CARLA MARTINEZ | JD

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | 1st YEAR 2ND SEM | 2020

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

1. Memorize by heart - Articles 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15; no excuses here;
2. For Justifying Circumstances:
a. Is there civil liability?
As provided by the penal law, Article 11 which provides the justifying circumstances do not have civil liability
as the act performed does not constitute a crime. However, the rule is not absolute. There is an exemption
which is the fourth circumstance which provides that any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does
not act which causes damage to another. Here, the civil liability is borne by the person benefited.

b. Who has the burden of proof to prove justifying circumstances and why.
The burden in proving the justifying circumstance is vested on the defense and incumbent upon the accused
in order to avoid criminal liability.

c. What are the rights included in self defense, defense of relatives and defense of strangers;
 Right to life
 Right to property acquired by us
 Right to honor

d. Meaning and kinds of unlawful aggression; retaliation; US vs Laurel and People vs Cabungcal; their
differences; People vs Cajurao (p. 162) and People vs Arellano (p. 163); People vs Alconga
 Unlawful Aggression – is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate or
imminent kind. There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s life, limb or right is either actual
or imminent. There must be actual physical force or use of weapon. It cannot consist in oral threats
or mere threatening stance or posture.
o Peril to one’s life,
o ~ limb; or
o ~ right
 Retaliation – refers to the counter attack given by the accused. Retaliation is different from self
defense as; as in the former, the aggression that was begun by the injured party has ceased to
exist while in the latter, the unlawful aggression was still existing.
Distinguish the cases of:
 US v Laurel -ACTUAL
o Here, Laurel stole a kiss from Concepcion Lat. Two nights after the incident, Laurel was
approached by Exequiel (sweetheart of Concepcion Lat) and asked why he kissed
Concepcion and told him he should have not done it; then, Exequiel gave Laurel a fist
blow, worried that Exequiel might give him another blows, he picked a pocket knife and
stabbed Exequiel in the left side of his breast.
o The defensive act by laurel was justified as there was unlawful aggression, reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it and lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of Laurel. The unlawful aggression here was actually used by physical force
against the victim.
 People v Cabungcal – IMMINENT
o Here, the accused invited several properties for a picnic in a fishery on his property in
Infanta, Tayabas. In the afternoon, visitors returned in two boats. There were nine persons
in the boat steered by the accused, majority of them were women. Upon reaching a place
of great depth, the deceased rocked the boat and started to take the water in. After
several warnings by the accused, the deceased continued to rock the boat which drew
scare to the passengers, which led the accused to struck the deceased with his oar. The
deceased fell into the water and was submerged, but a little while after appeared on the
surface, having grasped the side of the boat. The deceased threatened that he was going
to capsize the boat and started to move it; the accused struck him again with the same oar
and submerged the deceased and died.
o Here, the deceased put the lives of the boat passenger into imminent danger after rocking
the boat in the a place of great depth. The unlawful aggression was imminent by first
rocking the boat and subsequently threatening to capsize the boat and move it thereafter.
If not for the action of the accused, the boat would have sunk and take the lives of many
including the family of the accused. The action of the accused is justified.
 o In US vs. Laurel, the unlawful aggression by Exequiel was in actual using physical
force against Laurel. While, in People vs. Cabungcal, the unlawful aggression was
the action of accused by putting the lives of the passenger of the boat in danger.

 People vs Cacjurao (p162)

o
 People v Arellano

 People v Alconga

o There were two stages of fight. First, the deceased is the unlawful aggressor being the
one who repeatedly make blows to the deceased. Here, Alconga can invoke self-defense.
However, the deceased sustained several wounds and ran away. The accused, Alconga,
being virtually unscathed, followed the deceased and fatally wounded the deceased. On
the second fight, Alconga cannot invoke self-defense as the unlawful aggression made by
the deceased has ceased to exist.
o In a case where the deceased, who appeared to be the first aggressor, ran out bullets and
fled, and the accused pursued him and, after overtaking him, inflicted several wounds on
the posterior side of his body, it was held that in such a situation the accused should have
stayed in his hand, and not having done so he was guilty of homicide.
o However, if it is clear that the purpose of the aggressor in retreating is to take more
advantageous position to insure the success of the attack, the unlawful aggression is still
continuing.

e. What is "stand ground when in the right"; Rationale;

 Where the accused is where he has the right to be, the law does not require him to retreat when his
assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.
 The reason for the rule is that if one flees from an aggressor, he runs the risk of being attacked in
the back by the aggressor.

f. Defense of Right to Chastity - People vs De la Cruz and People vs Jaurigue;

 Defense of Right to Chastity on attempt to rape a woman.
o Embracing a woman, touching her private parts and her breasts, and throwing her to the
ground for the purpose of raping her in an uninhabited place when it was twilight,
constitute an attack upon her honor, therefore, an unlawful aggression.
 People v. Dela Cruz
o The accused, woman, was walking home with a party including the deceased, Franciso
Rivera. It was already dark; while far ahead from other people and passing the narrow
path, the deceased caught hold of her breasts, kissed her and touched her private parts.
He then started to throw her down. When the accused felt helpless, she got her pocket
knife and stabbed the deceased.

She was justified in making use of the knife in repelling what she believed to be an attack
upon her honor.

An imperiled woman may kill her offender if that is the only means left for her to protect
her honor from so grave an outrage.

 People v. Jaurigue
o The deceased was courting the accused in vain. One day, the deceased approached her
but the accused refused. Upon refusal, the deceased embraced and kissed her on
account of which the accused gave him fist blows and kicked him. Thereafter, the accused
armed herself a fan knife whenever she went out. One week after, while the accused is
inside the chapel, the deceased sit with her and placed his hand on the upper part of her
thigh. Accused, thereafter, pulled her fan knife and stabbed the deceased on the neck.

The means employed by the accused was excessive. The chapel was lighted and there
were several people, including her father as barrio lieutenant. Under the circumstances,
there was and there could be no possibility of her being raped.
 The SC apparently considered in this case the existence of unlawful aggression consisting
in the deceased’s placing his hand on the upper thigh of the accused. The accused was
not given the benefit of complete self-defense, because the means employed was not
reasonable. If the accused only gave him the fist blows or kicked him, she would have
been completely justified.

 The difference between Dela Cruz and Jaurigue case is that in the former there was a possibility of
the accused being raped on the circumstances that it was already dark, they are far from other
people, and she was thrown to the ground. While in Jaurigue, the unlawful aggression was
delivered in a well-lit place being accompanied by several people.

g. Defense of Property - People vs Apolinar; People vs Narvaez, GR Nos L-33466-67, April 20, 1983 (read
entire decision); differences between Apolinar and Narvaez;
 People v. Apolinar
o The accused fired on the man carrying a bundle on his shoulder inside his property.
Accused believed that the man had stolen his palay, the accused shouted for him to stop,
but the deceased did not stopped.

Defense of property is not of such importance as right to life, and defense of

property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with
an attack on the person of one entrusted with the said property.

 People and Narvaez; GR L-33466-67

o The accused was taking a nap in his house while he was awaken of the noise. His house
was being chiseled as the deceased (Davis and Rubia) and other laborer of Davis are
fencing on the disputed land. The land was allegedly owned by the father of Davis, but the
accused refused. Pending the case on the land ownership, the accused paid rentals just
to avoid remonstrations between them. The afternoon, while the accused was sleeping, he
heard noises and his house was chiseled. After several attempts in asking the aggressors
to talk everything over, Davis did not hear his pleadings and told his laborers to continue
the fencing. Accused fired at Davis with a shotgun; Rubia ran away to the jeep, knowing
that there may be a firearm in the jeep, accused shot Rubia.

The Court finds that there was an established unlawful aggression by the deceased.
However, the cause of action by the accused to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression
was excessive. Accused was given two counts of homicide with mitigating circumstance
as the accused voluntarily surrendered to the authorities after the incident.

 Diffirence bet. Apolinar and Narvaez

o The difference between Apolinar case and Narvaez case is that in the former there was no
established unlawful aggression, as the accused did not even catch the deceased stealing
crops from his property. While in Narvaez case, there was a clear unlawful aggression
shown by Davis and Rubia, as they are about to block the way of accused’s house and
the bodega used for his business from the highway. Clearly, in the latter there was a
defense of right to property, while in the former there was none.

h. Test of reasonableness of the means employed; test applied to ordinary people vs a peace officer
 Whether the means employed is reasonable by the aggressor, his physical condition, character,
size and other circumstances, and those of the person defending himself, and also the place and
occasion of the assault.
 Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability between
the means of attack and defense, What the law requires is ration equivalence, in the consideration
of which will enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person
attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than reason, that moves or impels the defense, and the
proprietary thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rest upon the imminent danger of
such injury.
 Application: Ordinary people v. Peace officer
o The peace officer, in the performance of his duty, represents the law which he must
uphold. While the law on self-defense allows a private individual to prevent or repel an
aggression, the duty of a peace officer requires him to overcome his opponent.
 o A police officer is not required to afford a person attacking him, the opportunity for
a fair and equal struggle.

i. People vs Del Pilar;

j. Battered Woman Syndrome (RA 9262); Salient points;
 Sec. 26 Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense - Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to
be suffering from battered women syndrome do not incur criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any elements for justifying circumstance of self-defense
under RPC.
 A battered woman – a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological
behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for
her rights. Battered woman include wives of women in any form of intimate relationship with men.
 In order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at
least twice.
k. Who are relatives; who are strangers;
 Relatives:
o Spouse
o Ascendants
o Descendants
o Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same
degrees
o Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree
 Stranger:
o Basis: the ordinary man would not stand idly by and see his companion killed without
attempting to save his life.
o Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives. Hence, even a close friend or
distant relative is a stranger.

l. Distinguish the 3rd requisites of self defense; defense of relative and defense of stranger;
 Defense of a relative 3rd requisite:
o In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense
had no part therein. This does not mean that the relative defended should give
provocation to the aggressor, This merely states an event which may or may not take
place. There is still a legitimate defense of a relative even if the relative being defended
has given the provocation, provided that the one defending such relative has no part in the
provocation.
o Reason for the rule: That although the provocation prejudices the person who gave it, its
effects do not reach the defender who took no part therein, because the latter was
prompted by some noble or generous sentiment in protecting and saving a relative.

 Defense of a stranger 3rd requisite:

o The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
o This Code requires that the defense of a stranger be actuated by a disinterested or
generous motive. The third requisite would be lacking if such person was prompted by his
grudge against the assailant, because the alleged defense of the stranger would be only a
pretext.

m. People vs Ricohermoso;
 When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance of
avoidance of a greater evil or injury.
 Here, Pio Ricohermoso with a bolo and Severo Padernal with an axe attacked Geminiano who was
wounded. Nearby, Juan embraced Marianito, Geminiano’s son, who had a gun slung on his
shoulder, and grappled with him. Geminiano died. Pio, Severo and Juan were prosecuted for
murder. Juan cannot invoke the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greter evil or injury in
explaining his act of preventing Marianito from shooting Pio and Severo. The act of Padernal in
preventing Marianito de Leon from shooting Pio and Severo was designed to ensure the killing of
Geminiano de Leon without any risk to the assailants.
 Even if Marianito was about to shoot Pio and Severo, his act, being in defense of his father, is not
an evil that could justifiably be avoided by disabling Marianito.

n. Doctrine of Self-Help;
  The instinct of self-preservation will always make one feel that his own safety is of greater
importance than that of another.
o. People vs Delima and People vs Lagata; differences; People vs Bentres; (Fulfillment of duty or lawful
exercise of right of office
 People v. Delima
o Here, a prisoner, Napilon, escaped from the jail where he was serving sentence.
Afterwards, policeman, Felipe Delima, who was looking for him, found the fugitive in the
house of Jorge Alegria. The fugitive was armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the
shape of lance. The policeman demanded his surrender but the fugitive answered with a
stroke of his lance. The policeman dodged it, and to impose his authority, he fired his
revolver, but the bullet did not hit him. The criminal ran away, without parting with his
weapon. The peace officer went after him and fired again his revolver, this time hitting and
killing him.

The killing was done in the performance of a duty. The deceased was under the obligation
to surrender, and had no right, after evading service of his sentence, to commit assault
and disobedience with a weapon in his hand.

 People v. Lagata
o Shooting of prisoner by guard must be in self-defense or be absolutely necessary to avoid
his escape
o Here, one of the prisoners was missing. So, the guard ordered the others to look for him.
The other prisoners scampered. Guard fired at the two of the prisoners, wounding one
(Abria) and killing the other (Tipace). His reason was to prevent the attempt of the
prisnoers to escape. Clearly, Abria was shot when he was only three meters away from
the guard and the defense has not even shown that Abria attempted to escape. Tipace
was also shot when he was about 4-5 meters away from the guard. Due to inconsistencies
on the testimonies and evidence presented, it is clear that the guard had absolutely no
reason to fire at Tipace. The guard could have fired at him in self-defense or if
absolutely necessary to avoid his escape.

 People v. Bentres
o Doctrine used: No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest
and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than in
necessary for his detention.
o Here, the security guard accosted a thief who had stolen ore in the tunnel of a mining
company. After several orders to stop the thief, the thief continued to flee. To show his
authority, the guard fired 4 times in the air but the thief did not stop even if he died. The
guard fired for the fifth time aiming the leg of the thief, but the bullet hit the thief in the
lumbar region which caused the death of the thief.
o The security guard acted in the performance of his duty, but he exceeded the
fulfillment of his duty by shooting the deceased.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Definition; basis; civil liability
 Definition: Exempting circumstances are those grounds for the exemption from punishment
because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act
voluntary or negligent.
 Basis: The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom
of action, or intent or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.
 Civil liability: All circumstances have civil liability except 4 and 7 because the accused performed
lawful activity.
2. Imbecility vs Insanity;
Imbecility Insanity
Meaning Advanced in age, has a mental Insane
development comparable to that
of children between 2 to 7 years
old.

Deprived completely of reason

 discernment or freedom of the
will at the time of committing the
crime.
Criminal Liability Exempt in all cases Generally, yes.

Exceptions: Acted during lucid

interval; accused is not
exempted

a. basis – complete absence of intelligence

b. Burden of proof to prove insanity – is a matter of defense that the accused was insane at the time of the
commission of crime; presumption is always in favor of sanity.
c. Tests of insanity
 That the accused be deprived of reason
 That he acts without the least discernment
 That there be a total deprivation of the freedom of the will

Evidence of insanity:
 Insane at the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its
execution
 Presumed to be sane:
o When the evidence points to insanity subsequent to the commission of crime
o When insanity is only occasional/intermittent in nature
o Person who has been adjudged insane, or which has been committed to a
hospital or to an asylum for the insane
d. Coverage of insanity
 Dementia praecox – most common form of psychosis (e.g. homicidal attack)
 Schizophrenia – formerly called dementia praecox; chronic mental disorder characterized by
inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality and often accompanied by hallucinations and
delusions.
- This can be recognizable through odd bizarre behavior apparent in aloofness or
periods of impulsive destructiveness and immature and exaggerated emotionally, often
ambivalently directed.
 Kleptomania – this must be investigated by competent alienist or psychiatrist to determine whether
the impulse to steal is irresistible or not.
 Epilepsy – chronic nervous disease characterized by fits, occurring at intervals, attended by the
conclusive motions of the muscles and loss of consciousness.
 Other cases of lack of intelligence
o Committing a crime while in a dream or somnambulism/sleepwalking
o Hypnotism (debatable)
o Committing a crime while suffering from malignant malaria.

Feeblemindedness not imbecility. Feebleminded can distinguish right from wrong.

Pedophilia not insanity; Pedophilia is a sexual disorder wherein the subject has strong, recurrent and
uncontrollable sexual and physical fantasies about children which he tries to fulfill, especially when there are
no people around.

Amnesia is not a proof of mental condition of the accused, unless it is shown by competent proof
that the accused did not know the nature and quality of his action and it was wrong.

3. Minority
a. Read Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (RA No. 9344), as amended by RA No. 10630
b. Child in conflict with the law – above 15 but below 18 years old;
c. Discernment – capacity of the child at the commission of the offense to understand the differences
between right and wrong.

Minor is presumed to have acted without discernment. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to
prove that the child acted with discernment
 d. Who determines age, rule: Based on RA 10630, a child is fifteen years old on the 15th anniversary of his
birthdate

Age of the child shall be determined according to the ff rules:

(1) Best evidence: original or certified true copy of certificate of live birth
(2) In the absence of the former, authentic documents such as baptismal certificates and school records, or
any pertinent records that shows the date of birth of the child
(3) In the absence of the aforementioned docs, the testimony of the child, testimony of a member of the
family related to the child by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting
pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the child.

e. Research on effects if child is:

 15yrs and under -absolute irresponsibility; no criminal liability; shall be surrendered to the parents
or if no parents to the closest relative; the child shall also undergo community-intervention program
 15 yrs and 1 day to under 18 yrs acted with or without discernment
o With Discernment: subject to appropriate proceedings in accordance with RA 10630.
Child in conflict with the law is required to undergo diversion after he/she is found
responsible for an offense without resorting to formal court proceedings.

“Diversion" refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the

responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social,
cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without resorting to
formal court proceedings.

System of Diversion:
Children in conflict with the law shall undergo diversion programs without undergoing
court proceedings subject to the conditions:
a) If imposable penalty not more than 6 years imprisonment – mediation, family
conferencing, conciliation
b) In victimless crimes where the imposable penalty is not more than 6 years – shall
meet with the child and parents or guardians for development of appropriate
diversion or rehabilitation
c) If imposable penalty for the crime committed exceeds 6 years imprisonment,
diversion measures may be resorted to only by the court.

o Without Discernment: exempt from criminal liability; undergo intervention program

f. Prepare your own flowchart

4. Accident;
a. requisites
 A person is performing a lawful act
 With due care
 He causes injury to another by mere accident
 Without fault or intention of causing it

b. US vs. Tanedo
 Here, the accused performed a lawful act as the gun accidentally recoiled and struck the tenant
while aiming at the wild chicken. He was not negligent or at fault because he was not in the
direction at which the accused fired his gun.

c. Accident vs negligence

Accident
Something that happens outside the sway of our
will, although it comes about through some act of
our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences
Negligence
Failure to observe, for the protection of interest of
another person, that degree of care, precaution
and vigilance which the circumstances justly
demand without such other person suffers.

If the consequences are plainly foreseeable

This presuppose the lack of intention to commit the
 wrong done

5. Irresistible force vs uncontrollable fear;

Irresistable Uncontrollable fear

The offender uses violence or physical force to The offender employs intimidation or threat in
compel another person to commit a crime compelling another to commit a crime

a. requisites
b. People vs Rogado
6. Insuperable cause
a. Requisites
b. US vs. Vicentillo
7. Justifying vs Exempting
8. Absolutory causes; kinds
9. Instigation vs Entrapment

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. Definition, basis and classes
2. Ordinary vs privilege vs specific mitigating
3. Incomplete justifying/exempting
a. Incomplete self defense, defense of relatives, defense of stranger
i. Unlawful aggression as an indispensable requisite. Relate to Art 69, RPC
ii. People vs Toring
b. Incomplete JC of performance of duty
i. People vs Oanis, in relation to Art 69, RPC
c. Incomplete EC on Minority in relation to RA 9344
d. Incomplete EC on accident
i. See effects of one or two requisites
e. Incomplete EC on uncontrollable fear
i. People v Magpantay
4. Minority (see RA 9344)
a. Intervention vs Diversion
5. So grave a wrong committed
a. Praeter intentionem
b. Tests indetermining the intention of the accused
c. When rule on praetem intentionem would not be applicable
6. Provocation
a. Requisites; see relatives included
b. Sufficiency of the provocation
c. People vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No 103613, Feb 23, 2001
d. Difference between sufficient provocation as a requisite of incomplete self-defense and as a mitigating
circumstance
7. Immediate vindication of a grave offense
a. Requistes
b. Meaning of grave offense
c. People v Parana; People v Diokno
d. Distinguish provocation from vindication
8. Passion or Obfuscation
a. Requisites
b. US vs. Hicks; US vs. De la Cruz; US vs Engay; US vs Yuman; People vs Bello; People vs Bates;
c. passion/obfuscation vs provocation vs irresistible force
9. Voluntary Surrender and Plea of Guilt
a. Requisites; spontaneous
b. People vs Gervacio; People vs Jereza; People vs Salvilla; People vs Brana;
c. The law does not require that the surrender be prior to the order of arrest; see cases cited
d. Time and place of surrender; see cited cases
e. Withdrawal of plea of not guilty and pleading guilty before presentation of evidence by prosecution is still mitigating
f. Effect of plea to an amended info and to a lesser offense
10. Deaf and Dumb
11. Illness vs Art 12, par 1
a. Requisites
12. Analogous; see examples cited

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (ACS):

1. Definition, basis and kinds (in other books, the 5th kind is special AC)
2. Generic vs Qualifying ACs
3. Whether there is a need to allege generic/qualifying ACs in the information? What is the effect if not alleged? See
Rule 110, Section 9, Rules of Criminal Procedure.
4. Different effects of ACs:
a. ACs which do not have the effect of increasing the penalty:
b. ACs which are personal to the offenders
c. ACs which depend for their application upon the knowledge of the offenders
d. People vs Fabros, G.R. No. 90603, 19 October 1992
5. Par. 1
a. Basis; requisites
b. See Article 62(1)(a), RPC
c. Meaning of "advantage be taken by the offender of his public position" - Influence, prestige and ascendency
d. US vs Torrida vs US vs Dacuycuy
e. Instances when it is an integral element or inherent in = not aggravating
f. US vs Cagayan
g. People vs Villamor
6. Par 2
a. Basis; requisites
b. Meaning of public authority; person in authority vs agent of a person in authority
c. People vs Magdueno, GR No L-68699, 22 September 1986
7. Par 3
a. Basis
b. Specific AC? People vs Pagal, L-32040, 25 October 1977
c. Meaning of "with insult or in disregard"
d. Meaning of rank; age and sex
e. People vs Ibanez; People v Valencia; People vs Lopez
f. Meaning of dwelling; People vs Magnaye; People vs Ompaid; People vs Talay; US vs Lastimosa
g. See cases when dwelling is not aggravating;
h. Dwelling in case of adultery; US vs Ibanez;
i. Provocation in dwelling; requisites
8. Par 4
a. Requisites for abuse of confidence
b. People vs Luchico; People vs Arthur Crumb
c. Obvious Ungratefulness
d. People vs Bautista
9. Par 5
a. Par 5, AC vs Par 2, AC
b. US vs Punzalan
c. People vs Anonuevo; People vs Dumol; People vs Jaurigue
10. Par 6
a. When agggravating - facilitate, specially sought for; took advantage of - read cases cited
b. Night time; definition
c. People vs Luchico; US vs Dowdell; US vs Paraiso; US vs Tampacan; People vs Bato
d. Uninhabited place; definition
e. People vs Fausto Damaso; People vs Ong; US vs Vitug
f. Band; definition; requisites
g. People vs Lungbos; Gamara vs Valero
h. Band is absorbed in abuse of superior strength; inherent in brigandage
11. Par 7
a. Calamity or misfortune: definition
b. People vs Arpa
12. Par 8
a. Basis; requisites
b.US vs Abaigarq; People vs Ilane
c. Band vs Aid of Armed Men
13. Par 9
a. Basis; requisites
b. People vs Lagarto; People vs Baldera
c. There is no recidivism if the second conviction is for an offense commiited before the offense subject of the first
conviction;
d. People vs Jaranilla
e. Effect of pardon vs amnesty
14. Par 10
a. requisites; see examples
b. People cs Villapando
c. Recidivism vs. Habituality vs Habitual delinquency vs quasi recidivism
15. Par 11.
a. Both the offeror and offeree
b. People vs Paredes
16. Par 12.
a. When generic, when qualifying
17. Par 13
a. Basis; Requisites
b. Essence of premedication
c. US vs Manalinde; People vs Renegado
d. Test for sufficient lapse of time; see cases cited
e. Compare People vs Guillen; People vs Timbol; US vs Caranto
f. Effect of conspiracy
18. Par 14
a. Definitions of craft, fraud and disguise
b. People vs Zea;People vs Guy
c. People vs Famador
d. Craft vs Fraud
e. People vs Cabato; People vs Cunanan
19. Par 15
a. Concept of "advantage taken";
b. US vs Devela; People vs Navarra; People vs Gatcho
c. Evidence of relative strength necessary - see cited cases
d. People vs Velez; People vs Penones
e. Band vs abuse of superior strength; People vs Apduhan
f. People vs Siaotong; People vs Ducusin

20. Par 16
a. Basis; Definition of treachery
b. See Rules regarding treachery and cases cited (Reyes' book)
c. Can treachery be presumed? See cited cases; exceptions
d. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted; see cited cases; when not present: see cited cases
e. Attack showing intention to eliminate risk; see cited cases
f. Requisites
g. Must treachery be present at the beginning of the assault? People vs Balagtas; People vs Canete; US vs Baluyot
h. What ACs are absorbed or inherent by or in tearchery?
i. Effect of conspiracy in treachery; see Article 62, paragraph 4; see also People vs Pareja
21. Par 17
a. Definition of ignomity
b. People vs Iglesia; People vs Camiloy; People vs Saylan; People vs Fernando; People vs Jose; People vs
Bumidang; People vs Carmina
22. Par 18
a. Unlawful entry - definition
b. People vs Sunga
23. Par 19
a. People vs Capillas
24. Par 20
a. People vs Cuadra; People vs Bardon; People vs Mil; People vs Real
25. Par 21
a. Definition of Cruelty; requisites
b. Cruelty refers to physical suffering of victim purposedly intended by the offender
c. People vs Mariquina;
d. People vs Curiano; People vs Pacris
26. ACs peculiar to certain felonies

Alternative Circumstances
1. Definition and basis
2. Relationship
a. What relationships are included; People vs Bersabal; People vs Lamberte
b. When is Relationship mitigating, exempting, aggravating; or not having effect at all; see cases cited
i. Crimes against property
ii. Crimes against persons
iii. Crimes against chastity
3. Intoxication:
a. When mitigating; when aggravating; see cited cases; People vs Boduso, GR No L-30450-51, 30 September 1974
b. Who is a habitual drunkard?
4. Degree of Instruction or Education
a. Concept; People vs Ripas; People vs Geronimo
b. When mitigating; exceptions; see cases cited
c. when aggravating
REPEAT: Memorize Articles 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES

1. Article 16 - Memorize
a. Rules on light felonies
b. Active vs passive subjects
c. Only natural persons can be subject of crime; qualifications
2. Article 17 - Memorize
a. Principal vs co-conspirator
 Principal – under any three caterhories enumerated in Art 17 of RPC; criminal liability is limited to
his own acts
 Con-conspirator – is also a principal is that while the former’s criminal liability, as a general rule,
includes the acts of his fellow conspirators.
3. Principal by direct participation – personally takes part in the execution of the act constituting the crime

a. Requisites to be considered as co-principals

1) Participated in the criminal resolution
2) That they carries out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly
tended to the same end.

b. Proof of conspiracy - proof of formal agreement is not necessary; but conspiracy must be proven by
positive and conclusive evidence;
 It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all the accused manifested by their acts a common
intent or desire to attack so that the act of one becomes the act of all (People v. Gupo)

Guilty co-principal:
1) Either by actively participating in the actual commission of the crime
2) By lending moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the scene of the
crime
3) By exerting moral ascendancy over the rest of the conspirators as to move them to
executing the conspiracy

People vs Mateo; People vs Catubig; People vs Carcedo; People vs Furugganan; People vs Cruz;
c. When there is no conspiracy, each of the offenders is liable only for the acts performed by him - People vs
Castillo – there being no conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention among the four, only Castillo who shot
Guariño to death was found guilty of murder qualified by treachery.

d. Participation in criminal resolution essential – the cooperation which the law punishes is the assistance
which is knowingly or intentionally given and which is not possible without previous knowledge of the
criminal purpose.
 People vs Ortiz and Zausa - the deceased asked for water from Ortiz and Zausa wounded the
deceased… Ortiz shall be acquitted because it appears that thre was no plan or agreement between Ortiz
and Zausa to carry out the attack;

Araneta Jr vs CA – the one who inflicted the mortal wound was convicted of murder while the
other, only of less serious physical injuries;

People vs Quiosay – Appellant flee after stabbing the deceased on the arm, while Mauricio, brother
or appellant, cut off the head of the deceased without the presence of appellant. The mere act of the
apeallant in stabbing the deceased once cannot conclusively prove conspiracy. It results that the appellant
should be answerable only for his individual act.

People vs Lacao – their respective liabilities shall be determined by the nature of their individual
participation in the felonious act.

e. Implied conspiracy – conspiracy shown by circumstances

People vs Manzano; - brothers and nephew has the common desire to avenge the wrong done to
their father (grandfather in the case of nephew), their going together at the victim;s house at lunchtime all
armed; their concerted beating of the victim act of bringing him to the yard of one of the borther’s house, with
said borther dragging the victim and the other two accused, thrsting their rifles t his bosy, thus showing that
he was their common captive.

People vs Saliling;
People vs Umbrero;
People vs Timbol (was Dalmacio Timbol convicted?)
f. Test of Unity of Purpose abd Unity of Intention. - People vs Damaso; People vs Delgado
g. See cited cases on the unity of purpose and unity of intention test - People vs Natividad
h. Effect when the crime is committed by a band.
i. Liability of participants when there is conspiracy - the act of one is the act of all, even if the acts are
radically and substantially different from that which they intended to commit. See cited cases
j. Rule: A conspirator is not liable for another's crime which is not an object of the conspiracy or which is not
a necessary and logical consequence thereof - see cited cases
k. In multiple rape, each rapist is equally liable for the other rapes; People vs Fernandez
l. Rule: the principals by direct participation must be at the scene of the crime petsonally taking part in its
execution; exception - People vs Santos; People vs Canumay; People vs Samano

4. Principals by induction
a. 2 ways of becoming principal by induction; 2 ways of forcing and 2 ways of inducing
b. Requisites; People vs Otadora; US vs Alcontin; US vs Indanan; People vs Castillo; People vs Canial;
c. Requisites on words of command; People vs Kiichi Omine; People vs Caimbre; People vs Lawas
d. Principal by inducement vs proposal
e. Effect of acquittal of principal by direct participation upon the liability of principal by inducement
5. Principal by indispensable cooperation (PIC)
a. Requisites
b. PIC vs Accomplice
c. Definition of "another act".
d. US vs Javier; US vs Lim Buanco
6. Article 18 - accomplices; memorize
a. Collective criminal responsibility vs quasi-collective criminal responsibility
b. Distinction between accomplice and conspirator - People vs Vera
c. Requisites
d. Meaning of Community of design - People vs Maliao; US vs Bello; People vs Lingad;
e. How an accomplice acquires knowledge of the criminal design of the principal - see instances and all cited cases
f. No knowledge - People vs Ibanez; People vs Flores; Carino vs People
g. US vs De Jesus; People vs De la Serna
h. Cooperation of accomplice is necessary (by previous or simultaneous acts) but not indispensable - People vs
Villegas; in case of doubt or of minor character - see cited cases; provided the wounds inflicted by the accomplice
should not have cause death to the victim (note the rules) - see cited cases
i. Relation between the acts of the principal and accomplice - People vs De la Cruz
j. Accomplice may be liable for a crime different from that which the principal committed
7. Article 19: Accessories - Memorize
a. People vs Verzola
b. Specific acts of accessories (3)
c. Par 3 - 2 classes
d. Public officers with abuse of his public functions; requisites
e. Private individuals; requisites
f. When the alleged principal is acquitted, may the accessory be convicted? See cited cases and discussion.
g. Accessory vs principal vs accomplice
7. Anti Fencing Law
a. See definition of terms; presumption on fencing
b. People vs Hon de Guzman, Dizon-Pamintuan vs People
8. Article 20 - memorize
a. Who are the relatives mentioned?
b. When exempt or not exempt even if principal is related?