Q: Timothy was unhappily married to Maria. He left her and joined liable for an intentional or culpable felony?
lony? If the act is an
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: Criminally liable because his mistake in the
interpretation of the law does not excuse him from its effects.
Criminally because his misapprehension of the facts caused an
injury that would result in criminal liability
Criminally liable because his imprudence resulted in a culpable
felony
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:
How does one incur criminal liability? Give an example.
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. Are you liable? Will you be
1|Page
intentional felony, why? It was not the girlfriend whom you wanted
to kill. It was her boyfriend. In this case, your classmate. Would that
not amount to a culpable felony?
In the case of DE JOYA vs. JAIL OF BATANGAS, what did De Joya
Norma de Joya vs. Jail Warden of Batangas
GR. No. 158418-19. December 10, 2003
Norma de Joya was convicted for violating BP Blg. 22. While the
trial was going on, she jumped bail. After 5 years, she was arrested
while applying for an NBI clearance. While under detention,
petitioner filed an urgent motion with the trial court asking the
court to apply SC Admin Circular No. 12-2000. The trial court
denied the motion holding that the decision had become final and
executory and could no longer be amended to change the penalty
imposed and that the said circular cannot be applied retroactively.
Petitioner filed to the Supreme Court a writ of habeas corpus
contending that SC Admin Circular deleted the penalty in BP Blg.
22.
The court said that this petition is without merit because a) a
writ of habeas corpus does not apply to persons alleged to be
restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officdr under
process issued by a court by virtue of a judgement order of a
court of record and that b) the said circular is not a penal law
and will not apply to those cases pending as of the date of its
effectivity.
asked from the Supreme Court?
WHAT IS CRIMINAL LAW?
- Defines crimes
-Treats of their nature
-Provides for penalties People of the Philippines vs. Santiago
Primary Purpose GR No. L-175984. March 8, 1922
Prevent harm to society by:
a. Declaring what conduct is criminal The accused was charged for the death of a 7-old-boy named
b. Describing the punishment to be imposed for such conduct Porfirio Parondo while he was driving an automobile at the rate
of 30 mph on a highway 6 meters wide. He did not tale
precaution required by the circumstances by slowing his
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW
machine. This automobile ran over the boy who was instantly
-Revised Penal Code
killed.
-Special Laws passed by the Legislature
-Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law The accused contends that the court does not have jurisdiction
There are no common law crimes. because Act No. 2886 of which he is prosecuted is said to be
No law = no crime. unconstitutional. Supreme Court said that the right to prosecute
Are court decisions and circulars sources of criminal law? and punish crimes is an attribute of sovereignty which resides in
the Federal Government. But for the purpose of punishing
“SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law; hence, Article 22 crimes, this power is delegated to subordinate government
of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. This is just a clarification subdivisions such as territories.
of our decision.” (NORMA DE JOYA vs. THE JAIL WARDEN OF
BATANGAS CITY, GR Nos. 159418-19, December 10, 2003)

State’s power to define and punish crimes. Limits (1987 Constitution)

“A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivision i. Ex-post facto law (Art. III, Sec. 22)
of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which ii. Due process (Art. III, Sec. 14 [1])
they may be carried into execution, would partake of a prolixity of a Constitutional Rights of the Accused
legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It
would probably never be understood by the public.” 1. Speedy disposition of cases
2. Due process of law
A state must be able to define and punish crimes. If you place the 3. Right to bail
penalties for crimes in the Constitution, it will tarnish its 4. Presumption of innocence
characteristic. It will not be brief, broad and definite anymore. If you 5. Self-incrimination
do that, that will be making our Constitution a broad one. 6. No degrading or inhuman punishment

2|Page
 7. Double jeopardy
8. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies
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)
1. Presumption of innocence
2. Informed of the nature and cause of accusation
3. To be present and defend in person
4. To testify in his own behalf
5. Self-incrimination
6. To confront / cross-examine
7. A compulsory process issued to secure attendance of
witness and secure evidence in his behalf
8. Speedy, impartial and public trial
9. Right to appeal
JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES
Jurisdiction – power to hear and decide a controversy.
In criminal cases:
Place / Venue
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, Family Court
Person committing the crime
3|Page
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
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:
3 main characteristics: General, Territorial, Prospective
1. GENERAL (Criminal law is binding on all persons who live
or sojourn in Philippine territory. Art. 14 of the New Civil
Code)
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
Gonzales vs. Abaya
Gr. No. 164007. August 10, 2006
Several officers of the AFP were filed complaints after the failed
Oakwood Mutiny. These included the crime of coup d’etat.
Petitioners contend that these are service-oriented crimes,
therefore, not subject to jurisdiction of civil courts.
The Court ruled that it was only Article 96 (conduct unbecoming
of a gentleman) that was a service-connected offense and
subject to the court martial. All the other offenses are punished
under the crime of coup d’etat as defined by the Revised Penal
Code.
GENERAL RULE: AFP, persons subject to military law, who commit
crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised Penal Code, other
special penal laws, or local ordinances ARE SUBJECT TO THE CIVIL
COURT. (See RA No. 7055)
EXCEPTION: Service-connected offenses (Articles 56-70, 72-92 and
95-96 of CA No. 408, as amended) are all subject to the military
court
EXCEPTION TO THE EXEPTION: President, interest of justice – civil
court
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW
(These are for purposes of international comity)
1. Treaties
2. Laws of preferential application;
3. Sovereigns, Chiefs of State, Ambassadors, Ministers
plenipotentiary, ministers residents and charges d’affaires.
4. 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 laws undertake to punish crimes
committed within Philippine territory.)
Philippine Territory – Archipelagic doctrine
Article 2 of the RPC: EXCEPTIONS TO THE TERRITORIAL
APPLICATION
1. Philippine ship / airship
- A person who commits an offense on board a Philippine
ship or airship while the same is outside Philippine territory
can be tried by our courts.
- Ship or airship must be in international waters.
4|Page
2. Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations or
securities
3. Introduction of items no. 2 into the Philippines
4. Public officers or employees / in the exercise of their
functions
- Direct bribery (Art. 210)
- Indirect bribery (Art. 211)
- Frauds against the public treasure (Art. 213)
- Malversation (Art. 217)
- Falsification (Art. 171)
- Possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216)
5. Crimes against national security / law of nations
- Treason and espionage
- Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
- Piracy and mutiny
WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED ON BOARD A FOREIGN MERCHANT
SHP
- Foreign merchant ships are extensions of the territory of
the country to which it belongs
- If the crime was done in International Waters – NOT triable
in our courts, an extension of the territory of the country to
which the ship belongs.
- If within territorial Waters, TRIABLE in our courts
Exception: (1) within the vessel or they refer to the (2)
internal management thereof.
ENGLISH RULE vs. FRENCH RULE
- Under the French Rule, crimes are not triable unless if affects
peace and security of the territory. (Example: smoking opium)
- Under the English Rule, crimes are triable as long as it does not
merely involve the internal management within the vessel.
People of the Philippines vs. Wong Cheng
GR No. L-18924. October 19, 1922.
The mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit
was held by this court as not triable in our courts. The primary
objective of the Opium Law is to protect the inhabitants of the
Philippines against the disastrous effects entailed by the using
of this drug. But to smoke opium within our territorial limits,
even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a
breach of the public order here established because it causes
such drug to produce such pernicious effects within our
territory.
US vs. Look Chaw
GR. No. L-5887. December 16, 1911
Look Chaw was filed a case stating that he “carried, kept,
possessed and had in his possession and control, 96kgs of
opium” and that “he had been surprised in the act of selling
1,000 pesos worth prepared opium.” The Court ruled that, as a
general rule, mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel
is not triable in Philippine courts, but once the said article is
landed from the vessel upon Philippine soil, jurisdiction is
conferred upon our courts.
5|Page
US vs. Ah Sing
GR. No. 13005, October 10, 1917
Defendant purchased opium in Saigon, brought it on board a
foreign vessel, and had it under his control when that vessel
arrived after direct voyage in the port of Cebu. It was held to
constitute illegal importation of opium from a foreign country
into the Philippine Islands
THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN ABANDONED TODAY. WHAT IS
CONTROLLING AT PRESENT IS R.A. 9165
Objective Territoriality principle
- The country where the crime was completed may exercise
jurisdiction even if it was started outside.
US vs. H.N. Bull
GR No. 5270. January 15, 2010
Bull was carrying cattle, carabaos and other animals from
Ampieng, Formosa to the port of Manila. He trandferred 677
animals without providing for suitable means for securing said
animals while in transit which is against Act. No 55 and Act. No.
275 of the Philippine Commission.
The court held that the offense of failing to provide suitable
means for securing animals while transporting them on a ship
from a foreign port to a port of the Philippine Islands is within
the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines when the
forbidden conditions existed during the time the ship was within
territorial, regardless of the fact that the same conditions
existed when the ship sailed from the foreign port and while it
was on the high seas.
Subjective Territoriality principle 1. Against the Government and in favor of the accused.
2. Spanish text is controlling because it was approved by the
- The country where the crime was started may have
Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text
jurisdiction over the crime even if the crime was completed
in another country. As in all rules of statutory construction, these rules are applicable
only when there is some ambiguity in the interpretation of the
3. PROSPECTIVE (A penal law cannot make an act punishable criminal statute
in a manner in which it was not punishable when
committed. As provided in Article 366 of the Revised Penal
Code, crimes are punished under the laws in force at the ART. 3. FELONIES
time of their commission.)
FELONY is the technical term for violations of the RPC.
EXCEPTION: When the new law is favourable to the accused
Except when: ELEMENTS OF FELONIES
1. The new law has an express prohibition; 1. Act or omission;
2. Habitual criminal 2. Punishable by the RPC;
RULES ON REPEAL 3. There is dolo or culpa
1. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter, the new law shall be ACT
applied. (Exception: retroactive if favorable) Act pertains to “any bodily movement tending to produce
2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the old law shall some effect in the external world.” (PP vs. GONZALES)
be applied.
- When the new law and the old law penalize the same
offense, the offender can be tried under the old law.
3. If the new law totally repeals the existing law, the crime is
obliterated.
- Will release people who are serving sentence
- When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under
the old law, the accused cannot be convicted under the new
law.

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

6|Page
 People of the Philippines vs. Gonzales
GR. No. 80762. March 19, 1990
Augusto Gonzales informed Paja that his wife Fausta
(defendant) had murdered their landlord, Lloyd Penacerrada.
They were then brought to the police station for surrender. Two
days after, Augusto appeared before the station and voluntarily
surrendered to the police for having been involved in the killing
of Lloyd Penacerrada.
Jose Huntoria presented himself to the widow of the deceased
saying he is an eyewitness. He says that on the day, while
walking in his shortcut route, he heard cries from help. From
where he stood, he saw all the accused ganging upon the taking
turns in stabbing the victim. He said he clearly saw the accused
because the place was awash in moonlight. However, Huntoria
does not know what specific act was performed by the
appellant. This lack of specificity then makes the case fall short
of the test laid down by Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code
previously discussed.
OVERT – done openly, external (not internal), must have a direct
connection with the felony committed.
- Only external act is punished
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.
7|Page
People of the Philippines vs. Silvestre and Atienza
GR. No. 35748. December 14, 1931.
Romana Silvestre was convicted as accomplice of the crime of
arson by the Court of First Instance. Martin Atiena told sps. De
la Cruz to take out their furniture because he was oing to set it
on fire as a form of revenge to the people of Masocol. No one
dared say anything, even Romana Silvestre. Because he was
armed with a pistol. The fire destroyed 48 houses.
The Court held that mere passive 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. Silvestre was acquitted.
Thus, if you see somebody in a remote area in danger of dying. He
was hit by a truck and you failed to give assistance, you will be
LIABLE under the above rule. (OMISSION) Provided that such as
assistance does not detriment you.
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES ACCORDING TO THE MEANS BY
WHICH THEY ARE COMMITTED: 1) INTENTIONAL AND 2)
CULPABLE.
INTENTIONAL FELONIES CULPABLE FELONIES
Dolo or deceit/malice Culpa or fault
The act or omission of the The act or omission of the
offender is malicious. offender is not malicious.
Deliberate intent Imprudence (lack of skill) or
Negligence (lack of foresight)
Voluntary Voluntary
Why should the act or omission in felonies be voluntary?
1. Basis of criminal liability is free will
2. Man is a rational being. (with exception to Article 12)
REQUISITES OF DOLO
1. FREEDOM – No freedom = not voluntary
2. 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)
3. INTENT – to commit the felony
INTENT
- Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of
intelligence. 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)
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.
GENERAL INTENT vs. SPECIFIC INTENT
Intent as an element of dolo is a general intent.
Specific intent, e.g., intent to gain in theft and robbery, intent to kill
in homicide and murder.
MISTAKE OF FACT
- Ignotantia facti excusat
- 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.
Requisites of Mistake of Fact:
1. Act is LAWFUL had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be.
2. INTENTION of accused is lawful.
3. NO fault or carelessness.

This means actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea or a crime is not Good faith happens when mistake of fact is present.
committed if the mind of the person performing the act is innocent.
If there is no intent, THERE IS NO FELONY BY DOLO.

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.

8|Page
 US vs. Ah Chong
GR. No 5272. March 19, 1910.
Ah chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley. He was afraid of bad
elements. One evening, before going to be, he locked himself in
his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone
to bed, he was awakened by someone trying to open the door.
He called out twice, “Who is there?” but received no answer.
Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed
and called out again,”If you enter the room I will kill you.” But at
that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been
placed against the door, and believing that he was being
attacked, he seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally
wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate.
Ah Chong was acquitted because of mistake of fact. The actions
of the accused were sufficient to negate the existence of
criminal intent.
People of the Philippines vs. Oanis
GR No. 47722. July 27, 1943
Chief of Police Oanis and his co-accused Galanta were under
instructions to arrest on Balagtas, a notorious criminal and
escaped convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive.
Proceesing to the suspected house, they went into a room and
on seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door,
simultaneously fired at him with their revolvers, without first
making any reasonable inquiry as to his identity. The victim
turned out to be an innocent man, Tecson, and not the wanted
criminal.
In the instant case, appellants, unlike the accused in the instances
cited, found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them
to immediate action. The person in the room being then asleep,
appellants had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity
without hazard to themselves, and could even effect a bloodless
arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the
victim was unarmed, according to Irene Requinea.

And a peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if

he uses unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest.

The accused were given the benefit of mitigating circumstances.

Both were guilty of murder.

In the Ah Chong case, there is mistake of fact because the accused,

having no time or opportunity to make any further inquiry, and
being pressed by circumstances to act immediately, the accused had
no alternative but to take the facts as they then appeared to him,
and such facts justified his act of killing the deceased.

9|Page
In the Oanis case, the accused found no circumstances whatever
which would press them to immediate action. The person in the
room being then asleep, the accused had ample time and
opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves
and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to
that end had been made, as the victim was unarmed. This, indeed,
is the only legitimate course of action for the accused to follow even
if the victim was really Balagtas, as they were instructed not to kill
him at sight.
MISTAKE OF FACT vs. MISTAKE OF LAW
The Supreme Court, in People vs. Bitdu, carefully distinguished
between mistake of fact, which could be a basis for the defense of
good faith in a bigamy case, from a mistake of law, which does not
excuse a person, even a lay person, from liability. Bitdu held that
even if the accused, who had obtained a divorce under the
Mohammedan custom, honestly believed that in contracting her
second marriage, she was not omitting any violation of the law, and
that she had no criminal intent, the same does not justify her act.
(DIEGO vs. CASTILLO, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1673, August 11, 2004)
GOOD FAITH IS A GOOD DEFENSE IF CHARGES OF INTENTIONAL
FELONY.
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – the act itself does not make
a man guilty unless his intention were so
Actus me invite fatus non est meus actus – an act done by me
against my will is not my act
REQUISITES OF CULPA
1. Freedom;
2. Intelligence;
10 | P a g e
3. Imprudence, Negligence, Lack of foresight or Lack of
skill.
CULPA – no intent to cause injury
The offender in culpable felonies must perform an act without
intention to cause injury to another.
If the offender intended to cause injury but the result is different
from that intended, he is liable for an intentional felony under
Article 4. 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.
Note: Mistake in the identity of the intended victim is not reckless
imprudence.
- A deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially
inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence.
CRIMES OR OFFENSES PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS
- Intent to commit the crime is not required, it is sufficient if
the accused had intent to perpetrate the act.
- It is sufficient that the prohibited act is done freely or
voluntarily.
- Punished as Mala prohibita
- When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is
considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the
doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.
 Mala in se Mala prohibita a. Committing a felony although the wrongful act done is
Wrong from their very nature Wrong merely because different from what he intended;
prohibited by statue b. Performing an act which would be an offense were it not for
So serious in their effects on Violations of mere rules of the inherent impossibility of its accomplishments or on
society as to call for almost convenience designed to account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
unanimous condemnation of secure a more orderly means (Impossible crime)
its members regulation of the affairs of
society Rationale of Art. 4, par. 1: el que es cause de la causa es causa del
Intent governs Has there been a law that was mal causado (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the
violated? evil caused.)

- This article only applies to INTENTIONAL FELONY

MOTIVE and INTENT
- Motive is the moving power that impels one to action for a
definite result. Proved by the testimony of witnesses on the acts
or statements of the accused before or immediately after the
commission of the offense.
- Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such
result.
MOTIVE IS NOT A REQUISITE
Motive is not an essential element of a crime and is, therefore, not
necessary for the conviction of the accused.
EXCEPT: When there is a) doubt to the identity of the accused and
b) there are two antagonistic versions of the story
ART. 4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY
- If the offender was committing a culpable felony this article
does NOT apply
- If the person is not committing a felony, the article is not
applicable.
Requisites of Art. 4, par.1:
a) An intentional felony has been committed
b) The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct,
natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by
the offender
RULE ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY (MEMORIZE THIS!!!)
“… different from that which he intended.”
- A person who commits an intentional felony is responsible
for all the consequences that may naturally and logically
result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.

Criminal liability is incurred by:

11 | P a g e
 People vs. Bindoy
56 Phil 15
In a tuba wineshop in the barrio market, the accused offered
tuba to Pacas’ wife; and as she refues to drink having already
done so, the accused threatened to injure her if she would not
accept. There ensued an interchange of words between her and
the accused, and Pacas stepped in to defend his wife,
attempting to take away from the accused the bolo he carried.
This occasioned a disturbance which attracted the attention of
Emigdio Omamdam who lived near the market. Emigdio left his
house to see what was happening, while the accused and Pacas
were struggling for the bolo. In the course of the struggle, the
accussed succeeded in disengaging himself from Pacas,
wrenching the bolo from the latter’s hand towards the left
behind of the accused, with such violence that the point of the
bolo reached Emigidio Omamdam’s chest, who was then behind
the accused. The accused was not aware of Omamdam’s
presence in the place.
There was no evidence to show that the accused injured the
deceased deliberately and with the intention of committing a
crime. He was only defending his possession of the bolo, which
Pacas was trying to wrench away from him, and his conduct was
perfectly legal. The accused was acquitted.
“Although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.”
These include: 1) mistake in identity, 2) mistake in the blow and 3)
the act exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious result is greater
than that intended.
1. ERROR IN PERSONAE – Mistake in Identity
12 | P a g e
Case: Pp. vs. Oanis
Example: A intended to kill B. A mistakes C for B (darkness). A
shoots C, killing him. A is liable for the death of C, since C’s death is
the direct, natural and logical consequence of his felonious act
(shooting).
2. ABBERATIO ICTUS – Mistake in the blow
Pp. vs. Mabugat
51 Phil. 967
The accused and Juana Buralo were sweethearts. One day, the
accused invited Juana to take a walk with him, but the latter
refused him on account of the accused having frequently visited
the house of another oman. Later on, the accused went to the
house of Cirilo Bayan where Juana had gone to take part in
some devotion. There, the accused, revolver in hand, waited
until Juana and her niece, Perfecta, came downstairs. When
they went in the direction of their house, the accused followed
them. As the two girls were going upstairs, the accused, while
standing at the foot of the stairway, fired a shot from his
revolver t Juana but which wounded Perfecta, the slig passing
through a part of her neck. She did not die due to adequate
medical attention.
The accused is guilty of frustrated murder.
Example: 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.
3. PRAETER INTENTIONEM – Injurious result is greater than
intended
 People vs. Cagoco
GR No. 38511, October 6, 1933
The accused gave a certain Yu Lon a fist blow on the back part of
the head. This caused Yu Lon to fall on the ground and as a
consequence of which he suffered a lacerated wound on the
scalp and a fissured fracture on the left occipital region which
were fatal and caused his immediate death.
There can be no reasonable doubt as to the cause of the death
of Yu Lon. There is nothing to indicate that it was due to some
extraneous case. It was clearly the direct consequence of
defendant’s felonious act, and the fact that the defendant did
not intend to cause so great an injury does not relieve him from
the consequences of his unlawful act.
Example: A punches B once (no intent to kill). B falls to the ground
hitting his head on the pavement. B dies as a result of the injuries to
his head. 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).
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.
13 | P a g e
“Direct, natural and logical”
Seguritan vs. People
GR No. 172896. April 19, 2010.
While having a drinking session, Rono Seguritan got into a heated
argument with his uncle Lucrecio because his uncle’s carabao
entered his farm and destroyed his crops. Rono punched his uncle
in the right and left temple, causing him to fall face-up to the
ground and hit a hollow block which was being used as an
improvised stove. Lucrecio lost consciousness but was eventually
revived. He went home. His wife noticed that he had head on his
forehead but he went directly to his room and slept. At 9 in the
evening, his wife and daughter noticed that his complexion has
darkened and foamy substance was coming out of his mouth. He
died on the same night.
Petitioner was guilty of homicide.
Examples of direct, natural and logical consequences:
1. When the victim, who was threatened or chased by the accused
with a knife, jumped into the water and because of the strong
current or because he did not know how to swim, he sank and
died of drowning. (US vs. Valdez)
2. The victim removed the drainage from the wound which
resulted In the development of peritonitis which in turn caused
his death, it appearing that the wound caused by the accused
produced extreme pain and restlessness which made the victim
remove it. (Pp. vs. Quianso)
3. Other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result as long as
he wound inflicted is dangerous even if the immediate cause of
death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment.
 People vs. Moldes
GR No. 42122. December 1, 1934
There was a dance in the deceased house. The accused danced out
of turn but was reproved by the deceased. The accused started to
cut down the decorations using a bolo and was challenging
everyone to a fight. Unheard, he began chopping at the bamboo
trees and repeated his challenge. The accused struck the deceased
with his bolo when the deceased tried to speak to him in friendly
terms. The deceased was treated by the sanitary inspector but he
remained in the care of the local “curandero”. The treatment failed
to stop hemorrhage.
It was held that he who inflicts the injury is not relieved of
responsibility if the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is, calculated
to destroy or endanger life, even though the immediate cause of
the death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical
treatment.
4. The victim was suffering from internal malady.
i. Blow was the proximate cause of death
People vs. Illustre
54 Phil. 594
A man by the name of Juan Magsino, attempted to secure a
crackling from the paraded roasted pig. To punish his boldness, the
defendant ran after him, boxed him. Juan became very ill and a few
hours after, he expired. He then already had tuberculosis.
If the victim had a delicate constitution as he was suffering from
tuberculosis and died as a result from the fist-blows, the person
who delivered the said blows is liable for the death
ii. Blow accelerated death
14 | P a g e
People vs. Rodriguez
23 Phil. 22
If the death was accelerated by fist blows delivered because the
victim was suffering from some internal condition, the person who
delivered the blows is liable for the death.
iii. Blow was proximate cause of death
5. The offended party refused to submit to surgical operation.
US vs. Marasigan
27 Phil 504
The accused drew his knife and struck at Mendoza. In attempting
to ward off the blow, Mendoza was cut in the left hand. The
extensor tendon in one of the fingers was severed. As a result, the
middle finger of the left hand was rendered useless.
Where the victim refuses to submit to surgical operation, the
person who caused the injuries is still liable as a person is not
obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the accused
from the natural or ordinary results of his crime
6. The resulting injury was aggravated by infection.
DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
- 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.
- There must be a relation to the “cause and effect”
 - This cause and effect is not altered or changed because of
the pre-existing conditions such as the pathological
condition of the victim (las condiciones patologica del
lesionado), the predisposition of the offended party (la
constitucion fisica del herido), the concomitant or
concurrent conditions such as the negligence of the doctors
(la falta de medicos para sister al herido) or the conditions
supervening the felonious act
Vda de Baticlan vs. Medina
GR No. L-10126. October 22, 1957
At 2 in the morning, a bus was running very fast on a highway, one
of the front itres burst and the vehicle began to zigzag until it fell
into a canal and turned turtle. Four passengers could not get out. It
appeared that the bus overturned leaking gasoline from the tank
on the side of the chassis, spreading over and permeating the boyd
of the bus and the ground under and around it. About 10 men, one
of them carrying a lighted torch, approached the bus to help those
left therein, and almost immediately a fierce fire started, burning
the four passengers trapped inside.
Urbano vs. People
GR No. 182750. January 20, 2009
Tomelden and Urbano were at the compound of the Lingayen
Water District. They had a heated altercation that resulted to
Tomelden hurling insulting remarks at Urbano. They subsequently
exchanged blows. Then the petitioner delivered a “lucky punch” in
which Tomeldon toppled down. This rendered him unconscious.
The next day, he was brought to the hospital by his wife because of
complaints of pain in his nape, head and ear. The doctor treated
Tomeldon. On 2 other times, he went back to the hospital
complaining of dizziness, headache and other pains. On the third
time, the attending physician diagnosed him suffering from “brain
injury, secondary to mauling to consider cerebral hemorrhage.” He
was confined in the hospital but was discharged due to financial
constraints. He continually complained of extreme head pain.
Tomelden died on that day due to “cardio-respiratory arrest
secondary to cerebral concussion with resultant cerebral
hemorrhage due to mauling incident.”
Urbano was convicted of homicide due to his “lucky punch.”

The Supreme Court ruled that the proximate cause of the death of
the passengers was not the lighted torch but the overturning of the
bus.

A proximate cause is defined as “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.”

15 | P a g e
However, a person is NOT liable for all the possible consequences
of his act.
People vs. Marco
GR. No. L-28324-5. May 19, 1978
Simeon, the son of the appellant Rafael, approached Constancio
Sabelbero confronted him if he were the one who boxed his
(Simeon’s) brother a year before and then brandished a hunting
knife. Constancio ran away. While he was running, Rafael hit him
with a cane and caused him slight physical injuries. Vicente,
Constancio’s father, told him and his brother Bienvenido to run
away. Rafael followed Bienvenido and stabbed him but the latter
parried the blow which caused injuries to his left hand. As he was
trying to run, his feet got entangled in some vines that caused him
to fall down. Beltran then stabbed him near the anus and Simeon
stabbed him on the left side of the breast. Bienvenido died.
The Supreme Court ruled that the act of Rafael in stabbing the
victim is separate from the fatal stabs inflicted by the others. 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.
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting
injury when a) there is an efficient intervening cause and b) it was
brought about by the negligence of the victim
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
- Active force that intervenes between the felony and the
resulting injury;
o The active force must be a distinct act; or
o A fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act;
16 | P a g e
FAULT OR CARELESSNESS OF THE VICTIM
- “Malicious act or omission of the victim” (That particular act
now becomes the efficient intervening cause)
- It must have been enough to break the relationship of the
felony committed and the resulting injury must have its
origin from his malicious act or omission such as when the
injured party has a desire to increase the criminal liability of
the accused.
People vs. Villacorta
GR. No. 186412. September 7, 2011.
Villacorta went to a store and stabbed Cruz with a sharpened
bamboo stick. He then fled. Cruz was sent to the hospital and
was treated as an outpatient. The incident happened on January
23, 2002. Cruz was brought to the San Lazaro Hospital on
February 14, 2002 and died the next day due to tetanus.
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 XX 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. Villacorta was only guilty of
slight physical injuries.
Par.2, Article 4: 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.
REQUISITES OF AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:
1. The act performed would be an offense against Persons /
Property
- Crime against Persons: Parricide, Murder, homicide,
infanticide, abortion, duel physical injuries, rape
- Against Property: Robbery, brigandage, theft, usurpation,
culpable insolvency, swindling and other deceits, chattel
mortgage, arson, malicious mischief
2. Evil Intent
3. The accomplishment is inherently impossible or means
employed is inadequate or ineffectual.
- Inherently impossible: legal impossibility or physical
impossibility
4. It is not a violation of another provision of the RPC.
17 | P a g e
Intod vs. People
GR No. 103119. October 21, 1992
Intod went to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan together
with 4 other men. They all fired at the same room. However, it
turns out, she was not there and her home was then occupied
by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when
they fired shots and no one was hit.
The court convicted the accused of impossible crime. 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. There is no need to distinguish factual from
physical impossibility because Philippine law is clear, “INHERENTLY
IMPOSSIBLE”.
People vs. Enoja
GR No. 102596. December 17, 1999.
The accused in this case were all charged with murder for shooting
Siegfred Insular, allegedly an NPA commander. Yolly Armada fired
at Siegfred to which he fell down on the ground, wounded. Almost
simultaneously, several armed men (herein accused) appeared and
took turns in firing at him. They claim 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 SC called their argument speculative. No impossible crime.
 People vs. Domasian and Tan
GR No. 95322. March 1, 1993
A boy was detained for about three hours and was released when
the tanods arrived even before his parents received the ransom
note. The accused present as a defense that of impossible crime.
Supreme Court ruled that it is not impossible crime because the
means was not ineffectual or inadequate.
ART. 5 – DUTY OF JUDGE WHEN SITUATION NOT COVERED BY
LAW.
Act is not punished by law – must render a decision according to the
law.
EXCESSIVE PENALTIES – must not suspend the execution of
sentence
*report to the President through the Department of Justice (DOJ)
ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES NOT ALLOWED
18 | P a g e
Abellana vs. People
GR. No. 174654. August 17, 2011
This case involved the acquittal of the accused to the crime of
Estafa by Falsification of Public Documents. The court ruled that
“*s+entences should not be in the alternative. There is nothing in
the law which permits courts to impose sentences in the
alternative.” While a judge has the discretion of imposing one or
another penalty, he cannot impose both in the alternative. “He
must fix positively and with certainty the particular penalty.”
ART. 6 – STAGES OF EXECUTION
1. Consummated
2. Frustrated
3. Attempted
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.
FRUSTRATED
- Offender commences the act, by overt acts, necessary to
produce the felony but does not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
ATTEMPTED
- when the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt act, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony aby the reason
of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance
FACTORS to be considered when to understand the stage:
a. The nature of the offense.
b. The elements constituting the felony.
c. The manner of committing the same.
Example: 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)
ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE
THEFT – gaining possession of the item consummates the felony.
There is no frustrated theft. (VALENZUELA vs. PP, GR No. 1160188,
June 21, 2007; Rule of VALENZUELA case is similar to the ruling of
ADIAO case)
MANNER OF COMMITTING THE CRIME
a. FORMAL CRIMES – slander and false testimony
MERE ATTEMPT OR PROPOSAL – flight to enemy’s country
(ATTEMPT) and corruption of minor (PROPOSAL)
b. MATERIAL CRIMES – rape, homicide or murder
19 | P a g e
Colinares vs. People
GR No. 182748. December 13, 2011.
Rufino P. Buena testified that at around 7:00 in the evening at
June 25, 200, he and Jesus Paulite were attacked by Arnel
Colinares. Arnel snuck behind and struck Rufino twice on the
head with a huge stone, he hell unconscious as Jesus fled.
Ananias Jallores testified as well to have seen Rufino lying by the
roadside. As he tried to help Rufino, someone struck him hard
with something hard on the right temple and knocked him out.
He later found out it was Arnel. Paciano Alano (Paciano)
testified that he saw the whole incident since he happened to
be smoking outside his house. He sought the help of a barangay
tanod and they brought Rufino to the hospital.
In Palaganas v. People, we ruled that when the accused intended to
kill his victim, as shown by his use of a deadly weapon and the
wounds he inflicted, but the victim did not die because of timely
medical assistance, the crime is frustrated murder or frustrated
homicide. If the victim’s wounds are not fatal, the crime is only
attempted murder or attempted homicide.
DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
1st stage: Internal Acts – not punishable
2nd stage: External Acts:
a.) Preparatory Acts – generally not punishable; but those
considered by themselves a law, as independent crimes are
punishable.
b.) Acts of Execution – punishable

ATTEMPTED STAGE, Elements
1. Commences the commission of the felony directly by overt
acts
2. Does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony.
3. Acts are not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance
4. Due to a cause of accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
OVERT ACTS
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
People vs. Lizada
GR No. 143468-71. January 24, 2003
The accused was convicted of only 2 simple rape of the daughter of
his common law wife. On one occasion, he is only guilty of
attempted rape because he desisted from all acts of execution of
rape due to the sudden arrival of the private complainant’s sibling.
“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
20 | P a g e
of the perpetrator will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense.”
- This may not be by physical activity
- There must be a direct connection
Equivocal vs. Unequivocal
- drawing a pistol or raising a bolo are equivocal acts.
- drawing a pistol, aiming the same at the victim and, with
intent to kill, discharge the firearm at the victim can we say
that the acts are not overt acts of homicide/murder.
The external acts must have a direct connection with the crime
intended to be committed by the offender.
Indeterminate Offense
People vs. Lamahang
61 Phil 703
The crime is not attempted robbery but only attempted trespass to
dwelling because the intention of the accused was obviously to be
disclosed by his act of making an opening through the wall, and
that was to enter the store against the will of its owner.
Discussion on requisites of the attempted stage:
a. “Directly by overt acts”
- 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.
 b. “Does not perform all acts of execution”
PERFORMS ALL ACTS OF EXECUTION
- If the offender has performed all acts of execution –
consummated stage or frustrated stage - Nothing is left to be done by the offense because he has
- If there is still something else to be done – attempted stage performed the last act necessary to produce the crime.
- The BELIEF OF THE OFFENDER IS IMPORTANT
c. “By reason of some cause or accident”
People vs. Sy Pio
d. “Other than his own spontaneous desistance.” 94 Phil 885
- Does not perform all acts of execution due to his own
spontaneous desistance – NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY The accused entered a store and once inside, fired his .45 caliber
- It is a reward for those “having one foot on the verge of pistol at the Chinaman Sy who was hit fatally. He also fired at Kiap
who immediately ran behind the store to hide.
crime, heed the call of their conscience and return to the
path of righteousness.”
“…this Court has held that is not necessary that the accused
- Only absolves one from the crime he intended to commit
actually commit all the acts of execution necessary to produce the
NOT from the crime actually committed before the
death of his victim, but that it is sufficient that he believes that he
desistance. has committed all said acts. He was held guilty of only attempted
In attempted felony, the offender never passes the subjective murder because he knew that Kiap was able to run away.
phase of the offense.
US vs. Eduave
- This is the portion of the crime starting from the point
GR No. 12155, February 2, 1917
where the offender begins the commission of the crime to
that point where he has still control over his acts, including The accused rushed upon the girl and struck her from behind
their natural course. with a sharp bolo. The wound was mortal.
FRUSTRATED STAGE, Elements.
A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the offender, after
1. The offender performs all acts of execution beginning the commission of the crime by overt acts, is prevented,
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a against his will, by some outside cause from performing all of the
consequence acts which should produce the crime.
3. But the felony is not produced
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator

21 | P a g e
 arrive at the point of agency between the beginning
performing all of the acts which of the consummation of the
DESISTANCE AFTER PERFORMING ALL ACTS should produce the crime crime and the moment when
- “If he has performed all of the acts which should result in all of the acts have been
the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from performed which should result
in the consummated crime
proceeding further, it cannot be an attempt.”
Wound is not mortal Wound is mortal
People vs. Dagman
47 Phil 770 Difference between Attempted and Frustrated Stage vs.
Impossible Crime
The murder should be regarded as frustrated because the
offenders performed all of the acts of execution which should A/F Stage Impossible Crime
precede the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did Evil intent is not accomplished
not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the The evil intent has the The evil intent cannot be
perpetrators; in this instance, the playing possum by Magbual. possibility of accomplishment accomplished
What prevented its It is inherently impossible of
BY REASON OF CAUSES INDEPENDENT OF THE WILL OF THE accomplishment is the accomplishment or because
PERPETRATOR intervention of certain cause or the means employed by the
accident in which the offender offender is inadequate or
- Felony NOT produced – causes independent of the will of had no part ineffectual
the perpetrator.

Difference between Attempted and Frustrated Stage: There is no crime of frustrated theft and frustrated rape.
Attempted Frustrated Theft: The Court has held that unlawful taking is deemed complete
The offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose from the moment the offender gains possession of the things, even
Merely commences the The offender has performed all if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.
commission of a felony directly the acts of execution which
by overt acts would produce the felony as a - The Espiritu ((getting of hospital linen) and Dino (boxes of
consequence rifles) DO NOT APPLY ANYMORE
Has not passed the objective Has reached the objective
phase phase
There is such an intervention There is no intervention of a
and the offender does not foreign or extraneous cause or

22 | P a g e
 Valenzuela vs. People
GR No.1160188. June 21, 2007
Petitioner and an accomplice stole heaps of detergent powder
from SM supermarket. They were caught by the guard.
This is the case where the court said that there is no crime of
frustrated theft.
Rape: The Supreme Court held that for the consummation of rape,
perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female
organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ,
without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is
sufficient to warrant conviction. (People vs. Orita)
ART. 7 – LIGHT FELONIES
Punishable only when consummated.
EXCEPT: crimes against persons (SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURY,
MALTREATMENT) or property
ART. 8 – CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
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
23 | P a g e
NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Conspiracy and proposal “…are punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.” (ART. 8, Par. 1,
RPC) they are only preparatory acts.
- Art. 115. Conspiracy to commit treason
- Art. 136. Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or
insurrection.
- Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. (this is not so much
of overthrowing the government. This is more of a
tumultuous uprising; mere civil disobedience)
CRIME vs. MANNER OF INCURRING LIABILITY
Treason, coup d’etat, sedition is actually committed – conspiracy is
NOT a crime but a manner of incurring criminal liability.
PD No. 1866 vs. PD No. 8294
- 1866 involves the decree of illegal possession, manufacture
and dealing of firearms; 8294 is the amended version
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)
 Quidet vs. People
GR No. 179289. April 8, 2010
3 people allegedly stabbed Jimmy Tagarda. Quidet says that he
only boxed Jimmy and it was the other two accused that did the
stabbing.
The Court made him liable of only two counts of physical injuries.
REQUISITES OF CONSPIRACY
a. Two or more persons came to an agreement
- Presupposes meeting of the minds
b. The agreement concerned the commission of a felony
- The agreement must refer to the commission of a crime
c. The execution of the felony be decided upon
- The conspirators have made up their minds to commit the
crime
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)
24 | P a g e
People vs. Aleta
GR. No. 179708. April 16, 2009.
The appellants were confronted by one Francisco Acob. They all
hacked him with pieces of wood. Rogelio Aleta ran to the family
house and his brothers and fathers continued clubbing them.
The court ruled that there was conspiracy.
The acts of the defendants must show a common design:
- Unity of purpose
- Unity in the execution of the unlawful objective
DIRECT PROOF NOT REQUIRED
Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found; circumstantial evidence is
often resorted to in order to prove its existence. (PP vs. AMODIA,
GR No. 173791, April 7, 2009)
People vs. Amodia
GR No. 173791. April 7, 2009.
The accused claims that he was not one of the four people who
killed Felix Olandria. Together, they hit him on the head and
stabbed him. The witnesses identified the accused as one who held
the arms of the victim while the others hit him.
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.
1. Active participation
2. Moral assistance by being present
3. Exercising moral ascendancy
 People vs. Lagat
GR No. 187044. September 14, 2011
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.
People vs. Muit
GR No. 181043. October 8, 2008
The accused were convicted of kidnapping for ransom with
homicide.
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.
NO CONSPIRACY – separate and individual responsibility
25 | P a g e
People vs. Malibiran
GR No. 178301. April 24, 2009
This stems from the love affair between Reynaldo Tan and Beverly
Tan. Their relationship was souring which led to a certain Rolando
Malibiran to blow up Reynaldo Tan’s care. Beverly was tagged as a
conspirator.
A conspiracy exists even if not all the parties committed the same
act, but the participants performed specific acts that indicated
unity of purpose in accomplishing a criminal design. Moreover,
direct proof of previous agreement to commit an offense is not
necessary to prove conspiracy – conspiracy may be proven by
circumstantial evidence.
People vs. Evangelio
GR No. 181902. August, 31, 2011
5 people robbed a house. Two of the robbers raped the house
help of the owner of the house. They were all convicted of the
same sentence.
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.
- 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 GRAVE FELONIES
deceased, it is, however, silent as to the extent of the - Capital Punishment (death)
injuries, in which case, the appellant should be held liable - Penalties which in any of its period is afflictive.
only for slight physical injuries.
AFFLICTIVE (Art. 25)
TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES
a. Reclusion Perpetua
People vs. Bokingo b. Reclusion Temporal
GR No. 187536. August 10, 2011. c. Permanent / Temporary Absolute Disqualification
d. Permanent / Temporary Special Disqualification
“Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion. e. Prision Mayor
Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he sought Col. Their
moves were not coordinated because while Bokingco was killing
Pasion because of his pent-up anger, Col was attempting to rob the Divisible- minimum, medium, maximum
pawnshop.”
LESS GRAVE FELONIES
THE CRIME MUST NOT BE COMMITTED - Punishment which in their maximum is correctional.
CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES (Art. 25)
If the crime is actually committed, proposal becomes a manner of a. Prision Correcional
incurring liability, i.e., principal by inducement.
b. Arresto Mayor
Requisites of Proposal: c. Suspension
d. Destierro (maximum radius of 25 kilometers)
a. A person has decided to commit a felony
b. He proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
LIGHT FELONIES
Acceptance of the proposal is not necessary. 1. Arresto Menor
2. Fine not exceeding P200.00 or both

ART. 9 – GRAVITY OF FELONIES FELONY – Fine of P200.00, is a light felony.

*Art. 26, RPC - classifies fines as a penalty. (Fine is a light penalty if
1. Grave
it is less than P200.00)
2. Less Grave
3. Light

26 | P a g e
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.
- No definition of accessories or accomplices.
- No formula for graduation of penalties.
Terms, i.e., penalties are not the same.
Mitigating / Aggravating circumstances cannot be considered, no
graduation of penalties.

Go Tan vs. Sps. Tan

CHAPTER TWO
GR No. 168852. September 30, 2008
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
The wife filed for an issuance of a TPO against Steve, her
husband, and his parents. He alleged that her husband in I. Justifying (Art. 11)
conspiracy with her parents were causing verbal, psychological II. Exempting (Art. 12)
and economic abuse upon her in violation of RA 9262. III. Mitigating (Art. 13)
IV. Aggravating (Art. 14)
Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be V. Alternative (Art. 15)
applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under
VI. Absolutory causes (Minority, Art. 280 last par., violent
special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the special law is
insanity, Art. 332, Art. 344)
silent on a particular matter.
IMPUTABILITY vs. RESONSIBILITY
Provisions of the Revised Penal Code not applicable: IMPUTABILITY – quality by which an act may be ascribed to a
- Article 6 on the frustrated and attempted stages person as the author.
- Article 18 & 19 regarding accomplices and accessories RESPONSIBILITY – obligation of suffering the consequences of
- Articles 50 to 57 which provide for the principal in an crime.
attempted felony
- Articles 13 and 13 on mitigating and aggravating While an act may be imputable to a person, it may not necessarily
circumstances mean that he would be responsible for the same.
- Article 64 which provides for the ryles for the application of
ART. 11 – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
penalties with three period
- In accordance with the law.
Art. 71 of the Revised Penal Code – SCALE OF PENALTIES
- The actor is not considered to have violated the law.
- Special laws.
- No criminal OR civil liability
- Punishes only consummated acts.

27 | P a g e
 - No crime committed (Just like in the case of AH CHONG. RIGHTS INCLUDES:
There was no crime committed.)
- Right to property
Colinares vs. People
SELF-DEFENSE, Requisites
GR No. 182748. December 13, 2011
I. Unlawful aggression (INDISPENSABLE);
The accused snuck up behind two people and hit them in the head. II. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
He invokes self-defense as he was allegedly attacked by the victim. repel it;
III. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
When the accused invokes self-defense, he bears the burden of defending himself
showing that he was legally justified in killing the victim or inflicting
injury to him. The accused must establish the elements of self- First Requisite: UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
defense by clear and convincing evidence. When successful, the
- This is a condition sine qua non. An essential and
otherwise felonious deed would be excused, mainly predicated on
indispensable requisite.
the lack of criminal intent of the accused. He was convicted of the
crime. - No unlawful aggression, no self-defense whether complete
or incomplete.
ARTICLE 11: JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES - The aggression must be unlawful and actual.

A. Self-defense
B. Defense of relatives
C. Defense of strangers
D. Avoidance of a greater evil or injury
E. Fulfillment of duty / lawful exercise of right or office
F. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose

SELF-DEFENSE – IN DEFENSE OF HIS PERSON OR RIGHTS

Person includes danger to one’s:

- Life
- Limb

28 | P a g e
 People vs. Concillado
GR No. 181204. November 28, 2011
On August 24, 2002, Diosdado was shot, stabbed and hacked
with 26 wounds. On the same night, Edgar Concillado
surrendered himself to the police. He was implicated along with
his wife Dolores and his cousin Erlito due to a witness testimony
claiming that all accused jointly acted to commit murder. The
defense contends that Dolores and Erlito were not involved
while Edgar acted out of self defense (the deceased hacked him
while he was urinating by the fence).
The burden of proof in claiming self-defense is shifted to the
accused after admittance the crime. The nature, number and
location of wounds inflicted in the deceased is the opposed to
three superficial wounds in the accused were seen to belie the
plea for self-defense. There was lacked of evidence to
established alevosia/treachery since the means and methods of
execution to ensure safety from defense of the victim and that
there were deliberately adopted. This must be present and seen
by a witness at the inception of the attack.
AGGRESSION MUST BE ACTUAL
29 | P a g e
People vs. Gayrama
GR No. 39270-71. October 30, 1934
A fight happened between two opposing camps in an election
precinct. The accused was being apprehended by the deceased
policemen Placido Delloro and Fernando Corpin.
It was held that it cannot be said that there was a previous
unlawful aggression taking into consideration the fact despite the
firing of the shots of the deceased, the purpose of the deceased in
so doing was to succeed in capturing and arresting the appellant.
People vs. Merced
GR No. 14170, November 13, 1918
The two accused were convicted of killing Pantaleon Arabe, the
husband of Apolonia Patron after Arabe discovered them having
intimate relationships.
The court ruled that the aggression made by the deceased husband
was natural and lawful, for the reason that it was made by a
deceived and offended husband in order to defend his honor and
rights by punishing the offender of his honor, and if he had killed
his wife and the other defendant, he would have exercised a lawful
right.
- An actual assault, or
- Threat of an assault of an: a) immediate and imminent b)
offensive and positively strong showing the wrongful intent
to cause an injury.
ACTUAL AGGRESSION US vs. Laurel
22 Phil. 252
Baxinela vs. People
GR No. 149652. March 24, 2006. Laurel kissed the sweetheart of Castillo. A few days after, Castillo
demanded as explanation from him and then hit him with a cane.
Baxinela is apoliceman who happened to be inside a pub where the Laurel seized the pocket knife from his pocket and stabbed Castillo
decease, Lajo, was present as well. Baxinela started questioning inflicting upon him a mortal wound.
him as to why he had a gun. As the victim answered, the accused
fired his gun. He invokes self-defense. The accused was acquitted on the grounds that it was Castillo that
was the unlawful aggressor at that time.
The court ruled that there was still no unlawful aggression when
the victim moved his hand. Given the situation, it was even Lajo
IMMINENT – rocking a boat coupled with threats of capsizing the
that was at a disadvantage.
same. (PP vs. CABUNGCAL)
Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and
Pp. vs. Cabungcal
unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an imminent
GR No. 28451. August 1, 1928.
danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating
attitude. The attack must be real, or at least imminent. Mere belief The accused was acquitted after he hit the head of the deceased
by a person of an impending attack would not be sufficient. because the latter was attempting to capsize the boat.

Pp. vs. Macaso

Aggression can be ACTUAL OR IMMINENT. GR No. L-30489. June 30, 1975

ACTUAL – assault with a cane. (US vs. LAUREL) The accused apprehended the deceased, Suaso, then he asked for
his driver’s license due to a violation. The deceased got angry and
called him stupid to which he retaliated by firing 4 gunshots
wounds.

The court dismissed the claim of self-defense because no unlawful

aggression on the part of the victim was shown, nor was it proven
that there was reasonable necessity of the means employed by the
accused to repel the aggression.

30 | P a g e
 US vs. Ferrer
GR No. 60. November 8, 1901
He got into a fight with the deceased Rojas. Rojas allegedly raised
an iron instrument against him which prompted the accused to fire
his revolver.
The defense was not able to prove the existence of self-defense.
The unlawful aggression and the defense must be simultaneous
/ without appreciable interval of time.
If any time intervened between the supposed attack of the
deceased and the firing of the revolver by the defendant, the
latter’s actions would cease to have the true character of a real
defense, which, in order to be legally sufficient, requires
primarily and as an essential condition that the attack be
immediately present.
To determine self-defense, check the:
a. THE NATURE, CHARACTER, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF
WOUND / INJURIES.
- Wounds / injuries on the victim would usually indicate
whether self-defense is credible or not.
- Wound / injuries on the accused are not as determinative as
the injuries on the victim.
31 | P a g e
Cano vs. People
GR. No. 155258. October 7, 2003
The accused and his deceased brother Orlando were rivals in the
Rush ID photo business. He stole the business permit of his brother
to ask for reconsideration in the city hall. This irked the victim and
confronted Conrado with a balisong. The accused locked himself in
his dark room where the victim pursued him and tried to open the
door. They eventually attacked each other.
He was acquitted despite only having one hard wound and the
victim having 33 wounds, 6 of which were fatal The superficiality of
the nature of the wounds inflicted on the accused does not, per se,
negate self-defense. Indeed, to prove self-defense, the actual
wounding of the person defending himself is not necessary.
b. AGE AND CONDITION OF ALLEGED AGGRESSOR
- Accused was 24 while victim was a sexagenarian (Diaz)
- The victim was 55 years old, seriously injured, lost his right
hand (Ardiza)
c. BEHAVIOR IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE INCIDENT
- Failure to interpose self-defense after:
 Surrendering – Manansala
 Confession – De la Cruz
d. 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.
- When the aggressor flees or the aggression has ceased to
exist, a person is not justified to do self-defense
Pp. vs. Alconga
GR. No L-162. April 30, 1947
The deceased and the accused were playing cards. Upon
discovering of the trick, the deceased and the accused almost came
to blows. The deceased gave him a blow with a “pingahan” but he
was able to avoid it by crawling under the bench. There was a
second and third blow from the deceased. Then a fight ensured.
Having sustained several injuries, the deceased ran away but as
followed by the accused and another fight took place during which
a mortal blow was delivered by the accused slashing the cranium of
the decease.
The Court held that a “fleeing man is not dangerous to the one
from whom he flees. The moment the aggressor ceases, the person
defending himself is not anymore justified in killing the said
aggressor. There is no more unlawful aggression. …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.”
However, if the accused retreated to a more advantageous position,
the unlawful aggression is still continuing.
32 | P a g e
Pp. vs. Acosta
GR No. 140386. November 29, 2001
The accused and his son allegedly stabbed Norton Baguio. Baguio
allegedly attempted to stab Renny Boy (son) which is why he
retaliated by stabbing him twice.
The court believed the prosecution witnesses when they said that
it was Renny Boy who stabbed him. Granting that Baguio was the
aggressor, the aggression already ceased to exist at the time of the
incident.
Pp. vs. Aleta
GR No. 179708. April 16, 2009
Assuming that Acob was indeed the aggressor, the aggression
ceased the moment he was disarmed and already lying on the
ground after being struck. When one continues to strike the
victim after he had fallen, self-defense and defense of relative
no longer avail.
Pp. vs. Juarigue
76 Phil 174
Placing the hand by a man on the woman’s upper thigh is
unlawful aggression. The accused then stabbed the deceased at
the base of the left side of the neck.
Provocation must come from an unjust conduct. Only reasonable
necessity was lacking in this case. The Supreme Court gave
JUARIGUE a privileged mitigating circumstance.
 Pp. vs. de la Cruz
GR No. 411487. May 2, 1935. Second Requisite: REASONABLE NECESSITY
ELEMENTS:
The accused, a woman, was walking home with a party including
I. There must be reasonable necessity in both:
the deceased. It was already dark and they were passing a narrow
path. When the other people were far ahead, the deceased II. Course of action taken by the person defending;
suddenly threw his arms around her from behind, caught hold of III. Means used;
her breasts, kissed her and touched her private parts. He started to
throw her down. When the accused felt she could not do anything Determined by:
more against the strength of her aggressor, she got a knife from a. Existence of unlawful aggression and
her pocket and stabbed him. b. The nature and extent of the aggression
c.
The court held that she was justified in making use of the knofe in
If you are attacked with a weapon, circumstances dictate that you
repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her honor since
find a weapon, whatever said weapon may be.
she had no other means of defending herself. In order that
legitimate self-defense may be taken into account and sustained as
NATURE AND EXTENT OF AGGRESSION
a defense, it is necessary, above all, that the aggression be real, or
at least, imminent, and not merely imaginary.” - Striking a person on the head with a lead pipe causing death
– mauled with fist blows by several men. (Ocana)
US vs. Guy-Sayco - Shooting a person who was playing a practical joke – place
13 Phil 292 was dark and uninhabited, “Lie down and give me your
money”.
The deceased, Lorenza Estrada, allegedly arose with a knife in her
hand and in a threatening manner asked the accused what had
brought her there. The accused then rushed at Estrada and
attacked her with a pen knife and inflicted five wounds which
caused Lorenza’s death.

The court held that a mere threatening attitude is not unlawful

aggression.

33 | P a g e
 People vs. Lara
GR No. 24014. October 16, 1925
The two were trying to grapple over a revolver. The revolver
was discharged and hit Querido but he was still able to hold
down Lara.
It should be borne in mind that in emergencies of this kind
human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but
in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation and when it is
apparent as in this case, that a person has reasonably acted
upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction the act
and to hold the actor irresponsible in law for the consequences.
US vs. Macasaet
GR No. 11718. October 31, 1916
Macasaet, while standing on a public street in conversation with a
friend soon after nightfall, was suddenly and without warning
attacked from behind, and struck over his shoulder with a cane. He
snatched a knife from his pocket and stabbed his assailant.
Having concluded, however, that under all the circumstances the
accused was justified in making use of his knife to repel the
unprovoked assault as best he could, it would be impossible to say
that a second or third blow was unnecessary under all the
circumstances of the case, it appearing that the accused instantly
and without hesitation inflicted all the wounds at or about the
same time.” (BLOWS MUST BE DELIVERED RAPIDLY.)
34 | P a g e
REASONABLE NECESSITY IN THE MEANS USED.
- Rational necessity to employ the means used.
- Perfect equality is not required.
-
RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE is what is required.
US vs. Apego
23 Phil 391
The woman was awoken by her brother-in-law who grasped her
arm when they arrived. The Court ruled that she was not justified
in using a knife to kill him as the latter did not perform any other
act which could be construed as an attempt against her honor.
“…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. Montalbo
GR No. 34750. December 31, 1931
When a person was attacked with fist blows only, there was no
reasonable necessity to inflict upon he assailant a mortal wound
with a dagger.
RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE
a. Nature and quality of the weapon used
- Is there any other available means?
- If there was other means, could one choose coolly?
b. Physical condition, character and size
 c. Other circumstances of both aggressor and person
defending himself
d. Place and occasion of assault
RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE, RATIONALE.
Because this justifying circumstance is born by necessity and is
resorted only in extreme situations or emergencies, the person
defending himself is not expected to think coolly and clearly. The
person defending is, therefore, not expected to control his blow or
draw a distinction as to the injury that would result after he delivers
his blow.
A. Nature and Quality of the weapons
Pp. vs. Onas
GR No. L-17771. November 29, 1962
The deceased, Gallego, was stabbed using a bayonet. The Supreme
Court held that Onas was guilty of homicide because there was no
reasonable necessity to the use of such weapon since the aggressor
was unarmed.
US vs. Mendoza
2 Phil 109
It was held that it is not reasonably necessary for a policeman to
kill his assailant to repel an attack with a Calicut.
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL vs. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL – prevent or repel aggression.
35 | P a g e
US vs. Mack
GR No. L-3515. October 3, 1907
“…court not reasonably be expected to take the chance that mere
ordinary force would be used in striking, or that the blow would be
given upon some protected part of his body, or that the cutting
edge of the blade was not keen enough to give him his death
blow.”
“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.”
B. Physical condition, character and size
Pp. vs. Ignacio
GR No. 40140. November 27, 1933.
One is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine distinction as
to the extent of the injury which a reckless and infuriated assailant
might probably inflict upon him.
When one who was defending himself who was of middle age, was
cornered, had his back to the iron railing, and three or four men
bigger, and stronger then he were striking him with fists, such a
person is justified in using a knife. There may be other
circumstances, such as the very violence of the attack or a great
disparity in the age or physical ability of the parties, which give
deceased (accused) reasonable ground to apprehend danger of
death or great bodily harm and justify him in employing a deadly
weapon in self-defense.
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFICER – overcome his opponent. - In 27 March 2004 of R.A. 9262 took effect.
- Sec. 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense.

Third Requisite: LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION Pp. vs. Genosa

The person defending must not have by his unjust conduct
provoked the aggression sought to be repelled or prevented.
THERE ARE 4 SITUATIONS WHERE THE 3rd REQUISITE IS
CONSIDERED PRESENT:
GR No. 135981. January 15, 2004
“First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven
to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the
appellant and her intimate partner.

1. No provocation Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of
the batterer must have produced in the battered person’s mind an
2. Provocation was not sufficient
actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest
3. Was not given by the person defending himself belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life.
4. Was not immediate or proximate
Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed
The Provocation is sufficient when it be proportionate to the act of
probable – not necessarily immediate and actual – grave harm to
aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission. the accused, based on the history of violence perpetrated by the
Provocation is sufficient: former against the latter.”

- Challenging one to come out of the house to fight. (US vs. DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
McCRAY, 2 Phil 5454, PP vs. VALENCIA, L-58426, October 31,
1984) 1. Spouse
- Hurling insults or imputing the utterance of vulgar language. 2. Ascendant
(PP vs. SOTELO, 55 Phil 403) 3. Descendant
- Forcibly trying to kiss the sister of the deceased. (GETIDA, 4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister or relatives
CA) by affinity in the same degrees
 Parents-in-law
PROVOCATION NEED NOT BE AN ACT OF VIOLENCE
 Son or daughter-in-law
A petty question of pride does NOT justify the wounding or killing of  Brother or sister-in-law
an opponent. 5. Relatives by consanguinity within 4th degree (2nd degree
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME cousin)

36 | P a g e
The same requisites in self-defense:
A. Unlawful aggression
B. Reasonable necessity
C. “In case there is sufficient provocation, the person
defending himself had no part therein”
US vs. Esmedia
GR No. L-5749. October 21, 1910.
Their father was attacked by Santiago because of a land dispute
between the two families. As their father lay there, almost dying,
they rushed to his aid and killed Santiago. Hearing the commotion,
Ciriaco, the father of Santiago, went out and rushed to the aid of
his son. Ciriaco, an old man of 80 years, was also fatally hit.
The court held that inasmuch as it has been shown that they
inflicted these wounds upon him in defense of their father who
was fatally wounded at the time. They honestly believed, and had
good ground upon which to found their belief, that Santiago would
continue his attack upon their father. However, the court found it
unjustified in the killing of Ciriaco given that he was an old man.
37 | P a g e
Pp. vs. Toring
GR No. 56358. October 26, 1990.
Toring stabbed Samuel during a dance. He invokes defense of
relatives because his cousin was allegedly pocked by the
deceased about a year ago.
The Supreme Court held that 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.
Pp. vs. Caabay
GR No. 129961-62
The land boundary dispute between the Caabay family and Urbano
family resulted to the hacking incident that caused the death of
Paulino Urbano and his son, Aliguer. Virgilio Caabay admitted to
the killing and invoked the defense of relatives.
Considering the nature, location and number of the wounds (the
victims died of multiple laceration wounds while the accused
claims he only brought a piece of wood) sustained by the victims,
the appellants’ plea of self-defense and defense of a relative will
not hold.
 Balunueco vs. CA
GR. No. 126968. April 9, 2003.
The five Balunueco brothers were accused of killing Senando
Iguico. Ricardo invoked the justifying circumstance of defense of a
relative saying that, he say the victim hit his brother Reynaldo in
the head.
The Court held that his defense will not prosper. Firstly, he changed
his defense of alibi during the appellate court already. Secondly, he
failed to prove unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased
because he and his brothers did not sustain fatal wounds. Lastly, he
failed to surrender immediately, which is supposed to be the first
impulse of a person who killed in self-defense or defense of
relative.
AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY
Requisites:
DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
A. Unlawful aggression
B. Reasonable necessity
C. “The person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive.”
Cannot be invoked (Avoidance of Greater Evil or injury)
38 | P a g e
Cabuslay vs. People
GR No. 129875. September 30, 2005.
Petitioner, together with four other policemen, were in a check
point because of an alleged threat of assassination on one of the
mayors. The victim, Paquito Umas-as, was riding a motorcycle
when Regencia, made him stop to be identified. The petitioner
invokes the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger because
the deceased had allegedly shot Regencia.
The Supreme Court ruled that the narration of events by the
petitioner was not plausible because it goes against all the training
in police academy. Moreover, there was only an imaginary peril to
one’s life that did not warrant the firing of his gun that inflicted 8
fatal wounds on the deceased.
1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists.
2. The injury feared is greater than that done to avoid it.
3. There is no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.
- Negligence,
- No evil to be avoided, or
- Violation of law by the actor.
-
No criminal liability but there is civil liability
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases.-
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 in which they may have received.
Pp. vs. Ricohermoso
GR No. L-30527-28. Marcg 29, 1974
Geminiano de Leon dropped by Ricohermoso’s house to ask for
the palay, to which the latter refused. At that point, Geminiano
said that Severo Padernal got an axe and attacked him. Juan
Padernal embraced Marianito to which they grappled and rolled
down the hill where Marianito passed out.
The court ruled that the act was designed to insure the killing of
Geminiano de Leon without any risk to his assailants. Juan
Padernal was not avoiding any evil when he sought to disable
Marianito.
Tan vs. Standard Vacuum
GR No. L-4160, July 29, 1952
“…the damage caused to the plaintiff was brought about mainly
because of the desire of driver JulitoSto. Domingo to avoid
greater evil or harm…”
“It cannot be denied that this company is one of those for
whose benefit a greater harm has been prevented, and as such
it comes within the purview of said penal provision.”
39 | P a g e
Ty vs. Pp
GR No. 149275, Sept. 27, 2004
“…the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected
or anticipated or may happen in the future, this defense is not
applicable.”
FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE
Requisites:
1. The accused acted in the performance of a duty or lawful
exercise of a right or office.
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or
the lawful exercise of such right or office.
Fulfillment of duty
- The prevailing jurisprudence is in favor of policemen and
guards who shoot prisoners who attempt to escape
(Delima, Valcorza, Lagata, Magno).
-
Self-defense vs. Fulfillment of duty
 Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan Pp vs. Beronilla
GR No. 148431. July 28, 2005. GR No. L-4445. February 29, 1955

Self-defense and fulfillment of duty operate on different It appearing that the charge is the heinous crime of murder, and
principles. Self-defense is based on the principle of self- that the accused-appellants acted upon orders, of superior
preservation from mortal harm, while fulfillment of duty is officers that they, as military subordinates, could not question,
premised on the due performance of duty. and obeyed in good faith, without being aware of their illegality,
without any fault or negligence on their part, we cannot say that
A policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using such criminal intent has been established.
force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the
offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, Article 12: EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily
In exempting circumstances the act does not result in criminal
harm
liability because the act is not voluntary or negligent.

There is absence of:

- Intelligence,
OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE
- Freedom of action,
Requisites: - Intent, or
1. An order has been issued by a superior. - Negligence
2. The order must be for some lawful purpose
3. The means used to carry out the order must be lawful. Exempting Circumstances
1. Insanity or imbecility
Illegal orders, the subordinate is liable EXCEPT when: 2. Minority (15 yrs. of age or under, RA 9344)
- He is not aware that the order is illegal; 3. Minority (above 15 below 18 if acting without discernment)
- He is not negligent. 4. Performance of a lawful act with due care (accident)
5. Compulsion of an irresistible force (physical force)
6. Uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury (moral or
psychological compulsion)
7. Failure to perform an act due to some lawful or insuperable
cause

40 | P a g e
INSANITY OR IMBECILITY
- An imbecile is a person marked by mental deficiency while
an insane person is one who has an unsound mind or
suffers from a mental disorder (pp vs. ambal, oct. 17, 1980)
- An insane person may have lucid interval while imbecile
does not have.
Rule on imbeciles and insane persons
Imbecile – “…he must be deprived completely of reason or
discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the
crime”
Insanity – “there must be complete deprivation of intelligence or
that there be a total deprivation of the freedom of the will.”
Crazy vs. Insane
- “there is a vast difference between an insane person and
one who has worked himself up into such a frenzy of anger
that he fails to use reason or good judgment in what he
does.”
- The fact that a person acts crazy is not conclusive that he is
insane. The popular meaning of the word “crazy” is not
synonymous with the legal term “insane,” (Ambal)
-
41 | P a g e
People vs. Ambal.
GR No. 52688. October 17, 1980.
The accused’s wife was found to be dying on the sidewalk. She
was brought to the hospital but died later on. The accused
surrendered to the authorities saying that he had liquidated his
wife due to the fact that she did not buy him his medicines.
The Court ruled that he was not insane.
“The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the
absence of proof to the contrary” xxx “the law always presumes all
acts to be voluntary. It is improper to presume that acts were
executed unconsciously.” (Ambal)
Burden of evidence
In the instant case, the alleged insanity of AMbal was not
substantiated by any sufficient evidence. The presumption of sanity
was not overthrown. He was not completely bereft of reason or
discernment and freedom of will when he mortally wound his wife.
Presumption in favor of sanity.
 People vs. Bascos
GR No. GR. No. 19605. December 19, 1922.
Bascos allegedly killed a certain Romero. Upon examination of a
doctor, he was found to be a violent maniac. The other
witnesses also testified that the accused had been insane for a
while.
The court agreed that he was a lunatic. They further stated that
when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the defense of
mental incapacity, the burden of establishing that fact rests
upon him, has been adopted in a series of decisions by this
court.
Circumstantial evidence:
a. Witnesses say that the accused has been insane for many
years,
b. The doctor who examined the accused testified that the
accused was a violent maniac and that he may have been
insane when he killed the victim, and
c. Lack of motive on the part of the accused to kill the victim.
Quantum of evidence
Insanity as a defense is a confession and avoidance and as such
must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. When the commission
of a crime is established, and the defense of insanity is not made
out beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction follows (pp vs. bonoan)
42 | P a g e
People vs. Bonoan
GR No. 45130. December 19, 1922.
The accused met Carlos Guison in front of a barbershop.
Without sufficient provocation, he stabbed the victim 3 times
which eventually caused his death. The following facts were
established as a defense of insanity:
a. Accused confined at of San Lazaro Hospital twice (1922,
1926);
b. Dementia praecox is an exempting circumstance
(authorities);
c. Insomnia for 4 days before the crime, symptom of or leads
to dementia praecox;
d. A day after his arrest he was sent to the Psychopathic
hospital.
e. Alienist reported that the accused had a form of psychosis –
Manic depressive psychosis
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused.
Commission vs. Trial
Insanity at the time of the commission of the offense is different
from insanity at the time of the trial. In the first instance, it is an
exempting circumstance, in the second the accused is not exempt
but the proceedings are suspended until the accused is fit to stand
trial.
 People vs. Legaspi
GR No. 136164-65. April 20, 2001.
The accused entered the house of Honorata Ong and then raped
her and asked for money. He had his pants down when the
victim woke up and then removed her panties to have sex with
her.
The court held that mere prior confinement does not prove that
accused-appellant was deprived of reason at the time of the
incident. There being no evidence that he was adjudged insane
and discharge is proof of being cured.
Mental depravity which results not from any disease of the
mind, but from a perverted condition of the moral system,
where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one from
responsibility for crimes committed under its influence.
Establishing insanity is a question of fact and may be established
by:
43 | P a g e
People vs. Madarang
GR. 132319. May 12, 2000.
The accused killed his wife. He invoked the defense of insanity
as he had no recollection of what happened during that day.
The courts upheld his conviction. The testimony or proof of the
accused’s insanity must relate to the time preceding or
coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is
charged. There must be proof of abnormal behavior
immediately before or during the commission of the crime. The
courts have established a more stringent criterion for insanity to
be exempting as it is required that there must be a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the
accused is deprived of reason; he acted without the least
discernment because there is a complete absence of the power
to discern
a. A witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused,
b. A witness who has rational basis to conclude that the
accused was instance based on personal witness
c. Expert testimony
 People vs. Opuran
GR No. 147674-75. March 17, 2004.
Opuran stabbed Allan Dacles which resulted to his death. The
court ruled against his insanity because such unusual behavior
may be considered as mere abnormality of the mental faculties,
which will not exclude imputability. Moreover, the medicine
was not shown to be for any mental illness and he was never
confined in a mental institution.
The court further stated that a man’s act is presumed voluntary.
It is improper to assume the contrary, i.e. that acts were done
unconsciously, for the moral and legal presumptions.
Stringent standard
The stringent standard …requires that there be a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act.
MINORITY
RA 9344, Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act (May 20, 2006)
New concepts:
1. Age of criminal responsibility
2. Effects
3. Presumptions
Age of criminal responsibility
- A child of fifteen (15) years of age and under at the time of
the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal
liability. (Sec. 6)
44 | P a g e
- Child is subject to intervention. Intervention refers to a
series of activities which are designed to address issues that
caused the child to commit an offense.
Section 3(1), RA 9344
- Intervention refers to a series of activities which are
designed to address issues that caused the child to commit
an offense. It may take the form of an individualized
treatment program which may include counseling skills
training, education and other activities that will enhance the
capacity of the child.
Child 15 or below, initial contact with child must:
- Release parents, guardian or nearest relative.
- Notify LSWDO, determine the appropriate programs.
- O/W:
-NGO;
-Barangay;
-Local SWD off or DSWD;
Above 15 but below 18
Without discernment – child is exempt but subject to intervention.
With discernment – subject to appropriate proceedings, i.e.,
diversion.
No exemption from civil liability.
Discernment
- Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the
difference between right and wrong.
It may be shown by: Kinds of Diversion, Sec. 31, Barangay Level.

- Manner of committing a crime - Restitution

- Conduct of offender - Reparation
- Appearance of the minor; - Indemnification
- Attitude; - Written or oral apology
- Comportment; - Care, guidance and supervision orders
- Behavior, before, during and after the trial. - Counseling
- Trainings, seminars and lectures
Determination of age -anger management
- Birth certificate; (best document to determine age) -problem solving
- Baptismal certificate; -values formation
- Other pertinent document; -other skills to aid the child
-participation in community based programs
In the absence of the documents mentioned (these are the -participation in education, vocation and life skills
instances where minority will be considered): programs

- Testimony of the child or other persons Kinds of Diversion, Law Enforcement Level
- Physical appearance
- All the programs at the barangay level
- Other relevant evidence
- Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds
CICL enjoys the presumption of minority. (Sec. 7)
Kinds of Diversion, Court
Imposable Penalty
- Court
Not more than 6 years - All programs at barangay and law enforcement
- Written or oral reprimand
- Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation if
- Fine
appropriate (where there is a private offended party).
- Payment of the cost of proceedings
- In victimless crimes, diversion or rehabilitation.
- Institutional care and custody
More than 6 years
Sec. 58.Offenses not applicable to children.
- Diversion by the court.
- Vagrancy and Prostitution (Art. 202, RPC);

45 | P a g e
 - Mendicancy (PD 1563); Definition
- Sniffing of Rugby (PD 1619) - An accident is something that happens outside the sway of
our will, and although it comes about through some act of
Shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment. our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
consequences. (Pp vs. Agliday)
People vs. Arpon

Although the acts of rape in this case were committed before People vs. Agliday
RA No. 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006, the said law is still GR No. 140794. October 16, 2001.
applicable xxx “with more reason, the Act should apply to a case
wherein the conviction by the lower court is still under review.”

Decision appealed from – 8 counts of rape. Supreme Court – 3

counts. 1st count –exempt, accused 13 years old; 2nd& 3rd – People vs. Genita
accused 17 years old, discernment, Reclusion Perpetua, one GR No. 126171. March 11, 2004.
degree lower (death). Suspension of sentence no longer an
option, accused 29 years old. Case remanded to trial court for
“He must show with clear and convincing proofs that: 1.) he was
compliance with Sec. 51, Agricultural camp or other facility.
performing a lawful act with due care, 2.) injury caused was by a
mere accident, and 3.) he had no fault or intention of causing
“Sec. 20-A. Serious Crimes Committed by Children Who are Exempt
the injury.
from Criminal Responsibility (RA 10630)”

ACCIDENT

Elements:
Basis as an exempting circumstance.
1. Performance of a lawful act;
2. With due care; Criminal liability does not arise in case a crime is committed by “any
3. Injury is caused to another by mere accident; person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an
4. There is no fault or intention of causing the injury. injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.”

46 | P a g e
Performance of a lawful act
For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the act has
to be lawful. The act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful
act. (Agliday)
Intent is a mental state
It connotes the absence of criminal intent. Intent is a mental state,
the existence of which is shown by a person’s overt acts. (Agliday)
Accused got his shotgun and shot his son. A shotgun has to be
cocked first before it could 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)
Accident inconsistent with self-defense
Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of
accident, in which there is no intent to kill. On the other hand, self-
defense necessarily contemplates a premeditated intent to kill in
order to defend oneself from imminent danger. (Pomoy)
COMPULSION OF IRRESISTABLE FORCE
Elements:
A. Compulsion is by physical force;
B. The physical force is irresistible;
C. The physical force must come from a third person.
47 | P a g e
Exempted from criminal liability
“because he does not act with freedom.”
“reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will
but against his will”
“must be present, imminent and impending and of such a nature as
to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily
harm if the act is not done.”
“A threat of future injury is not enough.”
“The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no
opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.” (Pp vs. Loreno, GR NO. L-54414, July 09, 1984)
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 of
such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for
escape or self-defense in equal combat.
IMPULSE OF UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OR GREATER INJURY
Elements:
A. The threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater
injury
B. That is promises an evil of such gravity and imminence
that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it
Opportunity to escape
“ at that the time Narciso Saldana, Elmer Esguerra and Romeo
Bautista were waiting for both appellants from a distance of about
one (1) kilometer. By not availing of this chance to escape,
appellants allegation of fear or duress becomes untenable.
Irresistible force vs. Uncontrollable fear
Irresistible force – the offender has used violence or physical force
to compel another person to commit a crime
Uncontrollable fear – the offender employs intimidation or threat
in compelling another to commit a crime
INSUPERABLE CAUSE
Elements:
A. An act is required by law to be done
B. The person fails to perform such act
C. His failure to perform such act was due to 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.
Absolutory cause in the RPC:
1. Art 6 (spontaneous desistance);
2. Art. 20 (accessories who are exempt);
48 | P a g e
3. Art. 124 (violent insanity)
4. Art. 247 (death under exceptional circumstances)
5. Art. 280, paragraph. 3 (exceptions to trespass to dwelling)
6. Art. 332 (exempt from theft, swindling and malicious
mischief)
7. Art. 334, par. 4 (marriage of the offender and the offended
party in SARA (Seduction, Abduction, Rape, Acts of
Lasciviousness)
Instigation is an absolutory cause.
“Human nature is frail enough at best, and requires no
encouragement in wrongdoing. If we cannot assist another, and
prevent him from committing crime, we should at least abstain
from any active efforts in the way of leading him into temptation.”
(Saunders vs. Pp, Mich. 218, 222)
Pp vs. Valencia, GR No. 143032, October 14, 2002.
- “… Instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its
agent lures the accused into committing the offense in
order to prosecute him.”
- “Instigation is deemed contrary to public policy and
considered an absolutory cause.”
Degree of inducement in instigation
- In instigation, the crime would not have been committed if
it were not for the inducements of the instigator.
- Such inducement must be of such a nature the instigator
himself becomes a co-principal.
Applicable only to public officers and their agents
- In instigation, it is necessary that the instigator is a public
officer or one who is performing public functions.
- If the instigator is private individual, both the instigator and
the person helping are held to be criminally liable.
Entrapment vs. Instigation
Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of
apprehending criminals. Its purpose is to trap and capture
lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. Instigation, on
the other hand, involves the inducement of the would-be accused
into the commission of the offense. (Pp vs. Legaspi, GR No. 173485,
November 23, 2011)
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause
In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of
trapping or capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal
plan. The means of committing the crime originates from the mind
of the criminal.
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)
49 | P a g e
Entrapment has to be proved as a material allegation
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)
Instigation vs. Entrapment
Instigation
- Induces accused into commission of crime
- The accused must be acquitted
- It is the law enforcer who conceives the commission of the
crime and suggests to the accused
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.
/rmgc2015