Esguerra Updated Criminal Law I - Bar Review 2016

CRIMINAL LAW
REVIEW
Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

Fundamental Principles
BOOK I of the
Revised Penal Code
Definition of Criminal Law
Criminal law is that branch or division of municipal

law which:
1. defines crimes,
2. treats of their nature and
3. provides for their punishment (Justice Luis
B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book One
[Manila, Rex Bookstore, Inc., 2001], p. 1).
Mala in Se v. Mala Prohibita
Violations of the Revised Penal Code are
referred to as mala in se, which literally
means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or
per se wrongful. On the other hand, violations
of special laws are generally referred to as
mala prohibita (People v. Quijada, G.R. Nos.
115008-09, 24 July 1996).
Mala in Se v. Mala Prohibita
Note, however, that not all violations of special laws
are mala prohibita. While intentional felonies are always
mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in
violation of special laws are always mala prohibita.
Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the
act punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same
is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack
of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is the
product of criminal negligence or culpa (Arsenia Garcia
v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 157171, 14 March
2006).
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
(G.R. No. 148560, 19 November 2001)
Facts: Estrada is challenging the plunder law.

One of the issues he raised is whether plunder is a
malum prohibitum or malum in se.
Held: Plunder is a malum in se which requires

proof of criminal of criminal intent. Precisely because the
constitutive crimes are mala in se the element of mens
rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is
noteworthy that the amended information alleges that
the crime of plunder was committed “willfully, unlawfully
and criminally.” It thus alleges guilt knowledge on the
part of the petitioner.
A. State Authority to Punish Crime
Source of Authority: 1987 Constitution
Art. II - Declaration of Principles and State

Policies
Sec. 5. The maintenance of peace and
order, the protection of life, liberty and
property, and the promotion of the
general welfare are essential for the
enjoyment by all the people of the
blessings of democracy.
B. Sources of Criminal Law
1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)
and its amendments
2. Special penal laws passed by the

Legislature. Examples:
• R.A. No. 3019 - Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act
• R.A. No. 9165 - Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002
• R.A. No. 6539 - An Act Preventing and
Penalizing Carnapping
• R.A. No. 7080 - Plunder law
• R.A. No. 8049 – Anti-Hazing Law
B. Sources of Criminal Law
3. Penal presidential decrees during martial

law.
Examples:
• P.D. No. 532 - Anti-Piracy and Highway
Robbery Law
• P.D. No. 1612 - Anti-Fencing Law of 1972
C. Basic Principles of Criminal Law
5 Basic Principles:
1. Generality (WHO)
2. Territoriality (WHERE)
3. Prospectivity (WHEN)
4. Legality
5. Strict construction of penal laws against
the State
1. Generality (WHO)
The criminal law of the country governs

and applies to all persons in Philippine
Territory, regardless of nationality, age,
gender or other personal circumstances.
1. Generality (WHO)
Art. 14, New Civil Code
Penal laws and those of public security and safety
shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the
Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public
international law and to treaty stipulations.
• Example:
An American who visits the Philippines in order to
kill his Filipina girlfriend because of extreme
jealousy is still liable for murder although he is a
foreigner.
1. Generality (WHO)
Exceptions to the rule of Generality
1. Treaty stipulations
Example: Visiting Forces Agreement of 1998 (VFA)
- Article V (1) (b) United States military authorities shall
have the right to exercise within the Philippines all
criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them
by the military law of the US over US personnel in the
Philippines.
1. Generality (WHO)

2. Laws of preferential application
Example: Parliamentary immunity under Sec.

11, Art. VI of the Constitution - Members of the
Congress are immune from arrest for all offenses
punishable by not more than 6 yrs. imprisonment
while Congress is in session
1. Generality (WHO)
2. Laws of preferential application
Example: Principles of public international law
• Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal
laws by virtue of the principles of public
international law:
1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
2. Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary,
ministers resident, and charges d’affaires
(Ryes, p. 12).
• A consul is not entitled to the privileges and
immunities of an ambassador or minister
(Shneckenburger v. Moran, 63 Phil. 250).
1. Generality (WHO)
US v. Sweet (1901)
Facts: Sweet was an employee of the US army in the
Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for which he
was charged with the crime of physical injuries. Sweet
interposed the defense that the fact that he was an
employee of the US military authorities deprived the court
of the jurisdiction to try and punish him.
Held: The case is open to the application of the

general principle that the jurisdiction of civil tribunals is
unaffected by the military or other special character of the
person brought before them for trial, unless controlled by
express legislation to the contrary.
Art. 2, Revised Penal Code
GENERAL RULE:
The penal laws of the country have
force and effect only within its
territory. It cannot penalize crimes
committed outside the country’s
territory.
Art. 1, 1987 Constitution
• The territory of the country is not limited to the
land where its sovereignty resides but includes
also its maritime and interior waters as well as
its atmosphere.
•Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction
exercised over land.
•Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised
over maritime and interior waters.
•Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised
over the atmosphere.
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
of the RPC
Art. 2 (1): Crimes committed aboard
merchant vessels.
• The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if
the crime is committed while the ship is
treading
a. Philippine waters (intra-territorial
application), or
b. The High Seas i.e. waters NOT under the
jurisdiction of any State (extraterritorial application)
NOTE : The country of registry determines

the nationality of the vessel, NOT ITS
OWNERSHIP.
• For example, a murder committed by a Filipino
seaman aboard a Filipino-owned vessel
registered in China while it is sailing the high
seas is not cognizable by Philippine Courts.
Two rules on jurisdiction over crimes

committed aboard merchant vessels
while in the territorial waters of another
country, i.e. a foreign vessel treading
Philippine waters OR Philippine vessels
treading waters under the jurisdiction of
another state (Reyes, p. 28):
.
FRENCH RULE:
It is the FLAG/Nationality of the vessel which determines
jurisdiction UNLESS the crime violates the peace and
order of the host country.
ENGLISH RULE:
The location or situs of the crime determines jurisdiction
UNLESS the crime merely relates to internal
management of the vessel.
Note: The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH
RULE.
Illustration:
To smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though
aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of
the public order here established, because it causes
such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our
territory (People v. Wong Cheng, G.R. No. L-18924, 19
October 1922).
NOTE 2: Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over

offenses committed on board foreign warships in
territorial waters. Warships are always reputed to
be the territory of the country to which they belong
and cannot be subjected to the laws of another
state (U.S. v. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614).
NOTE 3: The Philippines subscribes to the Absolute

Theory of aerial jurisdiction.
• The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over
the atmosphere above it subject only to the innocent
passage by aircraft of a foreign country.
Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an

aircraft, no matter how high, as long as it can be
established that it is within the Philippine atmosphere,
Philippine criminal law will govern. (See Anti-hijacking
Law)
of the RPC
Art. 2 (2):
Forging/Counterfeiting and/or Introducing Coins or
Currency Notes in the Philippines
• Elements:
1. The forgery is committed abroad; and
2. it refers to Philippine coin, currency note,
obligation and security
of the RPC
Art. 2 (3):
When public officers or employees commit
an offense in the exercise of their functions.
NOTE:
The Revised Penal Code governs if the
crime (whether or not in relation to the exercise
of public functions) was committed within the
Philippine Embassy or within the embassy
grounds in a foreign country. This is because
embassy grounds are considered an extension
of sovereignty. Thus the crime is deemed to
have been committed in Philippine soil.
Illustration:
A Philippine consulate official who is validly
married here in the Philippines and who marries again
in a foreign country cannot be prosecuted here for
bigamy because this is a crime not connected with his
official duties. However, if the second marriage was
celebrated within the Philippine embassy, he may be
prosecuted here, since it is as if he contracted the
marriage here in the Philippines
of the RPC
Art. 2 (4): Commit any of the crimes against

national security and the law of nations, defined in
Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code.
Examples: Piracy, Treason, Espionage, etc.

Evangelista v. People (G.R. No. 163267, 5 May 2010)
Accused was charged of the crime of illegal possession

of firearms for bringing unlicensed firearms from Abu Dhabi
to the Philippines. He insisted that since Dubai is outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines, our criminal laws are
not applicable.
The Supreme Court ruled that in order for the courts to

acquire jurisdiction in criminal cases, the offense should
have been committed or any one of its essential
ingredients should have taken place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court. The accomplishment by accused
of the Customs Declaration Form upon his arrival at the
NAIA is “very clear evidence” that he was in possession of
the subject firearms when he entered the Philippines. Thus,
since he does not have any license for the firearms which
were proven to be in his possession when he arrived in the
Philippines, Evangelista’s conviction was affirmed.
RPC, Art.21. Penalties that may be

imposed.-
No felony shall be punishable by any

penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission.
GENERAL RULE:
Acts or omissions will only be subject to a

penal law if they are committed AFTER a
penal law had already taken effect.
An act or omission which has been committed

before the effectivity of a penal law could not be
penalized by such penal law because penal
laws operate only prospectively.
EXCEPTION:
Art. 22 provides for instances when an ex post facto
law is allowed or when penal laws may be given
retroactive effect.
RPC, Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. –

Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so
far as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is
not a habitual criminal, although at the time of the
publication of such laws a final sentence has been
pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
Ex post facto law is prohibited.
• Ex post facto law is one that is specifically made to

retroact to cover acts before it became effective to
the prejudice of the accused; or to make a certain
crime graver or prescribe a heavier penalty for it (In
The Matter Of The Petition For The Declaration Of
The Petitioner's Rights And Duties Under Sec. 8 Of
R.A. No. 6132, G.R. No. L-32485, 22 October
1970).
Different effects of repeal of penal law (Reyes, p. 14):
1. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law,
the new law shall be applied, except when the offender
is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is made
not applicable to pending action or existing causes of
action.
2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in

force at the time of the commission of the offense shall
be applied.
3. If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that

the act which was penalized under the old law is no
longer punishable, the crime is obliterated.
4. Legality
(nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege)
• There is no crime when there is no law punishing

the same.
RPC, Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed.

— No felony shall be punishable by any penalty
not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
4. Legality
It is a basic principle of criminal law that no person

should be brought within the terms of a penal statute
who is not clearly within them nor should any act be
pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by
the statute. (Bernardo v. People, G.R. No. L-62114, 5
July 1983)
5. Strict construction of penal laws

against the State
(The “Doctrine of Pro Reo”)
• Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied

and the law admits of two interpretations - one
lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender,
that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the
offender will be adopted (Intestate Estate Of
Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong, v. People,
G.R. No. 181409, 11 February 2010).
5.Strict construction of penal laws
against the State
(The “Doctrine of Pro Reo”)
1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14(2):

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved x x x.
Constitutional Limitations on the Power of
Congress to enact Penal Laws
1. Equal Protection
No person or class of persons shall be deprived

to the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed
by other persons or other classes in the same place
and in like circumstances. For classification to be
reasonable, it must:
(a) Rest on substantial distinctions;
(b) Germane to the purpose of the law;
(c) Not limited to existing conditions only;
(d) Apply equally to all members of the same
class (Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 183891, 19
October 2011).
2. Due Process
In criminal proceedings, due process requires that
the accused be informed why he is being proceeded
against and what charge he has to meet, with his
conviction being made to rest on evidence that is not
tainted with falsity after full opportunity for him to rebut
it and the sentence being imposed in accordance with
a valid law. It is assumed, therefore, that the court that
renders the decision is one of competent jurisdiction
(Ang Tibay v. CA, 69 Phil. 635).
Constitutional Limitations on the Power
of Congress to enact Penal Laws
3. Non-imposition of cruel and

unusual punishment or excessive
fines
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,

degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua
(Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 19).
Constitutional Limitations on the Power
of Congress to enact Penal Laws
3. Non-imposition of cruel and

unusual punishment or excessive
fines
The imposition of the penalty of death is

prohibited. Accordingly, R.A. No. 8177 (Act Designating
Death by Lethal Injection) is repealed. R.A. No. 7659
(Death Penalty Law) and all other laws, executive orders
and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty,
are repealed or amended accordingly (Sec. 1 of R.A.
No. 9346, otherwise known as “An Act Prohibiting The
Imposition of Death Penalty in The Philippines”).
4. Bill of Attainder
A statute becomes a bill of attainder when it applies

either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable
members of a group inflicting punishment on them
amounting to a deprivation of any right, civil or political,
without judicial trial. Stated otherwise, the singling out
of a definite class, the imposition of a burden on it, and
a legislative intent, suffice to stigmatize a statute as a
bill of attainder (Montenegro v. Castañeda, 91 Phil.
882).
5. Ex post facto law
Ex post facto law is one which:
(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of

the law and which was innocent when done, and
punishes such an act;
(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was,

when committed;
(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater

punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
committed;
(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes

conviction upon less or different testimony than the law
required at the time of the commission of the offense;

(5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only,
in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful; and
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some

lawful protection to which he has become entitled,
such as the protection of a former conviction or
acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. (In Re Kay
Villegas Kami, Inc., G.R. No. L-32485, 22 October
1970).
Felonies
A. Differentiating Felonies, Offense,
Misdemeanor and Crime
FELONY
The term felony is limited only to violations of the
Revised Penal Code. When the crime is
punishable under a special law you do not refer
to this as a felony.
OFFENSE
A crime punished under a special law is called a
statutory offense.
A. Differentiating Felonies, Offense,
Misdemeanor and Crime
MISDEMEANOR
A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation
of an ordinance.
CRIME
Whether the wrongdoing is punished under
the Revised Penal Code or under a special
law, the generic word “crime” can be used.
B. Elements of a Felony
Art. 3, RPC. Definitions.

— Acts and omissions punishable by law are
felonies (delitos).
• Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit

(dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa) (1st par.)
• There is deceit when the act is performed with

deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful
act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill (2nd par.).
1. There must be an act or omission;
2. That the act or omission must be

punishable by the RPC; and
3. That the act is performed or the

commission incurred by means of dolo
or culpa (RPC, Art. 3).
ACTUS REUS/PHYSICAL ACT
 To be considered as a felony, there must be an act

or omission;
 An act refers to any kind of body movement that

produces change in the outside world.
 A mere imagination no matter how wrong does not

amount to a felony.
OMISSION
• It is the failure to perform a duty required by law.
•It is important that there is a law requiring the

performance of an act. If there is no positive duty, there
is no liability.
•Examples: failure to render assistance, failure to issue

receipt or non disclosure of knowledge of conspiracy
against the government
Art. 3, RPC
HOW COMMITTED:
1. INTENTIONAL (by means of deceit

or dolo)
2. CULPABLE (by means of fault /

culpa)
INTENTIONAL
The offender, in performing the act or incurring the

omission, has the intention to cause an injury to
another.
The word “deceit” in par. 2 of Art. 3 is not the proper

translation of the word “dolo”. Dolus is actually
equivalent to malice which is the intent to do an injury
to another (Reyes, p. 35).
INTENTIONAL
REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE
1. freedom – that the act or omission was voluntary
and without external compulsion.
2. intelligence – knowledge needed to determine
the morality and consequences of an act. The
imbecile, insane and minors have no criminal
liability.
3. intent – intent to commit the act with malice, being
purely a mental process, is presumed and the
presumption arises from the proof of the
commission of the unlawful act (Reyes, pp. 38-
39).
INTENTIONAL
• Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the
use of intelligence (Reyes, supra.).
• The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of

a person (Reyes, supra.).
• Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of

an unlawful act BUT the presumption of criminal
intent does not arise from the proof of the
commission of an act which is not unlawful (Reyes,
supra.).
INTENTIONAL
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
• “the act itself does not make a man guilty unless
his intention were so”
• A crime is not committed if the mind of the
person performing to act complained be
innocent.
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus

• “an act done by me against my will is not my
act” (U.S. v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 499)
INTENTIONAL
INTENT V. MOTIVE
• MOTIVE is the moving power which impels one to

action for a definite result.
• INTENT is the purpose to use a particular means to

effect such result (Reyes, p. 57).
INTENT V. MOTIVE
• Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and

hence, need not be proved for purposes of
conviction (People v. Aposaga, No. L-32477, 30
October 1981).
• Motive is essential only when there is doubt as to

the identity of the assailant. It is immaterial when the
accused has been positively identified (People v.
Gadiana, G.R. No. 92509, 13 March 1991).
• Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a

conviction but lack of motive may be an aid in
showing the innocence of the accused (People v.
Corput, 107 Phil 44, 49).
INTENTIONAL
MISTAKE OF FACT
It is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the
person who caused injury to another. He is not, however,
criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal
intent (Reyes, p. 42).
Requisites:
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the
facts been as the accused believed them to be.
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act
should be lawful
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness
on the part of the accused (Reyes, p. 43).
INTENTIONAL
MISTAKE OF FACT
United States v. Ah Chong

(G.R. No. L-5272, 19 March 1910)
A houseboy who stabs his roommate in the dark,
honestly mistaking the latter to be a robber responsible
for a series of break-ins in the area, and after crying out
sufficient warnings and believing himself to be under
attack, cannot be held criminally liable for homicide.
Stabbing the victim whom the accused believed to be
an intruder showed a mistake of fact on his part which
led him to take the facts as they appear to him and was
pressed to take immediate action.
CULPABLE
RPC, Art. 365, par. 7:

Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but
without malice, doing or failing to do an act from where
material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack
of precaution on the part of the person performing or
failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree of intelligence
physical condition and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of
precaution displayed in those cases in which the
damage impending to be cause is not immediate nor
the danger clearly manifest.
CULPABLE
Requisites of culpa:
1. freedom
2. intelligence
3. imprudence, negligence or lack of foresight and
skill (Reyes, pp. 48-49).
• In culpable felonies, the injury caused to another

should be unintentional, it being simply the incident
of another act performed without malice (Reyes, p.
49).
Artemio Villareal v. People
(G.R. No. 151258, 1 February 2012)
Held: The Court is constrained to rule against the trial

court’s finding of malicious intent to inflict physical injuries on
Lenny Villa, there being no proof beyond reasonable doubt of
the existence of malicious intent to inflict physical injuries x x
x. The absence of malicious intent does not automatically
mean, however, that the accused fraternity members are
ultimately devoid of criminal liability. The Revised Penal
Code also punishes felonies that are committed by means of
fault (culpa). According to Article 3 thereof, there is fault
when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence,
lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
(This ruling shall be interpreted without prejudice to the
applicability of the Anti-Hazing Law to subsequent cases.)
WRONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM THAT
INTENDED (ART. 4, PAR. 1)
• One who commits an intentional felony is responsible

for all the consequences which may naturally and
logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or
intended or not.
• Rationale:
“el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal
causado”
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the
evil caused”
• The felony committed must be the proximate

cause of the resulting injury.
Proximate Cause is “that cause, which, in natural

and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have occurred” (Bataclan v.
Medina, 102 Phil. 181, 186, quoting Am. Jur. 695).
The causes which may produce a result different from

that which the offender intended are:
1. ERROR IN PERSONAE – mistake in the identity of

the victim; injuring one person mistaken for another
(this is a complex crime under Art. 48)
2. ABERRATIO ICTUS – mistake in the blow, that is,

when the offender intending to do an injury to one
person actually inflicts it on another; and
The causes which may produce a result different from

that which the offender intended are:
3. PRAETER INTENTIONEM – the act exceeds the

intent, that is, the injurious result is greater than that
intended.
• The felony committed must be the proximate cause

of the resulting injury.
C. Impossible Crime
Criminal liability shall be incurred by

any person performing an act which
would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4,
par. 2).
C. Impossible Crime
REQUISITES (Reyes, p. 81):
1. That the act performed would be an offense

against persons or property.
FELONIES AGAINST PERSONS: Parricide,

Murder, Homicide, Infanticide, Abortion, Duel,
Physical Injuries, Rape
FELONIES AGAINST PROPERTY: Robbery,

Brigandage, Theft, Usurpation, Culpable
Insolvency, Swindling and other deceits, Chattel
Mortgage, Arson and other crimes involving
destruction, Malicious Mischief
C. Impossible Crime
REQUISITES:
2. That the act was done with evil intent.

The offender must have intent to do injury to
another.
3. That its accomplishment is inherently

impossible, or that the means employed is
either inadequate or ineffectual.
C. Impossible Crime
“That its accomplishment is inherently impossible,
or that the means employed is either inadequate
or ineffectual.”
a. the commission of the offense is inherently

impossible of accomplishment
• The act intended by the offender is by its nature one
of impossible accomplishment.
• There must either 1) LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY, or 2)
PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY
• examples:
1) when one tries to kill another by putting in his
drink a substance which he believes to be arsenic
when in fact it is common salt;
2) when one tries to murder a corpse.
C. Impossible Crime
“That its accomplishment is inherently impossible,
or that the means employed is either inadequate
or ineffectual.”
b. the means employed is either inadequate or

ineffectual
• example: when one tries to poison another but the

quantity of arsenic added in his substance was not
sufficient to kill a person
• However: where the means employed is adequate

and the result expected is not produced, it is not an
impossible crime, but a frustrated felony.
C. Impossible Crime
ATTEMPTED OR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
FRUSTRATED
The evil intent of the offender is not accomplished
The evil intent of the offender The evil intent of the
is possible of offender cannot be
accomplishment accomplished
The evil intent cannot be The evil intent of the
accomplished because of the offender cannot be
intervention of certain cause accomplished because it is
or accident in which the inherently impossible of
offender had no part accomplishment or
because the means
employed by the offender
is inadequate or ineffectual
C. Impossible Crime
Intod v. CA (G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992)
Facts: Intod et al. went to Palangpangan’s

house, all armed with firearms. They went to the
bedroom and began firing their weapons. However,
Palangpangan was in another city and her home was
occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was
in the room when the accused fired their weapons.
RTC convicted the accused of attempted murder.
Held: The accused is guilty of an impossible

crime. The factual situation in the case presents a
physical impossibility which rendered the intended
crime impossible of performance.
C. Impossible Crime
Why is an impossible crime punishable?
It is punishable in order to suppress criminal

tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not
committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal
(Reyes, p. 85).
C. Impossible Crime
• Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to
commit the crime because the means employed
or the aims sought are impossible –
When the person intending to commit an offense
has already performed the acts for the execution of
the same but nevertheless the crime was not
produced by reason of the fact that the act intended
was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment
or because the means employed by such person are
essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by
him, the court, having in mind the social danger and
the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall
impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a
fine from 200 to 500 pesos (Article 59).
D. Stages of Execution
Article 6, RPC:
x x x A felony is consummated when all the
elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when
the offender performs all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences
the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and
does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
other than this own spontaneous desistance.
OVERT ACT – some physical activity or deed,

indicating the intention to commit a particular crime,
more than a mere planning or preparation, which if
carried to its complete termination following its natural
course, without being frustrated by external obstacles
nor by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense
(Reyes, p. 94).
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE – It is one where the

purpose of the offender in performing an act is not
certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is
ambiguous (Reyes, p. 97).
SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE PHASES OF FELONY:
SUBJECTIVE PHASE (Reyes, p. 101)

- That portion of the execution of the crime starting from
the point where the offender still has control over his acts.
- If the offender reaches the point where he has no more
control over is acts, the subjective phase is passed.
- If it is already passed but the felony is not produced, it is
frustrated.
OBJECTIVE PHASE
- the result of the acts of execution, that is, the
accomplishment of the crime.
- If the subjective and objective phases are present, there
is consummated felony.
ATTEMPTED FELONY
Elements:
1. The offender commences the commission of the
felony directly by overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony;
3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own
spontaneous desistance; and
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was
due to cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
FRUSTRATED FELONY
Elements:
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution;
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence;
3. But the felony is not produced;
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
• In frustrated felony, the offender must perform all the

acts of execution. Nothing more is left to be done by
the offender, because he has performed the last act
necessary to produce the crime.
FRUSTRATED FELONY v. ATTEMPTED FELONY
• In both, the offender has not accomplished his

criminal purpose.
• In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the

acts of execution which would produce the felony as
a consequence. In attempted felony, the offender
merely commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts and does not perform all the
acts of execution (Reyes, p. 108).
CONSUMMATED FELONY
Requisites:
1. All the acts of execution are present; and
2. The result is achieved.
• Every crime has its own elements which must all be

present to constitute a culpable violation of a precept
of law.
DETERMINING WHETHER THE FELONY IS
ATTEMPTED, FRUSTRATED OR CONSUMMATED
(Reyes, pp. 110-118)
1. the nature of the offense

Example: In arson, it is not necessary that the property
is totally destroyed by fire. The crime of arson is
therefore consummated even if only a portion of the wall
or any other part of the house is burned.
2. the elements constituting the felony

Example: In theft, the mere removal of the personal
property belonging to another with intent to gain is
sufficient to consummate the offense.
In estafa, the offended party must actually be prejudiced
or damaged.
3. the manner of committing the crime
formal crimes – those which are consummated by a

single act (ex. Slander, adultery)
 There can be no ATTEMPT in a formal crime.
crimes consummated by mere attempt

(ex. Attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason)
 There is no ATTEMPTED crime because the
overt act in itself consummates the crime.
felonies by omission
There can be no attempted stage because the
offender does not execute acts. He omits to perform
an act which the law requires him to do.
crimes committed by mere agreement

The offer made by one of the parties to the other
constitutes attempted felony, if the offer is rejected.
material crimes
There are three stages of consummation: attempted,
frustrated and consummated.
• Rape is either attempted or consummated. There

can be no frustrated rape. (People v. Aca-ac, G.R.
No. 142500, 20 April 2001).
• Rape is consummated “by the slightest

penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of
either labia of the pudendum by the penis” (People v.
Campuhan, 329 SCRA 270, 282 [2000]).
• There is no crime of frustrated theft. Theft is already
“produced” upon the “taking of personal property of
another without the latter’s consent.” There was no
need for permanency in the taking or in its intent, as
the mere temporary possession by the offender or
disturbance of the proprietary rights of the owner
already constituted apoderamiento (Valenzuela v.
People, G. R. No. 160188, 21 June 2007).
• The settled rule is that where the wound inflicted on

the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime
is only attempted murder, since the accused did not
perform all the acts of execution that would have
brought about death (People v. Valledor, G.R. No.
129291, 3 July 2002).
• Accused is guilty of attempted robbery with
homicide only when he commenced the
commission of robbery directly by overt acts and did
not perform all the acts of execution which would
produce robbery by reason of some causes or
accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance (People v. Barra, G.R. No. 198020, 10
July 2013).
• If the evidence failed to convince the court that the

wound sustained would have caused the victim’s
death without timely medical attention, accused
should be convicted of attempted murder and not
frustrated murder (People v. Labiaga, G.R. No.
202867, 15 July 2013).
E. Conspiracy and Proposal
Article 8, RPC:
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony
are punishable only in the cases in which the
law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit
it.
There is proposal when the person who
has decided to commit a felony proposes its
execution to some other person or persons.
CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.
INDICATIONS OF CONSPIRACY
For a collective responsibility among the accused
to be established, it is sufficient that at the time of the
aggression, all of them acted in concert, each doing
his part to fulfill their common design to commit the
felony (Reyes, p. 124).
CONSPIRACY
REQUISITES OF CONSPIRACY (Reyes, pp. 126-127):
1. That two or more persons came to an agreement:

Agreement presupposes meeting of the minds of
two or more persons
2. That the agreement concerned the commission

of a felony; and
The agreement must refer to the commission of a
crime. It must be an agreement to act, to effect, to bring
about what has already been conceived and determined
CONSPIRACY
REQUISITES OF CONSPIRACY
3. That the execution of the felony be decided upon.

The conspirators have made up their minds to
commit the crime. There must be a determination to
commit the crime of treason, rebellion or sedition.
• Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy,

and may be inferred from the collective acts of the
accused before, during and after the commission of the
crime (People v. Buntag, G.R. No. 123070, 14 April
2004).
PROPOSAL
REQUISITES OF PROPOSAL (Reyes, p. 128):
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony; and
2. That he proposes its execution to some other person
or persons.
• There is no criminal proposal when (Reyes, p. 128):

• The person who proposes is not determined to
commit the felony.
• There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal.
• It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
Conspiracy and/or proposal is punishable in the
following cases:
1. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason;
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat,
rebellion or insurrection;
3. Conspiracy to commit sedition;
4. Conspiracy or combination in restraint of trade;
5. Conspiracy to commit arson;
6. Conspiracy to commit terrorism; and
7. Conspiracy to commit importation, sale, trading,
administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution,
transportation, manufacture, cultivation of dangerous
drugs and maintenance of a den, dive or resort where
any dangerous drug is used in any form.
People v. Seraspe (G.R. No. 180919, 9 January 2013)
Appellant questions the lower courts’ finding of

conspiracy between her and her co-accused. She claims
that the shabu was not even found in or recovered from her
possession. It just so happened that she was in the area
during the delivery of the drugs.
An accepted badge of conspiracy is when the accused

by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one
part and another performing another so as to complete it
with a view to the attainment of the same object. Also, their
acts, though apparently independent, were in fact
concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of
personal association, concerted action, and concurrence of
sentiments. Here, accused was found guilty of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs.
People v. Salvador (G.R. No. 201443, 10 April 2013)
Conspiracy transcends companionship. Mere

presence at the locus criminis cannot by itself be a
valid basis for conviction, and mere knowledge,
acquiescence to, or agreement to cooperate, is not
enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy,
absent any active participation in the commission of the
crime.
In a conspiracy to commit the crime of kidnapping for

ransom, the place where the victim is to be detained is
logically a primary consideration. The accused’s
ownership of the safehouse, and visits to bring food to the
victims reasonably indicate that they were among those
who at the outset planned, and thereafter concurred with
and participated in the execution of the criminal design.
Zapanta v. People (G.R. No. 192698-99, 22 April 2015)
To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason

of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an
overt act in furtherance of the complicity. Conspiracy can
be inferred from, and established by, the acts of the
accused themselves when said acts point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action and community of
interests. What is determinative is proof establishing that
the accused were animated by one and the same
purpose. There must be intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common
design and purpose.
F. Multiple Offenders
Recidivism under Article 14 (9) —The offender at
the time of his trial for one crime shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another
embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.
Repetition or reiteracion under Article 14 (10) —

The offender has been previously punished for an
offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches
a lighter penalty.
F. Multiple Offenders
Habitual delinquency under Article 62 (5)—The
offender within a period of 10 years from the date of
his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious
or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or
falsification, is found guilty of any of the said crimes a
third time or another.
Quasi-recidivism under Article 160— Any person

who shall commit a felony after having been convicted
by final judgment before beginning to serve such
sentence or while serving such sentence shall be
punished by the maximum period prescribed by law
for the new felony.
G. Continuing Crimes
A continued crime is a single crime consisting of

a series of acts but all arising from one criminal
resolution. It is a continuous, unlawful act or series
of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated
by an unintermittent force, however long a time it
may occupy. Although there are series of acts, there
is only one crime committed. Hence, only one
penalty shall be imposed (Mallari v. People, G.R.
No. L-58886, 13 December 1988).
Mallari v. People
(G.R. No. L-58886, 13 December 1988)
A comparison of the Informations filed in the two cases

under consideration as well as the findings of facts of the
appellate court tells us that they refer to the same series of
acts. These series of acts amount to what is known in law as a
continued, continuous or continuing offense.
The crime of estafa thru falsification of public

document committed by Consuelo Mallari, although
consummated through a series of acts, was 'set on foot' by the
single intent or impulse to defraud Remegio Tapawan of a total
amount of P3,000.00. And contrary to the appellate court's
observation, there was only one deceit practiced by petitioner
on the two (2) victims, i.e. that being in need of money,
Leonora Balderas was willing to mortgage two (2) lots as
security for a loan of P3,000.00.
G. Continuing Crimes
REAL OR MATERIAL CONTINUED CRIME

PLURALITY
There is a series of acts performed by the
offender.
Each act performed by The different acts
the offender constitutes constitute only one
a separate crime crime because all of
because each act is the acts performed
generated by a criminal arise from one criminal
impulse. resolution.
G. Complex Crimes and Special
Complex Crimes
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious
crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period.
TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES

1. COMPOUND CRIME - When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies
2. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER - When an
offense is a necessary means for
committing the other.
Complex Crimes
COMPOUND CRIME
REQUISITES (Reyes, p. 651) :

1. That only a SINGLE ACT is performed by the
offender
2. That the single acts produces (a) 2 or more grave
felonies, or (b) one or more grave and one or more
less grave felonies, or (c) two or more less grave
felonies
Complex Crimes
COMPOUND CRIME
• Light felonies produced by the same act should be

treated and punished as separate offenses or may
be absorbed by the grave felony. (Ex. When the
crime is committed by force or violence, slight
physical injuries are absorbed.)
• Example of compound crime:

Where the victim was killed while discharging
his duty as barangay captain to protect life and
property and enforce law and order in his barrio, the
crime is a complex crime of homicide with assault
upon a person in authority (Reyes, p. 655).
Complex Crimes
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER
REQUISITES (Reyes, p. 659) :

1. That at least two offenses are committed;
2. That one or some of the offenses must be
necessary to commit the other; and
3. That both or all the offenses must be punished
under the same statute.
• The phrase “necessary means” does not mean

“indispensable means”
• In complex crimes, when the offender executes
various acts, he must have a single purpose.
Complex Crimes
• Special complex crimes are those which are
treated as single indivisible offenses, although
comprising more than one specific crime and with
specific penalty.
• Examples:
1. Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294 (1))
2. Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2))
3. Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Art.
267 (3))
4. Rape with Homicide (Art. 335)
Circumstances
Affecting Criminal
Liability
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
1. Self Defense: Anyone who acts in defense of

his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur (Art. 11, par .1):
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means

employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part

of the person defending himself.
• For self-defense to be successfully invoked, it must
be proven by clear and convincing evidence that
excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the
part of the person invoking it. (People v. Bosito,
G.R. No. 209346, 12 January 2015)
• For the element of unlawful aggression to be

present, there must be an actual physical assault,
or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury
upon a person. It presupposes actual, sudden,
unexpected, or imminent danger—not merely
threatening and intimidating action. It is present
only when the one attacked faces real and
immediate threat to one’s life (Sombol v. People,
G.R. No. 194564, 10 April 2013).
• Relating to the second element constituting

self-defense, the means employed by a
person claiming self-defense must be
commensurate to the nature and extent of
the attack sought to be averted. It must also
be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an
unlawful aggression (Flores v. People, G.R.
No. 181354, 27 February 2013).
• The number, nature, and gravity of the

wounds sustained by the aggressor will
reveal the validity of the accused’s claim of
self-defense. (People v. Bosito, G.R. No.
209346, 12 January 2015)
2. Defense of Relatives: Any one who acts in

defense of the person or rights of his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural
or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives x
x x (Art. 11, par. 2).
RELATIVES THAT CAN BE DEFENDED:

1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same
degrees.
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree.
REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVES:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to

prevent or repel it;
3. In case the provocation was given by the person

attacked, the one making a defense had no part
therein.
3. Defense of Stranger: Anyone who acts in

defense of the person or rights of a stranger (Art.
11, par. 3).
REQUISITES:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it;
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive.
4. Avoidance of a Greater Evil: Any person

who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not
act which causes damage to another (Art. 11, par.
4).
REQUISITES:
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done
to avoid it;
3. That there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it.
5. Fulfillment of a Duty or Lawful Exercise Of

Right or Office: Any person who acts in the
fulfilment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office (Art. 11, par. 5).
REQUISITES:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed
be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such
right or office.
6. Obedience to an Order Issued for Some

Lawful Purpose: Any person who acts in
obedience to an order issued by a superior for
some lawful purpose (Art. 11, par. 6).
REQUISITES:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior.
2. That such order must be for some lawful
purpose.
3. That the means used by the subordinate to
carry out said order is lawful.
Justifying Circumstances
Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children
Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9262)
Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. –

Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be
suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur
any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code.
Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)
1. An Imbecile or Insane Person: An imbecile or

an insane person, unless the latter has acted
during a lucid interval (Art. 12, par. 1).
IMBECILE
• one who, while advanced in age, has a mental
development comparable to that of children between
2 and 7 years of age.
• one who is deprived completely of reason or
discernment and freedom of the will at the time of
committing the crime.
• exempt in all cases from criminal liability
1. An Imbecile or Insane Person: An imbecile or

an insane person, unless the latter has acted
during a lucid interval (Art. 12, par. 1).
INSANE
• there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act but capable of having lucid
intervals. During a lucid interval, the insane acts with
intelligence and thus, not exempt from criminal
liability.
PROCEDURE WHEN AN IMBECILE OR INSANE
COMMITTED A FELONY
• The court shall order his confinement in one of the

hospitals or asylums established for persons afflicted,
which he shall not be permitted to leave without first
obtaining the permission of the court. The court must
obtain the opinion of the Director of Health before
permitting his release.
• When the person is sane at the time of the

commission of the crime but he becomes insane at
the time of the trial, he is liable criminally. The trial,
however, shall be suspended until mental capacity of
the accused be restored to afford him a fair trial.
2. Minority: A child fifteen (15) years of age or

under at the time of the commission of the offense
shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the
child shall be subjected to an intervention program
(R.A. No. 9344).
• A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen

(18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from
criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention
program, unless he/she has acted with discernment.
Exempting Circumstances
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
(R.A.9344); also refer to Child and Youth Welfare
Code (P.D. 603, as amended)
A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the

commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal
liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18)
years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability
and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she
has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall
be subjected to appropriate proceedings.
The exemption from criminal liability does not include
exemption from civil liability.
Exempting Circumstances
Amendments to Juvenile Justice And Welfare Act Of
2006
(R.A. No. 10630, amending R.A. No. 9344)
• A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of

the commission of the offense shall be exempt from
criminal liability. A child is deemed to be fifteen (15)
years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary
of his/her birthdate (R.A. No. 10630, amending
Section 6 o R.A. No. 9344).
2006
• Serious Crimes Committed by Children Who Are Exempt

From Criminal Responsibility (R.A. No. 10630, amending
Section 20 of R.A. No. 9344)
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen
(15) years of age and who commits parricide, murder, infanticide,
kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the victim is killed
or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive arson, rape,
or carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or raped or
offenses under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by more than twelve
(12) years of imprisonment, shall be deemed a neglected child
under P.D. No. 603 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code), as
amended, and shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility
within the youth care faculty or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ called the
Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center (IJISC) (Sec.
20-A of R.A. No. 9344, as amended).
AMENDMENTS TO JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
ACT OF 2006
• Repetition of Offenses (R.A. No. 10630, amending Section

20 of R.A. No. 9344)
(15) years of age and who commits an offense for the second
time or oftener shall be deemed a neglected child under P.D.
No. 603, as amended, and shall undergo an intensive
intervention program supervised by the local social welfare and
development officer, provided that:
1. the child was previously subjected to a community-based

intervention program;
2. if the best interest of the child requires that he/she be placed

in a youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’, the child’s parents
or guardians shall execute a written authorization for the
voluntary commitment of the child; and
2006
• Repetition of Offenses (R.A. No. 10630, amending Section

20 of R.A. No. 9344)
(15) years of age and who commits an offense for the second
time or oftener shall be deemed a neglected child under P.D.
No. 603, as amended, and shall undergo an intensive
intervention program supervised by the local social welfare and
development officer, provided that:
3. if the child has no parents or guardians or if they refuse or

fail to execute the written authorization for voluntary
commitment, the proper petition for involuntary commitment
shall be immediately filed by the DSWD or the LSWDO
pursuant to P.D. No. 603, as amended (Sec. 20-B of R.A. No.
9344, as amended).
DISCERNMENT INTENT
Moral significance that a Desired act of the person
person ascribes to the said
act
DISCERNMENT – means the mental capacity of

a minor between 15 and 18 years of age to fully
appreciate the consequences of his lawful act.
3. Any person who, while performing a lawful act

with due care, causes an injury by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it (Art. 12, par. 4).
ELEMENTS:
1. A person performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident; and
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
• Striking another with a gun in self-defense, even if it

fired and seriously injured the assailant is a lawful act.
ACCIDENT – something that happen outside the sway

of our will and although it comes about through some
act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences.
- If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it
will be a case of negligence (Reyes, p. 223).
People v. Latosa (G.R. No. 186128, 23 June 2010)

The pointing of the gun towards the victim’s head
and pulling the trigger cannot be considered as
performing a lawful act with due care. Furthermore, the
location of the wound sustained by the victim shows
that the shooting was not merely accidental.
4. Under The Compulsion of an Irresistible
Force: Any person who acts under the
compulsion of irresistible force (Art. 12, par. 5).
ELEMENTS:
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical
force;
2. That the physical force must be irresistible; and
3. That the physical force must come from a third
person.
• Before force can be considered to be an irresistible

one, it must produce such an effect upon the
individual that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces
him to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable of
committing a crime.
5. Under The Impulse of an Uncontrollable Fear

of an Equal or Greater Injury: Any person who acts
under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
equal or greater injury (Art. 12, par. 6).
ELEMENTS:
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil
greater than or at least equal to, that which he is
required to commit;
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and
imminence that the ordinary man would have
succumbed to it.
6. Lawful or Insuperable Cause: Any person who

fails to perform an act required by law, when
prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause (Art.
12, par. 7).
ELEMENTS:
1. That an act is required by law to be done;
2. That a person fails to perform such act;
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some
lawful or insuperable cause.
Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)
ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGED MITIGATING

Susceptible of being offset Cannot be offset by
by any aggravating aggravating circumstance
circumstance
If not offset by aggravating The effect of imposing upon
circumstance, produces the the offender the penalty
effect of applying the lower by one or two degrees
penalty provided by law for than that provided by law
the crime in its minimum for the crime.
period in case of divisible
penalty
PRIVILEGED MITIGATING:
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person

under eighteen (18) years of age. — When the offender
is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one
coming under the provisions of the paragraphs next to the
last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be
observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of
age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of the
court having declared that he acted with discernment, a
discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower
by two degrees at least than that prescribed by law for the
crime which he committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen
years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed
by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)
The following are mitigating circumstances:
1. Incomplete Justifying or Exempting

Circumstance: When all the requisites necessary to justify
the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective
cases are not attendant.
• Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives,

defense of stranger
In these 3 classes of defense, UNLAWFUL
AGGRESSION must always be present. It is
an indispensable requisite (Reyes, p. 247).
2. That the offender is under eighteen years of

age or over seventy years. x x x
• In People v. Hermie Jacinto (G.R. No. 182239, 16 March

2011), the child in conflict with the law was found guilty of
qualified rape punishable by death. Supreme Court considered
the minority of the accused as privilege mitigating
circumstance. Notwithstanding the Anti-Death Penalty Law
(R.A. 9346) and the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority, the Supreme Court sentenced the accused to
reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court held that for purposes
of determining the proper penalty because of the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still
the penalty to be reckoned with.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit

so grave a wrong as that committed.
• This circumstance can be taken into account only
when the facts proven show that there is a notable
and evident disproportion between the means
employed to execute the criminal act and its
consequences (Reyes, p. 258).

4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part
of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
PROVOCATION
- Any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating
anyone (Reyes, p. 266).
REQUISITES:
1. That the provocation must be sufficient
2. That it must originate from the offended party
3. That the provocation must be immediate to the act,
i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person
who is provoked.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate

vindication of a grave offense to the one committing
the felony (delito) his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers
or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees.
• Vindication of grave offense cannot co-exist with

passion or obfuscation (People v. Pedro Pangal, et al.,
G.R. No. L-32040, 25 October 1977).
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)
PROVOCATION VINDICATION
It is made directly only to the The grave offense may be
person committing the offense committed also against the
offender’s relatives mentioned in
the law.
The cause that brought about The offended party must have
the provocation need not be a done a grave offense to the
grave offense. offender or his relatives
mentioned in the law.
It is necessary that the The vindication of the grave
provocation or threat offense may be proximate, which
immediately preceded the act. admits of an interval of time
between the grave offense done
by the offended party and the
commission of the crime.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so

powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
REQUISITES:
1. The accused acted upon an impulse.
2. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally
produce passion or obfuscation in him.
To successfully plead the mitigating circumstances of

passion and obfuscation, the accused must be able to
prove the following: (1) that there be an act, both
unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of
mind; and (2) that said act which produced the
obfuscation was not far removed from the commission
of the crime by a considerable length of time, during
which the perpetrator might recover his normal
equanimity. (People v. Oloverio, G.R. No. 211159, 18
March 2015)
7. That the offender had voluntarily

surrendered himself to a person in authority or his
agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his
guilt before the court prior to the presentation of
the evidence for the prosecution.
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER:

1. That the offender had not been actually arrested.
2. That the offender surrendered himself to a person
in authority or to the latter’s agent.
3. That the surrender was voluntary.
7. That the offender had voluntarily

surrendered himself to a person in authority or his
agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his
guilt before the court prior to the presentation of
the evidence for the prosecution.
REQUISITES OF PLEA OF GUILTY:

1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his
guilt;
2. That the confession of guilty was made in open
court, that is, before the competent court that is to
try the case; and
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the
presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or
otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus
restricts his means of action, defense, or
communication with his fellow beings.
• The fact that the accused suffers from a physical defect, a
severed left hand, does not mean that he should
automatically be credited with the mitigating circumstance.
In order for this condition to be appreciated, it must be
shown that such physical defect limited his means to act,
defend himself or communicate with his fellow beings to
such an extent that he did not have complete freedom of
action, consequently resulting in diminution of the element
of voluntariness. In fact, despite his handicap, the accused
nevertheless managed to attack, overcome and fatally stab
his victim (People v. Rogelio Deopante, G.R. No. 102772,
30 October 1996).
9. Such illness of the offender as would

diminish the exercise of the will-power of the
offender without however depriving him of
consciousness of his acts.
REQUISITES:
1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the
exercise of his will-power.
2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of
consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstance of a

similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned.
In Emilio Cimafranca v. Sandiganbayan (G.R.

No. 94408, 14 February 1991), the Supreme Court
held that the return of the funds malversed is not a
defense and will not be an exempting circumstance
nor a ground for extinguishing the criminal liability of
the accused but it can be a mitigating circumstance
analogous to voluntary surrender.
In the instant case, the return of the property

malversed was not mitigating because it took the
accused several years before he returned the
government property. In fact, when the engine was
returned, it was already scrap and the revolver was
rusty and had to be reblued.
Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)
The following are aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of

his public position.
• That advantage be taken by the offender of his

public position” is SPECIAL aggravating
circumstance that cannot be offset by ordinary
mitigating circumstance (Art. 62, no. 1(a), RPC as
amended by Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 7659).
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of

his public position.
• The mere fact that the offender is a public officer or

employee is a “SPECIAL aggravating circumstance”
in violation of R.A. No. 7610 (R.A. No. 7610, Sec.
31) and a “QUALIFYING circumstance” in violation
of R.A. No. 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9208, Sec. 5).
2. That the crime be committed in contempt of

or with insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in

disregard of the respect due to the offended party
on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be
committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if
the latter has not given provocation.
• The aggravating circumstances of rank, age or

sex are not appreciated in Robbery with Homicide
since said aggravating circumstances apply only to
crimes against persons or honor when in the
commission of the crime there is some insult or
disrespect shown to rank, age or sex. It is not
proper to consider these aggravating circumstances
in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is
primarily a crime against property and not against
persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery,
the latter being the main purpose and object of the
criminal (People v. Fernando Collado, et al., G.R.
No. 88631, 30 April 1991).
• Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime was

committed in the dwelling of the offended party if the
latter has not given provocation or if the victim was
killed inside his house (People vs. Perreras, G.R.
No. 139622, 31 July 2001, 362 SCRA 202).
• Provocation in the aggravating circumstance of

dwelling must be: (a) given by the offended party, (b)
sufficient, and (c) immediate to the commission of
the crime (People vs. Rios, G.R. No. 132632, 19
June 2000, 333 SCRA 823).
4. That the act be committed with abuse of

confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
• For abuse of confidence to exist, it is essential to show

that the confidence between the parties must be
immediate and personal such as would give the accused
some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the
criminal act. The confidence must be a means of
facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking
advantage of the offended party’s belief that the former
would not abuse said confidence (People vs. Arrojado,
G.R. No. 130492, 31 January 2001, 350 SCRA 679).
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of

the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where
public authorities are engaged in the discharge of
their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious
worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime, 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.
• If the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited
place or band concur in the commission of the crime, all will
constitute one aggravating circumstance only as a general
rule although they can be considered separately if their
elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist
independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity
(People vs. Librando, G.R. No. 132251, 6 July 2000).
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion

of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic,
or other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of

armed men or persons who insure or afford
impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for

one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of
the RPC.
10. That the offender has been previously

punished for an offense to which the law attaches
an equal or greater penalty or for two or more
crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in

consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of

inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a
vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment
of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice
involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evident

premeditation.
For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the

following elements must be proved:
1. The time when the accused determined to commit
the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the accused has
clung to his determination; and
3. Sufficient lapse of time between the determination
and execution to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.
The essence of evident premeditation is that the

execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool
thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the
criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a
calm judgment (People v. Alinao, G.R. No. 191256, 18
September 2013).
14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be

employed.
• Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on

the part of the offender. When there is a direct
inducement by insidious words or machinations,
fraud is present (People v. Labuguen, G.R. No.
127849, 9 August 2000, 337 SCRA 488).
15. That advantage be taken of superior

strength, or means be employed to weaken the
defense.
There is abuse of superior strength when the

perpetrators of a crime deliberately used excessive
force, thereby rendering the victim incapable of
defending himself. The notorious inequality of forces
creates an unfair advantage for the aggressor
(People v. Credo, G.R. No. 197360, 3 July 2013).
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever

there is a notorious inequality of forces between the
victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of
superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for
the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by
him in the commission of the crime. (Fantastico, et
al. v. People, G.R. No. 190912, 12 January 2015)
BY A BAND ABUSE OF
SUPERIOR
STRENGTH
When the offense is The gravamen of
committed by more abuse of superiority is
than 3 armed the taking advantage
malefactors regardless by the culprits of their
of the comparative collective strength to
strength of the victim. overpower their
weaker victims.
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.
A treacherous attack is one in which the victim was

not afforded any opportunity to defend himself or resist
the attack. The existence of treachery is not solely
determined by the type of weapon used. If it appears
that the weapon was deliberately chosen to insure the
execution of the crime, and to render the victim
defenseless, then treachery may be properly
appreciated against the accused (People v. Labiaga,
G.R. No. 202867, 15 July 2013).
The essence of treachery is the sudden and

unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, depriving
the victim of any chance to defend himself. (People v.
Bosito, G.R. No. 209346, 12 January 2015)
For treachery to be appreciated, that circumstances

must be present at the inception of the attack, and if
absent and the attack is continuous, treachery, even if
present at a subsequent stage is not to be considered
(People v. Loterono, G.R. No. 146100, 13 November
2002, 391 SCRA 593).
Chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes

committed at the spur of the moment, or those that were
preceded by heated altercations are generally not
attended by treachery, for lack of opportunity of the
accused deliberately to employ a treacherous mode of
attack (People v. Caratao, G.R. No. 126281, 10 June
2003, 403 SCRA 482).
For treachery to be considered, two elements must

concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that
gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend
themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution
were deliberately or consciously adopted. (Fantastico, et
al. v. People, G.R. No. 190912, 12 January 2015)
The mere suddenness of an attack should not be the

sole basis in finding treachery. There must be evidence
to show that the accused deliberately or consciously
adopted the means of execution to ensure its success.
(People v. Oloverio, G.R. No. 211159, 18 March 2015)
17. That means be employed or circumstances

brought about which add ignominy to the natural
effects of the act.
IGNOMINY – it is a circumstance pertaining to the

moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the
material injury caused by the crime (People v. Acaya,
G.R. No. L-72998, 29 July 1988).
18. That the crime be committed after an

unlawful entry.
• There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is

effected by a way not intended for the purpose (Art.
18, 2nd par.).
19. That as a means to the commission of a

crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid

of persons under fifteen years of age or by
means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft,
airships, or other similar means.
21. Cruelty: That the wrong done in the

commission of the crime be deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commission.
• There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and
delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in
the consummation of the criminal act.
For cruelty to exist, there must be proof showing

that the accused delighted in making their victim
suffer slowly and gradually, causing him
unnecessary physical and moral pain in the
consummation of the criminal act (People v. Catian,
G.R. No. 139693, 24 January 2002, 374 SCRA
514).
IGNOMINY CRUELTY
Involves moral suffering Refers to physical

suffering
Aggravating Circumstances
Under P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294:
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall
be considered as an aggravating circumstance (Sec. 1).
Under Republic Act No. 10591, otherwise known as the

“Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation
Act”:
If the use of a loose firearm is inherent in the
commission of a crime punishable under the RPC or other
special laws – the use of loose firearm is an aggravating
circumstance. Hence, the penalty for the use of a loose
firearm is not imposed (Sec. 29).
However, if the crime is committed by the person without
using the loose firearm, the violation of this law shall be
considered as a distinct and separate offense (Sec. 29).
Aggravating Circumstances
Under the Republic Act No.9165 otherwise
known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002”:
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 (Sec. 25).
Alternative Circumstances (Art. 15)
• Alternative circumstances are those which must be

taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating
according to the nature and effects of the crime and the
other conditions attending its commission.
• The following are alternative circumstances:

1. relationship,
2. intoxication and
3. the degree of instruction and education of the offender.
Alternative Circumstances (Art. 15)
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall

be taken into consideration when the offended party is
the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate,
natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by
affinity in the same degrees of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken

into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when
the offender has committed a felony in a state of
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent
to the plan to commit said felony; but when the
intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Absolutory Causes
Absolutory causes are those where the act

committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy
and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
Absolutory Causes
(1) Article 20 provides that the penalties prescribed for
accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are
such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers
and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees with the exception of accessories who profited
themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime.
(2) Article 89 provides how criminal liability is extinguished:

Death of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as
to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished if
death occurs before final judgment; Service of the
sentence; Amnesty; Absolute pardon; Prescription of the
crime; Prescription of the penalty; and Marriage of the
offended woman as provided in Article 344.
Absolutory Causes
3. Under Article 247, a legally married person who kills
or inflicts physical injuries upon his or her spouse
whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with
his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally
liable.
4. Under Article 219, discovering secrets through
seizure of correspondence of the ward by their
guardian is not penalized.
Absolutory Causes
5. Under Article 332, in the case of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief, there is no criminal liability but only
civil liability, when the offender and the offended party
are related as spouse, ascendant, descendant, brother
and sister-in-law living together or where in case the
widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the
deceased spouse, before such property had passed on
to the possession of third parties.
6. Under Article 344, in cases of seduction, abduction,

acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action.
Absolutory Causes
Instigation is the means by which the accused is

lured into the commission of the offense charged in
order to prosecute him. Here, officers of the law or
their agents incite, induce, instigate, or lure an
accused into committing an offense which he or she
would otherwise not commit and has no intention of
committing. In instigation, where law enforcers act as
co-principals, the accused will have to be acquitted
(People v. Bartolome, G.R. No. 191726, 6 February
2013; Seraspe, G.R. No. 180919).
Absolutory Causes
Entrapment is the employment of such ways and
means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a
lawbreaker. Here, the criminal intent or design to commit
the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused,
and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the
apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and
schemes; thus, the accused cannot justify his or her
conduct. Entrapment cannot bar prosecution and
conviction.
As a general rule, a buy-bust operation, considered as
a form of entrapment, is a valid means of arresting
violators of R.A. No. 9165. In a buy-bust operation, the
idea to commit a crime originates from the offender,
without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the
offense (People v. Bartolome, G.R. No. 191726, 6
February 2013; Seraspe, G.R. No. 180919).
ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION
Ways and means are resorted to The instigator practically induces
for the purpose of trapping and the would-be accused into the
capturing the lawbreaker in the commission of the offense and
execution of his criminal plan himself becomes a co-principal.
The means originate from the The law enforcer conceives the
mind of the criminal. commission of the crime and
suggests to the accused who
adopts the idea and carries it into
execution.
A person has planned or is about A public officer or a private
to commit a crime and ways and detective induces an innocent
means are resorted to by a public person to commit a crime and
officer to trap and catch the would arrest him upon or after the
criminal. commission of the crime by the
latter.
Not a bar to the prosecution and The accused must be acquitted.
conviction of the lawbreaker.
Persons Criminally Liable
The following are criminally liable for grave and less

grave felonies (Art. 16):
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies

(Art. 16):
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
The following are considered principals

(Article 17):
1. Principals By Direct Participation:

Those who take a direct part in the
execution of the act
2. Principals By Inducement: Those

who directly force or induce others to
commit it;
The conviction of a person as a principal by
inducement requires (1) that the inducement
be made with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime; and (2) that such
inducement be the determining cause of the
commission by the material executor.
(Ambagan, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 204481-
82, 14 October 2015)
PRINCIPAL BY PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
INDUCEMENT THE FELONY
There is an inducement to commit a crime.
The principal by inducement The mere proposal to
becomes liable only when commit a felony is
the crime is committed by punishable in treason and
the principal by direct rebellion. The person to
participation. whom the proposal is made
should not commit the crime;
otherwise, the proponent
becomes a principal by
inducement.
The inducement involves The proposal to be
any crime punishable must involve
only treason or rebellion.
The following are considered principals

(Article 17):
3. Principals By Indispensable
Cooperation: Those who cooperate
in the commission of the offense by
another act without which it would not
have been accomplished.
Accomplices are those persons who, not

being included in Article 17, cooperate in
the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts (Art. 18).
Accessories are those who, having knowledge of
the commission of the crime, and without having
participated therein, either as principals or accomplices,
take part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the

offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the

crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in
order to prevent its discovery.
Accessories are those who, having knowledge of
the commission of the crime, and without having
participated therein, either as principals or accomplices,
take part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manners:
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the

escape of the principal of the crime, provided
the accessory acts with abuse of his public
functions or whenever the author of the crime
is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive,
or is known to be habitually guilty of some
other crime.
The penalties prescribed for accessories shall
not be imposed upon those who are such with
respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees, with the single exception of accessories
falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 Article 19
(Art. 20).
Under P.D. No. 1829 (Decree Penalizing
Obstruction of, Apprehension, and Prosecution of
Criminal Offenders), penalty shall be imposed upon
any person who knowingly or wilfully obstructs,
impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of
suspects and the investigation and prosecution of
criminal cases.
Penalties
a) General principles
• No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not

prescribed by law prior to its commission (Art. 21).
• The imposition of the penalty of death is now prohibited. In

lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed.
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law

violated makes use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
Penalties
a) General principles
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated

does not make use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
• Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion

perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to
reclusion perpetua, shall not be eligible for parole
under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the
Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Penalties
b) Purpose
The purpose of punishing crimes is deter the offender

and others from committing the offense, to isolate him
from society, to reform and rehabilitate him, and to
maintain social order (Eumelia Mitra v. People, G.R.
No. 191404, 5 July 2010).
Penalties
c) Classification (Art. 25)
The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code,
and their different classes, are those included in the
following:
Scale
Principal Penalties
Capital punishment:
Death.
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.
Penalties
The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code,
and their different classes, are those included in the
following:
Scale
Principal Penalties
Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspension,
Destierro.
Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.
Penalties
Penalties common to the three preceding classes:

Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace.
Accessory Penalties
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for,
the profession or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the
offense,
Payment of costs.
Penalties
c) Classification
A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative

penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it
exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not
exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a
light penalty if it be less than 200 pesos (Art. 26).
Penalties
d) Duration of Penalties (Art. 27)
The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty

(20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years.
The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve

(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years.
The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and

temporary disqualification shall be from six (6) years and
one (1) day to twelve (12) years, except when the penalty of
disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which
case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Penalties
d) Duration of Penalties (Art. 27)
The duration of the penalties of prision correccional,

suspension and destierro shall be from six (6) months and
one (1) day to six (6) years, except when suspension is
imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration
shall be that of the principal penalty.
The duration of the penalty or arresto mayor shall be from

one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.
The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from

one (1) day to thirty (30) days.
The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover

such period of time as the court may determine.
Penalties
e) Application
(i) Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. 4103, as

amended)
(a) Application on the imposed sentence
In imposing a prison sentence for an offense

punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its
amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to
an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which
shall be that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
rules of said Code, and the minimum which shall be
within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense.
Penalties
e) Application

amended)
(a) Application on the imposed sentence
If the offense is punished by any other law

(Special Law), the court shall sentence the accused to
an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which
shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term
prescribed by the same.
Penalties
e) Application

amended)
(b) Coverage
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable
to:
a. Those convicted of offenses punished with
death penalty or life imprisonment;
b. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or

proposal to commit treason or espionage;
Penalties
e) Application

amended)
(b) Coverage
to:
c. Those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or coup d' etat;
d. Those convicted of piracy or mutiny on the

high seas or Philippine waters;
Penalties
e) Application

amended)
(b) Coverage

to:
e. Those who are habitual delinquents, i.e.,
those who, within a period of ten (10) years from the
date of release from prison or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa, and falsification, are found guilty
of any of said crimes a third time or oftener;
Penalties
e) Application

amended)
(b) Coverage

to:
f. Those who escaped from confinement or
evaded sentence;
g. Those who having been granted conditional

pardon by the President of the Philippines shall have
violated any of the terms thereof;
Penalties
e) Application
(i) Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. 4103)
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to:
h. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment
does not exceed one (1) year or those with definite
sentence;
i. Those convicted of offenses punished with

reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences were reduced to
reclusion perpetua by reason of Republic Act No. 9346
enacted on June 24, 2006, amending Republic Act No.
7659 dated January 1, 2004; and
j. Those convicted for violation of the laws on

terrorism, plunder and transnational crimes.
Penalties
e) Application

amended)
(b) Conditions of Parole
Every prisoner released from confinement on parole

shall report personally to such government officials or other
parole officers appointed by the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence for a period of surveillance equivalent to the
remaining portion of the maximum sentence imposed upon
him or until final release and discharge by the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence. The officials so designated shall
keep such records and make such reports and perform such
other duties as may be required by said Board (Sec. 6).
Penalties
e) Application

amended)
The limits of residence of such paroled prisoner during

his parole may be fixed and from time to time changed by the
said Board in its discretion. If during the period of surveillance
such paroled prisoner shall show himself to be a law-abiding
citizen and shall not violate any law, the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence may issue a final certificate of
release in his favor, which shall entitle him to final release
and discharge (Sec. 6).
Penalties
e) Application

amended)
Whenever any prisoner released on parole, during the
period of surveillance, violate any of the conditions of his
parole, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may issue
an order for his re-arrest which may be served in any
part of the Philippines by any police officer. In such case
the prisoner so re-arrested shall serve the remaining
unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for which he
was originally committed to prison, unless the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence shall, in its discretion, grant a
new parole to the said prisoner (Sec. 8).
Penalties
e) Application
(ii) Three-fold Rule
The maximum duration of the convict's sentence

shall not be more than threefold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties
imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may
be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those
imposed equals the same maximum period. Such
maximum period shall in no case exceed forty (40)
years.
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of
perpetual penalties shall be computed at thirty years
(Art. 70).
Penalties
e) Application
(iii) Subsidiary Imprisonment (Art. 39)
If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine,

he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate
of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following
rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional

or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until
his fine referred in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but
his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the
term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for
more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be
counted against the prisoner.
Penalties
e) Application
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine,

the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if
the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less
grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light
felony.
3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than

prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be
imposed upon the culprit.
Penalties
e) Application
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be

executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such
penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period
of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue
to suffer the same deprivation as those of which the
principal penalty consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict

may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not
relieve him from the fine in case his financial
circumstances should improve.
Penalties
f) Execution and Service
Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended)
Definition
"Probation" is a disposition under which a

defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released
subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the
supervision of a probation officer.
Penalties
Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended)
Disqualified Offenders (Sec. 9) – The benefits of this law

shall not extend to those:
(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of
more than six years;
(b) convicted of any offense against the security of the

State;
(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of

an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one
(1) month and one (1) day and/or a fine of not less than Two
Hundred (200) Pesos;
Penalties
Disqualified Offenders (Sec. 9) – The benefits of this

law shall not extend to those:
(d) who have been once on probation; and
(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the

substantive provisions of this law became applicable.
Francisco v. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 108747; 6 April 1995)
Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a

penitent qualified offender. It essentially rejects appeals and
encourages an otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit
his liability and save the state of time, effort and expenses to
jettison an appeal. The law expressly requires that an
accused must not have appealed his conviction before he
can avail of probation. This outlaws the element of speculation
on the part of the accused — to wager on the result of his
appeal — that when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal,
the moment of truth well-nigh at hand, and the service of his
sentence inevitable, he now applies for probation as an "escape
hatch" thus rendering nugatory the appellate court's affirmance
of his conviction. Consequently, probation should be availed of
at the first opportunity by convicts who are willing to be reformed
and rehabilitated, who manifest spontaneity, contrition and
remorse.
Arnel Colinares v. People
(G.R. No. 182748; 13 December 2011)
The accused was convicted by the RTC for Frustrated

Homicide punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6)
years. On appeal, the Supreme Court found him guilty of
Attempted Homicide which offense is punishable by less than
six (6) years imprisonment. The accused then applied for
probation. The Supreme Court held that the accused should
be granted probation although he appealed from the
judgment of conviction. The ruling in Francisco does not
apply because Arnel Colinares has no right to choose
whether or not to appeal or apply for probation since the
stiff penalty that the trial court imposed on him denied him
that choice. It was only after he appealed the judgment of
conviction that he was granted the right to apply for probation.
The ruling in Francisco remains that those who will appeal from
judgments of conviction, when they have the option to try for
probation, forfeit their right to apply for that privilege.
Penalties

Period of Probation (Sec. 14)
(a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a

term of imprisonment of not more than one year shall not
exceed two years, and in all other cases, said period
shall not exceed six years.
(b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the

offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, the period of probation shall not be
less than nor to be more than twice the total number of
days of subsidiary imprisonment as computed at the rate
established in the RPC.
Penalties

Arrest of Probationer (Sec. 15)
• At any time during probation, the court may issue a

warrant for the arrest of a probationer for violation of any
of the conditions of probation.
• The probationer, once arrested and detained, shall
immediately be brought before the court for a hearing,
which may be informal and summary, of the violation
charged.
• The defendant may be admitted to bail pending such
hearing. In such a case, the provisions regarding release
on bail of persons charged with a crime shall be applicable
to probationers arrested.
Penalties

Arrest of Probationer (Sec. 15)
• If the violation is established, the court may revoke or

continue his probation and modify the conditions thereof.
If revoked, the court shall order the probationer to serve
the sentence originally imposed.
• An order revoking the grant of probation or modifying the

terms and conditions thereof shall not be appealable.
Penalties
Termination of Probation; Exception (Sec. 16)
• After the period of probation and upon consideration

of the report and recommendation of the probation
officer, the court may order the final discharge of the
probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms
and conditions of his probation and thereupon the
case is deemed terminated.
Penalties
Termination of Probation; Exception (Sec. 16)
• The final discharge of the probationer shall operate

to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspend as a
result of his conviction and to fully discharge his
liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for
which probation was granted.
• The probationer and the probation officer shall each

be furnished with a copy of such order.
Modification and extinction of criminal liability
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished.

— Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal

penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs
before final judgment.
2. By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes
the penalty and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as
provided in Article 344 of the RPC.
DEATH OF THE CONVICT
• The death of the convict whether before or after

final judgment extinguishes criminal liability
(People v. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, 2
September 1994).
• Civil liability is extinguished only when death

occurs before final judgment (People v. Bayotas).
DEATH OF THE CONVICT
• Death of the accused pending appeal of his

conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well
as the civil liability based solely on the offense
committed (People v. Bayotas)
 The claim for civil liability survives if the same
may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict such as law,
contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts.
• Death of the offended party does not extinguish the

criminal liability of the offender (People v.
Bundalian, G.R. No. L-29985, 23 October 1982).
SERVICE OF SENTENCE
• Crime is a debt incurred by the offender as a

consequence of his wrongful act and the penalty is
but the amount of his debt. When payment is made,
the debt is extinguished. Service of sentence does
not extinguish civil liability (Salgado v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 89606, 30 August 1990).
AMNESTY
• The President shall have the power to grant

amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all
the Members of the Congress (Constitution, Art.
VII, Sec.19).
• Amnesty is an act of the sovereign power granting

oblivion or a general pardon for a past offense, and
is rarely, if ever, exercised in favor of a single
individual, and is usually exerted in behalf of certain
classes of persons, who are subject to trial but
have not yet been convicted.
PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
• Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise

provided in the Constitution, the President may grant
reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit
fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final
judgment (Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 19).
• Any person who has been granted conditional

pardon shall incur the obligation of complying strictly
with the conditions imposed therein; otherwise, his
non-compliance with any of the conditions specified
shall result in the revocation of the pardon.
PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Pardon Amnesty
Includes any crime Generally political offenses
Given after conviction Given before conviction or
institution of the action
Looks forward and forgives Looks backwards and
the punishment abolished the offense itself
Must be proved as a Being a result of a
defense proclamation, the court may
take judicial notice of the
same
Do not extinguish civil liability
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES (ART. 90)

PERIOD OF
CRIME OR PENALTY
PRESCRIPTION
Crimes punishable by Death,
Reclusion Perpetua or Reclusion 20 years
Temporal
Other afflictive penalties 15 years
Correctional penalties 10 years
Arresto mayor 5 years
Libel and similar offenses 1 year
Oral Defamation or Slander by
6 months
Deed
Light Offenses 2 months
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES (ART. 92 )
PERIOD OF
PENALTY IMPOSED
PRESCRIPTION
Death and Reclusion
20 years
Perpetua
Other afflictive
15 years
penalties
Correctional penalties 10 years
Arresto mayor 5 years
Light Penalties 1 year
MARRIAGE OF THE OFFENDED WOMAN
• Under Article 344, in cases of seduction, abduction,

acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of
the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action.
Art. 344: x x x The offenses of seduction, abduction,

rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted
except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or
her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case,
if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the
above named persons, as the case may be.
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of

lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender
with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him.
The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable
to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after
the fact of the above-mentioned crimes.
• Effect of Pardon in Rape cases (Article 266-C, as

amended by R.A. No. 8353)
The subsequent valid marriage between the offended

party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty
imposed.
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the

subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty:
Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or
the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is
void ab initio.
Partial extinction of criminal liability
Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. —
Criminal liability is extinguished partially:
1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may

earn while he is undergoing preventive imprisonment or
serving his sentence (as amended by R.A. No. 10592).
CONDITIONAL PARDON
• It is considered a contract between the
sovereign power and the convict that the
former will release the latter upon compliance
with the condition (Reyes, p. 868).
• In case of violation of the conditions:

• Offender will be rearrested and re-
incarcerated
• There shall be prosecution under Art. 159
of the Revised Penal Code for evasion of
service of sentence (Art. 95).
• The legislative intent is clear, therefore, to preserve the
power of the President to authorize the arrest and
reincarceration of any person who violates the condition or
conditions of his pardon notwithstanding the enactment of
article 159 of the Revised Penal Code. In this connection, we
observe that section 64 (i) of the Administrative Code and
article 159 of the Revised Penal Code are but a reiteration of
Acts Nos. 1524 and 1561, under which a violator of a
conditional pardon was liable to suffer and to serve the
unexpired portion of the original sentence.
• We are of opinion that Article 159 of Revised Penal Code,
which penalizes violation of a conditional pardon as an
offense, and the power vested in the President by section 64
(i) of the Revised Administrative Code to authorize the
recommitment to prison of a violator of a conditional pardon to
serve the unexpired portion of his original sentence, can stand
together and that the proceeding under one provision does
not necessarily preclude action under the other. (Sales v.
Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-3972, 13 October 1950)
• When a conditional pardon is violated, the prisoner is
placed in the same date state in which he was at the
time the pardon was granted. He may be rearrested
and recommitted to prison. (See U. S. vs. Ignacio
[1916], 33 Phil., 202, 204; U. S. vs. Villalon [1917], 37
Phil., 322.) And the rule is well-settled that, in
requiring the convict to undergo so much of the
punishment imposed by his original sentence as he
had to suffered at the time of his release, the court
should not consider the time during which the convict
was at large by virtue of the pardon as time served on
the original sentence. (People v. Tapel, G.R. No. L-
45391, 17 February 1937.)
COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
a) Reduction of degree of penalty
b) Decrease in the length of imprisonment
c) Reduction of the amount of fine
Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. — The

commutation of the original sentence for another of a
different length and nature shall have the legal effect of
substituting the latter in the place of the former.
GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCES DURING CONFINEMENT
ART. 97 (as amended by R.A. 10592). Allowance for good

conduct. – The good conduct of any offender qualified for
credit for preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of
this Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any penal
institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other local
jail shall entitle him to the following deductions from the
period of his sentence:
“1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be
allowed a deduction of twenty days for each month of good
behavior during detention;
“2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of twenty-
three days for each month of good behavior during detention;
ART. 97 (as amended by R.A. 10592). Allowance for good

conduct. –
“3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive,
of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of
twenty-five days for each month of good behavior during
detention;
“4. During the eleventh and successive years of his
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of thirty days
for each month of good behavior during detention; and
“5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be
allowed another deduction of fifteen days, in addition to
numbers one to four hereof, for each month of study,
teaching or mentoring service time rendered.
“An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of
entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct.”
Art. 98 (as amended by R.A. 10592). Special time

allowance for loyalty. —
A deduction of one fifth of the period of his sentence shall
be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded his
preventive imprisonment or the service of his sentence under
the circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this Code,
gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following
the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away
of the calamity or catastrophe referred to in said article. A
deduction of two-fifths of the period of his sentence shall be
granted in case said prisoner chose to stay in the place of his
confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or
catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this Code.
“This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether
undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving sentence.”
PAROLE
• This may be granted to a prisoner after serving the

minimum penalty under the indeterminate
sentence law.
• This is a suspension of the sentence of a convict

after serving the minimum term of the
indeterminate penalty, without granting a pardon
prescribing the terms upon which the sentence
shall be punished (Reyes, p. 869).
PAROLE
Art. 95. Obligation incurred by person granted

conditional pardon. — Any person who has been
granted conditional pardon shall incur the obligation
of complying strictly with the conditions imposed
therein otherwise, his non-compliance with any of the
conditions specified shall result in the revocation of
the pardon and the provisions of Article 159 (Other
cases of evasion of service of sentence) shall be
applied to him.
PAROLE
CONDITIONAL PARDON PAROLE
May be given any time May be given after the
before final judgment prisoner has served the
minimum penalty
granted by the Chief granted by the Board of
Executive Parole and Pardons under
the Indeterminate Sentence
Law
For violation, convict may For violation, convict can be

be rearrested or prosecuted rearrested and re-
under Art. 159 incarcerated to serve the
unexpired portion of his
original penalty
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
As a general rule, an offense causes two classes of

injuries:
A. SOCIAL INJURY
– produced by the disturbance and alarm which are
the outcome of the offense
- this is sought to be repaired through the
imposition of the corresponding penalty.
B. PERSONAL INJURY
– caused to the victim of the crime who may have
suffered damage, either to his person, to his
property, to his honor, or to her chastity.
- this is sought to be repaired through indemnity
which is civil in nature (Reyes, p. 875).
A. GENERAL RULE
RPC, Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of

felony. — Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable.
BASIS: A crime has dual character:

a) as an offense against the state because of the
disturbance of the social order; and
b) as an offense against the private person injured by
the crime unless it involves the crime of treason,
rebellion, espionage, contempt and others wherein
no civil liability arises on the part of the offender
either because there are no damages to be
compensated or there is no private person injured by
the crime.
A. GENERAL RULE (Reyes. P. 876)
• In crimes against persons, like the crime of physical

injuries, the injured party is entitled to be paid for
whatever he spent for the treatment of his wounds,
doctor’s fees etc. as well as for loss or impairment of
earning capacity.
• Exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may

be imposed when the crime was committed with one
or more aggravating circumstances.
• But if there is no damage caused by the commission

of the crime, the offender is not civilly liable.
A. GENERAL RULE
• Civil liability arises from the commission of the

felony. It is determined in the criminal action
except:
• the offended party waives his right to file a
civil action
• the offended party reserves his right to
institute it separately, or
• the offended party institutes the civil action
prior to the criminal action. (Reyes. p. 876)
A. SPECIAL CASE
CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS EXEMPT FROM

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
• Exemption from criminal liability does not

include exemption from civil liability.
• Exceptions:
There is no civil liability in paragraph 4 of Art. 12 which

provides for injury caused by mere accident.
There is no civil liability in par. 7 of Art. 12 which provides

for failure to perform an act required by law when prevented
by some lawful or insuperable cause.
A. SPECIAL CASE
CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS ACTING UNDER

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
• There is no civil liability in justifying circumstances

except in par. 4 of Art. 11 wherein the person who
was benefited by the act which causes damage to
another is the one civilly liable.
A. SPECIAL CASE
CIVIL LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS AND SIMILAR

PERSONS (Article 102)
• In default of the persons criminally liable,

innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons
or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes
committed in their establishments, in all cases
where a violation of municipal ordinances or
some general or special police regulation shall
have been committed by them or their
employees.
A. SPECIAL CASE
CIVIL LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS AND SIMILAR

PERSONS (Article 102)
• Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution
of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses
from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the
value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified
in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person
representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the
inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions
which such innkeeper or his representative may have
given them with respect to the care and vigilance over
such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons unless
committed by the innkeeper's employees.
A. SPECIAL CASE
SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF OTHER PERSONS

(Article 103)
ELEMENTS:
1. The employer, teacher, person or corporation is
engaged in any kind of industry;
2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices or employees commits a felony
while in the discharge of his duties; and
3. The said employee is insolvent and has not
satisfied his civil liability.
C. WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. — The

civil liability x x x includes:
1. Restitution;
2. Reparation of the damage caused;
3. Indemnification for consequential

damages.
Restitution (Article 105)

• The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever
possible, with allowance for any deterioration, or
diminution of value as determined by the court.
• The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be
found in the possession of a third person who has
acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his
action against the proper person, who may be liable to
him.
• This provision is not applicable in cases in which the
thing has been acquired by the third person in the
manner and under the requirements which, by law, bar
an action for its recovery.
• Under Article 559 of the New Civil Code, one who has
lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived
thereof, may recover it from the person in possession
of the same. However, if the possessor of a
movable lost has acquired it in good faith at a
public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return
without reimbursing the price paid therefor.
Reparation
• How made (Art. 106): The court shall determine the
amount of damage, taking into consideration the price
of the thing, whenever possible, and its special
sentimental value to the injured party, and reparation
shall be made accordingly.
Indemnification (Art. 107)

• Indemnification for consequential damages shall
include not only those caused the injured party, but
also those suffered by his family or by a third person
by reason of the crime.
D. PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE
Obligation to make restoration, reparation for

damages, or indemnification for consequential
damages and actions to demand the same; Upon
whom it devolves (Art. 108)
• The obligation to make restoration or reparation for

damages and indemnification for consequential
damages devolves upon the heirs of the person liable.
• The action to demand restoration, reparation, and

indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the
person injured.
Share of each person civilly liable (Art. 109)
• If there are two (2) or more persons civilly liable for a

felony, the courts shall determine the amount for
which each must respond.
Several and subsidiary liability of principals,

accomplices and accessories of a felony; Preference
in payment (Art. 110)
• The principals, accomplices, and accessories, each

within their respective class, shall be liable severally
(in solidum) among themselves for their quotas, and
subsidiaries for those of the other persons liable.
• The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against

the property of the principals; next, against that of the
accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the
accessories.
Several and subsidiary liability of principals,

accomplices and accessories of a felony; Preference
in payment (Art. 110)
• Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary

liability has been enforced, the person by whom
payment has been made shall have a right of action
against the others for the amount of their respective
shares.
E. EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY
Extinction of civil liability (Art. 112)
• Civil liability shall be extinguished in the same manner

as obligations, in accordance with the provisions of
the Civil Code.
E. EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY
• Under the Art. 1231 of the New Civil Code, obligations

are extinguished:
(1) By payment or performance:
(2) By the loss of the thing due:
(3) By the condonation or remission of the
debt;
(4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of
creditor and debtor;
(5) By compensation;
(6) By novation; and
(7) Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such
as annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a resolutory
condition, and prescription.
See next presentation on:
BOOK II of the
Revised Penal
Code
Thank You! 

Esguerra Updated Criminal Law I - Bar Review 2016

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Esguerra Updated Criminal Law I - Bar Review 2016

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

CRIMINAL LAW

Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

Criminal law is that branch or division of municipal

Facts: Estrada is challenging the plunder law.

Held: Plunder is a malum in se which requires

Source of Authority: 1987 Constitution

Art. II - Declaration of Principles and State

2. Special penal laws passed by the

3. Penal presidential decrees during martial

The criminal law of the country governs

Exceptions to the rule of Generality

Exceptions to the rule of Generality

Example: Parliamentary immunity under Sec.

Held: The case is open to the application of the

NOTE : The country of registry determines

Two rules on jurisdiction over crimes

NOTE 2: Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over

NOTE 3: The Philippines subscribes to the Absolute

Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an

Art. 2 (4): Commit any of the crimes against

Examples: Piracy, Treason, Espionage, etc.

Accused was charged of the crime of illegal possession

The Supreme Court ruled that in order for the courts to

RPC, Art.21. Penalties that may be

No felony shall be punishable by any

Acts or omissions will only be subject to a

An act or omission which has been committed

RPC, Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. –

Ex post facto law is prohibited.

• Ex post facto law is one that is specifically made to

2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in

3. If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that

• There is no crime when there is no law punishing

RPC, Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed.

It is a basic principle of criminal law that no person

5. Strict construction of penal laws

• Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied

1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14(2):

No person or class of persons shall be deprived

3. Non-imposition of cruel and

Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,

3. Non-imposition of cruel and

The imposition of the penalty of death is

A statute becomes a bill of attainder when it applies

5. Ex post facto law

Ex post facto law is one which:

(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of

(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was,

5. Ex post facto law

Ex post facto law is one which:

(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater

(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes

5. Ex post facto law

(6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some

Art. 3, RPC. Definitions.

• Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit

• There is deceit when the act is performed with

1. There must be an act or omission;

2. That the act or omission must be

3. That the act is performed or the

ACTUS REUS/PHYSICAL ACT

 To be considered as a felony, there must be an act

 An act refers to any kind of body movement that