal action in court and not to
the mere filing of a complaint with the prosecuting officer.
(Coquia, et vs. Cheong, et 103 Phil. 1170)
Judgment in the civil case already promulgated cannot be

suspended by the filing of criminal action.
The provision of Section 2 of Rule Rules of Court, that "after
a criminal action ha s been commenced, no civil action arising from the
sam e offense can be prosecuted, and th e sam e shall be suspended, in
whatever stage it ma y be found, until final judgmen t in th e criminal
proceeding ha s been rendered" does not contemplate the suspensio n
of a judgment already promulgated in a civil action by th e filing of
a criminal complaint wit h th e prosecution attorney charging th e
winning party wit h havin g introduced false documentary evidence.
(See Tanda vs. 89 Phil. 497, 504)
2 of Rule 111 applies only when the claimant in the

civil action is the offended party in the criminal action and
(2) both cases arise from the same offense.
Section 2 of Rule Rules of Court (now Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure), requiring th e suspension civil action in
view commencement of the criminal action applies only when the
claimant in the civil action is th e same offended party in the criminal
action and both cases arise from the same offense or transaction. (See
Belleza vs. Huntington, 89 Phil. 689, 695) (Sec. 3[b], now Sec. 2[a], of
Rule wa s Sec. 1 of Rule 107
Thus, if in th e civil case, the plaintiff is the accused in the crimi• nal case
and the defendant in that civil case is the offended party
882
in the criminal case, th e counterclaim covering not only the sum of

advanced to th e plaintiff to purchase jute bags but also th e
su m of as damage s which the defendant claims to have
sustained, and th e information in the criminal case being merely
confined to the former su m the claimant (plaintiff) is not
the offended party in the criminal case and both cases do not arise
from the same transaction. (Belleza vs. Huntington, supra)
The rule tha t a civil action shal l be suspende d unti l final

judgment is rendered in criminal case, applies when the civil action
arises from the offense charged in the criminal case. et al. vs.
Mendoza, et XIV L.J. 528)
Sec. 2(a) of Rule applies only to civil liability arising from

crime.
Thus, whe n th e cause of action in th e civil case is based on culpa
contractual and not on th e civil liability arising from th e offense
involved in th e criminal case, Sec. 2(a) (Sec. 1, Rule 107, the n 3[b],
Rule of Rule Rules of Court, does not apply and th e trial
court erred in suspendin g th e hearing of th e civil case until the final
determination criminal case. Sec. 2(a) of Rule contemplates a
case where the offended party desires to press his right to demand
indemnity from th e accused in th e criminal case which he ma y assert
either in the sam e criminal case or in a separate civil action. (See
Parker vs. Panlilio, 91 Phil. 1, 4)
Culpa contractual is the basis of a civil action against a trans• portation
company, for instance, for its failure to carry safely its pas• senger to his
destination. The obligation to pay for damages arises from contract, and not
from crime.
Allegations of damages in information not necessary.

The court may sentence the accused to pay the offended party,
moral and material damages, even if there is no specific allegation
of such damages in the information, provided the offended party has
not expressly waived such liability or reserved his right to have civil
damages determined in a separate civil action. (People vs. Vigo, C.A.,
52 O.G. 7629; People vs. 49 O.G. 2857; People vs. Gerodias,
51 O.G. 4614)
Under Art. 100 of this Code, whe n an information or complaint is

filed, even without any allegation of damages and the intention
883
to prove and claim them, it is to be understood that the offender is

liable for them. (People vs. G.R. No. 45738, VII L.J., p. 403;
People vs. Oraza, 83 Phil. 633, 636)
Civil liability ofthe accused extends in favor of persons not mentioned

in the information.
In criminal cases where the intervention of the aggrieved parties
is limited to being witnesse s for the prosecution, th e civil liability of
the accused should not extend only in favor of th e person or persons
mentioned i n th e information. Unles s th e record show s tha t a n
omitted party ha s waived the civil liability or ha s reserved the right
to file a separate civil action to recover th e same , such party's right
to th e civil liability arising from the offense is impliedly included in
the criminal action. (People vs. Despavellador, 53 O.G. 7297)
Attachment in criminal cases.

When the civil action is properly instituted in the criminal action
as provided in Rule th e offended party ma y hav e th e property of
the accused attached as security for th e satisfaction of an y judgmen t
that may be recovered from the accused in th e following cases:
(a) When th e accused is about to abscond th e Philip•

pines;
(b) When the criminal action is based on a claim for mone y

or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or con•
verted to th e us e of th e accused wh o is a public officer,
officer of a corporation, attorney, factor, broker, agent, or
clerk, in the course of hi s employ men t as such, or by any
other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful viola•
tion of duty;
(c) When the accused ha s concealed, removed, or disposed of

his personal property, or is about to do so;
(d) When the accused resides outside th e Philippines. (Sec. 2,
Rule 127, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
Writ of attachment, etc. may be issued in criminal cases.

Within the criminal action, wit h which th e civil action is im• pliedly
instituted, th e offended party ma y obtain the preliminary
884
writ of attachment. The court in which the civil action is pending is,
after the filing of the information in the criminal case, not ipso facto
deprived of the power to issue preliminary and auxiliary writs, such
as preliminary injunction, attachment, appointment of receiver, fix•
ing amounts of bonds, and other processes of similar nature, which
do not go into the merits of th e case. Inc. vs. De Leon, 78
Phil. 449, 452-453; Babala vs. 90 Phil. 827, 828-829)
Availability of provisional remedies. — The provisional remedies
in civil actions insofar as they are applicable ma y be availed of in con•
nection with civil action deemed instituted with the criminal action.
(Sec. 1, Rule 127, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
From the judgment of conviction in criminal case, two appeals may

be taken.
Every criminal case involve s tw o actions: one criminal and
another civil. From a judgmen t of conviction, two appeals may, ac•
cordingly, be taken. The accused ma y seek a review of said judgment
as regards both actions. Similarly, the complainant ma y appeal with
respect only to th e civil action. The right of either to appeal or not to
appeal is not dependent upon th e other. (People vs.
105 Phil. 1287)
Remedy of offended party where fiscal asks for dismissal.

If the criminal action is dismissed by the court on motion of the
fiscal upon th e ground of insufficiency of evidence, the offended party
has no right to appeal, his remedy being a separate civil action after
proper reservation is made therefor. (People vs. Lipana, 72 Phil. 166,
170)
The reason for the rule is tha t the continuation of the offended
party's intervention in a criminal action depends upon the continua•
tion of such action by the provincial fiscal. Once the criminal action
is dismissed by the trial court on petition of the provincial fiscal, the
offended party's right to intervene ceases, and he cannot appeal from
the order of dismissal, otherwise it be tantamount to giving
said offended party the direction and control of the criminal proceed•
ing." (People vs. Lipana, supra)
But the offended party may rightly intervene by interposing an appeal
from the order dismissing the action upon a question of law. (People vs.
Maceda, 73 Phil. 679, 681)
885
Right to appeal as to civil liability.

When the court found the accused guilty of criminal negligence,
but failed to enter judgment of civil liability, the private prosecutor
has a right to appeal for purposes of the civil liability of th e accused.
The appellate court may remand the case to the trial court for the
latter to include in its judgment, the civil liability of the accused.
(People vs. 60 Phil. 252, 254-255)
Offended party has right to be heard during the appeal.

When a judgmen t convicting the accused is appealed, the of•
fended party ha s the right to be heard during th e appeal. If the
Solicitor General asks for the reversal appealed judgmen t and
the acquittal of the accused, the offended party ha s also th e right to
be heard. (People vs. Villegas, G.R. No. 45039 , IV L.J. 635)
Civil liability may be added within the 15-day period, even if the
convict has started serving sentence.
Before th e expiration of th e 15-day period for appealing, th e
trial court can amen d th e judg men t of conviction by adding a provi•
sion for th e civil liability of th e accused, and thi s no twithstandin g
that the judg men t became final because th e accused had commenced
th e service of hi s sentence . (People vs . Rodriguez, 97 Phil. 349 ,
351)
This ruling applies even though an appeal from th e judgmen t of

conviction ha s already been perfected. (People vs. Co Ko Tong, C.A.,
51 O.G. 6337)
Bu t after the 15-day period for appealing, th e trial court cannot amend
its decision by adding thereto th e civil liability. (Sese vs. Montesa, 87 Phil. 245,
247)
An independent civil action may be brought by the injured

party during the pendency of the criminal case, provided the
right is reserved.
In the cases provided in Articles 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 and 217 6 of
the Civil Code, the independent civil action ma y be brought by the
offended party. It shall proceed independently criminal action,
and shall require only a preponderance evidence . In no case,
886
however, ma y the offended party recover damage s twice for the same
act or omission charged in th e criminal action. (Sec. 3, Rule
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
Reservation of the right to institute separate civil action is necessary

in the following cases:
1. In any of the cases referred to in Art. 32 , Civil Code.
2. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries.
The words "defamation," "fraud" and "physical injuries"
are used in their ordinary sense . The term "physical injuries"
mean s bodily injury, not th e crime of physical injuries. It in•
cludes attempted homicide, frustrated homicide, or even death.
vs. Hon. Vicente Santiago, 97 Phil. Estafa
is included in th e term "fraud."
Where fraud is th e basis for both the civil and the criminal
actions, the y are, according to law, to proceed independently.
In the sam e way that th e civil suit can be tried, the criminal
prosecution ha s to run its course. (Rojas vs. People, No. L-22237,
May 31 , 1974, 57 SCRA 243 , 249)
When the civil action is against a member of a city or municipal
police force for refusing or failing to render aid or protection
to any person in case of danger to life or property. Such peace
officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or
municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. (Art. 34,
Civil Code)
4. In an action for damage s arising from fault or negligence, there
being no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties
(quasi-delict). (Art. 2176, Civil Code)
Responsibility for such fault or negligence is entirely sepa• rate
and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the
same act or omission of the defendant. (Art. 2177, Civil Code)
The purpose of the reservation is to prevent the matter from
becoming res adjudicata. (Philippine Railway Co. vs. Jalandoni, C.A.,
40 O.G. 19, Supp. 11)
887
Effect of reservation of right to intervene in prosecution of

criminal case.
Once the offended party has reserved his right to institute a
separate civil action to recover indemnity, he thereby loses his right
to intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case. Consequently,
appellant no longer had any right to move for the reconsideration of,
much less to appeal from the decision in the criminal case, insofar
as it decided the question of civil indemnity, for appellant no longer
had any standing in the case. (Tactaquin vs. Palileo, No. L-20865,
Dec. 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 1431, 1434)
Article 33 of the Civil Code ha s modified th e provisions of Rule

107, Rules of Court. Unde r said article, a civil action to recover
damages for physical injuries, distinct and separate from the criminal
action and of which it shall proceed independently, ma y be brought by
the injured party; hence, the right to file said complaint for damage s
need not even be reserved. (Alvarez vs. Manalaysay , et C.A., 57
O.G. 6629)
If the offended party in the criminal case is represented by

a private prosecutor, he cannot file an independent civil
action.
If the offended party elected to claim th e civil liability in th e
criminal case by intervening therein through a private prosecutor and
the court did not award any civil liability because the offended party
did not present evidence, he cannot thereafter file an independent
civil action for said civil liability. The matter is already res judicata
in the criminal case. (Roa vs. De la Cruz, 107 Phil. 8, 12-13)
When the accused pleaded guilty during the arraignment, so that the
offended party could not have expressly renounced his right to file
the civil action or reserved the same, can the latter subsequently file
a civil action for indemnity for physical and moral damages caused
by the accused?
The mere appearance of a private prosecutor in th e criminal

case does not necessarily constitute such intervention on th e part of
the aggrieved party as could only import an intention to press claim
for damage s in said criminal case and a waiver of th e right to file
a separate civil action for damages , where th e accused had pleaded
888
guilty upon arraignment and wa s immediately there being

no chance for th e aggrieved party to present evidence in support of
the claim for damage s and to enter a reservation in th e record to file
a separate civil action. (Reyes vs. Sempio-Diy, No. Jan. 29,
1986, 141 SCRA 208, 212-213)
When the final judgment in a criminal case does not state

"that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist,"
extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction
of the civil.
The extinction of th e penal action does not carry with it extinc•
tion civil action. However, th e civil action based on delict shall
be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgmen t in the
criminal action tha t th e act or omission from which the civil liability
may arise did not exist. (Sec. 2[4th Rule Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure)
When the accused in a criminal case for estafa (Art. 315, l[b] ,
R.P.C.) wa s acquitted because there wa s no conversion or misappro•
priation, an elemen t of th e crime, but the evidence shows that she
really received the jewelry, the n th e civil action is not extinguished.
(Laperal vs. 51 O.G. 1311)
But if in a criminal case for arson, th e court states in its judg•
ment of acquittal that "the accused cannot in any manner be held
responsible for the fire," such declaration fits well into the exception
of the rule and actually exonerates th e accused from civil liability.
(Tan vs. Standard Vacuu m Oil et 91 Phil. 672, 675)
The question is whethe r or not appellants ma y still recover
damages from considering that he ha s been explicitly acquitted
by the trial court, upon th e ground that "he ha s not been remiss in
his caution nor in his presence of mind trying to avoid" said "freak
accident." Held: Pursuant to the Rules of Court: "Extinction of the
penal action does not carry wit h it extinction of the civil, unless
the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final that
the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist." In the case
at bar, the decision appealed from ha s not only acquitted Priela; but
also, declared that the collision, which resulted in the destruction of
appellants' car, had not been due to any negligence on his part. Since
appellants' civil action is predicated upon Priela's alleged negligence,
which does not exist, according to said final judgment, it follows
889
necessarily that his acquittal in the criminal action carries with it

the extinction of the civil responsibility arising therefrom. (Faraon
vs. Priela, G.R. No. August 2, 1968, 24 SCRA 582, 583)
Prejudicial question.
This is another exception to the rule tha t th e criminal action
shall be decided first and that the civil action be suspended.
Prejudicial question s mus t be decided before an y criminal prosecution
may be instituted or ma y proceed. (Art. 36, ne w Civil Code)
A petition for the suspension of th e criminal action based upon
the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action, may be filed
in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting th e preliminary
investigation. When th e criminal action ha s been filed in court for
trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in th e sam e criminal action
at any time before th e prosecution rests. (Sec. 6, Rule Revised
For th e principle on prejudicial question to apply, it is essential that
there be two cases involved, invariably a civil case and a criminal case. If the
two cases are both civil or if the y are both criminal, th e principle finds no
application. (Malvar vs. Cruz, 14 C.A. Rep. [2s] 395
Prejudicial question defined.

A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case, the resolu•
tion of which is a logical antecedent of th e issu e involved in said case,
and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.
vs. No. L-22759, March 22 SCRA citing
Encyclopedia Juridical p. 228)
It is based on a fact distinct and separate from th e crime but so
intimately connected wit h it tha t it determine s th e guilt or innocence
accused.
Elements of prejudicial question.

The two essential element s of a prejudicial question are: (a) th e civil
action involves an issu e similar or intimately related to th e is• sue raised in
the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issu e
890
determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. (Sec. 5,

Rule Rules of Court)
The prejudicial question mus t be determinative case
before the court;
2. Jurisdiction to try said question mus t be lodged in another
tribunal. (People vs. 94 Phil. 357; vs. People,
57 SCRA 243)
Venue of the actions.

Spanish jurisprudence, from which th e principle of prejudi•
cial question ha s been taken , requires tha t th e essential element
determinative of the criminal action mus t be cognizable by another
court. This requirement of a different court is demanded in Spanish
jurisprudence because Spanis h courts are divided according to their
jurisdictions, some courts being exclusively of civil jurisdiction, others
of criminal jurisdiction. In the Philippines where our courts are vested
with both civil and criminal jurisdiction, the principle of prejudicial
question is to be applied eve n if there is only one court before which
the civil action and the criminal action are to be litigated. But in this
case, the court, whe n exercising its jurisdiction over the civil action
for the annulment of marriage, for example, is considered as a court
distinct and different from itself whe n trying th e criminal action for
bigamy. (Merced vs. Diez, 109 Phil. 155, 160-161)
Examples of question:
(1) There wa s a appeal before the Supreme Court
wherein the principal question involved wa s the genuine•
ness of a certain document. After the presentation of the
appellant's brief, appellee presented a motion alleging that
said document wa s false. The Supreme Court resolved that
whe n the appeal wa s to be determined on the merits, the
said motion would be decided. At that stage case, ap•
pellee filed with the City Fiscal a complaint for falsification
based on the same document. Was it proper for the fiscal
to proceed with the investigation criminal complaint
for falsification?
Held: No. The Fiscal must wait until the case before the
Supreme Court is decided first, because if the Supreme
891
Court should decide that the document is genuine and ha s not

been substituted, such finding would be contrary to the stand
taken by the Fiscal. (De Leon vs. Mabanag, 70 Phil. 202)
(2) The pendency of a petition for judicial declaration of nullity
of the first marriage is not a prejudicial question in an
action for bigamy. The subsequent judicial declaration of
the nullity of the first marriage is immaterial because prior
to the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been
consummated. (Mercado vs. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, Aug.
1, 2000)
A case for annulmen t of marriage is a prejudicial
question to a bigamy case if it is proved tha t th e accused's
consent to such marriage wa s obtained by mean s of duress,
violence and intimidation in order to establish tha t hi s act
in the subsequent marriage wa s an involuntary one and as
such th e sam e cannot be th e basis for conviction. (Donato
vs. Luna, No. L-53642, April
citing Landicho vs. Relova, 22 SCRA 731)
When civil action not a prejudicial question. — If it

is the second wife who filed th e civil action against th e
accused charged wit h bigamy, alleging tha t th e accused
by mean s of force and threat s forced her to marry him,
the accused cannot properly claim tha t th e civil action is
a prejudicial question, because eve n if th e allegation in
the civil case is true, th e fact remain s tha t the accused
contracted the second marriage voluntarily. If th e second
wife were th e one accused of bigamy, she could perhaps
raise force or intimidation as a defense in th e charge of
bigamy, because on her part there wa s no consent to the
marriage; but not th e party, wh o used the force or intimida•
tion. The latter ma y not us e hi s own malfeasance to defeat
th e action based on hi s criminal act. (People vs.
94 Phil. 357, 360; Se e also Donato vs. Luna, No. L-53642,
April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 441 , 447 where the complaint
for annulmen t wa s grounded on deceit.)
A civil case wa s filed for unpaid wage s claimed by a number

of laborers. In that case, th e obligation of defendants to
pay wage s wa s in issue. There wa s the n a criminal action
892
pending against one defendants in the civil case for

protracted delay in th e paymen t of wage s as penalized by
Com. Act No. 303. The defendants asked for the suspension
civil action until the criminal case be finally disposed
of. Must the court order th e suspension of the trial of the
civil action?
No. The obligation to pay wage s is a prejudicial ques•

tion, for there can be no extended delay in the payment
of such obligations unles s th e obligation be first proved.
(Aleria vs. Mendoza, 83 Phil. 427, 429)
Compare the above case with the following case.

A and B wer e accuse d of violatio n of th e Copyright Law.
Later, A and B brough t an actio n for th e ca ncella tio n of copy•
rights grante d to th e c o mpla ina nt . Is th e actio n for cancellatio n
of th e copyright s a prejudicial quest io n whic h mus t be decided
first? No , becaus e unti l cancelled , th e copyright s are presume d
t o hav e bee n dul y grante d an d issued . vs . Tancinco , 9 6
Phil. 459 , 460 )
In the case Aleria vs. Mendoza, supra, th e ruling is consistent

with the presumption of innocence on the part of th e accused. In the
case of Ocampo vs. Tancinco, th e ruling is based on the presumption
of regularity in the granting and issuance of th e copyrights.
When the question is not determinative of the guilt or inno•

cence of the parties charged with estafa, it is not a prejudicial
question.
The alleged prejudicial question is not determinative of the
guilt or innocence of the parties charged with estafa. Even if the
execution receipt in th e civil case wa s vitiated by fraud, duress
or intimidation, the guilt of th e accused could still be established
by other evidence by showing tha t the y actually received from the
complainant the su m of with which to buy a fishing boat
and that instead of doing so, the y misappropriated the money and
refused to return it to him upon demand. A claim to this effect is
a matter of defense to be interposed by the party charged in the
criminal proceeding. (Jimenez vs. Averia, No. L-22759, March 29,
1968, 22 SCRA 1380, 1382)
893
Art. 101 CIVIL LIABILITY IN CERTAIN CASES
An acquittal in a criminal case is not evidence of innocence

in subsequent civil action based upon the alleged criminal
act.
In a civil case, the Solicitor General moved for the cancellation of
the certificate of naturalization issued in favor petitioner, upon
the ground that it wa s secured illegally and fraudulently. Among the
acts of misrepresentation and misconduct imputed to the petitioner
was the alleged maltreatment by hi m of Mrs. Joist. It appeared that
the Municipal Court which tried the maltreatment case acquitted the
defendant (petitioner). The court trying th e civil case did not take
into account the evidence introduced in that civil case in support of
the charge of maltreatment.
It wa s held that the trial court erred in not takin g into account
the evidence introduced in th e civil case in support of th e charge of
maltreatment. The Supreme Court stated tha t th e great weight of
authority supports th e rule tha t a judgmen t acquittal is not effec•
tive under the doctrine of res judicata in later civil proceedings, and
does not constitute a bar to a subsequent civil action involving th e
same subject-matter. An acquittal in a criminal prosecution does not
constitute evidence of innocence in subsequent civil action based upon
the alleged criminal act. (Republic vs. Asaad, 51 O.G. 703)
But where th e state is a party to th e civil action, th e issue s
determined by the conviction of the defendant are concluded in the
civil action. (See the citation in the same case of Republic vs. Asaad.)
When to plead prejudicial question.

A petition for suspensio n criminal action based upon th e
pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action ma y be filed in
the office prosecutor or th e court conducting th e preliminary
investigation. When th e criminal action ha s been filed in court for
trial, th e petition to suspend shall be filed in th e sam e criminal action
at any time before the prosecution rests. (Sec. 6, Rule Revised
Art . 101 . Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — Th e

e x e m p t i o n fro m c r i mi n a l l i a b il i t y e s t a b l i s h e d i n s u b d i v i s i o n s
1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , an d 6 o f Art ic l e 1 2 an d i n s u b d i v i s i o n 4 o f Articl e
894
CIVIL LIABILITY IN CERTAIN CASES Art. 101
o f thi s Cod e doe s no t includ e exemptio n fro m civi l liability , whic h shal l
b e enforce d subjec t t o th e followin g rules :
First: I n c a s e s o f s u b d i v i s i o n s 1 , 2 , an d 3 o f Articl e 12,
th e civi l li a b i l it y fo r act s c o m m i t t e d b y a n i m b e c i l e o r in s a n e
p e r s o n , an d b y a p e r so n u n d e r nin e y e a r s o f age , o r ove r nin e
bu t u n d e r fiftee n y e a r s o f age , wh o ha s a cte d w i t h o u t discern •
me nt , sha l l d e v o l v e u p o n t h o s e h a v i n g s u c h a p e r s o n u n d e r
t hei r lega l a u t h o r i t y o r c o n t r o l , u n l e s s i t a p p e a r s tha t ther e
wa s n o faul t o r n e g l i g e n c e o n t h e i r part .
Shoul d ther e b e n o perso n havin g suc h insane , imbecile , o r mino r

unde r hi s authority , lega l guardianship , o r control ,
o r i f su c h p e r s o n b e i n s o l v e n t , sa i d i n s a n e , i m b e c i l e , o r mino r
shal l r e s p o n d w i t h t he i r ow n p r o p e r t y , e x c e p t i n g p r o p e r t y
e x e mp t fro m e x e c u t i o n , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h th e civ i l law .
Second: I n c a s e s f a l l i n g w i t h i n s u b d i v i s i o n 4 o f Artic l e
th e p e r s o n s fo r w h o s e ben ef i t th e h a r m ha s b e e n p r e v e n t e d
shal l b e civ il l y lia bl e i n p r o p o r t i o n t o th e benefi t w h i c h the y
ma y ha v e r e c e i v e d .
Th e court s shal l determine , i n thei r soun d discretion , th e
proportionat e amoun t fo r whic h eac h on e shal l b e liable .
Whe n th e r e s p e c t i v e s h a r e s c a n n o t b e e q u i t a b l y deter •
mi n e d , ev e n a p p r o x i m a t e l y , o r w h e n th e liabilit y als o atta che s
t o th e G o v e r n m e n t , o r t o th e ma j o r i t y o f th e i n h a b i t a n t s o f
th e to w n , and , i n al l e v e n t s , w h e n e v e r th e d a ma g e ha s b ee n
c a u s e d w it h th e c o n s e n t o f th e a u t h o r i t i e s o r t he i r a g e n t s ,
i n d e mn i f i c a t i o n sha l l b e ma d e i n th e m a n n e r p r e s c r i b e d b y
sp ec ia l la w s o r r e g u l a t i o n s .
Third: I n c a s e s f a lli n g w i t h i n s u b d i v i s i o n s 5 an d 6 o f Arti •

cl e 12, th e p e r s o n s u s i n g v i o l e n c e o r c a u s i n g th e fea r shal l b e
p r i ma r i l y lia bl e an d s e c o n d a r i l y , or , i f t h er e b e n o suc h per •
so ns , tho s e d o i n g th e ac t shal l b e liable , sa vin g a lw a y s t o th e
latte r tha t par t o f t hei r p r o p e r t y e x e mp t fro m e x e c u t i o n .
Civil liability of persons exempt from criminal liability.

Exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from
civil liability.
895
Exceptions :
There is no civil liability in paragraph 4 of Article 12 which
provides for injury caused by mere accident.
2. There is no civil liability in paragraph 7 of Article 12 which
provides for failure to perform an act required by law whe n
prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
Note: The exemption from criminal liability does not include

exemption from civil liability in the cases provided for
in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12. Paragraphs
4 and 7 are not mentioned . Therefore, there is also
exemption from civil liability in the cases provided for
in paragraphs 4 and 7 of Article
The ruling in People vs. Vitug, 8 Rep. 905, that
exemptio n from crimina l liabilit y unde r paragrap h
4, Article 12, Revised Pena l Code, does not include
exemption from civil liability, is erroneous.
Who are civilly liable for acts of insane or minor exempt from
criminal liability?
The civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insan e or
minor exempt from criminal liability shall devolve upon the persons
having legal authority or control over them , if the latter are at fault
or negligent.
If there is no fault or negligence on their part, or eve n if at fault
or negligent but insolvent, or should there be no person havin g such
authority or control, the insane, imbecile, or such minor shall respond
with their own property not exemp t from execution.
The person s havin g th e insan e o r mino r unde r thei r legal authority
or control are primarily liable to pay the civil liability for acts committed by
such insan e or minor.
Bu t the y can avoid civil liability by pleading and proving th e defense
that there wa s no fault or negligence on their part.
Under Article 101 Revised Pena l Code, a father is made
civilly liable for the acts committed by hi s son if th e latter is an
imbecile, an insane, under 9 years of age, or over 9 but under 15
years of age, who acts without discernment, unles s it appears tha t
896
CIVIL LIABILITY IN CERTAIN CASES Art. 101
there is no fault or negligence on his part. This is because a son who

commits the act under any of those conditions is by law exempt from
criminal liability. (Articles 12, 1, 2 and 3, Revised Penal Code) The
idea is not to leave the act entirely unpunishe d but to attach certain
civil liability to the person wh o ha s th e delinquent minor under his
legal authority or control. (Paleyan vs. No. L-22253, July
40 SCRA 132, 135, citing vs. 107 Phil. 748)
Civil liability for acts of a minor over years of age who acts
with discernment.
A minor over 15 year s of age wh o acts wit h discernmen t is not
exempt from criminal liability, hence , th e silence of th e Revised
Penal Code as to th e subsidiary liability of hi s parent s should he
be convicted. The particular la w tha t governs is Article 218 0 of th e
Civil Code, the pertinent portion of which provides: "The father and,
in case of hi s deat h or incapacity, th e mother, are responsible for
damages caused by th e minor children wh o live in their company."
To hold tha t thi s provision does not apply because it only covers
obligations which arise from quasi-delicts and not obligations which
arise from criminal offenses, would result in the absurdity that while
for an act where mere negligenc e intervene s th e father or mother
may stand subsidiarily liable for th e damag e caused by his or her
son, no liability would attach if th e damag e is caused wit h criminal
intent. The void tha t apparentl y exist s in th e Revised Pena l Code
is subserved by thi s particular provision Civil Code. (Paleyan
vs. Bangkili, supra)
Note: Art. 20 1 of th e Child and Yout h Welfare Code which

provides that the civil liability for acts committed by a youthful
offender (a child over 9 but under 18 years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense) shall devolve upon the offender's father
and, in case of his death or incapacity, upon the mother, or in case of
her death or incapacity, upon the guardian, now governs with respect
to the subsidiary liability of parents for the civil liability of a minor
over 15 years of age who acts with discernment.
The provisions Civil Code.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother,
are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who
live in their company.
897
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or in•

capacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company.
The responsibility treated in this article shall cease whe n the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence
of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (Art. 2180, 2nd and
last Civil Code)
If the minor or insane person causing damage ha s no parents
or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be answerable with
his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem
shall be appointed. (Art. 2182, Civil Code)
The discharge of a child in with the law does not

obliterate his civil liability.
The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 200 6
"SECTION 39. Discharge ofthe Child in Conflict with the
Law. - Upon the recommendation of the social worker who ha s
custody child, the court shall dismis s th e case against th e
child whose sentence ha s been suspended and agains t who m
disposition measure s hav e bee n issued , and shall order th e
final discharge of th e child if it finds tha t th e objective of th e
disposition measure s have been fulfilled.
"The discharge of th e child in conflict wit h th e law shall
not affect the civil liability resulting from th e commission
offense, which shall be enforced in accordance wit h law."
Persons civilly liable for acts committed by youthful offenders.

The Child and Youth Welfare Code provides:
"ART. 201. Civil Liability Youthful Offenders. - The civil
liability for acts committed by a youthful offender shall devolve
upon the offender's father and, in case of hi s death or incapacity,
upon the mother, or in case of her death or incapacity, upon the
guardian. Civil liability ma y also be voluntarily assume d by a
relative or family friend of the youthful offender."
Duty of court trying an insane.

In a fit of insanity, the accused attacked a woma n wit h a
and instantly killed her.
898
SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY OF Art. 102
INNKEEPERS, ETC.
In declaring th e accused not guilty because he is exempt from

criminal liability by reason of ha s th e court the authority
to order him to indemnify th e heirs of th e deceased?
Courts, in rendering judgmen t in a criminal case prosecuted
against an insane, eve n whe n the y hold th e accused exempt from
criminal liability, mus t fix th e civil liability of the person charged
with the watching over and caring for hi m or th e liability of the de•
mented person himself wit h hi s property. (U.S. vs. Baggay, 20 Phil.
142, 146-147)
In the case of U.S. vs. Baggay, supra, the defendant wa s acquit•
ted of murder because he wa s insan e whe n he committed the act, but
he was sentenced to indemnify th e heirs of th e deceased in the sum
of
This ruling applies also to other cases under this article.
Who are civilly liable for acts committed by persons acting

under irresistible force or uncontrollable fear?
The persons using violence or causin g the fear are primarily
liable.
If there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable
secondarily.
Civil liability of persons acting under justifying circum•

stances.
There is no civil liability in justifying circumstances.
Exception :
In paragraph 4 of Article 11, there is civil liability, but the
person civilly liable is th e one benefited by the act which causes
damage to another. (See Tan vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Co., 91 Phil.
672.)
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers,

and proprietors of establishments. — In defa ul t of th e p e r s o n s
cri mi na ll y lia ble , i n n k e e p e r s , t a v e r n k e e p e r s , an d an y o the r
p e r s o n s o r c o r p o r a t i o n s sha l l b e civ ill y liabl e fo r cri me s
899
Art. 102 SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY OF
INNKEEPERS, ETC.
i n thei r e s t a b l i s h m e n t s , i n al l c a s e s w h e r e a v i o l a tio n
o f mu n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e s o r so m e g e n e r a l o r s p e c i a l po l ic e
r e g u l a t i o n s shal l ha v e b e e n c o m m i t t e d b y t he m o r thei r em •
p l o y ee s .
I n n k e e p e r s ar e a ls o s u b s i d i a r i l y l i a b l e fo r th e r e s t i t u •
t io n o f g o o d s t a k e n b y r o b b e r y o r t hef t w i t h i n t h e i r h o u s e s
f ro m g u e s t s l o d g i n g t h e r e i n , o r fo r th e p a y m e n t o f th e
v a l u e t h e r e o f , p r o v i d e d t ha t s u c h g u e s t s s ha l l h a v e noti •
fie d i n a d v a n c e th e i n n k e e p e r h i ms e l f , o r th e p e r s o n rep •
r e s e n t i n g hi m , o f th e d e p o s i t o f s u c h g o o d s w i t h i n th e inn ;
an d s ha l l f u r t h e r m o r e h a v e f o l l o w e d th e d i r e c t i o n s w h i c h
s u c h i n n k e e p e r o r hi s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ma y h a v e g i v e n t h e m
w i t h r e s p e c t t o th e ca r e o f an d v i g i l a n c e o v e r s u c h g o o d s .
N o l i a b i l i t y s ha l l a t t a c h i n c a s e o f r o b b e r y w i t h v i o l e n c e
a g a i n s t o r i n t i m i d a t i o n o f p e r s o n s u n l e s s c o m m i t t e d b y th e
innkeeper' s e mp l o y ees .
Elements under paragraph

That the innkeeper, or proprietor of establish•
men t or hi s employee committed a violation of municipal
ordinance or some general or special police regulation.
2. That a crime is committed in such inn, tavern or establish•
ment.
3. That the person criminally liable is insolvent.
Whe n all th e abov e e le me n t s are present , th e innkeeper ,
tavernkeepe r or any other person or corporation is civilly liable
for th e crime co mmitted in hi s esta blishment . Thi s is know n as
subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers or proprietors
of establishments.
Example:
If homicide is committed in an inn or bar on a Sunda y which,

according to the ordinances, should be closed, since th e innkeeper in
this case violates the ordinances by opening his establishmen t for
business on a prohibited day, he shall be subsidiarily liable for the
indemnity or civil liability to th e heirs deceased. (Guevara)
900
OTHER PERSONS
In such case, the innkeeper or owner of the establishment is civilly liable

for such crime committed therein, if the offender is in• solvent.
Elements under paragraph 2:

The guest s notified in advance th e innkeeper or the person
representing hi m of th e deposit of their goods within the
inn or house.
2. The guest s followed the directions innkeeper or his
representative wit h respect to the care of and vigilance
over such goods.
3. Such goods of the guest s lodging therein were taken by
robbery with force upon things or theft committed within
the inn or house.
When all th e above element s are present, th e innkeeper is
subsidiarily liable.
No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons , unless committed by th e innkeeper's employees.
It is not necessary that the effects of the guest be actually

delivered to innkeeper.
In a case where th e owner of a hotel disclaimed liability because
plaintiff did not deposit his properties wit h th e manage r despite a
notice to that effect posted in the hotel, it wa s held that actual delivery
to him or his employee of the effects gues t is not necessary; it is
enough that they were within the inn. (De Santos vs. Khey,
C.A., 58 O.G. 7693, citing 29 Am. Jur. 89-90)
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — Th e sub •

sidia r y liabilit y e s t a b l i s h e d i n th e nex t p r e c e d i n g articl e shal l
als o a ppl y t o e mp l o y e r s , t ea c h er s , p e r s o n s , an d c o r p o ra t io n s
e n g a g e d i n an y kin d o f i n d u s t r y fo r f e l o n i e s c o m m i t t e d b y
t hei r s e rv a n t s , pupi l s , w o r k m e n , a p p r e n t i c e s , o r e mp l o y e e s
i n th e d i s c h a r g e o f t hei r dut ie s .
901
OTHER PERSONS
Elements:
The employer, teacher, person or corporation is engaged
in any kind of industry.
2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices or
employees commits a felony while in the discharge of his
duties.
3. The said employee is insolvent and ha s not satisfied his
civil liability.
In order that an employer may be held subsidiarily liable for the
employee's civil liability in the criminal action, it should be shown:
(1) that the employer is engaged in any kind of industry, (2) that the
employee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties and (3)
that he is insolvent. The subsidiary liability of the employer, however,
arises only after conviction employee in the action.
vs. Doroja, G.R. No. 84516, Dec. 5, 1989, 180 SCRA 1, 7, citing
Marketing Corp. vs. Bolinao Sec. & Inc., 117 SCRA 15)
In this case, whe n all thes e element s are present, th e employer or
teacher is subsidiarily liable.
Example:
A workman of a construction company stole some thing s while

he wa s making minor repairs in a house, and after being prosecuted
wa s found guilty by th e court. The workma n cannot satisfy hi s own
civil liability.
Under such circumstances, th e company is liable subsidiarily

for the restitution of th e thing s or for th e paymen t of their value.
(Guevara)
Employer must be engaged in industry.

Meaning of "industry."
An enterprise not conducted as a means of livelihood or for profit

does not come withi n th e meanin g of th e term "business," "trade,"
or "industry." vs. Foreign Mission Sisters, C.A., 38 O.G.
1594)
"Industry" is any department or branch of art, occupation or

business; especially, one which employs so much labor and capital
902
OTHER PERSONS
and is a distinct branch of trade. Hence, a person who owns a truck

and use s it in the transportation of his own products is engaged in
industry. (Telleria vs. Garcia, C.A., 40 O.G., 12, 115)
Hospital not engaged in industry; nurses not servants.

A hospital is not engaged in industry; hence, not subsidiarily
liable for acts of nurses. Nurses , in treating a patient, are not acting
as servants of the hospitals, because the y are employed to carry out
the orders of the physicians, to whos e authority the y are subject.
(Clemente vs. Foreign Mission Sisters, supra)
Private persons without business or industry, not subsidiarily

liable.
The car driven by S wa s bumpe d by th e car of V driven by
th e latter's chauffeur. Th e chauffeur wh o wa s found guilty wa s
insolvent.
Is V subsidiarily liable?
No, because V is a private person who ha s no business or industry
and uses his automobile for private purposes. V does not fall under
Art. 103 Revised Penal Code. (Steinmetz vs. Valdez, 72 Phil.
92, 93)
The felony must be committed by the servant or employee of

the defendant in the civil case.
Thus , wher e th e driver, wh o drove a jeepne y without the
owner's consent, wa s arrested and prosecuted for, and found guilty
of, homicide through reckless imprudence, the owner of the jeepney is
not subsidiarily liable for th e indemnity adjudged against the driver.
vs. Sabinosa, C.A., 55 O.G. 3846)
Decision convicting an employee is binding upon the employer

with respect to the civil liability and its amount.
Unde r Article 103 of th e Revise d Pena l Code, employer s
are subsidiarily liable for th e adjudicated civil liabilities of their
employees in the event of the latter's insolvency. The provisions of
the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability — Articles 102 and
103 — are deemed written into the judgments in the cases to which
they are applicable. (Alvarez v. CA, 158 SCRA 57, February
903
Art 103 SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY OF
OTHER PERSONS
Thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial court need
not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer.
The decision convicting an employee in a criminal case is binding
and conclusive upon the employer not only with regard to the former's
civil liability, but also with regard to its amount. The liability of an
employer cf.nnot be separated from that of the employee. (Yusay v.
164 SCRA 494, August 18, Pajarito v. 87 SCRA
275, December 14, 1978)
Before the employers' subsidiary liability is exacted, however, there mus

t be adequat e evidence establishin g tha t (1) the y are indee d th e employer s
o f th e convicte d employees ; (2) tha t th e former are engaged in some kind of
industry; (3) tha t the crime wa s committed by the employees in the discharge
of their duties; and (4) that the execution against th e latter ha s not been
satisfied due to insolvency.
The resolution of these issue s need not be done in a separate civil

action. But the determination mus t be based on th e evidence tha t the
offended party and th e employer ma y fully and freely present. Suc h
determination ma y be done in the sam e criminal action in which th e
employee's liability, criminal and civil, ha s been pronounced (Ozoa v.
Vda de Madula, 156 SCRA 779, December and in a hearing
set for that precise purpose, with due notice to th e employer, as part
of the proceedings for th e execution of th e judgment. (Phil. Rabbit
Bu s Lines vs. People, 147703, April 14, 2004)
Enforcement of civil liability is upon a motion for subsidiary

writ of execution.
The subsidiary liability ma y be enforced only upon a motion for
subsidiary writ of execution against th e employer and upon proof that the
employee is insolvent. (Basilio v. Court of Appeals, 385 Phil. 21
"While in the discharge of his duties."

The law make s th e employer subsidiarily liable for th e civil
liability arising from a crime co mmitted by an employe e th e
discharge of his This subsidiary liability does not arise from
any and all offenses tha t th e employee ma y commit, but limited to
those which he shall be found guilty of in the discharge of his duties.
904
OTHER PERSONS
The law does not say that th e crime of the employee mus t be the
one committed "while in the discharge of his duties." It could not
be contemplated that an employer will be held responsible for any
misdeed that hi s employee could hav e done while performing his
assigned tasks. Thus, it is neither jus t nor logical that, if a security
guard committed robbery in a neighboring establishment near the one
he is assigned to guard, or raped a woma n passerby in the course of
his tour of duty, his employer should be made subsidiarily liable for
his said misdeed. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the
crime wa s committed by th e employee "in th e discharge of his
(Baza Marketing Corporation vs. Bolinao Security and Investigation
Service, Inc., No. L-32383, Sept. 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 156, 163)
The fact that th e owner of th e car wa s not riding therein at the

time of the accident and did not know that the chauffeur had taken
the car, clearly show s tha t th e accident did not occur in the course of
the performance duties for which said chauffeur had been hired.
His service is confined to driving his master's car as the latter ordered
him. The owner of th e car wa s not subsidiarily liable. (Marquez vs.
Castillo, 68 Phil. 568, 571)
The subsidiary liability of the employer is not determined

in the criminal case against the employee. Reservation not
necessary.
The subsidiary liability of the maste r or employer provided for
in Article 103 of th e Revised Penal Code is not litigated in connection
with the criminal prosecution employee, pupil, etc. Reservation
of the right to bring action by the injured party against the master
or employer is not necessary. The rule of res adjudicata cannot be
invoked for or against one who wa s not a party to the cause in which
the former judgment wa s rendered. (Phil. Railway Co. vs. Jalandoni,
C.A., 40 O.G. 19, Supp. 11, 19)
Subsidiary liability of employers, etc., "for felonies committed

by their x x x employees."
The word "committed," as used in Article 103, implies that the
employee wa s convicted of the felony with which he wa s charged in the
criminal case.
There can be no automatic subsidiary liability of defendant- employer
under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, where his
905
OTHER PERSONS
employee has not been previously criminally convicted. There having

been no criminal conviction of the employee wherein his civil liability
was determined and fixed, no subsidiary liability under Article 103
can be claimed against defendant-employer. vs. No.
L-26730, April 27, 1972, 44 SCRA 464, 467)
Employer has the right to take part in the defense of his

employee.
It is true that an employer is not a party to th e criminal case
institute d agains t hi s employee , but h e ha s subsidiar y liability
imposed upon him by law. It is his concern to see to it tha t his interest
be protected in the criminal case by taking virtual participation in the
defense of his employee. He cannot leave hi m to hi s own fate because
his failure is also his. (Miranda vs. Malate Garage & Taxicab, Inc.,
99 Phil. 670, 675)
Certified copy of decision sufficient to prove offense

committed by servant or employee.
Judgmen t of conviction of servant or employee in th e absence
of any collusion betwee n th e defendant and th e offended party binds
the persons subsidiarily liable. The plaintiff can rely solely on the
judgment of conviction.
Common sense dictates that a of guilt in a criminal case, in

which proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary, should not be nullified
in a subsequent civil action requiring only a preponderance of evidence
to support a judgment. (Martinez vs. 81 Phil. 1, 3)
Employer is subsidiarily liable for the full amount against

employee.
R wa s th e driver of a Halili B wa s th e driver of a
The two vehicles collided through th e reckless imprudence of both
drivers, causing serious physical injuries on G. R and B were convicted
of serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence and were
sentenced solidarily to pay an indemnit y of to G. As R and
B could not pay the indemnity by reason of insolvency, G sued th e
owner of the bus.
Held: Halili was liable for the full amount of and not
merely 1/2 thereof, but without prejudice to th e right of action against
906
OTHER PERSONS
B for contribution. (Gonzales vs. Halili, G.R. No. Oct. 31,

1958)
No defense of diligence of a good father of a family.

It will be seen that neither in Art. 103 nor in any other article
of the Revised Penal Code, is it provided tha t the employment of
the diligence to be expected of a good father of a family in the selec•
tion of his employees will exemp t the parties secondarily liable for
damages, as is provided in Art. 1903 in connection with Art. 1902
(now Arts. 2176 and 2180) Civil Code, which treat of liabilities
arising from acts or omissions not punishable by law. vs.
Meralco, 55 Phil. 75, 78-79; vs. Bu s 72 Phil.
94, 97)
Art. is applicable to violations of Revised Motor Vehicle

Law.
The defendant is subsidiarily liable for indemnities eve n if its driver wa
s convicted under th e Revised Motor Vehicle Law, because Art. 103 of the
Code is applicable by virtue of its Art. 10. (Copiaco vs. Luzon Brokerage, 66
Phil. 184, 190-191)
Arts. and Revised Penal Code are not repealed

by Art. of the new Civil Code.
Art. 2177 of the Civil Code expressly recognizes civil liabilities
arising from negligence under th e Penal Code, only that it provides
that the plaintiff cannot recover damage s twice of the sam e act or
omission defendant. (Manalo vs. Robles Trans. Co., Inc., 52
O.G. 5797)
The provisions Civil Code.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of
the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their
functions.
Employers shall be liable for th e damage s caused by their employees
and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any busi• ness or industry.
907
OTHER PERSONS
The State is responsible in like manner whe n it acts through

a special agent; but not whe n the damage ha s been caused by the
official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case wha t
is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be
liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long
as they remain in their custody. (Art. 2180, Civil Code)
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his
driver, if the former, who wa s in the vehicle, could have, by th e use
of due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed
that a driver wa s negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless
driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months.
If the owner wa s not in th e motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180

are applicable. (Art. 2184 , Civil Code)
Unles s there is proof to th e contrary, it is presume d tha t a
person driving a motor vehicle ha s bee n negligent if at th e time of
the mishap, he wa s violating any traffic regulation. (Art. 2185 , Civil
Code)
The responsibility of two or more persons wh o are liable for a quasi-

delict is solidary. (Art. 2194 , Civil Code)
Persons civilly liable in the absence of those criminally liable,

the civil responsibility being a necessary part of the criminal
liability.
1. Innkeeper, tavernkeeper , and an y other person or corporation
wh o co mmit t e d violatio n o f municipa l ordinanc e o r som e
g enera l o r specia l police reg ulat io n , an d th e perso n wh o
committe d a crime in hi s es t a b li s h me n t canno t be found or
is insolvent .
2. Innkeeper, for robbery with force upon thing s or theft of goods

of guest s lodgin g therein , provided th e guest s notified th e
innkeeper in advance of the deposit of their goods within the inn,
and provided further tha t such guest s followed th e directions
of the innkeeper with respect to th e care of and vigilance over
such goods.
908
SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY OF 103
OTHER PERSONS
3. The employer who is engaged in any kind of industry, for the

crime committed by hi s employee while in th e discharge of his
duties.
Those having an imbecile or insane person or minor exempt from
criminal liability under their legal authority or control, if they
are at fault or negligent, for acts committed by the imbecile,
insane or minor.
5. Persons who acted under th e compulsion of irresistible force or
under the impulse of uncontrollable fear are civilly liable if the
person who used violence or wh o caused th e fear is insolvent or
cannot be found.
909
Chapter Two
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
Art . 104. What is included in civil liability. — Th e civ i l liabil •

it y e s t a b l i s h e d i n A r t i c l e s 100, 101 , 102, an d 10 3 o f thi s Cod e
includes :
1. Restitution ;
2. Repara tio n o f da mag e caused ;
3. I n d e m n i f i c a t i o n fo r c o n s e q u e n t i a l d a m a g e s .
Civil liability in criminal cases.

The first remedy granted by law is restitution of th e thin g taken
away by the offender; if restitution cannot be mad e by th e offender
(Art. 105), or by his heirs (Art. 108), th e law allows th e offended party
reparation. (Art. 106; People vs. Mostasesa , 94 Phil. 243 , 244) In
either case, indemnity for consequential da mage s ma y be required.
(Art. 107)
There are crimes where there is no civil liability.

There are crimes where only one or none at all of thes e civil obligations
is possible.
in theft or robbery — whe n the property taken is recovered
— only reparation, if any damage, will be allowed.
In assaul t upon a person in authority which caused no physical injuries,
not one of the m is possible.
In some crimes, th e three civil obligations in Art. 104 ma y
be declared and enforced. Thus, for th e crime of occupation of real
property in Art. 312, th e defendant ma y be required:
(a) to restore the real property occupied
(b) to repair th e damage s caused to it (reparation); and
(c) to indemnify the offended party for all the consequential
910
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES Art. 104
damage s he ha s sustaine d due to the commission of the

crime.
Example s of —
1. Restitution — in theft th e culprit is duty-bound to return
the property stolen.
2. Reparation — in case of inability to return the property

stolen, the culprit mus t pay the value of the property stolen;
in case of physical injuries, th e reparation of the damage
caused would consist in th e paymen t of hospital bills and
doctor's fees to th e offended party.
3. Indemnifications for consequential damages — the loss of
his salary or earning.
When property taken away is not recovered, the court must

order the accused to restore it to its owner or, as an alterna•
tive, to pay its just value.
When in due judg men t of conviction th e court did not grant the
accused the alternative to return the thing which he had appropriated
or to pay its jus t value, th e court is in error. (People vs. 73
Phil. 429, 430)
Civil liabilities distinguished from pecuniary liabilities.

Art. 104, providing for three forms of civil liabilities, and Art.
38, providing for the order of paymen t of pecuniary liabilities, may
be distinguished, as follows:
Both include (a) the reparation of th e damage caused, and
(b) indemnification for consequential damages;
2. While civil liabilities include restitution, pecuniary liabili•
ties do not include restitution, because the latter refer to
liabilities to be paid out of the property of the offender. In
restitution, there is nothing to pay in terms of money, as
the property unlawfully taken is returned.
3. Pecuniary liabilities include (a) fine, and (b) the costs of
the proceedings. Civil liabilities do not include them.
911
Art. 105 RESTITUTION
Art . 105. Restitution — How made. — Th e r e s t i t u t i o n of th e

t hi n g itsel f mu s t b e ma d e w h e n e v e r po ssible , w it h a l l o w a n c e
fo r an y d e t e r i o r a t i o n o r d i m i n u t i o n o f v a l u e a s d e t e r mi n e d
b y th e co urt .
Th e thin g itsel f shal l b e restored , eve n thoug h i t b e foun d i n th e
possessio n o f a thir d perso n wh o ha s acquire d i t b y law • ful means ,
savin g t o th e latte r hi s actio n agains t th e prope r perso n wh o ma y b e
liabl e t o him .
Thi s p r o v i s i o n i s no t a p p l i c a b l e i n c a s e s i n w h i c h th e
t h i n g ha s b e e n a c q u i r e d b y th e t hir d p e r s o n i n th e m a n n e r
an d u n d e r th e r e q u i r e m e n t s w h i c h , b y law , ba r a n a ctio n fo r
it s r e c o v e r y .
"The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever

possible."
The convict cannot, by way of restitution, give to the offended
party a similar thing of the same amount, kind or species and
quality.
Appellants claim tha t since th e property (tobacco) involved in the
criminal case is a fungible thin g and that, in accordance with Art. 1953 of the
Civil Code, th e obligation of one wh o receives money or fungible things is to
return to th e creditor th e sam e amoun t of th e thing owed, of the sam e kind
or species and quality, the y should be allowed to return only th e equivalent.
Held: The civil liability appellants is not governed by th e

Civil Code, but by Articles 100-111 Pena l Code. The sentence
should be for the return of th e very thing taken (restitution), or, if it
cannot be done, for the paymen t of its value (reparation). The purpose
of the law is to place th e offended party as muc h as possible in th e
sam e condition as he wa s before th e offense wa s committed against
him. (People vs. Mostasesa, 94 Phil. 243 , 244)
Is Art. properly applied to th e forfeiture of th e house built
with the money malversed by a public officer?
In the case of Garcia vs. Bituin, CA-G.R. No. Sept. 24,
1958, the Court of Appeals applied Art. 105 to th e forfeiture of th e
house built with th e money malversed by a public officer.
912
RESTITUTION Art. 105
"With allowance for any deterioration or diminution of

value."
Thus, if the property stolen while in the possession thief
suffers deterioration due to his fault, the court will asses s the amount
of the deterioration and, in addition to the return of the property,
the culprit will be ordered to pay suc h amoun t representing th e
deterioration.
"The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found

in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by
lawful means."
The general rule is that the owner of property illegally taken
by the offender can recover it from whomsoever is in possession
thereof.
Whoever ma y have been deprived of his property in consequence
of a crime is entitled to th e recovery thereof, eve n if such property
is in the possession of a third party wh o acquired it by legal mean s
other tha n those expressly stated in Arts. 559 and 1505 Civil
Code. (See U.S . vs. Sotelo, 28 Phil. 147.)
The fact tha t th e accused wa s sentenced to pay its value, does not bar
th e recovery of the article by th e owner from anyone holding it. (Gacula vs.
Martinez, 88 Phil. 142, 145)
"Who has acquired it by lawful means."

The second paragraph of Art. 105 provides that the thing itself shall be
restored, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has
acquired it by lawful means.
Thus, even if the property stolen wa s acquired by a third person
by purchase without knowing that it had been stolen, such property
shall be returned to the owner.
If the thing is acquired by a person who knows it to be stolen,
he is an accessory and he is also criminally liable.
Under the Civil Code, the person who has lost any personal
property or has been unlawfully deprived thereof cannot
obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor,
913
Art. 105
only when the possessor thereof acquired it in good faith at

a public sale.
Art. 559 Civil Code (Rep. Act No. 386) provides: The pos•
session of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a
title. Nevertheless, one who ha s lost any movable or ha s been
fully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession
of the same.
If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner ha s been
unlawfully deprived, ha s acquired it good faith at a public sale, the
owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing th e price paid
therefor.
Must be acquired (1) "at public sale," and (2) "in good
faith."
A wa s convicted of estafa for having pawned the jewels which had
been given to hi m by B to be sold on commission. Havin g found tha t
the jewels had been pawned by A to a pawnshop, B filed a petition in
court to require th e owner of th e pawnsho p to restore said jewels .
Held: The owner of the pawnshop may be obliged make restitution
of the jewels, because although he acted in good faith, he did not acquire
them at public sale. vs. 9 Phil. 482, 484)
The court which convicted th e accused of estafa ma y summo n
the owner of the pawnsho p and, after hearin g him , order th e return
of the jewel s pawned to hi m without reimbursemen t of th e amount
of the pledge. The pawnsho p owner ma y see k hi s remedy from the
person who pawned th e jewels . (Reyes vs . Ruiz, 27 Phil. 458 , 460-
461)
Where the purchaser of th e stolen carabao wa s held not crimi•

nally liable, he should nevertheles s restore th e carabao to th e lawful
owner, without reimbursement of the price, since he did not purchase
the carabao at a public Bu t said purchaser ma y sue th e thief
for the recovery of wha t he had paid. (U.S. vs. Soriano, 12 Phil. 512,
515)
Restitution cannot be ordered before judgment.

The things involved in an estafa case, which are in th e custody
of a possessor in good faith, cannot be returned by th e trial court to
914
the alleged offended party before final judgmen t is rendered in the

estafa case. Restitution would be premature in tha t case, because
the mere filing of a criminal action for estafa is no proof that estafa
wa s in fact committed. (Chua vs. Kapunan, Jr., 104 Phil. 110,
114-115)
When the third person acquired the thing "in the manner and
under the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its
recovery."
Restitution shall not be ordered by th e court whe n the thing
ha s been acquired by th e third person in th e manne r and under the
circumstances which, by bar an action for its recovery.
Thus, an innocent purchaser for value of property covered
by a cannot be required to return the same to
its owner who ha s bee n unlawfully deprived of it, because
Sec. 39 of Act No . 49 6 specially protects th e title of an in•
nocent purchaser.
2. When sale is authorized, the property cannot be recovered.

Where th e owner of personal property delivered it to an•
other for th e purpose of sale, th e fact that the latter sold
it at a price lower tha n tha t fixed does not prevent the
passing of title to th e purchaser and the property cannot
be recovered by th e previous owner. It wa s not the sale of
the jewel s for a lower price tha t constituted th e crime of
estafa, but th e act of misappropriating the proceeds
sale.
A person who is not a party in the case cannot recover in the

criminal action any indemnity from the accused.
Example: A stole a caraballa belonging to B. A sold it to C for
In the case where A wa s charged with theft caraballa, the
court ordered C to return the animal to B and ordered A to indemnify
C in the sum of P100 . Can C recover the in the same case?
No, because in selling the animal to C, A pretended to be the owner
thereof, thereby committing estafa, which is another offense.
The person convicted of theft cannot be condemned to indemnify
the purchaser stolen because the stealing of the animal
and its subsequent sale by the thief to a third person constitute dis-
915
Art. 105 RESTITUTION
crimes of theft and estafa and the offended parties are different, being
the owner and purchaser, respectively. (U.S. vs. Barambangan, 34 Phil. 645,
646)
When the liability to return a thing arises from contract, not

from a criminal act, the court cannot order its return in the
criminal case.
Thus, whe n after trial th e court finds that a su m of money wa s
received by the accused from th e complainant as a loan, and for that
reason dismisses the criminal case for estafa, it cannot order the
accused to pay the amount to the complainant, because his liability
to return it arises from civil contract, not from a criminal act, and
may not be enforced in the criminal case. (People vs. Pantig, 97 Phil.
Restitution may be ordered, even if accused is acquitted,

provided the offense is proved and it is shown that the thing
belongs to somebody else.
As a rule, if th e accused is acquitted, th e court should not order
the return property to its alleged owner. Bu t if it is show n that
the ring belonged to, and wa s in th e possession of, somebody else,
and that it wa s stolen from him, but th e identity of th e thief wa s not
established by th e prosecution, and th e accused pawne d it in th e
pawnshop from which it wa s recovered, th e court should order its
return to the owner. In thi s case, th e offense wa s proved but not the
identity offender. (People vs. Alejano, 54 Phil. 987, 989)
Is restitution limited only to crimes against property?

When a crime is not against property, no restitution or reparation
thing can be done. (De las vs. Royal Bu s Co., Inc., C.A., 56
O.G. 4052)
But in a treason case, th e defendant wa s ordered to return th e P3,900 to

the person from who m he took th e sam e whe n he commit• ted the treasonous
act. (People vs. Logo, 80 Phil. 377, 379)
In an abduction case, th e defendants were ordered to return
the taken by the m from th e offended girl. (U.S. vs.
19 Phil. 130, 134)
916
The return of th e usurious interest collected in violation of

the Usury Law is in th e nature of restitution of a thing criminally
obtained. (People vs. Caldito, 72 Phil. 263 , 265)
Salary of acquitted accused may not be ordered paid in

criminal cases.
The payment of salary of an employee during the period of sus•
pension cannot, as a general rule, be properly decreed by the court in
a judgment of acquittal. It devolves upon th e hea d of the department
concerned, and is discretionary wit h him. (People vs. 69 Phil.
496, 497)
Neither th e Revised Pena l Code nor the Rules of Court on crimi•
nal procedure vest s in th e court, authority to grant such relief. No
issue wa s joined on whethe r th e accused wa s entitled to th e payment
of his salary during suspension. (Manila Railroad Co. vs.
93 Phil. 715, 717-718)
The Court has authority to order the reinstatement of the

accused acquitted of a crime punishable by the penalty of
perpetual or temporary
People vs. Consigna
(G.R. No. Aug.
Facts: Pablo A. Consigna, then property clerk of the Division
Superintendent of Schools for Surigao del Norte, and E.
warehouseman of the NAMARCO, Surigao Branch, were charged with
the crime of willful malversation of government property. After trial,
the court rendered judgment of acquittal and ordered both accused to
be reinstated to their former positions.
Issue: Whether or not the trial court, besides acquitting accused,
had the authority to order their reinstatement.
Held: According to Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code, a party
found guilty of malversation of public funds shall be punished with
imprisonment and the additional penalty of special perpetual disquali•
fication. It is clearly inferable from this that his conviction necessarily
results in his dismissal from public office he occupied at the time he
committed the offense.
The case People vs. Daleon, March 24, 1961, is not
controlling because the ruling in said case was simply to the effect that
Art. 106 REPARATION
upon acquitting one charged with malversation of public funds, the

court has no authority to order payment of his salaries corresponding
to the period of his suspension because his right to the same was not
involved in the case. This ruling does not apply to defendant's right
— in case of acquittal — of reinstatement because this matter would
seem to be involved in the case of malversation — albeit as a mere
incident — because conviction of the offense charged results necessar•
ily in a denial of such right to reinstatement in review of the penalty
of disqualification provided by law. If this is the inevitable result of
conviction, reinstatement should also follow acquittal.
The above ruling was applied in the case of People vs.
G.R. No. May where the accused, who was acquitted,
was charged with the crime of infidelity in the custody of documents.
Art. 226, R.P.C, which defines the crime, prescribes the additional
penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to
perpetual special disqualification. Under Art. 31, R.P.C, the penalties
of perpetual or temporary disqualification shall produce the effect of
deprivation of the office affected.
Art . 106 . Reparation — How made. — Th e c o u r t s h a l l

d e t e r m i n e th e a m o u n t o f d a m a g e , t a k i n g int o c o n s i d e r a t i o n
th e p r i c e o f th e t h i n g , w h e n e v e r p o s s i b l e , a n d it s s p e c i a l
s e n t i m e n t a l v a l u e t o th e i n j u r e d pa rt y , an d r e p a r a t i o n shal l
b e ma d e a c c o r d i n g l y .
Reparation will be ordered by the court if restitution is not

possible.
Thus, whe n the stolen property cannot be returned because it
wa s sold by the thief to an unknow n person, he will be required by
the court, if found guilty, to pay the actual price of th e thin g plus its
sentimental value to its owner.
If there is no evidence as to the value of the thing

reparation cannot be made. (People vs. Dalena, C.A., G.R. Nos.
and Oct.
What reparation includes.

Under this provision, th e repair of th e material damage caused by the
robbers in breaking doors, wardrobes, etc., in addition to the
918
INDEMNIFICATION Art. 107
value of the thing taken, ma y be assesse d and included as part

reparation to be paid by th e robbers.
In a rape case, the accused wa s ordered to pay the value
woman's torn garments. This is reparation which is distinct from the
indemnity. (U.S. vs. 4 Phil. 204, 206)
Civil damages are limited to those caused by and flowing

from the commission of the crime.
The civil damage s which ma y be recovered in criminal action
are limited to consequential damag e caused by, and flowing from, the
commission of th e crime of which th e accused is convicted.
Thus, if a person wa s convicted of estafa for not having returned
a bicycle which he had rented at the rate 1.50 a day, the court may
only impose as indemnity or reparation the value of the bicycle, but can•
not further order him to pay the rents of said bicycle corresponding to
the days during which the owner same was deprived of its use.
The unpaid hire of th e bicycle arose under th e contract of hire

and did not result from th e commission of the crime. The amount
corresponding to th e hire is recoverable in a civil action. (U.S.
vs. Dionisio, 35 Phil. 141, 143)
Payment by the insurance company does not relieve the of•

fender of his obligation to repair the damage caused.
The accused contends tha t inasmuc h as the owner of the car
damaged wa s already paid hi s damage s by the insurance company,
he should not be required to pay such damage s caused by him. Held:
That payment by the insurance company wa s not made on behalf of
the accused, but wa s made pursuant to its contract with the owner
of the car. But the insurance company is subrogated to the right of
the offended party as regards the damages. (People vs. Reyes, C.A.,
50 O.G. 665)
Art . 107. Indemnification — What is included. — Inde mnifi •

ca tio n o f c o n s e q u e n t i a l d a m a g e s shal l i n c l u d e no t onl y thos e
c a u s e d th e i nju re d party , bu t als o t ho s e suffere d b y hi s famil y
o r b y a thir d p e r s o n b y r e a s o n o f th e cri me .
919
Art. 107 INDEMNIFICATION
Indemnity refers generally to crimes against persons; repara•

tion to crimes against property.
Indemnity is ordinarily the remedy granted to the victims of crimes
against persons; reparation, to the victims of crimes against property.
Example of damages caused the injured party.

In physical injuries, th e injured party is entitled to be paid for whatever
he spent for th e treatment of hi s wounds, doctor's fees, and for medicine, and
furthermore, his salary or wage s unearned by hi m because of hi s inability to
work due to th e injuries received by him, the damages sustained by hi m
because of th e loss of a limb or the lessenin g of his earning capacity, etc.
(Guevara)
Indemnity for medical services still unpaid may be recovered.

Since the offended party ha s not ye t paid th e doctor for medical
services, th e court cannot sentence th e accused to indemnify th e of•
fended party in the amoun t of because th e offended party
ha s not spent it. Action is, however, reserved to hi m to recover it from
the accused as soon as he shall hav e paid it to th e doctor. (People vs.
Granale, C.A., 50 O.G. 698)
But in the case of vs. 104 Phil. 529, 531 ,
the Supreme Court held that, takin g into account th e necessity and
cost of corrective measure s to arrest th e degenerative process takin g
place in the mandible and restore th e injured boy to a nearly normal
condition, surgical intervention wa s needed, for which th e doctor's
charges would amoun t to whil e removal of th e scar on th e
face obviously demanded plastic surgery, th e indemnit y granted by
the trial court should be increased.
It will be noted tha t eve n if there wa s no actual paymen t of

the doctor's fee, th e amoun t necessary to pay th e doctor for surgical
operation wa s take n into account in awarding th e damages .
Example of damages suffered by the family.

Th e chauffeur of defendant , throug h reckles s imprudence ,
bumped a resulting in th e death of four passengers. Chauf•
feur wa s convicted.
920
Plaintiffs brought action against defendant on its subsidiary

liability as employer guilty chauffeur. Lower court sentenced
defendant to pay, by wa y of indemnity, P500.0 0 to each family
victims.
Defendant contended tha t since there were only three families
involved, because two of th e victims as brothers pertained to one
family, it should pay only instea d
Held: The parents or heirs of the two deceased have suffered
double damage s by reason death of their two children, with the
consequence tha t it is jus t to indemnify the m in th e sam e measure
for the death of each. (Copiaco vs. Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc., 66 Phil.
Contributory negligence on the part of the offended party

reduces the civil liability of the offender.
Since the deceased wa s guilty of contributory negligence, this
circumstance reduces th e civil liability of th e offender in homicide
through reckless imprudence. (People vs. De Guia, C.A., G.R. No.
Aug. 29, 1955)
When civil indemnity may be increased on appeal.

The civil indemnit y ma y be increased only if it will not require
an aggravation of th e decision in th e criminal case on which it is
based. In other words, th e accused ma y not, on appeal by the ad•
verse party, be convicted of a more serious offense or sentenced to a
higher penalty to justify th e increase in th e civil indemnity. (Heirs
of vs. No. L-54904, Jan . 29, 1988, 157 SCRA 518,
522)
Damages recoverable in case of death.

They are:
1. In recen t cases , th e Supre m e Court ha s raised it to
(Art. 2206, Civil Code; People vs. Ravelo, G.R.
Nos. 78781-82, Oct. 15, 1991, 202 SCRA 655, 673)
2. For the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. (Art.
2206, par. [1], Civil Code)
921
3. Support in favor of a person to whom the deceased wa s

obliged to give, such person not being an heir of the de•
ceased. (Art. 2206, par. [2], Civil Code)
4. Moral damage s for menta l anguis h in favor of spouse,
descendants and ascendants of the deceased. (Art. 2206,
par. [3], Civil Code)
5. Exemplary damage s in certain cases . (Art. 2230 , Civil
Code)
Damages in crimes and quasi-delicts.

In crimes and quasi-delicts, th e defendant shall be liable for
all damages which are th e natural and probable consequences
act or omission complained of. It is not necessary tha t such damage s
have been foreseen or could hav e reasonably bee n foreseen by th e
defendant. (Art. 2202, Civil Code)
In crimes, the damage s to be adjudicated ma y be respectively increased
or lessene d according to th e aggravatin g or mitigatin g circumstances. (Art.
2204 , Civil Code)
The amount of damage s for death caused by a crime or quasi- delict
shall be at least Fifty thousan d pesos, eve n thoug h there ma y have been
mitigating circumstances. In addition:
The defendant shall be liable for th e loss of th e earning

capacity deceased, and th e indemnit y shall be paid
to the heirs of th e latter; such indemnity shall in every case
be assesse d and awarded by th e court, unles s th e deceased
on account of permanen t physical disability not caused by
th e defendant, had no earning capacity at th e tim e of his
death;
(2) If th e decease d wa s obliged to giv e support according

to the provisions of Article 291 , th e recipient wh o is not
an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by th e law of
testat e or intestat e succession, ma y demand support from
th e person causin g th e death, for a period not exceeding
five years, th e exact duration to be fixed by th e court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and

ascendants of the deceased ma y demand moral damage s
922
for mental anguis h by reason death of the deceased.

(Art. 2206, Civil Code)
Civil indemnity for death caused by crime raised to

The civil indemnit y for deat h cause d by a crime ha s bee n
raise d from t o 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 i n accordanc e wit h th e
Resolution Supre m e Court en banc date d Augus t 30, 1990 .
(People vs . De Guz man , G.R. No . 82002 , Dec. 20 , 1990 , 192 SCRA
Peopl e vs . Ravelo, G.R. Nos . 78781-82 , Oct. 20 2
SCRA 655 , 673 )
Civil indemnity for crimes by circumstances where

the death penalty may be imposed.
The awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity wa s
correctly increased by th e Court of Appeals to which is
the amount awarded if th e crime is qualified by circumstances which
warrant the imposition death penalty. (People v. Barcena, G.R.
No. 168737, 48 2 SCRA 543 , 56 1
If the crime of rape is committed or effectively qualified by any
of the circumstances under which th e death penalty is authorized by
the present amended law, th e indemnit y victim shall be in th e
increased amount of not les s tha n (People vs. Victor, 292
SCRA 186)
Effect of Rep. Act No. 9346 on civil indemnity for heinous

crimes.
It should be understood tha t the debarring death penalty
through Rep. Act No. 934 6 did not correspondingly declassify those
crimes previously catalogued as "heinous." The amendatory effects
of Rep. Act No. 9346 extend only to th e application of the death
penalty but not to th e definition or classification of crimes. True,
the penalties for heinous crimes hav e been downgraded under the
aegis of the new law. Still, wha t remain s extant is the recognition
by law that such crimes, by their abhorrent nature, constitute a
special category by themselves . Accordingly, Rep. Act No. 9346 does
not serve as basis for the reduction of civil indemnity and other
damages that adhere to heinous crimes. (People vs. G.R. No.
166401, Oct. 30, 2006)
923
In the case People vs. Salome, G.R. No. 169077, Aug. 31 , 2006,
the Supreme Court sustained the grant of Php75,000 as civil
indemnity to the victim, explaining "that while the new law prohibits
the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty provided for by law
for a heinous offense is still death and the offense is still heinous."
Civil indemnity for rape.

The award of as indemnity is mandatory
upon the finding of the fact of rape. (People vs. Maglente, 306 SCRA
546)
Civil indemnity for rape with homicide.

Th e civil inde mnit y for rap e wit h ho micid e i s no w se t a t
(People vs. Robles, G.R. No. 124300, March 25, 1999,
People vs. Bantilan, G.R. No. 129286, Sept. 14, 1999)
Damages recoverable for rape with homicide.

In the case of People vs. Gumimba, G.R. No. 174056, Feb. 27,
2007, Appellant wa s ordered to indemnify th e heirs of th e victim in
the amount of P100,000.0 0 as civil indemnity, as moral
damages, as temperat e damage s and as
exemplary damages.
The amount of damages for death caused by a crime is in•

creased from time to time by the Supreme Court.
Art. 2206 Civil Code provides that:
"The amount of damage s for death caused by a crime or
quasi-delict shall be at leas t three thousan d pesos eve n though
there ma y have been mitigating circumstances x x x "
The amount of referred to in th e above article ha s already
been increased by th e Supreme Court first, to in People v.
Amansec, 80 Phil. 426, and the n to in th e case People
v. Pantoja, G.R. No. 18793, promulgated October As per the
policy adopted by th e Court en banc on Augus t 30, 1990, th e amount
of civil indemnity for death caused by a crime ha s been increased to
(People vs. Teehankee, Jr., G.R. Nos . Oct. 6,
1995)
924
The indemnity for death caused by a quasi-delict used to be

pegged at P3,000 , based on Article 220 6 of th e Civil Code. However,
the amount has been gradually increased through the years because of
the declining value of our currency. vs. Spouses Sumayang,
No. 139875, Dec. 4, 2000)
In quasi-delicts, th e contributory negligenc e of th e plaintiff shall
reduce th e damage s tha t he ma y recover. (Art. 2214 , Civil Code)
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessar y in order tha t moral, nominal ,
temperate , liquidate d o r exemplar y damage s ma y b e adjudicated. The
assessmen t of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to th e discretion of
th e court, according to th e circumstances of each case. (Art. 2216 , Civil
Code)
Indemnity for Lost Earnings.

The indemnity for th e loss of th e victim's earning capacity is computed
as follows:
Ne t earning capacity Life expectancy x (Gross annual income
- living expenses )
Life expectancy is based on th e American Expectancy Table of
Mortality and is computed usin g th e formula: 2/3 x (80 - age of the deceased
at th e tim e of death).
In the absence of proof, living expense s is estimated to be
gross annual income.
(People vs. Lara, G.R. No. 171449, 23 Oct 2006, citing [People v.
G.R. No. 134605, 12 March 2002 , 379 SCRA 107,
Documentary Evidence should be presented to substantiate

a claim for loss of earning capacity.
The rule is that documentary evidence should be presented to
substantiate a claim for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception,
damages therefore may be awarded despite the absence of documen•
tary evidence if there is testimony that the victim wa s either (1) self-
employed, earning less tha n the minimum wage under current labor
laws, and judicial notice is taken fact that in the victim's line of
work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) employed
925
as a daily-wage worker earning less tha n the minimu m wage under

current labor laws. (People vs. G.R. No. 145993, 17 June
2003, 404 SCRA 170).
Computation of award for loss of earning capacity is based

on the life expectancy of the deceased.
In the computation of the award for loss of earning capacity of
the deceased, the life expectancy of the deceased's heirs is not factored
in. The rule is well-settled that the award of damage s for death is
computed on the basis of the life expectancy deceased, and not
the beneficiary. (Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
54470, May 8, 1990, 185 SCRA 110, 121, citing v. Philippine
Airlines, No. February 28, 1973, 49 SCRA 497)
Temperate damages may be awarded if income of victim is

not sufficiently proven.
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-56505, 9 May
SCRA 208, 224-225, the Supreme Court sustaine d th e trial court's
award of as temperate damage s in lieu of actual damages
for loss of earning capacity because th e income of th e victim wa s not
sufficiently proven, thu s -
"The trial court based th e amount s of damage s awarded to th e
petitioner on the following circumstances:
"As to the loss or impairment of earning capacity, there is

no doubt that Pleno is an ent[re]preneur and th e founder of hi s
own corporation, the Mayon Ceramics Corporation. It appears
also tha t he is an industriou s an d resourceful person wit h
several projects in line, and wer e it not for th e incident, might
have pushed the m through. On th e day of th e incident, Pleno
wa s driving homeward with geologist Longley after an ocular
inspection of the site of th e Mayon Ceramics Corporation. His
actual income however ha s not been sufficiently established so
that this Court cannot award actual damages , but, an award
of temperate or moderate da mage s may still be mad e on loss
or impairmen t of earnin g capacity. Tha t Plen o sustaine d a
permanent deformity due to a shortened left leg and that he
also suffers from double vision in his left eye is also established.
926
Because of this, he suffers from some inferiority complex and is

no longer active in busines s as well as in social life. In similar
cases as in Borromeo v. Manila Electric Railroad Co., 44 Phil
165; et al. v. LTB Co., et Dec. 29, 1960,
and in et al. v. et Sept.
the proper award of damage s were given."
Article 222 4 of th e Civil Code which provides that temperate

or moderate da mages , whic h are more tha n nominal but less tha n
compensatory damages , ma y be recovered whe n th e court finds that
some pecuniary loss wa s suffered but its amoun t cannot be proved
with certainty, wa s applied in th e cases of People v. Singh, 41 2 Phil.
(2001), People v. Almedilla, G.R. No. 150590, 21 August
2003, 409 SCRA to justify th e award of temperate damages
in lieu of damage s for loss of earning capacity which wa s not substan•
tiated by th e required documentary proof.
In the Singh case, th e Supreme Court awarded by
way of temperate damages , in lieu of th e awarded by
the trial court as damage s for loss of earning capacity of the deceased
since the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to prove the
deceased's income.
In th e Almedilla case, th e Suprem e Court did not compute
damages for loss of earning capacity on the basis of th e widow's tes•
timony that her deceased husband wa s earning a month
and from his sideline. Instead, the widow wa s awarded
as temperate damages .
Compensation for loss of earning capacity, not required that

the victim is gainfully employed.
To be compensated for loss of earning capacity, it is not necessary
that the victim, at the time of injury or death, is gainfully employed.
Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings but
for loss of capacity to earn money. In Cariaga v. Laguna Tayabas
Bus Company, No. L-11037, December 29, 1960, 110 Phil 346, the
Supreme Court awarded to the heirs victim a sum representing
loss of his earning capacity although he wa s still a medical student
at the time of injury. However, the award wa s not without basis for
the victim was then a fourth year medical student at a reputable
school; his scholastic record, which wa s presented at the trial, justi-
927
an assumption that he would have been able to finish his course

and pass the board in due time; and a doctor, presented as witness,
testified as to the amount of income the victim would have earned
had he finished his medical studies. (People vs. Teehankee, Jr., G.R.
Nos. 111206-08, Oct. 6, 1995)
Moral Damages.
Moral damages may be recovered in th e following and analogous cases:
A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) xxx ;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or an y other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9)
(10) xxx .
The parents of th e female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused,

referred to in No. 3 of this article, ma y also recover moral
(Art. 2219, Civil Code)
Moral damages in rape.

In crimes of rape, moral damage s ma y additionally be awarded
to the victim, without need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.
(T)he fact tha t complainant ha s suffered th e traum a o f

mental, physical and psychological sufferings which constitute the
bases for moral da mage s are too obvious to still require th e recital
thereof at th e trial by th e since th e court itself eve n assume s
and acknowledges such agony on her part as gaug e of her credibility.
What exists by necessary implication as being ineludibly present need
not go through a testimonial charade. (People vs . Prades, 29 3 SCRA
411)
928
The amount of moral damage s for rape ha s been set at

(People vs. Prades, supra)
Exemplary Damages.
In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil
liability may be imposed whe n the crime wa s committed with one or
more aggravating circumstances. Such damage s are separate and
distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party. (Art. 2230,
Civil Code)
Exemplar y damage s ma y be give n only whe n one or more aggravating

circumstances are alleged in the information and proved during th e trial.
(People vs. Moran, Jr., G.R. No. 170849, March 7, 2007)
If a crime is committe d wit h an aggravatin g circumstance,
either qualifying or generic, an award of as exemplary
damage s is justified unde r Article 223 0 of th e Ne w Civil Code.
This kind of damag e is intende d to serve as a deterrent to serious
wrongdoings, and as a vindication of undu e sufferings and wanton
invasion of th e rights of an injured or a punish men t for those guilty
of outrageous conduct. (People vs . Cabinan, G.R. No. 176158, March
27, 2007)
Exemplary damage s cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the court
will decide whethe r or not the y should be adjudicated. (Art. 2233, Civil Code)
While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved,
the plaintiff mus t show tha t he is entitled to moral, temperate or
compensatory damage s before the court ma y consider the question
of whether or not exemplary damage s should be awarded. (Art. 2234,
Civil Code)
With respect to th e exemplar y damage s awarded by th e trial
court, th e sam e are justified by th e fact tha t th e herein appellant
without havin g been issue d by competen t authority a license to
drive a motor vehicle, wilfully operated a BH P dum p truck and
drove it in a negligen t and careless manne r as a result of which
he hit a pedestria n who died from th e injuries sustaine d by him.
(People vs. Medroso, Jr., No. L-37633, Jan . 31 , 1975, 62 SCRA 245,
252)
929
for consequential damages in homicide thru

reckless imprudence.
The appellant wa s guilty of reckless negligence, and that the
incident at bar was due to such negligence. The acts committed by him
constitute the crime of multiple homicide with less serious physical
injuries, prescribed and punished in Article 365, in relation with
Article 48 Revised Penal Code.
The heirs of the deceased are entitled to indemnification for
consequential damages under Article 38 of th e Revised Penal Code. Hence, we
find that —
(1) For the death of Crescenciano Barabag, who wa s around 70
years old whe n he died, leaving as heirs a brother and
several nephews and nieces, an award indemnity
to his heirs should be made. This amount would adequately
indemnify his heirs for hi s death, inasmuc h as he had no
occupation whe n he died and there is no evidence as to th e
expenses incurred in hi s funeral.
(2) For the death of Camposo, who at the time of his

death wa s 26 years old and wa s engaged in farming and other
activities from which he derived an earning of about
a month, leaving as heirs a widow and 5 minor children, an
award his heirs should be made. This amount
is deemed adequate for the loss to said heirs of the deceased's
earnings, protection, guidance and company.
(3) For th e death of Jua n Camposo, wh o at th e tim e he died
wa s engaged in farming and baske t weavin g from which
he derived an income of approximately a year,
leaving as heirs a widow and 11 children, would
be adequate for th e loss to th e latter of his earnings, pro•
tection, guidance and company.
(4) For the death of Jesu s Butalid, who wa s about 12 years old
and only a studen t whe n he died, leaving as heirs a father
and a mother, an award of to th e latter would
be adequate to compensate the m for the loss of their son.
(People vs. Biador, 55 O.G. 6384)
In a case where the deceased wa s crushed to death

due to the negligence of th e bus driver of th e Meralco, th e
930
factors considered by th e court in assessin g the actual and

moral da mage s were: (1) th e tender ages heirs at the
tim e deat h deceased — ranging from 5 to 13
years; (2) th e age (39 years), life expectancy (28.9 years),
and state of healt h deceased; (3) his earning capacity;
(4) actual pecuniary losses; (5) the pain and suffering of
th e deceased and hi s heirs; and (6) th e financial situation
party liable.
At th e tim e of hi s death, th e deceased wa s vice-presi• dent

of Go Soc & Son s wit h an annual salary of
Usin g this ite m as th e basis, th e court awarded as
damage s equivalent to hi s salary for 3 years, 1946-1948.
The court found tha t if th e deceased were alive in 1949,
hi s salary would be a year. Salaries for four years
in th e total amoun t of were allowed. The award
wa s considered conservative, because th e court took into
account only 4 years out of hi s life expectancy of 28.9 years.
The award of as moral damage s wa s held to be
reasonable. (Alcantara vs. 49 O.G. 2769)
Distinction between civil indemnity and moral damages.

J u r i s p r u d e n c e ha s elucida t e d tha t th e awar d authorize d
by th e criminal la w as civil inde mn it y for th e
offended party, i n th e a moun t authorize d b y th e prevailin g
judicial policy and asid e from othe r proven actua l da ma g es , is
itself equivalen t to actual or co mpensator y dama g e s in civil law .
For tha t matter, th e civil liability ex-delicto provided by th e
Revised Pena l Code, tha t is, restitution, reparation and
indemnification, all corresponds to actual or compensator y
da mage s in th e Civil Code, since the other da mage s provided
therei n are moral, nominal, temperat e or moderate, liquidated
and exemplar y or corrective damages , which hav e altogethe r
different concepts and funda mentals . (People vs. Prades, 29 3
411 )
Actual damages must be proved.

Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to
an adequate compensation for such pecuniary loss suffered by him
as he ha s duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or
compensatory damages. (Art. 2199, Civil Code)
931
Where the messenger of the Bureau of Forestry stole treasury

warrants which were not cashed, no pecuniary loss wa s suffered by
the government. Consequently, no indemnity can be properly imposed
on the messenger who wa s convicted. (People vs. 71 Phil. 506,
507)
In a robbery case, the indemnity for the goods taken by the
accused amounting to wa s eliminated, because there wa s no
allegation in the information as to the value goods taken. (People
vs. Tundia, G.R. May 25, 1951, 89 Phil. 807
The indemnity cannot be assesse d on speculation or guesswork.
(People vs. Dalena, CA-G.R. No. Oct. 25, 1954)
It is necessary for a party seeking th e award of actual damage s
to produce competent proof or th e best evidence obtainable to justify
such award. Only substantiated and proven expenses , or those that
appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection wit h the death,
wake or burial of th e victim shall be recognized in courts. The courts
will not rely merely on supposition or conjecture. (People vs.
279 SCRA 290)
Moral and exemplary damages do not require proof of pecuniary loss.

Whe n th e offended party wa s injured wit h multiple wound s
inflicted upon hi m by th e accused, causin g hi m to be hospitalized for
4 months, he is entitled to moral damage s which, like th e exemplary
damages, do not require proof of pecuniary loss, as th e assessmen t
of such damage s is left to th e discretion of th e court. The amoun t of
as moral damage s is not excessive. (People vs. Gerodias, C.A.,
51 O.G. 4614)
Moral damages in accident cases.

Moral damage s could be recovered if a pedestrian wa s injured or
killed by a motor vehicle due to the negligence of its driver. (Alcantara
vs. 93 Phil. Castro vs. Taxicab 82 Phil. 359,
378)
But no moral damages can be claimed by an injured passenger

in an action against th e bus owner based on culpa contractual. Said
moral damages are not allowed under Art. 221 9 Civil Code. The
negligent driver wa s th e one wh o caused th e moral damage s not th e
bus owner. (Cachero vs. Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., 54 O.G. 6599)
932
Claim for moral damages does not determine jurisdiction of

court.
The claim for moral damages , as only an incident to a criminal case,
does not determine jurisdiction of the court. (People vs. Tejero, C.A., 59 O.G.
739)
Temperate damages.
Under Article 222 4 of th e Civil Code, temperate or moderate
damages (which are more tha n nominal but les s tha n compensatory
damages) may be recovered whe n th e court finds that some pecuniary
loss wa s suffered but its amoun t cannot be proved wit h certainty.
(Victory Liner, Inc. v. G.R. No . 159636 , 25 November
2004)
Temperate da mages , in th e amoun t of mus t be
awarded considering tha t it wa s established tha t th e victim's fam•
ily incurred expense s for hi s hospitalization and burial. (People vs.
G.R. No. 176158, March 27, 2007, People vs.
G.R. No. 139456, Jul y 7, 2004 , 43 3 SCRA 562 , 581)
Attorney's fees in criminal cases.

The recovery of attorney' s fee s in th e concept of actual or
compensatory damage is allowed under the circumstances provided
for in Article 220 8 of th e Civil Code, one of which is whe n the court
deems it jus t and equitable tha t attorney's fees and expense s of
litigation should be recovered. (People vs. Bergante, et. 120369-
70, February 27, 1998)
Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows the recovery of attorney's fees in
cases whe n the defendant's act or omission ha s compelled the plaintiff to
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest and in
any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees
and expenses of litigation should be recovered.
We affirm the award of for attorney's fees made by the
trial court and the appellate court. Under Article 2208 of the Civil
Code, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation may be recovered when
exemplary damages have been awarded, as in this case. vs.
People, G.R. No. 163351, June 21, 2005)
933
Art. 108 OBLIGATIONS OF HEIRS OF PERSON LIABLE
AND RIGHTS OF HEIRS OF PERSON INJURED
Civil liability not part of the punishment.

As the civil liability is not part of the punishment for the crime,
the action of the Supreme Court in affirming the judgment as to the
guilt and punishment of the accused and of reversing it as to the
question of damages, with instructions to try the civil branch
case, does not constitute double jeopardy. (U.S. vs. 25 Phil.
Art. 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages,

or indemnification for consequential damages and action to demand
the same — Upon whom it devolves. — Th e o b l i g a t i o n to ma k e
r e s t o r a t i o n o r r e p a r a t i o n fo r d a m a g e s an d i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n
fo r c o n s e q u e n t i a l d a m a g e s d e v o l v e s u p o n th e h e i r s o f th e
p e r s o n lia ble .
Th e a c t i o n t o d e m a n d r e s t o r a t i o n , r e p a r a t i o n an d in •
d e mn i f i c a t i o n l i k e w i s e d e s c e n d s t o th e h e i r s o f th e p e r s o n
inj ur ed .
The heirs of the person liable has no obligation if restoration

is not possible and the deceased left no property.
Thus, if A stole a ring which he later sold to an unknow n person
and after A's conviction by final judg ment , A died but he left no
property to meet the reparation, A's heirs cannot be mad e to repair
the damage. But if A left property, th e heirs ma y be required to pay
out proceeds of the property of A. The sam e thin g ma y be said
with respect to indemnification.
Civil liability is possible only when the offender dies after

final judgment.
If the obligation is liquidated, tha t is, if th e offender before
his death wa s condemned by final judg men t to mak e restitution,
reparation, or indemnification, the offended party may mak e effective
his claim by following the procedure provided for in Rule 86 of the
Rules of Court, that is, by filing a copy of th e judgmen t of conviction
against the deceased wit h th e court takin g cognizance of the testat e
or intestate proceedings.
934
SHARE OF EACH PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE Art. 109
If the death of th e offender took place before any final judgment

of conviction wa s rendered him, the action for restitution,
reparation , or inde mnif ica t io n mus t necessa ril y be dismissed,
in accordance with the provisions of Art. 89, par. 1, of this Code.
(Guevara)
Indemnity not possible in acquittal, right of heirs of deceased.

The charge of murder wa s dismissed by th e court because it wa s
covered by the amnest y proclamation. The court, however, allowed
an indemnity to be paid by th e accused in favor of the heirs of the
deceased.
Held: The case havin g bee n dismissed by th e court, no judgment for
indemnity wa s proper in th e criminal proceeding.
But the heirs of th e deceased hav e a right to enforce the civil
responsibility accused in their favor in a civil action. (U.S. vs.
Art . 109 . Share of each person civilly liable. — If ther e ar e

tw o o r mo r e p e r s o n s civill y lia bl e fo r a felony , th e co urt s shal l
d e t e r m i n e th e a m o u n t fo r w h i c h e a c h mu s t r e s p o n d .
Illustration:
With respect to th e civil liability, the indemnity of
awarded by the Court should be apportioned as follows: the principal,
Dungo-an Abao, shall be liable primarily for and the four
accomplices (petitioners) shall be liable primarily and in solidum
among themselves for The subsidiary liability of all of them
shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of Article of
the Revised Penal Code. vs. People, G.R. No. L-20338, April
27, 1967, 19 SCRA 842, 847) The last sentence mean s "that, in case
of insolvency of the accomplices, the principal shall be subsidiarily
liable for their share of the indemnity; and in case of the insolvency
of the principal, the accomplices shall be subsidiarily liable, jointly
and severally, for the indemnity due from said principal." (People vs.
Cortes, 55 Phil. 143, 150)
935
Arts. PREFERENCE IN PAYMENT
OBLIGATION TO MAKE RESTITUTION
Art . 110 . Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices,

and accessories of felony — Preference in payment. — Notwithstandin g th e
provision s o f th e nex t precedin g article , th e principals , accomplices , an d
accessories , eac h withi n thei r respectiv e class , shal l b e liabl e severall y
(in solidum) amon g themselve s fo r thei r quotas , an d subsidiaril y fo r thos
e o f th e othe r person s liable .
Th e s u b s i d i a r y l i a b i l i t y sha l l b e e n f o r c e d , firs t a g a i n s t
th e p r o p e r t y o f th e p r i n c i p a l s ; n e x t , a g a i n s t t h a t o f th e
a c c o mp l i c e s ; an d la st ly , a g a i n s t t ha t o f th e a c c e s s o r i e s .
W h e n e v e r th e l i a b i l i t y i n solidum o r th e s u b s i d i a r y li•
a bi lit y ha s b e e n e n f o r c e d , th e p e r s o n b y w h o m p a y m e n t ha s
bee n ma d e sha l l ha v e a rig h t o f a c t i o n a g a i ns t th e o ther s fo r
th e a mo u n t o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s h a r e s .
Civil and subsidiary liabilities of principals.

When there are principals and accessories in th e commission
of the crime of theft of large cattle valued at th e principals
are solidarily liable for which represents their quota and
subsidiarily liable for P50.0 0 representing th e quota of their acces•
sories. (People vs. Tocbo, C.A., 45 O.G. 2571)
Civil and subsidiary liabilities of accomplices.

The principal is primarily liable for his own part of the indemnity.
The several accomplices are jointly and severally liable for the portion
adjudged against the m and are subsidiarily liable for th e portion of
their principal in case latter's insolvency. (People vs. Bantagan,
54 Phil. 834, 841)
Art . Obligation to make restitution in a certain case. — An y

p e r s o n w h o ha s p a r t i c i p a t e d g r a t u i t o u s l y i n th e p r o c e e d s
o f a felo n y shal l b e b o u n d t o ma k e r e s t i t u t i o n i n a n a mo u n t
e q u i v a l e n t t o th e e x t e n t o f s u c h p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
936
OBLIGATION TO MAKE RESTITUTION Art.
Not criminally liable.

The person who participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony
referred to in this article is not criminally liable.
Must not be an accessory.

If the person who participated gratuitously in the proceeds
felony kne w tha t the property came from an illegal source, he is an
accessory and he is not only civilly liable, but also criminally liable.
"Participated gratuitously."
This article ha s reference to a case of an innocent person who
ha s participated in the proceeds of a felony through the liberality of
the offender. In other words, he should not hav e paid for the stolen
property which he received from th e offender.
If the innocent person paid for the article, because he bought it, Art. 105
applies.
Example of the application of Art.

Suppose A after havin g stolen a diamond ring worth
gives it to B who, not knowin g th e illegal origin of same, accepts it.
Later B sells the ring for to a foreigner, who immediately leaves
the country. As th e ring cannot be returned, the remedy available
to the offended party is to obtain from the offender the reparation
equivalent to the value of th e ring. In case A is insolvent, B shall
be subsidiarily liable in th e not exceeding which is the
gratuitous share in the commission crime. (Guevara)
The fortune of the innocent person must be augmented by

his participation in the proceeds of the crime.
It is necessary tha t his fortune ha s been augmented by his
participation in the proceeds of the crime. If he merely participated
in the eating of the stolen property, he is not obligated to make
restitution, because his fortune wa s not enhanced thereby. Viada,
Codigo Penal, 4th p. 550)
937
Chapter Three
EXTINCTION AND SURVIVAL OF CIVIL
LIABILITY
Art . 112 . Extinction of civil liability. — C i v i l l i a b i l i t y

establishe d i n Article s an d 10 3 o f thi s Co d e shal l
b e e x t i n g u i s h e d i n th e s a m e m a n n e r a s o t h e r o b l i g a t i o n s , i n
a c c o r d a n c e w it h th e p r o v i s i o n s o f th e Civi l Law .
Civil liability is, therefore, extinguished:

(1) By paymen t or performance;
(2) By the loss of th e thin g due;
(3) By th e condonation or remission debt;
(4) By th e confusion or merger of th e rights of creditor and
debtor;
(5) By compensation;
(6) By novation.
Othe r cause s o f extinguishmen t o f obligations , suc h a s annulment ,
rescission , fulfillment of a resolutory condition, and prescription, are governed
elsewher e in thi s Code. (Art. 1231 , Civil Code)
Prescription is one of th e mode s of extinguishin g obligations

according to Art. of th e Civil Code. Where a civil action for dam•
ages due to an alleged libel wa s brought more tha n one year after th e
cause of action accrued, said action is barred by prescription. Art.
of the Civil Code provides tha t a civil action for defamation mus t be
brought within one year. (Tejuco vs . E.R. Squibb & Son Phil. Corp.,
103 Phil. 594, 595)
938
EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY Art. 112
Civil liability is extinguished by subsequent agreement be•

tween the accused and the offended party.
On March 31 , 1959, an agreemen t wa s entered into betwee n
appellant and complainant whereunder the former agreed to refund to
the latter, in stated installments , th e su m of $1,210.89, representing
th e overpayments mad e for th e account of Alfonso Jr. This
agreement wa s partly executed inasmuc h as appellant had made the
down paymen t of thereon, as well as seve n (7) install ment s
of eac h or an aggregat e a moun t of Although the
criminal action remaine d unimpaired , thi s subsequen t agreemen t
entered into betwee n appellan t and complainan t was , in effect, a
novation of th e civil liability of appellant. Thi s wa s well within the
right of th e parties to do ina smuc h as th e civil aspect of a crime may
be compounded by subsequen t agreemen t or otherwise extinguished
by the sam e cause s for th e exting uishmen t of civil obligations under
the Civil Law. (Articles 23 and 112 , Revise d Pena l Code) Since
novation is a recognized mode of relatively extinguishin g a civil
obligation, it follows tha t appellant's civil liability arising from the
crime wa s supersede d by th e novatory agreement . Complainant's
recourse i s t o enforce th e a g ree me n t aforesaid . I t ha s become
improper to mak e an award for civil indemnit y at thi s instance.
(People vs . Tablante Vda. de Marte, C.A., 65 O.G. 1328, February
10, 1969)
Effect of condonation of civil liability.

The offended party in a criminal case executed an affidavit in
which he swore to the following: "That in conscience I hereby with•
draw, condone, dismiss and waive any and all claims, civil, criminal
or administrative, tha t I ma y have against Amancio Balite due to or
by reason of the misunderstanding which brought about the filing
of the said criminal case." It wa s held that affidavit of the offended
party necessarily wiped out the civil indemnity of granted
by the lower court.
Express condonation by the offended party ha s the effect of
waiving civil liability with regard to the interest injured party.
For civil liability arising from an offense is extinguished in the same
manner as other obligations, in accordance with the provision
civil law. (Balite vs. People, No. Sept. 30, 1966, 18 SCRA
939
Art. OBLIGATION TO SATISFY CIVIL LIABILITY
Civil liability may arise from —

(1) Crime,
(2) Breach of contract (culpa contractual), or
(3) Tortious act (culpa aquiliana).
The first is governed by the Revised Penal Code. The second and the
third are governed by the Civil Code. The civil liability from any of those
three sources is extinguished by the same causes enumerated.
Offender is civilly liable even if stolen property is lost by

reason of force majeure.
Where it appear s tha t a perso n ha s bee n deprive d of th e
possession of his property, the malefactor is responsible to th e owner
either (1) for the return property or (2) for the payment of its
value if it cannot be returned, and this whethe r the property is lost
or destroyed by the act of th e malefactor or tha t of any other person,
or as a result of any other cause or causes. (U.S. vs. Mambang, 36
Phil. 348, 349; See Art. 1268, Civil Code)
Thus, even if the cattle stolen by the accused died from rinderpest
while in the possession of th e constabulary during th e pendency of
the trial, in case of conviction, th e accused are still liable civilly for
the reasonable value of th e said cattle.
Art . 113 . Obligation to satisfy civil liability. — E x c e p t in

ca s e o f e x t i n c t i o n o f hi s civ i l l i a b i l i t y a s p r o v i d e d i n th e n e x t
p r e c e d i n g a rticle , th e o f f e n d e r shal l c o n t i n u e t o b e o b l i g e d t o
sa t isf y th e civi l l i a b il i t y r e s u l t i n g fro m th e c r i m e c o m m i t t e d
b y him , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g th e fac t t ha t h e ha s s e r v e d hi s sen •
t e n c e c o n s i s t i n g o f d e p r i v a t i o n o f l i b e r t y o r o t h e r r i g h ts , o r
ha s no t b e e n r e q u i r e d t o s e rv e th e s a m e b y r e a s o n o f a mn e s t y ,
p a r d o n , c o m m u t a t i o n o f s e n t e n c e o r an y o t h e r r e a s o n .
"Notwithstanding the fact that he x x x has not been required

to serve the same (sentence) by reason of amnesty, pardon,
commutation of sentence, or any other reason."
While amnest y wipes out all traces and vestige s of the crime,
940
OBLIGATION TO SATISFY CIVIL LIABILITY Art. 113
it does not extinguis h th e civil liability of th e offender. (U.S. vs.

A pardon shall in no case exemp t the culprit from the payment
of the civil indemnity imposed upon hi m by the sentence. (Art. 36,
par. 2, Revised Penal Code)
Application for probation affects only the criminal aspect of

the case.
Probation is as "a disposition under which a defendant,
after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed
by the Court and to th e supervision of a probation officer." (Sec. 3,
P.D. No. 96 8 [Probation The "conviction and sentence" clause
of the statutory definition clearly signifies tha t probation affects
only th e criminal aspect of th e case. If unde r Article 113 of the
Revised Penal Code, th e obligation to satisfy civil liability continues
notwithstanding service of sentenc e or due to amnesty,
pardon, commutation of sentence, or any other reason, there is no
reason wh y an application for probation should have an opposite
effect insofar as determination of civil liability is concerned. (Budlong
vs. Apalisok, No. Jun e 24, 1983, 122 SCRA 935, 938-939,
941)

Reyes RPC Book 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reyes RPC Book 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reyes RPC Book 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW

Criminal Law, defined.

Sources of Philippine Criminal Law.

3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law.

No common law crimes in the Philippines.

Power to define and punish crimes.

Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact

make s criminal an act done before th e passag e of the law

(2) aggravates a crime, or make s it greater tha n it was , whe n

(5) assume s to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect

(6) deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection

Congress is also prohibited from passin g an act which would inflict

A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts

To give a law retroactive application to the prejudice of the

The second limitation requires that criminal laws must be of general

Constitutional rights of the accused.

All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their

or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (Sec

An y confession or admission obtained in violation of

6. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading

Statutory rights of the accused.

To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of

Rights of the accused which may be waived and rights which

Characteristics of criminal law.

In a case where th e accused contended tha t being an American

"The P h i l i p p i n e s i s a so v er eig n stat e wit h th e

of the offender. and Yap, Public International Law,

As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not

U.S. vs. Sweet

Facts: Sweet was an employee of the U.S. Army in the Philippines.

Held: The case is open to the application of the general principle

Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-

The Revised Penal Code or other penal law is not applicable

Jurisdiction of military courts.

"Section Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines

"As use d in thi s Section , service-connecte d crime s or

In view of th e clear mandat e of Rep. Act No. 7055, the Regional

The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar

Offenders accused of war crimes are by military com•

and regulations governing the trial of war criminals is valid and

"War is not ended simply because hostilities have ceased. After

Exceptions to the general application of Criminal Law.

Treaties or treaty stipulations.

(a) Any offense committed by any person withi n any base,

Philippine citizens (not members of the armed forces of the Unite d

(a) US military authorities shall hav e the right to exercise

Law of preferential application.

It is a law to penalize acts which would impair the proper

Not applicable when the foreign country adversely affected does

The provisions of this Act shall be applicable only

sentative adversely affected ha s provided for similar protection

Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by

A consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of

Extent of Philippine territory for purposes of criminal law.

Exceptions to the territorial application of criminal law.

Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws.

Where th e ne w la w is expressly made inapplicable to pend•

Different effects of repeal of penal law.