Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
REQUIREMENTS:
3 Major Examinations,
Oral
Examinations/Quiz
Q: Timothy was unhappily married to Maria. He left her and joined the Mormons. He became a dedicated missionary spreading
the gospel of Brigham Young. One day he arrived in a town to do missionary work and met Clara. They fell in love with each
other. Timothy honestly believed that his conversion to the Mormon religion allowed him to have more than one wife. Without
his first marriage to Maria dissolved, Timothy married Clara. Timothy was charged with bigamy. Timothy is:
a) Criminally liable because his mistake in the interpretation of the law does not excuse him from its effects.
b) Criminally because his misapprehension of the facts caused an injury that would result in criminal liability
c) Criminally liable because his imprudence resulted in a culpable felony
d) Criminally liable because good faith is not a defense in the case of felonies
• ANSWER
• PRINCIPLE OF LAW: “One who commits an intentional felony is liable for all the natural and logical
consequences that may result therefrom, whether foreseen, intended or not.”
• APPLICATION
What if you want to kill your classmate because he would not allow you to copy his answers in an exam?
You see this classmate walking with his girlfriend. You say, “This is my chance. I will shoot my classmate.” You shoot your
classmate but you missed in shooting him. Instead, you shot his girlfriend.
In the case of DE JOYA vs. JAIL OF BATANGAS, what did De Joya asked from the Supreme Court?
PP vs. GONZALES?
QUESTION: If I bought a gun with the intent of killing a person without actually killing him, will I be liable for an attempted
murder?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………….
“SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law; hence, Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. This is just a
clarification of our decision.” (NORMA DE JOYA vs.
THE JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY, GR Nos.
159418-19, December 10, 2003)
“A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivision of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by
which they may be carried into execution, would partake of a prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the
human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public.”
A state must be able to define and punish crimes. If you place the penalties for crimes in the Constitution, it will tarnish its
characteristic. It will not be brief, broad and definite anymore. If you do that, that will be making our Constitution a broad one.
The power of the state to define and punish crimes has a limitation. These are more or less included in our laws. We can find
some of these in the Revised Rules of Court.
LIMITS (Statutory)
-Presumption of innocence
-Informed of the nature and cause of accusation
-To be present and defend in person
-To testify in his own behalf
-Self-incrimination
-To confront / cross-examine
In criminal cases:
1. Place / Venue
2. Nature of the crime – if penalty is 6 years and 1 day above (RTC); if drug related case, the RTC specially designated as
drug court; if the case consists of a minor?
3. Person committing the crime
WHEN DOES A COURT ATTAIN JURISDICTION? When the offender surrenders himself; during arraignment; the person
surrendering must do it personally, you cannot send a messenger
JURISDICTION
-Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction over military personnel with Courts martial even in times of war as long as the civil
courts are still functioning
Consuls being commercial representatives have no such immunity. They do not enjoy the same immunity enjoyed by the
above-mentioned political agencies
2. TERRITORIAL
Criminal law is applicable only with respect to acts committed within Philippine territory.
3. PROSPECTIVE
-a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in…….
EXCEPTION
When the new law is favorable to the accused
REPEAL
• If the repeal makes the penalty lighter, the new law shall be applied. (Exception, retroactive, favourable)
• If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the old law shall be applied. (General law, no retroactive effect, not
favorable)
• If the new law totally repeals the existing law, the crime is obliterated. (Exception, retroactive, favourable) ;
THOSE
WHO ARE SERVING SENTENCE, YOU RELEASE
THEM ; Anti-Subversion Act was totally repealed; Just becoming a member of an organization that is subversive, you can
be prosecuted, however, this was already repealed so their cases were DISMISSED
PP vs. GONZALES – What was the crime involved in this case? What particular principle in law would you use if you were the
justice in this case? So what if you can establish that the accused did not commit a felonious act punishable by Article 4 of the
RPC? Would it be correct to say that a felony cannot be punished merely because it is not proven that such felony existed?
ART. 2 EXTENT OF APPLICATION
• (REGISTERED) Philippine ship or airship
• Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations or securities;
• Introduction of items in no. 2 into the Philippines;
• Public officers or employees / in the exercise of their functions;
• National security / law of nations
FISCAL CARILLO: Airplane sir, walai labot? Walai labot noh ky wala man dha? Yes or no? (The term “AIRSHIP” is found in
the OLD CODIGO PENAL so the answer is YES,
LABOT)
ART. 3. FELONIES
FELONY is the technical term for violations of the RPC.
ELEMENTS:
• Act or omission;
• Punishable by the RPC;
• There is dolo or culpa
ACT OR OMISSION
Act pertains to “any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world.” (PP vs. GONZALES)
ACTS
OVERT – done openly, external (not internal), must have a direct connection with the felony committed.
Is the act of buying a gun a crime? You bought a gun because you are going to commit a crime. You bought it for the purpose
of self-defense. You bought it because you want to join a shooting competition. Even when you draw pistol (loaded) or you
just want to threaten a person, IT IS STILL
AN EQUIVOCAL ACT.
OMISSION
Omission refers to inaction or the failure to perform a positive duty. There must be a law punishing such inaction or failure.
“Mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence of
agreement or conspiracy, do not constitute the cooperation…” The only evidence of the state was that
SILVESTRE was with her husband and failure on the part of
SILVESTRE to give an alarm. (PP vs. SILVESTRE)
You see somebody in a remote area in danger of dying. Nadasmagan siya ug truck and you failed to give assistance, you will
be LIABLE under the above rule. (OMISSION)
FELONIES
Why was AH CHONG brought to court? Was he relieved from criminal liability merely because of his belief that he was under
attack? Is there any principle involved in the case of AH CHONG that the Supreme Court used in acquitting him? Was it not an
intentional act on the part of AH CHONG in killing his victim? So, can you say that “GOOD FAITH” is a defense for the crime of
homicide?
OANIS Case
PP vs. VILLACORTA DIEGO vs. CASTILLO
REQUISITES OF DOLO
• FREEDOM – No freedom = not voluntary
• INTELLIGENCE – discern morality of act (your ability to know what is right from wrong; a clinically insane
person cannot be held liable for a criminal act as this is an exempting circumstance; you may not know what is right and
wrong but you may know who is handsome or not)
• INTENT – to commit the felony
INTENT
Being in a state of mind, intent is hard to prove.
Criminal intent is PRESUMED from the commission of an unlawful act. The decision to adopt a means to arrive at a result is
INTENT. You must look at all the circumstances.
The act of stabbing is an intentional act but there is no criminal intent because the person thought he was defending
himself. (AH CHONG Case)
Because we do not have psychics, we look at all the factors; the circumstances before, during and after the act. So in
another case, you don’t look at the results only. A small scratch on the forehead does not mean that there is an attempted
murder on the person. Look at the weapon used; the part of the body to which the blow was directed and the circumstances
attendant to the felonious act. WE LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT IS READILY OBSERVABLE.
MISTAKE OF FACT
• Misapprehension of facts by the person who causes injury to another.
• No criminal liability on the part of the actor because there is no criminal intent.
• Whenever there is good faith, it SUPPLANTS the criminal act. You cannot deny your basic instincts.
MISTAKE OF FACT; Requisites
• Act is LAWFUL had the facts been as the accused believed them to be.
• INTENTION of accused is lawful.
• NO fault or carelessness.
US vs. AH CHONG, March 19, 1910, GR No. 5272 “In broader terms, ignorance or mistake of fact, if such ignorance or
mistake of fact is sufficient to negative a particular intent which under the law is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged
(e.g., in larceny, animus furendi; in murder, malice; in crimes and misdemeanors generally some degree of criminal intent)
“cancel the presumption of intent,” and works an acquittal except in those cases where the circumstances demand a
conviction under the penal provisions touching criminal negligence.”
REQUISITES OF CULPA
• Freedom;
• Intelligence;
• Imprudence, Negligence, Lack of foresight or Lack of skill.
Shooting a person in a running mode is UNLAWFUL. It is wrong for a law enforcer to shoot a running suspect TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER HE MUST BE ARRESTED OR NOT.
If the person is an ESCAPE PRISONER, killing him MAY be justified.
MALA PROHIBITA – there must be knowledge that the article in possession is prohibited by law
A punches B and B falls to the ground with an improvised stove sustaining an injury. 12 days later, B died. Is A liable?
I have a swiss-knife and then somebody grabs it and then I injure your hand because I was trying to get back my swissknife.
Am I liable? Does this not fall within the principle that I should be liable for the consequences of my own actions?
You are a member of the 13 Judas gang. Your mortal enemies are the 14 Banal gang. The latter ganged up on you. You are
an expert of MMA. So you defend yourself against their blades. You hurt your own finger. Back to your house, you were
hiding. When you looked at it, that finger was already hanging. 4 days after, the finger starts to blacken. So you go to court
and file a case against the 14-Banal. The contention of the counsel for the 14-Banal was that the victim DID NOT
IMMEDIATELY SEEK FOR MEDICAL ATTENDANCE.
Hence, because of his decision not to seek for medical assistance, the accused-defendants should not be liable. Is the
counsel for the 14-Banal correct?
When does an action result to criminal liability and when does an action not result to criminal liability?
INTENTIONAL FELONY
For this article to apply, the offender must be committing an intentional felony (dolo)
“… different from that which he intended.”
If the offender was committing a culpable felony this article does NOT apply
COMMITTING A FELONY (Acts with criminal intent) If the person is not committing a felony, the article is not applicable.
BINDOY Case– trying to retain a bolo that was taken from the owner.
VILLANUEVA Case – snatching a bolo because of curiosity.
“Although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.”
MISTAKE IN THE IDENTITY – error in personae
MISTAKE IN THE BLOW – aberratio ictus
INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN THAT
INTENDED – praeter intentionem
In all three cases, the perpetrator is liable for all the natural and logical consequence that may result from the unlawful act,
whether foreseen or not.
A is liable for the death of C, since C’s death is the direct, natural and logical consequence of his felonious act (shooting).
MISTAKE IN THE BLOW – aberratio ictus
X intends to kill Y;
X shoots at Y;
X hits Z (poor aim) killing him.
X is liable for the death of Z, since Z’s death is the direct, natural and logical consequence of his felonious act (shooting
Z) X is also liable for the attempt on Y.
A is liable for the death of B, since B’s falling to the ground and hitting his head on the pavement is the direct, natural and
logical consequence of his felonious act (punching).
SEGURITAN vs. PP
PROXIMATE CAUSE
“that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have occurred. The remote cause is not necessarily the proximate cause. It was the
negligence of the bus company that was the proximate cause.” (VDA. DE BATACLAN vs. MEDINA, GR
No. L-10126, October 22, 1957)
A person is NOT liable for all the possible consequences of his act.
• “And there is authority that if the consequences resulted from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the
criminal act, the offender is not responsible for such consequences.” (PP vs. MARCO, GR Nos. L-28324-5)
PP vs. VILLACORTA (GR No. 186412, September 7, 2011) The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural,
and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. X X X The medical findings, however, lead us to a
distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Javier
was wounded to the time of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
The felony intended by the offender is not achieved due to:
• Inherent impossibility
• Employment of inadequate or ineffectual means
IS THIS PUNISHABLE? Yes. Because you are intending to commit a crime. There is a criminal propensity on the part of
offender.
What is the difference between a finger and a canister? The moral depravity and the criminal intent is the SAME.
EVIL INTENT
There must be intent to injure another.
INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE
Our laws do not distinguish between legal and physical impossibility.
INTOD vs. PP
Furthermore, the phrase “inherent impossibility” that is found in Article 4(2) of the RPC makes no distinction between
factual or physical impossibility and legal impossibility. The case of INTOD vs. PP was an impossible crime. Shooting a
space where the intended victim is not present is an impossible crime.
There is no need to distinguish factual from physical impossibility because Philippine law is clear, “INHERENTLY
IMPOSSIBLE”.
PP vs. ENOJA
In another case where the accused who claimed that since they shot the victim after the first shooter had already shot the
victim, they were in effect shooting a person already dead, the Supreme Court called their argument merely speculative.
CONSUMMATED
All elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.
MURDER. It is necessary that you kill the victim for there to become a consummated felony.
THEFT. It is necessary that you take possession of the objects you intend to gain.
FACTORS:
• The nature of the offense.
• The elements constituting the felony. - The manner of committing the same.
ARSON
• If any part of the structure is burned (CONSUMMATED)
• If the fire is started but no part of the structure is burned
(FRUSTRATED)
- If no fire has been even started (ATTEMPTED)
FRUSTRATED
Offender performs all the acts of execution that would produce the felony but does not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
ATTEMPTED
DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
1st Internal Acts – not punishable 2nd External Acts:
a.) Preparatory Acts – generally not punishable;
b.) Acts of Execution – punishable
OVERT CTS
• External Acts;
• Direct connection with the crime intended to be committed. “The overt acts must have an immediate and
necessary relation to the offense.” –VIADA
This element requires that the offender personally execute the commission of the crime.
Inducing another to commit a crime, when the person induced does not accede will not result in criminal liability for the
inducer as the general rule is mere proposal to commit a crime is not punishable.
PP vs. LIZADA
“An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime,
more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without
being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator will logically and necessarily
ripen into a concrete offense.”
“By reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.”
- Does not perform all acts of execution due to his own spontaneous desistance – NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
- It is a reward for those “having one foot on the verge of crime, heed the call of their conscience and return to the path of
righteousness.”
SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE
- Absolves one from the crime he intended to commit NOT from the crime actually committed before the desistance.
PP vs. LIZADA
“An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime,
more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without
being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily
ripen into a crime.”
A woman filed a case against a man charging the man with rape. While the complaint was under investigation, they meet each
other in a dark alley just the 2 of them and the man immediately draws his bolo and says to the girl: “I will kill you,
SALAMAMETS”. Then starts hacking at the woman. Woman tries to go away but was still slashed at her back. Woman falls
down and the man says: “I have killed the worst enemy”. The man throws the woman to the garbage. Thereafter, the man goes
home and announced it publicly that he killed someone. Not knowing, the woman was able to crawl from the place of incident to
the hospital. Woman files a case against the man. The man contends as a defense that he was liable only for attempted
murder. What is the liability of the man? Will he be liable for attempted murder or frustrated murder?
Let’s say you and two of your friends are having a drinking session. One of them suddenly says that I am not satisfied with the
government and then you say let us overthrow P-Noy and replace him. The two agree. Is there any criminal liability in this
particular situation? Yes or no? If their plan was to rob? Is there conspiracy? Punishable? Mere conspiracy to commit robbery?
Is this punishable? So you have now decided that you are going to commit rebellion and the 3 of you go to Malacanang. You
parked your car and alighted and said: “ATTACK”. When you reached the gate, didto raka nakibaw nga imong mga kauban
bag-o ra nahuwasan. Wa cla nikuyog nimo. Nagpabilin ra cla sa auto. What is the criminal liability of the three? Ikaw unsa
imong liability? How about the two who remained in the car?
What if the 2nd person who went with you did not shoot his gun but just kept on giving you bullets. So the one who remained in
the car? Must conspiracy be coupled with an external act? What if that person who is left at the car gets out of the car and
starts saying: “Go. Go. Go. Go. Attack.”?
Let’s say you are a member of band of robbers. Five of you decide to rob a bank. The first says: I am the only one who has a
driver license. The other one says I have a gun and walkie-talkie. That leaves 3, including you to get inside the bank and to
get the money from the bank. As the plan was made out, the 2 of you played your roles. You are told by your 2 companions
to watch the employees and the 2 of them will go inside the vault. You noticed that the teller is beautiful and you say:
Lugoson nalang ni nako”. You took with you the teller and bought her inside an office of the bank. You raped her. After, you
left. Then, 5 of you got arrested. Nahibong ang 4 nimo nga kauban nga ang title sa case ky “ROBBERY WITH RAPE”. Tutok
cla nimo.
What is the liability of the other four? Let’s say, they all saw you drag the girl into the office. Ingon mo nga: “Mao bitaw na ang
tripping gyud niya. Wala paman sad na cya kasuway. Pasagdaaan na nato, padayon ta dri ug kawat”. The other four did not
participate in the rape. Will they still be liable?
NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
“…are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.” (ART. 8, Par. 1, RPC)
CONSPIRACY
“Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts constituting the
crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.”
(QUIDET vs. PP, GR No. 179289, April 8, 2010)
REQUISITES?
INDICATION(s) OF CONSPIRACY
When two or more persons aim their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that
their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative indicating closeness of personal association
and a concurrence of sentiment, conspiracy may be inferred. And where there is conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act of
all. (PP vs. ALETA, GR No. 179708, April 16, 2009)
Direct proof that the two accused conspired is not essential as it may be inferred from their conduct before, during, and after
the commission of the crime that they acted with a common purpose and design.
AMODIA Case
An accused participates as a conspirator if he or she has performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the
execution of the crime planned to be committed.
• Active participation
• Moral assistance by being present
• Exercising moral ascendancy
(PP vs. MULIT, GR No. 181043, October 8, 2008) Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a
crime. Where a conspiracy is established, the precise modality or extent of participation of each individual conspirator
becomes secondary since the act of one is the act of all. The degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime is
immaterial.
PP vs. REYES
PP vs. EVANGELIO
To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need
not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy.
NO CONSPIRACY – separate and individual responsibility In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the defendants are
separate and individual, each is liable for his own acts, the damage caused thereby, and the consequences thereof. While the
evidence shows that the appellant boxed the deceased, it is, however, silent as to the extent of the injuries, in which case, the
appellant should be held liable only for slight physical injuries.
GRAVE FELONIES
• Capital Punishment (death)
• Penalties which in any of its period is afflictive. AFFLICTIVE (Art. 25)
• Reclusion Perpetua
• Reclusion Temporal
• Permanent / Temporary Absolute Disqualification
• Permanent / Temporary Special Disqualification
• Prision Mayor
LESS GRAVE FELONIES
• Punishment which in their maximum is correctional. CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES (Art. 25)
• Prision Correcional
• Arresto Mayor
• Suspension
• Destierro (maximum radius of 25 kilometers)
LIGHT FELONIES
• Arresto Menor
• Fine not exceeding P200.00 or both
*Art. 26, RPC - classifies fines as a penalty. (Fine is a light penalty if it is less than P200.00)
ART. 10.
1st Clause. The RPC is not intended to supersede special penal laws
2nd Clause. The RPC is supplementary to special laws, unless the special law provides otherwise.
(GO TAN vs. SPS. TAN, GR No. 168852, September 30, 2008)
• Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes
punished under special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular matter.
• Provisions of the Revised Penal Code not applicable
SELF-DEFENSE
In defense of his person or rights.
RIGHTS INCLUDES:
• Right to property
SELF-DEFENSE, Requisites
• Unlawful aggression (INDISPENSABLE);
• Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
• Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
This is a condition sine qua non. An essential and indispensable requisite.
PP vs. CONCILLADO
COLINARES vs. PP
Let’s say, 2 persons. Let’s call them Mr. X and Mr. Y. They are playing cards. X is angry because Y is cheating. That is why Y is
winning. So, after the game, X goes home, gets his knife and then he goes on looking for Y. He sees Y spending his winnings
buying an adobo. Aso2 pa ang adobo ron! Nagkurog2 pa ang tambok! X attacks. He swoops down with a knife but nasangit
man at the back of the chair so si Y, hinanaw man ug sine, also gets out a knife. Turns out that Y is better in using the knife so
he starts slashing X. But si X ingon cya: “Murag, alkansi ko ani da”. So he runs away. So si Y niingon, “Kani. Hinay modagan”.
X falls down. Y kills X. Y is charged. Y says self-defense. If you were the judge, can self-defense be invoked? Who is the
aggressor?
ACTUAL AGGRESSION
“Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an imminent
danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The attack must be real, or at least imminent. Mere belief
by a person of an impending attack would not be sufficient.” (BAXINELA vs. PP, GR No. 149652,
March 24, 2006)
ACTUAL OR IMMINENT
ACTUAL – assault with a cane. (US vs. LAUREL)
IMMINENT – rocking a boat coupled with threats of capsizing
the same. (PP vs. CABUNGCAL)
PP vs. MACASO
PHYSICAL FINDINGS
Accused claims that when he stabbed the victim they were facing each other. The factual findings establish that the wounds
were in the back of the victim.
The victim still had his gun tucked inside the waistband of the pants and received 13 gunshot wounds. (Perez)
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION MUST EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE ACT CONSTITUTING SELF-DEFENSE.
• “a fleeing man is not dangerous to the one from whom he flees.”
• “…it is because this Court considered that the requisites of self-defense had ceased to exist, principal and
indispensable among these being the unlawful aggression of the opponent.”
(PP vs. ALCONGA, April 30, 1947, GR No. L-162)
PP vs. ACOSTA
PP vs. ALETA
If a person is attacked with bare hands, how should that person defend himself? What is the rule as far as reasonable means is
concerned? If he uses a knife or a samurai? If that person has a knife, can you use a gun? What if that person is super black-
belt ninja who can kill with his bare hands? Still, you defense yourself with bare hands?
If you defend yourself by way of shooting the aggressor in his chest? Would that be reasonable? Why? Shoot him three times?
BUNGYAO BUNGYAO BUNGYAO! Or shoot him just once, BUNGYAO? What if the bolo used by the aggressor is dull and
rusty, would you be still justified in killing the person? What is the rule on reasonable necessity? What does the law require?
What is the rule? If it is not mathematical equality or perfect equality, what is sufficient?
“The moment the aggressor ceases, the person defending himself is not anymore justified in killing the said aggressor. There is
no more unlawful aggression.” *Refer to PP vs.
ALCONGA (78 Phil. 366)
PP vs. JUARIGUE
• If ang paa sa lalaki hikapon sa babae? This cannot be. Crimes against chastity is limited only to women.
• She could not have expected that the aggressor would have actually raped her. Kutob ra gyud cguro to ang
lalaki ug hikap-hikap. There was here a lack of sufficient provocation on the part of accused Juarigue.
• Provocation must come from an unjust conduct. Only reasonable necessity was lacking in this case. The
Supreme Court gave JUARIGUE a privileged mitigating circumstance.
US vs. GUY-SAYCO
Determined by:
• Existence of unlawful aggression and
• The nature and extent of the aggression
If you are attacked with a weapon, circumstances dictate that you find a weapon, whatever said weapon may be.
Shooting a person who was playing a practical joke – place was dark and uninhabited, “Lie down and give me your money”.
US vs. APEGO
“…since there was no real need of wounding with the said weapon him who had merely caught her arm.”
“…there was no just nor reasonable cause for striking a blow therewith in the center of the body, whether the principal vital
organs are seated, of the man who had not performed any act which might be considered as an actual attempt against her
honor.”
PP vs. ONAS
US vs. MENDOZA
“The reasonable and natural thing for him to do under the circumstances was to fire at the body of his opponent, and thus make
sure of his own life.”
Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered person’s mind
an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life.
Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable – not necessarily immediate and actual – grave harm to
the accused, based on the history of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter.”
DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
• Spouse
• Ascendant
• Descendant
• Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister
• Relatives by affinity in the same degrees
-parents-in-law
-son / daughter-in-law
-brother / sister-in-law
• Relatives by consanguinity within 4th degree (2nd degree nga cousin)
PP vs. TORING
“it cannot be said, therefore, that in attacking Samuel, Toring was impelled by pure compassion or beneficence of the lawful
desire to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin.
BALUNUECO vs. CA
• The injuries on the deceased as well as the relatives of the accused belie his testimony
• The accused failed to present himself to the authorities
• Accused recollection of events
DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
• Unlawful aggression
• Reasonable necessity
• “The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.”
CABUSLAY vs. PP
BONOAN
• Accused confined at of San Lazaro Hospital twice (1922, 1926)
• Dementia praecox is an exempting circumstance (authorities)
• Insomnia for 4 days before the crime, symptom of or leads to dementia praecox
• A day after his arrest he was sent to the Psychopathic hospital
• Alienist reported that the accused had a form of Pshychosis
PP vs. LEGASPI – “mere prior confinement does not prove that accused-appellant was deprived of reason at the time of the
incident.”
MINORITY
RA 9344, Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act (May 20, 2006)
NEW CONCEPTS:
• Age of criminal responsibility
• Effects
• Presumptions
Child is subject to intervention. Intervention refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues that cause the
child to commit an offense.
DISCERNMENT
Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.
DETERMINATION OF AGE
• Birth certificate
• Baptismal act
• Other pertinent document
IMPOSABLE PENALTY
Not more than 6 years
• Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation if appropriate (where there is a private
offended party).
• In victimless crimes, diversion or rehabilitation
PP vs. ARPON
ARPON
• Decision appealed from – 8 counts of rape
• Supreme Court – 3 counts
-1st count – exempt, accused 13 years;
-2nd & 3rd – accused 17 years, discernment, Reclusion Perpetua, one degree lower than death
• Suspension of sentence no longer an option, accused 29 years
• Case remanded to trial court for compliance with Sec. 51,Agricultural camp or other facility.
4. ACCIDENT. Elements?
DEFINITION
An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will,
lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.
(PP vs. AGLIDAY)
PP vs. GENITA
“he must show with clear and convincing proofs that: 1.) he was performing a lawful act with due care, 2) the injury caused was
by mere accident, and 3) he had no fault or intention of causing the injury.”
• Accused got his shotgun and shot his son. A shotgun has to be cocked first before it could be discharged.
DUAL STANDARD
Thus, in determining whether an “accident” attended the incident, courts must take into account the dual standards of lack of
intent to kill and absence of fault or negligence.
(POMOY vs. PP, GR No. 150647, September 29, 2004)
PP vs. LORENO
“A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of
equal or greater injury is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. The force must be irresistible to
reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will… A threat of future injury is not enough.
The compulsion must be such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.”
PP vs. SALDANA
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause
INSUPERABLE CAUSE
• Distance and available means of transportation (VICENTILLO)
• Severe dizziness and extreme debility (BANDIAN)
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Instances where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
• “…instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its agent lures the accused into committing the offense in
order to prosecute him.”
BUY-BUST OPERATION
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid means of arresting violators
of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly employed by police officers as an effective way of apprehending law offenders
in the act of committing a crime.
In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding
him to commit the offense. (VALENCIA)
“The prosecution has to prove all the material elements of the alleged sale of shabu and the resulting buy-bust operation.
Where the testimony of the informer is indispensable, it should be disclosed.” (PP vs. ONG, GR No. 137348, June 21,
2004)
ENTRAPMENT
• Ways and means are resorted to trap and capture lawbreaker in the execution of the offense.
• Is not a bar to prosecution
• The means originate from the mind of the criminal.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
• Circumstances that reduce the penalty but do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability.
• Mitigating circumstances whether privileged or ordinary only serve to reduce the penalty but does not change
the nature of the crime.
• Does not change the nature of the crime; the crime remains as it was; (CAGOGO & URBANO)
ORDINARY
• May be offset by aggravating circumstances
• Effect is penalty is applicable in its minimum period
PRIVILEGED
• Cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances
• Effect is penalty is lowered by one or two degrees
• All requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability are not attendant.
• Not all the requisites are required.
• The requisites attendant must not be a majority, otherwise it becomes a privileged mitigating
circumstance (Art. 69)
PERFORMANCE OF DUTY
Since there are only 2 requisites, the presence of one is considered a privileged mitigating circumstance. * OANIS
CASE
PP vs. CALLET
“The lack of “intent” to commit a wrong so grave is an internal state. It is weighed based on the weapons used, the part of the
body injured the injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted.”
PP vs. GONZALEZ
• “This mitigating circumstance is obtaining when there is a notable disparity between the means employed
by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed.”
• “The appellants’ use of a gun, although not deliberately sought nor employed in the shooting, should have
reasonably placed the appellant on guard of the possible consequences of his act.”
NOT CONSISTENT WITH TREACHERY
• The trial court gave all of the accused the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that the offenders had no
intention to commit so grave a wrong. The estimation of this circumstance was proper, and its allowance was not
inconsistent with the finding that the crime was murder. (PP vs. ENRIQUEZ, GR No. 37408, October 10, 1933, see also
Cagoco)
4. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
Provocation must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act.
SUFFFICIENT PROVOCATION
Depends on:
• The act constituting the provocation
• Social standing of the person provoked
• Place and time of provocation
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
Forcing one’s way into a line despite being told not to by a foreman. (CARRERO)
Kicking and abusing the accused for not preparing the evening meal. (FIRMO)
Asking for pardon from her husband after the latter saw a
man jump from their wisdom. (MARQUEZ)
PP vs. MACASO
“…I have no respect for this salamagan…”
“…ignorant of traffic rules…”
“…stupid…”
“What do you want?”
5. IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE. The grave offense is done to:
• One committing the offense
• Spouse
• Ascendants
• Descendants
• Legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister
• Relatives by affinity within the same degrees
The person commits a crime and he is still liable but there is a reduction of the penalty because of an immediate vindication
of a grave offense.
“IMMEDIATE” = Proximate
Although this offense, which engenders perturbation of mind, was not so immediate, this court is of the opinion that the
influence thereof, by reason of its gravity and the circumstances under which it was inflicted, lasted until the moment the
crime was committed. (PP vs. PARANA, GR No.
45373, March 31, 1937)
GRAVE OFFENSE
“I will make a roast pig out of you” (AMPAR)
“You live at the expense of your wife” (ROSEL)
“You are a Japanese spy” (LUNA)
6.PASSION / OBFUSCATION
- The accused must have acted on an impulse so powerful that it naturally induced passion or obfuscation.
This is mitigating because a particular conduct of another person creates an impulse within the offender which impulse is very
strong that results in an extreme emotion.
PASSION / OBFUSCATION; Requisites:
(1)That there be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind;
(2)That said act which produces the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable
length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. (PP vs. GRAVINO,
GR Nos. L-31327-29, May 16, 1983)
MUST ARISE FROM LAWFUL SENTIMENTS “…the only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of
self-control are such as will originate from legitimate feelings, not those which arise from vicious, unworthy, and immoral
passions.” (US vs.
HICKS, GR No. 4971, September 23, 1909)
SUMMARY OF RULES
The act producing the condition of mind/impulse must be unlawful, improper and unjust while the sentiment of the accused from
which the passion or obfuscation originate from which it must be lawful.
A SINGLE FACT CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS OF DIFFERENT MODIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
“Well-settled is the rule that if these two circumstances are based on the same facts, they should be treated together as one
mitigating circumstance. From the facts established in this case, it is clear that both circumstances arose from the same set of
facts aforementioned. Hence, they should not be treated as two separate mitigating circumstances.” (ROMERA vs. PP, GR No.
151978, July 14, 2004)
REQUISITES:
• Offender has not been actually arrested
• The offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agent
• The surrender is voluntary
PP vs. CONCILLADO
“For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the surrender must be spontaneous and in a
manner that shows that the accused made an unconditional surrender to the authorities, either based on recognition of
guilt or from the desire to save the authorities from the trouble and expenses that would be involved in the accused’s
search and capture.”
PP vs. OBLIGADO
“Inasmuch as he was intercepted by the arresting officers there, appellant had no means of evading arrest. His surrender
therefore was neither voluntary nor spontaneous.” WARRANT OF ARREST; ISSUANCE DIFFERENT FROM SERVICE
“For while it is true that the warrant for his arrest was dated 7 March 1967 and the police authorities were able to take custody
of the accused only on 31 March 1967, there is nothing on record to show that the warrant had actually been served on him,
or that it had been returned unserved for
failure of the server to locate said accused.”
(PP vs. BRANA, GR No. L-29210, October 31, 1969)
-So why would this now be a hindrance to the availment of the mitigating circumstance? Because the accused is hiding.
Kibaw na cya nga naa nai gi-serve nga warrant. He can no longer avail of this mitigating circumstance. BUT WHAT IF
WALA SIYA KIBAW NGA NAA NA DIAY WARRANT
NGA GI-ISSUE AGAINST NIYA? What if diha raka kibaw ig abot sa police sa imong tungod nga padung ka tagaan ug
warrant? SURRENDER DAYON SA POLICE. UNHI.
–Carillo
“…surrendered himself…”
“Suffice it to say that we are not prepared to consider surrender of weapons as analogous to voluntary surrender to a person
in authority or his agents.” (PP vs. VERGES, GR
No. L-36882-84, July 24, 1981)
“Although Ildefonso Palo handed the gun to the barrio lieutenant upon the latter’s demand, there is no evidence that he
willingly delivered himself to the authorities.” (PP vs.
PALO, GR Nos. L-9593-94, July 31, 1957)
PURPOSE IN SURRENDERING
“Although both accused reported to the police authorities the following day after the commission of the crime, it was not for
the purpose of submitting themselves unconditionally.”
PLEA OF GUILTY
Requisites:
• Spontaneous
• In open court before a court of competent jurisdiction
• Before the presentation of evidence for the prosecution
9.ILLNESS
The illness must diminish the exercise of will power without depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
10.ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
• Owner of animal that is taken for ransom (vindication)
• Esprit de corps (passion or obfuscation)
• Voluntary restitution of stolen property (voluntary surrender)
- Extreme poverty and necessity (incomplete state of necessity)
• Testifying for the prosecution (plea of guilty)
QUALIFYING
Places the offender in no other situation as to deserve a…
…using the “influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him the means by which he realizes his
purpose.” (US vs. RODRIGUEZ, 19 Phil. 150)
PP vs. VILLAMOR
US vs. TORRIDA
“The fact that the appellant was councilman at the time placed him a position to commit these crimes. If he had not been
councilman he could not have induced the injured parties to pay these alleged fines. It was on account of his being
councilman that the parties believed that he had the right to collect fines and it was for this reason that they made the
payments.”
PABLO vs. PP
“the mere fact that the 3 accused were all police officers at the time of the robbery placed them in a position to perpetrate
the offense. If they were not police officers they could not have terrified the Montecillos into boarding …
PP vs. MAGAYAC
“That accused-appellant was a member of the dreaded CAFGU and used his government issued M-14 rifle to kill Jimmy
does not necessarily prove that he took advantage of his public position to commit the crime.”
PP vs. HERRERA
In other words, if the accused could have perpetrated the crime even without occupying his position, there is no abuse of
public position. The mere fact that accusedappellant is a policeman and used his government issued .39 caliber revolver to
kill Ganan is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the crime.
BUT IN…
“appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary, committed the crime with an armalite which was issued to him when
he received the mission order.”
PUBLIC AUTHORITY
Public authority should be construed as a person in authority*, i.e., one who is vested with jurisdiction, that is, one who
has the power to govern and execute the laws. An agent of a person in authority is not included in this circumstance.
PP vs. GUTIERREZ
PP vs. ALCALA
“as to whether the crime must be held to have been committed in the dwelling of the offended party, we take it that although
the accused were found with the deceased at the foot of the staircase of the house, that place must be regarded as an
integral part of the dwelling of that family. The porch of a house, not common to different neighbors, is a part of the
dwelling.”
Hotel room? If I stay in Marco Polo? Is it a dwelling? Sir Carillo is of the opinion that: “Again, I do not know”.
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION BY OWNER OF THE DWELLING
When there is sufficient provocation by the owner of the dwelling, this circumstance cannot be appreciated.
“There must be a close relation between provocation and commission of crime in the dwelling of the person from
whom the provocation came.”
Provocation here negates dwelling. You cannot use your right to be safe in your house to injure others by performing
unlawful / improper acts and hiding in the sanctity of one’s abode.
US vs. LICARTE
In the case at bar the offended party, by calling Filomena vile names, started the trouble. This vile language was not directed at
the accused, but to her daughter. This was, however, a sufficient provocation to cause the accused to demand an explanation
why her daughter was so grossly insulted. So under these facts, it was error to hold that the aggravating circumstance of
morada existed.
PP vs. DEQUINA
The provocation was not given immediately prior to the commission of the crime and had no particular relation to the house of
the deceased. If the defendant had entered the house of the deceased and surprise the deceased and the wife of the defendant
in the act of adultery, the aggravating circumstance of morada would not exist.
PP vs. AGONCILLO
Dwelling is considered as an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to the
human abode. However, in the present case, Rosalyn was not raped therein. Although she was abducted therefrom,
accused-appellant was not charged with forcible abduction with rape but only with rape. Considering that she was not
raped in her home, dwelling cannot be appreciated.
PP vs. CALISO
“…in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present since the
appellant was the domestic servant of the family and was sometimes the deceased child’s amah.”
Palace of the Chief Executive and place dedicated to public worship – official or religious function need not be held.
Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties – there must be some performance of public
functions.
“…it has been held that if the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place or band concur in the commission of
the crime, all will constitute one aggravating circumstance only as a general rule although they can be considered
separately if their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of
perversity.” (PP vs. LIBRANDO, GR No. 132251,
July 6, 2000)
PP vs. SILVA
“…it becomes aggravating only when: (1) it is especially sought by the offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it
facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender’s immunity from capture.
“The fact that they brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that they intended to commit the crime in darkness.”
DARKNESS OR OBSCURITY
“The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the obscuridad afforded by, and not merely the chronological onset of,
nighttime. Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity does not become a modifying….” (PP vs.
CARINO)
UNINHABITED PLACE
That there was a reasonable possibility for the victim to receive some help in the place of the commission of the crime.
PP vs. RUBIA
“The aggravating circumstance of the crime having been committed in an uninhabited place must be considered, the incident
having taken place at sea where it was difficult for the offended party to receive help, while the assailants could easily have
escaped punishment.”
PP vs. LUMANDONG
Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place under Article 14(6) was correctly appreciated against the
appellant…”
BAND
This circumstance is present when more than three armed men acted together in the commission of the offense. In other
words the four armed men must directly participate in the execution of the act constituting the crime.
PP vs. MAGDAMIT
An offense is committed en cuadrilla when more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission
thereof. In the present case, there were 7 conspirators involved in the commission of the composite crime.
PP vs. LOZANO
This Code does not define or require any particular arms or weapons; any weapon which by reason of its intrinsic nature or
the purpose for which it was made or used by the accused, is capable of inflicting serious or fatal injuries upon the victim of
the crime may be considered as arms for purposes of the law on cuadrilla.
GUNS AND KNIVES.
“The trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of the commission of a crime by band…”
MUST BE ACCOMPLICES
Aid of armed men or persons affording impunity requires that the armed men are accomplices who take part in minor
capacity, directly or indirectly. We note that all four accused were charged as principals. The remaining suspects --- John
Does, Jane Doe and Peter Doe --- were never identified and charged. Neither was proof adduced as to the nature of their
participation. (Lozano)
RECIDIVISM
A recidivist is one who, at the time of the trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another
crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.
RECIDIVISM, Requisites:
• That the offense is on trial for an offense
• That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
• That both the first and second offense are embraced in the same title of the RPC
• That the offender is convicted of the second offense
PP vs. RAPISORA
Article 14(9) of the RPC defines a recidivist as “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.” To prove recidivism, it is necessary to
allege the same in the information and to attach thereto certified copies of the sentence rendered against the accused.
REITERACION / HABITUALITY.
Requisites:
1. The accused is on trial
2. He previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or
more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense
3. The accused is convicted for the new offense
RECIDIVISM
• Offender is convicted by final judgment
• The offenses are included in the same title of the RPC
• The offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPC, penalty is immaterial.
HABITUALITY
• Offender serves out his sentence in the previous conviction
• The previous and subsequent offense need not be embraced in the same title of the RPC
PP vs. ALINCASTRE
“The Talledo case is not authority on this question.”
GREATER MORAL DEPRAVITY
In fact, under certain conditions such as those obtaining in the case at bar the circumstance under consideration may evince
even greater moral depravity in the offeror than in the acceptor. (Alincastre)
PP vs. CANETE
Any of the circumstances in this paragraph must be used by the offender to accomplish the crime, hence the phrase “by
means of…”
PP vs. COMADRE
When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and by means of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a qualifying
circumstance. Not only does jurisprudence support this view but also, since the use of explosives is the principal mode of
attack, reason dictates that this attendant circumstance should qualify the offense instead of treachery which will then be
relegated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance.”
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Requisites:
• The time when the offender was determined to commit the crime
• An act manifestly indicating the culprit’s determination to commit the crime
• A sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution
*Despite the opportunity to contemplate the intended crime, the culprit still persists in continuing the offense. He does
not want to go back to the path of righteousness
PP vs. CONCILLADO
The evidence must show that the decision to kill prior to the moment of its execution was the result of meditation,
calculation, reflection or persistent attempts. Absent such evidence, mere presumption and inferences are insufficient.
PP vs. HILARIO
Evident premeditation, however, may not properly be taken into account when the person whom the defendant proposed to
kill was different from the one who became his victim. When the person decided to kill a different person and premeditated
on the killing of the latter, but when he carried out his plan he actually killed another person, it cannot properly be said that
he premeditated on the killing of the actual victim.
DISGUISE
(PP vs. REYES, GR No. 118649, March 9, 1998)
“It is also worth mentioning that while appellant reportedly had a sort of a mask and was using sunglasses, these clumsy
accouterments could not constitute the aggravating circumstance of disguise. Legally, disfraz contemplates a superficial but
somewhat effective dissembling to avoid identification.”
PP vs. AMODIA
“To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is whether the aggressors
took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. Mere superiority in number is not enough to
constitute superior strength. There must be clear proof that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to
the defense available to the person attacked.”
PP vs. VENTURA
“On the contrary, this Court in a very long line of cases has consistently held that an attack made by a man with a deadly
weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and
the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself.”
PP vs. DUCUSIN
The aggravating circumstance defined in Article 10, No. 9, of the Penal Code, that is, the employment of means to weaken the
defense, consisting in this case, in having made the deceased intoxicated, must be taken into account.
TREACHERY
“There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, 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 / victim might make.” (PP vs. GIDOC,
GR No. 185162, April 24, 2009)
ESSENCE OF TREACHERY
The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed…
PP vs. YANSON
“Verily, appellant employed means which insured the killing of Magan and such means assured him from the risk of Magan’s
defense had he made any. It must also be noted that Magan was stabbed four times…”
PP vs. REGALADO
“It is not only the central fact of a killing that must be shown beyond reasonable doubt every qualifying or aggravating
circumstance…” (PP vs. ABDULAH)
FINALS
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
The general rule is that an offender is criminally liable for his own actions
When there is only on felon, he alone is criminally liable
In case of multiple offenders, criminal liability depends on the degree and nature of participation in the criminal act.
ART 16. Who are criminally liable.
Grave and Less Grave Felonies:
Principals;
Accomplices; Accessories Light Felonies: Principals;
Accomplices.
Only natural persons.
• RPC requires that a person act with malice or with negligence
• Juridical persons cannot be deprived of liberty
• Mots penalties can be executed by natural persons.
Principal by Inducement. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it.
• Directly forcing another to commit a crime;
-using irresistible force; or
-causing uncontrollable fear
• Directly inducing another to commit a crime. -giving price or offering reward or promise; -using words
of command.
Requisites of principal by induction
• Inducement with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime
• Inducement is the determining cause of the commission of the crime
st
1 requisite. Intention
Clear intention to procure the commission of the crime In Otadora the promise of pecuniary gain (money and carabaos) and
supplying the gun to use in the commission of the crime In Alcontin, the promise of living together once the husband of the
Incuder is killed. Does not include
Thoughtless expressions; Imprudent advice:
2nd requisite. Determining cause
Must be of such a nature that without it the crime would not have been committed.
It must:
• Precede the act induced; and
• Influential
Requisites: Words of Command
• Intention to procure commission of crime
• Inducer must have ascendancy or influence
• Words must be direct, so efficacious, so powerful as to amount to physical coercion
• Uttered prior to the commission of the crime
• Material executor has no personal reason to commit the crime
Principal by Cooperation. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it
would not have been accomplished Requisites:
• Participation in criminal resolution
• Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, w/o a/c it would not have been
accomplished
Cooperation
Cooperation- implies that there is a desire or wish in common. Another act- the act must be different from the acts of the
principal by direct participation the act must not involve the material execution of the offense.
Ex dragging a girl to place where she is to be raped; certifying a check to facilitate estafa.
Conspirator vs Accomplice
Conspirators and accomplices know and agree in the criminal design.
Conspirators participate in the criminal resolution, accomplices concur in the criminal design.
Requisites:
• Community of design
• Cooperation by previous or simultaneous acts
• Relation between acts of principal and accomplice
1st requisite. Community of Design
Community of design requires knowledge and concurrence of the criminal design
Prior to the commission of the act.
Knowledge of a crime different from that actually committed as long as it is a natural consequence of the crime intended, an
accomplice is liable.
2nd requisite: cooperation by previous or simultaneous acts. The acts of the accomplice must not be indispensable o/w he
is a principal.
The acts must not be due to conspiracy
3rd requisite:
The act of the accomplice must have a relation with the act of the principal
Liable for different crimes
A attacks B with treachery. Later C and D arrives and take part in killing B.
- Principal in murder
C and D- Accomplice in Homicide
*no conspiracy, no knowledge as to the manner A attacked B.
PENALTIES
ART 22 Retroactive effect of Penal Laws
The general rule is that penal laws have prospective effect They can only be given retroactive effect if:
• It is favourable to the accused
• The accused is not a habitual criminal Prospective effect of penal laws.
Applicable to all penal laws
This rule is applicable even for those serving sentence by final judgement.
Habitual criminal is one who…
• Within a period of 10 years;
• From the date of the last conviction or release;
• Of the crimes of serious and less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification;
• Is found guilty of any said crimes a 3rd time or oftener. (Art 62, par 5)
Jurisdiction of Courts
It is the law at the time of the institution of the action that determines the jurisdiction of courts
Jurisdiction of the courts is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.
ART 23 Pardon by the offended party.
Pardon by the offended party does not affect the criminal action. Civil liability may be expressly waived by the offended party.
The exception under Art 344 of the RPC must be made before the institution of the criminal action.
ART 36 Pardon
Pardon remits the principal penalty but not the accessory penalty, unless the pardon expressly provides otherwise. Exception:
when pardon is granted after the principal penalty has been fully executed
ART 38 Pecuniary liabilities- order of payment
• Reparation of damage caused
• Indemnification of consequential dmages
• Fine
• Cost of proceedings
*this article is applicable only when the property of the convict is not sufficient to pay all pecuniary liabilities.
To bar the forfeiture of the tools and instruments belonging to a third person, therefore, there must be an indictment charging
such third person either as a principal, accessory, or accomplice.
Release of property
Property seized (not illegal per se) must be returned to the person from whom it was taken or to person who is entitled to its
possession if:
• No criminal prosecution;
• Unreasonable delay in prosecution
*upon the termination of case
ART 46. Penalties to be imposed on principals in general The penalties provided for in the RPC are the penalties imposed
on principals for the consummated felony.
There are, however, certain provisions where a penalty is provided for a frustrated stage or attempted stage of a felony.
ART 47 When death penalty imposed Must be imposed in all cases under existing laws:
Except:
-below 18 yrs of age;
-more than 70 yrs of age;
-required majority in SC is not obtained
APPLICABILITY OF ART. 48
Art. 48 is applicable only when the RPC does not provide a specific penalty for a Special Complex Crime, ex: Kidnapping w/
Murder of Homicide, Robbery w/ Homicide, Rape with Homicide
The primary intention of rape and after thought nlng ang pagkuha sa bag na LV. That was merely an afterthought. There was
no need anymore for force or intimidation. Dapat RAPE w/
ROBBERY.
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE
The abduction is a necessary means to commit rape. This should only be applied to the first rape. If subsequent rapes are
committed, they are separate felonies, since the abduction was no longer necessary for their commission.
PENALTY FOR COMPLEX CRIME
• The penalty is for the most serious crime committed to be applied in its maximum period.
CONTINUED CRIME.
• A continued, continuing or continuous crime is not specifically provided for in the RPC. The principles on
continued crime are based on a single criminal impulse and should result in one criminal liability.
• The difference in DELA CRUZ and ENGUERO is that in DELA CRUZ there was evidence that there was a
general plan to commit robbery in the vicinity of the eight households. In ENGUERO no such evidence was presented.
RULES
RULE 1
- Penalty for felony committed is higher than penalty for felony intended: Penalty for felony with lower penalty imposed in the
maximum.
RULE 2
• Penalty for felony committed is lower than penalty for felony intended: Penalty for felony with lower penalty
imposed in maximum.
ART. 50-57
• Rules in determining the imposable penalties for accomplices and accessories of frustrated and attempted
felonies.
• Degree is one entire penalty
• Period is one of the three equal portions of a divisible penalty
• A period when prescribed by the RPC as a penalty for a felony is considered a degree.
2nd Rule. TWO INDIVISIBLE PERNALTIES OR ONE OR MORE DIVISIBLE PENALTIES TO BE IMPOSED TO THEIR
FULL EXTENT.
The penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed.
Two indivisible:
Death –
---------- PARRICIDE
Reclusion Perpetua Reclusion Temporal
2nd Rule. ONE OR MORE DIVISIBLE PENALTIES TO BE IMPOSED TO THEIR FULL EXTENT.
One divisible penalty to be imposed to its full extent.
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal – penalty
Prision Mayor – penalty next lower in degree
3rd Rule. ONE OR TWO INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES AND THE MAXIMUM PERIOD OF ANOTHER DIVISIBLE PENALTY
The penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty
and the maximum period of that immediately following.
Step 4 The minimum (including the 1 day) is the minimum of the minimum period. Add the quotient to the minimum and you
have the maximum of your minimum period.
2 years 4 months
+
• year 2 months 20 days
-------------------------------3 years 6 months 20 days
ART 72-74
Art. 72 Satisfaction of civil liability is based on the chronological order that they are imposed.
Art 73 Accessory penalties under Arts 40-45 are deemed imposed.
Subsidiary imprisonment not an accessory penalty
Art 74. Death shall not be imposed through the process of graduation.
ART 75 Increasing or decreasing fine by one or more degrees.
Fines are increased or decreased by one-fourth (1/4) of the maximum.
There must be a minimum and a maximum for this article to be applicable.
Only the maximum is increased or decreased, the minimum is never changed.
-8 days/month of good
Simply stated, civil liability arises when one, by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, causes
damage to another. Hence, for petitioner to be civilly liable to spouses Alonto, it must be proven that the acts he committed had
caused damage to the spouses. (Abellana vs Pp, GR
174654, Aug 17, 2011)
Instances when the extinction of the criminal liability does not extinguish civil liability.
*Reasonable doubt. When the acquittal is based that proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been presented.
*Non-imputability. In cases of insanity, imbecility or minority. *In actions for negligence. Civil liability may be based on
quasidelict
*Only civil liability.
*Independent civil actions. ART 31, 32, 33 and 34 of NCC. (DO
NOT CONFUSE THIS WITH A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION) Under the Rules of Court; Criminal Procedure.
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed
instituted with the criminal action unless:
*Offended party waives the civil action
*Offended party reserves the right to institute it separately; *Offended party institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
action.
Separate civil action.
- The filing of a criminal action is not necessary to the filing of and prosecution of a civil action, thus the term “separate civil
action”.
*However, once a criminal action has been filed, there are two scenarios that may arise.
• If the criminal action is filed ahead of the separate civil action- the separate civil action arising therefrom
cannot be instituted until final judgement has been rendered in the criminal action.
• If the civil action is filed ahead of the criminal action – thecivil action shall be suspended in whatever stage
before judgment on the merits. Suspension shall last until final judgment.
Applicability of the rules.
Identity of parties and subject matter.
The claimant in the civil action is the offended party in the criminal action and both cases arise from the same offense or
transaction. Separate civil action
*If the offended party has reserved the right to file a separate civil action, he loses the right to intervene in the prosecution of the
criminal case. (YOU CAN STILL TESTIFY AS A WITNESS BUT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COLLECT BECAUSE THIS
IS NOT ALLOWED.)
*If the offended party is represented by a private prosecutor in the criminal case and the court did not award any civil liability, he
cannot file an independent civil action for said civil liability.
Prejudicial question
*Generally, a criminal case should be decided first before the civil action arising from the crime. An exception to the rule is a
Prejudicial Question.
*A prejudicial question is a civil case that must be decided first before the criminal action. It requires (1) a previously instituted
civil action whose issues are similar or intimately related to the issues raised in a subsequent criminal action, and (2) the
resolution of such issue determines whether the criminal action may proceed or not. (Sec. 6, Rule 111 RRC)
• A civil action where the genuineness of a document is put in issue is prejudicial to the criminal case for
falsification of the same document.
• A petition for the annulment of a subsequent marriage on grounds of duress is a prejudicial question to a
criminal case for bigamy.
“As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for death of
the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages.” (Pp
vs Jadap, GR No 177983, Mar 30, 2010)
Without need of further proof
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the
crime. In cases of murder and homicide, moral damages may be awarded without allegation and proof of emotional suffering of
the heirs, other than the death of the victim, since the emotional wounds from the vicious killing of the victim cannot be denied.
(Jadap)
Exemplary damages
ART. 2230 of the Civil Code states that exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances, as in this case. (Jadap)
Pp vs Rante, GR No 184808, Mar. 29, 2010
Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating
circumstance, but also where the circumstance of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the
offender.
Simple Rape
As to the amount of damages, the Court finds as correct the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral
damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence. (Pp vs Dalisay, GR No. 188106, Nov. 25, 2009)
*Exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 was also awarded.
QUALIFIED Rape
Civil Indemnity - P75,000.00
Moral Damages - P75,000.00
Exemplary - P30,000.00
Awarded without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime. (Pp vs Garcia, GR No. 177740, April 5, 2010)
Homicide; Civil Indemnity
Civil indemnity - without need of proof other than that a crime was committed resulting in the death of the victim and that
petitioner was responsible therefore – P50,000.00 (Seguritan vs
Pp, GR No. 172896, April 19, 2010)
Loss of earning capacity
The award of P135,331.00 for the loss of earning capacity was also in order. The prosecution satisfactorily proved that the
victim was earning an annual income of P14,000.00 from the harvest of pineapples. Besides, the defense no longer impugned
this award of the trial court. (Seguritan)
Actual damages; receipts (this has to be supported that these damages were actually spent and there is need for
compensation. Of course this is not the only way but there must be sufficient proof of the actual amounts)
It is error for the trial court and the appellate court to award actual damages of P30,000.00 for the expenses incurred for the
death of the victim. We perused the records and did not find
evidence to support the plea fro actual damages. (Seguritan)
Temperate damages
When pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty, temperate
damages may be recovered (P25,000.00). (Seguritan)
In People vs Villanueva, we held that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000.00
is justified in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount. (Quidet vs Pp, GR No. 170289, April 8, 2010)
Actual damages
We explained that it was anomalous… (QUIDET vs. PP)
Moral damages
Moral damages was correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the fact that a crime was
committed resulting in the death of the victim and that the accused was responsible therefor. The award of P50,000.00 as moral
damages conforms to existing jurisprudence. (Seguritan) ART 101. The following shall be civilly liable.
*Insanity, imbecility and minority, the person having legal authority or control. If the said person can prove that there was no
fault or negligence on his part, the insane, imbecile or minor shall answer with his own property.
*Avoidance of greater evil or injury, the person for whose benefit the harm has been prevented in proportion to the benefit
which he may have received.
*Compulsion of an irresistible force or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear, those using violence or causing fear
shall be civilly liable.
ART 102. Subsidiary civil liability. (THE PROPRIETOR
OR OWNER IS LIABLE IF THE OFFENDER IS INSOLVENT)
Innkeepers, tavern keepers, any other person where a crime is committed in their establishment.
A violation of municipal ordinance or a general or special police action is committed by them or their employees.
“…also subsidiarily liable…”
• Notice in advance of the deposit of the goods.
• Follow the directions of the innkeeper in the care and vigilance of the goods
• The goods were taken by robbery with force upon things or theft committed within the inn or house.
ART 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.
• Employers,
• Teachers,
• Persons or corporations engaged in any kind of industry
Felony committed by servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees while in the discharge of duties.
Must be involved in any kind of industry.
The felon is insolvent.
Decision convicting the employee (RELATIONSHIP IS GAUGED AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME,
NOT WHEN THE DRIVER IS FOUND GUILTY BY THE COURT. MEANING TO SAY, IF DLI KABAYAD IMONG DRIVER KY
WALA CYAY PROPERTY, IKAW AS THE OWNER OF THE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY ANG MAKABAYAD.)
• Binding on the employer. The decision need not expressly state the liability of the employer.
• The decision regarding the civil liability is binding in the employer not only with the fact of the liability but also
with respect to the amount.
What must be proved.
• Employer of the convicted employee.
• Engaged in industry.
• Crime committed in the discharge of duty.
• Execution is unsatisfied; employee is insolvent.
Need not be in a separate civil action; hearing in the criminal action with notice to the employer.