Criminal Law

I
PRESENTED BY: ATTY. JIM PETERICK G. SISON, RCRIM.,JD.,CCS.,MSCJ
(c)
CRIMINAL LAW
branch of division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and
provides for their punishment.
CRIME
act committed or omitted in violation of the law.
CLASSES OF INJURIES
As a general rule, an offense causes 2 classes of injuries:

1. Social Injury
- The first injury is the social injury produced by the criminal act which is
sought to be repaired thru the imposition of the corresponding penalty.

2. Personal Injury
- The second is the personal injury caused to the victim of the crime which
injury is sought to be compensated through indemnity which is civil in
nature.

Note: for every crime committed, it is more of an offense against the state rather than against
the private offended party.
Example:
A shot B. B sustained a fatal wound but he survived. Thereafter, B filed a
frustrated homicide case against A. The fiscal found probable cause. In the
information filed by the fiscal, the title is People of the Philippines vs A. The
trial continued and the judge found the accused is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. The first penalty of the judge is imprisonment due to social injury.
Aside from this, A will pay a civil indemnity to B as personal injury.
Definition of Terms
There are three kinds of Crime:

1. Felony – Acts or omissions punished by the Revised Penal Code

(RPC);
2. Offense – punished by a special law;
3. Infractions – punished by ordinances, local legislation;

*Note that all three are under the umbrella term of Crime.
Q: Who has the power to enact Penal Laws?
A: As a general Rule the Legislative Department has the power to enact
Laws. However, in case of emergency, president may issue a Penal Issuance
Order provided that there is a law granting it to the president.
Q: Is the power of Congress absolute?
A: No, there are limitations.
Limitations to the Power of Congress to enact Penal Laws:
1. Penal law must be General in application otherwise it would be violative of
the Equal Protection Clause;
2. Must not partake the nature of an ex post facto law – ex post facto law
makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was
innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
3. Not a Bill of Attainder – A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts
punishment without judicial trial;
4. Cannot impose cruel or excessive penalties or punishments
- e.g. congress cannot amend article 308-309 death, by saying that
henceforth that any who commit theft will be given death. This is
unusual punishment so it is prohibited.
Characteristics of Penal Laws
The following are the characteristics of penal laws;

1. Generality - Persons to whom criminal law shall apply;

2. Territoriality - Place where penal law shall be applied;
3. Prospectivity - Time when it shall apply
GENERALITY
 Penal laws shall be applied to all persons on being within the Philippine
territory whether they are Filipino Citizens or foreigners regardless of
any of their personal circumstances;
 Applicable to all so long as within the Philippines;
 Applies to non-citizens since while they are within the Philippines, they
are given protection in the same way that the government protects its
own citizen;
 Article 14 of the Civil Code – penal laws shall be binding on all those
who live or sojourn in the Philippines whether citizen or not;
Exceptions to the GENERALITY characteristic:
1. Generally Accepted Principles of PIL:

Heads of state, chief of state and other diplomatic heads such as ambassadors
and public ministers enjoys blanket immunity from the criminal jurisdiction
of the country where they are assigned. Since they are immune, they cannot
be arrested, prosecuted or punished. (Diplomatic Immunity from Suit);
Exceptions to the GENERALITY characteristic:
2. Laws of Preferential Application
Laws which exempt certain individuals from criminal prosecution such as
members of Congress are immune from libel, slander and defamation for
every speech made in the House of Congress during a regular or special
session.
TERRITORIALITY
Penal laws shall be applicable only within the Philippine jurisdiction
including its atmosphere, internal waters, etc;

General Rule:
Crimes committed outside the Philippine jurisdiction cannot be under
Philippine courts.

Exception:
Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides situations where the extra-
territorial jurisdiction of the Revised Penal Code may be applied.
PROSPECTIVITY
Penal laws shall only be applied from the time of effectivity. It can be given
retroactive application if:

1. If penal laws are favorable to the accused provided that he is not a habitual
criminal; and

2. If the penal laws allow retroactivity;

Theories under the Revised Penal Code.
1. Classical Theory

1.1 Under the classical theory on which our penal code, is mainly based, the basis of criminal
activity is human free will:

- Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to choose between good and evil.
- When he commits a felonious or criminal act, the act is presumed to have been done
voluntarily, i.e., with freedom, intelligence, and intent.
- Man, therefore, should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free
will appears unimpaired.

1.2 Purpose of penalty is Retribution:

- Evolves from the maxim “an eye for an eye.” therefore, for every crime committed, there is a
corresponding penalty based on the injury inflicted on the victim;
2. POSITIVIST THEORY
2.1 Basis of criminal liability is man’s social environment;

- The positivist theory states that the basis for criminal liability is the total of the social and
economic phenomena to which the offense is expressed.
- The purpose of penalties is to secure justice.
- “All men are born good, they only become evil due to the influence of the community.”
- Crimes are a social phenomenon;

2.2. Purpose of penalty is for purposes of rehabilitation;

- Offender is a socially sick individual who need to be corrected not to be punished.
- The penalties imposed must not only be retributive. Still, they must also be reformative, to allow
the convict to live a new life and rejoin the society as a productive and civic-spirited member of
the community.
Note:
The Revised Penal Code is based mainly on the classical school of thought.
However , some aspects of the code are based on positivist.

Example;

Indeterminate Sentence Law – once served the minimum of his penalty,

eligible for parole (rehabilitation).

Probation Law – 6 years and below, probationer report to probation officer.

RA 9346 –abolished death penalty.

3. Utilitarian/ Protective Theory;
Purpose of punishment is to protect the society from actual/potential wrong
doing.

Even in violation of special penal laws, wherein intent does not matter,
courts should see to it that punishment shall only be imposed to
actual/potential wrongdoers.
EQUIPOISE RULE
The "equipoise rule" is a concept that primarily applies to criminal law and
the burden of proof in certain legal systems. It pertains to the principle that
if the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, or if there is an
equal amount of evidence both in favor of and against the defendant's
guilt, then the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt and be
acquitted.

In other words, if the prosecution cannot establish the guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt and the evidence is in equipoise, the defendant
should not be found guilty.
Example:
Imagine a patient sues a surgeon, claiming that a surgical procedure resulted in
complications. In court, both the plaintiff and the defendant present expert medical
witnesses. The plaintiff's medical expert testifies that the surgeon's actions were
negligent and caused the complications. The defendant's expert, on the other hand,
testifies that the surgeon followed standard procedures, and the complications were
unavoidable due to the patient's preexisting conditions.

If the judge finds that the expert testimonies are equally persuasive and that there's no
clear preponderance of evidence in favor of either side, the Equipoise Rule might come
into play. In such a situation, the court might rule in favor of the defendant (the
surgeon), as the plaintiff has not met the higher burden of proof required in medical
malpractice cases.
IN DUBIO PRO REO (WHEN IN DOUBT,
RULE FOR THE ACCUSED)
"In dubio pro reo" is a Latin legal maxim that translates to "In doubt, for the
accused." This maxim embodies the principle that when there is doubt or
uncertainty in a criminal case, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the
accused or the defendant. In other words, if there is insufficient evidence to
establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused should be given
the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.
RULE OF LENITY
The "rule of lenity" is a legal principle that comes into play when
interpreting ambiguous or unclear criminal statutes. It states that if there is
ambiguity or uncertainty in a criminal law or statute, the courts should
interpret it in favor of the defendant. In other words, any ambiguity in the
language of a criminal statute should be resolved in a way that is most
favorable to the accused.

The rule of lenity serves as a safeguard against overly broad or vague

criminal laws that could potentially lead to unfair or arbitrary enforcement. It
reflects the principle that individuals should not be held criminally liable for
conduct that the law does not clearly prohibit.
Examples:
- Suppose there is a state statute that prohibits the possession of a "controlled
substance" without specifying the quantity. A person is arrested for possessing a
small amount of a controlled substance, but the statute does not define what
constitutes a "small amount." In this case, the Rule of Lenity might be applied to
interpret the statute in favor of the defendant, resulting in a more lenient
punishment since the statute lacks clarity regarding the quantity threshold.
Imagine a statute that prohibits the possession of "firearms" in certain
government buildings. However, the statute does not explicitly define what
types of firearms are covered. A person is charged with violating this statute
for possessing a flare gun in one of these government buildings. Since a flare
gun has characteristics of a firearm but is not designed for the same purpose
as a typical firearm, the Rule of Lenity might be applied to interpret the
statute in favor of the defendant, potentially leading to a less severe penalty
or an acquittal due to the ambiguity in the statute's coverage.
FINALITY OF ACQUITTAL DOCTRINE
A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable.
EXAMPLE:
Q: What if what has performed was a perverted/immoral act but there
is no law which punishes the said act. Can the person be prosecuted
in court?
A: No.“Nullem Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege” -There is no crime when
there is no law which punishes it.
Q: Are there common law crimes in the
Philippines?
A: NO. Common law crimes are principles, usages and use of action which the community considers as
condemnable even if there's no law that punishes it.

There are no common law crimes in the Philippines since the Philippines is a civil law country. Penal laws are
enacted. They do not evolve through time.
Examples of common law crimes that have historically been
recognized and defined by judicial decisions and precedent
Manslaughter: Common law manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another person without malice aforethought. It
can be voluntary (intentional but without premeditation) or involuntary (unintentional but due to recklessness or
criminal negligence).

Burglary: Common law burglary typically involves breaking and entering into someone else's dwelling with the
intent to commit a crime, such as theft or assault, once inside.

Assault: Common law assault refers to the intentional threat of physical harm or the act of causing someone to fear
immediate physical harm. It doesn't necessarily require physical contact.

Battery: Battery involves the intentional physical harm or offensive touching of another person without their
consent.
Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. — This Code shall take effect on the
first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.

The Revised Penal Code took effect on January 1, 1932.

The Revised Penal Code was passed into law on December 8, 1930.
Article 2.Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties
and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be
enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its
jurisdiction, against those who:

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

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine
Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the
Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these
islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding
number;
Article 2.Application of its provisions
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions; or

5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION:

There are 5 instances where the Revised Penal Code shall take effect
outside the Philippine Territory:

1st: Those who should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or

airship.
Q: When is it a Philippine ship or airship?
A: If it’s registered in the Philippines and under the Philippine laws. Even if
totally or wholly owned by a Filipino citizen, if it is not registered in the
Philippines it cannot be considered as a Philippine ship/airship. It is only
upon registration that this aircraft/vessel can fly the Philippine flag.
Therefore, it is registration which is the operative act which makes it a
Philippine ship/airship.

This is a situation where a crime is committed on board a Philippine vessel

while it is outside Philippine territory but not in the territory of another
country.
Q: If a Philippine vessel is on waters of the
Philippines, and a crime was committed on board.
What country will have jurisdiction?
A- Philippines.
Q: What if that Philippine Vessel is on the high
seas or international waters and a crime was
committed on board the said Philippine Vessel.
What country will have jurisdiction over the said
crime?
A: Still the Philippines. Because of the extraterritorial application of the RPC.
It is the situation referred to as the 1st circumstance under paragraph 1 of
Art. 2. It is the situation where the Philippine ship is outside the Philippine
territory but not in the territory of another country.
2nd: Those who should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued
by the Government of the Philippine Islands.

Example:
X was in Japan. He counterfeited Philippine coins. He then introduced these
coins in to the Philippine Islands. Although the crime has been committed in
Japan, he can be held liable before Philippine courts. This is necessary in
order to maintain and preserve the financial circulation and financial
stability of the Philippines. Otherwise, no other country would be interested
in prosecuting him except the Philippines because it is only the Philippines
will be affected by the said counterfeiting of coins.
3rd: Those who should be liable for acts connected with the introduction
into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the
preceding number.
4th: Those who while being public officers or employees should commit
an offense in the exercise of their functions.

This refers to public officers or employees who are working in another

country, while they are working, they committed a crime. The crime
committed by this public officers or employees must be in connection with
the exercise of their functions.

If the crime they committed is not connected with the exercise of their
functions, then they should be prosecuted in the courts of the country where
they are assigned;
5th: Those who should commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this
Code.

Crimes against National Security includes the following;

1. Treason;
2. Conspiracy/proposal to commit treason;
3. Misprision of treason;
4. Espionage;
5. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals;
If any of this crime is committed, even if it is done outside the Philippine
archipelago the offender can be prosecuted before the Philippine courts.

Crime committed against the Law of Nations include the following;

1. Piracy;
2. Qualified piracy;
3. Mutiny.

Likewise, if the crime committed is against the Law of Nations the said
offender can also be prosecuted before the Philippine courts.
Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies
(delitos).

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

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is
fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.
Felonies
Felonies are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC. When the law says ‘by
law’, it means the RPC.
Acts
Acts refer to any body movement which has a direct connection to the felony intended to be
committed.

It is an external act, an overt act in connection with the felony intended to be committed.

Internal acts or mere criminal thoughts will never give rise to a crime;

Example;

A lust for his neighbor. Whenever the neighbor would pass by going to work, A would always look
at the neighbor. And for the whole day, he would think of the neighbor with nothing but lust. No
matter how criminal his thoughts are it will never give rise to a crime because it is merely an
internal unless he performs an external act or an overt act related to acts of lasciviousness or
attempted rape or rape. The law requires an act.
Omission
Omission is the failure of a person to perform an act or to do a duty which is required by law.

Example;
If a person found, any personal property on the street or on any place and he failed to deliver the
same to the owner or to the local authorities. Under Art.308 he becomes liable for theft.

Or if a person was driving his vehicle, then he bumped and hit another person. And instead of
helping that person, he increased his speed and left. It is a hit-and-run situation. Such fact that he
failed to lend help and assistance to that victim will aggravate his criminal liability under Art.
365.

So here, for failing to perform an act which is required by law to be done. He commits a felony. So
felonies are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC.
Kinds of Felonies
2 Kinds of felonies that may be committed under Art. 3;

1. Deceit (Dolo);
2. Fault (Culpa).

DECEIT (DOLO)

Deceit (Dolo) or intentional felony exist when the act is done with deliberate intent.

An intentional felony is a voluntary act because it is committed by means of deliberate intent.

FAULT (CULPA)

Fault (culpa) or culpable felony exist when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill;

Under Art. 365, a culpable felony is defined as one wherein the offender,
although without malice or deliberate intent caused an injury to another by
the means of negligence or imprudence. Therefore, even a culpable felony is
a voluntary act.
INTENT
Intent is the use of a particular means to achieve the desired result.

You cannot see intent. It is an internal state of the mind;

Factors to Determine Intent

In the case of Rivera v. People (G.R. No. 166326, January 25, 2006), Court declared that evidence
to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist of the following;

1. The means used by the malefactors;

2. The nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim;
3. The conduct of the malefactors before, during, or immediately after the killing of the
victim; and
4. The circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the
accused.
Example;
A was walking. Then here comes B with a lead pipe and hit the head of A with it. B hit it hard and thereafter ran
away. A went to the hospital, however, based on the medical certificate no injury whatsoever was sustained by the
head of A. So there was no injury. Nevertheless, A filed a case for attempted homicide against B. Therefore, intent to
kill is incumbent to be proven by the prosecution because the case filed is attempted homicide.

Q: Will B be held liable for attempted homicide? Was there intent to kill?
A: There was NO intent to kill. Let us apply in this case the factors to determine whether intent is present;

Q: Was there motive?

A: NO. In the problem, there was no motive.

Q: What was the nature and number of weapon used?

A: B used a lead pipe.
Q: What is the nature, number and location of wound inflicted on the victim?
A: The victim did not sustain any wound despite the fact that it was hit with a lead pipe.

Q: What was the manner of committing the crime?

A: After hitting A once, B ran away. If he had intended to kill the victim, he would have hit A several times.

Q: What were the act, deeds and words made by the offender before, during or after the commission of the crime?
A: He just saw the victim, hit the victim thereafter ran away. All of these would show there was no intent to kill on
the part of said offender.

Therefore, B should not be convicted of attempted homicide.

Example;

The use of a lethal weapon would show intent to kill on the part of the offender although death did not arise.

Taking the personal property of another without the consent of the owner would show intent to gain on the part of
the offender.
Example;
Intent to kill must be proven in frustrated/attempted homicide. A and B were fighting. A was losing and so A shot B.
B was hit on the left arm. He was brought to the hospital. Thereafter, after B’s release from the hospital, he filed a
case against A for attempted homicide. Since the case filed is attempted homicide. The prosecution has the burden of
proving intent to kill on the part of A when he shot B and hit him on the left arm. Otherwise, if the prosecution failed
to prove intent to kill on the part of A. Then A can only be convicted of serious/less serious/slight physical injuries
depending on the date required for medical intervention or he should be acquitted of the crime. Intent to kill must be
proven.

But what if in the course of their fight, A was losing and so A took out his pistol and he shot B. B was shot on the
heart, a fatal wound, a mortal wound was sustained because it was a vital organ which was hit. A immediately
bought B to the hospital. However, upon arrival, he was pronounced dead. Therefore, the heirs of B filed a case for
homicide against A. A’s defense, I have no intention to kill B. According to him, he only intended to threaten B
because they were fighting.
Q: Will A’s defense stand in court?
A: NO. A’s defense that he has not intent to kill B will not lie. The reason is since the victim died, intent to kill
becomes a General Criminal Intent which is presumed by law. Prosecution need not prove intent to kill in homicide,
parricide, murder, infanticide because the victim died. It is only in the attempted and frustrated stages of the HPMI
wherein intent to kill is considered an element.

Q: Why is it only in the consummated stage of Homicide, Patricide, Murder, Infacnticide that intent to kill is
presumed?
A: Because the best evidence to prove intent to kill is that the victim died. So it is presumed by law.

Q: Is there a defense to negate criminal intent?

A: YES. The accused may plead mistake of fact
Kinds of Intent
There are 2 kinds of intent:

1. General Criminal Intent (GCI)- General Criminal Intent is conclusively

presumed by law by the mere doing of an act. The prosecution does not have the
burden to prove it.

2. Specific Criminal Intent (SCI)- Specific Criminal Intent is just like an element,
an ingredient of the commission of the crime. Therefore, it must be proven by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
MOTIVE
Motive is the moving power which impels a person to do an act to achieve the desired result.

Q: How do you prove Motive?

A: Motive is proved by the testimony of the witnesses as to the acts or statements made by the
accused before or immediately after the commission of the crime.

Example:
Before the killing of A, a witness saw B threatening to kill A. Therefore, B would have the motive
because of his acts prior to the commission of the crime. Or right after the killing of A, a witness
saw B running away from the scene of the crime laughing saying “finally, I have my revenge”
there is the motive.

So here motive is established by the acts or statements made by the accused prior to or after the
commission of the crime but NOT DURING because in motive, there is no direct evidence. The
witness did not see how the crime was committed.
MISTAKE OF FACT
Mistake of Fact is the misapprehension of facts on the person who caused
injury to another.

If a person acted under mistake of fact, he is absolved of criminal liability

because he acted without criminal intent. That is, had the facts been as he
believed them to be, his act done would have been lawful and justifiable.
Elements of Mistake of Fact
Before one may be absolved of criminal liability for having acted under mistake of
fact, the following are elements:

1. That the act done would have been lawful and justifiable had the facts been
what the accused believed them to be - Had it been as he believed, the act performed
would’ve amounted to a justifying or exempting circumstance;

2. That the intention of the accused in doing the act must be lawful - The must
be ignited by a noble or lawful or justifiable intent;

3. That the mistake must be without fault, negligence, careless on the part of
the offender - The offender cannot be negligent in ascertaining the true facts of the case
and at the same time invoke mistake of fact.
Q: Can a crime be committed without criminal
intent?
A: YES. There are 2 instances wherein intent is not an essential element of a crime;

1. Culpable Felony
2. When the crime is in violation of special penal laws (Acts Mala Prohibita)
ACTS MALA PROHIBITA
Acts mala prohibita are acts which are only wrong because there is a law that
prohibits and penalizes it.

They are not inherently wrong.

Example;

Illegal possession of unlicensed firearms;

ACTS MALA IN SE
Acts mala in se are acts which are inherently evil or wrong per se, even if
there’s no law, it is evil.

Example;
Killing another, taking the thing of another, etc.
 MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
Inherently evil, wrong per se; Not inherently evil or wrong;

Criminal liability is based on the intent or morality of the Criminal liability is based on the mere doing of the
offender; prohibited
act;
Good faith or lack of criminal Good faith or lack of criminal
intent is a valid defense; intent is not a valid defense;

Modifying circumstances such as mitigating and Modifying circumstances such as mitigating and
aggravating are considered by the court in the imposition aggravating are NOT considered by the court in the
of penalty; imposition of penalty UNLESS otherwise
provided by Special Penal Law;

Degree of participation of the offender (principal, Degree of participation by the offender is NOT considered.
accomplice, or accessory) is considered in the imposition All perpetrators of the act are equally punished UNLESS
of the penalty; otherwise provided by the
Special Penal Law;

Stage (attempted, frustrated, or consummated) is taken The only stage considered is the consummated stage. No
into consideration in the imposition of the penalty; attempted or frustrated stage UNLESS otherwise provided
by the Special Penal Law;
NOTES:
**Not all acts punishable by special penal laws are mala
prohibita!! There are some special penal laws which
punish acts mala in se, e.g. plunder is a special penal law
yet the SC said plunder is malum in se. criminal intent
matters.
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability
shall be incurred:
By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done
be different from that which he intended.

By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons

or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment
or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Proximate Cause Doctrine
Proximate Cause Doctrine states that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.
Elements:
In the case of Garcia v. People (G.R. No. 171951, August 28, 2009), The
Supreme Court enumerated the following elements of proximate cause:

1. The intended act is a felonious act;

2. The resulting act is a felony;
3. The resulting act is the direct, natural and logical consequence of
the felonious act of the offender;
Example;
A bus was going to Quezon, suddenly 4 men boarded a bus, 2 man
seated at front seats and the other 2 seated at back. While they were
traversing a zigzag portion on the road, the 4 men stood up and
announced a hold up. One passenger was so afraid of the robber as he
had a previous experience of robbers. He was so afraid that he
opened a window and he jumped out of a window, he fell on a cliff
and he died.
Q: Are the robbers liable for the death of the passenger?
A: Yes. The robbers in announcing a holdup are committing a felonious act.

The resulting act was a felony, the resulting felony was the direct, natural
and logical consequence of the felonious act of the offenders. Were it not
for the robbers announcing a hold up, there would be no fear on the mind of
the passenger. But because of the announcement, there was fear on the mind
of passenger and by reason of that fear, he made risk that caused his death.
The robbers are liable for robbery with homicide because they are liable for
the death of the passenger.
3 SITUATIONS WHEREIN A PERSON BECOMES CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE
RESULTING FELONY ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE
INTENDED:

1. Aberratio Ictus (Mistake in the blow)

2. Error in Personae (Mistake in the identity);
3. Praeter intentionem;
ABERRATIO ICTUS
Aberratio Ictus is a situation wherein the offender directed a blow at
his intended victim but because of poor aim, the blow landed on
another victim.
ERROR IN PERSONAE
Error in Personae is a situation wherein the victim actually received the
bullet but he was mistaken to be the intended victim. The intended victim
was not at the scene of the crime.
PRAETER INTENTIONEM
Praeter intentionem occurs when the consequence went beyond the intention or when
the injurious result is greater than that intended.

Praeter Intentionem is a situation wherein the offender directed the blow at his actual
victim, the victim received the blow. However, the injurious result is far greater than
what is intended by the victim.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME DOCTRINE
Impossible Crime is committed by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.
KINDS OF INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBILITY
According to jurisprudence, there are two kinds of inherent impossibility;

1. Legal Impossibility;
2. Physical Impossibility;
Legal Impossibility
There is legal impossibility when all the intended acts even if
committed would not have amounted to a crime.

Example;
X saw his enemy Y lying on a bench. He went to Y and stabbed Y 10 times
not knowing that Y had already long been dead for 2 hours due to a heart
attack. Even if X performed all the acts amounting to murder, still murder
would not arise which is a crime against persons because the victim is
already deceased. He is no longer a person in the eyes of criminal law.
Therefore there is Impossible Cime and what we have is legal impossibility.
Physical Impossibility
Physical or Factual Impossibility exist when an extraneous circumstance unknown to
the offender prevented the consignation of the crime. Here, there are circumstances
unknown to the offender, the inadequate control of the offender which prevented the
consignation of the crime.

Example:
A person placed his hands inside the pocket of the polo of another, intended to get the
wallet of the said person but the pocket was empty. It is an IC. Extraneous
Circumstances unknown to the offender prevented the consignation of the crime.
Unknown to him the wallet was not inside his pocket. It is an IC because it would have
amounted to theft, a crime against property.
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.

Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and
which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to
the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the
court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation.

In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department
of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution
of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result
in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of
malice and the injury caused by the offense.
NOTE: There are no common law crimes in the Philippines.
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted
felonies.
— Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

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

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

There are always 2 phases in the commission of the crime;

1. Subjective phase;
2. Objective phase;

Subjective Phase
The subjective phase is the portion in the commission of the act wherein the offender commences the commission of
the crime after the time that he still has control over his acts.

He may or may not proceed in the commission of the crime. He still has control over his acts

Objective Phase
From the moment the offender loses control over his acts, it is already in the objective phase of the commission of
the crime.
Stages in the Development of the Crime
The following are the stages in the development of a crime;
1. Internal Acts;
2. External Act;

Internal Acts
Internal acts are not punishable. Mere criminal thoughts will never give rise to criminal liability. There must be an
external act.

External Act
External Act are acts which includes preparatory acts and acts of execution. As a rule, preparatory Acts are not yet
punishable because they are not yet connected to a particular felony.
ACTS OF EXECUTION
Acts of Execution is the actual act of committing the crime. We have 3 stages;
1. Attempted;
2. Frustrated; and
3. Consummated;
ATTEMPTED STAGE
The offender is still in the subjective phase, the offender has still control over his acts, he may proceed in the
commission of the crime or he may desist.

The moment he desist on his own spontaneous desistance then he will no longer be held criminally liable.
ATTEMPTED STAGE
Elements:
The following are the elements of attempted felony;
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by
overt acts;
2. That he does not perform all acts of execution that would have
produced the felony;
3. That his act was not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;
4. That he was not able to perform all acts of execution by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance;
Directly By Overt Acts

Directly by Overt Acts means that the Overt Acts performed by the offender
must be directly connected to the intended felony.

The attempted felony that is punished by law is one which is directly

connected to the overt act performed by the offender although he has
admitted the crime.
Example;
X won the lottery. X put the lottery money in a safe in his house. Y wanted to steal the
lottery money in X’s house. On that night, Y went to the house of X. In order to enter
the house, Y removed the jalousies of the window of X’s house. When Y was about to
enter the house of X, a barangay tanod saw Y. Thereafter, Y was apprehended by the
barangay tanod before he could enter X’s house. Y was charged with attempted
robbery.

Q: Should X be convicted of attempted robbery?

A: NO. The act of Y in removing the jalousie window of X is not directly connected to
the act of robbery. The act of removing the jalousies of the window will not necessarily
ripen in to the crime of robbery because once inside, Y may rape, may kill, may rob,
etc.
Q: What is the liability of X, if any?
A: X is liable only for attempted trespass to dwelling. Removing the
jalousie of the window is an overt act directly connected to trespass to
dwelling. It will necessarily ripen into the crime of trespass to dwelling.
However, because the barangay tanod apprehended Y before he could enter
the house of X, he did not perform all the acts of execution by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Poeple vs. Lamahag (G.R. No. L-43530, August 3, 1935)

A person intending to rob a store made an opening on the wall of the store
sufficient for his body to enter. His intention was to rob. Before he could
enter, he was already apprehended.
Q: Can he be liable of attempted robbery?

A: NO. Because his OA of making an opening on the wall of the store is not an overt
act directly connected to robbery. It is only an overt act directly connected to
trespassing. Hence, he can only be held liable for attempted trespassing.

Although his intention was to commit robbery, once inside he may rob, he may rape, he
may kill, he may injure the owner of the store. Therefore, it is not an act directly
connected to robbery.
Example;

X and Y were fighting. In the course of the fight, X pulled out a gun. Upon
seeing this, Y ran away from X. With intent to kill, X aimed the gun towards
Y and pulled the trigger. At the last minute, Y evaded the bullet.
Q: Is X liable for any crime?

A: YES. The crime committed was attempted homicide or murder as the case may
be. Even if the victim was not hit, since the act of discharging the firearm was with
intent to kill the victim, it was already in the attempted stage. Such act of firing the fire
arm was already an OA directly connected to the act of homicide or murder as the case
may be.
Example;
In the same problem, X aimed the gun towards Y and pulled the trigger. Y was hit in
the right shoulder. Y safely got away. Upon medical examination, the doctor said that
Y’s wound will heal within 5 days.

Q: What crime was committed by X against Y?

A: X is liable for attempted homicide or murder as the case may be. The wound
sustained was not fatal or not mortal. It requires another act for the crime to be
consummated. No one would die by a non- mortal or non-fatal wound.
Example;
X and Y are enemies. In one instance, X saw Y outside his house. Angered, X took his
gun out of his house. X took aim at Y and pulled the trigger of the gun. However, the
gun did not fire the shot. X pulled the trigger again, yet no bullet came out. Upon
inspection, X found out that the gun was not loaded with bullets.

Q: What crime did X commit, if any?

A: X is liable for an impossible crime. Had the gun been loaded with bullets, X would
have committed the crime of murder. However, because the gun had no bullets, it is
inherently impossible to commit the crime of murder in any circumstance.
FRUSTRATED STAGE
Elements:

In the case of People v. Badriago (G.R. No. 183566, May 8, 2009) the Supreme Court
gave the elements of frustrated homicide:

1. The offender performs all the acts of executions;

2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence;
3. Felony is not produced;
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
MATERIAL CRIMES
Material crimes are crimes which admits stages of attempted, frustrated,
and consummated.

Example: Murder, Homicide, etc.

FORMAL CRIMES
Formal crimes are crimes which does not admit any stages. It only punishes a
consummated stage.

The following are considered formal crimes;

1. Physical injuries
2. Slander
3. Adultery
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are punishable
only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those
committed against person or property.
The following are light felonies;
1. Slight Physical Injuries; (Art. 266)
2. Theft; (Art. 309, Par. 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;

As a rule, light felonies are punishable only when they are on their consummated stage. Unless the crime is
committed against person or property.
Q: Why are attempted and frustrated felonies not
punishable?
A: Light felonies produces such light, such insignificant, moral and material
injuries. If they are not consummated, the wrong done is so slight that there
is no need of providing a penalty at all.
Q: What is the reason for the exception?
A: The commission of felonies against persons or property presupposes in the offender
moral depravity.
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.

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

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement

concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
CONSPIRACY AS A CRIME
If conspiracy or proposal to commit a crime are provided in penalties by law, it is not necessary
that there be an overt act committed. The mere act of conspiring or proposing will already give rise
to a crime.

The following are conspiracies as a crime;

1. Conspiracy to commit treason;
2. Conspiracy to commit rebellion;
3. Conspiracy to commit sedition;
4. Conspiracy to commit terrorism; (Special Penal Laws)

It is not necessary that there be overt acts. They are punishable acts by themselves.
Example;
A, B, C, D, and E come to an agreement to take up arms and overthrow the government and stir public uprising.
They already bought guns and other pieces of equipment. However, before they could execute their plan, they were
apprehended.

Q: Are A, B, C, D, and E criminally liable?

A: YES. They were liable for the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion. Even though they were not able to
execute their plan, conspiring to overthrow the government is already a felony which makes them criminally liable.
Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light
felonies.
Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods
are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.

Less Grave Felonies

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

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

3 kinds of felonies according to severity

1. Grave felonies;
2. Less grave felonies;
3. Light felonies;
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of
this Code.
— Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws
are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to
such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
Example;
What if a person convicted of a violation of a SPL? A issued a check to B for payment of an
obligation. B deposited but the check bounced. Notice of dishonor was sent. After the trial on the
merits, A was found guilty of the violation of BP 22 beyond reasonable doubt. Fine and payment of
the value of the check. The court said in case of non payment of the fine, the said convict shall
suffer subsidiary imprisonment.

Q: Can a person who violated a SPL and was imposed with fine be made to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment in case of non payment of fine?
A: YES. There is no provision in B.P. 22 prohibiting the application of the Revised Penal Code,
then the RPC shall apply suppletorily or supplementarily to the provisions of Special Penal Law
unless the Special Penal Law provides otherwise .
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal
liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances
concur;

First. Unlawful aggression.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and
those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites
prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the
revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided
that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article
are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or
other evil motive.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which
causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present;

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

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of
a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some
lawful purpose.
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT THE
LIABILITY OF THE OFFENDER
The following circumstances affects the criminal liability of the offender;

1. Justifying circumstances; (Art. 11)

2. Exempting circumstances; (Art. 12)
3. Mitigating Circumstances; (Art. 13)
4. Aggravating Circumstances; (Art. 14)
5. Alternative Circumstances; (Art. 15)
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Justifying circumstances are those where the acts of the actor are in
accordance with the law, thus he incurs no criminal liability. Since there is no
crime, there is no criminal and civil liability.
Effect of Invoking Justifying Circumstance
The moment the offender or the accused invokes any of the acts amounting
to justifying circumstance, he is in effect admitting the commission of the
crime. But he wanted to evade criminal liability by invoking justifying
circumstances.
SELF-DEFENSE

Self-defense is not limited to one’s life. The following is the scope of

self-defense;
1. Defense of life;
2. Defense of honor or chastity;
3. Defense of property provided that it is coupled with an
attack on the person entrusted with the said property;
Elements of Self-defense
The following are the elements of self-defense;
1. Unlawful Aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Unlawful Aggression is an attack with physical force or with a weapon as to
cause injury or danger to life or personal safety. Unlawful aggression must
come from the victim.

Unlawful aggression I the primordial requisite which must at all times be

present. When unlawful aggression is absent, there is no self- defense
whether complete or incomplete.
Elements of unlawful aggression

In the case of People v. Dulin (G.R. No. 171284, June 29, 2015), the
Supreme Court provided the elements of unlawful aggression;
1. There must be physical or material attack or assault;
2. The attack or assault must be actual or at least imminent;
3. The attack or assault must be unlawful;
Kinds of Unlawful Aggression
The Supreme Court held that there are two kinds of unlawful aggression;

1. Actual or Material Unlawful Aggression;

2. Imminent Unlawful Aggression;

Actual or material unlawful Aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act
that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury.

Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist
in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong
REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS
EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT.
When you say reasonable necessity, what the law requires is rational equality
or rational equivalence as determined by the emergency. Rational is the
means employed. Rationally necessary to prevent or repel it.

Reasonable necessity does not necessarily mean that when the aggressor
makes use of a bolo, the person defending must also make use of a bolo.
Factors of Reasonable Necessity
Factors to be considered in order to be said that the means employed is rationally
necessary are the following;

1. Nature and the number of the weapon used by the aggressor;

2. Physical condition, size, weight and other personal circumstances of the
aggressor versus that of the person defending himself;
3. Place and location of the assault;

All of these would determine if the means employed of the person defending himself is
reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the aggression.
LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
There must be lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.

Sufficient Provocation

Sufficient Provocation refers to an act which is adequate to stir a person to do the

wrongful act and when it is proportionate to the gravity of the act.
Stand Ground When in the Right
The reason behind self-defense stand ground when in the right. Stand
ground in the right means that where the said accused is where he should
be and his assailant is fast approaching, the law does not require him to
retreat because the moment he retreats he runs the risk of being stabbed at
the back.
DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE
Elements

The following are the elements of defense of a relative;

1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making
the defense had no part therein;

Even if the relative, who was defended by the offender, was the one
provoked the offended party, the offender should took no part in the
provocation in said situation so as to justify the defense of a relative.
DEFENSE OF A STRANGER
The following are the elements of defense of a stranger;
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack;
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or motive;

The 3rd element requires that the said offender must be disinterested and not
induced by any other motive, otherwise, defense of a stranger will not lie.
STATE OF NECESSITY
As a rule, it is noted that justifying circumstances are exempt from criminal as well as
civil liability. However, this paragraph of Article 11 is an exception when it comes to
civil liability. Although he is not criminally liable, he is civilly liable;

Civil liability is born not only by the accused, but all those people who benefitted in
this state of emergence. Under Art. 101 of the RPC, “In cases falling within subdivision
4 of Art 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly
liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.
Elements

The following are the elements of state of necessity;

1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
Example;
A pregnant woman met an accident. She was immediately brought to the hospital. Because of the
said dire situation, the doctor who was in charge of the pregnant woman has to make a decision,
that is to save only one life, either the life of the woman or the baby that she is carrying. The doctor
chose to save the life of the woman. Because of that, the fetus died. Prosecuted for abortion, the
doctor invoked the doctrine of state of necessity.

Q: Is the doctor liable for abortion?

A: NO. The elements of state of necessity are all present. The evil sought to be avoided actually
exist because the life of the baby and the mother is in danger. 2ND, the injury (death of the
pregnant woman) is greater than that of the death of the fetus. Lastly, there was no other less
practical or harmful means of preventing it. The situation was an emergency. The woman had no
relatives with her so the doctor has to decide immediately—either to save the life of the mother or
the fetus. Therefore, the doctor should be absolved from criminal liability.
Example;
What if on a taxi a family was on board. Said taxi was traversing ESDA during night time.
Suddenly, without any warning, a truck appeared in front of him. If he would go forward, he would
be hitting the buses. If he swerved to the right, he would be hitting bystanders. If he swerved to the
left, he would hit a store. So, the taxi driver chose to swerve to the left, hit the store thereby
causing damage. Prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property, the taxi
driver invoked the 4th justifying circumstances.

Q: Is the taxi criminally liable for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property?
A: NO. The elements are all present. 1st, the evil sought to be avoided actually exist because there
was a collision. 2nd, the injury feared (death) was greater than that done. Lastly, there was no other
practical and less harmful means of preventing it. Aside from these 3 requisites stated by the law, it
should be added that the necessity must not be due to the negligence or violation of the law by the
actor. In this case, there was a warning to the taxi driver not to enter the street, yet he proceeded. It
is through his negligence that caused the state of necessity; therefore, he is criminally and civilly
liable.
FULFILMENT OF A DUTY OR IN A LAWFUL
EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
Elements:
The following are the elements of fulfillment of a duty or in a lawful exercise of office;
1. Accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
2. Injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or
the lawful exercise of such right or office;
OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR FOR SOME LAWFUL
PURPOSE.

Elements

The following are the elements;

1. An order has been issued by a superior;
2. Such order must be for some lawful purpose;
3. Means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful;
Example;
X was convicted by final judgment for the crime of homicide. When X was about to be transferred
to a maximum security prison, he suddenly escaped. Police officer Y was ordered by the jail
warden to retrieve X. Y thereafter pursued X. Knowing that he was being pursued, X went to a
market and grabbed a 5 year old child as hostage. X pointed a knife towards the neck of the child,
and he told Y not to pursue him, otherwise he will kill the child. However the child cried. The
crying child started to annoy X to the point that he was about to kill the child. However, sensing
that X was about to stab the child. X fired a shot towards X. X suffered a mortal wound and
thereafter died. Y was charged with homicide.

Q: What defenses can Y utilize?

A: Y can make us of the justifying circumstance of performance of fulfillment of a duty or in a
lawful exercise of office. As a police officer, Y acted in the performance of his duty in pursing X,
an escaped

convict. Likewise, the injury caused to X was the necessary consequence of the fulfillment of Y’s
duties, otherwise X will kill the child. Y can also use the justifying circumstance of defense of
stranger.
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
Battered Woman Syndrome refers to a scientifically defined pattern of
psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
Battered Woman
Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. 9262)
defines battered woman as a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any
forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her
to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights.

Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate

relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered
woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice.
Cycle of violence
In the case of People v. Genosa (G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004) the
Supreme Court held that the battered woman syndrome is characterized by
the so-called cycle of violence, which has three phases;
1. The tension-building phase;
2. The acute battering incident; and
3. The tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.
Tension Building 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 his way.

All the woman wants is to prevent the 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 has the right to
abuse her in the first place.
Acute Battering Incident
The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality,
destructiveness and, sometimes, death. At this stage, the woman has a sense
of detachment from the attack and the terrible pain, although she may 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 or intervenors are likely to get hurt.
Tranquil or Loving Phase
During this 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, 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.
No Criminal Liability and Civil Liability

Battered Woman Syndrome is akin to akin to justifying. It is even better that self-
defense because in self-defense, you have to prove that the elements are present.
However, in battered woman syndrome, what should be proven is that the wife is
suffering from battered woman syndrome. It is through the expert testimony of the
psychiatrist who will prove that the wife is suffering from battered woman syndrome.
If this is proven, she is absolved from criminal and civil liability.
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from
criminal liability.
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — the
following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a
lucid interval.

When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law
defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of
the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall
not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same
court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
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 Art. 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in
conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall
commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with
his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of
some institution or person mentioned in said Article 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care,
causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of an equal or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when
prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
Exempting Circumstance are those grounds for
exemption from punishment because there is
wanting in the agent of the crime any of the
conditions which makes the act voluntary or
negligent.
INSANITY AND IMBECILITY
In this paragraph there are two exempting circumstances;
1. Imbecility;
2. Insanity;

Just like exempting circumstance, imbecility and insanity are both

admission and avoidance. In effect, invoking insanity and imbecility
is tantamount to admitting the crime. But in order to avoid criminal
liability, he invokes that he is either insane or imbecile.
Imbecile
An imbecile is one who is already advanced in age but only have a thinking of a child
between 2 and 7. There is no intelligence, an element of voluntariness.

Imbecility is exempting under any circumstance.

Insanity
Insanity refers to the mental aberrational background or disease of the mind and must
completely impair the intelligence of the accused.

Insanity is not exempting under any circumstance. If it can be shown that he committed
the crime in lucid interval, he is liable.
Presumption of Sanity
In your civil code, it is presumed that the person is sane. Therefore, the burden of
evidence is on the defense. Therefore, all the accused has to do is to prove that he was
insane when he committed the crime.
MINORITY
The second and third circumstance was already amended by R.A. 9344 or the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. This refers to a child in conflict of
the law. A child in conflict with the law is a child who is alleged as, accused
of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws.
Criminal Liability
R.A. 9344, if a child committed a felony when he is 15 or below, he is
exempted from criminal liability. If he is over 15 but below 18, but he did not
act with discernment, he is exempted from criminal liability. If he is over 15
but below 18 and he acted with discernment, he is not exempted from
criminal liability and he will be prosecuted just like any other criminal.
Suspension of Sentence
Under Sec. 38 of R.A. 9344, once the child who is under 18 years of age at the time of the
commission of the crime was found guilty of the offense charged the court shall determine and
ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead
of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law
under suspended sentence, without need of application. Provided however, that the suspension of
the sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already 18 years of age or more at the time
of the pronouncement of his guilt. Therefore, as long as he is 18 years and below at the time of the
commission of the crime, even if he is above 18 at the promulgation of the judgment, he can still
benefit from the suspended sentence.

Under Section 40 of R.A. 9344, if a child is under suspended sentence, the court shall decide to
discharge or to extend the sentence for a specific period of time or until the child attains the
maximum age of 21. Although there is automatic suspension, it is tempered by Section
40. Therefore, the maximum limit is 21 years old.
ACT OF DISCERNMENT
In the case of Madali v. People (G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009), there is an act of
discernment when the minor knows the consequences and circumstances of his act.
Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of
his unlawful act. Such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances.

In this case, the accused who was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the
crime, warned the witness not to reveal their hideous act, otherwise, he (accused) and
his co-accused would kill him. Therefore, he knew that killing the victim was a
condemnable act and should be kept in secrecy. He fully appreciated the consequences
for his unlawful act.
ACCIDENT
In the case of People v. Del Cruz (G.R. No. 187683, February 11, 2010) An accident is an
occurrence that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some
act of our will, it lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.

Elements;
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident;
4. Without fault or intention causing it;

Note that although exempting, as a rule, there is no criminal liability but there is civil
liability. However, paragraph 4 (accident) is an exception. There are no criminal liability and civil
liability. Accident is akin to justifying circumstance because the offender was performing a lawful
act with due care.
Example;
A is a prisoner. He was about to be investigated and was escorted to the investigation
room. Before reaching the investigating room, A grabbed the service pistol of the
officer who was accompanying him to the investigating room. The police tried to get
back his pistol, and in the course of the fight, the pistol was fired accidentally and A
was hit. Thereafter, A died. The police officer was prosecuted for homicide.

Q: Is the officer liable for homicide?

A: YES. The police was performing a lawful act in trying to get back his property, and
that is his pistol. He caused an injury by accident. He was performing an act with due
care because there’s no other way to get back the pistol. He causes an injury through
accident because there was no intention on his part to kill A.
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

Elements;
1. There must be Compulsion is by means of physical force;
2. Physical force must be irresistible;
3. Physical force must come from a third person;

In irresistible force, the offender must be reduced as a mere instrument, that

he is not acting in his will. Therefore, if he is acting against his will,
voluntariness is absent.
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

Elements;
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear;
2. Fear must be real and imminent;
3. Fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that committed;

It is necessary by the means employed by the third person, it would cause a person to suffer
uncontrollable fear. Again, he is reduced as a mere instrument such that he acted against his will. It
is necessary that such fear must be of imminence that an ordinary man cannot stand. When there is
an existence of uncontrollable force or fear there is lack of freedom of action—an element of
voluntariness. Therefore, the person totally has no free will.

Even if there was force employed but the person has a choice to do the act or not, this exempting
provision will not lie.
Example;
A farmer and his carabao was on his way home. On his way home, he heard gun shots,
so he went to the place where he heard the gun shots. He hid behind a tree and saw two
men shooting X. X way already lying on the ground. The farmer was so shocked and
afraid that he tried to leave the place. However, when he was about to leave, he stepped
on the dried leaves and caused a noise. The two men saw him. One of the men pointed
the gun at the farmer and told him to come near them. Afraid for his life, the farmer
obeyed. The men, pointing the gun at the farmer told him to bury X lying on the
ground. The farmer said, “No, I don’t want to.” “If you will not bury X, we will shoot
you”, said one of the men. The farmer was so afraid and so he dug the ground and
buried X.
Q: Is the farmer criminally liable together with the two men?
A: No. There was an uncontrollable fear when the farmer saw that the two
men shot X. If the two men can shoot X, they can also shoot him. Therefore,
there was an uncontrollable fear and it was real and imminent. The farmer’s
fear is of an injury is greater than or equal to that committed because his life
is more important. Therefore all the elements are present, he is not liable.
LAWFUL AND INSUPERABLE CAUSE
Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by
some lawful insuperable cause.

Elements;
1. An act is required by law to be done;
2. A person fails to perform such act;
3. Failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable
cause;
No Civil Liability
Note that it is one of the instances in exempting circumstances that the actor is exempt from both
criminal and civil liability. It is akin to a justifying circumstance because what prevented the
offender from performing a lawful act is a lawful cause.
Example;

For example, there is a war in which the Philippines is involved. A, B, and C conspired
to commit treason against the government. A, one of the conspirators went to the priest
and confided to the priest that there was conspiracy between B and C to commit
treason against the government. Despite knowledge on the conspiracy to commit
treason, the priest did not immediately divulge it to the police. Under Art 116, the
priest is criminally liable for misprision of treason, for not divulging the
conspiracy to commit treason. However, the priest failed to perform such act due
to a lawful cause. Under your rules on evidence, a confession made to a priest is
considered as a privileged communication. Therefore the priest does not incur any
criminal liability.
Article 13.Mitigating Circumstances
Article 13.Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating
circumstances:

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites

necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective
cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy
years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance
with the provisions of Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication
of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his
spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person
in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt
before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering
some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or
communications with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the
will-power of the offender without however depriving him of the
consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and
analogous to those above mentioned.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Mitigating Circumstances are those circumstances which if present or
attendant in the commission of a felony would reduce the imposable penalty
because it shows lesser perversity or criminality of the offender.

Mitigating circumstances need not be alleged in the information in order to

be appreciated by the court provided that such circumstance is shown and
proven during the trial.
Kinds of mitigating Circumstance
There are 2 kinds of mitigating circumstance;
1. Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance;
2. Privileged Mitigating Circumstance;

Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance

An Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance is one which may be offset by a generic aggravating
circumstance aggravating circumstance. If an ordinary mitigating circumstance is not offset by a
generic ac it would reduce the imposable penalty to its minimum period.

Privileged Mitigating Circumstance

A Privileged Mitigating Circumstance is one which cannot be offset by any ac and the effect of
privilege mitigating circumstance is to reduce the imposable penalty not only to its period but by
one or more degrees
 ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGED MITIGATING

Can be offset by generic Cannot be offset by any kind of

aggravating circumstance; aggravating circumstance;

Lowers the penalty to the minimum period except

when there are two ordinary mitigating circumstance
in which case the penalty is Lowers the penalty by one or two degrees;
lowered by one degree only;

Not considered in the determination of the proper

penalty when the penalty prescribed by law for the
single crime is a single indivisible Always considered regardless of the penalty
penalty; imposed’
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCE
Incomplete Justifying or exempting circumstances are those mentioned in the
preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt
from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
Privileged Mitigating or Ordinary Mitigating

The following are the rules to determine whether an incomplete justifying or

incomplete exempting circumstance should be treated as privilege or ordinary
mitigating;

1. If majority of the elements necessary to justify the act or to exempt from

liability are present, then it’s treated as privileged mitigating circumstance;
2. If less than the majority is present, then it is an ordinary mitigating
circumstance which can be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance;
3. If the elements necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal
liability is only 2, the presence of 1 element is already a privileged mitigating
circumstance .
Incomplete Self-Defense

In case of incomplete self-defense, incomplete defense of a relative, incomplete

defense of a stranger, there must always be unlawful aggression in order for the mc to
mitigate.

It is only ordinary mitigating if only the element of unlawful aggression is present,

the incomplete self-defense should be treated as an Ordinary.

It is privileged mitigating circumstance if aside from unlawful aggression, another

element but not all is present, it is to be treated as a privilege mitigating circumstance .
MINORITY/SENILITY
That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the
case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Art. 80.

There are 2 mitigating circumstance here;

1. Minority;
2. Seniority;
Minority
Remember that if minority is not exempting, it is always and always a privileged
mitigating circumstance. Never an ordinary mitigating circumstance

So if the offender is over 15 but below 18, and he acted with discernment, it is not
exempting but it is a privileged mitigating circumstance .

Senility
Senility (a person over age70) is generally an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
PRAETER INTENTIONEM
That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
We have already studied this in Art. 4. This is praeter intentionem. Elements;
1. The offender committed a felony;
2. There must be a notable or notorious disparity between the means employed
by offender and the result felony.

So for praeter intentionem, for this mitigating circumstance to lie, it is necessary that
there must be a notable or notorious disparity between the means employed and the
resulting felony. That is, out of the means employed by the offender, no one could have
anticipated that the resulting felony would come.
Example;
A and B were fighting, A boxed B, B boxed A, A retaliated and boxed B again. When A
boxed B, B’s head hit a cemented wall and so he suffered cerebral hemorrhage and
thereafter caused his death.
Q: Is A criminally liable for the death of B?

A: YES. When A boxed B, he was committing a felonious act. Therefore he is

criminally liable for the resulting felony although it be different from which he
intended.

Q: But can he be given the benefit of praeter intentionem that he has no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed?

A: YES. There was a notable disparity between the means employed by the offender
and the resulting felony. Who could have anticipated that by the mere act of boxing
death would result. Therefore, he should be given the benefit of prater intentionem.
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT
That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the
act.

There must be a sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party and it must
immediately precede the commission of the crime.

The following are the elements of sufficient provocation;

1. The provocation must be sufficient;
2. It must be immediate to the commission of the crime;
3. it must originate from the offended party;
IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE
OFFENSE
That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing
the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.

Elements;
The following are the elements of immediate vindication of a criminal offense:

1. That there be a grave offense to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sister, or relatives by affinity within the
same degree;
2. It requires that the said act or grave offense must be the proximate cause of the
commission of the crime.
It is necessary that the commission of the crime was in immediate
vindication of the grave offense done to the one committing the felony.
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have
produced passion or obfuscation.

In the case of People v. Lobino (G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999), the
Supreme Court held that there is passion and obfuscation when the crime was
committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust
or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome
reason.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 are related to each other. They are collectively known as sudden impulse of passion and
obfuscation.

Elements;
1. There be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation;
2. The act that must produce passion and obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of
the crime by the considerable length of time during which the offender might have recovered his normal equanimity;

* Passion and obfuscation on the part of the accused must arise from lawful sentiments because an
unlawful act was committed against him.
Example;
Husband and wife were about to have dinner. Then someone was calling the name of the husband outside their
house. The wife opened the door, upon opening, the neighbor who was calling the name tried to hack the wife.
Good enough, the wife was able to reach and close the door and the wife was not hacked. The neighbor
however with a use of a bolo continuously hacked the wooden or the bamboo door and walls of the house.
And so, considering that his house was being damaged, the husband was forced to go outside to confront the
neighbor. He used the kitchen door. He called the neighbor and asked what was the reason why he was hacking.
The neighbor instead of answering tried to hack the husband. They struggled for the possession of the bolo, and in
the course the husband gained possession of the bolo. Once in the possession of the bolo, the husband hacked the
neighbor. The neighbor suffered a fatal wound but was brought to the hospital by the husband and so he survived.
Husband was prosecuted for frustrated homicide, the husband as a defense invoked 2 mitigating circumstance – 1st,
there was sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation, 2nd that there was sufficient provocation on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the action.
Q: Is sufficient provocation present?
A: YES. Both are present. There is sufficient provocation because of the act of the neighbor trying to hack the wife.
And his act of continuously hacking the wooden door and walls of the house – that is sufficient provocation.

Q: Is sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation present?

A: Yes. It is also present. The act of the neighbor trying to hack the wife and his act of continuously hacking the
wooden door and walls.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT

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;

There are 2 mitigating circumstance here;

1. Voluntary surrender;
2. Voluntary plea of guilt;

If both are present, you have to consider always 2 mitigating circumstance. They have different elements and would
always arise from different set of facts and circumstances. Therefore, they are always separate and distinct from each
other.
Voluntary Surrender
The elements of Voluntary surrender are the following;
1. The offender had not actually arrested; T
2. The offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agent;
3. Such surrender must be voluntary;
Voluntary Plea of Guilt
The elements of voluntary plea of guilt are the following;
1. That guilt tendered is confessed spontaneously and unconditionally;
2. That he confesses guilt in open court that is before the court tried his case;
3. The confession that was made before the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
PHYSICAL DEFECT
That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means
of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.

For this mitigating circumstance to lie in favor of the accused, it is necessary that there must be a connection, a
relation between the physical defect and the crime committed. It is necessary that the said physical defect must have
restricted his use of action, defense or communication with his fellow being.
Example;
A is a blind man, blind beggar, near the Quiapo church. One time he was begging for alms,
suddenly, he was scraped on his head with a wound, it was so strong that he fell on the ground
wounded. Angry, he stood up, took his cane and retaliated by hitting the person next to him, not
knowing that it was not the person but an innocent passerby. The innocent passerby suffered less
physical injuries. So the blind beggar was prosecuted for less serious physical injuries.

Q: Is the mitigating circumstance of physical defect present so as to reduce the imposable penalty?
A: YES. His being blind restricted his means of action, defense or communication with his fellow
being. His intention was to hit the person who scraped him with the wound. But because of he
could not see, he hit an innocent passerby. There was a relation between the physical defect and the
crime committed. Therefore, it will mitigate his criminal liability.
ILLNESS
Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will- power of the offender without however
depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.

So this is illness. It is necessary that the said illness must diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender. But
it must not deprive him of his consciousness of his act because if it will deprive him of consciousness of his act, then
it is exempting not merely mitigating.
Example;
A is a kleptomaniac, he has this urge to steal. Now, his urge is to steal diamonds. So one time he
was in a party, he was talking to a lady with diamond earrings, diamond necklace, diamond watch,
diamond bracelet. Then after the conversation, the lady went to the restroom. Upon looking at the
mirror, she shouted, she was shocked, the diamond earring, necklace, watch and bracelet were all
gone. It was already taken by the said accused. A was prosecuted for theft.

Q: Will his illness mitigate his criminal liability?

A: Yes. It diminishes his exercise of his will-power without however depriving him of
consciousness. He knew that he was committing theft, he knew that he was taking the personal
property of another but he cannot control, he has a diminished self-control to prevent the
commission of the crime. It will only mitigate, reduce the imposable penalty but it will not exempt
from criminal liability.
ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCE
And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.

Any other circumstance which is similar in nature from the 1st to the 9th paragraph, then it is also considered as a
mc.

Example;
A public officer who has malversed public funds, voluntarily, voluntary returned the public funds, it is akin to
voluntary surrender. Or what if a person is already of 65 years of age, sickly, suffering from a disease it can be said
to be akin or similar to seniority. It will mitigate his criminal liability.
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating
circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended
party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of
the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or
where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place
dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band,
whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.

Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of
an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,

earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or
afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which
the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or
promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, stranding of a vessel or international damage thereto, derailment of a
locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to
weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to
the natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the
purpose.
19. That as a means to the commission of the crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by
means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As
amended by RA 5438).
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented
by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Aggravating Circumstance are those which, if attendant in the commission of
the crime, serve to increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the
maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense.
Kinds of aggravating Circumstances:
1. Generic Aggravating;
2. Specific Aggravating;
3. Inherent Aggravating;
4. Qualifying Aggravating;
5. Special Aggravating;
In order for aggravating circumstance to be appreciated, all the aggravating
circumstance must be alleged in the information and must be proven during the trial.

Unlike justifying, exempting and mitigating circumstances, which are not stated or
alleged in the information, aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the
information. Even if they are proven in trial but they are not alleged in the information,
they cannot be considered against the person. They must be both alleged and likewise
proven during trial, so as not to deprive the accused of right to know the nature of the
accusation against him.
Generic Aggravating Circumstance
Generic Aggravating Circumstance
Generic Aggravating Circumstance are those that applies generally to all
crimes.

Example:
Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,14,18,19, and 20 of the Revised Penal Code; Nightime -
it can be applied to crimes against persons, crimes against property, crimes
against chastity and applied to all other crimes.
Specific Aggravating Circumstance
Specific Aggravating Circumstance
Specific Aggravating Circumstance are those that apply only to
certain or particular crimes.

Example:
Treachery (Par.16 Art. 14) can only be considered or appreciated in
crimes against persons.
Inherent Aggravating Circumstance
Inherent Aggravating Circumstance
Inherent Aggravating Circumstance are those which of necessity follow the
commission of the crime because they are considered as elements in the
commission of the crime, therefore they are considered inherent in the
commission of the crime.

If inherent aggravating circumstance are present in the commission of the

crime, they are no longer considered so as to increase the penalty because
they are considered as elements
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance are those which either change the
nature of the crime to bring about a more serious for a higher penalty or
even without changing the nature of the crime it would impose a higher
penalty.

Example:
In Art. 248 of the RPC, the circumstances therein present would qualify the
killing of a person from homicide to murder. The presence of treachery,
evident premeditation, cruelty in killing would make a crime not of homicide
but would be qualified to murder.
Special Aggravating Circumstance
Special Aggravating Circumstance

In the case of People of the Philippines v. De Leon (G.R. No. 179943, June 26, 2009) the Supreme Court defined
Special Aggravating Circumstances as circumstances which arise under special conditions to increase the penalty for
the offense to its maximum period, but the same cannot increase the penalty to the next higher degree.

In the case of special aggravating circumstance, it CANNOT be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Example:

The following are examples of Special Aggravating Circumstance;

1. Quasi-recidivism under Article 60 of the Revised Penal Code;
2. Complex Crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code; and
3. When homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm under P.D. 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294;
4. When in the omission of the crime, advantage was taken by the
offender of his public position under Article 62 of the RPC;
Effect of more than one Qualifying Circumstance

If there are more than one qualifying aggravating circumstance as for example, homicide qualified to murder, only
one will qualify the felony to murder and the others shall be considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance.
Example;

In case of qualifying aggravating circumstance, for example, A killed B there was treachery, it was done in
consideration of a price, reward or promise, there was also cruelty, so there are three qualifying aggravating
circumstances present. Only one of them will qualify the killing to murder. So if treachery is already proven, the
crime committed is already murder. Cruelty and the other circumstance of in consideration of a price, reward or
promise shall only be considered as generic aggravating circumstances.
THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION.

This aggravating circumstance can be applied only if the offender is a public officer.

Taking Advantage of Public Position

Taking advantage of public position means that the offender use the prestige,
influence or ascendency of his office in the commission of the crime or to facilitate
the commission of the crime.
Special Aggravating Circumstance

Under Art. 14, taking advantage of his public position is a generic

aggravating circumstance. However, under Art. 62 (as amended by RA
7659), the fact the crime was committed by taking advantage of his public
position is a special aggravating circumstance because the maximum
penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed.
CONTEMPT OF OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES.
This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his lack
of respect for the public authorities.

Elements:
1. That the public officer or public authority is engaged in the
exercise of his function;
2. That the public officer is not the person against whom the crime is
committed;
3. That the offender knows him to be a public officer;
4. That the presence of the public officer did not prevent the offender
from the commission of the crime.
That the public officer or public authority is engaged in the exercise of his
function.

Public authority refers to Justice of the peace, persons in authority, or any person directly vested
with jurisdiction whether an individual or some members of court or governmental commissioner.
It is necessary that he has the duty to govern and execute the laws.

Example;
Mayors, barangay chairman, police officer - merely an agent of a person in authority.

Agents of public authority are not included.

That the public authority is not the person against whom the crime is committed.

If the offender is the person against whom the crime is committed, such fact that the
crime was committed in contempt of the public authority is an element because the
crime committed would be direct assault. In direct assault, in contempt of or with insult
to public authority is an element, no longer an aggravating circumstance.
That the offender knows him to be a public authority.

There must be knowledge on the part of the offender that the said person is a public
authority. Otherwise, it cannot be said that he disrespected the said person as a public
authority if he has no knowledge that he is a public authority.
That the presence of the public authority did not prevent the offender from
the commission of the crime.

An offense may be said to have been committed in contempt of public

authority when his presence, made known to the offender, has not prevented
the latte from committing the criminal act.
DISRESPECT OF RANK, AGE OR SEX, OR DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY,
IF THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN PROVOCATION.

There are four aggravating circumstances under this paragraph;

1. Disregard of rank;
2. Disregard of age;
3. Disregard of sex;
4. Crimes committed in dwelling of the offended party;

These four aggravating circumstances can be appreciated singly or collectively if present in the commission of the
crime. There must be deliberate intent on the part of the offender to disrespect the offended party on account of the
latter’s age, sex, or rank.

Disregard of rank, disregard of age and disregard of sex can only be considered in crimes against persons and crimes
against chastity. You do not consider these in crimes against property; you do not consider these in crimes against
public interest. They can only be considered in crimes against persons and crimes against chastity.
Disregard of rank
Rank refers to a high social standing, a high position in the society. For this
to be considered as an aggravating circumstance, it is necessary that the
offender be of lower rank than that of the offended party.

Example;
A student attacking a professor. There was a disregard of rank of the said
professor. An employee attacking his employer. There was a disregard of
rank of the said employer.
Disregard of age
Age here refers to both minority and seniority.

Example;
The offended party is 95 years old. A killed him by hitting his head for 25
times with a lead pipe. Obviously, there was disregard of his age.
Considering his age, whereas even one hit of the lead pipe could have
already killed the said old man but he was hit 25 times showing disregard of
the age of the old man.
Disrespect of sex

Disrespect of sex refers to the female sex. This is inherent in the crime of
rape and in certain crimes involving chastity.
Crimes committed in dwelling of the offended party
Dwelling is considered as aggravating circumstance if the crime is committed inside
the dwelling of the offended party, that is, the offended party was inside his dwelling at
the time of the commission of the crime and he has not given any provocation.

If the crime is committed inside the dwelling of the offended party, it is as an

aggravating circumstance because it shows the greater perversity of the offender than
when the crime is committed in any other place.

The constitution itself provides that a man’s abode must be respected and therefore
when a crime is committed inside the house dwelling it shows the greater criminality
on the part of the offender.
Even if a crime is committed inside dwelling, it cannot be considered as aggravating if the following circumstances
are present;

1. Offended party has given provocation;

2. If the offender and the offended party are living in the same dwelling;
3. Dwelling is inherent in the commission of the crime.
Example;
X and Y are roommates in a rented apartment. One night, when X was studying for his exam, Y
arrived from work. Y was so tired, he went directly straight to bed and turned off the lights.
However, X turned on the lights and told Y that he was still studying. On the other hand, Y turned
off the lights because he can’t sleep with the lights. X turned off the lights, and Y turned it on
again. An altercation ensued between X and Y. Suddenly, X stabbed Y with a ballpen in the eye. Y
was blinded. X was charged with serious physical injury.

Q: May the aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated in this case?

A: NO. One of the exceptions for dwelling to be appreciated is that when the offender and the
offended party are both living together in the same dwelling. In this case, X and Y are roommates.
They are living in the same dwelling together. Thus, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling
cannot be appreciated.
Example;
X and Y were fighting in the streets. In the course of their fight, X lost. Thereafter, X went home
and left the gate and door open. Sometime later, X saw Y walking in the street in front of his home.
X told Y “kung matapang ka, pumasok ka dito”. Y entered the house of X. Without any warning, Y
stabbed X multiple times. Y was charged with the information of homicide.

Q: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be appreciated?

A: NO. In order for dwelling to be appreciated, there must be no provocation on the part of the
owner of the house who is also the offended party. In this case, were it not for X taunting Y to
come into his house if Y is brave, Y would not have had the opportunity to stab X.
*Dwelling includes the dependencies, the staircase and the enclosures therein.

*The dwelling need not be owned by the offended party. It suffices that the offended party uses it for rest and
comfort. E.g., a room being rented by the lessee or a tenant; room where a person is living as a bedspacer.
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS.

There are two aggravating circumstances;

1. Abuse of confidence;
2. Obvious ungratefulness;
Abuse of Confidence

The circumstance exists only when the offended party has trusted the offender who
later abuses such trust by committing the crime. The abuse of confidence must be a
means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the
offended party’s belief that the former would not abuse said confidence.

Elements of abuse of confidence;

1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abuse such trust by committing a crime against the
offended party;
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime
Example;
H and W were husband and wife living here in Manila for 4 years. Suddenly here comes X. X was their former
neighbor in Batangas. He told H and W “I am looking for work here in Manila, can I live in your house while I am
looking for work?” Since X was a good neighbor back then, H and W trusted X and allowed X to live inside their
house. X now sleeps in the house of H and W while he was looking for work here in manila. One time H was out of
the house. The house helpers and the drivers were also away. The only person left in the house was X and W. While
H was out, X went to the master’s bedroom and had carnal knowledge of W against the latter’s will.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance abuse of confidence present in this case?

A: YES. X was there because A and B trusted him, yet he abused such trust and confidence and instead facilitated
the commission of the crime. Therefore this aggravating circumstance is present.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of dwelling present in the case?

A: NO. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling in this case cannot be considered because at the time of the
incident, H and W allowed X to live with them even though it was only in a temporary basis. Ownership of the
house is irrelevant in dwelling.
Obvious Ungratefulness

Ungratefulness means the offender has no gratitude, does not even know how to say thank you.

The elements of obvious ungratefulness are the following;

1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abuse such trust by committing a crime against the offended party;
3. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness
Example;
A was selling kettles and other kitchen wares on the street under the heat of the sun. A goes from
one house to another under the heat of the sun. He was so thirsty already so he knocked on the gate
of the house of X. X opened the gate and A told X that he was so thirsty. X being a good person,
allowed A to go inside their house and asked him to take a sit while he get him a glass of water.
When he came back, he was not only holding a glass of water but also brought some biscuits.
However A suddenly, brought out his knife and stabbed X and thereafter robbed him.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance obvious ungratefulness present? A: YES. Instead of showing

gratitude for having been allowed to enter the house and given a glass of water with biscuits, he
instead took advantage of the goodness of the man and committed the crime of killing and robbery.
There was obvious ungratefulness on the part of the offender.
THE PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OR IN HIS PRESENCE, OR WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
ARE ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES OR IN A PLACE DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP.

If the crime is committed in any of these places it is considered as an

aggravating circumstance because it shows on the part of the offender lack of
respect on these places.

There are four aggravating circumstances in this case;

1. In the Palace of the chief executive;
2. In the presence of the chief executive;
3. Public authorities engaged in the discharge of their duties;
4. Place dedicated to religious worship;
In order however for these aggravating circumstances to be considered, it is
necessary that the offender deliberately sought the said place to commit the
crime because otherwise it cannot be said that he disrespected the place.
In the presence of the Chief Executive

Even if the Chief Executive is not engaged in his official duty, still it is considered as aggravating
because of the lack of respect to the chief executive.

Where the Public Authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties

It is not only necessary that the said places are where public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties, it is also necessary that at the time of the commission of the crime, the
public authorities are actually engaged in the performance of their duties.
In a place dedicated to religious worship
Even if there is no religious ceremony on going, for as long as the said crime is committed in said
place dedicated to religious worship it is aggravating because of lack of respect on said place.

Example;
X was in a church praying to kill Y. X saw Y at the back of the church. X went out of the church. X
entered the church in the back door and suddenly, he stabbed Y. Y died. X was charged with
homicide.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of place of religious worship present?

A: YES. In order for the aggravating circumstance of religious worship to be appreciated, the
offender must especially sought the place to facilitate the commission of the crime. In this case,
when X saw Y, he went out of the church and entered in the back so that he could stab
Y. X deliberately sought the place of religious worship to facilitate the commission of the crime.
NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE, OR BY A BAND
There are three aggravating circumstances in this case;
1. Nighttime;
2. Uninhabited place;
3. Band;

Nighttime

Nighttime is from sunset to sunrise. In order for these aggravating circumstances to be considered, it is necessary
that the offender deliberately sought the darkness of the night either to facilitate the commission of the crime or to
insure or afford impunity.
Elements;

The following are the elements of Nighttime;

1. The darkness or silence of the night was especially sought by the offender;
2. That night time was taken advantage of by the offender to facilitate the commission
of the crime;
3. The purpose is to insure his immunity from capture;

Even if the offender sought nighttime, the moment the scene of the crime has been
illuminated by any light, rule out nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.
An uninhabited place
Means a place which is isolated from the others or located far from others. However,
this is not the requirement for it to be considered aggravating.

Requisites;
1. That in the place where the crime was committed there was a remote possibility for
the victim to receive some help;
2. That the offender deliberately sought the uninhabited place in order to facilitate the
commission of the crime;
By a band

For the aggravating circumstance of by a band to be present, the law says where more than three armed
malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of the offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed
by a band. Therefore, there must be at least 4 armed men in the commission of the crime or they must have acted
together in the commission of the crime.
ON THE OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE,
EPIDEMIC, OR OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE.
It is considered as an aggravating circumstance because on occasion of these calamities, the offender took advantage
of the said occasion in order to commit the crime.
AID OF ARMED MEN

Aid of armed men means that the armed men aided the offender in the commission of the crime. The aid given by
the armed men maybe a direct or indirect participation in the commission of the crime.

The armed men who gives aid to the offender are merely accomplices because they may give material or moral aid
to the offender.
 BY A BAND AID OF ARMED MEN

There must be at least 4 armed There is no requisite as to the

malefactors; number of armed men;

Must have acted together in the actual The armed men may have direct or indirect
commission of the crime; (conspiracy) participation. They are mere accomplices of
the offender.
RECIDIVISM

A recidivist is one whom at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have previously been convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.

The following are the elements of recidivism;

1. The offender is on trial for an offense;
2. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the second offense charged.
A has been convicted of the crime of attempted homicide. The judge found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, therefore, he was convicted. The judgment became final and executory, therefore
he was behind bars. He served out his sentence. Once out of prison cell, he lived a good life.
However, after 25 years, he engaged in a fight and killed the other man. By reasonable doubt he
was charged with and convicted of the crime of murder.

Q: Can the judge consider recidivism as an aggravating circumstance in imposing the penalty for
murder?
A: YES. Both homicide and murder are embraced in the same title of the code. The fact that 25
years had lapsed from the time of the first crime to the second crime is immaterial because
recidivism is imprescriptible. There is no time limit between the first crime for which he has been
convicted by final judgment and the second crime for which he is also convicted.
REITERACION OR HABITUALITY

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.

The following are the elements of reiteracion;

1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another crime to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty;
3. That he is also convicted of the new offense.

The first situation is that, he has already served out the sentence, he has already been punished for
a crime.
Under the second element there are two situations;

1. If it is only one crime it is necessary that the said crime must carry a
penalty equal to or greater than the second crime;

2. If there are two crimes for which he had been previously punished, it is
necessary that they carry a lighter penalties than the new crime for which he
is convicted.
There are four forms of habituality;

1. Recidivism; (Article 14, par. 9)

2. Riteracion; (Article 14, par. 10)
3. Habitual Delinquency; (Article 62, no. 5)
4. Quasi-recidivism; (Article 160)
Example:
A has been convicted of the crime of homicide. Convicted by final judgment, he was placed behind bars. He served
out his sentence. Once out of prison, he committed forcible abduction. Homicide is punished by reclusion temporal.
Forcible abduction is now on trial. The penalty prescribed by law for forcible abduction is also reclusion temporal.
The judge found him guilty for forcible abduction.

Q: Can the judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance in imposing the penalty for forcible abduction?
A: YES. The penalty for the crime of homicide where he has already served out his sentence is equal to the penalty
for forcible abduction, both reclusion temporal. Therefore, reiteracion or habituality can be considered.
IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE.

If the price, reward or promise, as a circumstance is present in the killing of a person, it is not
considered as a generic aggravating person but a qualifying aggravating circumstance. It is one of
the qualifying circumstances under Art.248.

This aggravating circumstance should be considered both against the person who made the offer
and the person who accepted the price, reward or promise. Therefore, it is to be considered both
against the principal by inducement and the principal by direct participation.

To be considered against the principal by inducement, it is necessary that the price, reward or
promise must be the prime reason for the principal by direct participation committed the crime.
That without the price, reward or promise, the principal by direct participation would not have
committed the crime.
BY MEANS OF GREAT WASTE AND RUIN

That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding
of a vessel or international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of
any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.

The offender makes use of inundation, fire or explosion in order to commit the crime. It
is a means to commit the crime. If these means are used in killing a person, it is not a
generic aggravating circumstance, it is a qualifying aggravating circumstance under
article 248. It qualifies the killing to murder.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION

It implies a deliberate plans before or after the commission of the crime.

The following are the requisites of evident premeditation;

1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination;
3. Sufficient lapse time between the determination and execution, to allow him
to reflect upon the consequences of his acts;
Example;
A slapped B two times in front of the public. B felt so humiliated so he told A “the next time I see
you, I will kill you!” B went home and searched for his gun. He found the same and kept it under
his pillow, waiting for the time to kill A. A month has lapsed. B while walking saw
A. upon seeing A, he immediately run to his house, went to his bedroom and took the gun under
his pillow. He raised back to A and shot him.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation present?

A: YES. First, the time when the offender determined to commit the crime. That is the time when B
told A “the next time I see you, I will kill you!” Second, an overt act manifestly indicating that he
has clung to his determination. He brought a gun. It is an overt act showing that he has clung to his
determination. Third, a sufficient lapse time between the determination and execution. A month has
passed. That is sufficient for him to cool off, to reflect upon the consequences of his acts.
Therefore, evident premeditation was present in the commission of the crime.
THAT THE CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE BE EMPLOYED.

There are three aggravating circumstances;

1. Craft;
2. Fraud;
3. Disguise
Craft
Craft means intellectual trickery or cunning resorted to by the accused

Example;
The accused knocked at the door. He knows that only the maid was at home.
He told the maid that he was a relative of the owners of the house who came
from the province. He was allowed to enter the house, thereafter he
committed a crime of robbery. There was cunning or intellectual trickery
resorted to by the accused for he tricked the maid to consummate the crime
of robbery.
Fraud
Fraud or deceit is manifested by the use of insidious words or machinations resorted to
by the accused so that the offended party will perform an act that will make the
offender do the crime easily.

Example;
The offended party was about to sleep on the upper portion of the house because the
lower portion is a store. The offender called over the owner, saying that he was going
to buy something. The owner went down the house and opened the store. However,
upon opening the store, he was stabbed and robbery was committed. There was fraud
as manifested by the insidious words or machinations, resorted to by the offender.
Disguise
Disguise are ways and means resorted to by the accused to conceal his
identity.

This include stockings, bonnet or anything that could be used so that one
could not be recognized.

If despite disguise he is recognized, rule out disguise as an aggravating

circumstance, it did not serve its purpose.
ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH

Abuse of superior strength is intentionally employing excessive force out of proportion

to the means of defense available to the offended party.

The requisites for abuse of superior strength are the following;

1. That there be a notorious inequality of forces between the offender and the offended
party in terms of their age, size and strength;
2. That the offender took advantage of this inequality of forces to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
Inequality of forces

Inequality of forces includes the following;

1. Offender uses weapon to tak advantage;
2. Numerical Superiority;
3. Difference in physical characteristics such as age strength and size.

The mere fact that there was numerical superiority does not automatically mean that there is abuse
of superior strength. Under the second element, evidence must show that the offender deliberately
took advantage of their strength to facilitate the commission of the crime.
TREACHERY
1. There is treachery or alevosia when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make

The following are the elements of treachery;

1. That the offender deliberately adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him;
2. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself.
The essence of treachery is the suddenness and unexpectedness of the act
to unexpecting and unarmed victim who has not even the slightest
provocation. The victim must be totally without defense.
If the victim was able to put out any defense, no matter how minor,
treachery is not present.
Example;

A was about to stab B but he was able to parry the blow, that is already a defense on his
part. He was able to run away, that is already considered as a defense. Treachery is no
longer present. It is necessary that the offended party or the victim must be totally
without defense.
Q: What if the attack is a frontal attack?
A: Even if it is a frontal attack, if it is so sudden, unexpected, such that the offended party would not be aware of it
and was not able to put up any defense, there is still treachery.

Example;
A and B were walking towards each other. When near enough, B suddenly stabbed A. It was a frontal attack yet
obviously there was treachery. A was totally defenseless and B deliberately and consciously adopted the means in
the commission of the crime.
People v. Matibag (G.R. No. 206381, March 15, 2015)

Deceased Duhan was walking along the road when the accused Matibag confronted him and asked “ano bang
pinagsasabi mo?”, Duhan replied “wala”. Matibag thereafter hit Duahan and pulled out a gun and shot him. Matibag
was charged with the murder qualified by treachery.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery present in this case? A: YES. The essence of treachery is the sudden
and unexpected attack. A frontal attack does not necessarily rule out treachery. The qualifying circumstance may still
be appreciated if the attack was so sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no time to prepare for his or her
defense. In this case, Although the attack was frontal, the sudden and unexpected manner by which it was made
rendered it impossible for Duhan to defend himself, adding too that he was unarmed.
When Victim is a Minor
Whenever the offended party is a minor, there is always treachery because the minor is
always defenseless.

Example;
Victim is 17 years of age, but a big, macho man, full of muscles.

Q: Is there treachery?
A: The Supreme Court held that whenever the offended party is a minor, there is
always treachery.
Minority Appreciated in Treachery
Minority here does not refer to the statutory definition of minority, that is,
being below 18 years of age. Minority here is with reference to the sense of
helplessness of the victim. So it is necessary that the victim is helpless.

Example;
If the victim is 17 years old with a masculine physique and was able to put
up a defense, there is no treachery. But if the victim is 6 years old, then there
is treachery.
Treachery absorbs Craft
If craft was used to insure the commission of the crime without risk to the accused, it is absorbed as treachery.

Treachery Absorbs Abuse Superior Strength

When both abuse of superior strength and treachery is present, only treachery will be appreciated because abuse of
superior strength is absorbed by treachery.
IGNOMINY
Ignominy is a moral circumstance which adds disgrace or humiliation
to the injury suffered by the victim.
People v. Bumidang (G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000)
Accused Bumidang went into the house of Melencio Imbat in the middle night. Accused threatened to kill Melencio
and her unmarried daughter Gloria if the door was not opened. When Melencio opened the door, the accused asked
where the room of Gloria is. Melencio thereafter pointed to the room of Gloria. The accused went inside the room of
Gloria. The accused threatened to kill her with a spear if she resisted. The accused removed the garments of Gloria,
inspected her genitals with a flashlight and proceeded to have carnal knowledge in front of Melencio.

Q: Was there ignominy in this case?

A: YES. The Supreme Court held that it was established that BALIWANG used the flashlight and examined the
genital of Gloria before he ravished her. He committed his bestial deed in the presence of Gloria's old father. These
facts clearly show that BALIWANG deliberately wanted to further humiliate Gloria, thereby aggravating and
compounding her moral sufferings.
People v. Saylan (G.R. No. L-36941, June 29, 1984)
Accused Saylan raped Eutropia Agno five times. In one of those time, Saylan gained entry to the genitals of the
Eutropia from behind in dog- style position. Eutropia filed a complaint for rape against Saylan.

Q: Does the dog-style position adds ignominy to rape?

A: YES. The entry of the penis was from behind. Although this position was not novel and in fact normal in case of
two consenting partners, such act adds ignominy in rape cases.
People v. Fernandez (G.R. No. L-62116, March 22, 1990)
Rebecca Soriano is employed as a house helper. Rebecca had just taken a shower in the house of her master when
suddenly, accused went inside the house and raped her. She added that after the ape, the accused grab a handful of
mud and smeared it on her vagina.

Q: Is there ignominy in this case?

A: YES. The act of "plastering" mud on the victim's vagina right after she was raped, is adequately and properly
described as "ignominy".
UNLAWFUL ENTRY

There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not

intended for the purpose.

In correlation to this, paragraph 19 states that as a means to the

commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
broken.
Example;
A was on vacation. B knew that A was on vacation. He saw that the window on the
third floor of the house was open. He got a ladder and placed it in the window, climbed
it and entered the house. Then he took the valuables, got out through the window.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry present?

A: NO. The reason is that, the fact that a crime was committed after an unlawful entry
is inherent in the commission of the crime because the crime committed is robbery
under Art.299, robbery with use of force upon things. The essence of robbery, is in the
act of unlawful entry. The entry was done through a means not intended for anything
that is to a window. Thus, the fact that a crime was committed after an unlawful entry is
not an aggravating circumstance.
Example;
A was passing by the house of B. Suddenly he saw through the window, two cellphones being charged. Interested on
the cellphones, he broke the window entered his hand and took the cellphones.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance that as a means to the commission of the crime the window was broken present?
A: YES. The crime committed is theft only and not robbery because the offender did not enter the house. In the case
of People v. Jaranilla (G.R. No. L-28547 February 22, 1974) One essential requisite of robbery with force upon
things is that the malefactor should enter the building or dependency, where the object to be taken is found. If the
culprit did not enter the building, there would be no robbery with force upon things. The crime committed is only
theft. In this case, the offender only broke the window, entered his hand and took the cellphones. Therefore, the
crime committed is theft. In theft, the fact that a window was broken is not inherent it is an aggravating
circumstance.
AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS

If the crime committed makes use of minors under 15 years of age, it shows the greater
perversity of the offender because he knows that minors cannot be arrested. Persons
below 15 years of age cannot be prosecuted, it is among the exempting circumstances.
Therefore, it shows greater perversity.
BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLE

BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLE

If the crime is committed with the use of motor vehicle in killing a person, it is a
qualifying aggravating circumstance under article 248. If the motor vehicle is used in
the commission of any other crime, it is a mere generic aggravating circumstance.
CRUELTY

Cruelty is the additional physical pain aside from the material injury which is not
necessary to the commission of the crime.

The following are the elements of cruelty;

1. That at the time of the infliction of the physical pain, the offended party is still alive;
2. That the offender enjoys and delights in seeing his victim suffer gradually by the
infliction of the physical pain;

* The victim must be alive because a corpse cannot feel pain.

 IGNOMINY CRUELTY

The victim suffered moral pain; The victim suffered physical

pain or physical suffering;

The victim may either be alive It is necessary that the victim is

or dead; alive;
USE OF AN UNLICENSED FIREARM

Under section 1 of P.D. 1866 as amended by. R.A. 8294, If homicide or

murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Special Aggravating Circumstance
In the case of People v. Palaganas (G.R. No. 165483, September 12, 2006)
The Supreme Court held that the passage of Republic Act. No. 8294 on 6
June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now
considered as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not a generic
aggravating circumstance.

Thus, if the use of unlicensed firearm is inherent in the crime committed, it

shall not constitute as another offense but will be considered as a special
aggravating circumstance.
DANGEROUS DRUGS
A killed B. thereafter he chopped the body of B. because of the manner employed by
the accused in killing the victim, the police suspected that he was under the influence
of prohibited drugs. He was brought to the PNP crime laboratory for forensic
examination. the results provided that he was under the influence of prohibited drugs.

Q: What is the effect of the positive result of the said examination on the commission
of the crime of the said accused?
A: Under Section 25 of RA 9165, when a crime is committed by an offender under the
influence of dangerous drugs, such state shall be considered as a qualifying
aggravating circumstance. Therefore, it will bring about a change in the nature of the
crime to a more serious crime with a higher penalty.
Art. 15. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are those which must
be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the
nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its
commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of
instruction and education of the offender.

The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into

consideration when the offended party in the spouse, ascendant,
descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative
by affinity in the same degrees of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a
mitigating circumstances when the offender has committed a felony in a
state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan
to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional,
it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE

Alternative circumstances are those circumstances which can either

be aggravating or mitigating, depending on their effect in
commission of the crime.
There are three alternative Circumstances in Article 15

1. Relationship;
2. Intoxication;
3. Degree of Instruction or Education
RELATIONSHIP
Relationship is considered as an alternative circumstance when the offender is related to the offended party as his
spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, illegitimate, natural, adopted brothers, sisters or relatives by affinity
within the same degree.

Relationship as mitigating
Relationship is considered as mitigating in crimes against property.

Relationship as an Absolutory Cause

In certain crimes against property, relationship of the offender with the offended party is exempting.

Example;
1. Theft;
2. Estafa or swindling; and
3. Malicious mischief;
Under article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, if the crime committed
is theft, estafa or swindling, and malicious mischief, relationship
exempts the offender from criminal liability.
Relationship in crimes against Persons

In crimes against persons, relationship is mitigating if the following circumstances are

present;

1. The offender is of a higher degree than that of the offended party; and
2. The crime committed is less physical injury, or slight physical injury.

Relationship is aggravating if the crime committed by the offender who is of higher

degree than that of the offended party is serious physical injury

Relationship is inherent in the crime of parricide.

INTOXICATION

There is intoxication when the offender has taken such amount of liquor of sufficient
quantity as to affect his mental capacity to determine the consequences of his act.

Intoxication as mitigating

Intoxication is considered as a mitigating circumstance if it is not habitual or

subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.
Intoxication as aggravating

Intoxication is considered as an aggravating circumstance if it is habitual and it is done

subsequent to the commission of a crime.
DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION
As a rule a low degree of education or instruction is considered as a
mitigating circumstance.

Exception: if the crime committed is inherently evil or wrong.

Exemption;
Killing a person, molesting a woman, taking the personal property of another.
Such is as wrong as to a learned man as it is to an ignorant man.
As Aggravating Circumstance
A high degree of education is considered as an aggravating circumstance if the
offended makes use of his high degree of education in facilitating the commission of
the crime.

Example;
A lawyer committing estafa by falsifying a deed of absolute sale. The lawyer makes use
of his high degree of education in order to commit the crime.

However, in a case where a lawyer kills another person in the course of an argument,
his high degree of education has nothing to do with the commission of the crime.
Therefore in this case, it cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES

Absolutory Causes are those circumstance which have the effect in Article 12.
Absolutory causes exempts a person from criminal liability but not from civil liability.

Examples;
1. Mistake of fact;
2. Instigation;
3. Accessories in Light felonies
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Extenuating circumstances are those which have the same effect as mitigating
circumstance but not included in Article 13, to lower the imposable penalty

Example;
A mother killed her own child less than 3 days old in order to conceal her dishonor.
The penalty here will be lowered by 2 degrees, from reclusion perpetua to death, the
penalty will be prision mayor.
INSTIGATION

I mentioned Instigation, as an absolutory cause. In instigation, the mens rea originated

from the mind of the public officer who only lured the offender to commit the crime.

On other hand, entrapment is not an absolutory cause because entrapment refers to

ways and means resorted to by the public officer in order to trap and capture a criminal
in flagrante delicto. Here, the mens rea originated from the mind of the offender
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave and
less grave felonies:

Principals.
Accomplices.
Accessories.

The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

Principals
Accomplices
Art. 17. Principals. — The following are considered
principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of
the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to
commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the
offense by another act without which it would not have
been accomplished.
Kinds

There are three kinds of Principals;

1. Principal by direct participation;
2. Principal by inducement;
3. Principal by indispensable cooperation;
PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION

Principal by direct participation are those who take direct part in the
execution of the act.

The principal by direct participation must necessarily be present in

the scene of the crime because he is the one who actually executed
the crime. Without him, the crime will not be committed.
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
Principal by inducement are those who directly force or induce others to
commit it.

The principal may or may not be present in the scene of the crime.

Forms of inducement
Inducement may come in different forms;
1. Giving of price, reward or promise;
2. By employing force, command or ascendancy which is being
followed by the principal by direct participation.
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION

Principal by indispensable cooperation are those who cooperate in the commission of

the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.

Elements;
1. The accused participated in the criminal resolution;
2. Performance by him of another act indispensable to the accomplishment of
the crime;

The principal by indispensable cooperation must be at the scene of the crime because
he must perform another act without the crime would not have been.
Art. 18. Accomplices

Art. 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons who, not being
included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous
or simultaneous acts.
The accomplice merely cooperates in the commission of the crime by
previous of simultaneous acts. The participation is only minor in character. It
only provides material and moral aide in an efficacious manner but not in an
indispensable manner.
If the act performed by the offender facilitated the commission of the crime,
but it is not indispensable in the commission of the crime, with or without
said act nevertheless, the crime had been committed, the offender is merely
an accomplice.
Requisites to be an accomplice;

1. There must be a community of design;

2. That he performs the acts previous or simultaneous to the
commission of the crime; and
3. That the acts performed by the principal is related to the acts
performed by the accomplice.
Community of design

The accomplice had been informed of the criminal design of the offender and having been informed, he concurs with
the said criminal design. He’s not part of the conspiracy but he knows and concurs with the design because he was
informed of the same only after the principal had come up with agreement.

Example;
A, B, C, D, and E decided to rob a bank. Based on their agreement, A.B, and C will be the ones to enter the bank. D
will serve as lookout. E will serve as the driver of the vehicle. They committed the crime on the date agreed upon.

Q: What are the liabilities of A, B, C, D, and E?

A: All of them are liable as principals by direct participation, because all of them are authors of the criminal design.
Example;
What if, A, B and C decided to rob the bank. On the agreed time and place, they were already about to go to the
bank, but suddenly they realized they have no vehicle. So they flagged down a taxi. They informed the taxi driver of
their criminal design, to which the taxi driver agreed for his car to be used as a getaway vehicle. While on their way
to the bank, they realized that they needed a lookout. They saw a balut vendor and asked him, “Can you be our
lookout? The moment you see a police coming, shout baluuuuut!” The said vendor agreed to the said criminal
design. After robbing the bank, A B C and the balut vendor boarded the taxi.

Q: What is the criminal liability of each?

A: A, B, and C, are liable as principal by direct participation, while the taxi driver and the balut vendor are liable as
accomplices. They are accomplices since A, B, and C already agreed on the criminal design before they informed the
two of the same and the latter concurred by performing simultaneous acts or subsequent to the commission of the
crime.

* So no matter how minor the participation is of an offender, if he is an author of the criminal design,
even if he only acted as a lookout, still he is liable as a principal by direct participation
Example;
X wanted to kill Y. X knows that Y is living in a dorm. In order to execute his plan, X contacted W who is also
living in the same dorm as Y. X told W of his plan to kill Y. X asked W to open the gate of the dorm at exactly 1 am
so that X could enter. At exactly 1am, W opened the door to the dorm allowing X to enter. Upon entering, X
immediately went to the room of Y. Thereafter, X stabbed Y. Y died.

Q: What is the liability of X?

A: X is liable as a principal by direct participation in the crime of homicide regarding the death of Y. X is the one
who performed all the acts of execution by stabbing Y resulting to the death of the latter.

Q: What is the liability of W?

A: W is liable as an accomplice. Although W knew of the plan to kill X, he did not participate the criminal
resolution thereof. X merely informed W of the plan, and W merely concurred. Likewise, the acts of W in opening
the gate for X is not an indispensable act in order to consummate the homicide of Y. X could have easily asked
another person to open the gate of the dorm for him.
Art. 19. Accessories.
Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of
the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime;
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or
instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the
crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the
author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life
of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other;
Knowledge of the Crime
The accessory does not know the criminal design. What he knows is the
commission of the crime. Despite knowledge that the crime has been
committed, he takes part subsequent to its commission.

BY PROFITING FROM THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME.

The accessory profited or assisted the offender to profit from the effects of
the crime.
Example;
A, by means of deceit, was able to take the diamond ring of his friend. So, A swindled
his friend by means of deceit. After taking the ring, she went to B. A told B “B, I have
here a diamond ring, I swindled it from my friend and I’m selling it to you for only
10k. B bought the said ring and displayed it to his shop to have it sold. Later B was
found in possession of the said ring.

Q: Is B liable as an accessory?
A: YES. B assisted A, the principal of the crime of swindling, in profiting from the
effects of the crime by buying the stolen diamond ring. Furthermore, B later sold the
diamond ring for profit. Thus, B is considered as an accomplice.
DESTROYING THE BODY OF THE CRIME TO PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY
2nd act of an accomplice is by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the
effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.

Body of the crime

The body of the crime does not mean the corpse of a deceased person in murder, or the
item stolen in case of robbery or theft. It means that a fact has been committed by
someone.

Elements of body of the crime;

1. Proof of occurrence of a certain event;
2. Proof of person’s criminal liability;
ASSISTING THE ESCAPE OF THE PRINCIPAL

The 3rd act of the accessory is by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of
the principals of the crime, provided that he either;
1. Acts with abuse of his public functions; or
2. 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
offense;

* If the accessory who harbored and concealed or assisted in the escape of the
of the principal is a private individual, the law specifies the crime committed, which is
PD 1829, otherwise known as Obstruction of Justice.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Obstruction of Justice is committed by any person who willfully and lawfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the
investigation and prosecution of criminal cases.
Example;
The principal committed swindling or estafa. X harbored the
principal despite knowing the latter committed estafa. X cannot be
considered as an accessory because estafa or swindling is not among
the crimes mentioned in the second part of the 3rd act.

Q: What is the criminal liability of the friend?

A: He is liable for obstruction of justice under P.D. 1829.
FENCING
Under P.D. 1612, a fence includes any person, firm, association
corporation or partnership or other organization who/which commits
the act of fencing.

“Fencing" 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.
Elements
In the case of Dimat v. People (G.R. No. 181184, January 25, 2012) The Supreme
Court held the following as elements of fencing;

1. A robbery or theft has been committed;

2. The accused, who took no part in the robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses,
keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in
any article or object taken during that robbery or theft;
3. The accused knows or should have known that the thing derived from that crime;
and
4. He intends by the deal he makes to gain for himself or for another.
Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability.

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

An accessory is exempted from criminal liability in the following instances;

1. When the crime committed is a light felony;
2. When the said accessory is the spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural,
and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees;
PENALTIES

PENALTIES
Penalties refers to punishment, imposed by lawful authority upon a person who has committed an
intentional felony or a culpable felony

2 kinds of penalties;
1. Principal; and
2. Accessory

Principal penalties
Principal penalties are penalties prescribed by law or prescribed by the court.

Accessory penalties
Accessory penalties are those which are necessarily included in the imposition of principal
penalties.
Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. — The penalties which may be
imposed according to this Code, and their different classes, are those
included in the following:
SCALE

PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
Capital punishment:
Death.

Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.

Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional, Arresto mayor, Suspension, Destierro.
Light penalties:
Arresto menor, Public censure.

Penalties common to the three preceding classes: Fine, and

Bond to keep the peace.
ACCESSORY PENALTIES

Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,

Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling.
Civil interdiction, Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense,
Payment of costs.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

DEATH
Under RA 9346, death penalty cannot be imposed.

SEC. 2 of RA 9346: in lieu of death penalty it shall be reclusion perpetua in case of violation of the RPC and life
imprisonment in case of violation of Special Penal Laws.

SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to
reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES
RECLUSION PERPETUA AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT

Reclusion perpetua is imposed in case the offender violated the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. On the other
hand, life imprisonment is imposed in case the offender violate the provisions of the special penal laws.

Reclusion perpetua v. Life Imprisonment

The following are the distinctions reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment;

RECLUSION PERPETUA LIFE IMPRISONMENT

Penalty is imposed in case of violation of the Revised Penal Penalty is imposed in case of violation of special penal laws;
Code;

Carries a duration of 20 to 40 No fixed duration;

years;

Carries with it an accessory Does not carry an accessory

penalty; penalty’
Q: Is Reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty?

A: NO. In People v. Lucas (G.R. Nos. 108172-73, January 9, 1995) had the Congress intended that Reclusion
perpetua be a divisible penalty, the application of two indivisible penalties under Article 63 of the Revised Penal
Code will be meaningless and there would be no statutory rules for determining when either reclusion perpetua or
death should be the imposable penalty

Q: If reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, then what is the reason for fixing the duration of reclusion
perpetua?
A: In the same case as mentioned above, the Supreme Court held that the duration of thirty (30) years for reclusion
perpetua is necessary to serve as the basis for determining the convict's eligibility for pardon or for the application of
the three-fold rule in the service of multiple penalties.
RECLUSION TEMPORAL
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of reclusion temporal is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years.

PRISION MAYOR
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of Prision mayor shall be from six (6) year and one day to
twelve (12) years.

DISQUALIFICATION
Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification may be either a
principal penalty or an accessory penalty.

Principal Penalty
As a principal penalty, the duration of temporary absolute or special disqualification shall be from six (6) year and
one day to twelve (12) years under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code.

Accessory Penalty
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, when the penalty of temporary special or absolute disqualification is
imposed as an accessory penalty, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
The principal penalty which accompanies perpetual
absolute disqualification are the following;
1. Death; (thirty years following the date of
sentence)
2. Reclusion perpetua;
3. Reclusion temporal;
The principal penalty which accompanies perpetual
special disqualification of the right of suffrage are the
following;
1. Prision mayor;
2. Prision correccional ;
Perpetual Absolute v. Temporary Absolute
PERPETUAL ABSOLUTE TENMPORARY ABSOLUTE
Effective during the lifetime of the convict and even after the service of Disqualification lasts during the term of the sentence, and is removed
the sentence; after the service of the sentence, except:
1. Deprivation of the Public office/employment;
2. Loss of all rights to retirement pay or pension for any office formerly held.
CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES
PRISION CORRECCIONAL AND DESTIERRO
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of the penalties of prision correccional shall be from six
(6) months and one
(1) day to six (6) years.

DESTIERRO
Under Article 87 of the Revised Penal Code, any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the
place or places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250
and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated.

Destierro is a principal penalty and has a duration of six (6) months and one (1) day to six(6) years under Article 27
of the Revised Penal Code,
SUSPENSION
Suspension may either be a principal penalty or an accessory penalty.

Suspension as principal penalty

Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of the penalties of destierro shall be from six (6) months
and one (1) day to six(6) years.

Suspension as accessory penalty

Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, when the penalty of destierro is imposed as an accessory penalty, its
duration shall be that of the principal penalty.

ARRESTO MAYOR
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one (1)
month and one (1) day to six (6) months.
LIGHT PENALTIES
PENALTIES COMMON TO THE THREE CLASSESS

FINE
A pecuniary penalty which is imposed by the court in case of the judgment of conviction. Instead of imprisonment,
the penalty imposed is fine.

BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE

Under Article 35 of the Revised Penal Code, It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond to keep the
peace, to present two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will not commit the offense sought to
be prevented, and that in case such offense be committed they will pay the amount determined by the court in the
judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said undertaking.

Bond to keep the peace is a principal penalty.

Bond for Good Behavior
Bond to keep the peace is different from bond for good behavior.

Under Article 284 of the Revised Penal Code, in cases of grave threats and
light threats, the person making the threats may also be required to give bail
not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he
shall be sentenced to destierro.
ACCESSORY PENALTIES

CIVIL INTERDICTION

Under Article 34 of the Revised penal Code, Civil interdiction shall deprive the
offender during the time of his sentence the following rights;

1. Rights of parental authority;

2. Guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward;
3. Marital authority,
4. The right to manage his property; and
5. The right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter
vivos.
The offender sentenced to civil interdiction ma make a last will and testament because
the prohibition to dispose property extends only to inter vivos and not to mortis causa.

Donation may also be made by the offender provided that it shall take effect after death
or mortis causa.
An accessory penalty
Civil Interdiction is always an accessory penalty in case
of the following principal penalties;
1. Death;
2. Reclusion perpetua;
3. Reclusion temporal;
FORFEITURE AND CONFISCATION

Under Article 45 of the Revised penal Code, every penalty imposed for the
commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of
the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in
favor of the Government, unless they be property of a third person not liable
for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce
shall be destroyed.
PAYMENT OF COST
PAYMENT OF COST
Cost means the expenses of litigation.

Cost Includes
Under Article 7 of the Revised Penal Code, costs shall include fees and indemnities in
the course of the judicial proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable amounts
previously determined by law or regulations in force, or amounts not subject to
schedule.

Q: Who shall pay the cost?

A: If an accused is convicted of a crime, cost shall be adjudged against him. However,
in case of acquittal, each party must bear his own lost.
PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
Preventive Imprisonment is the detention of accused
while the case against him is ongoing trial either because;

1. The crime he committed is a non-bailable offense

and evidence of guilt is strong; or
2. The crime committed is a bailable offense but he
does not have the funds.
Q: Can the period of preventive imprisonment undergone by the accused be
credited to his final sentence?

Yes. As a general rule, Article 29 of the RPC states that offenders who have undergone
preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive
imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following
cases;

1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more times of
any crime; and
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to
surrender voluntarily;
Q: What is the effect if the detention prisoner does not abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners?

A: Under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, if the detention prisoner does
not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths
of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment.
Q: What is the effect if the accused has undergone imprisonment for a
period equal to or more than the maximum imprisonment for the offense
charged?

A: Under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, whenever an accused has

undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the
possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be
sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released
immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the
proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review.
Q: Can the period of preventive imprisonment be deducted in case of
destierro?

A: YES. Because destierro also involves deprivation of liberty and has a fixed duration
of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.

NOTE: If detention has already exceeded the possible maximum imprisonment of the
offense charged but his case is not yet terminated, file a case for Habeas Corpus for the
immediate release of the accused.
PARDON

PARDON
There are two kinds of pardon;
1. Pardon by the offended party; (Article 23)
2. Pardon by the President; (Article 36)

Pardon by the offended party

Under Article 23 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon of the offended party
does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this
Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is
extinguished by his express waiver.
Example;
X killed Y. The relatives of Y filed a complaint for homicide against X. thereafter, X
asked forgiveness from the relatives of Y. The relatives of Y accepted the apology of X
and thereby granted him a pardon.

Q: Will the pardon of the offended party extinguish the criminal liability of the
offender in homicide?
A: NO. In the crime of homicide, pardon by the offended party will not extinguish the
criminal liability of the offender. Homicide is a public crime and it is essentially more
of an offense against the state rather than the offended party because it causes
disturbance or public disorder.
Private Crimes
Pardon by the offended party will only operate to extinguish the criminal
liability in private crimes as mentioned under Article 344 of the Revised
Penal Code;
1. Adultery;
2. Concubinage;
3. Seduction;
4. Abduction;
5. Rape; and
6. Acts of lasciviousness;
Example;
X filed a complaint for acts of lasciviousness against Y. during the trial, Y
asked for forgiveness from X. X accepted the apology of Y. Thereafter, X
granted Y a pardon.
Pardon prior to Criminal proceedings

For pardon to extinguish the criminal liability of the offender, it must be given prior to the institution of the criminal
action.

Q: Will the pardon of X in the crime of acts lasciviousness against Y operate to dismiss the case already
instituted?

A: NO. Although the crime committed by Y is a private crime under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the case
will not be dismissed because it was given after the institution of the criminal prosecution.

Q: What is the effect of pardon given by X?

A: The pardon of X will only serve as to extinguish the civil liability of Y in the complaint for acts of lasciviousness.

Regardless of whether private or public crimes, the pardon given by the private complainant must be prior to the
institution of the criminal case.
Marital Rape

Although the general rule is that pardon must be given prior to the institution
of the criminal case, Article 266-C of the Revised Penal Code, the
subsequent valid marriage between the offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or the penalty imposed.

Under Article 266-C of the revised penal Code, in case it is the legal husband
who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, That the
crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the
marriage is void ab initio.
Pardon by the President

Pardon by the President

Under Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon shall not work the restoration of
the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly
restored by the terms of the pardon.

Just like amnesty and parole, the pardon by the president does not extinguish civil
liability because the same is personal to the victim.

2 kinds of pardon by the president;

1. Absolute pardon; (Article 89)
2. Conditional Pardon; (Article 94)
In addition, Presidential Pardon does not automatically restore the
following rights, unless they are specifically stated by the terms of
the pardon;

1. To hold public office;

2. To vote and be voted; and
3. To exercise his right of suffrage;
Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. — In case the property of
the offender should not be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary
liabilities, the same shall be met in the following order:

The reparation of the damage caused.

Indemnification of consequential damages
The fine.
The cost of the proceedings.
Article 39. Subsidiary penalty.

Article 39. Subsidiary penalty. - If the convict has no property with which to meet the
fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he shall be subject to a
subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the
following rules:

1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine,

he shall remain under confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph
is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of
the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or
part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not
exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and
shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment
shall be imposed upon the culprit.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but
such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding
rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal penalty
consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his
insolvency shall not relieve him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve.
(As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).
SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
Subsidiary Penalty is a substitute penalty for fine in case of insolvency by the accused.

Q: If the accused is insolvent and cannot pay the fine, may he be imposed of a
subsidiary penalty of imprisonment?
A: NO. Absent any express statement of subsidiary penalty by the court, subsidiary
penalty cannot be imposed even if the accused is insolvent and cannot pay the fine.

Q: Why must there be an express statement by the court imposing subsidiary

penalty?
A: Because it is only a substitute penalty. A subsidiary penalty is not a principal penalty
nor an accessory penalty, but only a substitute penalty for fine.
Rate of Subsidiary Penalty
Under Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, if the convict has no property with which
to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of Article 38 of the Revised Penal Code, he
shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount
equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time
of the rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial court subject to the following
rules;
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine,
he shall remain under confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph
is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of
the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or
part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner;
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not
exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and
shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony;
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment
shall be imposed upon the culprit;
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution,
but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the
preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal
penalty consists;
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his
insolvency shall not relieve him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances should
improve. (As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).
Limitations of Subsidiary Penalty

Subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed on the following instances;

1. If the judgment of the court did not impose fine as a penalty;
2. If the judgment of the court did not expressly state that in case of
nonpayment of fine, the convict shall suffer subsidiary penalty;
3. If the principal penalty that goes with fine exceeds prision
correccional or higher than 6 years;
4. If the principal penalty that goes with fine does not have fixed
duration;
5. If what the convict thinks to pay is not fine but damages and cost;
Example;
X was convicted of reckless imprudence causing damage to property.
Penalty imposed on him is fine and public censure. Lower portion of
the decision “in case of insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer
subsidiary penalty”.

Q: Is the court correct?

A: NO. The principal penalty that goes with fine is public censure is
not to be executed in a penal institution and is an indivisible penalty.
Example;
Accused was convicted of prision mayor and fine. The decision of the court
includes a statement that in case of insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer
subsidiary penalty.

Q: Is the court correct?

A: NO. Subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed if the principal penalty is
higher than the prision correccional. Since prision mayor is more than 6
years, subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed.
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes.

Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing
the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
applied in its maximum period.

2 Kinds of Complex Crime

There are 2 kinds of complex crime;

1. Compound Crime;
2. Complex Crime Proper;

In both kinds, only one (1) information is filed and the accused shall suffer the penalty
for the most serious crime in its maximum period.
COMPOUND CRIME
COMPOUND CRIME
Compound Crime is present when the offender performs a single act which constitutes
to two or more grave or less grave felonies.

Basis
Basis of compound crime is the singularity of act of the offender.

Elements

The elements of compound crime are the following;

1. Offender performs single act;
2. Resulted to two or more less grave felonies Basis: Singularity of act
Example;
X wanted to kill Y. to kill Y, X placed a bomb under the car of Y. When Y and wife and 3 children opened the car, the
bomb exploded. As a result, Y and his wife died. However, the children survived due to medical treatment.

Q: Is X liable for a complex crime?

A: YES. The single act of X in placing the bomb in the car of Y resulted to 5 grave felonies; the murder of Y and his
wife, and the frustrated murder of the children. The charge should be double murder with multiple frustrated murder.

Q: In the same problem, what is the crime committed if all of them died?
A: X will be liable for multiple murder because the single act of placing a bomb resulting to 5 grave felonies. There
should only be one charge or one information filed in court
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER

Complex crime proper is present when the offense is a necessary means commit the another offense.

Elements
The following are the elements of complex crime proper;
1. Two offenses committed;
2. Offenses necessary means to commit the other;
3. Both crimes are punished by the same statute

Example
The following are examples of complex crime proper;
1. Rape with forcible abduction - A was on the ladder of the house, B a woman abducted her against her
will and with lewd design;
2. Estafa thru falsification of public document. Person falsifies a public document – Falsification used
to defraud another;
Estafa through falsification of private document

There is no estafa by falsification of private document. In estafa and falsification of private document, there is only
and the same damage contemplated by both felonies. Thus, only charge can be made, either falsification or estafa,
otherwise the prohibition against the twice recovery for damages will be violated.

If estafa cannot be committed without falsification, the correct charge is falsification. Estafa is merely a
consequence.

If estafa can be committed without falsifying, the proper charge is estafa. Falsification is merely an incident of
estafa.

On the other hand, in falsification of public document, damage is not an element of the offense. Thus, the charge of
estafa thru falsification of public document may exist
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME

SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME

Special complex crimes exist when, in reality, two or more crimes are committed but in the eyes of law only one.

It is the law which provides what crimes would be complexed and what crimes go together;
1. Robbery with homicide; (Article 294)
2. Kidnapping with homicide; (Article 267 as amended by R.A. 7659)
3. Rape with homicide; (Article 266-B)
 SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME COMPOUND CRIME

The law specifies the crimes Crimes are general;

which are combined;

Law provides for the penalty; The penalty for the most serious crime is imposed in the
maximum period;

Light felonies are absorbed; Light felonies committed is a

separate and distinct charge;
DELITO CONTINUADO.
DELITO CONTINUADO.
Delicto continuado or continuous crime is present when the offender is impelled by a single
criminal impulse commits a series of overt acts in about the same time and about the same place
violating one and the same provision of law. Basis is singularity of impulse.

Basis
The basis is the singularity of impulse of the offender.

Elements
In the case of Santiago v. Garchtorena (G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993) the Supreme Court
established the elements of delito continuado;
1. Plurality of acts performed during a period of time;
2. Unity of penal provisions violated;
3. Unity of criminal purpose or aim;
Example;
A, B, C,D lives in one compound. All engaged in the business of selling rooster. One night, 11:00 in the evening
here comes X. While they were sleeping, X took the rooster of A, then of B, then of C, then of D.

Q: How many crimes will you file against X?

A: Crime committed is one charge of theft. X impelled by a single impulse committed overt acts leading to theft.
CONTINUING CRIME OR TRANSITORY OFFENSE.

CONTINUING CRIME OR TRANSITORY OFFENSE.

In Continuing crime, the offender may be prosecuted in any courts of the place where any of the crime has been
committed. This is more on remedial law not in criminal law.

Example;
X in payment of his obligation, issued a postdated check to Y in Manila, on the maturity date, Y deposited the check
to his depositary bank in Quezon City. The check however was dishonored by the drawee bank in Caloocan City.
Notice of dishonor was sent. X failed to make good the check. A complaint was filed against X for violation of
B.P. 22.

Q: Where may Y file the case for violation of BP 22?

A: The complaint may be filed in any of the court where the elements of the crime occurred.

If the BP 22 case has already been filed in the MTC of Manila, the said case can no longer be filed before the MTC
of Quezon City or Caloocan City.
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general.

Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general.

The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be imposed
upon the principals in the commission of such felony.

Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is general terms, it

shall be understood as applicable to the consummated felony.
Penalty Imposed
Under Article 46, when the law prescribes a penalty for a felony, it shall be understood to mean that such penalty
shall be imposed upon principals of a consummated felony.
PENALTY IMPOSED UPON ACCESSORIES AND ACCOMPLICES
1. Articles 50-57 provides for penalties if the offender is a principal, accomplice or accessory whether or not the
felony is consummated, frustrated, attempted
 CONSUMMATED FRUSTRATED ATTEMPTED
Penalty prescribed by law for the offense; The penalty lower by one degree than A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed
that prescribed by law for the principal by law for principal of a consummated felony;
of a consummate d felony; (Art. 51)
(Art. 50)
PRINCIPALS

A penalty lower by one degree than that The penalty lower by one degree than A penalty lower by one degree than that prescribed
prescribed by law for principal of a prescribed by law for the principal of a by law for principals of an attempted felony;
consummated felony; frustrated felony; (Art. 56)
(Art. 52) (Art. 54)
ACCOMPLICES

A penalty lower by two degrees than that The penalty lower by two degrees than The penalty lower by two degrees than that
prescribed by law for principal of a prescribed by law for the principals of prescribed by law for principals of an attempted
consummated felony; a frustrated felony; felony; (Art. 57)
(Art. 53) (Art. 55
ACCESSORIES
Exception

Under Art. 60, the provisions contained in Art. 50-57, inclusive, of this code shall not be applicable to cases in which
the law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon
accomplices or accessories.
Article 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. -
Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of
diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:

1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or

which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account
for the purpose of increasing the penalty.

2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such
a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.

3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or
from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or
mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or
from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or
mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.

4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to
accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at
the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:

(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last
crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods;

(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of
which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and

(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the
last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in
conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
PARAGRAPH 1.
The following aggravating circumstance shall not be taken into account for the purpose
of increasing penalty;

1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime especially

punishable by law; or
2. Aggravating circumstances which are included by the law in defining a crime and
prescribing the penalty therefor;
3. Aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of
necessity accompany the commission thereof (Par. 2)
Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime
especially punishable by law.

Example;
1. That the crime be committed by means of fire is not considered as aggravating in
arson; (Art. 14, par. 2)
2. The crime be committed by means of derailment of a locomotive shall not be
considered in damages and obstruction to means of communication; (Art. 330)
Aggravating circumstances which are included by the law in defining
a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor;

Example;
1. The crime be committed in the dwelling of the offended
party is not aggravating in robbery with force upon things; (Art. 299)
2. Abuse of confidence is not qualified theft committed with
grave abuse of confidence; (Art. 310)
PARAGRAPH 2.
The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it
must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.

Example;
Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery and theft;
PARAGRAPH 3.
The following aggravating or mitigating circumstance shall serve to aggravate for mitigate the liability of the
principals, accomplices, and accessories;

1. Those which arise from the moral attributes of the offender; or

2. From his private relations with the offended party; or
3. From any other personal cause;
Those which arise from the moral attributes of the offender

Example;
A and B killed C. A acted with evident premeditation, and B with passion and obfuscation.

Q: How should the aggravating circumstance be appreciated?

A: Evident premeditation should affect and aggravate only the penalty for A, while passion and obfuscation will
benefit B only mitigate his liability.

From his private relations with the offended party.

A and C inflicted slight physical injuries on B. A is the son of B. C is the father of B.

Q: How does A and C’s relationship with B affect their criminal liability?
A: The alternative circumstance of relationship, as aggravating shall be taken into account against A only, because he
is a relative of a lower degree than the offended party, B.
From any other personal cause in the material execution of the act A and B
committed a crime. A was under 16 years of age and B was a recidivist.
PARAGRAPH 4
The following circumstance shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had
knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein;

1. In the material execution of the act; or

2. In the means employed to accomplish it;

Example;
A, as principal by induction, B, and C agreed to kill D. B and C killed D with treachery, which mode of committing
the offense had not been previously agreed upon by them with A. A was not present when B and C killed D with
treachery.

Q: How should the aggravating circumstance in this case be appreciated?

A: The aggravating circumstance of treachery should not be taken into account against A, but against B and C only.
But if A was present and had knowledge of the treachery with which the crime was committed by B and C, he is also
liable for murder, qualified by treachery.
In the means employed to accomplish it
A ordered B to kill C. B invited C to eat with him. B mixed poison with the food of C, who died after he had eaten
the food. A did not know that B used poison to kill C.

Q: Is the aggravating circumstance that the crime that the crime be committed by means of poison applicable to A?
A: NO. The aggravating circumstance that the crime be committed by means of poison is not applicable to A.
ORGANIZED OR SYNDICATED CRIME GROUP.
An organized or syndicate crime group consists of two or more persons collaborating, confederating and mutually
helping another for purposes of gain in the commission of the crime.

The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an
organized/syndicated crime group.

The information charges A, B, C, D as collaborating, confederating and mutually helping another for purposes of
gain in the commission of the crime. This is what the information alleges. Trial found this so. The judge considered
conspiracy and considered this special aggravating circumstance.

Q: Is the court correct?

A: NO. Before the special aggravating circumstance be considered the court, evidence must show was held to
commit crimes involving gain.
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY

A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from
the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a
third time or oftener.
Elements;
1. The crime is specified should be serious physical injuries, less serious
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa;
2. There should be at least three convictions;
3. Each convictions must come within ten year from date of release or last
conviction of the previous crime;
Effect
Additional penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period being an aggravating circumstance.
NUMBER OF CONVICTION PENALTY PRESCRIBED
The penalty for the last crime of which he be found
guilty.

Third Conviction; ADDITIONAL PENALTY;

prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods;

The penalty provided for the last crime of which he be

found guilty.

Fourth Conviction; ADDITIONAL PENALTY;

Prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods;

The culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for

the last crime of which he be found guilty.

ADDITIONAL PENALTY;
prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
Fifth Conviction;
temporal in its minimum period.
Limitation
The penalty committed for the crime plus additional penalty should not exceed thirty years.

Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency

Recidivism and Habitual Delinquency may be simultaneously considered because they have different effects on
criminal liability of the offender. Recidivism effect is on the theft committed. It may be offset by mitigating
circumstances. Habitual delinquency will give him additional penalty.

Example;
A was charged and convicted of robbery he served his sentence. Within 10 years from date of release he committed
theft. He served sentence and again released. Within 10 years he committed another theft. The judgment become
final and executory. He served again and out of prison. Within 10 years against he committed another theft. He is
now in trial.
Q: Can the judge impose both recidivism and habitual delinquency? A: YES.
He is recidivist because at the time he served theft he was previously
convicted of a final judgment of robbery embraced within the same title of
the code. He is also habitual delinquent, because within the ten years from
the date of his last release he committed a theft the third time.
 RECIDIVISM HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
Generic aggravating Cannot be offset by ordinary
circumstance - Can be offset; mitigating circumstance;
Requires at least two Requires at least three
conviction; convictions;
Felony violated must be within the same title of the code; The felony violated are serious physical injuries, less
serious physical injuries, robbery, theft,
estafa, falsification;

No prescriptive period on the Prescribes in ten years;

commission of the offense;

No additional penalty; Provides additional penalty;

QUASI RECIDIVISM

Under Article 60, a person is said to be a quasi-recidivist if after having been convicted
by a final judgment, he shall commit a felony before serving out his sentence or while
service of sentence. The maximum period shall be imposed.

Again it is a special aggravating circumstance.

* The first crime may be any crime. The second crime must be a felony.

Example;
A, while serving a final judgment, he was found in possession of illegal drugs.
Q: Is A a quasi-recidivist?
A: NO. The second crime is not a felony, it is a special law.

Example;
If A was serving sentence for possession of illegal drugs and then inside a crime he killed a co-inmate

Q: Is A a quasi-recidivist?
A: YES. Maximum period prescribed by law shall be imposed
Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.

In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied
by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have
attended the commission of the deed.

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible
penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof;

1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating
circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there
is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied;
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating
circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penalty shall be applied;

4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the

commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one
another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of
applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the
result of such compensation;
Outline of the rules.

1. When the penalty is single indivisible, it shall 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. When there is only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be imposed;
b. When there is neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be imposed;
c. When there is a mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be
imposed.
d. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall allow them to offset
one another;
Example:

The penalty for Rape is reclusion perpetua. If the penalty is single and indivisible, it shall be imposed as is, without
consideration of any Aggravating or Mitigating circumstance.

Example;
The penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death - two indivisible penalties.

Only one aggravating circumstance.

If the murder was committed with the aggravating circumstance of trespass to dwelling, the greater penalty of death
shall be applied;

Two or more aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance

If the murder was committed with the aggravating circumstances of trespass to dwelling and recidivism, the greater
penalty of death shall be applied;
No mitigating nor aggravating circumstance
If there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance in attendant, apply the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua;

One mitigating and no aggravating circumstance

If the murder was committed with the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the lesser penalty of
reclusion perpetua shall apply;

Two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance

If the murder was committed with the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and sufficient
provocation on the part of the offended party, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall apply;

If there are two aggravating circumstance and one mitigating circumstance

If the murder was committed with the aggravating circumstances of trespass to dwelling and recidivism, and the
mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, one mitigating circumstance will offset one aggravating
circumstance. Since only one aggravating circumstance is left, the greater penalty of death shall apply;
If there are two mitigating circumstance and one aggravating circumstance

If the murder was committed with the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and sufficient
provocation on the part of the offended party, and the aggravating circumstance of trespass to dwelling, one
mitigating circumstance will offset another aggravating circumstance. Since only one mitigating circumstance is left,
the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall apply;
Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. - In cases in which the penalties
prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different
penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall
observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or
aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty
prescribed by law in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its minimum period.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset
those of one class against the other according to their relative weight.
5. 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.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not
impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the
number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the evil
produced by the crime.
Degree of penalty
Degree of penalty is a penalty prescribed by law for every crime committed whether divisible or indivisible.

Period of penalty
A period of penalty refers to the subdivision of every said divisible penalty into three portion, the first portion is
minimum, second is medium, third is maximum

Indivisible penalty
Indivisible penalties are penalties without fixed duration, death, reclusion perpetua, perpetual absolute
disqualification, perpetual special disqualification, public censure, fine.

Divisible penalty
Divisible Penalties are penalties with fixed duration and therefore can be divided into three period. the first portion
is minimum, second is medium, third is maximum
Example;
X and Y had a fight. In the course of the fight, X killed Y. X was charged and convicted of homicide. The penalty for
homicide is Reclusion temporal.

No aggravating and no mitigating.

Reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its medium period.

One mitigating and no aggravating.

If there is voluntary surrender in the part of X, reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its minimum period.

One aggravating and no mitigating.

If X was a recidivist, reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Both mitigating and aggravating are present.
If the homicide was committed in the dwelling of Y and X acted on passion and obfuscation, the aggravating and
mitigating circumstance will offset one another and reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its medium period.

Two mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance.

The homicide was committed with passion and obfuscation and X voluntary surrendered. A penalty one degree
lower than reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon X. X shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium
period.

Two or more aggravating circumstance.

X committed the crime of homicide with trespass to dwelling and disregard of the age of Y. regardless of the number
of aggravating circumstance present, the court cannot impose a penalty higher than the maximum period prescribed
by law. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period.
Three mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance.
If there is sufficient provocation on the part of Y, and voluntarily surrendered and there voluntary plea of guilt, X
shall suffer the penalty lower by one degree than reclusion temporal. Thereafter, we apply the remaining mitigating
circumstance in accordance with the previous rules. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
period.

Four mitigating circumstance.

X committed homicide with passion and obfuscation when he was suffering from an illness which would diminish
the exercise of his will- power, and thereafter voluntary surrendered and there is a voluntary plea of guilt. The
penalty imposed upon him cannot be lowered by two degrees. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period.

* In order that the penalty will be lowered by 1 degree, it is necessary that there absolutely is NO aggravating
circumstance.

Even if there are many Mitigating circumstances, as long as there is 1 aggravating circumstance, you cannot lower
the penalty by degrees, it is only by periods.
Privileged Mitigating Circumstance
If present, Privilege Mitigating Circumstance must be applied first prior to the application of penalties under the
Rules of Articles 63 and 64.

Example;
X committed the crime of homicide. The penalty for homicide is
reclusion temporal.

One privileged mitigating circumstance.

X was a minor at the time he committed homicide. Minority is a privilege mitigating circumstance which will lower
the imposable penalty by one degree. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period.

Two privileged mitigating circumstances.

X was a minor at the time he committed the homicide. He argues incomplete self-defense. Minority and Incomplete
self-defense are both privilege mitigating circumstance which will lower the imposable penalty by two degrees.
Thus, X will suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium period.
Two privilege mitigating circumstance and one ordinary mitigating circumstance.

X was a minor at the time he committed the homicide with incomplete self-defense. He voluntarily surrendered to
the persons in authority. Minority and Incomplete self-defense are both privilege mitigating circumstance which will
lower the imposable penalty by two degrees. The remaining ordinary mitigating circumstance shall operate to make
the penalty in its minimum period. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period.

2 privilege mitigating circumstance and 3 ordinary mitigating circumstance.

X was a minor who was suffering an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will-power at the time he
committed the homicide with incomplete self-defense on his part. He voluntarily surrendered to the persons in
authority and thereafter voluntarily plead guilty. Minority and Incomplete self-defense will lower the imposable
penalty by two degrees. The two ordinary mitigating circumstances will operate to lower the penalty imposed after
the application of the two-privileged mitigating circumstance. The remaining ordinary mitigating circumstance shall
operate to make the penalty in its minimum period. Thus, X will suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period.
 Art. 66. Imposition of fines. — In imposing fines the courts may fix any
amount within the limits established by law; in fixing the amount in each
case attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating
circumstances, but more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit.

FINE
Fine is a pecuniary penalty imposed by court in case of judgment of
conviction.
Factors to consider in imposing fines;
1. Aggravating and mitigating circumstance;
2. Wealth and means of the offender

Scale of Penalty in case of Fine

Article 26 of the Revised Penal determines whether a fine is afflictive, correctional, or light penalty.

SCALE OF PENALTY AMOUNT OF FINE

Afflictive Penalty; Exceeds One million two

hundred thousand pesos (P1,
200, 000)
Correctional Penalty oes not exceed One million
two hundred thousand pesos
(P1, 200, 000) but is not less
than Forty thousand pesos
(P40, 000)
Light Penalty; Less than 40,000
 Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more
degrees. — Whenever it may be necessary to increase or reduce the
penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or reduced,
respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum amount
prescribed by law, without however, changing the minimum.

If a fine is imposed to an accomplice or an accessory, the fine shall be

reduced or increased, respectively for e each degree, by one fourth of the
maximum amount prescribed by law.
Article 70. Successive service of sentence. - When the culprit has to
serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the
nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall
be observed:

In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity

shall be followed so that they may be executed successively or as nearly
as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty
or penalties first imposed, or should they have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the respective severity of the penalties
shall be determined in accordance with the following scale:

1. Death,

2. Reclusion perpetua,

3. Reclusion temporal,

4. Prision mayor,

5. Prision correccional,

.
6. Arresto mayor,

7. Arresto menor,

8. Destierro,

9. Perpetual absolute disqualification, 10 Temporal absolute disqualification.

11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or
calling, and

12. Public censure

Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence
shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed
upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed
equals the same maximum period.

Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years. In applying the provisions of this rule the duration
of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty
years. (As amended).
SIMULTANEOUS SERVICE OF SENTENCE

Under Article 70, as a rule, when the convict has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously
if the nature of the penalties will so permit.

Penalties that allow simultaneous service of sentence;

1. Improvement and fine;
2. Imprisonment and suspension;
3. Imprisonment and public censure;

Q: What penalties cannot be served at the same time?

A: All forms of imprisonment
SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE
All forms of imprisonment cannot be served simultaneously.

Example;
X was convicted of two counts of homicide. A penalty of reclusion temporal
was imposed upon him for each count of homicide. Reclusion temporal has a
duration of 12-20 years. X will satisfy the first 12-20 years of imprisonment.
Thereafter, he shall serve another 12-20 years of reclusion temporal for the
second count of homicide.
Order of Severity.
In the imposition of penalties, the convict shall first serve the most severe penalty imposed upon him in accordance
with the scale provided for in Article 70.

THREE-FOLD RULE
The three-fold rule provides that when multiple successive penalties are imposed upon the offender, the maximum
duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most
severe of the penalties imposed upon him. However, such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.

Example;
X raped her daughter 5 times. He was charged and convicted of 5 counts of rape. The penalty for 1 count of rape is
reclusion perpetua.

Q: What penalty shall the court impose on him?

A: 5 counts of reclusion perpetua.
Q: Since reclusion perpetua is 20-40 years, does that mean X will serve 200
years in prison?
A: NO. Under the three-fold rule when the offender is serving multiple
successive sentences, the maximum duration of the offender’s sentence
shall not exceed three folds of the length of the most severe penalty,
provided that such penalty will not be more than 40 years. In this case, since
the penalty imposed upon X is 5 reclusion perpetua, his service of sentence
will not be more than three-folds of the length of reclusion perpetua which
is the most severe penalty imposed upon him. However, since three counts
of reclusion perpetua is 120 years which exceeds the maximum penalty of
40 years, X will serve the maximum sentence of 40 years.
Example;
X was charged and convicted of 5 counts of rape punishable by reclusion perpetua and a civil liability of
P50,000.00. The judge, applying the three-fold rule, sentenced X of 40 years of imprisonment and a civil liability of
P50,000.00.

Q: Is the judge correct?

A: NO. The three-fold rule is not for the judge to impose. The 40 years imprisonment in accordance to three-fold
rule refers to service of sentence, NOT to the imposition of penalties.

Q: If the judge will not impose the three-fold rule? Who will impose it?
A: The three-fold rule is for the Director of Prisons to apply and compute, and not for the judge to impose.
Q: How should the judge impose 5 counts of rape?
A: The judge shall impose upon him a penalty of reclusion perpetua for each
count of rape, the penalty prescribed by law for the crime of rape. Likewise,
the judge shall impose upon the convict the civil liability of P50,000.00 for
each count of rape.

Q: does the three-fold rule also apply to civil liabilities of the offender?
A: NO. Each count of rape is a violation of the person of the victim
therefore, civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the criminal offense
of rape. The civil indemnity shall be the number of times the victim was
raped.
Article 71. Graduated scales. - In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more
degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty.
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales:

SCALE NO. 1

1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Destierro,
8. Arresto menor,
9. Public censure,
10. Fine.
SCALE NO. 2

1. Perpetual absolute disqualification,

2. Temporal absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or
calling,
4. Public censure,
5. Fine.

Q: What is the importance of 1 day in the duration of the period (6 yrs and 1 DAY -12 years)?
A: The 1 day separates the different degrees of the penalty. It also separates a divisible penalty from an indivisible
penalty. It also determines whether subsidiary imprisonment may be imposed on the offender.
 Art. 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities. — The civil
liabilities of a person found guilty of two or more offenses shall be
satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates of the
judgments rendered against him, beginning with the first in order of time.

The penalties shall be satisfied according to the scale of Art 70

Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory penalties. —
Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty which, by provision of law,
carries with it other penalties, according to the provisions of Articles 40,
41, 42, 43 and 44 of this Code, it must be understood that the accessory
penalties are also imposed upon the convict.
SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES
Subsidiary penalties are deemed imposed.

SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT
Unlike subsidiary penalties, the subsidiary imprisonment must be
expressly stated in the decision.
Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases. — In cases in which the law prescribes a
penalty higher than another given penalty, without specially designating the name of the former, if such
higher penalty should be that of death, the same penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be
considered as the next higher penalty.

If the decision or law says higher than Reclusion perpetua or 2 degrees than Reclusion temporal, then the penalty
imposed is Reclusion perpetua or Reclusion temporal as the case may be.

Death must be designated by name. However, for the other penalties, this does not apply.

Example;
The penalty for crime X is 2 degrees lower than RP. The penalty imposed is prision mayor.
Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more
degrees. — Whenever it may be necessary to increase or reduce the
penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or reduced,
respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum amount
prescribed by law, without however, changing the minimum.

The same rules shall be observed with regard of fines that do not consist
of a fixed amount, but are made proportional.
Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. — The legal period
of duration of divisible penalties shall be considered as divided into three
parts, forming three periods, the minimum, the medium, and the
maximum in the manner shown in the following table:
Art. 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three distinct
penalties. — In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of
three distinct penalties, each one shall form a period; the lightest of
them shall be the minimum the next the medium, and the most severe
the maximum period.

Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms
specially provided for in this Code, the periods shall be distributed,
applying by analogy the prescribed rules.
EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES

Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. — No penalty shall be executed except by
virtue of a final judgment.

A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor with any
other circumstances or incidents than those expressly authorized thereby.

In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations prescribed for the government
of the institutions in which the penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to
the character of the work to be performed, the time of its performance, and other incidents
connected therewith, the relations of the convicts among themselves and other persons, the
relief which they may receive, and their diet.

The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in different institutions, or
at least into different departments and also for the correction and reform of the convicts.
Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in case of insanity.
— When a convict shall become insane or an imbecile after final sentence has been
pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall be suspended only with regard to
the personal penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of circumstance
number 1 of article 12 being observed in the corresponding cases.

If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be executed,
unless the penalty shall have prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this
Code.

The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or
imbecility occurs while the convict is serving his sentence.
INSANITY AT THE TIME OF TRIAL OR AFTER THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED BY FINAL
JUDGMENT

There will be a suspension of sentence. The accused cannot be made to suffer the sentence.

The moment he regains his sanity he is required to serve his sentence. Provided, that the period of penalty has not
yet prescribed.
Art 80 (as amended by PD 603: Child and Youth Welfare Code) Note: refer
to R.A. 9344 (Minority)

Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed.

Art. 82. Notification and execution of the sentence and assistance to the
culprit.
Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence.

Art. 84. Place of execution and persons who may witness the same. Art. 85.
Provisions relative to the corpse of the person executed and its burial.
As of writing, the death penalty is suspended by virtue of R.A. 9346.

Under RA 9346, the prohibition pertains only to the imposition of death

penalty. But for heinous crimes, the penalty shall still be death. Only that it
cannot be imposed.
Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision
correccional and arresto mayor. — The penalties of reclusion perpetua,
reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor,
shall be executed and served in the places and penal establishments
provided by the Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by
law in the future.
 Art. 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be
permitted to enter the place or places designated in the sentence, nor
within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250
and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated.

DESTIERRO
Destierro is considered as a principal correctional and divisible penalty.
Therefore, jurisdiction over crimes punishable with destierro lies with the
Metropolitan Trial Court.
Destierro shall be imposed in the following cases;

1. Death or serious physical injuries is caused or are inflicted under

exceptional circumstance;
2. Person fails to give bond for good behavior in grave and light
threats;
3. Concubine’s penalty for the crime of concubinage;
4. When after reducing the penalty by one or more degree, destierro is
the proper penalty
Execution of Destierro
Convict shall not be permitted to enter the place designated in the sentence nor
within the radius specified, which shall not be more than 250 and not less than 25 km
from the place designated;

If the convict enters the prohibited area, he commits evasion of service of sentence.
Art. 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in
the municipal jail, or in the house of the defendant himself under the
surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so provides in its
decision, taking into consideration the health of the offender and other
reasons which may seem satisfactory to it.
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally
extinguished;
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary
penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs
before final judgment;
2. By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Art 344 of this
Code;
MODES OF EXTINGUISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Article 89 is incomplete. The following are the modes of extinguishing criminal liability;
1. Death;
2. Service of Sentence;
3. Amnesty;
4. Absolute pardon;
5. Prescription of crime;
6. Prescription of penalty;
7. Valid marriage of the offended with the offender;
8. Express repeal of the penal law; (Decriminalization of the act)
9. Probation under PD. 986 as amended by R.A. 10707;
DEATH
Death is the permanent cessation of life.

Q: When does death extinguish criminal liability?

A: Death extinguishes criminal liability at any stage of the proceedings, be it before or after conviction. This is
because the moment the offender dies, there is no one to serve the personal penalty.

Extinguishment of Civil liability through Death

In People v. Amistoso (G.R. No. 201447, August 28, 2013) the Supreme Court laid down rules in case the accused
dies prior to final judgment;
SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Service of sentence means satisfaction of the penalty imposed. If it is imprisonment, it means that he has served his
sentence behind bars. If it is fine, it means that he has paid the amount.

AMNESTY
Amnesty is an act of grace from the power entrusted with the execution of the law which does not only exempt the
offender from the service of penalty for the crime committed, but also obliterates the effects of the crime. It does not
only suspend the execution of the sentence. It also obliterates the effects of the crime.
ABSOLUTE PARDON
Absolute Pardon is an act of grace received from the power entrusted with the execution of the law which exempts
the offender from the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed.

PARDON AMNESTY
Merely suspends the execution of sentence, erases the Obliterates all effects of crime as if no crime was committed;
penalty
to be imposed;
Granted only after conviction by final judgment; Granted at any stage of proceedings, before during or
after final judgment;

Private act of President. As Public act of President. Granted

such, the person pardoned with the concurrence of
must plead and prove it before the courts. No judicial notice Congress. Courts take judicial notice of it;
of
Pardon;
May be given to all kinds of offenders; Generally granted to a class or group of persons who have
committed political offenses;
VALID MARRIAGE
A valid marriage between the offender and the offended party extinguishes criminal liability only in relation to
private crimes; i.e. seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and one public crime which is rape.

Under Art 266, the valid marriage of the offended with the offender extinguishes criminal liability as well as the
penalty.

Example;
Jack raped Rose. Rose filed a case of rape against Jack. Trial on the merits ensued. During trial, Jack and Rose
would often see each other and because of this, they fell in love with each other. Later on, they got married. This
valid marriage will extinguish the criminal liability of Jack.

Q: IS the criminal liability extinguished if the marriage took place after the offender was convicted by final
judgment?
A: YES. Even if there is already a final and executory judgment, such as when the offender is already behind bars, a
valid marriage between the offender and the offended will still extinguish criminal liability and the penalty imposed.
Art. 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in
twenty years.

Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.

Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those punishable by arresto
mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.

The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.

The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.

Light offenses prescribe in two months.

When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules
contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this article. (As amended by RA 4661, approved June 19, 1966.)
Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of
prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is
discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and
shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and
shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without
the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for
any reason not imputable to him.

The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from
the Philippine Archipelago.
Prescription of Crime is the loss or forfeiture of the right of State to prosecute an act prohibited by law. The moment
that a crime has already prescribed, the court has to dismiss the case even if the accused has not moved for its
dismissal. The courts lose their jurisdiction to try the case.
 PENALTY OF CRIMES PRESCRIPTION PERIOD
Death, Reclusion perpetua, 20 years;
reclusion temporal;

Other afflictive penalties; 15 years;

Correctional penalties; 10 years;
Arresto mayor; 5 years;
Libel and other similar offenses; 1 year

Oral defamation and slander by 6 months;

deed

Light felonies; 2 month.

COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
The running of the prescriptive period shall be from the time of the
commission of the crime, if known. If not known, from discovery by
offended party, authorities and agents.

Example;
X and Y had a quarrel. In the course thereof, X killed Y. Thereafter, X buried
the body of Y in his backyard. Unknown to X, neighbor A witnesses A burry
the body in his backyard. After 25 years from the commission of the crime,
the neighbor became old and sickly. He then told the police what he
witnessed 25 years ago. The police then went to the backyard, dug the
ground and saw the bones of Y.
1.
Q: Can the State still prosecute H for parricide?
A: YES. The crime has not yet prescribed. The authorities and their agents
only came to know the crime 25 years from its commission. This is the only
time when the prescriptive period for the crime shall commence to run.
Also, the neighbor who knew the commission of the crime is not the person
required by law to discover the crime in order to start the running of the
prescriptive period. Therefore, the State can still file the case of parricide.
VIOLATION OF SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
In the case of People v. Pangilinan (G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012), the Supreme Court said whether it is a
violation of a special penal law like the BP 22 or a violation of the RPC, the filing of a complaint before the office of
the public prosecutor suspends or interrupts the running of the prescriptive period. It remains suspended until the
case has been decided the accused being acquitted or convicted or the case has been dismissed for any reason not
imputable to him.

Here the checks were issued, and the notice of dishonor was received by the maker in 1995. The cases were filed
before the prosecutors in 1997, and they filed the information in the MTC in 2000. The MTC and RTC ruled that the
crime did not prescribe. The CA held that the crime had prescribed, and that the filing of the complaint before the
prosecutors did not suspend the running of the prescriptive period.
The CA cited the case of Zaldivia v. Reyes and ruled that the violation of BP 22 has already prescribed because
according to the CA, in case of violation of special penal laws, the running of the prescriptive period is only
interrupted upon the filing of the case before the appropriate court because the Supreme Court interpreted the word
“proceedings” as judicial proceedings in Zaldivia v. Reyes.

The SC said that the interpretation of the CA is erroneous. SC said it is now settled in jurisprudence that whether it
is a violation of a special penal law or a violation of the RPC, the filing of the complaint with the public prosecutor
interrupts the running of the prescriptive period.
Violation of Municipal Ordinance
In Zaldivia v. Reyes (G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992), what is involved is a violation of a municipal ordinance. It is
only in case of violation of municipal ordinance wherein the running of the prescriptive period is interrupted upon
the filing of the complaint before the proper court. The filing of the information in 1997 suspended the prescriptive
period and the same remains suspended; thus the crime has not yet prescribed

Example;
Gerald and Kim were spouses. Gerald, as a medical representative, was assigned in Visayas leaving his wife, Kim, in
Manila. 20 years thereafter, Kim while watching TV saw Gerald presenting another woman, Maja, as his wife.
Furious, Kim went to Visayas and therein discovered that there was a registered marriage certificate between Gerald
and Maja, the woman she saw on TV.
Q: Can Kim file a case of bigamy?
A: YES. The crime has not yet prescribed. The rule on constructive notice by registration is applicable only if the
transaction involves real properties. Registration as to other documents or transactions with the Office of the Civil
Registry does not constitute constructive notice to the whole world. Since the wife herein discovered the bigamous
marriage only 20 years thereafter, this shall be the starting point for the running of the prescriptive period of the
crime.
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD SUSPENDED
The Prescriptive period shall be suspended upon filing of complaint or info before the fiscal’s office or before the
court/public prosecutor for purposes of preliminary investigation. It remains suspended until the accused is
convicted or acquitted or the case is terminated without the fault of accused.

The term shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.
Situations which do not follow Art. 91;

1. In continuing crimes-prescriptive period will start to run only at the termination of the intended
result;
2. In crimes against false testimony, prescriptive period is reckoned from the day final judgment is
rendered in the proceeding where such false testimony is utilized not when the false testimony is made;
3. In Election offenses;
a. if discovery of the offense is incidental to judicial proceedings, prescription begins when such
proceedings terminate; or
b. From the date of the commission of the offense.
 Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties imposed by
final sentence prescribe as follows;

Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;

Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of
arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years;
Light penalties, in one year.
Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. — The period of
prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the
culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be interrupted
if the defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some
foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or
should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of
prescription.
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
Prescription of penalty is the loss of the right of the State to execute the sentence.

Prescription Period

PENALTY PRESCRIPTION PERIOD

Death, Reclusion perpetua; 20 years;
Afflictive penalties; 15 years;
Correctional penalties; 10 years;
Arresto mayor; 5 years;
Light penalties; 1 year
COMMENCEMENT PERIOD

The running of the period shall commence from the time the convict evaded the service of his sentence. It is
necessary therefore that the convict is serving his sentence and while serving, he escaped. It is from the time of
escape that the prescriptive period runs.

Example;
Garcia was convicted of homicide. The judgment became final and executory. He was brought to serve sentence in
Muntinlupa. While serving sentence, he escaped. Police failed to capture and find him. It
was only after 20 years that Garcia was located and brought behind bars. Garcia’s counsel filed a Petition for
Habeas Corpus contending that the penalty prescribed and therefore, Garcia could not be imprisoned.

Q: Is the counsel correct?

A: YES. The penalty has prescribed. Homicide prescribes in 15 years. Here, Garcia was captured 20 years from
escape.
SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF PENALTY
The following are the grounds when the prescriptive period of penalty is suspended;
1. When offender surrenders;
2. When offender went to a country which has no extradition treaty with the Philippines;
3. When convict commits a crime before the expiration of period of prescription;
4. When the offender is captured;
 PRESCRIPTION OF PRESCRIPTION OF
CRIMES PENALTY
Loss or forfeiture of the Loss or forfeiture of the
right of the State to right of the State to
prosecute; enforce final
judgment;
Starts counting upon the Starts counting upon the
discovery of the commission escape or evasion of
of the crime. service of sentence.
Mere absence from the Absence from the
Philippines interrupts the Philippines interrupts the
running of the period only when the
prescription; convict goes to a foreign
country without an
extradition treaty with the
Philippines;

Commission of another Commission of another

crime before the expiration crime before the expiration
of the prescriptive period of the period interrupts the
does not prescription.
interrupt prescription.
Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is
extinguished partially;

By conditional pardon;
By commutation of the sentence; and
For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving
his sentence.
MODES FOR PARTIALLY EXTINGUISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
The following are the modes for extinguishing criminal liability;
1. Conditional Pardon;
2. Commutation of sentence;
3. Good conduct of allowance;
4. Special Time Allowance for Loyalty;
5. Parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law;
6. Implied repeal or amendment of penal law lowering the penalty;
CONDITIONAL PARDON
Conditional Pardon is an act of grace received from a power entrusted with the authority to execute the law, but the
pardon herein is subject to strict conditions.

Because of this strict conditions, there must be acceptance on the part of the offender. The moment he accepts, it
becomes incumbent upon him to comply with the strict terms and conditions of the pardon.

Failure to comply with any of the strict conditions, the State can file a criminal case under Art 159- evasion of
service of sentence. In addition, the Chief Executive can order the immediate incarceration of the offender under the
Administrative Code.
COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
In commutation of sentence, a new sentence imposed shall be in lieu of the original sentence.

Example;
Death penalty commuted to Reclusion perpetua.
ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The good conduct of any offender qualified for credit for preventive
imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation
or detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his
sentence;
1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty days for each
month of good behavior during detention;
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of
twenty-three days for each month of good behavior during detention;
3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of twenty-five days for each month of good behavior during detention;
4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of
thirty days for each month of good behavior during detention; and
5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed another deduction of fifteen days,
in addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each month of study, teaching or mentoring service time rendered. (As
amended by R.A. 10592)

An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct.
GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCE
Good conduct allowance is awarded to the offender if he has been behaving properly in prison. The Director of
Prisons shall compute the good conduct allowance in favor of the offender so that he will be immediately released.
 PERIOD OF DEDUCTION
IMPRISONMENT
First two years; 20 days for each month of
good
behavior during detention;
Third to fifth year, inclusive, of 23 days for each month of
his imprisonment; good
behavior during detention;
Sixth until the tenth year, 25 days for each
inclusive, of his month of good
imprisonment; behavior during
detention;
Eleventh and successive 30 days for each
years of his Imprisonment; month of good
behavior during
detention;
At any time during the another deduction of 15
period of days, in addition to numbers
imprisonment; one to four hereof for each
month of service time
rendered for;
1. Study;
2. Teaching; or
3. Mentoring;
ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A deduction of one fifth of
the period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having
evaded his preventive imprisonment or the service of his sentence under
the circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this Code, gives himself up
to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe
referred to in said article. A deduction of two-fifths of the period of his
sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner chose to stay in the place
of his confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or
catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this Code. (As amended by R.A.
10592)
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
liable.

CIVIL LIABILITY
As a general rule, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. For every criminal action filed in court, the
civil action for the recovery of civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted.

Reason
The commission of a crime, 2 injuries are inflicted;
1. Social injury against the State for the disturbance of social order; and
2. Personal Injury against the offended party and his heirs;

The social injury against the state will be answered by reparation. The personal injury will be answered by the civil
indemnity.
Exceptions to Implied Institution of Civil Action
The following are the exemption to the general that a civil action is impliedly instituted in a criminal case;
1. When offended party waives the civil action;
2. When the offended party reserves the right to file a separate civil action, which must be made prior to
the presentation of evidence of the prosecution;
3. When the offended party files the civil action prior to the criminal action
ACQUITTAL; EFFECT ON CIVIL LIABILITY:

In the following cases, acquittal in a criminal action bars recovery in a civil action;
1. If the judgment of acquittal states that the alleged criminal acts of the offender were not committed
by him;
2. If the judgment of acquittal states that the accused is not guilty of criminal or civil damages;
In the following cases, the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case is not a bar to recover civil liability;

1. When judgment of acquittal is based on reasonable doubt - This is because civil actions require mere
preponderance of evidence;
2. When judgment of acquittal states that the liability of accused is not criminal but civil in nature - This
usually happens when the case is estafa and there is a contract between the accused and complainant, upon which the
accused failed to comply with the terms of the contract. There is breach of contract;
3. When the judgment of acquittal states that the civil liability does not arise from the crime but from
other sources of obligations;
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability established in
subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does not include exemption
from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules:

First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane
person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted
without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it
appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part.

Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control,
or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting
property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been
prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.

The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.

When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches
to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have
been caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner
prescribed by special laws or regulations.

Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears shall
be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always
to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution.
INSANE, IMBECILE, MINOR
In case the offender is insane, imbecile or minor, the civil liability arising from their acts shall be shouldered by the
persons who have custody of the insane, imbecile or minor.

Secondary liability falls on the property of the insane, imbecile or minor, except those properties which are
prohibited from being attached.

STATE OF NECESSITY
All persons who have been benefitted during the state of necessity shall bear the civil liability. If there are many
persons benefitted, the liability shall be divided by the court proportionately.
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE OR UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

Borne by the person who enforced the threats to the offender. Secondary liability falls upon the principal by direct
participation, who is the one who acted under the compulsion of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear.
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. — In default of
the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable
for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general
or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees.

Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from
guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in
advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall
furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with
respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding
article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.

SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY

Parents, teacher, employers, and proprietors shall be subsidiarily liable for the crimes committed by their children,
students, employees, servants.
Subsidiary Liability of employers
Employers may be held subsidiarily liable for the acts of their employees provided the following requisites are
present;
1. Employer must be engaged in some kind of industry;
2. Employer and employee relationship;
3. Employee committed a crime in the exercise of his duties as employee;
4. There must be conviction of the crime and the employee was found insolvent to pay civil indemnity;

The moment the employee was found insolvent, the liability of the employer now becomes absolute. A motion for
the issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution must then be filed by the complainant
Example;
Paris Hilton, a guest in a hotel, told the representative of the hotel that she carries valuables. The
representative of the hotel told Paris about the rules regarding the care and vigilance of the
valuables. However, during nighttime, a robbery occurred inside the hotel. Among those taken
were the valuables of Paris. The offender was arrested, convicted and civil liability was imposed
upon him.

Q: In case of insolvency of the offender, does the proprietor of the hotel or establishment have
subsidiary civil liability?

A: YES. The guest complied with the rules and regulations as to the care and vigilance of the
goods. He also informed the representative of the hotel of the presence of his valuables
Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. — The civil liability established in
Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes;

Restitution;
Reparation of the damage caused;
Indemnification for consequential damages.
Art. 105. Restitution. — How made. — The restitution of the thing itself
must be made whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration,
or diminution of value as determined by the court.

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, saving
to the latter his action against the proper person, who may be liable to
him.

This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been
acquired by the third person in the manner and under the requirements
which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.
RESTITUTION
Restitution is the return of the very thing taken.

Exception
Exception: if the innocent purchaser acquired the said property in a public sale. Then, it can no longer be taken away
from him.

Q: What is the remedy of the offended party if the thing can no longer be returned?
A: The remedy of the offended party is reparation.
Art. 106. Reparation. — How made. — The court shall determine the amount of damage, taking into consideration
the price of the thing, whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to the injured party, and reparation shall
be made accordingly.

Reparation
In case of inability to return the property stolen, the culprit must pay the value of the property stolen. The court shall
determine the value of the thing taken including its sentimental value.
Art. 107. Indemnification — What is included. — Indemnification for consequential damages shall include not only
those caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the crime.

INDEMNIFICATION
Indemnification includes moral damages, civil indemnity, exemplary damages.

Moral Damages
Moral damages in case of rape or murder need not be proved. It suffices that the crime has been committed. The law
presumes that the victim suffered moral indemnity because of the crime committed.

Exemplary Damages
Exemplary damages can only be granted if there are aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime.
Article 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or indemnification for consequential damages
and actions to demand the same; Upon whom it devolves. - The obligation to make restoration or reparation for
damages and indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of the person liable.

The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person
injured.

Article 109. Share of each person civilly liable. - If there are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony, the
courts shall determine the amount for which each must respond.

If there were 2 accused convicted, insofar as the civil liability is concerned, it is the court which shall determine the
civil liability of the 2 accused
Art. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices and accessories of a felony — Preference in
payment.
— Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the principals, accomplices, and
accessories, each within their respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their
quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other persons liable.

The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of the principals; next, against that of the
accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the accessories.

Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person by whom payment has
been made shall have a right of action against the others for the amount of their respective shares.
Example;
X, Y and Z were charged in the case of robbery. They were all charged as principals. But the judge ruled that X is a
principal, Y is an accomplice and Z is a mere accessory. The judge divided the civil liability proportionately. Their
liabilities among themselves are in solidum.

Q: Against whom can the private complainant recover said civil liability?
A: The private complainant can recover the entire civil liability from X, the principal but X now has a right of action
against Y and Z insofar as their respective civil liabilities are concerned. If X cannot pay, the private complainant
can go against Y. Y can now go against X and Z because their liabilities are in solidum but subsidiary insofar as the
private complainant is concerned
Art. 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. — Any person who has participated gratuitously in the
proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation.

Art. 112. Extinction of civil liability. — Civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code
shall be extinguished in the same manner as obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.

EXTINGUISHMENT OF CIVIL LIABILITY:

Civil Liability shall be extinguished by the following acts;
1. By pardon of the offended party;
2. Other modes for extinguishing civil liability under Civil Code; (payment, Condonation, etc)

Civil liability is personal and cannot be extinguished by pardon, amnesty, probation, commutation of sentence, etc.
Civil liability can only be extinguished in the same manner as in Civil Law, by the extinguishment of obligations,
i.e., payment, loss of the thing, remuneration, compensation, etc.
Art. 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. — Except in case of extinction of
his civil liability as provided in the next preceding article the offender shall
continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime
committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his
sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not
been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon,
commutation of sentence or any other reason.