Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
*Additional Notes
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Crime- refers to any act committed or omitted in violation of
a public law or compelling law.
Limitations to the Power of Congress to enact Penal
Laws
1. Penal law must be general in application otherwise it
would be violative of the Equal Protection Clause. It must
be applied equally to all.
2. Must not partake the nature of an ex post facto law. It is
a law which makes an act criminal although at the time it
was committed it is not yet so.
3. Must not partake the nature of Bill of Attainder. It is a law
which punishes the accused without the benefit of due
process without giving him the opportunity to be heard and
to present his side.
4. Must not impose cruel, unusual punishment and
excessive penalties.
BAR 2015 Distinguish Ex-post facto law from Bill of
Attainder
Exceptions to the GENERALITY characteristic
1. Generally accepted principles of PIL
Example:
Q: A is an Italian Diplomat/Ambassador. From his
hotel xxxxx (sorry malabo talaga po). Since his bodyguards
were not yet ready, he decided to drive his car by himself.
He drove the car however, he hit a pedestrian. The latter
died. Can A be prosecuted for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide?
A: The said Italian Ambassador cannot be
prosecuted. He enjoys Diplomatic Immunity from Suit.
Hence, he cannot be arrested, prosecuted and punished.
Q: If the Italian Ambassador arrived at the NAIA
Terminal 1. He has two (2) attach cases. The snipping
dogs were trained to snip dangerous drugs and the dogs
were following him, which means he has in possession of
dangerous drugs. So the NAIA personnel confiscated the
cases, and when they opened it, it contains drugs in the
amount of more or less three-hundred million pesos. Can
he be prosecuted for illegal possession/imporation of
dangerous drugs?
A: Yes. Diplomatic Immunity from Suit is not
absolute, it is subject to the exception that the act must be
done in the performance of his function. Because the
carrying of dangerous drug is not in any way connected in
the performance of his functions.
2. Laws of Preferential Application
Example: Section 11 of Art. VI of the 1987 Phil. Consti.
Senator X delivered a privilege speech in Senate.
Sen. X called Sen. Y a womanizer, a smuggler. These are
slanderous remarks to Sen. Y. But Sen. Y cannot file a
case of Slander or Libel against Sen. X because these
slanderous remarks were made in the halls of congress
while the congress is in regular or special session. Hence,
he cannot be prosecuted.
Example under Prospectivity Characteristic
X was arrested for Vagrancy under Art. 202 of
RPC in March 2013. In July 2013, a new law enacted by
Congress decriminalizing vagrancy which amende Art 202.
This new law will apply in favor of X because this new law
is favorable to him and X is not a habitual criminal.
The Anti-Subversion Law had long been repealed.
Congress recently revived this law and makes it criminal for
being a member of the CCP-NPA. Upon the passage of this
new law, the police officers immediately went to the house
of X, a known member of CCP during his younger years and
he was arrested. He challenged this new law, what are his
grounds?
A: First, his argument is that this new law is in
violative of the prospectivity characteristic of penal law. This
is violative because penal law cannot be given retroactive
application except that if the law expressly provides and it
is favorable to him. Hence, it cannot be given retroactive
application. Second, he can invoke the provision in the
constitution against ex post facto law. It is an ex-post facto
law because at the time that he was a member of CCP,
there was no law punishing subversion. Therefore, he
cannot be prosecuted under this new law.
Another exception to the prospectivity principle is when the
Special Penal Law expressly provides for its retroactivity.
An example of which is section 68 of R.A. 9344 (Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) the law expressly provides
that it will apply to all persons that have been convicted and
already serving sentence provided that they are minors at
the time of promulgation.
Theories/rules concerning criminal law
Example in Equipose Rule
X is being prosecuted for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. During the trial, the prosecution
presented a forensic chemist who tested the dangerous
drug, presented the arresting officer and the latter testified
that he got a tip from an informant that X bought a shabu
from a drug pusher. They saw X in the canteen, while X was
1|P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
eating they arrested X, frisked X and bodily searched X and
found 2 sachets of shabu. At the time of the presentation of
the evidence for the defense, the defense counsel
presented the accused. He testified that he was not in
possession of dangerous drug. According to him, he was
merely eating at the canteen when suddenly the Police
Officers arrived and arrested him and proceeded in the
Police station. While at the station, suddenly, there were 2
plastic sachets of shabu which were taken out and allegedly
this was found from the accused. Aside from the accused,
the defense presented the owner and the waiter of the
canteen. Both corroborated the testimony of the accused
that X was arrested and they did not see any act of body
search, frisking and dangerous drug taken out from the
accused. If you were the Judge, will you convict or acquit
the accused?
A: Here, the evidence of the prosecution is equally
balanced with the evidence of the defense. Therefore,
based on the so called equipoise rule, the accused has to
be acquitted. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Q: Where do you file criminal cases?
A: if it is grave felonies, those were the penalty prescribed
by law is more than 6 years, cases must be filed before the
RTC. In case of light and less grave felonies, cases must
be filed before MTCs. This felony carries with it an
imprisonment of 6 years or below 6 years.
Exceptions:
1. When the law specially provides. Example. Libel- must
be filed before RTC even though it carries a penalty of
below 6 years.
2. In cases of crimes committed by public officers (RA 3090)
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Plunder
Law. If the public officer who is of salary grade 27 and
above is charged, the Ombudsman must file the cases
before the Sandiganbayan. But if it is below salary grade
27, it must be filed before the appropriate trial court (RTC
or MTC)
ART 2 of RPC
Par 4 of Art 2
Example: X is a US citizen born in the USA of Filipino
parents wanted to visit the Philippines. So he applied for
passport in Phil. Embassy in California USA. The passport
has not yet been approved, so he asked the Secretary when
will his passport be approved. The secretary said that his
application is at the bottom of the papers to be signed by
the approving authority. The secretary also said that it will
be approved more than a month. She invited X to a coffee
shop and told X that she was the secretary of the Approving
Officer and offered that she can place his passport on top
of the documents to be approved by her boss, that is, if X
will gave the secretary 500 USD. Then X gave her the
money. So as promised, she did place it on top of the
documents and was approved immediately. Can the said
secretary be prosecuted in Phil.Courts? or US Courts?
A: She can be prosecuted before the Philippine Courts. As
a secretary it is her duty to place the documents on the table
of the approving authority and the latter approved the
documents based on where they are placed. The secretary
committed the crime of Bribery (Direct Bribery) because she
accepted money in exchange of doing it which is not
prohibited under the law but she favored X. It is connected
with her official function being the secretary of the
approving authority.
Under the same case and the same facts but the offender
is a Janitor of the Phil.Embassy, Where can the janitor be
prosecuted?
A: In the US Courts because it is not in any way connected
with his job as a janitor.
Q: What if in the same problem, while the Janitor saw X
leaving the embassy, he told X to follow him in the janitorial
services room inside the Phil. Embassy and told X that by
giving him 200USD he can guaranty that his passport will
be released in a week, so X gave the Janitor the money.
Where can the janitor be prosecuted?
A: In the Philippine Courts. Even if the crime is not in any
way connected to his functions as a janitor, since it is
committed inside the Phil.Embassy it is considered to have
been committed within the Philippine Territory because the
Phil embassy is an extension of the sovereignty. Even if the
crime committed is not in any way connected with the
function of the public employee, if it is committed in
Phil.Embassy, he can be prosecuted before the Philippine
Courts.
ART. 3
Specific criminal intent must be alleged in the information
filed against the accused and must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt either by DIRECT evidence or by
CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.
X and Y are fighting, X is a karate master. X kickboxed the
neck of Y, the chest of Y and both legs of Y.
Y was rushed to the hospital and survived, but he was
hospitalized for a period of 2 months or 60 days. And so a
case of frustrated homicide was filed against X. X however
contended he has no intent to kill, because it was a fight.
He never intended to kill, he only intended to injure.
- Here intent to kill is a specific criminal intent which
must be proven by the prosecution. If the
prosecution failed to prove specific criminal intent
on the part of X when he kickboxed the neck, chest
and legs of Y, then the court can only convict X of
Serious Physical Injuries. Because said criminal
intent was not proven by the prosection.
What if in the same problem. When X kickboxed, the neck,
chest and legs of Y. Y was put to the hospitalized, but 2
2|P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
days after, Y died because of the injuries sustained. And so,
a case of homicide was filed against X.
- Here, the prosecution need not prove the intent to
kill, because the Victim Y died, intent to kill
becomes a GENERAL CRIMINAL INTENT which
is presumed by law.
- It is the accused X, who has the burden of
evidence to prove that when he inflicted physical
injuries to Y, there was no intent to kill.
- The best evidence of intent to kill is when the
victim died.
You dont need proof of motive if the crime committed is an
act malum prohibitum. As a general rule motive is
immaterial to prove the criminal liability of the offender.
There are however instances when motive is material to
determine the criminal liability of the offender. They are
1. When the acts of the offender would result to
variant crimes
2. When the identity of the offender is doubtful
3. When the prosecution only has circumstantial
evidence to prove the commission of the crime.
In these 3 instances, proof of motive becomes material to
determine the criminal liability of the offender.
The victim was found on a vacant lot. He has 5 stab
wounds. He was already dead. With 5 fatal stab wounds.
No one saw who stabbed the victim. But the mother said, X
Y and Z fetched the victim from their house at 10oclock in
the evening. A neighbor said, he saw X Y and Z on board
in the same jeepney with the victim. Another neighbor
appeared and made a statement, he said, he saw X Y and
Z having a heated argument with the victim about 5 meters
away from where the victim was found dead.
- Here motive is material to determine the criminal
liability of the offender because since no one has
seen, there was no eye witness to the commission
of the crime, proof is done solely by circumstantial
evidence.
Who has motive to kill the victim?
- Based on circumstantial evidence, X Y and Z had
the motive to kill the victim.
The victim was found lying at the staircase of the house,
when the wife arrived, the victim told the wife that it was
PEDRO who killed me and thereafter, he died. There were
3 pedros in the area. Who is the pedro that should be
charged? A witness said, he saw PEDRO-A arguing with
the victim in front the house and he saw PEDRO-A entered
the house of the victim. Therefore, motive is material to
determine the criminal liability of the offender because there
is doubt to the identity of the offender.
MISTAKE OF FACT.
It was around 12oclock at midnight. The security guard was
already very sleepy when he heard a noise. He saw 2
persons jumped inside the premises he is guarding. He
called on these 2 persons, but these 2 persons did not mind
the security guard. These 2 persons were armed with guns,
long firearms. And so the he followed them, opened the
warehouse and the lights. Since the door was open, there
was a guy coming from a room, and the security guard saw
a shadow of a man pointing a gun at him. And so the
security guard fired at the said man, and the man died. It
turned out that the man was not among those persons who
jumped but rather, he was a worker in the said warehouse
who slept there without permission.
He was prosecuted. Security guard said he acted under
mistake of fact. Was there mistake of fact on the part of the
offender?
1. That the act would have been lawful and justifiable
had the facts been as the accused believed them
to be
- Had the facts been that the man who jumped was
pointing a gun at him. Then the security guard is
justified to shoot the said person.
2. The intention of the security guard was lawful.
3. The mistake was without fault and negligence.
- The said person didnt ask for permission to sleep
there. As the security guard believed, there was
no person inside. There was no fault and
negligence in ascertaining the true facts of the
case.
Therefore, the security guard must be acquitted because he
acted under Mistake of Fact.
ART.4
A and B, they are bf and gf. The bf promised to
_________marry B at night. But B waited in vain, A did not
arrive. Instead she only received a text message saying that
A would not be able to come, A could not marry B because
A is already a married man with 5 children. So B became
so sad. Frustrated, she began crying terribly and went out
of the house, walked on the streets, not on her own rightful
self. She fell on a canal and she died.
3|P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
Is A the bf, then author of the death of the said victim? In
the first place, the bf, when he divulged that he is a married
man and could not marry the girl is NOT committing a
felonious act. Since in the first place he is not committing a
felonious act, therefore, he cannot be liable for any resulting
felony. As such, the said bf cannot be liable for the death of
the said girl.
Same problem, but with added facts. So this time, when
the girl learned that the man could not marry her. She went
on the top most portion of the building, decided to commit
suicide to take her own life. She jumped. However, as she
was falling, she fell on a child. The girl was saved but the
child was pinned down and died.
Is A the bf liable for the death of the child? How about the
woman, is the woman liable for the death of the child?
- Again, the man is not liable. He was not performing
any felonious act, therefore he is not liable for any
resulting felony.
How about the said woman?
When the said woman was committing suicide, she was not
committing a felonious act, because suicide is not a felony
either the RPC or any special penal law in PH jurisidiction.
It is not a felonious act.
However, in performing said lawful act, she did not do so
with due care. Since she did not do so with due care. Since
she did not do so with due care, she becomes liable for a
CULPABLE FELONY.
So here there is a simple negligence on the part of the said
woman, therefore, the said woman may be held liable for
simple negligence resulting to homicide for the death of the
said child. Although she was performing a lawful act, she
did not do so with due care, she caused an injury by an
accident on the part of the offended party. Hence she can
be liable for simple negligence resulting to homicide.
Art. 4(first paragraph)
ABBERATIO ICTUS
X molested the daughter of Y. Y wanted to kill X, to take a
revenge. Y looked for X, Y saw X on board a tricycle. And
so Y went near X and fired a shot at X. but because of lack
of precision, the bullet landed on the driver of the tricycle
and not on X. the driver died. What crime or crimes have
been committed by Y?
In so far as X, the intended victim is concerned, the crime
committed is attempted murder. There was intent to kill X,
however X was not injured because of poor aim.
The actual victim is the driver, since the driver died, the
intent to kill becomes a general criminal intent. Therefore in
so far as the driver is concerned, the crime committed is
MURDER.
These are 2 grave felonies arising from a single act of
shooting. Therefore, art.48 comes in, the crime committed
is MURDER with ATTEMPTED MURDER.
***(murder sabi ni maam, but check page 10 ng senior
notes. Almost same facts, pero homicide lang dun sa actual
victim and not murder)***
X wanted to kill Y, so he waited in a corner behind an
unlighted electric post, he knew that every day, Y would
pass by the said place. when a man arrived, resembling Y,
X immediately appeared and stabbed the man. It turned out
that the man was not Y. it turned out to be his own father.
So X can be prosecuted for the crime of parricide, the crime
he actually committed.
But the crime he intended to commit is murder, because in
waiting behind an unlighted electric post, there was
treachery. Therefore the crime he intended to commit is
murder.
Would art. 49 apply? Would the lesser penalty be imposed?
- Art.49 would not apply because both murder and
parricide have the same penalties Reclusion
perpetua.
- Therefore, even if there is variance in the title of
the felonies, they have the same penalties. Hence,
Art.49 will not apply. It will not mitigate the criminal
liability of the offender.
PRAETER INTENTIONEM
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME DOCTRINE
X The public officer filed his SALN, the said SALN has been
filed before the appropriate government agency. It turned
out later that the administering officer in the SALN is not a
notary public, but only a secretary of the said notary public.
The person who signed the same is only the secretary and
not the person competent enough to administer the said
oath. X the public officer knew this. Is X liable for an
impossible crime?
- X is not liable for an impossible crime
The first element requires that the act done would have
been an offense against person or property
- Had it been accomplished, the act done would
have amounted to perjury
4|P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
- However perjury is not a crime against person or
property. It is under title 4, crimes against public
interest.
- Therefore the first element is absent.
What then is the crime committed?
- The crime committed is falsification. Making an
unlawful statements in a narration of facts.
Why not perjury?
- Because the solemnizing officer is not duly
authorized to receive and administer, therefore it
cannot be perjury.
X lost his cellphone 2 days ago while going to work. Now,
while he was working, he saw his officemate with a new
cellphone like his old phone. He waited for his officemate to
go to the CR and when the officemate went to the CR, X
covered his face with a handkerchief, went near the
officemate, pointed a balisong and told him this is a holdup,
give me your cellphone, I am going to stab you if you dont
give it to me. Afraid, the officemate gave the cellphone. It
turned out that it was his cellphone that he lost 2 days ago.
Is X liable of an impossible crime?
1st element the act done would have amounted to a crime
against person or property. Had it been accomplished,
would it have been a crime against property?
- NO, because the said thing taken happens to be
his own property.
2nd element the act done was done with evil intent
3rd element - was it inherently impossible to accomplish the
crime? Yes, because in case of robbery or theft, it is
necessary that the thing must belong to another person.
And here, thing taken is his own property.
4th element the act does not fall under any other provision
of RPC. Does the act fall under any provision of the RPC?
Yes, therefore it is not an impossible crime.
What provision of the RPC? It amounted to grave coercion.
By compelling someone to do something against his will,
whether right or wrong by means of violence or intimidation.
Therefore, the offender is not liable of an impossible crime,
rather, he is liable for grave coercion.
Art. 5 (second paragraph)
After trial on the merits, the judge has found the accused
guilty, but based on the facts and circumstances, the
penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed is too
harsh. No matter how harsh the penalty prescribed by law,
it is the duty of the judge to impose the said penalty. But he
may give a recommendation to the president through the
DOJ that executive clemency be granted to the offender.
Article 6
ATTEMPTED FELONY
Desistance negates criminal liability in the attempted stage
but not in the frustrated or consummated stage.
The offender commences the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts.
The attempted felony that is punished by law is one that is
directly connected to the overt act performed by the
offender even if he has a different crime in mind.
Baleros vs CA.
In that case the Supreme Court cited People vs
Lamahan.
A woman was awakened. There was s man on top of her.
The man was pressing a cloth on her face. The man was
charged with the crime of attempted rape. Is the man liable
of attempted rape? The Supreme Court said no because
the overt act performed by the man, that of pressing a cloth
soaked with chemicals on the face of the woman is not an
overt act directly connected to rape. It is not an overt act
directly connected with rape even if the intent of the
offender would have been to rape the victim since his overt
act is not directly connected with rape so he cannot be held
liable of attempted rape. He was convicted only of the crime
of unjust vexation.
The Supreme court said the act of the offender would
amount to an attempt to commit and indeterminate offense
which has no juridical standpoint in the RPC. The intent of
the offender was to render the woman unconscious but
once she is unconscious the offender may perform other
acts not only to rape the victim hence it is not an act directly
connected with rape.
Example:
X removed the jalousies in the window of the house of Y.
The intent of X is to rob the house of its valuable things.
After slowly removing the jalousies and placing it on the
ground, he was about to enter, but he was arrested, he was
apprehended. He was charged of attempted robbery. Yet,
he cannot be held liable of the crime charged although the
intent of the offender is to rob the house since his overt act
of removing the jalousies and trying to enter the house are
not overt acts directly connected to robbery, he cannot be
convicted. Instead, it is only attempted trespass to dwelling
because the overt act of removing the jalousies and trying
to enter are overt acts directly connected to the act of
entering the dwelling.
5|P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
Second element: The offender was not able to perform all
the acts of execution. What is the reason? Some cause
Other than his spontaneous desistance.
People vs Lizada
It was when the father looked at the door and he saw his
son looking at them. That caused the father to stop from
consummating the crime of rape. The offender was only
convicted of attempted rape.
ATTEMPTED FELONY vs FRUSTRATED FELONY
In the attempted felony, the offender merely commences
the commission of the felony by overt acts. In a frustrated
felony, the offender has already performed all the acts of
execution.
In an attempted felony, the felony was not consummated
by reason of some cause or accident other than the
offender's spontaneous desistance. In a frustrated felony,
the felony was not consummated by reason f some cause
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
In an attempted felony, the offender is only in the
subjective phase of the felony. He still has control over his
acts. Whereas in the frustrated stage of committing a
felony, the offender is already in the objective phase of
committing the felony. He no longer has any control over
his acts.
CONSUMMATED FELONY
Example:
X saw his enemy Y. He went to his house to get his pistol,
pointed the gun at the head of Y and pulled the trigger.
However the gun jammed, no bullet came out. X is liable of
attempted homicide.
The act of X of pointing the gun and pulling the trigger with
intent to kill are overt acts directly connected to homicide.
He was unable to perform all the acts of execution because
it is purely accidental that the gun did not fire. It was not by
reason of his desistance. Therefore, he is liable for
attempted homicide.
Same problem:
With intent to kill X pointed the gun to Y. He pulled the
trigger, no bullet came out. He again pulled the trigger but
no bullet came out. Then he looked at the gun, it was
unloaded. Is X liable of attempted homicide?
X is liable of an impossible crime.
Why not attempted homicide?
Because when the gun has no bullet, there is inherent
impossibility to consummate the crime. Here, what is
present is physical or factual impossibility unknown to the
offender. There was physical impossibility and the same
was not known to the offender. Under any and all
circumstances, it will never fire. Hence, what we have now
is an impossible crime and not anymore an attempted
felony.
ATTEMPTED FELONY vs IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
In impossible crime, the act of execution of the felony is not
possible of accomplishment. Whereas in attempted felony,
the act of execution is possible of accomplishment.
In impossible crime, the act was not accomplished because
of the inherent impossibility. In attempted, the act was not
consummated by reason of some cause or accident other
than offender's spontaneous desistance.
Example:
X in the course of a fight stabbed Y but Y was able to evade.
What crime is committed by X? Attempted homicide.
The act of X in trying to stab Y with the use of a knife is an
overt aft directly connected to homicide yet he was not able
to perform all the acts of execution because it was purely
accidental that Y was able to evade the blow.
Same problem:
Y was hit and sustained a wound. The wound was in the
chest. Doctor said that it would heal within a period of
60days. What crime was committed? Attempted homicide.
The act of stabbing Y and hitting him with the effect of Y
sustaining a wound which would heal within 60days are
overt acts directly connected with the crime of homicide.
However, he was not able to perform all the acts of
execution because the wound he inflicted on Y is a non-fatal
wound.
Same problem:
Y was hit and the knife pierced through the heart. The
wound was fatal but he survived because of the immediate
medical operation performed. What crime? Frustrated
homicide.
When he stabbed Y, he hit a vital organ thereby inflicting
upon him a mortal wound. He has already performed all the
acts of execution but still the victim survived because of a
cause independent of his will which is the immediate
medical intervention.
People vs Labiaga
The SC said that if the wound inflicted on the victim is a non-
fatal wound, the crime is only in the attempted stage. But
if the wound is a mortal wound and the victim survived, the
crime is in the frustrated stage. If the wound is non-fatal, it
cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts
of execution. If it is a mortal wound, the offender has
6|P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
performed all the acts of execution. There is nothing left to
be done.
CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF FRUSTRATED
STAGE:
1. THEFT
Valenzuela vs People, theft does not have frustrated stage,
only attempted and consummated stages.
As held in that case, in case of theft, there cannot be
frustration because the moment unlawful taking is
complete, theft is consummated. The unlawful taking is
complete when the offender gains possession of the
personal property of another even if there is no opportunity
to dispose of the said property.
The husband and the wife went to the department store.
The husband took 5 pairs of shorts, went to the fitting room.
After 10 minutes, he got out, went to the saleslady. He was
stopped. It was discovered that he was wearing the shorts.
What crime?
Consummated theft. Even if he has no opportunity to
dispose because he was discovered by the guard before
leaving the store. The fact that he had already taken it and
wore it, he had already gained possession of the personal
property of the store hence he is already liable for
consummated theft.
2. RAPE
As held in he case of People vs Quinanola, there is no
frustration in rape.
People vs Quinanola
There is no frustration in rape because as defined by the
law rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman against her will. Since the law uses the word carnal
knowledge and not sexual intercourse, therefore the mere
touching by the penis of the man of the lips of the labia of
the woman's genitalia would already consummate the crime
of rape.
People vs Pareja
It is settled in jurisprudence that the slightness of
penetration already consummates the crime of rape. But if
what the penis has touched is not even the labia of the
podendum of the woman's genitalia but only the outer
surface, the crime can either be attempted rape or acts of
lasciviousness.
When the penis of the woman touched the surface of the
woman's genitalia, there is intent to lie with the victim. The
crime committed is attempted rape. But absent intent to lie,
the crime committed is acts of lasciviousness.
In that case, the man went inside the bedroom, undressed
the girl, undressed himself, tried to insert his penis into the
genitalia of the girl. The girl cried and cried, the man left.
Supreme Court said these acts of the man show that he has
the intent to lie with the girl. Attempted rape not merely acts
of lasciviousness.
As opposed to Cruz vs People. In that case the SC said that
the mere act of a man of climbing on top of a naked woman
absent any evidence that his erected penis has the
capability to penetrate the genitalia of the woman does not
bring about the crime of rape. Those acts do not show intent
to rape absent said evidence. Crime committed was acts of
lasciviousness and not attempted rape.
If a crime admits if stages, they are called material crimes.
Crimes which do not admit of stages are called formal
crimes:
Adultery
Physical injuries
Slander
False testimony
They are called formal crimes because they are crimes
based on consequence, based on the result. Punished only
in consummated stage.
Article 8
Conspiracy also applies in case of violations of special
penal laws.
There are some special penal laws which expressly provide
that perpetrators can be held liable when they acted in
conspiracy.
Section 26 of RA 9165
As held in the case of People vs Murillo, it is the law itself
that provides that there is mere conspiracy in the act of
transporting dangerous drugs. Among the acts specified in
RA 9165 wherein conspiracy would lie is in case of
transportation of dangerous drugs.
Article 10
If the law expressly provides that the RPC shall not apply in
a supplementary manner, then it will not.
Section 98 of RA 9165
It is expressly provided that the provisions of the RPC shall
not apply to violations of RA 9165 except when the offender
is a minor offender.
Article 11
7|P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
Self- defense
Unlawful aggression
In the case of People vs Fontanilla, the Supreme Court said
that the elements of unlawful aggression are the
following:
1. There must be a physical or material attack or assault;
2. The attack or assault must be actual or at least imminent.
The Supreme Court also said that there are two kinds of
unlawful aggression.
1. Actual or Material unlawful aggression- the attack is by
use of physical force or with the use of a weapon;
2. Imminent unlawful aggression- the attack is impending,
at the point of happening.
In the case of M____ vs People, the Supreme Court said
that in case of defense of property, it is necessary that the
attack was coupled with an attack on the person entrusted
with the said property. In that case, the accused allegedly
saw the victim trying to get the property and then he fired at
the said victim. The Supreme Court said that it is not
enough. Even if his property was in danger, since it was not
coupled with an attack on the person of the owner of the
property or the person entrusted with the property there can
be no valid self-defense.
Legal Maxim on self-defense
"Stand ground when in right."
He is not required by law to retreat when the assailant is
close approaching, otherwise, he would run the risk of being
stabbed or shot at the back.
State of necessity
It is necessary that the one invoking must not be the author,
the one who brought about the necessity.
Obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose
Both the order and the means used by the accused must
be lawful.
Even if the order is not lawful but it appears to be lawful and
the subordinate believes it to be lawful, the justifying
circumstance would still lie.
Example:
X is a convict in the New Bilibid Prison. During an
opportunity X escaped. Prison guards learned of it and
sought the assistance of the police. They followed X. He
went to the public market because he saw the guards and
policemen following him. X took a child as a hostage and
pointed an icepick at the neck of the child. He told them that
if they would come near he would attack the child. The child
sensing that his life is in danger started to cry. The convict
was annoyed by the crying and tried to attack the child with
the icepick. Policeman shot the prisoner. He died. The
police officer was prosecuted for the crime of homicide. As
his defense, he acted in the lawful performance of duty.
Was he right?
First element: the police officer acted in the performance of
his duty. He had an order to arrest and bring back to prison
the prisoner.
Second element: it is a necessary consequence of the due
performance of his duty. He was preventing the danger
posed by the imminent attack against the boy.
He should be acquitted.
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
RA 9262 Section 26
Victim survivors who are found by the court to be suffering
from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal
liability nor civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any
justifying circumstances.
But before the court may acquit the accused by reason of
battered woman syndrome, there must be the presentation
of expert witnesses. There must be testimonies coming
from psychiatrists or psychologists that at the time of
commission, the victim was indeed suffering from battered
woman syndrome. Courts or judges cannot by themselves
determine if indeed the woman was suffering battered
woman syndrome.
Article 12: Exempting Circumstances
Those circumstances if present or attendant in the
commission of a felony would serve to exempt the offender
from criminal liability but not from civil liability.
Although a wrong is committed, the offender is exempted
from criminal liability because he acted without
voluntariness. There is absence of any of the elements of
voluntariness. There is absence of either criminal intent or
8|P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
freedom of action or intelligence. Therefore, he is free from
criminal liability but since a wrong is done, he is civilly liable.
1st
Imbecile when he performs a wrongful act, he acted
without intelligence (mental capacity of a child between the
age of 2 to 7)
Insane also acted without intelligence (could not
distinguish right from wrong)
Insanity that is existing prior to or during the
commission of the crime NOT after
Example in page 23 about not being able to sleep.
2nd and 3rd minority
At present, it has been amended by RA 9344 as amended.
The effect of minority on the criminal liability would depend
on the age of the minor.
The moment in the problem, the offender is age 15 years or
below, do not anymore look for discernment. Just by the
fact that he is 15 or below, he is totally exempted.
If a minor over 15 but less than 18 acted with discernment,
he is to be prosecuted in court. If after trial on the merits,
the judge found him to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Under sec. 38, once the child who is under 18 years of age
at the time of the commission of the crime was found guilty
of the offense charged the court shall determine and
ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the
offense committed. Instead the court shall place the child in
conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without
need of application even if he is already 18 or above at the
time of the pronouncement of his guilt. Provided, he is not
yet beyond 21 years of age (sec. 40).
SC: section 38 does not distinguish as to what crime was
committed. Therefore, the court shall also not distinguish.
Provided, his age is not over 21 years. Section 51 is the
only provision that may be given retroactive application to
the accused. So he need not be placed in prisons but
instead in agricultural camps, etc.
SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in
Agricultural Camps and other Training Facilities. -
A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and
upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal
institution, in an agricultural camp and other training
facilities that may be established, maintained,
supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in
coordination with the DSWD.
4th - The elements are:
1. Offender is performing a lawful act
2. He was performing the lawful act with due care
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident
4. The injury is without fault or intent on the part of the
offender
Ex. X went to the forest. In the said forest, hunting birds is
allowed. He was going to hunt birds in the forest. He forgot
his rifle so he passed by a nipa hut to borrow a rifle. He was
given an armalite. He went back to the forest and in the
middle of the forest, he saw birds so he pulled out the said
armalite and fired at the birds. But a bullet hit a stone and
the stone flew hitting Y, one of those manning the forest. Y
died. X was arrested and prosecuted for reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide. X said he cannot be held
liable because it was merely an accident. Will the EC of
accident lie in his favor?
No, there was no accident and he should be held liable for
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. The first
element, he was performing a lawful act. Hunting was
allowed and he went there precisely to hunt birds. Second,
he must be performing a lawful act with due care. This
element is absent because in hunting birds, even if allowed,
you do not use armalite to hunt birds.
Even if a person is performing a lawful act, if he does not
do so with due care, he would be held criminally liable for a
culpable felony (negligence on the part of accused).
Ex. X tried to hack Y. Y evaded the blow. When X tried to
hack Y again, they grappled for the possession of the said
bolo. Y with all his might tried to obtain possession of the
bolo and he did. However, the tip of the bolo hit C, who was
at the back of Y. C unknown to Y was at the back. C
obtained a fatal wound but survived. So Y was prosecuted
for frustrated homicide. He said it was purely an accident.
Will accident as an EC lie in favor of Y?
Y was performing a lawful act, he was trying to defend
himself so he was trying to get the bolo from X who was
trying to hack him. Was he performing it with due care?
There is no other way to get that bolo but to wrestle for its
possession. He was performing it with due care. The injury
was caused by accident. He did not know that C was
passing by. There was no intent or fault on the part of Y so
he is civilly and criminally liable.
5th irresistible force
6th uncontrollable fear
5th and 6th the basis of both would be lack of freedom of
action. There must be totally no freedom of choice. If
although there is uncontrollable fear or irresistible force, if
he still has a choice, these EC will not lie.
5 robbers entered a bank and they told the employees to lie
on the floor. One of the bank robbers was guarding the
employees. Then a robber took hold of an employee and
placed him before the bank manager. He threated the
general manager that he will shoot the employee if he does
9|P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos

not open the vault. Only the manager knew the combination May be offset by generic Cannot be offset
of the said vault. The manager did not believe so he did not aggravating circumstances
open the vault. A who was true to his word shot the
employee who immediately died. He then pointed the gun If not offset, would serve to Lower the impossible
to the manager and said that if he did not open the vault, lower the impossible penalty by one to two
the next bullet would be on his head. Afraid, the manger penalty to the minimum degrees depending on the
opened the said vault and the robbers were able to take all period of the penalty rules on Art. 68 and Art. 69
the money. The robbers escaped but were later prescribed by law
apprehended. The manager was arrested and charged as
a principal by indispensable cooperation. Manager however
said that he acted based on uncontrollable fear and 1st incomplete justifying or incomplete exempting
irresistible force. Will he be exempted? Was there a
Rules provided on page 26.
physical force employed on him? Was the physical force
irresistible and did it come from a third person?
The said physical force was irresistible that he would be 2nd Minority and Seniority
killed is irresistible. He knew that the employee was shot
and he too can be shot. And it comes from a third person If the offender is over 15 but below 18 acted with
discernment, it is not exempting but it is a privilege
Likewise, there was uncontrollable fear. All the elements mitigating circumstance. It is a privilege circumstance as
were present. The bank robber already shot the employee provided in Art. 68. The penalty would be lowered by one
and he too could be shot. The fear is real and imminent and degree.
it is not in the future, it is in the present. It is about to happen.
And the fear for his life is greater than all the money in that
vault. Therefore, he is exempt. 3rd praeter intentionem

7th - Any person who fails to perform an act required by law,
when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause
This is based on omission. Here the offender is required by
law to perform an act but was prevented by some lawful
insuperable cause.
4th - That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the act.
Elements:
1. The provocation must be sufficient

Here, there is both no criminal and civil liability.
Justifying
Circumstance
Affect the act not the doer
Perform an act which is
lawful in nature
There is no crime and no
criminal
GR: No criminal liability
and no civil liability
May be a defense only in
intentional felonies
2. The said provocation must come from the offended party
3. The commission of the crime was done upon the
immediate provocation of the said party
Exempting
Circumstance The word immediate here does not allow a lapse of time.
There must be no lapse of time between the provocation
Affect the doer of the act and the commission of the crime. Right after the
but not the act itself provocation given by the offended party, the offender must
have performed the said criminal act.
A wrong has been
committed Provocation must be from the offended party NOT a third
person.
There is a crime but no
criminal because offender
acted without
voluntariness 5th Immediate vindication
This time the word immediate allows a lapse of time. Why?
GR: No criminal liability but
SC said it suffices that the said grave offense must be the
with civil liability
proximate cause of the commission of the crime. The grave
Defense both in intentional offense need not be a punishable act. It suffices that it be
and culpable felonies any act unjust act, immoral act which cause the offender
sleepless nights and move him to vindicate himself.

6th - sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation

Article 13: Mitigating Circumstances
Elements:
Ordinary Mitigating Privilege Mitigating
1. there be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce
passion and obfuscation on the part of the offender

10 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
2. the commission of the criminal act and the said sudden
impulse must not be far removed from each other by the
considerable length of time during which the offender might
have recovered his normal equanimity
It is necessary that there must be some unlawful or
unauthorized act done on the said offender and by reason
of this the offender has done an unlawful act. The acts of
the offender arose from lawful sentiments because an
unlawful act was committed against him. Again, it must be
sudden.
7th - 1. Voluntary surrender; and 2. Voluntary plea of guilt
In no. 2, for the confession of guilt to be considered
spontaneously, it must be to the crime charged. If the plea
of guilt was based on a plea bargaining agreement, there is
not valid plea of guilt. It is still plea of guilt but it will not be
considered as a mitigating circumstance.
Ex. A was charged with the crime of frustrated homicide. On
plea bargaining, with the consent of the judge, the fiscal and
the offended party, he said that he had plead guilty to a
lesser crime of serious physical injuries. So he was re-
arraigned and this time the crime charge was serious
physical injuries. And this time he pleaded guilty.
That is still considered a valid plea of guilt. Upon his plea of
guilt, the judge will render his decision but it cannot be
considered voluntary, because it was not done
spontaneously. Spontaneously, it must be the original crime
charged.
That he confesses guilt in open court that is before the court
tried his case. He cannot plead guilty in the appellate court.
Ex. X was walking when suddenly A, B and C surrounded
him. A, B and C attacked and mauled X until X laid on the
ground. X was defeated and so he pulled out an ice pick
and thereafter he hit A. The ice pick pierced through the
heart of A. A died instantly. B and C left. X was arrested and
thereafter he was charged in court. If you were the judge
that convicted X of homicide, what mitigating circumstances
may be considered in order to lower the imposable penalty.
1st we have incomplete self-defense. There was unlawful
aggression coming from the said victim. The victim together
with B and C attacked and mauled X until he fell on the
ground. The life of the accused was place on imminent
danger. The second element was, however, absent. There
was reasonable necessity for him to use an ice pick hitting
the heart of the said victim. Therefore, unlawful aggression
was present but the reasonable necessity is absent. As for
the sufficient provocation, there was no sufficient
provocation on the part of X. He was merely walking when
he was attacked. Here of the three elements, two are
present and one of them was unlawful aggression. For as
long as unlawful aggression was present, there is
incomplete justifying. This would be considered a privilege
mitigating circumstance due the presence of 2 out of 3
elements of self-defense.
Aside from that, you can also consider sufficient
provocation on the part of the offended party. There was
provocation on the part of the offended party and the said
commission of the crime was immediate to the said
provocation.
By the presence of the privilege mitigating, it will lower it by
one degree and since there is an ordinary mitigating, it
would be to the minimum period.
Ex. The husband and the wife were preparing dinner. There
was a knock on the door. The wife opened the door, upon
opening, the neighbor who was calling the name tried to
hack the wife. Wife was able to reach and close the door
and the wife was not hacked. The neighbor however, with a
use of a bolo continuously hacked the wooden or the
bamboo door and walls of the house. And so, considering
that his house was being damaged, the husband was
forced to go outside to confront the neighbor. He used the
window to go out. He called the neighbor and asked what
was the reason why he was hacking. The neighbor instead
of answering tried to hack the husband. They struggled for
the possession of the bolo, and in the course the husband
gained possession of the bolo. Once in the possession of
the bolo, the husband hacked the neighbor. The neighbor
suffered a fatal wound but was brought to the hospital and
so he survived. Husband was prosecuted for frustrated
homicide. Fiscal found probable cause and the case was
filed before the court. The court also found probable cause.
A warrant of arrest was issued against the husband. The
wife immediately informed the husband that a warrant was
issued. Upon learning the same, although the warrant of
arrest was already with the police officer, the husband went
to the police station and gave himself up. Trial on the merits
and there was conviction of frustrated homicide. What
mitigating circumstances will you consider?
1st you have to consider voluntary surrender. Even if there
was already a warrant issued, for as long as the said police
officers had not yet gone out looking for the said offender,
the said surrender would still be considered voluntary and
mitigating in nature.
Likewise, there was sufficient provocation because of the
act of the neighbor trying to hack the wife. And his act of
continuously hacking the wooden door and walls of the
house that is sufficient provocation enough to confront the
neighbor.
How about sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation?
Yes, it is also present. The act of the neighbor trying to hack
the wife and his act of continuously hacking the wooden
door is an unlawful act and because of that husband tried
to confront the neighbor but still the neighbor tried to hack
the husband and so they grappled for the possession of the
bolo.
There are three MC. Sudden impulse of passion and
obfuscation as well as sufficient provocation arose from the
same facts and circumstances. Therefore, although both
11 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
are present, the judge shall consider them only as one
mitigating circumstance.
Ex. X learned that this old man tried to molest his wife.
Angry upon learning such, X went to the house of the old
man. Upon seeing the old man, X boxed and boxed the old
man and kicked the old man and he hit the wall and was
brought to the hospital where he died. Case was filed
against him and a warrant was issued against him. Upon
learning, he surrendered. Upon trial of the merits, he was
convicted. What MC will you consider?
1st is immediate vindication of a grave offense or sudden
impulse of passion or obfuscation. X upon learning that this
old man tried to molest his wife, he immediately went to the
old man and boxed and boxed the said old man. The old
man committed an unlawful act that produce passion or
obfuscation on the part of X.
Any other? There is also praeter intentionem. X only
intended to hurt the old man. He boxed and boxed the old
man, he did not use any weapon. Then he kicked the old
man who hit his head. There is notable disparity between
the means employed and the resulting felony. (in kicking the
old man who later on died)
We also have voluntary surrender because upon learning
that there was a warrant of arrest issued against him, he
immediately went to the police to surrender.
In so far as immediate vindication of a grave offense and
sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation are concerned,
since again they arose from the same facts or
circumstances, they will be treated as one MC.
Ex. X was driving his vehicle when he hit a pedestrian and
the pedestrian died. Afraid that the people in the area will
hurt him, he left the said pedestrian whom he hit. However
upon watching TV, he learned that the police was looking
for him. The man who was driving this vehicle with this plate
number and at particular time. X knew it was him so
immediately went to the police station and gave himself up.
He was prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide. Upon arraignment, he immediately pleaded guilty
to the crime charged. If you were the judge what MC will
you consider?
Under Art. 365, the law provides that in case of quasi-
offenses, the court need not consider the provision of Art.
64. And what does Art. 64 provide? It provides for the rules
on the application of divisible penalties. The court is not
mandated to consider the rules on aggravating or mitigating
circumstances. The decision is based on the sound
discretion whether or not to consider the mitigating or
aggravating circumstances.
Here, you may consider both voluntary surrender and
voluntary plea of guilty OR you may not consider any.
8th - That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise
suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his
means of action, defense, or communications with his
fellow beings.
9th It is necessary that the illness only diminishes the will-
power of the accused. If it totally deprives him of his will-
power, then it will not only be a mere mitigating
circumstance but it will become an exempting
circumstance.
10th- Generally, in cases of malversation, failure to render
accounting, the restitution of the public funds amassed by
the public officer is akin to voluntary surrender. Therefore,
it will mitigate is criminal liability. - Being old and sickly may
be considered as akin to a person over 70 years old.
Art 14: Aggravating Circumstances are those which if
present in the commission of a felony will serve to increase
the imposable penalty without however going beyond the
maximum penalty prescribed by law.
No matter how many aggravating circumstances attended
the crime the court cannot impose a penalty beyond the
maximum penalty prescribed by law.
Different kinds of Aggravating Circumstances
1. Generic Aggravating Circumstance- are those which
apply to all crimes
Example of this is recidivism
2. Specific Aggravating Circumstances - are those that
apply only to a certain or particular crimes
Example: Cruelty which applies only to crimes against
Persons
3. Inherent Aggravating Circumstances- are those which
are considered as ingredient or element of a crime. Hence
they are no longer considered so as to increase the
imposable penalty because they are considered elements
in the commission of the crime.
Example: Dwelling is considered inherent In Violation of
Domicile
4. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances - are those
that which change the nature of the crime to bring about a
greater crime with a higher penalty or even without
changing the nature of the crime it brings about the
imposition of a higher penalty.
Example: Those enumerated under Article. 248 Murder.
Such circumstances qualify Homicide into Murder and to
increase the imposable penalty.
12 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
5. Special Aggravating Circumstances- these
circumstances provide for the imposition of the Maximum
penalty prescribed by law and it cannot be offset by any
mitigating circumstance.
Example: If the crime is committed by a syndicate or
organized crime group as provided by Art.62 as amended
by RA 7659
Sec.23 of RA 7659 provides "The maximum penalty shall
be imposed if the offense was committed by any group who
belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group"
Par. 1 That advantage be taken by the offender of his
public position
This aggravating circumstance would only be considered if
the offender is a public officer and the said public officer
took advantage of his public position or to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
The offender took advantage of the prestige, influence or
ascendancy of his office in order to facilitate the commission
of the crime.
Generally, that the offender took advantage of his public
position, is a special aggravating circumstance. Under Art.
14, however, it is merely Generic Aggravating, but if you
look at Art. 62 as amended by RA 7659, the heinous crime
law, it is a Special aggravating circumstance because the
law says the maximum penalty prescribed by law should be
the one imposed. Therefore it is a Special aggravating and
cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.
Examples:
1. The police officers will stop jeepney drivers and will ask
for tong every morning and so until one time when the
jeepney driver filed a case of extortion against him. In the
information it was alleged that he committed this act by
taking advantage of his public position, the said
circumstance was alleged in the information and proven
during trial. How it is to be appreciated?
It is a Special Aggravating Circumstance because under
Art. 62 as amended by RA 7659, the Heinous Crime Law,
the maximum period for the penalty prescribed by law shall
be the one imposed. It cannot be offset by any mitigating
circumstance.
2. The police officers raided a bar and among the women
arrested was Y. After investigation, Y is brought in a certain
room and there the arresting police officer had carnal
knowledge of Y against her will, and so the crime of Rape
was filed against the said police officer. In the information,
it was alleged that the aggravating circumstance of taken
advantage of his public position was present/attended the
commission of the crime. How is the advantage taken of his
public position to be considered by the court?
It is to be considered as a Qualifying Aggravating
Circumstance. Under Art.266-B of the RPC "If the victim is
in the custody of police authorities, the military or any
member of any penal institutions, it will be considered as
Qualified Rape and the imposable penalty will be Death. So
it changed the nature of the crime from Rape to Qualified
Rape, and from Reclusion Perpetua the penalty was
increased to Death. So it will Qualify the commission of the
crime, the crime committed is Qualified Rape.
Par. 2 That the crime be committed in contempt of or
with insult to the public authorities
For this circumstance to be appreciated it is necessary that
the crime was committed in the presence of public
authorities while the latter is engaged in the performance of
their official duties. So even if there is a public authority at
the time of the commission of the crime the offender still
committed the crime, and the presence of such authorities
did not prevent the offender from making the crime.
That the public authority concerned must not be the victim.
He must not be the person attacked or assaulted because
if he is the person attacked or assaulted , the crime is Direct
Assault and in contempt of or with insult to public authorities
is no longer considered as an aggravating circumstance,
but an integral element in the commission of the crime.
Par. 3 disregard of respect due to the offended party on
account of his rank, age or sex, or it be committed in
the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not
given provocation
Committed in the Dwelling (all in the notes)
Par. 4 That the act be committed with abuse of
confidence or obvious ungratefulness
(Only the elements were discussed, in the notes already)
Par. 5 That the crime be committed in the palace of the
Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or
in a place dedicated to religious worship.
(Only elements were discussed, in the notes already)
Par.6 That the crime be committed in the night time, or
in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the
offense. Whenever more than three armed malefactors
shall have acted together in the commission of an
offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by
a band.
1. Nighttime
a. Offender deliberately took advantage of nighttime or
cover of darkness
13 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
b. The purpose of of the offender is to facilitate the
commission of the crime or to insure or afford impunity
2. Uninhabited Place (far from town or far from other
houses, in isolation from a public place and in said place
the victim has very little or remote possibility to receive help)
a. Offender has very little or remote possibility to receive
some help
b. Offender deliberately sought the uninhabited place to
facilitate the commission of the crime
3. By a band- more than three (atleast four) armed
malefactors should have acted (all) together in the
commission of the crime.
Par. 7 That the crime be committed on the occasion of
a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune.
If the crime is committed on occasion of any of these
calamities or misfortune, it will aggravate the criminal
liability of the offender. In times of calamities we should help
one another, so if the offender took advantage of these
occasions, it shows his greater criminality, his greater
perversity hence it will aggravate his criminal liability.
Example:
1. There was this big fire, that a number of houses in the
barangay were gutted with fire, the house of X was among
those affected by this big fire. While X was busy getting his
things out of said house, and so Y wanted to take a revenge
because he has grudge against X, went to the said place
and pretending to be helping, went near X, and X who is
already an old man, Y repeatedly stabbed X. Thereafter Y
took all the things inside the house. Y was charged of
robbery with homicide. Is the charge correct?
The charge is wrong. It is not robbery with homicide
because the criminal intent of Y was to take a revenge on
X, to kill X. So the appropriate charge Murder and Theft.
Two crimes must be charge.
What aggravating circumstances attended the
commission of the crime?
First, on the occasion of a big fire, which is a qualifying
aggravating circumstance. If you would look at Art.248, if
crime of killing a person is committed under any of these
occasions, it will qualify the crime of Homicide to Murder,
and the penalty would be Reclusion Perpetua. The fact that
the killing took place on the occasion of the said fire then
the crime would be considered as Murder.
Crime is committed inside dwelling of the offended party
while he was busy saving all his things. Although it is being
gutted with fire, it is still the dwelling, the place of comfort
and rest of X.
No disregard of age, there was no showing of disrespect of
age. Although Y repeatedly stabbed X, there was no
showing that Y disregarded/disrespected or intended to
disregard/disrespect the age of X, because the intent was
to take a revenge against X.
So two aggravating circumstances are present, one is on
the occasion of fire and the other, that dwelling is present in
the commission of the crime.
2. X went to the house of A and B, and X asked A&B if he
could occupy one of the room inside said house. A and B
obliged and so X is now occupying one of the rooms inside
the said house of A and B. Two days thereafter, when X
was living in the said house, the husband went to work, and
the wife was the only one left in the house. When X learned
that it was only the wife who was inside the house, X got
out of his room and went to the bedroom of the wife and
against the will of the wife he had carnal knowledge. So a
crime of Rape was filed against X. What aggravating
circumstances attended the commission of the crime?
In the information it was alleged that dwelling attended the
commission of the crime, likewise there was disregard of
sex and likewise it was stated that there was abuse of
confidence. Are these aggravating circumstances alleged
in the information to be considered by the court? Granting
that it was all proven..
Dwelling cannot be appreciated as aggravating
circumstance because both of them are living in the same
house. Even if X was only renting the said place still it
cannot be said that when X committed the crime of Rape,
he disregarded dwelling. So dwelling cannot be considered
an aggravating circumstance.
No disregard of sex because it is inherent or an element in
the commission of the crime of Rape. You no longer
consider it so as to increase the imposable penalty because
it is an element of the crime of Rape by carnal knowledge,
the Rape here is by carnal knowledge not Rape by Sexual
Assault.
There is generic circumstance of Abuse of Confidence. All
the elements of abuse of confidence are present. The
offended party has trusted the offender, the spouses A and
B trusted X, they agreed for X to stay inside their house.
The offender abuse the trust and confidence, and said
abuse of trust and confidence facilitated the commission of
the crime. Were it not for the trust reposed by the spouses,
X would not have committed the crime. Therefore the Abuse
of Confidence must be appreciated.
3. Lessor-Y went to the unit being rented by the lessee- X
to ask the latter to pay rent because the lessee haven't paid
rent for three months already. X happened to be an old
man. When X still didn't pay the rent, Y attacked X, Y
hacked and hacked X. When X, the said old man, 85yrs old,
was already lying on the floor still Y repeatedly and
continuously hacked X. What aggravating circumstances
attended the commission of the crime?
14 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
The first aggravating circumstance that attended the
commission of the crime is dwelling. There is dwelling in the
commission of the crime because it was committed in the
unit being rented by X even if Y is the owner, still it is the
dwelling of X because he is renting the said place from the
owner.
Disregard of Age, X was already lying on the floor yet Y still
repeatedly hacked X. An 85yrs old lying cold feet on the
ground then there was obviously disregard of the age of the
victim in the commission of the crime.
***if the question is:
"Are the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, abuse of
confidence, nighttime, etc. PRESENT in the commission of
the crime?"
Your answer is - if they are present or not. You will say if
they are present, and you will state the elements why they
are present, and connect the elements to the facts.
But if the question is:
"If you were the judge how would you consider/
APPRECIATE these aggravating circumstances?"
Then that is the time that you will say that some of these
aggravating circumstances will be absorbed by Treachery.
Or that they will be offset by some of the mitigating
circumstances.
Par.9. That the accused is a recidivist. A recidivist is one
who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of this Code.
Par.10. That the offender has been previously punished by
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.
FOUR FORMS OF HABITUALITY:
1. RECIDIVIST (notes)
2. REITERACION (notes)
3. HABITUAL DELINQUENCY (page page 48-49 notes)
4. QUASI RECIDIVIST (page 49)
In so far as Habitual Delinquency is concerned it is
considered as a Special Aggravating circumstance. Some
book says that it is an Extraordinary Aggravating
Circumstance because the presence of this aggravating
circumstance of HD would mean and imposition of an
additional penalty aside from the penalty imposed on the
offender for the crime that he has committed an additional
penalty would be imposed on him for being a habitual
delinquent. Limitation, however, is that if you add the
penalty for the crime that he has committed and the
additional penalty for being a HD, they must not exceed 30
yrs.
RECIDIVISM V. REITERACION
1. In Recidivism it is only required that there is a first
conviction by final judgment, whereas in Reiteracion it is
required that he has served out his sentence for the
previous crime that he has committed .
2. In Recidivism the law requires that the two crimes be
embraced in the same title of the Code, while in
Reiteracion there is no such requisite.
RECIDIVISM V. HABITUAL DELINQUENCY (page 49)
RECIDIVISM V. QUASI RECIDIVISM
1. In Recidivism there must be atleast two convictions,
whereas in Quasi-Recidivism likewise there must be two
convictions (first by final judgment and second for the
second crime that he has committed.
2. In recidivism it is necessary that the crimes are embraced
in the same title of the Code, while in Quasi-Recidivism
there is no such requisite, the only requisite is that the
second crime committed by the offender must be a felony.
Examples:
1. X committed robbery and he was convicted by final
judgment served out sentence and was released. Within six
years from the date of his release he committed theft,
prosecuted and convicted by final judgment served out the
sentence and was released. Within six months he
committed another crime of Theft, convicted by final
judgment served out his sentence and released. Within two
months from the date of his release, he again committed a
crime of Theft, so the judge found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of this Theft. In imposing the penalty for
this Theft, which of the four forms of habituality as
aggravating circumstances may be considered by the
court?
The court may consider both Recidivism and Habitual
Delinquency. X is a habitual delinquent, within 10 years
from the date of his last release or conviction of the crime
of theft, he committed another theft. He has been found
guilty three times of the crime of theft. Therefore he is a
Habitual Delinquent.
He is also a Recidivist because he has been previously
convicted by final judgment of the crime of Theft, and
another crime of robbery which is embraced in the same
title of the code. Therefore he is also a recidivist.
Both aggravating circumstances may be considered by the
court because they have different effects on the criminal
liability of the offender. The fact that he is a recidivist,
recidivism will be considered. If recidivism is not offset by a
mitigating circumstance it would mean the imposition of the
maximum period of penalty for the crime of theft. But for
15 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
being a Habitual delinquent an additional penalty will be
imposed. So both may be considered by the court in the
imposition of penalty.
2. X committed homicide convicted by final judgment he is
now serving his sentence at the new bilibid prison. He
engaged in a fight, he inflicted serious physical injuries on
another inmate. So he is now prosecuted for serious
physical injuries. After trial on the merits, the judge found
him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of serious physical
injuries. In imposing the penalty what forms of habituality as
aggravating circumstances may be considered?
Quasi-Recidivism and Recidivism. He is a recidivist
because at the time of trial for one offense, he was
previously convicted by final judgment for another
crime. He was previously convicted of Homicide and he
committed another crime which is SPI and was found guilty
by final judgment thereof. The two crimes (homicide and
SPI) are embraced in the same title of the code. Therefore
he is a recidivist.
He is also a quasi recidivist because at the time he is
serving sentence for a crime, he committed another felony
(serious physical injuries is a felony). Therefore he is also a
quasi-recidivist.
The effect of recidivism is that it can be offset by a generic
mitigating circumstance, whereas quasi recidivism cannot
be offset by a mitigating circumstance. Because under Art.
160 is a Special Aggravating Circumstance, the maximum
penalty prescribed by law shall be imposed. He is both a
recidivist and quasi-recidivist. Can you appreciate both?
No. You cannot appreciate both because they have
different effects. You better appreciate recidivism because
it can be offset by a mitigating circumstance.
Par. 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a
price, reward, or promise. (Notes)
Par. 12. That the crime be committed by means of
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or
international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or
by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and
ruin.(Notes)
Par. 13. That the act be committed with evidence
premeditation. (Notes)
Par. 14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
(Notes)
Par. 15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or
means be employed to weaken the defense. (Notes)
Par. 16. That the act be committed with treachery
(alevosia). There is treachery when the offender commits
any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.
Examples:
1.X went to the house of Y, because Y borrowed money
from X. So X told Y that he should pay the money now. But
Y said that he has no money, so X got so mad and ordered
his two body guards to hold Y, and while the two body
guards held the hands of Y at the back, X repeatedly
stabbed Y to death. X and his body guards are now
prosecuted for murder. The information alleged two
qualifying aggravating circumstances, Treachery and
abuse of superior strength. Are both present?
Only abuse of superior strength is present and treachery is
absorbed. Treachery is not present because the first
element (offender deliberately adopted the particular
means, method or form of attack employed by him) is
absent. The commission of the said crime of killing
happened at the spur of the moment, when Y failed to pay,
X got mad, it was only at that time that X has decided,
therefore he did not deliberately adopted the particular
means, method or form of attack employed. The first
element being absent treachery would not lie.
There is obviously abuse of superior strength. There is
notorious inequality of forces. Two men, the bodyguards
were holding the hands of Y as X repeatedly stabbed him.
Obviously these three persons took advantage of their
superiority of strength in order to facilitate the commission
of the crime. Both elements for the abuse of superior
strength is present.
2. X is the driver of Atty.Y and after bringing Atty. Y to the
office for attending a court hearing. X talked to the secretary
of Atty.Y and X told the secretary "if I couldn't control myself,
I could kill Atty.Y, he has been a very abusive employer,
giving me bad food, insulting me. If I lost control of myself
I'm going to kill him." So X narrated that to the Secretary of
Atty.Y. After came back from the court at nighttime X
brought Atty.Y at his house. Atty. Y alighted to the house.
Meanwhile X brought the attache case to the house, and
thereafter went to the kitchen, got a water and took a
kitchen knife, went to the bedroom of Atty. Y, then X
stabbed Atty.Y repeatedly. What aggravating
circumstances attended the commission of the crime?
There was no evident premeditation, the time that the
offender was determined to commit the crime, his
utterances or narration to the secretary cannot be
considered as determination to kill because he said "if I lost
control" or "pag hindi ako nakapagpigil." Therefore he is not
determined to kill. And the second element, there is no overt
act that he has clung to his determination. Likewise there is
no sufficient lapse of time, he said that to the secretary in
the morning and he committed the crime in the evening.
When he brought back the Atty. to the house he
immediately committed the crime.
There was Dwelling in the commission of the crime. The
driver could have killed the Atty. in any other place, while in
the car or in the office, while alighting the vehicle but he
16 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
killed the lawyer inside the latter's house, therefore there
was disrespect in the dwelling of the said atty.
There was Treachery in the commission of the crime. He
went to the kitchen took the kitchen knife and thereafter
went to the room of Atty. he deliberately and consciously
adopted the means to be used in the commission of the
crime. Upon opening the door he immediately stabbed the
victim, the victim was totally without or not in a position to
defend himself. Therefore treachery was present.
There was also Abuse of Confidence in the commission of
the crime. The Atty. trusted the driver, in fact he was the
one bringing him to and from office/house, and by reason
of said trust and confidence it facilitated the commission of
the crime.
PAR. 17 (Notes)
PAR. 18 (Notes)
Relate to PAR. 19
PAR. 19
1) X entered the house of Y but passing thru an open
window. Once inside he killed Y. What is the crime
committed? What is the aggravating
circumstance?
ANS: The crime committed is murder and the aggravating
circumstance of unlawful entry. There is unlawful entry
because the crime of killing of the said victim was done after
passing thru the window. The crime was committed after an
unlawful entry.
2) What if in the same problem, X entered the house
of Y but passing thru the window. The intention
was to commit robbery he got the valuables but
the owner is awakened. So X upon seeing Y, who
cried for help, shot Y. Thereafter he left again
passing thru the window. What crime is
committed? Is the unlawful entry an aggravating
circumstance?
ANS: The crime is Robbery with homicide. The unlawful
entry is not considered an aggravating circumstance. It is
inherent in the commission of the crime.
3) X made an opening on the roof of Y and thereafter
X with the use of a rope with a hook was able to
take the valuables on top of the table inside the
same house. What crime is committed? What is
the aggravating circumstance?
ANS: The crime committed is Theft. Unlawful entry is the
aggravating circumstance. The roof was broken as a means
to commit the crime in order to get the things on the table.
In order to bring about Robbery, the entire body of the
offender must enter the place. So even if the offender
makes some opening, or broke any roof, floor, etc. but he
did not enter the said opening, and just devise means to get
the things, the crime is only THEFT. Unlawful entry is an
aggravating circumstance and not inherent in the
commission of the crime.
PAR. 20
1) X was driving a car. Thereafter, the traffic lights
went red so he stop. Suddenly a motor cycle
appeared near him. There were two persons riding
the motor cycle, the person on the back started to
shoot him. X died. In the commission of the said
crime, is the aggravating circumstance of use of
motor vehicle present?
ANS: It is present. The said killing is done by means of a
motor vehicle.
PAR. 21 (NOTES)
USE OF UNLICENSED FIREARM PD 1866 as amended
RA 8294
1) X and Y, father and son had an argument. The son
took out his pistol, an unlicensed and unregistered
pistol and shot his father. The father died. What
crime is committed? How will you consider to the
use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of
the crime.
ANS: The crime committed is Parricide. The use of the
unlicensed firearm is considered as a special aggravating
circumstance.
2) X and Y were fighting. In the course of the said fight,
X pulled out his pistol and shot Y. Y was hit on the
left arm. Not a serious injury. As a result, the crime
charged is Attempted homicide or was charged with
less serious physical injuries. Will the use of an
unlicensed firearm be considered as a special
aggravating circumstance?
ANS: Yes.
PD 1866 is already amended by RA 8294 and further
Amended by RA 10951. (2013)
SEC. 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a
Crime. The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the
commission of a crime punishable under the Revised Penal
Code or other special laws, shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance: Provided, That if the crime
committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by
the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that
prescribed in the preceding section for illegal possession of
firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be
imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime
charged: Provided, further, That if the crime committed with
the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a
maximum penalty which is equal to that imposed under the
preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be
imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable
under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws of
which he/she is found guilty.
If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to,
or in connection with the crime of rebellion of insurrection,
17 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
or attempted coup d etat, such violation shall be absorbed
as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or
attempted coup d etat.
If the crime is committed by the person without using the
loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be considered
as a distinct and separate offense.
SEC. 29 if the use of the unlicensed
firearm inherent in the commission
of the crime punishable under the
RPC or under Special Penal Laws, it
is considered as an AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE. Whatever be
the crime committed, whether
under the RPC or SPL, if the use of
such firearm is inherent in
commission of the crime, is
considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
3) X stabbed why to death, thereafter X was
arrested. When a body search was
conducted, a firearm was found. What crime
is committed by X?
ANS: Two crimes are committed. Homicide and Illegal
Possession of used Firearm. SEC. 29 (3), If the crime is
committed by the person without using the loose firearm,
the violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and
separate offense.
4) The accused after brutally killing the victim
and the police suspected he was under the
influence of drugs. He was subjected to drug
test, and was found to be under the influence
of dangerous drugs. What is the effect of such
positive finding on the criminal liability of the
crime?
ANS: Under Sec. 25 of RA9165, Qualifying Aggravating
Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by an
Offender Under the Influence of Dangerous Drugs.
Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a
positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a
qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission
of a crime by an offender, and the application of the penalty
provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable.
So the crime will now be from homicide to MURDER. It
changes the nature of the crime to bring about a more
serious crime imposing a higher penalty.
----CONLFLICT----
But there is a new decision by the SC, DELA CRUZ V.
PEOPLE (2015) (Syllabus under RA 9165)
Facts: The offender was charged with Robbery with
extortion. Suspected under the influence of drugs and thus
was forced to give urine for testing. He was found positive
for used of dangerous drugs. Aside from robbery with
extortion, he was charged under RA9165 under sec. 15.
Convicted by the RTC, Conviction affirmed by the CA.
SC: Acquitted the accused for illegal use of dangerous
drugs.
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. A person
apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for
use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall
be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months
rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense,
subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If
apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second
time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment
ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be
applicable where the person tested is also found to have in
his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug
provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the
provisions stated therein shall apply.
The first element that the accused was apprehended or
arrested for the commission of the crime does not refer to
any other crime. It refers only to crimes under Art. 2 of
RA9165. So based on this decision, if the crime committed
by the offender is outside the scope of RA 9165, you cannot
subject him to drug testing. No person may be placed under
mandatory drug testing because it is against his right to
privacy and self incrimination.
Applying such decision, this confirmatory test will only apply
if the said offenders crime is under RA 9165 but not any
other law.
TOTALLY IN CONFLICT. Congress and SC have different
views.
ART. 15 (Notes )
ART. 16 (Notes)
ART. 17. (Notes)
The principal knows the criminal design because he is the
author of the crime.
ART. 18. (Notes)
The accomplice knows the criminal design because he
concurs with it.
ART. 19
The accessory does not know the criminal design. An
accessory takes part subsequent to the commission of the
crime.
FIRST ACT:
1) The robbery took place in Manila. The house
helper went inside the master bedroom.
Broke the vault and got the cash and jewelries
therein. Thereafter, she went to QC and sold
the jewelries to a store for 50K. Upon
examination of the jewelries, the store owner
knew it was worth million of pesos thus the
store owner immediately gave the 50K. The
18 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
police officer went to the said store and there
indeed the police together with the real owner
were able to identify the jewelries. Is the said
store owner liable as an accessory?
ANS: Not liable as an accessory. The first element is not
present. The store owner has no knowledge of the
commission of the crime. Such knowledge cannot be
presumed and must be proven.
But may be liable under PD1612 as a Fence. All
elements of Fencing are present. There is a presumption
under PD 1612, SEC. 5.
Where to file the case: The
place the said offender was
arrested in possession of
the said stolen articles
because Fencing is not a
continuing crime. It is not a
transitory offense.
SECOND ACT:
Body of the Crime substance of the crime
THIRD ACT:
Two kinds of accessories
a. Public Officer He must act with
abuse of public function
b. Private Individual PD 1829 if not
the crimes mentioned in Art. 19 (3)
2) A,B,C,D are happily walking. Suddenly they
chance upon X. A and B stab X. C just stood
there just watching. D served as lookout. A
told C to dispose the body of X and so C threw
it in a deep well. The autopsy report shows
that X died not because of the stab wounds
but because of drowning. A,B,C,D are all
charged as principals in the crime of Murder.
Are they all liable as principal? What are their
criminal liabilities?
C- Not liable, only as an accessory because he participated
after the act of stabbing. He did not know X was still alive
when he dispose the body
D- Not liable as he only served as a look out, as mere
accomplice
ANS: A and B are liable as PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT
PARTICIAPTION. They are the persons who actually stab
the victim.
C is also liable as PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE
COOPERATION because X was still alive when he threw
the body in the well. The act of throwing in the well was the
cause of death. It consummated the crime of murder. His
defense that he has no knowledge that X was still alive is
untenable because by disposing the body he was already
committing a felonious act thus must be liable for its
consequences.
D liable as an accomplice. He concurs with the criminal
design. All elements present.
LOOK OUT as a PRINCIPAL- When he is part
of the criminal design. He is among the
authors of the criminal design.
LOOK OUT as a MERE ACCOMPLICE-
When he is not part of the criminal design
ART. 20 (Notes)
PENALTIES
2 KINDS OF PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED BY
LAW IN EVERY DECISION
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES- prescribed by law and imposed
by the court in case of conviction.
ACCESORY PENALTIES- necessarily included in the
imposition of principal penalties.
Under Art 73, accessory penalties follow the principal
penalties as a matter of law. Hence, they need not be
stated in the decision.
X was convicted of murder. Finding the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. Sentenced to suffer the penalty
of Reclusion perpetua, also made to suffer Perpetual
absolute DQ and civil interdiction. They need not be stated
in the judgment of the court.
Art 25. Principal Penalties and Accessory penalties
Capital Penalties
Afflicitve Penalties
Correccional penalties
Light penalties
Penalty common to all crimes. Bond to keep the
peace
Death. It cannot be imposed but it remains to be the penalty
for heinous crimes. Heinous crimes remain to be heinous
crimes and the penalty remains to be death, only that death
cannot be imposed.
People vs. Alonso. What is prohibited is the imposition of
Death Penalty.
Ex. Murder with aggravating circumstance. Penalty is
death. However, death cannot be imposed because of RA
9346.
Under sec 3, when the penalty is RP or commuted to RP,
he cannot be given the benefit of parole under the ISLAW.
If in violation of the RPC, commuted to RP. If in violation of
special law, commuted to LI.
Afflictive penalties.
Reclusion perpetua is not the same as life imprisonment.
Cannot be used alternatively. 2 separate and distinct
19 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
penalties. RP when in violation of RPC. LI when in violation
of special penal laws. Reclusion perpetua has a fixed
duration and it carries an accessory penalty. LI has no
accessory penalties.
Reclusion Temporal has a duration of 12 years and one day
to 20 years.
Disqualification is both a principal penalty and accessory
penalty.
Perpetual absolute disqualification. Perpetual special
disqualification. Effective during the lifetime of the convict.
Effective only during the term of the sentence and as a rule
even after service of sentence except the right to hold public
office and employment and right for pension and other
benefits
Prision mayor. Under Art 27, 6y and 1d to 12y.
Correccional penalties.
Prision correccional. Under Art 27, 6m 1d to 6y duration.
Arresto mayor. 1m 1d to 6m.
Suspension. Both a principal penalty and an accessory
penalty. If imposed as a principal penalty, it has the same
duration as Prision coorreccional. If imposed as a n
accessory penalty, it merely follows the duration of the
principal penalty to which it attaches.
Destierro. Under Art 25, it is a correction penalty. Under Art
87, also impose partial deprivation of liberty. Not required
to stay behind bars. Prohibited from entering the place
designated in the judgment.
Light penalties.
Arresto menor, 1-30 days.
Public censure. Indivisible penalty.
Fine and bond to keep the peace. Penalties common to all.
Fine. Imposed in case of conviction. Instead of
imprisonment, the penalty imposed is fine. Under Art 26,
fine is afflictive if more than 6K. correctional if from 200 to
6K. Light if less than 200 pesos.
Bond to keep the peace. Under Art 35, present to sureties
to make sure that she will not make good the crime that she
is about to commit. If they fail to pay the bond to keep the
peace, then he shall be placed on detention.
Accesory penalties.
Civil interdiction. Under Articles 40 and 41, necessarily
follows the penalty of Death, RP and RT.
Deprived of the following rights:
1. Rights of Parental Authority
2. Right of guardianship over the person or
property of his wife
3. Rights of marital authority
4. Right to manage property
5. Right to dispose his property by any
conveyance inter vivos
A person was convicted of a crime. Penalty imposed is RP.
He is civilly interdicted. Can he make a last will and
testament? Yes, it takes effect only after the death of the
person. Thus, the conveyance is mortis causa.
Donation is also allowed if it will take effect after his death
because that is mortis causa.
Indemnification. It refers to damages.
Forfeiture and confiscation of the proceeds and instruments
of the crime. An accessory penalty that follows all principal
penalties.
GR. Forfeited in favour of the government
XPN: Belong to a 3rd person who is not a party to
the crime
XPN TO XPN: outside the lawful commerce of
man
Payment of costs. Expenses of litigation. Costs include fees
and indemnities in the course of judicial proceedings.
If convicted, he must pay the costs. If acquitted, the parties
must bear his own cost
Under Art 29. Preventive imprisonment. Detention of the
accused while the case against him is ongoing trial. Either
if the crime committed is a nonbailable offense or the crime
is a bailable offense but he does not have the money or
property to pay the bail fixed by the court.
Purpose. Primarily to prevent the flight of the accused. The
days may be deducted in his time of sentence. Under Art
29 as amended by RA 10592, there shall be full credit or
deduction if he voluntarily agrees in writing in the presence
of a counsel with the same disciplinary rules imposed on
convicted felons. Otherwise, only 4/5 credit of his
preventive imprisonment to the time of sentence.
Qualified if what is involved is deprivation of liberty. Ex.
Fine- not qualified for deduction.
Disqualified.
1. Recidivist
2. Summmoned to serve sentence but failed to
appear voluntarily
If offender has served preventive imprisonment equal to or
greater than the maximum penalty that maybe imposed, the
said prisoner shall be immediately released. This is without
prejudice to the continuation of trial of the case in court.
People vs Gambao. Kidnapping for ransom, convicted as
accomplice. 17yo, placed behind bars. From 17-31 she was
behind bars. SC: immediate release. She already
20 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
undergone preventive imprisonment more than the time of
sentence.
If the maximum penalty that maybe imposed is destierro,
immediate release after undergoing preventive
imprisonment of 30 days. Remedy: Petition for habeas
corpus because such detention is already arbitrary in
nature.
Pardon granted by the offended party, does not extinguish
the criminal liability of the offender whether it is a public
crime or a private crime when the criminal action was
already filed in court.
Accused killed the victim. The heirs filed a case of homicide.
There was an extrajudicial settlement of the case. Family of
the accused paid 1M to the family of the victim. Family of
the victim had pardoned the said accused. Effect on the
criminal liability in an action already filed in court? None.
The participation of the private offended party is only to
recover civil indemnity. It is an EXPRESS WAIVER to
recover civil indemnity.
What if the crime committed is a private crime? Will not
extinguish criminal action already filed in court.
Pardon by the private offended party only bars CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION. Hence, before the institution of the
criminal case against the said accused.
EXCEPTION: In case of Marital Rape, if the offender is the
legal husband, the subsequent forgiveness of the wife shall
extinguish both the criminal action already filed or even the
penalty already imposed by the court.
Pardon granted by the President shall extinguish criminal
liability. Absolute pardon is one of the grounds for totally
extinguishing criminal liability. May only be given after
conviction through final judgment. If the case is ongoing
trial, the pardon by the President has no effect to the
criminal action already filed in court. Does not automatically
restore the right of the offended party to hold public office,
vote and be voted, exercise his right of suffrage. Must be
specifically stated by the terms of the pardon.
Pardon by the President does not extinguish civil liability.
Under Art 39, Subsidiary penalty. Penalty includes fine
and the convict happens to be insolvent. Highest minimum
wage now is 478. So 1 day imprisonment is equivalent to
478.
There must also be EXPRESS statement in the judgment
that in case of insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer
subsidiary imprisonment. If no express statement, cannot
place him behind bars if insolvent. Why? Because
subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty
Note: if penalty is not to be executed by confinement, but of
fixed duration. Ex. if suspension or destierro. Sunsidiary
imprisonment shall also be destierro or suspension but shall
not exceed 1/3 of the term of sentence and in no case to
continue for more than one year
X was convicted of reckless imprudence causing damage
to property. Penalty imposed on him is fine and public
censure. Lower portion of the decision in case of
insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer subsidiary
penalty. The court is wrong because the principal penalty
that goes with fine is public censure is not to be executed in
a penal institution and is an indivisible penalty.
Accused convicted, Prision mayor and fine is imposed.
Decision in case of insolvency to pay the fine, he shall
suffer subsidiary penalty. The court is wrong. Prision
mayor is more than 6 years
Accused convicted. Penalty imposed on him is fine alone.
The judgement became final and executor. Unsatisfied writ
of execution. Judge ordered for his arrest to suffer
subsidiary penalty. The court is wrong. Failure to state that
in case of insolvency to pay the fine, convict cannot be
made to suffer subsidiary penalty.
Convict suffered subsidiary penalty. He went home, his
parents died, he got his inheritance. He is now a rich man.
The state learned about this. Can the state go after him to
pay the fine? Yes, because his financial circumstances has
already improved.
Instances when convict cannot be made to suffer
subsidiary penalty
1. When the penalty imposed by the court does not include
fine
2. Penalty includes fine but there is no express statement
in the judgment that in case of insolvency to pay the fine,
he shall suffer subsidiary penalty
3. When what the convict failed to pay is a fine but
declaration of damage caused or indemnification for
damages because subsidiary penalty is a penalty against
fine and fine alone.
4. If the principal penalty that goes with fine higher than
prision correctional
5. If the principal penalty that goes with fine is not to be
executed by confinement in a penal institution and is an
indivisible penalty.
Compound Crime. Single act produces 2 or more grave or
less grave felonies.
Elements:
1. offender committed a single act
2. produces 2 or more grave or less grave felonies
Effect: penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum
period shall be the one imposed
People vs Punzalan. SC: complex crime of Double murder
with multiple attempted murder. Single act of stepping in the
accelerator of the vehicle and swerving and ramming over
the victims resulting to death and attempt to kill the other.
21 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
Nelmida case. Ambush of mayor. Repeated firing resulted
to 2 deaths and wounding of the others. SC: convicted each
accused of 2 counts of murder and 7 counts of attempted
murder. Complexity of crimes under Art 48 does not apply
because the ACT IS NOT A SINGLE ACT, there are
SEVERAL OFFENDERS PERFORMING DIFFERENT
ACTS using different firearms. There are as many crimes
committed as there are as many persons killed or wounded.
X placed a bomb under the car of Y. When Y and wife and
3 children opened the car, it exploded. Children survived
due to medical treatment. H and W died. It resulted to 5
grave felonies. 2 murder and 3 frustrated murder. Crime:
Double murder with multiple frustrated murder. One
information because it is a complex crime.
In the same problem, H opened the car, all of them died. X
is liable for multiple murder because the single act of
placing a bomb resulting to 5 grave felonies. Only one
charge/one information filed in court- multiple murder.
X is armed with M-16 high powered rifle, machine gun. He
went inside the conference room. One pull of trigger, many
bullets came out hitting 5 persons. X is liable for 5 counts of
murder. Not a complex crime.
If the weapon used is a high powered machine gun, you do
not take into consideration the single act of pulling the
trigger but the number of bullets that came out of the body
of the gun and killed and wounded the offended party.
ART. 48 COMPLEX CRIMES
Examples:
There is an attempt to rape the victim. In the course thereof,
he killed the victim Attempted Rape with Homicide
Robbery with Rape
Robbery with Intentional mutilation
Robbery with Arson
Kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide
Kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape
COMPLEX CRIME SPECIAL COMPLEX
CRIME
(ART. 48)
Two or more grave or less The law specifically states
grave felonies or when an the crimes that must be
offense is a necessary complexed or combined
means for committing the
other
The penalty, are in The law provides for the
general, penalty for the specific penalty for the
most serious crime in its combined crimes
maximum period shall be
imposed
If a light felony is If a light felony is
committed, generally, it committed, generally, it is
brings about a separate absorbed by the said
and distinct charge special complex crime
CONTINUOUS CRIME (DELITO CONTINUANDO)
Q: X has been designated by a condominium company to
sell the units of a condominium. However, he is not
entrusted to collect the amortization fees from the buyers.
But X is in need of money. One day, say on March 1, he
went to the first unit owner A and he collected the
amortization fees amounting to P10,000. He also went to
the second unit owner B and collected the amount of
P10,0000 amortization fees. Then, he also went to the third
unit owner C and collected the P10,000 amortization fees.
Lastly, went to the fourth unit owner D and collected the
P10,000 amortization fees too. So, all in all, he collected
P40,000 amortization fees. He appropriated this collections
for his own benefit. He was not tasked and entrusted by the
company to make these collections. How many crimes of
estafa have been committed by X?
A: X committed only 1 count of estafa because it is
considered as a continuous crime or delito continuando. He
is impelled by a single criminal impulse and committed a
series of overt acts in about the same time and about the
same place, in the same condominium unit, violating one
and the same provision of law.
CONTINUING CRIMES OR TRANSITORY CRIMES
- More on remedial law
- The offender can be prosecuted before the courts
of the place where any of the crimes or elements
of the crime has been committed
- Examples: Kidnapping and serious illegal
detention, violation of BP 22, estafa by postdating
the check (not all crimes of estafa are continuing
crimes, only estafa under Art. 315 2(D) - estafa by
postdating the check), rebellion
- Limitation: the moment he is prosecuted in one
court, he can no longer be prosecuted in any other
court
Q: X in payment of his obligation, issued a postdated check
to Y in Manila, on the maturity date, Y deposited the check
to his depositary bank in Quezon City. The check however
was dishonored by the drawee bank in Caloocan City.
22 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
Notice of dishonor was sent. X failed to make good the
check. Where may Y file the case for violation of BP 22?
Before the MTC of Manila? Before the MTC of Quezon
City? Before the MTC of Caloocan City?
A: In any of the aforementioned courts because the
elements of the crime happened in any of these places.
Provided the BP 22 case has already been filed in the MTC
of Manila, the said case can no longer be filed before the
MTC of Quezon City or Caloocan City.
ART. 46
- Ex: Homicide under Art. 249 penalty is Reclusion
Temporal this penalty shall be the one imposed
on the principal offender in
homicide/consummated homicide
Q: What if an offender is an accomplice/accessory? Or if
the penalty is in the frustrated or attempted stages?
A: Arts. 50-57 provides that if the offender is an:
Accomplice, you go 1 degree lower
Accessory 2 degrees lower from the penalty prescribed
by law
Frustrated Stage - 1 degree lower from the penalty
prescribed by law
Attempted Stage - 2 degrees lower from the penalty
prescribed by law
XPN to the Rule: Art. 60 Even if Arts. 50-57 provides for
the rules as to the imposition of penalties on an
accomplice/accessory, frustrated or attempted stages, if the
law specially provides a penalty for a mere frustration or
attempt, and for the accomplice or accessory, that
specifically provided by law shall be the one imposed and
not the provisions in Arts. 50-57
*In summary, GR is Arts. 50-57. The XPN to the rule is Art.
60.
ART. 62 As to the Special Aggravating Circumstance
Syndicate or Organized Crime Group
- The maximum penalty prescribed by law shall be
the one imposed
- Being a member of a syndicate or organized crime
group is considered as a special aggravating
circumstance
ART. 63 Rules for Application of Indivisible Penalties
If the penalty prescribed by law consist of 2 indivisible
penalties, the ff. are the rules:
If there is only 1 aggravating circumstance that
attended the commission of the crime, the greater
penalty shall be imposed
If there is one mitigating circumstance that
attended the commission of the crime, the lesser
penalty shall be imposed
If there are no mitigating and no aggravating
circumstances that attended the commission of
the crime, the lesser penalty shall be imposed
If both mitigating and aggravating circumstances
attended the commission of the crime, they shall
be offset one another and apply the prior rules
ART. 64
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
Q: A final judgment was rendered against X. He was
granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive. He
violated the terms and conditions of the said pardon. He
was charged with evasion of service of sentence. Finding
him guilty, can the court impose upon him an indeterminate
sentence?
A: NO. Because he is among those disqualified under the
law. By violating the condition of his pardon he cannot avail
of an indeterminate sentence law.
Q: X has been convicted of final judgment of serious
physical injuries, thereafter he committed homicide and the
judge found him guilty of homicide. Can the judge impose
upon him an indeterminate sentence?
A: X here is a recidivist. A recidivist is disqualified under the
law from availing the indeterminate sentence aw. Only
habitual delinquents can be given an indeterminate
sentence.
EXAMPLES OF ISL/PENALTIES:
Penalty for SIMPLE RAPE is the single indivisible penalty
of reclusion perpetua.
Whatever mitigating or aggravating circumstances attended
the commission of the crime, the penalty to be imposed by
law shall be as is reclusion perpetua
Ex: Offender in the commission of an offense of rape also
committed one mitigating circumstance, and then another
mitigating circumstance, it was done in an immediate
vindication of a grave offense. If there are 2 mitigating
circumstances, the judge cannot consider these because
the penalty imposed by law is a single indivisible penalty
under Art. 63, it shall be imposed as is regardless of
aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Q: What if the crime committed is MURDER? Under 248,
the penalty for murder is RECLUSION PERPETUA TO
DEATH. It consists of 2 indivisible penalties.
NO mitigating and 1 aggravating:
23 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
The law provides that let us say, the murder was committed
in the dwelling of the offended party/ so there is one
mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance.
The law provides the greater penalty, death, shall be the
one imposed.
No aggravating but 1 mitigating:
But what if in the commission of the crime there is no
aggravating circumstance, but there is 1 mitigating
circumstance. Let us say of a passion and obfuscation. The
commission of the crime of murder was committed by one
mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. Art. 63,
provides the lesser of the penalty imposed by law shall be
imposed (reclusion perpetua)
No mitigating and no aggravating circumstance:
In the commission of the crime of murder, no mitigating and
no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty, shall be
the one imposed.
2 mitigating and 1 aggravating:
In the commission of murder, both mitigating (voluntary
surrender and immediate vindication of a grave offense)
and aggravating (dwelling), so we have 2 mitigating and 1
aggravating, Art 63 provides that you offset the 2 and apply
the rules. You offset the dwelling with voluntary surrender,
there is still one mitigating circumstance of immediate
vindication of a grave offense therefore, the lesser penalty,
reclusion perpetua shall be the one imposed.
Q: What if in the crime of RAPE, when the penalty
prescribed is a SINGLE INDIVISIBLE PENALTY, it shall
be imposed as is.
Privilege Mitigating Circumstance
But what if rape is committed by a MINOR? So we have
here minority, which is a PRIVILEGE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE. Since it is a privilege mitigating
circumstance, apply it first before computing the penalty,
you lower reclusion perpetua by 1 degree. It will now
become reclusion temporal. Now that it is reclusion
temporal, it is now a divisible penalty, you can now apply
Art. 64 and consider the rules provided for.
*So even if a single indivisible penalty, if in the commission
thereof, there is a privilege mitigating circumstance, the
said privilege mitigating circumstance can be applied to a
single indivisible penalty.
ART. 64 IN RELATION TO ISL:
The crime committed is HOMICIDE. The penalty for
homicide is RECLUSION TEMPORAL. Under Art 64, the
law provides if there are no mitigating, no aggravating
circumstance, the maximum term of sentence shall be the
penalty prescribed by law taking into consideration
mitigating and aggravating circumstances as provided for
under the rules in Art 64.
Maximum term: Reclusion temporal in its medium period
Minimum term: Prision Mayor. To get the minimum term of
sentence, you lower it by one degree. So it becomes prision
mayor.
Section 1 of ISL provides, the range of the minimum
penalty is dependent on the sound discretion of the judge
or court. So whether prison mayor will be minimum, medium
or maximum, will depend on the sound discretion of the
judge.
Since the maximum is medium, let us make this also
medium period. This is the minimum term of the sentence.
Q: Let us say that in the commission of HOMICIDE.
1 mitigating circumstance with no aggravating
circumstance:
Maximum term: Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period
Minimum term: Prision Mayor. As to the range, it is
dependent on the sound discretion of the court.
*There is 1 mitigating circumstance of sufficient
provocation, so 1 mitigating circumstance with no
aggravating circumstance. Art 64 says the maximum
penalty shall be in its minimum period. So this will be
reclusion temporal in its minimum period. That is the
maximum term of sentence. Again, to get the minimum term
of sentence, lower it by 1 degree, prision mayor. As to the
range, it is dependent on the sound discretion of the court.
That is the minimum term of sentence.
No mitigating but with 1 aggravating circumstance:
Maximum term: Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period
Minimum term: Prision Mayor. Range depends on the
sound discretion of the court.
*In the commission of the crime let us say, no mitigating but
with 1 aggravating circumstance of nighttime. Art 64 says,
the penalty shall be in its maximum period. So we have
here, reclusion temporal, maximum period. Lower it by 1
degree, prision mayor. Range depends on the sound
discretion of the court. That is the minimum term of
sentence.
Both mitigating and aggravating circumstances:
Maximum term: Reclusion Temporal in its medium period
Minimum term: Prision mayor. The range depends on the
sound discretion of the court.
*The commission of the crime of homicide was attended by
both mitigating and aggravating circumstances. There is
one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and one
aggravating circumstance of nighttime. Offset the two, no
more aggravating, no more mitigating, therefore, reclusion
temporal in its medium period. This is the maximum term of
the sentence. Again to get the minimum term of sentence,
you lower it by one degree, prision mayor, the range
depends on the sound discretion of the court. That is the
minimum term of the sentence.
24 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
2 mitigating circumstances with no aggravating
circumstances:
Maximum term: Prision Mayor in its medium period
Minimum term: Prision Correccional. The range depends
on the sound discretion of the court.
*In the commission of the crime of homicide, it is attended
by 2 mitigating circumstances with no aggravating
circumstances. Two mitigating circumstance of sufficient
provocation and then we have voluntary surrender. No
aggravating circumstance. Art 64 provides if there are 2 or
more mitigating with no aggravating circumstance, lower
the penalty by 1 degree. Therefore, by reclusion temporal,
you lower it by 1 degree, it will become prision mayor. We
have already considered these, so prision mayor in its
medium period this is the maximum term of the sentence.
To get the minimum term of sentence, lower it by 1 degree,
it will become prision correccional. The range depends on
the sound discretion of the court/judge.
In order that the penalty will be lowered by 1 degree, it is
necessary that totally, there is no aggravating
circumstance.
Even if there are many mitigating circumstance, for as long
as there is 1 aggravating circumstance, you will not lower
the penalty by degrees, it is only by periods.
What if the crime committed is a violation of a special
penal law?
Q: The crime committed is illegal fishing with the use of
explosives. The penalty prescribed by law is 20 years to life
imprisonment. What penalty shall be imposed by the court?
A: The law says if it is a violation of special penal law and
the said special penal law does not use the enumeration of
penalties in the RPC, the maximum term of the sentence
shall not exceed the maximum penalty prescribed by law
and the minimum term of sentence shall not be less than
the minimum penalty prescribed by law.
This is a decided case. The accused was caught because
of illegal fishing. The penalty imposed by law is 20 years to
life imprisonment. The judge imposed him the penalty of
straight 30 years. Is the judge correct?
A: The Supreme Court said NO. Since the penalty
prescribed by law is 20 years to life imprisonment, it means
that the penalty to imposed on the convict must be an
indeterminate sentence. SC said the penalty must be 20
years (minimum term) to 25 years (maximum term).
Q: Let us say the crime committed is carnapping with use
of force and violence. So the penalty prescribed by law is
17 years and 4 months to 30 years. If you were the judge
convicting the accused, what penalty shall be imposed?
A: Any penalty provided that it shall note exceed 30 years
and it will not be less than 17 years and 4 months. Because
the law says the maximum term of sentence in case of
violation of special penal law shall not exceed the maximum
term of penalty prescribed by law and shall not be less than
the minimum penalty prescribed by law.
Q: What if the crime committed by the offender is
punishable by fine. So let us say, impossible crime and the
penalty prescribed by law is P200-P500. Let us say that the
offender is mere accomplice or an accessory. As provided
for under Arts. 50-57, if the offender is an accomplice, you
go 1 degree lower. If the offender is an accessory, you go 2
degrees lower. How could you lower the fine?
A: Under Art. 75, you take of the maximum amount of fine
and deduct it therefrom. If you have to lower it, again, take
of the maximum amount of fine and deduct it therefrom.
So the maximum amount of fine is P500. of P500 is 125.
Deduct this. This will now be P375.
If the offender is an accomplice, the penalty prescribed by
law would be P200-P375.
Let us say the offender is mere accessory, deduct of the
maximum fine, so this will become now, P200-P250.
Q: What if the offender is given multiple sentence? The
father raped the daughter 5 times. 5 counts of rape. The
said father was convicted on all counts of rape. The penalty
for 1 count of rape is reclusion perpetua. What penalty shall
the court impose on him?
A: 5 reclusion perpetua.
If the convict is given multiple sentence (each reclusion
perpetua), how shall the convict serve the said sentence?
Under art. 70, the convict shall serve a sentence, as rule,
simultaneously. If the nature of the penalty allows
simultaneous service of sentence.
And what penalties allows simultaneous sentence?
- Impronemnt and fine
- Imprisonment and suspension
- Imprisonment and public censure
What penalties cannot be served at the same time?
- All imprisonment
If the penalties cannot be served at the same time, how
shall the convict serve the penalties?
He shall serve them successively as provided for under
Art. 70.
THREE FOLD RULE limitation on the successive term of
sentence. Art. 70 provides that the maximum duration of
sentence shall not exceed three times the length of the most
severe penalty and that in no case shall exceed 40 years.
Here we have reclusion perpetua. The duration for
reclusion perpetua under Art. 27 is 20 years and 1 day to
40 years. The maximum penalty is 40 years.
25 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
So we have here, 40 years, 40 years, 40 years, 40 years
and 40 years (because 5 reclusion perpetua), these will be
200 years. That cannot be served, right?! So you apply the
three fold rule. The maximum duration of sentence shall not
exceed three times the length of the most severe penalty.
So 40 years times 3 = 120 years. Still it cannot be served.
Art. 70 says, provided it shall not exceed 40 years. So
having been convicted of 5 counts of rape and imposed of
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, he shall only serve 40
years imprisonment in accordance to the three-fold rule.
That is the limitation provided for in Art. 70.
Q: So the judge said, the convict shall serve only 40 years
imprisonment and civil liability of P50,000. Is the judge
right?
A: The judge is wrong. Because the 40 years imprisonment
as provided for in the three-fold rule is not for the judge to
impose. The 40 years imprisonment in accordance to three-
fold rule refers to service of sentence, not to the imposition
of penalties. It is for the Director of Prisons to apply, to
compute and not for the judge to impose. Therefore, for
having been convicted of 5 counts of rape, the judge shall
impose upon him a penalty of reclusion perpetua for each
count of rape, the penalty prescribed by law for the crime of
rape. Likewise, the judge shall impose upon the convict the
civil liability of P50, 000 for each count of rape. Each count
of rape is a violation of the person of the victim therefore,
civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the criminal
offense of rape.
Conclusion: So, a penalty of reclusion perpetua for 5 counts
of rape and a P50,000 civil indemnity for each count of rape
shall be imposed. The 40 years is not for the judge to
impose because the 40 years refers to the service of
sentence and not to the imposition of the penalties. Courts
are mandated to impose the penalties as prescribed by law.
Art. 89 - Total Extinction of Criminal Liability
Death
Service of sentence
Amnesty
Absolute pardon
Prescription of crime
Prescription of penalty
Marriage of the offended woman
DEATH
- Death of the accused extinguishes criminal liability
at any stage of the proceedings. The moment the
offender dies, there is nobody to serve the
personal penalty.
- Death extinguishes civil liability if the offender dies
before conviction by final judgment. If the offender
dies after conviction by final judgment, his civil
liability will survive. The private complainant can
go after the executor or administrator of the estate
of the said offender. It survives because judgment
has already become final and executory. Guilt has
already been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- Even if the offender dies before conviction by final
judgment, his civil liability survives if the said civil
liability did not arise from or was not based solely
from the crime committed but based from other
sources of obligation such as law, contract, quasi-
contracts or quasi-delicts.
SERVICE OF SENTENCE
- Refers to the satisfaction of the penalty. If the
offender has been imposed of the penalty of
imprisonment, he shall serve his sentence of
imprisonment. If the penalty imposed is fine, he
must pay the said fine.
AMNESTY vs. ABSOLUTE PARDON
- Both amnesty and absolute pardon are acts of
grace coming from the Chief Executive. However,
insofar as amnesty is concerned, it does not only
excuse the convict from serving the sentence. It
also erases all the effects of the crime as if no
crime has been committed. The following are the
distinctions:
- Pardon only excuses the service of sentence,
while amnesty does not only excuse the service of
sentence but also erases all the effects of the
crime as if no crime had been committed.
- Pardon may be granted only by the Chief
Executive after conviction by final judgment,
whereas amnesty may be given at any stage of the
proceedings.
- Pardon is a private act of the Chief Executive thus,
the court will not take judicial notice of the pardon,
whereas amnesty is a public act of the Chief
Executive thus, courts take judicial notice of the
amnesty granted to the offender
- Pardon may be given to all kinds of offenders while
amnesty is generally granted to a class or a
community of offenders who have committed
political offenses
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME
- The loss or forfeiture of the right of the State to
prosecute an offender who has committed a
violation of the law. The moment the crime has
already prescribed, the State loses the right to
prosecute. Therefore, the only jurisdiction of the
court is to dismiss the case. The accused need not
move for the dismissal of the case. The judge must
motu proprio dismiss the case because there is
nothing to hear. The crime has already prescribed.
26 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
- The period of prescription of crime commences to
run from the time of the commission of the crime,
if it is known. If the time of the commission of the
crime is not known, the period will commence to
run from the time the offended party, the
authorities or their agents discovered the crime.
- The said running of the prescriptive period is
interrupted upon the filing of the case before the
office of the public prosecutor even if for the
purpose of preliminary investigation. So the
moment the private complainant files the
complaint with the public prosecutor, the running
of the prescriptive period is interrupted.
- An exception to this is when the crime committed
is involves the registration of title in real properties.
It is the registration of the sale, conveyance or
mortgage of the real property which constitutes a
notice to the whole world, which must be
considered as the start of the commencement of
the prescriptive period. Even if the offended party,
in reality, did not know that a crime has been
committed, from the moment there has been
registration, by virtue of constructive notice, the
running of the prescriptive period has
commenced.
- In the case of People v. Pangilinan, the Supreme
Court said whether it is a violation of a special
penal law like the BP 22 or a violation of the RPC,
the filing of a complaint before the office of the
public prosecutor suspends or interrupts the
running of the prescriptive period. It remains
suspended until the case has been decided the
accused being acquitted or convicted or the case
has been dismissed for any reason not imputable
to him.
- In the case of People v. Pangilinan, the CA used
the case of Zaldivia v. Reyes and ruled that the
violation of BP 22 has already prescribed because
according to the CA, in case of violation of special
penal laws, the running of the prescriptive period
is only interrupted upon the filing of the case
before the appropriate court because the Supreme
Court interpreted the word proceedings as
judicial proceedings in Zaldivia v. Reyes but the
SC said that the interpretation of the CA is
erroneous. SC said it is now settled in
jurisprudence that whether it is a violation of a
special penal law or a violation of the RPC, the
filing of the complaint with the public prosecutor
interrupts the running of the prescriptive period. In
Zaldivia v. Reyes, what is involved is a violation of
a municipal ordinance. It is only in case of violation
of municipal ordinance wherein the running of the
prescriptive period is interrupted upon the filing of
the complaint before the proper court.
ART. 90 PERIODS FOR THE PRESCRIPTION OF
CRIMES
20 years crimes punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or reclusion temporal
15 years crimes punishable by other afflictive
penalties
10 years crimes punishable by correctional
penalties, except arresto mayor (5 years)
1 year Libel and other similar offenses
6 months oral defamation and slander by deed
2 months light offenses
The husband chopped the deceased body of his wife
and placed it in different parts of the house. No one
knew of the incident except one of the children who
saw the incident but he preferred to keep silent about
it. 25 years thereafter, he divulged the said incident to
the authorities. Can the state still prosecute the said
offender?
Not anymore. Because the son witnessed the commission
of the crime. The son is an offended party because he is an
heir of the victim. The time for the prescription of the crime
has commenced to run from the time he witnessed its
commission and has prescribed 20 years thereafter.
But what if it is the neighbor who witnessed the crime?
Yes. The neighbor is not an offended party nor an authority
or an agent of the authorities. So even if she learns the
commission of the crime, the period has not yet
commenced to run.
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
The loss or forfeiture of the right of the state to execute the
final sentence imposed on the convict. The moment the
penalty has prescribed, the convict becomes a free man.
The state can no longer arrest him and make him suffer the
penalty imposed.
The running of the prescriptive period of the penalty
commences to run from the time the convict evaded the
service of his sentence. It is necessary that the convict is
already serving his sentence. And such convict escapes
and evades his service of sentence.
Art. 92 Prescriptive period of penalties
20 years Death and reclusion perpetua
15 years Other afflictive penalties
10 years - Correctional penalties, in ten years;
EXCEPT arresto mayor (5 years)
1 year Light penalties
The running of prescriptive period of penalties shall be
interrupted when the said offender:
27 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
Surrenders or gives himself up
Has been captured
Goes to some foreign country with which the
Government has no extradition treaty
Has committed a crime before the expiration of the
period of prescription.
X has been charged with the crime of homicide. It is a
bailable offense so X posted bail. After posting bail, X
is now on temporary liberty. During the arraignment, X
appeared. During the preliminary conference and the
marking of evidence, he also appeared. But on the
initial date of trial, X no longer appeared. He already
jumped bail hence, trial in absentia pursued. After the
trial, the judge convicted X. No appeal so judgment
became final and executory. The judge issued a
warrant of arrest. The police looked for X and cannot
find him. 30 years thereafter, they got a tip as to where
X was. X was placed behind bars. Here comes a
counsel for X filing for a petition saying that the penalty
has already prescribed. Is the contention of the said
counsel correct?
No. In fact, the running of the prescriptive period of the
penalty has not even commenced because X did not evade
the service of his sentence. He jumped bail. It is different
from evading the service of sentence. To amount to evasion
of service, it is necessary that the convict is already serving
sentence. In the problem, he was never placed behind bars.
The running of the prescriptive period has not even
commenced.
In the same problem, X was charged of homicide and
was found guilty of homicide. Judgment became final
and executory. He is now serving sentence. One time,
taking advantage of an opportunity, he escaped. The
prison guard tried to catch him and look for him but
failed to do so. 25 years thereafter, that is the only time
they learned of his whereabouts and the police placed
him behind bars. The counsel filed a petition for habeas
corpus, arguing that the penalty has already
prescribed. Is the counsel correct?
Yes. The penalty has already prescribed. From the time he
evaded the service of his sentence, it took the police officers
took 25 years to locate him. It is already too late. The
penalty has already prescribed.
SUBSEQUENT VALID MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE
OFFENDER AND THE OFFENDED PARTY
This only applies to one public crime, that is in case of rape.
Under Art. 266-C, the subsequent valid marriage between
the offender and the offended party extinguishes criminal
liability and even the penalty imposed by the court. So the
subsequent valid marriage would remit even the penalty
already imposed by the court.
This subsequent valid marriage as a mode of total
extinguishment of criminal liability is also applicable to
certain private crimes:
Seduction
Abduction
Acts of lasciviousness
In these 3 private crimes, the subsequent valid marriage
between the private complainant and the offender would
extinguish the criminal liability of the offender and under Art.
344, even the penalty already imposed. So even if the
offender is already convicted by final judgment and already
serving sentence, the moment that there is a valid marriage,
that valid marriage would remit even the penalty already
imposed by the court.
ART. 94 PARTIAL EXTINGUISHMENT OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
Conditional pardon
Commutation of sentence
Good conduct allowances
CONDITIONAL PARDON
An act of grace granted by the Chief Executive. However,
unlike an absolute pardon, a conditional pardon is subject
to strict conditions that the offender must comply with. If he
failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the
conditional pardon, he becomes liable for evasion of service
of sentence under Art. 159. It only partially extinguishes
criminal liability because it is subject to certain terms and
conditions.
COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
A new penalty is imposed in lieu of the original penalty
imposed. This new penalty shall now be suffered by the
offender. For example, death commutated to commutated
to reclusion perpetua it shall be reclusion perpetua which
must be executed against the offender.
GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCES
This is given by the director of prisons depending on how
the offender behaves while in prison. Art. 98 provides for
special allowance for loyalty. If in times of calamities,
earthquakes, typhoons, the said person convicted by final
judgment escaped from prison and within 48 hours from the
declaration of the Chief Executive that the calamity already
lapsed, he returned and gave himself up to the authorities,
there is a 1/5 deduction from his sentence. There is a
special allowance for loyalty because he already escaped
but still, he returned. So he is given a deduction of 1/5 from
his sentence.
If he stayed in the prison, he did not leave, there is a greater
deduction. He is given 2/5 deduction from the term of his
28 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos
sentence. Because Art. 98 in relation to Art. 128 has already
been amended by RA (nagclear ng throat si Pete di ko
narinig). He is more loyal because he did not leave the
penal institution despite the disorder or calamity.
In the case of Solidum v. People, the RTC convicted
Solidum but acquitted the two other doctors. However, the
CA held that it is not only Dr. Solidum who is civilly liable.
The Court of Appeals held that Ospital ng Maynila (OM) is
subsidiarily liable. The SC held that this decision of the CA
is wrong in two points: first, OM was not impleaded in the
information filed against the accused. OM is a juridical
entity. How can the CA impose civil liability on OM when it
was not even included in the case filed against Dr. Solidum?
Second, granting for the sake of argument that OM was
impleaded, still it cannot be subsidiarily liable because the
requisites for the subsidiary liability of the employers are not
present, first, there is no employer-employee relationship
because based on the evidence, Dr. Solidum is a consultant
and not an employee of OM. Second, OM is not engaged in
some kind of industry, it is a charitable institution that caters
a certain group, there is no profit. Lastly, granting that Dr.
Solidum was held liable for civil liability, there was no proof
that Dr. Solidum was insolvent such that OM will be
subsidiarily liable.
*see Paris Hilton, municipal ordinance and Vin Diesel
examples in the notes
ART. 104
RESTITUTION
Return of the thing itself, if it can be returned. Even if the
thing is in possession of an innocent purchaser for value
without prejudice to the action that the said innocent
purchaser may have against the other person. Exception, if
the innocent purchaser acquired the said property in a
public sale. Then, it can no longer be taken away from him.
REPARATION OF DAMAGES
If restitution is not possible, we have reparation of
damages. The judge shall impose against the accused
payment for the value of the thing together with the special
sentimental value to the owner thereof.
INDEMNIFICATION OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
Consists of moral damages, exemplary damages, actual
damages for the damages incurred by the offended party
and/or his heirs.
If there were 2 accused convicted, insofar as the civil
liability is concerned, it is the court which shall
determine the civil liability of the 2 accused.
What if the said offenders happen to be principals,
accomplices and accessories? How should the civil liability
be claimed? Each within their class shall be liable in solidum
or severally but among the classes, subsidiarily.
X, Y and Z were charged in the case of robbery. They
were all charged as principals. But the judge ruled that
X is a principal, Y is an accomplice and Z is a mere
accessory. The judge divided the civil liability
proportionately. Their liabilities among themselves are
in solidum. Against whom can the private complainant
recover said civil liability?
The private complainant can recover the entire civil liability
from X, the principal but X now has a right of action against
Y and Z insofar as their respective civil liabilities are
concerned. If X cannot pay, the private complainant can go
against Y. Y can now go against X and Z because their
liabilities are in solidum but subsidiary insofar as the private
complainant is concerned.
Civil liability is personal and cannot be extinguished by
pardon, amnesty, probation, commutation of sentence, etc.
Civil liability can only be extinguished in the same manner
as in Civil Law, by the extinguishment of obligations, i.e.,
payment, loss of the thing, remuneration, compensation*,
etc.
*mentioned by Prosec pero diba cannot be compromised if
arising from penal offense except if there was unjust refusal
to accept.
PROBATION LAW (PD 968)
-as amended and further amended by RA 10707 (Sept
2014)
* even if the offender is not disqualified or has no ground to
be disqualified which falls under the 9 enumerated grounds,
if according to the Judge, he deems it proper to deny the
said application for probation, such denial by the Judge is
not appealable as provided in sec 4 as amended. The grant
or denial of the application for probation is dependent on
the sound discretion of the Judge.
VILLAREAL v PEOPLE
Q: Where do you file the application for probation?
A: It must be filed before the trial court which heard, try and
decide the case. The grant of probation which was filed not
in the court of origin was rendered null and void by the SC
for lack of jurisdiction
29 | P a g e
 Criminal Law Review Book 1 (2016)
Bongalon | David | Garvida | Liwanag | Maranan | Melosantos | Mina | Navarez | Santos

*Probation does not affect the criminal liability of the

offender. It merely suspends the execution of the sentence.
It also does not affect the civil liability imposed on the
offender because the civil liability is personal.

*Appeal bars probation, and probation bars appeal. (Sec $

of P.D. 968) But Congress already amended this provision
in light with the ruling of COLINARES v. PEOPLE. The SC
held that the offender is entitled to the benefits of probation
and allow him to go back to the RTC and give him the
chance to apply for probation. The Court further held that, if
Colinares will not be given the chance to apply for
probation, in effect, it is the erroneous decision of the RTC
that would prevail over the correct decision of the SC.
(Attempted Homicide only)

Problem.

1. RTC rendered a decision with a non-probationable

penalty. CA affirmed the decision but modified the penalty
which is already probationable. The convict must be
allowed to go back to the court of origin and he can avail
the benefits of probation.

2. Lets say in the appellate court, the AC rendered a

decision with a probationable penalty. However, instead of
applying for probation, he appealed before the SC and the
SC affirmed the decision in toto. Can he still go back to the
trial court and apply for probation?

A: No. The moment the appellate court rendered a

probationable penalty, he must immediately go back to the
trial court and apply for probation. He is now deprived of his
right to apply for probation. So what we have now is a law
enforcing the decision in Colinares.

In the case of MORENO v COMELEC, the SC said that

probation is not equivalent to service of sentence. If the
convict was granted probation, it does not mean that he
already serve his sentence because the effect of probation
is to suspend the execution of the sentence.

30 | P a g e