CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1

Introduction1

What you’ve learned about generality, prospectivity – they apply also in most jurisdictions. They are good
universally.

However there are principles that apply strictly to the RPC, such as conspiracy, band (as a way of incurring
criminal liability), our concept of principal (3 kinds of principals). Those concepts are unique to RPC. They cannot, as
a general rule, apply to other penal laws. That also is true as to the stages of the crime, and also the different
circumstances, the JEMAA – justifying, exempting, mitigating, aggravating and alternative.

Ne bis in idem
“Ne bis in idem” is similar to Double Jeopardy. It is an almost universal principle in criminal law that means if
you are already punished for the same act, you cannot be punished again.

Same act, same offense. But we should use the word “offense”, not “act”, because of the Lali doctrine. That case
involving trafficked women from Zamboanga to Malaysia. The SC convicted them not only for trafficking but also for
illegal recruitment. So what is the significance of that ruling? If the same act of recruiting the victims to work or to
exploit them, are punished by more than one law, there could be as many prosecutions and convictions. So one
act can give rise to several offenses. And there can be prosecutions and convictions under those several
offenses. That’s the People vs. Lali case, I suppose it’s a 2011 case.

So is that ne bis in idem, is that double jeopardy? No, it’s not. Double jeopardy refers to the same offense, it
does not refer to the same act. So for example, you bring an unlicensed firearm today (May 28, 2013), there will
be 2 offenses – illegal possession and Comelec gun ban. Is that double jeopardy? No.

Two schools of thought of penology

Just to refresh your memory, there are 2 schools of thought – classical and positivist.

*texts inside
Two schools of thought or theories of penology:
boxes are taken
1. Classical or juristic theory – basis of criminal responsibility is the existence of the offender’s from the
powerpoint
free will and the penalty for his criminal act is by way of retribution.
slides
2. Positivist or realistic theory – basis of criminal liability is the sum of social and economic
First, the
phenomena to which the actor was exposed, hence the penalty is imposed for preventive
basis for the
or corrective purposes.
prosecution
and punishment is by way of retribution. Second, is imposed to prevent or correct that conduct of the offender.

Cardinal principles of Criminal Law2: (Generality, Territoriality and Prospectivity)

1. GENERALITY - penal laws apply to all persons who commit crimes within the territory.

General Rule: Regardless of race or citizenship, everyone is bound by the law of the state.
Example: Two tourists are fighting within our jurisdiction. If one files a case against the other,
the case will be entitled People of the Philippines vs. John Snow, notwithstanding that the parties
involved are not Filipinos.

Exceptions:
a. Treaties

b. General Principles of International Law

c. Diplomatic Agreement

Except: Consuls
2. TERRITORIALITY - penal laws apply to all offenses committed within Philippine territory.

General Rule: Philippine adopts the archipelagic doctrine and absolute principle.
An Archipelago shall be regarded as a single unit, so that the waters around, between and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and dimensions, form part
of the internal waters of the state, subject to its exclusive sovereignty.

Exceptions:

1
Taken from Batch 2013-2014 transcript.
2
Start of discussion for 2015-2016.
Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 1
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
a) ARTICLE 2 of the Revised Penal Code

Art. 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the
Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but
also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number;

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; or

5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined
in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

Memory Aid (S – F – ION)

S - Ship or Airship

Registration of the ship is controlling, not ownership.

F - Forge or Counterfeit

I - Introduction of forge coin or currency note

O - Public Officers

N - National Security

b) PIRACY as a crime against Humanity

People vs. Tulin: Although the crime of piracy was committed in Singapore, the Philippine laws
were applied because piracy has been declared by the United Nations as a crime against
humanity, which can be prosecuted anywhere.

Philippine laws governing Piracy:

a. PD 532: Committed within the Philippines

b. Article 122 and 123 of the RPC, as amended by RA 7659: Committed on High Seas or
Philippine Waters

c) TRANSNATIONALITY OF CRIME

 We do not have this under the RPC; because at the enactment of the code transportation of offenders
was not easy and communication to other state was not easy.

 But for crimes punished under Special Penal Laws there are crimes declared as transnational crimes

o Ex. RA 9775: Child Pornography Law; RA 10364: Amended Human Trafficking Law

 Transnational crimes means that once the crime:

1. is committed either by a Filipino or

2. that the victim is a Filipino or

3. that a Filipino is affected by a crime

 Here Filipino laws may be applied wherever the crime is committed. So that if the country where the
offender is located is a signatory of a treaty involving the transnational crime then that country has the
duty to surrender the accused to the Philippines.

o More specifically: trafficking of persons, trafficking of wildlife, drug trafficking, fire-arm trafficking
and any other thing that involves trafficking they are all covered by the treaty with the UN office
of drugs and crime or Palermo Convention;

o In the Palermo Convention, all states who signed in the said treaty must surrender the offender
to the country where a national is affected by the crime.
Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 2
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
d) INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION
 We adhere to this because we are members to the international criminal court (ICC)

 In this court, it can try certain cases or crimes. When a country is a member of the court and a crime falls
within the jurisdiction of such court is committed by a national or within the territory of the country. The
ICC may assume jurisdiction over the case. The Phil may not assume the case but the court in Hague the
ICC may assume jurisdiction.

e) UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
 Universal jurisdiction, this is another thing because there are only specific crimes under international
criminal law that are defined as crimes over which states may exercise jurisdiction. Examples are piracy
and torture.

 If we caught some of the pirates we could try them under our Philippine laws, not only because of Art 2
but also because Piracy is a crime over which states may exercise domestic jurisdiction, under the
Universal Jurisdiction Principle.

 In international criminal law, piracy falls under universal jurisdiction. This means that states have the
obligation to prosecute the case using their domestic laws and before their domestic courts.

3. PROSPECTIVITY - penal laws do not have retroactive effect unless the provisions are favorable to the accused
who is not a habitual offender, except when the law provides against such retroactive effect.

EXCEPTION TO PROPECTIVITY:

 criminal law can have retroactive effect if:

o FAVORABLE TO AN ACCUSED and

o Is NOT a HABITUAL DELINQUENT

ARTICLE 3: Definitions:

Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).

Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit ( dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa

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.

 Felonies are committed either by DOLO (not malice but mens rea or criminal intent) or by CULPA (negligence,
lack of foresight or lack of skill)

 When there is neither intent nor culpa then there is no crime.

 Example: a guy driving a truck carefully in his lane, no negligence and no violation of any law, then there was
another vehicle that was driving recklessly who crossed the island and flew over the island and hit the truck.
Unfortunately another vehicle, which sustained the injury. The truck driver was arrested. Was he committing a
crime?

o No. going back to article 3. You can commit a crime either by dolo or culpa. In this case, there was no
criminal intent on the part of the truck driver. As to culpa, the truck driver cannot be said to be lacking in
foresight by mere reason that he could not anticipate that somehow an opposing vehicle would fly over
an island. No culpa and no dolo. Ergo there is no felony.

o In connection with Crim Pro, Rule 133 provides that a person may only be arrested when a person is
committing a crime in your presence or personal knowledge that one is committing a crime. In this case,
the truck driver was not committing any crime therefore his arrest was unlawful.

TWO KINDS OF CRIMINAL INTENT:

1. General Intent

 Presumed in intentional felonies

2. Specific Intent

 Intent is an element in the crime

 Must be proved because it is an element of the crime. Failure to prove so may mean that another
crime is committed.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 3
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
o Intent to gain in theft and robbery; intent to gain here is an element.

 Ex. Juan forced or intimidated Pedro to give the cellphone. We did not say to whom
it belongs or that the taking is with intent to gain. We cannot have robbery. We can
have Grave Coercion, which is another crime.

o Intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated murder or homicide or infanticide or

parricide. Without such intent we cannot have attempted or frustrated. We can have physical
injuries or slander by deed or mutilation (here in mutilation there is an intent to harm but not
to kill)

MALUM IN SE vis-à-vis MALUM PROHIBITUM

 Crimes maybe be inherently immoral in that sense some are Mala in se

 If NOT inherently immoral but PROHIBITED nonetheless then the crime is Malum Prohibitum

o Ex. illegal possession of firearms.

 Not all crimes punished under SPECIAL LAWS are MALUM PROHIBITUM

o Ex. Photo and Video Voyeurism  SPL but mala in se.

 GR: Good Faith is a defense in crimes that are mala in se and not a defense in crimes that are mala prohibita.

o EXC: in illegal possession of firearms or illegal administration of dangerous drugs, Good Faith is a
defense. Because the law here provides that possession must be with FULL KNOWLEDGE.

MOTIVE and INTENT

 MOTIVE – the reason or compelling force why the accused committed the acts complained of; not an element of
a crime

 CRIMINAL INTENT – the purpose of the accused for adopting the particular means to achieve his objective; may
be an element of a crime

 Can the crime of attempted homicide be committed through reckless imprudence?

o No, because intent to kill is an element of attempted/frustrated homicide/parricide/infanticide

 Can the crime of theft be committed through reckless imprudence?

o No, because of the specific criminal intent of intent to gain

 Can malversation be committed through reckless imprudence?

o Yes. For example, if public funds are lost because you allowed somebody to have access over the public
funds.

DISCERNMENT

 RA 9344 – Juvenile Justice Act

 We can only hold a minor criminally liable if he is OVER 15 and BELOW 18 and he acts with discernment. Without
the discernment, he will have no criminal liability at all.

 Remember that we need that condition of discernment since it is an element in any crime committed by a minor.

 If discernment is important in holding a minor criminally liable, how is it different from culpa or negligence? For
example, can a minor who is over 15 be held liable for homicide through reckless imprudence?

o Yes, a minor could be held liable for a culpable felony because discernment is not the same as
imprudence. Minors who could be acting with discernment may be held liable for culpable felonies.

DISCERNMENT IS DIFFERENT FROM IMPRUDENCE

 DISCERNMENT- does not refer to the manner of committing the crime but rather the knowledge of the
consequences of an act. It is the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

 IMPRUDENCE – refers to the manner of committing the felony

 For example, a minor knowing that he is not allowed to drive a car because he does not have a license and drives
a car nonetheless, he is acting with discernment but you could not yet say that he was being reckless.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 4
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
 Remember that felonies can be committed through intent or culpa. If knowing that he is not authorized to drive,
he intentionally bumped his enemy then we have a minor who acted with discernment and committed an
intentional felony. But if that minor knew that he is not authorized to drive and because he is not very skilled in
driving, he kills somebody then we have a minor who is acting with discernment but who is liable for imprudence.

 A minor acting without discernment will not incur any criminal liability whether it is intentional or culpable.

HOMICIDE

 Homicide could actually be committed through reckless imprudence because homicide refers to the killing of a
person either intentionally or by culpa.

 There couldn’t be murder through reckless imprudence because murder is always intentional.

 If the homicide is consummated, intent to kill need not be proved because it is already presumed. The fact of
death of the victim already shows that there was intent to kill.

 It only becomes an element in an attempted or frustrated stage. We cannot have attempted or frustrated
murder, parricide, infanticide, homicide because that requires the element of intent to kill.

Imprudence resulting in homicide and the injuries could be serious less serious slight physical injuries committed by
reckless imprudence or simple imprudence. We can have that why because the only time that you cannot a crime of
attempted or frustrated stage is when it is committed through reckless imprudence is because of the element of intent to
kill which should be proved because it is an element of the crime.

So how do we prove intent? For example intent to kill may be proven by the nature of the wounds, the location and the
number of the wounds and the weapon used. If it’s a very slight wound for example it may negate intent to kill. But if the
wound is fatal it could show intent to kill. According to People vs De Lima if the victim dies as a result of a deliberate
act intent to kill is already presumed. No need to prove on the part of the prosecution. So in consummated stage of the
crime it is already presumed but not in the attempted and frustrated stage of crime.

Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.

2. 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 an
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Article 4 talks about criminal liability and impossible crimes. The only crime punished under book one is impossible crime.
Article 4 talks about the criminal liability of a person who committed a wrongful act different from what he intended.
Committing a felony may be done by dolo or culpa. So if he is committing a crime intentionally like he hit somebody and
that person died. He could be liable for the death of the person even if it was not intended to kill him. The death was not
intended but the act was intended. We are talking about the act which caused the consequence being intended. However
if Juan boxed Pedro but Pedro did not die it can never be attempted or frustrated homicide. Unlike in the first example
where death resulted from the hitting and Juan is liable for Homicide. This is because there was no intent to kill. Unless
the killing was consummated it cannot be designated as homicide due to the lack of intent to kill.

Impossible Crimes- can only be committed if there is no other crime that can apply.

REQUISITES:

1. First determine if there was another crime committed.

2. Second determine if it was a crime against persons and property.

3. Third, determine if the reason for its non-consummation is the inherent impossibility or the use of ineffectual
means.

If you have all that then you have an impossible crime.

EXAMPLE: Juan was driving going to the province along the way there was a beautiful person giving him a thumb sign
indicating she would like to hitchhike. So Juan stopped to give her a ride and it went to Juan’s head that he should take
advantage. He tried to have sexual intercourse but then she turned out to be a man. Juan was already touching her
inappropriately. Is this an impossible crime?

Remember People vs Baleros where the SC said that rape by sexual intercourse can only be committed against a
woman. You can only have attempted rape if you are already proceeding sexual intercourse. Of course in this case you
can’t have attempted or frustrated because rape through sexual intercourse can only be committed against a woman. So
back to my question is this an impossible crime?

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 5
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
ANSWER: No it is not an impossible crime because Juan was already committing acts of lasciviousness making
the first requisite of an impossible crime absent. But we also have to remember that rape can be committed
against a man and it is called rape by sexual assault.

Proximate Cause - cause which in the natural and continues sequence and unbroken by any efficient intervening cause
produces the injury without which the result would not have occurred. There must be a relation
between the cause and effect. There is no proximate cause when there is an active force that
intervened. The active force is a distinct act absolutely foreign or that the injury is the result of the act
of the victim.

DIGESTS:

People vs. Baleros

Facts: At about 1:50 in the morning or sometime thereafter of 13 December 1991 in Manila, the accused, by forcefully
covering the face of Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects, tried to rape
the victim by lying on top of her with the intention to have carnal knowledge with her but was unable to perform all the
acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, said acts being
committed against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.

ISSUE: W/N Chito is guilty of attempted rape

HELD: NO. REVERSED and SET ASIDE. ACQUITTING Renato D. Baleros, Jr. of the charge for attempted rape. GUILTY of
light coercion and is accordingly sentenced to 30 days of arresto menor and to pay a fine of P200.00, with the accessory
penalties thereof and to pay the costs. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by a man who has
carnal knowledge or intercourse with a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) By using force or
intimidation; (2) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) When the woman is under
twelve years of age or is demented.

• Under Article 6, in relation to the aforementioned article of the same code, rape is attempted when the offender
commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

o whether or not the act of the petitioner, i.e., the pressing of a chemical-soaked cloth while on top of Malou,
constitutes an overt act of rape.

o Overt or external act has been defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a
particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its
natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense

• Chito was fully clothed and that there was no attempt on his part to undress Malou, let alone touch her private part.
Verily, while the series of acts committed by the petitioner do not determine attempted rape, they constitute unjust
vexation punishable as light coercion under the second paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code. As it were,
unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason that this term is broad enough
to include any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or
irritate an innocent person. That Malou, after the incident in question, cried while relating to her classmates what she
perceived to be a sexual attack and the fact that she filed a case for attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was
disturbed, if not distressed.

People vs Delima

Facts: Lorenzo Napoleon escaped from jail. Poiiceman Felipe Delima found him in the house of Jorge Alegria, armed
with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance. Delima ordered his surrender but Napoleon answered with a
stroke of his lance. The policeman dodged it, fired his revolver but didn’t hit Napoleon. The criminal tried to run away, not
throwing his weapon; the policeman shot him dead. Delima was tried and convicted for homicide; he appealed.

Held: The SC ruled that Delima must be acquitted. The court held that the killing was done in performance of a duty.
Napoleon was under the obligation to surrender and his disobedience with a weapon compelled Delima to kill him. The
action was justified by the circumstances.

Case Study:

#1

So we have a group of Koreans. Di ba nangadto sila sa Kawasan? Di ba, because this occurred like 2 or 3 years ago, and
so there was this Korean guy who was on a raft and then another Korean nilukso-lukso from above and hit the Korean
below. The Korean below died. The Korean who jumped suffered injuries and admitted in the hospital and of course he
was also charged for imprudence resulting in homicide. So he was charged. So in the first, his act of hitting the guy
below was the cause of the death- proximate cause. The jumping was the cause of the death of the other Korean. So
there’s a proximate cause. Without that act, this other Korean would not have died. But was it intentional? No. He never

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 6
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
intended to kill the Korean below. But because of his lack of foresight, maybe, or negligence, then he could be held liable
for homicide through reckless imprudence.

#2

Another question, Juan wanted to end his life so he decided to jump from Mactan Bridge. Somebody was fishing under
the bridge. Juan hit the fisherman who later died. Did he commit a crime either by dolo or culpa? There was neither dolo,
no intent to kill anybody but himself and that is not a crime and neither was there negligence because he could not have
foreseen that there’s somebody under the water. So no negligence, no intent, so no crime.

But for the first case, yes there is a crime.

Now, can 2 or more persons be liable for the same crime, one for dolo and the other for culpa? Let us say that Juan died.
The persons who are responsible for Juan’s death are A and B. It was intentional on the part of A, B was being negligent.
Can they be held liable, assuming there was no conspiracy.

CASE: I think those of you who are in my first year class I gave you the example about that, so there was this gay person
with his boyfriend and they were walking on San Jose dela Montaña (center island) and they were quarrelling so what the
boyfriend did was boxed the gay person and the gay person fell into the busy street where there were lots of passing
vehicles. And let us say, B hit the victim. So the question is can both A and B be held liable for the death? For A, the act
of punching was intentional. And if his punch caused the death, it was not foreign, totally foreign because for the
proximate cause to apply there must be no active event that is totally foreign. But knowing that you are boxing him in a
busy street wherein there is the likelihood that he could be hit by vehicles if he falls, if the victim falls, then it could be
considered still proximate cause. The act of boxing could be still a proximate cause. But what about the driver who
actually hit? It would depend on whether he was being negligent or not. So if he was being negligent because, let’s say
he was speeding, for example, or maybe he was not supposed to be in that lane. And he was in that lane, so he was also
being negligent. If he was being negligent as well then, they could be held liable for the death, one for the intentional
felony, another for the culpable felony. They could not be liable for the same crime because they were not conspirators.
So that exactly is the ruling of the Supreme Court in this very old case of Pugay. (People vs. Pugay, G.R. No. 74824, Nov.
17, 1988)

Pugay doused the victim with gasoline as part of their fun-making. Later, Samson arrived and lit the victim’s clothes.
Victim burned and died.

SC ruled that Pugay is liable for Homicide through reckless imprudence. Samson was held liable for Homicide.

Q. 1. Why were they not liable for the same crime?

2. What made Pugay’s act culpable?

3. What made Samson’s act intentional?

 No conspiracy was found, each his liable for his individual act.

 Pugay’s act was committed with lack of foresight.

 Samson’s act was deemed committed with dolo because there was knowledge that the victim’s clothes were
already soaking in gasoline and despite such knowledge he voluntarily lit them. Intent to kill is already presumed
because the crime was consummated.

There was no intent to kill but when Samson lit the victim’s clothes knowing already that he could burn and die as a
result, then in this case Samson was held liable for the intentional homicide. We could not apply act of one is the act of
all because in order for conspiracy to apply, the conspiracy at itself must also be proven by independent evidence. And
there is no conspiracy proven here therefore they will only be liable for their individual acts.

Let us say for example there is a snatcher who tried to run near USC, he was mobbed. And then there is Juan, he was
not really part of the mob, but he just wants to join but the injury he inflicted would not be enough to kill the victim.
Nonetheless, the victim died because of the acts of the other offenders. Would he be liable as well for the death of the
victim, for the homicide? There be no conspiracy. He could not be held for the act of others. He can only be held liable for
the injury that he had caused. So in that case we have a victim who died, only one of the suspects was sued, ang iya
rang crime is only possibly, like physical injuries and yet the victim died if the injury he inflicted would not contribute and
lead to the death and he is not also a conspirator.

So here no conspiracy was found. Each is liable for his own individual act. Pugay’s act was committed with lack of
foresight because he could have known that that is a likely consequence. Death is a likely consequence. Samson’s act was
already intentional because he already had knowledge that the clothes of the victim were soaking in gasoline. No need to
prove the intent to kill because this is now consummated.

Bonkado,

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 7
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
“..in the absence of any previous plan or agreement to commit the crime, the criminal responsibility arising from different
acts, each of the participants is liable for only his own act.”

Caselet:

A, B, C, D and E had a drinking spree. Later, A started hurling insults at his beer buddies which infuriated another. Then
and there the 4 agreed to injure A. B took a knife and gave to C who stabbed A. B boxed and kicked A which barely hurt
the tall and big A. E, on the other hand, was shocked upon seeing the action going on and froze. Later on A died from the
stab wounds. Who are liable for what? B took out the knife. He did not actually do the stabbing but he gave the knife to
C. It was C who stabbed A. D did an act of boxing but it did not really hurt the victim. E, on the other hand, did nothing.

Let’s talk about C. Of course C is the principal by execution. So he is liable for the death.

B was rather the one who gave the knife. Of course he is liable but is he an accomplice, a principal, or what? He’s
probably not a principal in that sense because he is not a principal by execution. He’s not probably even a principal by
inducement. He’s not also a principal by indispensable cooperation probably or it could be. But let’s say that C could have
killed him in some other ways so maybe he’s not even a principal. I mean B is not even a principal.

Is E liable criminally? So I have highlighted and underlined the word agreed which means that there is a conspiracy.
There is a conspiracy. So there’s a conspiracy.

According to the Compo case, mere knowledge, acquiescence, agreement is not enough. So even if a person was part of
a plan, he must have some degree of participation. If he only nods during the planning but actually he did nothing.
According to Compo that is not enough to constitute one as party to a conspiracy.

However, in another case Supreme Court said that when the participants in a commission of a crime are also
conspirators, it does not matter anymore what their contributions to the conspiracy are, provided that they have
participation.

So here we are saying that E was not liable because he did not participate. But how about B? Because B here might
only be performing an act of an accomplice but why is he liable the same way as C?

It is because we do not anymore take into consideration what their particular contributions are to the crime. General
Rule: So long as there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. That is only the general rule because in several
cases decided by the Supreme Court, Garcia, Nierras and others, Supreme Court in certain cases ruled that even if the
accused is part of the conspiracy, coz he has contributed, unlike E who really had not contributed anything to the
commission of the crime. However if the contribution is very minor, sometimes despite the conspiracy, the general rule-
“the act of one is the act of all”. And in the cases of Garcia, Nierras and others, Supreme Court ruled that when the
participation of a conspirator is only very minor, this conspirator may be punished or may be held liable only as an
accomplice. But he’s not really an accomplice. But his liability could only be that of an accomplice.

Gen. Rule: Whenever there is a conspiracy, it does not matter what the individual contributions are because the act
of one becomes the act of all.

Exceptions:

1. The only time when a conspirator is not liable at all is when, like in the Compo case, he did nothing to contribute to
the crime.

2. But in other cases, Supreme Court held, maybe for humanitarian reasons, that when we have a conspirator knew
of the conspiracy and therefore should be held liable like a principal even if he is not really a principal but he will incur
the liability of a principal because the act of one becomes the act of all. But if his contribution is very minor he will
still be charged as a principal but in certain cases the court may hold him criminally liable only as an accomplice with
a diminished sentence.

So, in the Nierras case, A, B, C, D and E were accused for the crime of robbery. A being the principal by inducement
because he is the mastermind but he was not in the premises. B and C were the ones who directly executed the robbery.
D was probably the lookout. E was the driver of the getaway vehicle. Supreme Court held that the driver would only be…

Nieras Case- The driver

Garcia Case- The lookout

I think it was the driver in the Nierras and the lookout in the Garcia, SC said that the driver will not incur the same liability
as B C D and E because his participation was very minor. But his liability is only that of an accomplice- which means that
the principle that the act of one is the act of all is subject to certain exceptions.

Q: You said a while ago about the minor participation of a conspirator and that in certain exceptional cases, the SC had
reduced the criminal liability into a mere accomplice…

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 8
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
Atty: It does not mean that the person is really an accomplice or that the act is that of an accomplice, it’s only that the
penalty is that of an accomplice.
Q: Actually Ma’am, my question is did the SC set any standard in determining what minor participation is?

Atty: No, so it would depend. Like in the 2 cases I just mentioned, the Nierras and the Garcia, they were all prosecuted
for robbery and in the Garcia, the participation was only that of a lookout. But the thing is in the Garcia case, this lookout
did not commit any other aside from being the lookout. It would probably have been a different story if the lookout killed
the security guard, or the responding police men. Because then, even if he was only a lookout, the participation would no
longer be minor anymore. In the Garcia case, he was the lookout and his participation as a lookout was deemed minor
only because he did no other thing. If he did some other things, then the SC would probably not have decided that way.
In the case of Nierras, SC said that since one of the accused only the driver of the getaway vehicle and he was not in the
immediate vicinity of the crime scene, SC said that his participation was only minor, the robbery would have been
committed regardless of his participation.

o In the case of Nierras, the SC said that since one of the accused was only the driver of the getaway vehicle and
he was not in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene, his participation was only minor. The robbery would have
been committed nonetheless regardless of his participation.

o It would depend on the circumstances. If what the conspirator did was only to hide the weapons, under ordinary
circumstances if that accused who hid the firearms was not part of the conspiracy, that person would have been
an accessory.

o The participation of an accessory is always after the commission of the crime. Otherwise called “accessories after
the fact” because their participation is not before, not during but always after. On the other hand, the
participation of the accomplice is always either before or during the commission. In both instances, the
accomplice and the accessories must not be conspirators. But once there is an agreement, the act of one is the
act of all and we do not as a general rule determine their respective participations. They may not be principals
but they will incur the penalties as principals.

o Conspirators are not necessarily principals. Their participation maybe that of an accomplice or accessory except
that there is an agreement and their liability is that of a principal.

Ex. The role of one conspirator was merely to hide the weapons but he will not be punished as an
accessory but a principal.

Exceptions/Qualifications:

1. Even if a person agreed and was part of the conspiracy but he did not contribute anything to the
accomplishment of the crime, he will not incur any penalty even if he was part of the conspiracy. To be punished
as principal, he must agree and participate. (Compo case)

2. Not only must he agree and participate but that his participation must be sufficient enough. If it is minor, the
court may still regard him as a conspirator but will give him the liability like that of an accomplice.

ARTICLE 4. Criminal Liability – Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended.

- apply only in intentional felonies. There is only error in personae or abberatio ictus or praeter intentionem in
intentional felonies.

 Error in personae – there is a target but the recipient of the blow is not the intended target. Most likely the
intended victim is not present,

 Abberatio ictus (miscarriage of the blow) – there was intent to injure/kill but in the process also injured/killed
another person. It is likely that it will result to complex crime.

 Praeter Intentionem – injury caused is greater than that intended.

2. 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.

Case Study:

Juan has a long standing grudge against Pedro. Juan set an ambush against Pedro. He intended only to inflict
physical injuries to teach Pedro a lesson. Under the cover of darkness which he specifically sought in order that Pedro will
not be alerted oh his ambush, he waited along Pedro’s usual route. Upon hearing the sound of an approaching

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 9
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
motorcycle, Juan threw a stone at the driver hitting him. A passerby Macario was also hit by the same stone. It turned
out that the driver was Juan’s son Juanito. Both Macario and Juanito died. What is the crime committed?

Answer:

This is ordinary complex crime of parricide with murder. Never mind the intent because the crime is already in the
consummated stage. What matters is how the crime is committed. Since the darkness was specifically sought, it is
equivalent to treachery. If you kill someone with treachery even if there is no intent to kill, what matters is that there is
an attendant circumstance then it will be murder.

Formula: We always describe the crime according to the elements present. In this case, we have the element of
relationship of being a father and son. The crime charged is always according not to the intent but according to the
result.

Because we always charge the crime according to the result, not the intent. Always the result. So when Juan kills his son,
we call that crime as parricide. So what about the homicide?, even if the crime is parricide, but the penalty will not be for
parricide, it will probably be for homicide, if that was the crime intended.

Why probably lang??, because that is not yet the case, because if nag sumbagay si Juan og Pedro naigo si Juanito, the
son of Juan, it will be parricide, but the crime intended was not parricide, the crime intended was homicide, according to
article 49, the crime committed is parricide, but the penalty will be for homicide.

But that is not the case here, what is the crime intended here, probably physical injuries. Anyway physical injuries is of no
moment because they died. So if kaning Juan insofar Juanito is considered, we will call that parricide, and we all agree
that this is a complex crime. Why? Diba article 48, one act equals two or more grave or less grave. Do we have one act
(same stone) do we have two or more grave or less grave? Yes, so therefore we complex. We complex parricide with
murder.

Never mind the intent to kill, because the intent to kill is only necessary if the stage of commission is only in attempted or
frustrated stage. The intent does not matter if the crime is consummated. So even if there was no intent to kill,
because the act was not negligent, there was an intent to throw the stone, it was not as if ga duwa siya sa stone and
naka hit, if so, it would have been only one act of reckless imprudence resulting in parricide, physical injuries or homicide.
But this is not the case of culpa. This is a case of intentional, g tuyo niya og labay ang stone. So therefore we apply the
error in personae, the praeter intentionem, and aberratio ictus.

Thus, the crime committed is: Parricide and murder, because the intent to kill does not matter anymore, if it is
consummated. What matters now is how the killing was accomplished. And I made it very clear that the crime was
committed under the cover of darkness which was specifically sought and what happened was that this cover of darkness
which was specifically sought is equivalent to treachery. And when you kill somebody with treachery, even if there
was no intent to kill, what matters is that there was the attendant circumstance, and then it will be
murder. So that is why we have a complex crime of parricide with murder. This is an ordinary complex crime under
article 48.

Balik sa basic, which is, the likelihood, it is not absolute rule, just a likelihood, that when there is aberratio ictus, there is a
likelihood that there will be a complex crime. Provided that the rules, the formula that to have complex crime applies.

 Formula:

o one act equals two or more grave or less grave; OR

o one act is a means of committing another act.

--That can happen if there is aberratio ictus.

Second rule:

 the crime committed is always the crime that results, never the intended felony.

o So imong g sumbag si Juan, namatay si Juan, imo tuyo is to injure, you will not be charged for
physical injuries. You will be charged for the homicide.

o Or if the victim happens to be spouse, ascendant, descendant, it could be parricide. But once
there is a qualifying circumstance attendant, which would qualify the killing into murder, then the
intent to kill would not matter anymore.

If Macario did not die, what would have been the crime?

 Then we would have complex crime of parricide with serious or less serious physical injuries.

 Because if the injury of Macario who did not die, is only slight physical injuries, then we will have two
separate crimes.

 There could never be parricide with attempted murder or frustrated murder, because you cannot have
the attempted and frustrated without the intent to kill. And Juan did not have the intent to kill. So there
can never be an attempted if Macario did not die. If Macario did not die, the crime would not be complex

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 10
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
crime of parricide with any frustrated or attempted anything. Because to be attempted or frustrated
of anything there must be an intent to kill

 So the crime would be complex only if the injuries sustained by Macario was serious or less serious,
otherwise, there would be two separate crime of parricide and slight physical injuries

Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated

felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

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.

Stages of commission felonies

General rule: the stages of the commission of felonies, only applies to felonies, which are crimes punished under the RPC.
As a general rule these principles or stages are not applicable for crimes punished under Special Penal Laws

Exception: if the SPL so provides.

Example, under the child abuse law, under the trafficking law, there is attempted stage, but no frustrated stage, because
the law so requires, then we apply.

The same is true with conspiracy, conspiracy, is a principle that is applicable for felonies. But not for crimes punished
under SPL. For example, gambling, mag gambling tanan, a, b, c, d ,e. A is the operator, C is the usher, D was the
coordinator, E was the bettor. You cannot be charged as liable under the conspiracy, because the law that punished
gambling is a special penal law and not anymore RPC. So, each one of you have your own penalties depending on the
particular crimes committed by each of you. So the penalty for the operator is different with that of the coordinator and
the bettor.

And so there can be for example no conspiracy to possess firearm. There can only be one possessor of the firearm.
Gawas og sila duha ga gunit sa usa ka pusil.

But there are instances when special penal laws provide for conspiracy. Such as, in drugs, under the dangerous drugs
acts, section 26 provides that there can be conspiracy to sell, to manufacture, to plant, to distribute to operate a drug
den, so on and so forth. But there is no such thing conspiracy in the possession, why, because the law does not provide.
What it provides is only conspiracy is to sell, to distribute, to operate a drug den, to administer, to import. But no
conspiracy to possess. That is why if you have a group of people and there are dugs on the table, you cannot say A B and
C conspiring to possess. No such thing under the law.

Going back to the stages:

Consummated felony all elements necessary for execution and accomplishment are present, crime results;

Frustrated felony offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence, the
result is already beyond the control of the perpetrator but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator, crime did not result.

Attempted felony  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, crime did not result.

 It must be for some cause other than his desistance. Because once there is spontaneous desistance, you do not
have an attempted stage. Example. Juan took Juana to a motel with an intention of raping her. Nihilak si Juana,
Juan took pity, he did not proceed. Is there an attempted stage? No. Although he already performed overt acts
leading to the commission for the crime, once there is spontaneous desistance, there can never be an attempted.

 It is not to say that there is no more crime, it is possible that there is still a crime, so maybe abduction, or acts of
lasciviousness, application of SPL, like 7610, if victim is a minor.

 But never attempted stage of any crime. Because there is spontaneous desistance, there can never be an
attempted rape. In this sense, the desistance, becomes an absolutory cause. It can be another crime,
consummated of another stage, but never attempted of another crime.

Case: US vs Eduave

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 11
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
 “The subjective phase is that portion of the acts constituting the crime included between the act which begins the
commission of the crime and the last act performed by the offender, which, with the prior acts, should result in
the consummated crime. From that time forward, the phase is objective”

 Subjective phase act of the offender which he has control

 After all the acts of execution are committed that phase is already objective. So sa subjective, the offender still
has control.

Example:

Richard held a grudge against Piolo. While the latter was resting on a rocking chair one evening. Richard surreptitiously
creep behind Piolo and delivered a forceful thrust with his knife. Thinking that he accomplished his plan, he fled. It turned
out however that the knife merely damaged the pillow on which Piolo was resting, but Piolo was never scratched.

Q: What is the crime committed?

A: Attempted murder. Because he already started performing an overt act, which is the creeping behind with a knife and
actually delivering the thrust (that is already an overt act).

 Definition of attempted, he already began the performance of the overt act, but does not produce the
felony as a result, he was not able to kill, and no spontaneous desistance. Tungod kay wa ni lahos, kutob
ra sa pillow, so he was not able to perform all the acts. So, it fits the definition of attempted.

Q: Ngano dli frustrated maski nahuman na gud, and I already thought nga na deliver na ang fatal na wound.

A: PP vs. Enriquez

In order that there be frustrated stage of murder, infanticide, parricide, homicide, there must be a fatal wound that is
inflicted. The fatal wound must be inflicted. If there is no fatal wound inflicted, not all the acts of execution has been
delivered yet.

Why murder? Because he surreptitiously creep, the manner of committing the crime

Crimes with no frustrated stage

1. Rape

a. Rape by carnal knowledge

People vs. Aca-ac: Rape by carnal knowledge only has two stages, which are, attempted or
consummated. In rape by carnal knowledge, the slightest penetration will already
consummate the rape. Mere epidermal touching, without penetration, will only be
attempted.

b. Rape by sexual assault (oral or anal) [no express SC ruling yet as to whether there is a
frustrated stage]

The orifice of the victim can be anal or oral. There must also be penetration (not limited to male sexual
organ) in order to consummate the crime.

2. Arson

In the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, there is no more frustrated arson because the slightest
charring already results to consummated arson. Charring involves chemical reaction, not just the
blackening or the changing of color.

People vs. Garcia: The torch used in order to burn the house of the victim burned out without burning
the house. He was not able to char any part of the house. The arson was merely
attempted because not all the acts of execution were performed.

3. Theft

Element of Taking

In one case, there was a taking of hospital linens, but before the accused got out of the gate, they were already
apprehended. The Supreme Court said that there was already consummated Theft.

In another case, there was a taking of firearms, but before the accused got out of the compound, they were
apprehended. The Supreme Court said there was merely attempted Theft.

a. First school of thought

According to Reyes, as to the taking of the linens, it was consummated because there was already the
ability or capability to dispose the thing taken. The taking having been completed, the stage has already
been consummated.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 12
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
As to the firearms, the offender did not have the ability to dispose of the thing taken, The taking being
incomplete, the stage is still attempted.

b. Second school of thought

According to another author, the container of the linens was the room. Once taken out of the room, there
was already taking. Thus, theft was already consummated.

As to the firearms, it was not really taken out because the container of the firearms was deemed to be
the entire compound. It has to be taken have to take outside of the whole compound before there can be
a taking.

Illustration: If a thief would like to get some jewelries and they are inside a drawer, once they are taken
out of the drawer, theft has already been consummated. If what the theft did is take the whole drawer
and he gets apprehended, the crime would be attempted since he was not able to get out.

CLARIFICATION AS TO POSSESSION AND DISPOSITION IN THEFT:

 It was never the SC who mentioned about the control. The SC merely decided that the taking of the linen was
already deemed complete and in the other case is that the taking of the firearm was not yet complete. The SC
never said that the reason why the two decisions are different is because of disposition, never. Such explanation
was only given by a legal scholar but not by the SC.

 Consider a book taken from the library. Once you have taken the book from the library the taking of the book is
already complete. But if you take the book and yet you are still in the library then the taking is not complete.

 On the other hand, there is a bag in the library and you took money from the bag. Once money is taken from the
bag even if the taking is still in the library the taking is already complete.

 These two examples are probably the rationale of the legal authors.

4. Robbery

a. Robbery with force upon things

The Supreme Court ruling, which still stands, is that you cannot have robbery with force upon things
unless the thing be taken outside of the building or the house.

So, but then as you know , that would become complicated if you talk about robbery with force upon things, because the
supreme court decisions have settled that in robbery through the use of force upon things, the things taken should be
taken out of the building or the house. Therefore you have to take into consideration all those justifications.

In the case of firearms, the reason why supreme court probably ruled that the taking was still attempted was because the
container was not just the place where it was stored, it was an armoury and so the container of the firearm was not just
the room but the whole compound so you have to take it out of the whole compound before you can say that the taking
was complete.

5. Bribery

Take note of the Supreme Court decisions in frustrated homicide, infanticide, murder, parricide, there should be a fatal
wound. So when the offender fails to inflict a fatal wound, or if the wound inflicted is not sufficient to cause the death of
the victim, then it is only attempted not frustrated because it is as if all the overt acts of execution have not been fulfilled.

Ex. Juan gave 10k case to mayor Pedro in consideration of the agreement to give the favourable consideration of Juan’s
bid in the construction of the public building, mayor Pedro later discovered that the money was counterfeit thus the
construction did not push through, is this impossible crime, attempted, frustrated or consummated bribery?

Ans: No impossible crime because an impossible crime can only be committed under title 8 and 10 or crime against
persons and property. So this is consummated because the gift was already received regardless if it’s legal tender or not
and the accomplishment of the project does not matter anymore. Note that in direct bribery a mere promise is sufficient
consideration.

Direct Bribery Indirect Bribery

There’s a condition No Condition

A promise to give something is sufficient A promise is not sufficient

consideration to constitute consummated direct
bribery.

STAGES OF A FELONY

GR: Stages of a felony do not apply in crimes that are punished in special penal laws.

EX: The Special Penal Law itself provides for an attempted stage. Such as child abuse, trafficking.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 13
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1

Crimes by omission

There are NO STAGES here.

Formal Crime like physical injuries, oral defamation and libel - there are no stages here.

This was the ruling in the (case title was not stated) – “Taking into account the nature and the elements, manner and the
execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage of
rape can ever be committed.”

CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy can be a crime by itself or can be a mode of incurring criminal liability.

Conspiracy is when two or more persons coming to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and deciding to
commit it. Unless a conspiracy is punished, even if there is an agreement, if it is not considered a crime by the RPC then
it is not punished at all.

Example: Juan and Pedro agreed to kill Jose, they already have a conspiracy because they already came to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and they decided to commit it. But they were not able to commit it. Is there a
crime of conspiracy to commit murder? There is none in the RPC; so there is no liability.

If Pedro and Juan agreed to commit rebellion, and they decide to commit it, can they be held liable even if in fact was not
committed by them? Yes because in the RPC, there is a crime for the conspiracy of rebellion.

Proposal and inciting to commit a Crime

Proposal – the person proposing has actually decided to commit it.

In inciting, the inciter may not have actually decided to commit it. It is possible (nag.gara-gara lang to ang iyaha).

In proposal, the commission is committed discreetly; whereas in inciting, the inciter must do it publicly.

Conspiracy, when it is not committed as a separate crime, can make all the offenders liable as principal even if they are
not exactly principals.

Example, A, B, C and D agreed to murder E. A was the one who paid B. B executed the crime. C merely threw the body
of E. Ordinarily, if there was no conspiracy, C would only be liable as an accessory; but because of the conspiracy, their
specific contribution to the crime would not matter. They will incur the same liability as principal.

A, B, C, and D agreed to rob a bank. The agreement was only to Rob the bank. Even if D was just the driver of the get-
away vehicle, because of the conspiracy, D would still be liable for the same crime as A, B, and C. However, B killed the
Security Guard. Homicide was outside the agreement. What would be the liability?

Homicide is foreseeable. Acts which are foreseeable

So long as they have a contribution, even if the contribution is not direct, they are considered as conspirators.

In the conspiracy theory, even if the agreement pertains only to one crime, the theory extends even to other crimes not
agreed upon provided they are foreseeable in the crime agreed upon.

If A, B, C and D agreed to rob a bank. B killed the Security guard which was not agreed upon, C raped the teller which
was not also agreed upon. Rape is not foreseeable. All the robbers are liable for robbery with homicide but not for the
rape.

Art 296: Robbery in Band, where there is a robbery in band (more than 3 persons)

Art 296 – xxxxxx

Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall
be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that
he attempted to prevent the same.

The quadrilla theory applies when there is a robbery, if for or more perpetrators are armed. Then what would apply now
is the Quadrilla theory wherein paragraph 2 article 296 says if Robbery in band, members of the band are liable as
principals for all assaults, not only foreseeable but also non-foreseeable if they were present - provided they were present
- when the assault was committed but did not prevent it. Quadrilla is not the same as conspiracy. Quadrilla only pertains
to robbery in band. It does not for instance refer to murder.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 14
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1

Implied conspiracy

Conspiracy may be express or implied. Do not confuse with your Criminal Procedure. The Criminal procedure says that
you can only have conspiracy if there is independent evidence to that effect. It does not necessarily mean that direct
evidence. “Independent” means that aside from the allegation that there is conspiracy, it can be proven that there is
conspiracy.

Even if the conspiracy is not express. “Express” means they really have an agreement whether it was written or
otherwise. In implied conspiracy, there is no express agreement of a conspiracy but the conspiracy can be implied from
the acts of the participants or the perpetrators. The SC said that it can be indirect conspiracy. When there is an indirect
conspiracy, then all the perpetrators will be held liable as principals. So if they have a common purpose, and they were
united in the execution, there can be implied conspiracy.

For Example, Juan and Pedro having a Fist fight. Here comes Juana and she gave Juan a knife. Juanito also came with a
baseball bat. All of them mauled Pedro. They did not agree beforehand to kill Pedro. But their individual acts would show
that they had a common purpose and that is to murder and to kill Pedro. They were all united in the purpose therefore
there was conspiracy and they can all be liable as principals.

Liability for prior acts

ABCD kidnapped a rich businessman and kept him in a bodega owned by E, who only came to know of the kidnapping
after the victim was brought to his bodega. They instructed F to collect the ransom. F was unaware of the kidnapping,
the previous acts of ABCD, until his participation which was to collect the ransom. Is F liable for the kidnapping for
ransom?

Yes because F concurred with knowledge that the money was for the release of the victim. When he concurred, it is as if
he agreed with the agreement. Kidnapping is a continuing offense.

LIABLITY FOR PRIOR ACTS:

Case Study:

A, B, C and D kidnapped a rich businessman and placed him in a bodega owned by E who only came to know of
the kidnapping after the victim was brought to his bodega. They then instructed F to collect the ransom. F was unaware
of the kidnapping until his participation in the collecting of the ransom. Is F liable for kidnapping for ransom?

Answer: Yes. Kidnapping is a continuing offense. F concurred with knowledge that the money was for the release of the
victim. In effect, F can be considered as a conspirator and will incur the penalty of A, B, C and D.

Case Study:

A. B, and C belong a group of illegal recruiters. They set up an office in Cebu City and were able to defraud R , S
and T. Seeing A, B and C had a lot of money, D decided to join the group. Is D liable for the previous crime committed
against R, S and T?

Answer: No because this not a continuing crime. Those previous acts were already consummated and terminated.

Q: What if a conspirator backs out of the agreement before the commission of the crime?

o If he backs out, that means that he is not anymore in agreement at the time of the commission of the crime.
Therefore, he cannot be held liable. However, if the one who backs out is the principal by inducement, his liability
will not be by reason of the conspiracy but by reason of his being a principal by inducement.

Article 9. Grave Felonies, less grave felonies, and light felonies – Grave felonies are those to
which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of the periods are
afflictive, in accordance with Article 25 if this Code.

Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum
period are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned article.

Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided.

o 200 is a correctional penalty but it is a penalty which can be imposed in a light felony.

DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITIES (ART. 11 to 15):

 J – justifying

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 15
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
 E - exempting

 M - mitigating

 A - aggravating

 A – alternative

Memory Aid (JEMAA)

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur;

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.

2. Anyone 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 by
affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree,
provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding
circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given
by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger provided that the
first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. Are present
and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil
motive.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes
damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present;

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; 


Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of

preventing it.

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right
or office.

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose.

 KEYWORD: 3DEFO

a. 3 DEFENSES

i. self defense

ii. defense of relatives

iii. defense of strangers

b. E- avoid EVIL

c. F – fulfillment of duty

d. O – obedience to an order for lawful purpose

 EFFECT  perpetuator will not incur CIVIL and CRIMINAL liability. Because the act is justified.

 Here, it is not more own the presence or absence of knowledge BUT the presence of voluntariness in the
commission of the crime

1st JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: SELF DEFENSE

REQ:

First. Unlawful aggression.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 16
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
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.

 All must be present so that there will be justifying circumstance. If one or more is absent, not justifying but
could be mitigating. PROVIDED that the element missing should not be UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION. This must
always be present.

 CASE STUDY:

o Juan & Pedro had a quarrel during a drinking session.

o Pedro started the quarrel.

o Determined to kill Juan, Pedro TRIED to stab Juan with a knife but lost his balance and fell face down to
the ground.

o While Pedro was in such situation, Juan got a big stone and hit Pedro with it, killing him.

o Q: Was there unlawful aggression?

 In numerous cases the SC said that, once the aggression has stopped as in this case when the
aggressor fell in the ground or fled, there can be no more justifying circumstance of self-defense
and mitigating circumstance.

 PP VS ANTONIO GR. 144933

 FACTS: The facts the victim, Jomar Ephan, was engaged in a drinking session with
Reynaldo Ephan and Roselito Dacillo in front of a store in Barangay Pakna-an, Mandaue
City. Accused-appellant arrived and bought cigarettes. Then, he ordered Jomar, Reynaldo
and Roselito to count the cigarettes he bought, but the three told accused-appellant to
let the storekeeper do the counting. Rebuked, accused-appellant left the store. He
returned minutes later and suddenly stabbed the victim at the back, after which he
immediately fled. The victim was rushed by his companions to the hospital but died the
following day.

 SC: Where an accused invokes self-defense, he thereby admits authorship of the crime.
The burden of proof is thus shifted on him to prove all the elements of self-defense, to
wit: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the accused.

 In the case at bar, even if we sustain the version of accused-appellant that the initial act
of aggression came from the group of the deceased, still we cannot uphold his plea of
self-defense. As testified by accused-appellant himself, the deceased who was at that
time very drunk tried to hit him but missed and fell on the ground. At that point, unlawful
aggression ceased and it was no longer necessary for him to stab the deceased. It was
accused-appellant, therefore, who became the aggressor when he, despite the condition
of the deceased, proceeded to stab the latter at the back. His act can no longer be
interpreted as an act of self-preservation but a perverse desire to kill. Hence, he cannot
successfully claim the benefit of self-defense.

 CASE STUDY: RETAILIATION FROM SELF DEFENSE

o Without provocation, E tried to stab G with a knife.

o Owing to his training in martial arts, G was able to avoid the thrust and he grappled for the knife.

o He was able to take the knife from E.

o After having done so, he stabbed and killed E.

o Q. Is there self-defense?

 No. Because once the victim was able to get hold of the weapon then the aggression already
stops. No justifying.

 But this maybe an ordinary mitigating on the ground of vindication of an offense to self.

2nd JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: Defense of Relatives

REQ:

First. Unlawful aggression.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 17
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
Third. Person acts in defense of the person or rights of his:

 spouse,

 ascendants,

 descendants, or

 legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or

 his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and

 those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree

 defending MUST NOT have played part in the provocation

3rd JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: Defense of Strangers.

REQ:

First. Unlawful aggression.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

Third. person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

4th JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: Avoidance of an Evil

REQ:

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; 


Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

5th JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: Fulfillment of a lawful duty

REQ:

1) Offender acted in the lawful exercise of a right or duty

2) Injury or offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of such right or office.

 CASE STUDY:

o SPO1 was looking for P, an escapee

o P was armed with a bamboo lance when SPO1 found him.

o He demanded that P surrender but P lunged at SPO1with the lance.

o SPO1 dodged the lance and fired but missed.

o P then ran away still holding the lance. (? Don’t know kung pila kabuok yang lance gi dala ani niya)

o SPO1 pursued P and fired at him, hitting and killing him.

o Q: was SPO1 act justified?

 YES. Here we are not talk anymore of defense. This is a justifying circumstance in itself. Different
of that of defenses. This is justified as performance of a lawful duty.

o PP VS DELIMA: Old case. Cannot be found.

 SC: the court ruled that the policeman was in the performance of a lawful duty. This is not a case
of self-defense. Here, the unlawful aggression already stopped when Pedro ran away.

 If SPO1 was a private person, and not in performance of a duty, he would have been convicted
because there was no self-defense.

o CABANLIG vs SANDIGANBAYAN

 FACTS: robbery occurred in the Municipality of Penaranda, Nueva Ecija. Four days later or on 28
September 1992, the investigating authorities apprehended three suspects: Jordan Magat
(Magat), Randy Reyes (Reyes) and Valino. The police recovered most of the stolen items.
However, a flower vase and a small radio were still missing. Cabanlig asked the three suspects

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 18
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
where these two items were. Reyes replied that the items were at his house.

 Cabanlig asked his colleagues, Padilla, Mercado, Abesamis and Esteban, to accompany him in
retrieving the flower vase and radio. Cabanlig then brought out Reyes and Magat from their cell,
intending to bring the two during the retrieval operation. It was at this point that Valino informed
Cabanlig that he had moved the vase and radio to another location without the knowledge of his
two cohorts. Cabanlig decided instead to bring along Valino, leaving behind Magat and Reyes.

 Around 6:30 p.m., five fully armed policemen in uniform Cabanlig, Padilla, Mercado, Abesamis
and Esteban escorted Valino to Barangay Sinasahan, Nueva Ecija to recover the missing flower
vase and radio. The policemen and Valino were aboard a police vehicle, an Isuzu pick-up jeep.

 Just after the jeep had crossed the Philippine National Railway bridge and while the jeep was
slowly negotiating a bumpy and potholed road, Valino suddenly grabbed Mercados M16 Armalite
and jumped out of the jeep. Valino was able to grab Mercados M16 Armalite when Mercado
scratched his head and tried to reach his back because some flying insects were pestering
Mercado. Mercado shouted hoy! when Valino suddenly took the M16 Armalite. Cabanlig, who was
then facing the rear of the vehicle, saw Valinos act of taking away the M16 Armalite. Cabanlig
acted immediately. Without issuing any warning of any sort, and with still one foot on the
running board, Cabanlig fired one shot at Valino, and after two to three seconds, Cabanlig fired
four more successive shots. Valino did not fire any shot.

 The shooting happened around 7:00 p.m., at dusk or nag-aagaw ang dilim at liwanag. Cabanlig
approached Valinos body to check its pulse. Finding none, Cabanlig declared Valino dead. Valino
sustained three mortal wounds one at the back of the head, one at the left side of the chest, and
one at the left lower back. Padilla and Esteban remained with the body. The other three
policemen, including Cabanlig, went to a funeral parlor.

 SC:

 Applicable Defense is Fulfillment of Duty

 Self-defense and fulfillment of duty operate on different principles. Self-defense is based
on the principle of self-preservation from mortal harm, while fulfillment of duty is
premised on the due performance of duty. The difference between the two justifying
circumstances is clear, as the requisites of self-defense and fulfillment of duty are
different.

 A policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using such force as is reasonably

necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his
escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm. In case injury
or death results from the policeman’s exercise of such force, the policeman could be
justified in inflicting the injury or causing the death of the offender if the policeman had
used necessary force. Since a policeman’s duty requires him to overcome the offender,
the force exerted by the policeman may therefore differ from that which ordinarily may
be offered in self-defense. However, a policeman is never justified in using unnecessary
force or in treating the offender with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous
means when the arrest could be affected otherwise. Unlike in self-defense where
unlawful aggression is an element, in performance of duty, unlawful aggression from the
victim is not a requisite.

 The fugitives unlawful aggression in People v. Delima had already ceased when the
policeman killed him. The fugitive was running away from the policeman when he was
shot. If the policeman were a private person, not in the performance of duty, there
would be no self-defense because there would be no unlawful aggression on the part of
the deceased. It may even appear that the public officer acting in the fulfillment of duty
is the aggressor, but his aggression is not unlawful, it being necessary to fulfill his duty.

 While self-defense and performance of duty are two distinct justifying circumstances,
self-defense or defense of a stranger may still be relevant even if the proper justifying
circumstance in a given case is fulfillment of duty. For example, a policeman’s use of
what appears to be excessive force could be justified if there was imminent danger to
the policeman’s life or to that of a stranger. If the policeman used force to protect his life
or that of a stranger, then the defense of fulfillment of duty would be complete, the
second requisite being present.

 In this case, Cabanlig, Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban were in the performance
of duty as policemen when they escorted Valino, an arrested robber, to retrieve some
stolen items. We uphold the finding of the Sandiganbayan that there is no evidence that
the policemen conspired to kill or summarily execute Valino. In fact, it was not Valino
who was supposed to go with the policemen in the retrieval operations but his two other
cohorts, Magat and Reyes. Had the policemen staged the escape to justify the killing of

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 19
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
Valino, the M16 Armalite taken by Valino would not have been loaded with bullets.
Moreover, the alleged summary execution of Valino must be based on evidence and not
on hearsay.

 Undoubtedly, the policemen were in the legitimate performance of their duty when
Cabanlig shot Valino. Thus, fulfillment of duty is the justifying circumstance that is
applicable to this case. To determine if this defense is complete, we have to examine if
Cabanlig used necessary force to prevent Valino from escaping and in protecting himself
and his co-accused policemen from imminent danger.

 Fulfillment of Duty was Complete, Killing was Justified

 The Sandiganbayan convicted Cabanlig because his defense of fulfillment of duty was
found to be incomplete. The Sandiganbayan believed that Cabanlig exceeded the
fulfillment of his duty when he immediately shot Valino without issuing a warning so that
the latter would stop. We disagree with the Sandiganbayan.

 Certainly, an M16 Armalite is a far more powerful and deadly weapon than the bamboo
lance that the fugitive had run away with in People v. Delima. The policeman in
People v. Delima was held to have been justified in shooting to death the escaping
fugitive because the policeman was merely performing his duty.

 In this case, Valino was committing an offense in the presence of the policemen when
Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite from Mercado and jumped from the jeep to escape.
The policemen would have been justified in shooting Valino if the use of force was
absolutely necessary to prevent his escape. But Valino was not only an escaping
detainee. Valino had also stolen the M16 Armalite of a policeman. The policemen had the
duty not only to recapture Valino but also to recover the loose firearm. By grabbing
Mercados M16 Armalite, which is a formidable firearm, Valino had placed the lives of the
policemen in grave danger.

 Had Cabanlig failed to shoot Valino immediately, the policemen would have been sitting
ducks. All of the policemen were still inside the jeep when Valino suddenly grabbed the
M16 Armalite. Cabanlig, Mercado and Esteban were hemmed in inside the main body of
the jeep, in the direct line of fire had Valino used the M16 Armalite. There would have
been no way for Cabanlig, Mercado and Esteban to secure their safety, as there were no
doors on the sides of the jeep. The only way out of the jeep was from its rear from which
Valino had jumped. Abesamis and Padilla who were in the driver’s compartment were not
aware that Valino had grabbed Mercados M16 Armalite. Abesamis and Padilla would have
been unprepared for Valinos attack.

 By suddenly grabbing the M16 Armalite from his unsuspecting police guard, Valino
certainly did not intend merely to escape and run away as far and fast as possible from
the policemen. Valino did not have to grab the M16 Armalite if his sole intention was only
to flee from the policemen. If he had no intention to engage the policemen in a firefight,
Valino could simply have jumped from the jeep without grabbing the M16 Armalite.
Valinos chances of escaping unhurt would have been far better had he not grabbed the
M16 Armalite which only provoked the policemen to recapture him and recover the M16
Armalite with greater vigor. Valinos act of grabbing the M16 Armalite clearly showed a
hostile intention and even constituted unlawful aggression.

 Facing imminent danger, the policemen had to act swiftly. Time was of the essence. It
would have been foolhardy for the policemen to assume that Valino grabbed the M16
Armalite merely as a souvenir of a successful escape.

 In this case, the embattled policemen did not have the luxury of time. Neither did they
have much choice. Cabanligs shooting of Valino was an immediate and spontaneous
reaction to imminent danger. The weapon grabbed by Valino was not just any firearm. It
was an M16 Armalite.

 The M16 Armalite whether on automatic or semiautomatic setting is a lethal weapon.

This high-powered firearm was in the hands of an escaping detainee, who had sprung a
surprise on his police escorts bottled inside the jeep. A warning from the policemen
would have been pointless and would have cost them their lives.

 At any rate, Valino was amply warned. Mercado shouted hoy when Valino grabbed the
M16 Armalite. Although Cabanlig admitted that he did not hear Mercado shout hoy,
Mercados shout should have served as a warning to Valino. The verbal warning need not
come from Cabanlig himself.The records also show that Cabanlig first fired one shot.
After a few seconds, Cabanlig fired four more shots. Cabanlig had to shoot Valino
because Valino at one point was facing the police officers. The exigency of the situation
warranted a quick response from the policemen.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 20
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
 Cabanlig is thus not guilty of homicide. At most, Cabanlig, Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado
and Esteban are guilty only of gross negligence. The policemen transported Valino, an
arrested robber, to a retrieval operation without handcuffing Valino. That no handcuffs
were available in the police precinct is a very flimsy excuse. The policemen should have
tightly bound Valinos hands with rope or some other sturdy material. Valinos cooperative
demeanor should not have lulled the policemen to complacency. As it turned out, Valino
was merely keeping up the appearance of good behavior as a prelude to a planned
escape. We therefore recommend the filing of an administrative case against Cabanlig,
Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban for gross negligence.

6th JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: Obedience to a lawful order

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE NOT FOUND IN THE RPC – BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

 Found in a special penal law - RA 9262, “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004”, enacted
on March 8, 2004 and with retroactive effect.

 Applicable to crimes punished under the RPC

 EX: Juana is a battered woman. Juan, her drunk husband, arrived and went to sleep. Juana and their son Juanito
then killed Juan. Is Juana criminally liable? No. This is in accord with Section 16 of VAWC. Even if there was no
provocation or even if the means employed was not reasonable, there is no liability. As long as the perpetrator
was clinically proven by the court to be suffering from BWS, she could be exonerated. BWS however only applies
to Juana. Juanito is liable for parricide.

 SECTION 26, VAWC

SECTION 26. 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.

In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman
syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert
psychiatrists/ psychologists.

 There was a Supreme Court decision, PEOPLE v GENOSA and in this case, SC said that you could only be justified
only if aside from being a victim of BWS, there was unlawful aggression. This ruling runs counter to Section 26.
This case refers to a crime committed BEFORE the enactment of VAWC. What applies now is Section 26.

** Question from the class re: Unlawful Aggression**

 Q: A hired killer on a motorcycle shoots someone inside a vehicle not knowing that it was bulletproof. He drives
away but the person inside such vehicle chases the gunman and intentionally rams it thereby killing the gunman.

o Since there is the use of a vehicle, it could be considered as murder. Look at the three requisites first.
Strictly speaking, is there still unlawful aggression? It would seem that there was none anymore. Was
there reasonableness in the means employed? Maybe yes because the victim was armed with a firearm.
Third is lack of provocation.

o Look at the decisions of the SC to determine whether he could be convicted or not. SC decisions tell us
that whenever a person cease firing and moves away, it would seem that there is no more unlawful
aggression. SC is consistent in saying that when there is no more unlawful aggression, there can be no
more self defense. If the gunman was not fleeing but still firing when hit then we can say that the
unlawful aggression has not yet stopped.

o If after the unlawful aggression has ceased, that would seem to be retaliation.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — the following are exempt from
criminal liability:

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.

When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a
felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first
obtaining the permission of the same court.

2. A person under nine years of age.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 21
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with
discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.

When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with
the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody
of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be
committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80.

4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing it.

5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury.

7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful
insuperable cause.

Memory Aid: MIPAFF

M –minor

I –insane or imbecile

P –prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause

A –accident without fault or intention

F –irresistible force

F –uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury

 When there is an exempting circumstance, the accused will not incur criminal liability

 It is possible though that he be held civilly liable

 In exempting circumstance, it is more on the knowledge of the offender rather than the voluntariness.

1. MINORITY

 Amended by RA 9344, further amended by RA 10630

SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. – 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 pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.

A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of
his/her birthdate.

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 the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act.

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.

 The prosecution has the burden to prove that the minor acted with discernment by evidence of physical
appearance, attitude or deportment before, during and after the commission of the act and even during trial

 Minority is presumed; If alleged, minority has to be taken into account despite lack of proof; it is to be considered
in fixing bail.

Age of criminal liability:

 Age of absolute criminal liability  18 and above

o so when we say 18, on your 18th birthday, you start to incur criminal liability. The day before, the
criminal liability is CONDITIONAL

 conditional responsibility  over 15 and below 18

o the condition is you must have acted with discernment. So the age is over 15 and under 18, so the
perpetrator could only incur criminal liability if he acts with discernment. If he did not act with
discernment, then he will not incur criminal liability at all.
Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 22
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
o So when we say over 15, it does not mean 16, or when we say below 18 it does not mean 17. The
interpretation of over 15 is 15 and 1 day, because 15 is not over 15. So on your 15th birthday, you still do
not incur criminal liability, because the law says over 15

 Absolute irresponsibility  15 years and below

o For those who are 15 or below they will not incur criminal liability, at all, even if they have acted with
discernment.

2. INSANITY/IMBECILITY

Insanity

Pp vs. Estrada

 Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Mere abnormality in the
mental faculties will not exclude imputability. The accused must be so insane as to be incapable of entertaining a
criminal intent

 When there is a mere abnormality in the mental faculties, there could be mitigating circumstances

Insane or imbecile.

 The person who is insane or imbecile does not incur criminal liability.

 Their parents or guardians may incur civil liability.

Q: What is insanity?

A: Insanity does not refer to, for example, being slow. It connotes the total absence of knowledge, and the insanity
must be present at the time of the commission of the crime. It must already be present.

 Insanity occurred before or even after the commission of the crime. the person can still be held criminally
liable.

o Although he could probably not be fit to stand trial or undergo arraignment, but that can wait. So,
what happens if the insanity happens happen afterwards, is that the trial will be suspended.

 Insanity happened after the conviction  the sentence will be suspended.

 For insanity to become an exempting circumstance it must occur at the time of the commission of the crime.

 It has been held that schizophrenia is not a total lack of soundness of the mind. It is not exempting. It could
be mitigating, but not exempting.

 TEST ON INSANITY:

o Test of Cognition – W/N there was complete deprivation of intelligence

o Test of Volition – W/N there was total deprivation of intelligence

3. PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE

4. ACCIDENT without fault or intention

 Requisites:

1. Accused was performing a lawful act with due care

2. Injury is caused by mere accident

3. There was no fault or intent to cause the injury

 An accident is a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an event happening wholly or partly through
human agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it
happens (Toledo v People, Sept 24, 2004)

 ACCIDENT vs CULPA vs INTENT

o If there is intent, offender is liable even if another person was hurt or a different crime resulted (error in
personae, aberration ictus, praetor intentionem)

o If there is no intent but there is culpa, offender is still liable, but for a lesser crime penalty

o If there is no intent nor culpa, there could either be mistake of fact or accident and hence, no liability

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 23
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
5. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

 Made to operate directly on the person of the accused and the injury feared may be of a lesser degree than the
damage caused by the accused

6. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

 Requisites:

1.Existence of an uncontrollable fear

2. Fear must be real or imminent

3. Fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed

7. LAWFUL/INSUPERABLE CAUSE

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES

 A circumstance which is present prior to or simultaneously with the offense by reason of which the accused who
acts with criminal intent, freedom and intelligence does not incur a criminal liability for an act which constitutes a
crime

 Neither justifying nor exempting

 These are situations where the perpetrator will not have criminal liability but there is no exempting or justifying
circumstance. They must be present to or simultaneous to the offense

 Some absolutory causes:

o Spontaneous desistance in attempted felonies (Art 6)

o Accessories in light felonies (Art 16)

o Accessories exempt from criminal liability by reason of relationship (Art 20)

o A legal spouse or parent who inflicts slight or less serious physical injuries under exceptional
circumstances (Art 247)

o Persons not criminally liable for theft, estafa or malicious mischief by reason of relationship to the
offended party (Art 332)

ENTRAPMENT FROM INSTIGATION

 ENTRAPMENT

o ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of capturing violators( who have already decided to
commit the crime)

o legal

 INSTIGATION

o accused is induced to commit the crime (he has not yet decided to commit the crime)

o Offender will not incur criminal liability because it is as if he was made to do something he did not intend
to do

NB:

 A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of
trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan

o In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending
drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken (Pp vs De Leon,
G.R. NO. 186471, Jan 25, 2010)

 CASE: People v. Shirley Casio, GR 211465, December 3,2014

FACTS:

- This case involves the violation of RA 9208, otherwise known as “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of
2003”

- A non-governmental organization coordinated with the police in order to entrap persons engaged in
human trafficking in Cebu City. Policemen were designated as decoys, pretending to be tour guides
looking for girls to entertain their guests.
Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 24
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
- They went to D. Jakosalem St in Brgy Kamagayan, Cebu City’s red light district. Accused noticed
them and called their attention by saying, “Chicks mo dong?”

- Accused assured them she had girls and made them wait while she got two girls. When she came
back bringing the two girls, the policemen convinced the accused to come with them to Queensland
Motel where they had two adjacent rooms set up for the entrapment.

- The rest of the team arrested the accused as she was counting the marked money.

- Accused was held guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the RTC and CA

- Accused argues that there was no valid entrapment. Instead, she was instigated into committing the
crim. The police did not conduct prior surveillance and did not even know who their subject was.
Neither did the police know the identities of the alleged victims

ISSUE: W/N entrapment was valid

HELD:

- Yes.

- In People v Doria, the SC discussed the objective test and the subjective test to determine whether
there was a valid entrapment operation:

- Subjective/ Origin of Intent Test

o Used to determine whether entrapment actually occurred

o Focus of the inquiry is on the accused’s predisposition to commit the offense charged, his
state of mind and inclination before his initial exposure to government agents.

o If accused was found to have been ready and willing to commit the offense at any
favourable opportunity, the entrapment defense will fail even if a police agent used an
unduly persuasive inducement

- Objective Test

o Inquiry is focused on the inducements used by government agents, on police conduct, not on
the accused and his predisposition to commit the crime

o The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law enforcement agent was likely to
induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing, to commit the
offense; for purposes of this test, it is presumed that a law-abiding person would normally
resist the temptation to commit a crime that is presented by the simple opportunity to act
unlawfully.

- Accused contends that using the subjective test, she was clearly instigated by the police to commit
the offense. SC said that the accused was the one who commenced the transaction by calling the
attention of the police officers on whether they wanted girls for that evening and when they
responded, it was the accused appellant who told them to wait while she would fetch the girls. This
shows that the accused was predisposed to commit the offense because she initiated the transaction.

- The entrapment would still be valid using the objective test. The police merely proceeded to D.
Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan. It was accused who asked them whether they wanted
girls. There was no illicit inducement on the part of the police for the accused to commit the crime.

- With regard to the lack of prior surveillance, prior surveillance is not a condition for an entrapment
operation’s validity

Mitigating Circumstances

Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances;

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify
or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.

2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of
the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.

3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 25
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
preceded the act.

5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the
same degrees.

6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced

passion or obfuscation.

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;

8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect
which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow
beings.

9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the
offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.

10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those
above mentioned.

1. We discussed the three types of self-defense and the important requisite there is unlawful aggression. If it is not
present then there can be no self-defense.

Incomplete Self-defense: If one or two requisite is lacking and can be a privileged mitigating circumstance.

Only lack of provocation - ordinary mitigating.

2. Age- minor is over 15 but under 18 and acting with discernment: privileged mitigating

3. Praeter intentionem (no intention to commit so grave a wrong)- ordinary mitigating

4. When the offender is deaf or dumb and blind- ordinary mitigating

5. Vindication of a grave offense

6. When the offender suffers an illness provided that the illness did not render him totally absent of sound mind-
ordinary mitigating

7. Passion or obfuscation

8. Suspect surrenders

9. Other similar circumstances- also referred to as extenuating circumstance

- Not found in article thirteen some of them are scattered in other articles of RPC.

- Examples:

a. Art 247. Injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances;

b. Infanticide and Abortion- when it was done to hide dishonor;

c. Art 268- when the victim is voluntarily released and the detention is not considered serious;

d. Adultery- when there was abandonment by the husband

KINDS OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

1. Ordinary - the penalty will be lowered by period

- Will not affect indivisible penalties in anyway

2. Privileged - the penalty will be lowered by degree

- It shall always be taken into account; includes the availment of ISLAW even if the penalty actually
imposed is reclusion perpetua

Example: minority, there can be no convicted minor who can be made to serve the penalty of reclusion
perpetua

So when there is intent to conceal a perceived a Voluntary release. When a person is kidnapped

Art. 268- Slight illegal detentaion

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 26
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
If the kidnap victim is released and the detention is not considered serious, the PENALTY will be lower or mitigated or
abandonment by the husband in an adultery case filed against the wife, the abandonment by the husband will have the
effect of mitigating circumstance. So those are just some of them.

-And then there are also instances where there will be a mitigated liability in “error in personae in Article 49”. In error in
personae, if the intent was to kill another person but the person who actually was killed was a parent, or an ascendant, or
a descendant, or a spouse, then the crime will be parricide but the penalty will not be for parricide. The penalty
will be for homicide which was the crime intended.

-And if the age is over 70 of the accused, and then if there are 2 or more mitigating and no aggravating circumstance,
there will be 1 degree lower. 2 or more mitigating without aggravating will have the same effect as a privilege but is not
exactly privilege. It will only have the same effect as a privilege mitigating.

Mitigating:

-Provocation and passion and obfuscation are not two separate mitigating circumstances. If they arise from the same set
of circumstances, they will only be counted as one. They will not be counted two. So for example, there are 2 friends,
Juan and Pedro. Juan may have made side remarks, bugal-bugal and all those things or maybe Juan hit Pedro for
example, and by reason of which Pedro or maybe Juan has an unfulfilled promise for not paying as regards the Manny vs
Money fight, for example so dunay atraso. So that’s provocation. And by reason of that provocation the offender, Pedro,
became so incensed, suko kay siya. And so he killed Juan. It arose from the same feeling. It arose from the same set of
circumstances so they will be treated as one. They cannot be 2 things.

-Well-settled is the rule that if these two circumstances are based on the same facts, they should be treated together as
one mitigating circumstance. (Romera vs People, G.R. No. 151978, July 14, 2004)

Praeter Intentionem.

Praeter intentionem can be invoked even in murder, that there was no intent to cause so grave a wrong. I believe it was
last week or week before last when we have the problem pertaining to Juan intended to injure Pedro and he threw
stones. He did not intend to kill Pedro. He just wanted to injure Pedro and so he threw stones to a motorcycle which was
passing by. And he was waiting in ambush. He was purposely seeking to surprise Pedro and then Pedro died. Aside from
Pedro, another guy died, Macario. So in that case we said that even if Juan did not intend to kill neither Pedro nor the
other guy, even if he did not intend to kill the victim it would not make it just homicide because the intent to kill is only
taken into consideration, taken into account as an element of the crime only if the murder or infanticide or homicide is in
its attempted or frustrated stage. When it is consummated it is already presumed.

Now how would we designate the offense considering that there is a qualifying circumstance present in the commission
of the crime? So we said that because of treachery. Why was there treachery? Because there was waiting in ambush. He
intended to inflict injuries at night and to assure that the victim would not be able to put up a defense. So there was a
treachery. And the victim died. And so because of that there was murder but, he did not intend to commit the murder. So
there was greater image. The crime is murder. He will be charged for murder. He will be penalized for murder. There is
an ordinary, this is just an ordinary mitigating. And so we know the effect of an ordinary mitigating circumstance to an
indivisible penalty. So, even if he did not intend to kill the victim but because of the qualifying circumstance which
qualified the killing to murder then he will be held liable for the murder and thus the penalty for murder which is reclusion
perpetua will be mete meted upon him. Dili na mu-matter anymore ang ordinary mitigating. It won’t matter anymore
because reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty. But if the offender is a minor, and minority is a privilege mitigating.
So you will consider it first. So once the convict is a minor, right away apply the privilege mitigating of minority which
means to go down 1 degree lower. And once the penalty is not anymore indivisible, once the penalty has now become
divisible, you can now take into consideration the ordinary mitigating. But not when penalty is still indivisible.

Plea of guilty.

The plea of guilty must be voluntary and unconditional, must be made before presentation of evidence for the
prosecution. [But in the real world, actually judges would still take into consideration a plea of guilty as an ordinary
mitigating circumstance even if it is not actually like a voluntary level the first time because even if there is already an
arraignment, di ba it is during an arraignment where the accused will be asked how do you plea? And even if during the
first arraignment the accused did not yet enter a plea of guilty and then later on he changes his mind, even if he changes
his mind after the pre-trial, that sometimes even after the initial presentation of the prosecution’s evidence, if the accused
changes his mind and would now say that he would plead guilty to the charges, what really is being done is that Judges
sometimes would call for a pre-arraignment and then still take into consideration the plea of guilty as voluntary and
unconditional.] Regarding unconditional, I’m not too sure about that because you know in your rules of court (CrimPro),
we only have 2 kinds of plea. We only have plea of guilty and plea of not guilty. Any other kind of plea is considered not
guilty. So in effect we don’t have such a thing as conditional plea of guilty. We don’t really have it because if the accused
is asked “how do you plea? Guilty or not guilty?” and he answered “Actually your honor, I did it because of this and that.”
We do not have that because we only have 2 pleas. And so if you make a plea that way, it will be taken as a plea of not
guilty.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 27
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
In other jurisdictions, they have other kinds of pleas. But for the Philippines we only have 2, guilty and not guilty. In
California they have plea non contendre. They do not really plea not guilty, they do not really plea guilty. Di sila mu -
plead guilty pero non contendre means they are contesting the charges. They are not saying they are guilty. They
are just not making any contest. So there will be a mitigated liability. But like I said we do not have such pleas here. We
only have 2.

Question: How do we characterize a pre-bargaining agreement?

Answer: A plea bargaining agreement is an agreement whereby the offender will plead guilty to a lesser offense than
what is charged. So the information will not be changed. For example, if we have a charge for murder and then the
accused will say -“Ayaw nalang na usba ang murder. Dili nalang ko magpareinvestigate. But I will plead guilty to homicide
which is the lesser offense.” So if he pleads guilty for homicide, he will be penalized for the homicide. But the charges
remained to be murder but the penalty will be for the homicide. So how does it differ from for example an ordinary
mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty? Let’s say that the charges are already homicide. Di lang nato himuong murder
kay what will happen kung murder is that even if he will plead guilty to a murder, it will not reduce the penalty. Why?
Because voluntary plea of guilty is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance and being an ordinary mitigating
circumstance, it will not be taken into account in the imposition of the penalty because the penalty for murder is single
indivisible. It’s already indivisible. Although in the original revised penal code it says that the penalty for murder is
maximum of reclusion temporal to death, that has already been amended by Republic Act 7659 and so the penalty now
for murder is reclusion perpetua so that is single and also indivisible. So if you plead guilty to murder, the penalty will still
remain to be reclusion perpetua if you just plead guilty right away. But if you plead guilty by availing of plea bargaining
then you will be penalized actually not for the penalty of the crime charged but for the penalty for the lesser offense.

So for example, let’s make it robbery and theft. If the charges are robbery, you plead guilty to robbery, the plea of guilty
is only an ordinary mitigating so what will happen is the penalty will still for robbery only that it is 1 period lower whereas
if you plead guilty to the same information of robbery but for the lesser offense of theft and thereby entering to a plea
bargaining agreement signed by all parties concerned then the penalty will not be any more for robbery which is actually
the crime charged but it would be for theft.

Can you imagine if the charges are for qualified theft? The penalty for qualified theft is 2 degrees higher. Remember in
qualified theft, if the value of the property taken is more than P12,000. For theft the penalty is only Prision correccional.
For example, the accused stole a cellphone worth P15,000 and the accused happens to be a domestic/househelp, the
crime would become qualified theft. The penalty if it were simply theft would have been Prision mayor. But because the
offender is a domestic, the crime is changed. It will become qualified theft. And the penalty for qualified theft is 2 degrees
higher than theft.

So what’s 2 degrees higher than theft???

So RP na, now if this domestic pleads guilty, what will happen is that the penalty will remain RP simply because voluntary
plea of guilty is a merely an ordinary mitigating circumstance. So even if mu amin pa siya during arraignment, the penalty
will remain the same - RP.

Compare that with availing of a plea bargaining. Nothing will change. The information will not change BUT the penalty
will change. So with the plea bargaining agreement, accused will now say I will plead guilty for the lesser crime of theft,.
So what will happen is that the penalty will be lowered. In the case qualified theft and theft, its actually no just the period
but 2 degrees. So that the reason why these remedies may be availed of. That’s a different remedy that can be availed
but its more procedural. Because if we rely on the ordinary mitigating, the only effect is lowering it. That’s not the same
as giving a pleas of guilty on plea bargaining.

Now, naa pa jud buhaton ani sa court, kung maluoy jud kayo ang Court, what they will do. Ilang aresan ang voluntary
plea og guilty sa voluntary surrender, para maduha ka mitigating para ma one degree lower.

There was a case not too long ago wherein the so who is of age already, he was 20 years, killed the father while the
father was doing something with the. What happened was pag arraignment, it was like in the affidavit that the reason
why the father was killed was because he was being physically abusive to a relative. In the arraignment, the accused
readily said guilty. The PAO lawyer said that don’t plead guilty yet since this is still defensible. The PAO lawyer was hoping
that he could avail of defense of relatives as a possible justifying circumstance. Di man jud siya kay wla na man daw lain
didto. So what the court did was giparesan nalang ang voluntary pleas sa voluntary surrender, Pero actually it was not
like that. Gidakop jud to siya pero giparesan nalang para ma one degree lower. Usahay maluoy man ang mga court.

Q: About Battered Women Syndrome. Let’s say the accused is only able to prove one cycle, but we need 2 cycles, so it
cannot anymore be BWS as a defense, can we say incomplete under 9262 because par 1 of Art. 13 mentions only of the
preceding article. Or do we go back to the mental illness in Genosa?

Atty: The problem with Genosa is that it has already been superceded by RA 9262. Before 9262, there is no such thing as
justifying circumstance of BWS. Because it was not yet considered as justifying circumstance, so asa man siya mu fall? Di
man siya mu fall sa self-defense or any kind of defense because of the lacking element of unlawful aggression. Because
of that, possible ba siya mu fall sa illness? If the offender was found to be suffering from BWS, wala may BWS before
9262, so di siya mu fall. It requires still the requisite of unlawful aggression in order to constitute justifying circumstance
because we did not yet have at that time the justifying circumstance of BWS.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 28
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
Now that 9262 is already enacted, the law is now very clear that survivors suffering of BWS who are accused in a crime
wherein their victim was their batterer, they will not incur criminal and civil liability, even if the requisites for self-defense
are not present. Genosa was decided on Januray 15, 2004. It was decided prior to the passage 3. So Sec 264 was not yet
in effect. Because 9262 was not yet in effect, we cannot apply the law because it is not yet in effect. Therefore, what can
we apply? We can only apply Art 11, 12 or 13.

It could not be Art 11, not justifying circumstance kay in justifying circumstance, the 3 requisites should be present. But
there was no unlawful aggression in Genosa so dili mu apply ang Art 11.

Let’s now go to 12 - exempting. There must be total insanity. Was BWS considered insanity? No. So di pud ta maka gamit
og 12.

Let’s now go to 13- mitigating. Illness is one of the ordinary mitigating circumstances. IS BWS considered as illness?
Maybe yes. So therefore, in the Genosa case, it could not be justifying nor exempting but it could be ordinary mitigating.
But that was before.

Now, there is no question that once there is BWS even if the elements for defense is not present, there is a total absence
of criminal and civil liability. So in the Genosa case it could be treated as mitigating. Now it doesn’t matter anymore,
because the law is clear. But yes, illness- provided that the illness diminished either the voluntariness or the knowledge,
then it can be treated as ordinary mitigating. But if it completely did away with the knowledge, or voluntariness, such as
for example a kleptomaniac who commits theft. Is the offender there totally insane? No, he’s not totally insane because in
order to be exempting, it must be total. So it cannot be exempting. Can it be considered mitigating? Yes, because
somehow, it affected his voluntariness to commit the crime.

Q: Ma’am, for you to be considered a battered woman, you need two cycles. Let’s say you did not wait for the second
cycle to begin, the prosecution will say that you are not a battered woman. Is that the time when we can apply analogous
circumstance of mental illness like in Genosa, or is it vindication of a wrong?

A: The thing with 9262, the requirement is the court, it’s the court who would determine the insanity, and the court may
be guided by the expert testimony of a psychiatrist. So once the psychiatrist, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CYCLES, say that
this woman is suffering BWS, and there’s testimony and evidence to that effect, and the court believes the expert, then
there can be total justifying because BWS is total justifying, not merely exempting.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances:

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

2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.

3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended
party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the
offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.

4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.

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 night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a

band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.

Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the
commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.

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.

3
R.A. No. 9262. The Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, was enacted on March 8, 2004 and became
effective on March 27 of the same year.
4
SECTION 26. 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.
In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the
commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 29
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
9. That the accused is a recidivist.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.

10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.

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 international 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 evidence premeditation.

14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.

15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the
defense.

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.

17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act.

18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.

There is an unlawful entry when an entrance 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. (As
amended by RA 5438).

21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its commissions.

Kinds

a. Generic - these are the circumstances that apply to all crimes

b. Specific - apply only to specific crimes

c. Qualifying - change the nature of the crime, such as being a domestic in qualified theft or treachery and evident
premeditation inn murder,

d. Inherent - aggravating circumstance which will not be considered anymore because they are inherent.

e. Special - circumstances which increase the penalty. Such as taking advantage of official position, syndicate.

Effects

a. Generic - maximize the penalty. If the crime is homicide, for ex, the penalty is RT, if there is an aggravating
circumstance, the penalty would be RT in its maximum. However, unlike mitigating circumstance, we don’t have
the equivalent of privileged which will reduce the penalty by degree. We do not have privileged aggravating
which will increase the penalty by degree. In criminal law, we cannot impose a penalty higher than that imposed
by law.

b. Qualifying - In qualifying, it could be higher by one degree. For example, in qualified theft it can be two degrees
higher.

Some discussion on AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 30
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
latter has not given provocation.

o Applicable only to crimes against persons or honor. It does not also apply in the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide because it is a crime against property. But we can consider the aggravating circumstance of
treachery even it is essentially an aggravating circumstance which applies in crimes against persons.

o Treachery as a rule can be taken consideration to aggravate crimes against persons. Exception to that is robbery
with homicide which is a crime against property. In several cases decided by the SC, treachery maybe
appreciated in the crime involving property of robbery with homicide.

o If the victim is a person in authority, it is also aggravating but not when the aggravating circumstance is already
inherent in a crime such as in direct assault. In direct assault, there can be private persons who can be victims
such as professors in schools.

o The mere fact that the victim is a woman is not per se aggravating. There must be deliberate intent to insult the
sex and the victim.

o Sex may also change the nature of the crime. Example is in illegal detention. If the victim is a woman, it is
automatically serious.

4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.

o Abuse of confidence is aggravating only if the victim is the one who gives the trust.

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.

o Nighttime by itself is not aggravating neither is it qualifying. But nighttime can be an ordinary aggravating if it is
specially sought and it is taken advantage of and/or it facilitates the commission of the crime.

o It can be qualifying if the nighttime was the reason that the victim was not able to set up a defense and therefore
it is converted into treachery.

o If it is only band, it will become a special aggravating.

16. Treachery – 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 may make.

o There is treachery when the killing was done in such a manner as to ensure that the crime be accomplished
without giving any chance or opportunity for the victim to put up a defense.

o As a rule, if there is suddenness of the attack, that would be considered treachery. But if there is no evidence as
to the time lapse in the commission of the crime, usually treachery would be appreciated by examining the
wounds inflicted on the victim.

o The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation.

o SC said that if the victim is a child and the offender is an adult, then the crime would not be homicide but
murder because by reason of their minority, they cannot put up a defense. However, in the recent ruling of SC
the crime was considered murder although the victim was already 17 appreciating treachery because the latter
cannot put up a defense.

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER

There are two instances when a person can be arrested: valid warrantless arrest and an arrest with a warrant.

A person actually committing a crime, after committing the crime, he directly goes to the police – like he ran over a
person – after that, he did not wait to be arrested, he went directly to the police. That is voluntary surrender; no warrant
of arrest needed for that.

But if for example, Juan issued a check to Pedro. The check bounced. Pedro filed an estafa case against Juan (not a BP
22 case because you will not be arrested). The information was filed in court. If the information will be filed in court, the
court will just determine if there is probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest and issue the same if the
court finds probable cause. It is possible that the accused did not have knowledge that there is already a Warrant of
arrest. Therefore, he has to wait that the Warrant is served. But even if there is already a Warrant of arrest, he can
surrender to the police so that he can post bail. In this case, there is a voluntary surrender even if the Warrant of arrest
has already been issued.

Juan was charged for homicide. A warrant of arrest was issued against him. The same was not served because Juan was
missing for 2 years. He got tired of avoiding the law so he surrendered to the Police.
Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 31
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
It is also possible that the Warrant was already served but at that time, he did not resist the arrest and voluntarily went
with the police. (Mukuyog lang ko kay wala na ko’y makaon diri sa amo.) This could still be voluntary surrender.

The voluntariness there means that in the arrest, no restraint was made, whether the warrant is served or issued, when
the arresting officers need not place him under restraint in order to bring him to the court. This is the essence of
voluntary surrender. In the real world, the judges will exercise more leniencies – like gidakop ka pero dili kaayo ka
samukan. In fact, when you plead guilty, the judge will even pair you plea with voluntary surrender so that the penalty
will be brought to one degree lower. (Two mitigating circumstance without any aggravating circumstance will
have the same effect with privilege mitigating circumstance.)

Caveat: Fiscal emphasized that this is what is practiced in the real world. In a Supreme Court ruling, it was held that
there was no voluntary surrender because his arrest was highly eminent. The issue discussed above is whether or not
there can be a voluntary surrender when a warrant of arrest is already issued; the answer is yes as discussed above.

***Fiscal discussed Crim Pro regarding Posting of Bail. When the warrant of arrest is issued in Manila, and you are in
Cebu, you need not go to Manila to Post Bail. You can post bail in the place where you are – courts of Cebu or in
Municipal treasurers authorized to receive post bail. This is already Voluntary surrender.

DWELLING

Dwelling becomes aggravating because the home is a man’s castle. When he is inside his home/abode, and is being
harmed, then there is that aggravating circumstance. In certain cases it is aggravating but can also be inherent in other
cases. Such as if the crime is trespassing or robbery by use of force upon things in dwellings.

Robbery with homicide, dwelling is aggravating because it is not robbery with force upon things. In robbery with
homicide, the controlling description there would be robbery with violence not anymore force upon things.

The essence is the victim is supposed to feel safe inside his home. Because of that, even if the crime was perpetrated
from the outside or even if the offender shot the victim from the outside while the victim was inside his dwelling, it is still
an aggravating circumstance.

Dwelling is not limited to the name “House”. Any part of the house is also part of the dwelling provided it is a dwelling.

However, the problem is when the structure is not only used as a dwelling, such as half public and half private because it
is used also as half abode and half store. If the place is committed in the dwelling part then there is aggravating. If
committed in the public part, then there is no aggravating.

In one case, the ground floor was video rental, and the upper floor was residence. The rape was committed on the
ground floor. She was dragged to the toilet and kitchen - these were all in the ground floor. The SC ruled there was no
aggravating because the dwelling was on the second floor.

Aggravating: Dwelling:
 Dwelling aggravates a felon where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the
offended party if the latter has not given provocation.
 Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the
law accords to human abode. He who goes to another’s house to hurt him is more
guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. (Pp vs Perreras, G.R. No. 139622, July
31, 2001)

The Supreme Court ruled that there no aggravating because the dwelling was on the second floor not on the ground.
Remember that it must be a dwelling, a place where you stay not a mere transient. The victim must at least be sleeping
there even as a guest.

 Dwelling could mean a temporary abode for the time being. It does not have to be a permanent residence. Its
essence is that it is your own private place and the public has no access.

 If the public has already access to a place where the attack was made, then dwelling cannot be appreciated.

Ex. If the place is half dwelling and, half store with one entrance and the attack is made while the victim is in the dwelling
then it is deemed committed inside the dwelling. Or the first floor is the store and the second floor is utilized as the
dwelling, here the second floor is supposed to be private and exclusive and the public should be denied such that any
attack which takes place in any part of the second floor, there is an aggravating circumstance of dwelling.

Again the rationale of dwelling is that it is supposed to be your palace free from any harm and danger.

Other AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 32
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
1. Poison

It can be ordinary aggravating, or it can be qualifying circumstance. But in order to become qualifying in
the crime of murder it has to be specifically sought.

People vs Galura: the accused wanted to have a good time with the victim. So he invited her to a dinner
date where he laced the food with cantharides; the purpose being to make the victim more consenting.
So the purpose was more on the lewd designs of the accused to have carnal knowledge with the victim
afterwards. But what happened was that the effect of the chemicals poisoned and caused the death of
the victim. Supreme Court said that the poison there cannot be taken as a qualifying circumstance
because it was not specifically sought to kill.

So even if the killing was caused by poisoning with the use of chemicals intentionally placed on the food
of the victim, Supreme Court said it is not qualifying.

2. Recidivism

An ordinary aggravating circumstance

Several kinds of repeat offenses:

1. Recidivism

a. 2 or more offenses within the same title

b. The accused has a prior conviction and is facing trial for the 2nd offense

c. Penalty for the previous crime is irrelevant, what is important is that it falls within the same title as
the subsequent offense

d. It is an ordinary aggravating; therefore it can be offset by an ordinary mitigating.

2. Quasi- Recidivism

a. Before or during service of the sentence, the accused commits another crime.

b. The second offense is committed on or before the service of sentence; and it is not necessary that he
is already facing trial.

c. Special aggravating, which cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating. The penalty will not be
increased merely by period, but rather it will be always at the maximum. (same effect as a complex
crime)

3. Habituality

a. There is more than 1 offense, and the two offenses have the same penalty, or the other offense is of
a higher penalty, or if the 2nd offense is a lower penalty but there are two or more of them.

b. He has served out the sentence for the first offense (Brabante)

c. Ordinary aggravating

4. Habitual Delinquency or Multi-Recidivism (by Brabante)

a. Accused is convicted of the first offense

b. He commits any of the habitual delinquency crimes: serious or less serious physical injuries, theft,
robbery, estafa or falsification

c. Offender is found guilty within 10 years from his last release or last conviction for the third time or
oftener

d. Cannot be offset by an ordinary aggravating circumstance

3. Use of Craft or Disguise

Supreme Court said in one case involving 2 UP law students during an initiation, one of the accused was
wearing a mask, and the mask fell, prosecution said it could still be considered as an ordinary
aggravating circumstance even if the disguise was not effective (because it fell).

What determines whether or not the disguise should be taken into consideration is not that it is effective,
but rather if the accused USED a disguise. Thus in this case, even if the mask fell and the disguise
ineffective, but because it was purposely sought by the accused, the disguise can still be taken into
consideration.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 33
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Art. 15. Their concept. — 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. They are the relationship, intoxication and the
degree of instruction and education of the offender.

The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended
party in 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 circumstances
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.

1. Relationship

If it is a crime against property, it is mitigating. If it is a crime against persons, it is aggravating.

2. Intoxication

Becomes aggravating when it is intentional or habitual. If it is not intentional or habitual it is mitigating.

3. Degree of instruction or education of the offender

It is usually aggravating rather than mitigating. It is aggravating when offender is equipped with proper
education or instruction. The lack of it results to a mitigating circumstance.

PERSONS WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE ( Art. 16-19 of RPC )

Article 16. Who are criminally liable. - The following are criminally liable for grave and less
grave felonies:

1. Principals.

2. Accomplices.

3. Accessories.

The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

1. Principals

2. Accomplices.

Article 17. Principals. - The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;

2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;

3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it
would not have been accomplished.

Article 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article 17,
cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

1. Principals

a. By direct participation- those who actually performed the overt acts which give rise to the commission of the
offense

b. By inducement / induction- they are the ones who caused the performance/ commission of the crime by
promise or reward

c. By indispensable cooperation- contributed to the commission by doing something which is indispensible to its
commission; if it’s contribution is not indispensible then he could merely be an accomplice or accessory

Ex. A and B plan to murder X. There was no way that X could be killed except by using a rifle because he
lives in an islet. C is the person who provides the rifle but doesn’t know how the rifle will be used. Answer:
C is a principal by direct participation if this is the only way that X may be killed, otherwise C is merely an
Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 34
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
accomplice. Note that if there is implied or express conspiracy, you cannot be considered as an accomplice
or accessory because of the presence of conspiracy.

2. Accomplices- cooperate by previous or simultaneous acts (must have knowledge and must cooperate BUT
there is no agreement)
3. Accessories- after the fact

Note : Knowledge for accomplice, it must not be knowledge of a particular offense or victim otherwise if you already
know the particular crime and against whom then that is already tantamount to conspiracy. If for example you are the
gun store and here is A and B they bought guns from you, it does not mean that accomplice naka sa tnaan nilang
buhaton, what will make the person who supplied the firearm as a conspirator is when he agrees, but if he does not
agree expressly or impliedly but he knows that it is going to be committed for some crime, whatever the crime is coz you
don’t know specifically then we can say that there is already cooperation by prior acts. Once there is a agreement as to
what time and against who, then there is already conspiracy because conspiracy need not be express, it may be implied.

3 Types of Actors (Art. 16)

 Grave and Less Grave Felonies:

1. Principals
2. Accomplices
3. Accessories
 Light Felonies:

1. Principals
2. Accomplices

Three kinds of Accessories (Art. 19, RPC)

1. Profited or assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the crime

2. Concealed or destroyed the body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof
3. Harbored, concealed or assisted the escape of the principal, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his
public function OR whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder or attempt to
assassinate the Chief Executive, OR is a habitual criminal. (Has limited application) (Only applies if principal is
identified and his guilt proven)

Note : It is only in accessory in No. 3 where you have the specific crimes, because the specific crimes which
are treason, parricide, murder, these are not necessary in accessories 1 and 2; they only come to play only in
No. 3.

Problem: The victim is living in a small islet and there is no way that he could be killed unless he is shot from a distance.
The guy who made the order was A. A, here, is a principal by inducement.

The guy who will shoot is B. B is principal by execution.

The guy who supplied the only weapon that can effect the killing was C. C was principal by indispensable cooperation.

But if we have another guy, who transported the firearms - he knew of the plan and his role in the plot, which was to
bring the firearm - he was just the driver. He knew concurred to the criminal design. Because of his agreement, he will
become a conspirator; therefore, even if he was not a principal in any way, he will be held liable as a principal.

Nathan’s question: Accomplice vs a Conspirator

Here’s a group of armed men. They have conspired to rob a bank. They have agreed on the crime. They have completed
a conspiracy.

You will supply the vehicle. You do not exactly know what the crime is going to be committed (robbery or to kill). But
nonetheless, you have knowledge that they’re going to commit a crime and have contributed to it; but you have not
agreed exactly to it.

Because once there is an agreement, the definition of the conspiracy will kick in.

Conspiracy is that once there is an agreement (two or more persons come to an agreement to perform or to commit a
crime) then there is already a conspiracy. Once you have concurred, as the SC held in many cases, there can be implied
conspiracy. And that is the reason why it’s really confusing because of the implied conspiracy. Meaning you do not have
Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 35
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
to have an agreement per se; it’s just that you clung to the criminal design of the original conspirators. Once you cling to
that design and agree fully well what the crime is going to be committed, what it is and who’s the target. Once agreed,
then there is already implied conspiracy.

Nathan’s example where there is a conspiracy to kill Ron. The armed men go to the gun store asked the owner to help
them commit the crime. Is the owner liable as an accomplice or a conspirator?

Fiscal’s Answer:

Let’s discuss the elements

1st Did you participate in the killing? Yes, because he supplied the firearm.

2nd Was the act of supplying an indication of concurrence to the criminal design which was to kill Ron?

If the answer yes, then there is conspiracy.

If he merely concurred (like tando-tando lang siya) or merely agreed but did not do anything, he will not be
liable.

Article 19. Accessories. - 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.

3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals 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.

1. In the first, the one who profits need not be the accessory. It may be the principal.

2. Concealment or destroying the body of the crime – the body here could refer to the weapon, body of the victim

3. Concealing or harboring the criminal himself

Accessory is a Public Official Accessory is not a Public Official

Principal is guilty of any crime Principal is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or

an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive

Principal is known to be habitually guilty of some

other crime.

**Note that the word used here is not a recidivist.

It can be any kind of crime (wala tiwasa ang
statement naputol ang tingog sa mic. Sorry. I just
based it nalang sa codals).**

The offender must have abused his public office

The principal must be tried and convicted. The accessory here cannot be held liable until there is a
conviction.

The principal here must be tried and found guilty. So if the principal is in hiding, you can never convict the accessory. The
conviction of the accessory will depend on the conviction of the principal. But this is only for #3.

Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. - 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 of the next preceding article.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 36
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
Note: Accessory of a light felony is not liable.

Article 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are nor considered penalties. - The following
shall not be considered as penalties:

1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well as their detention by
reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital.

2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for
the purposes specified therein.

3. Suspension from the employment of public office during the trial or in order to
institute proceedings.

4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their administrative
disciplinary powers, superior officials may impose upon their subordinates.

5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal
form.

What are not penalties:

1. Detention of accused (not convicted) persons 


a. Detained person like Enrile, Jinggoy or Revilla can still run for senator or president. Because they are not
yet convicted therefore they still have their civil and political rights. And once they are convicted
accessory penalties will set in. But prior to that, they can exercise their rights.

b. They are only deprived of their liberty because the crime for what they are charged is not bailable.

2. Detention and hospitalization of insane persons 


3. Commitment of minors to institutions 


4. Suspension of employment during trial or in order to institute proceedings 


a. Before conviction, NOT yet penalties.

i. Example: when the offender is charged with violation of the anti-graft and practices act. Once
the information is filed with the Sandiganbayan. The fact alone na ma filan ka ug information
would be a ground for suspension. But this suspension is not a penalty because there is no
conviction yet.

b. After conviction, there can be a penalty of suspension which is temporary disqualification

5. Administrative fines or disciplinary measure 


a. Not penalties. As the word suggest these are not imposed by the court but rather imposed by agencies of
the government that are charged with enforcement of the laws. Like violation of traffic rules  with LTO
or with nature to DENR.

6. Deprivation of rights and reparations 


Classification of Penalties

1. Capital, Afflictive, Correctional, Light 


a. There is no more death.

b. Afflictive  prision mayor to reclusion perpetua(RPC)/ 6yrs to life imprisonment (SPL)

c. Correctional  Destiero is correctional

d. Light  arresto menor

2. Divisible, Indivisible 


a. Indivisible  Reclusion Perpetua

b. Divisible  Destiero (6mon +1day to 6 yrs) liberty is restricted

3. Corporal, Deprivation of Freedom, Restriction of Freedom, Deprivation of Rights, 
Fines

a. EFFECTS:

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 37
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
i. Corporal  Death

ii. Deprivation of Freedom  Imprisonment

iii. Restriction of Freedom  Destiero

iv. Deprivation of rights  Civil interdiction

4. Economic Fines

a. Afflictive – exceeds P6,000 


b. Correctional – P200-P6,000 


c. Light – less than P200 


5. Principal, Accessory 


Duration and effect of Penalties: Arts. 27-45

RECLUSION PERPETUA

 Per amendment in R.A. 7659, reclusion perpetua now has a duration of from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. 


 For purposes of Preventive Imprisonment it is pegged at 30 yrs

 For purpose of Pardon it is pegged at 30 yrs.

 Regardless of these reasons, it remains to be an indivisible penalty. (Pp. vs. Lucas, G.R. Nos. 108172-73, May 25,
1994) 


 On the other hand, PAROLE can start at 20 yrs and 1day because this is the minimum.

 NOTE: If only one Reclusion Perpetua you can never be imprisoned for more than 30 yrs. So duration of perpetua
is 20 yrs and 1 day to 40 yrs BUT if you are only convicted to one perpetua then your maximum is only 30. (
RA7695)

 Unlike other penalty there is a range which is the min, med and max for purpose of parole. The range can go as
high as the max of the penalty which is not the case in perpetua. You will not reach 40yrs regardless of any
circumstance attributing in the single perpetua crime. But if you are good you can get the 20yrs and 1 day.

 The only time it can reach up to 40yrs is when there is application of the THREE FOLD RULE

 Preventive Imprisonment it is peg at 30 yrs (PRE-TRIAL PRISONER)

o This means that when you are imprisoned for committing a crime where the penalty is reclusion perpetua
BUT you grow old in the cell and yet your case has not been closed and the trial took more than 30 yrs.
The trial will still go on but he cannot continue to be imprisoned anymore because for reason of
preventive imprisonment, reclusion perpetua is only for 30 yrs.

 Reclusion is indivisible and imposed in its entirety without a fixed period for its duration regardless of mitigating
or aggravating circumstance. BUT TAKE NOTE QUALIFY the meaning of mitigating because PRIVILEGE
MITIGATING WILL HAVE A BEARING regardless of any ordinary mitigating.

Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life Imprisonment

AS TO RECLUSION PERPETUA LIFE IMPRISONMENT

1. LAW RPC SPL

2. ACCESSORY PENALTY CARRIES WITH IT NONE

3. DURATION DEFINITE NONE

But for purposes of parole,

both RP and Life imprisonment
are computed at 30, that’s the
maximum that a person can
be imprisoned unless 3- fold
rule applies

Destierro
 is divisible

 the movement of the accused is restricted and it can range from 25 to 25O kilometers.
Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 38
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1

Rights that are suspended at the time of sentence

 It may refer to the rights of a person over his property. (Civil Interdiction)

Pardon by the President and the Offended Party

Presidential Pardon Pardon by Offended Party
Extends to any crime Only to private crimes

Extinguishes criminal liability Bars criminal prosecution

There has to be a conviction The pardon by the offended party must be

given before the conviction or even the
prosecution

Does not include civil liability May include waiver of civil liability although
most times the pardon can come after the
payment of civil liability

Extended to any party Must include both offenders unless one of

them died

May be absolute or conditional Cannot be subject to any condition but it could

be subject as to conditions on civil liability

Pecuniary Liabilities

Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. — In case the property of the offender should not
be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the following
order:

1. The reparation of the damage caused.

2. Indemnification of consequential damages.

3. The fine.

4. The cost of the proceedings.

When you say REPARATION, it’s usually about PROPERTY. When we say INDEMNIFICATION, it’s more or less PERSONS.

Subsidiary Penalty

*Art. 39. Subsidiary Penalty. – If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine
mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary
personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage
rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial
court, 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 to 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.

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 imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary

imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit.

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 deprivations as those

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 39
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
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. (As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).

*As amended by R.A. 10159, April 10, 2012

When a person is penalized with a crime and he cannot pay the fine, he can be imprisoned. What is the rate? The rate is
now minimum wage of the highest daily minimum wage in the Philippines (probably in Makati). It does not say highest
minimum wage in the place in commission. So even if the guy committed the crime in Camotes, for example, the
computation should be based on the daily minimum wage in Makati.

Application of Penalties

Take note of the ones that are repealed:

 Art. 47

 Art. 63 (2)

 Art. 74

 Art. 80

 Art. 81- 85

The penalties imposed in BOOK 2 for the principal for the consummated stage. Thus:

Consummated Frustrated Attempted

Principal 0 -1 -2

Accomplice -1 -2 -3

Accessories -2 -3 -4

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.

Kinds

1. ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME (Art. 48)

- There is a formula:

a. COMPOUND CRIME: One act  2 or more grave or less grave offenses

b. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER: 2 offenses (NOT 2 acts)  one is a means of committing the other

2. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME/ COMPOSITE CRIME/SINGLE INDIVISIBLE

- Those provided by law, there is no formula. The law itself states that if this crime is committed with another
crime, this is the penalty.

- But there are only a few special complex crimes. Sometime you can change the designation of the special
complex crime, sometimes you cannot. Ex: robbery with homicide, regardless of the number of people killed,
it will always be, robbery with homicide; or regardless of the manner of killing whether there was treachery,
it does not matter, I will always be robbery with homicide.

Plurality of crimes
It is possible that we have a formal plurality which means that there is one criminal intent resulting in 2 or more
crimes, but there is only one criminal liability. Many crimes committed but there is only one liability. Why? Because it is
possible that those many crimes arose from one single act. Or it’s possible that those many crimes refer to one offense as
a means to commit another. So in those cases, there is only one liability.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 40
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
Material Plurality means there are several crimes arising from several intents or negligence. Here, there will be
separate criminal liability.

In continuing Crime, there is one intent, there are a series of acts but these series of acts only constitute one crime.
Ex: kidnapping, taking one person from place to place. In such cases, there will only be one criminal liability.

Case Study:

During a quarrel and in the heat of anger, Juan shot Pedro. The same bullet which hit also hit his son Juanito. Both died.
What’s the crime?

Answer:

No doubt we have an ordinary complex crime because one act equals two crimes. What are these 2 crimes? Homicide
insofar as Pedro is concerned and parricide insofar as Juanito is concerned. We have 2 crimes but these 2 crimes arose
from one act. Here we have a complex crime of parricide with homicide. Why homicide? Because it’s in the heat of anger,
there is no evident premeditation. Parricide and homicide, both of these crimes are grave offenses. According to Art 48,
the penalty to be imposed is that for the graver offense. What is the graver offense? Parricide. But the penalty of the
graver offense will be imposed in its maximum.

Case Study:

A B C and D agreed to ambush the vehicle of E and kill him and his companion. As E was driving home, all accuse fired
multiple successive gun shots at E’s vehicle. As a result, E and his passenger FG and H was killed. Is there material
plurality or formal plurality?

Answer: MATERIAL PLURALITY. Let us go to the basics. In People v. Orias, SC said, “deeply rooted is the doctrine that
when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.” Why is there material
plurality here? Because there are several acts. Here, one is not a means of committing another. In the given facts, the
formula in Art 48 does not apply because this not a case of one act equal 2 or more. It is not also a case of one act is
means of committing another.

In People v. Valdez, SC said, each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each
particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime.

In Nelmida, applying the same set of facts, and you can see that it is a later ruling, katong aotng set of facts, there was
conspiracy. That’s very important later on. So SC found that there was conspiracy. SC, under the same facts ruled that
the accused were guilty of separate counts of different murders. Pananglitan, daghan gipatay, lain lain na shots ang
nakapatay, separate, not complex. In this ruling the SINGLE IMPULSE DOCTRINE is not applicable.

What is the SINGLE IMPULSE DOCTRINE?

- started with Lawas Case,

-talks about single impulse doctrine as a deviation from the formula.

Formula:

1. one act equals two or more

2. one act which is a means of committing another

The Lawas Ruling, 97 Phil 975 (1955)

Single Impulse Doctrine

- If it is no longer one act, then it is not covered by the formula. Yet the Supreme Court held that even if there are
several acts but acting on the single impulse, it is one crime.

- In this case, members of the Home Guard, upon order of their leader, Lawas, simultaneously and successively
fired at several victims. As a result, 50 persons died. SC held that the killing was the result of a single impulse as
there was no intent on the part of the accused to fire at each and every victim separately and distinctly from each
other.

That is why, the word conspiracy is important. Because in the Lawas case, they were not conspiring, they were just
ordered, same in Maguindanao case, it is not like all of them were conspiring.

- In Lawas, there was no conspiracy, and each accused could not be held liable for separate crimes for
lack of clear evidence showing the number of persons actually killed by each of them.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 41
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
This court was merely forced to apply 48, complex crime, because of the impossibility of ascertaining the number of
persons killed by each accused, plus wa man unta toy problema if naay conspiracy, kay if naa pay conspiracy, kung tulo
kabuok g patay, niya tulo sad g patay, simply, sila tulo for each nga g patay, naay material plurality or separate crime.
But what made Lawas unique was that there was no conspiracy, so how would we prosecute now, because we could not
determine, who killed who, and we could not say that all are guilty for the death because there is no conspiracy. Because
if naa pa conspiracy, then we could have separate offenses. Because you would merely, by virtue of the conspiracy, make
them all liable for each and every death.

PP vs Remolino

 Lawas doctrine is more of an exception than the general rule

 “this court was merely forced to apply Article 48 of the RPC (for Lawas) because of the impossibility of
ascertaining the number of persons killed by each accused. Since conspiracy was not proven therein, joint
criminal responsibility could not be attributed to the accused. Each accused could not be held liable for separate
crimes because of lack of clear evidence showing the number of persons actually killed by each of them” (PP vs
Nelmida, September 11, 2012)

Recap:

GR: (complex crime)

1. one act equals two or more

2. one act which is a means of committing another

Exception:

a. So long as there is no conspiracy, even if there be several acts but acting on a single impulse, complex crime is
applied because we cannot determine who killed who and there is no conspiracy. (Lawas case)

b. But in the four cases (cited below) there is conspiracy. Still, Lawas case was applied. Here, Supreme Court
expanded the definition of single act, they are saying that even if there is conspiracy, but that conspiracy is the
reason that animated the single purpose, that conspiracy of a single purpose becomes one act.

Remollino case said that Lawas is an exception to the formula, however, this was also applied in several cases.

Cases of:

(cases that adopted Single Impulse Doctrine)

All involve prisoners, conspiracy present

- Pp vs Delos Santos

- PP vs. Abella

- PP vs Garcia

- PP vs Pincalin

There is a conspiracy (unlike Lawas) and yet Lawas case was applied. So there is again a deviation from the formula
given in article 48.

According to the four cases:

- Where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose, “their individual acts in pursuance of that
purpose are looked upon as a single act,–the act of execution –giving rise to a complex offense.”

(even if in truth and in fact there were several acts, ang single purpose nahimong single act)

These cases refer to jail riots, and in the case of Pincalin, the SC said that this application of the single impulse doctrine,
may not be applicable if what is involved is not prisoners

But the problem is in 2003, dli na prisoners, and naa nay conspiracy. In the case of Sanidad, Lawas was applied.

- Although several independent acts were performed by the accused in firing separate shots from their individual
firearms, it was not possible to determine who among them actually killed victim Rolando. The evidence shows a
single criminal impulse to kill Marlon’s group as a whole. Where a conspiracy animates several persons with a
single purpose, their individual acts done in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act, the act of
execution, giving rise to a single complex offense” (PP vs Sanidad, G.R. No. 146099, April 30, 2003) note:
abandoned in Nelmida)

But in the more recent case of Nelmida:

PP vs Nelmida G.R 184500 September 11, 2012

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 42
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
- SC said that you are all abandoned. Let us go back

- Sanidad is abandoned we have to revert back to the formula. We go back to the basic. Therefore the only time
that we do not apply the formula is when there is no conspiracy. If there is conspiracy, we should apply the
formula. No more deviation

- In this case, SC found that there was conspiracy. Under the same facts. SC ruled that the accused were guilty of
several counts of separate murders and attempted murders. Single impulse rule not applied

Pp vs Sanidad (2003) (abandoned in Pp vs Nelmida)

Although several independent acts were performed by the accused in firing separate shots from their individual
firearms, it was not possible to determine who among them actually killed victim Rolando Tugadi. Moreover, there is
no evidence that accused-appellants intended to fire at each and every one of the victims separately and distinctly
from each other. On the contrary, the evidence clearly shows a single criminal impulse to kill Marlon Tugadi's group
as a whole. Thus, Where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose, their individual
acts done in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act, the act of execution, giving rise
to a single complex offense.

 Pp vs Nelmida (2012)

ISSUE: Applicability of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the conviction of appellants must be for the
separate crimes of two (2) counts of murder and seven (7) counts of attempted murder or of the complex crime of
double murder with multiple frustrated murder and double attempted murder.

RULING:

This Court believes, however, that appellants should be convicted not of a complex crime but of
separate crimes of two (2) counts of murder and seven (7) counts of attempted murder as the killing and
wounding of the victims in this case were not the result of a single act but of several acts of the appellants, thus,
making Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code inapplicable.

The killing and wounding of the victims were not the result of a single discharge of firearms by the appellants and
their co-accused. To note, appellants and their co- accused opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle boarded by
Mayor Tawan-tawan and his group. As a result, two security escorts died while five (5) of them were wounded and
injured. Moreover, more than one gunman fired at the vehicle of the victims. As held in People v. Valdez, each act by
each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons
constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime. Appellants and their co-accused
performed not only a single act but several individual and distinct acts in the commission of the crime. Thus, Article
48 of the Revised Penal Code would not apply for it speaks only of a “single act.”

- In the Nelmida case, SC said if there are separate acts and these separate acts result in the death of different
persons, there shall be as many crimes as there as many victims.

- Sanidad ruling is abandoned.

- This Nelmida Principle which says that even if there is a single impulse provided that this single impulse actually
results in separate acts, then we should stick to the formula in Art. 48 which stated that one act giving rise to 2
or more grave or less grave offense. So that if it is not anymore one act but several acts then there would be as
many crimes as there as many victims. BUT the Nelmida case is very particular because the victims died. So still
the Single Larceny Doctrine has not been abandoned.

 CASES INVOLVING SINGLE IMPULSE DOCTRINE (All involve prisoners; Conspiracy present)

“Where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose, their individual acts in pursuance of that
purpose are looked upon as a single act – the act of execution – giving rise to a complex offense.”

- Pp vs De los Santos 122 Phil. 55 (1965)

- Pp vs Abella, 181 Phil 285 (1979)

- Pp vs Garcia 185 Phil 362 (1980)

- Pp vs Pincalin 190 Phil. 117 (1981)

 Santiago vs Garchitorena

For delito continuado to exist there should be a plurality of acts performed during a period of time; unity of penal
provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the same penal
provisions are united in one and same instant or resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose
or aim.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 43
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
According to Guevarra, in appearance, a delito continuado consists of several crimes but in reality there is only one
crime in the mind of the perpetrator. Padilla views such offense as consisting of a series of acts arising from one
criminal intent or resolution

- The Single Impulse Doctrine (SID) does not apply to delito continuado. So the Single Larceny Doctrine (SLD) still
stands.

- In SLD, even if the word use is “larceny”, it does not necessarily mean that it should only refer to theft or
robbery.

- Like in the Santiago case which does not involve theft, not a property crime, but is about crimes against public
officers and the SLD was applied here.

- Classic example of SLD, an old case wherein the thief took several chickens by different owners from the chicken
coop.

 WHEN THERE IS NO PLURALITY:

(1) Foreknowledge Rule – where the accused repetitively performed one element of a crime (or component of a
complex crime) over a period of time on a more or less regular basis, having foreknowledge of its occurrence.

- Can be continuous/continued crime or continuing crime.

Case Study: Juan is the salesman of a marketing company, in charge of sales in one whole province, who remits the sales
regularly once a week. Every day from Feb. 1 to Feb. 6, he misappropriated P5,000 a day from his daily collections,
remitting only a total of P50,000 on Feb. 7. He again made daily misappropriations of the same amount from Feb. 8 to
Feb. 14, remitting only P40,000 for the scheduled remittance. How many crimes were committed by Juan?

Answer: here, there is regularity in the remittance although he misappropriated every day. Thus, there is only one crime
committed which is estafa. And estafa happens upon Juan’s act of remitting the sales.

(2) Doctrine of Common Elements – where two or more crimes have one common element. They cannot be
complexed if one is a mode of committing the other.

- Classic example is damage in Estafa and Falsification of Private Document. We cannot have a complex crime
of estafa through falsification of private document because in complex crime there has to be 2 offenses which
in each offense, their respective elements should be complete.

- If there is a common element of “damage”, we cannot have 2 offenses but only one offense. One offense
cannot be complete anymore because an element is common to both offenses; there is no complex crime.

- In Complex Crime, all elements of the 2 or more offenses must be complete in itself. Meaning, each offense
must be able to stand alone.

(3) Doctrine of Absorption of Crimes – if one offense is an element of another, the former is absorbed in the
latter.

Hence: (this is true even if the crime absorbed carries a higher penalty)

- Grave Coercion is absorbed in Robbery with Violence or Intimidation against Persons;

- Physical Injuries is absorbed by Homicide;

- Illegal Detention by Abduction.

 CONTINUOUS/CONTINUED CRIME vs CONTINUING CRIME

o Continued/Continuous Crime

- The offender, impelled by a single criminal impulse (intent), commits a series of overt acts at about the same
time in about the same place and all the overt acts violate one and the same provision of law.

- Example: chicken coop case

o Continuing Crime

- A crime whose elements are committed in different locations or different times, all elements constituting only
1 crime.

 COMPLEXING FALSIFICATION AND ESTAFA

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 44
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
- Damage is not an element of or required in falsification of public, official or commercial documents.

- Hence, there can be a complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of any of these three documents.

Case study: Marcial falsified a TCT of land by placing his name as the owner od the land, and thereafter sold the land
to Fabian who was made to believe that Marcial owned it. What crime/s is/are committed?

Answer: Estafa through Falsification of Public Document. So we have a complex crime here.

NOTE: the only falsification that we cannot complex with another offense is the falsification of a private
document. Because in that case, we need to have a separate element of damage.

Case study: Marcial falsified a letter written by Juan to Macario in order to make it appear that Marcial was authorized
by Juan to receive the rental of Macario on Juan’s apartment. Macario paid the rent to Marcial. What crime/s is/are
committed by Marcial?

Answer: 2 crimes committed. In a few Supreme Court cases, it held that when there is Estafa committed through the
falsification of private document, the crime should be designated as falsification of the private document. However, it
still depends on WHO is filing the case. If the one filing the case is the person who sustained damage, then the crime
is Estafa, insofar as to the latter. If the one filing is the person whose signature was falsified, the crime is falsification.

So here, if Macario had paid twice, then the crime is Estafa insofar as Macario is concerned. But if Marcial will file the
case, then the crime is falsification because it was his signature that was falsified.

Case study: Marcial falsely made representations to Macario that he was authorized by Juan to collect his rent due to
Juan’s apartment. Relying on such misrepresentations, Macario gave his rent to Marcial. The latter misappropriated
the amount. In order to conceal the misdeed, Marcial wrote an acknowledgment purportedly signed by Magdalena,
Macario’s mistress, that the latter was the one who received the money. What is the crime?

Answer: there 2 separate crimes here. There is no complex crime. We have (1) Estafa and (2) Falsification of Private
Document. Falsification was not a mode of committing Estafa, but was resorted to conceal Estafa.

- This is similar to burning a person and thereafter burning the house to conceal the body of the victim. That
would not anymore be Arson but rather (1) Murder and (2) Arson. There are 2 separate offenses.

 COMPLEXING REBELLION

- Can rebellion be complex with other common crimes?

o Regalado’s view in People vs Hernandez 99 Phil 515 – No.

- Supreme Court tells us that any crime committed in the furtherance of rebellion is absorbed by rebellion.
(Enrile case and Gringo case)

o Inigo’s view – Yes, under the new definition of rebellion. (but not yet applied by the Supreme Court)

 SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES

- Also known as Single or Special Indivisible Crimes

- When confronted with a problem wherein 2 or more crimes have been committed, to identify WON there is a
complex crime:

o First, determine whether there is a law specifically punishing the act as a special complex crime.

o Second, if there is no specific law punishing such crimes, use the formula under Art. 48 on complex crimes.

- Special Complex Crimes as enumerated: (Memorize!)

a) Rape with Homicide; Attempted Rape with Homicide (Art. 266-b)

o No special complex crime punishing these 2 crimes of Rape and Attempted Homicide, this is the time we
apply article 48.

b) Kidnapping under Art. 267 when the victim is killed or dies, or for ransom, or with Rape, or with Torture;

o Under the definition in a new special penal law, there are certain conditions when a physical infliction of
pain can be considered torture.

o But under Art. 267, Torture not the same as the torture under the new penal law. And thus, it doesn’t
need to have the conditions/elements as required under that new law.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 45
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
o Also, always remember, you can never complex a special penal law with felonies punished under the
RPC.

o When the victim is killed or dies, note that the law does not use the word homicide. So it can be termed
or designated as Kidnapping with Parricide or with Murder, but never Homicide.

c) Robbery with Homicide or Serious Physical Injuries (Arts. 294 and 295)

o Take note that this is regardless of the number victims. Even if there are 10 victims but there is only one
robbery, there can only be one complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.

d) Robbery with Rape or Intentional Mutilation or Arson (Art. 294)

e) Attempted or Frustrated Robbery with Homicide (Art. 297)

Note:

- In letter A, C, and D, that in Robbery and/or Homicide, one of these crimes should be consummated.

- Example: Robbery with Homicide; Robbery with Physical Injuries; Attempted or Frustrated Robbery with
Homicide;

- But can you have a complex crime of Attempted Robbery and Attempted Homicide? Yes, under Art. 48. Not
under special complex crime.

- Pp vs Malngan (GR 170470, Sept. 26, 2006)

o Arson resulting in death is simply Arson under Art. 320, as amended by RA 7659 for Destructive Arson.

o For other kinds of arson, PD 1613 applies.

 IS THERE A COMPLEX CRIME OF ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED ROBBERY WITH SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES?

- No. You can never complex slight physical injuries because it’s either absorbed or separate.

- If there is no intent to kill:

o If the physical injuries were committed on the occasion of and as a means to commit the Attempted or
Frustrated Robbery, the injuries are absorbed; no complexing.

o If the physical injuries were committed on the occasion of the Attempted or Frustrated Robbery but not as a
means of committing the latter, there are separate crimes.

 Napolis vs CA (GR L-28865)

The robbers entered upon a store by using force upon things. The store leads to the dwelling. So they went inside
the bedroom and they intimidated the victims and robbed the latter.

So here, there were 2 modes used in committing the robbery. 1 st is the use of force upon things, and 2nd is
intimidation on persons.

Ruling: the argument to the effect that the violence against or intimidation of a person supplies the "controlling
qualification," is far from sufficient to justify said result. We agree with the proposition that robbery with "violence or
intimidation against the person is evidently graver than ordinary robbery committed by force upon things," but,
precisely, for this reason, We cannot accept the conclusion deduced therefrom in the cases above cited — reduction
of the penalty for the latter offense owing to the concurrence of violence or intimidation which made it a more serious
one. It is, to our mind, more plausible to believe that Art. 294 applies only where robbery with violence against or
intimidation of person takes place without entering an inhabited house, under the conditions set forth in Art. 299 of
the Revised Penal Code.

 ROBBERY WITH ROBBERY (The obiter in People vs Liani, April 5, 1982)

The reason given in the Napolis case is in order to avoid the illogical proposition that the former is the "graver
offense, " but yet punished with a lighter penalty than the latter. But, if the penalty for the robbery is higher when it
is categorized as one with violence than when classified as one with force upon things, it is the violence against or
intimidation of person that supply the "controlling qualification," as held in earlier cases (U.S. vs. Turla, 38 Phil. 346;
U.S. vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil. 89), and the crime would simply be robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.
In the instant case, the crime would be robbery with rape under Art 294, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 46
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
 COMPLEXING RAPE and FORCIBLE ABDUCTION (People vs Garcia, GR 141125)

There can only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The crime of forcible abduction was only
necessary for the first rape. Thus, the subsequent acts of rape can no longer be considered as separate complex
crimes of forcible abduction with rape. They should be detached from and considered independently of the forcible
abduction. Therefore, accused-appellant should be convicted of one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape
and three separate acts of rape.

- There used to be a landmark decision (Pp vs Jose) which SC said that if the victim of rape was abducted by a
group of offenders and then gang raped the victim in another place, there would be as many complex crime of
Forcible abduction with Rape as there where rapes committed.

- But the Garcia ruling now tells us that since there was only one act of abducting, then there should only be one
complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape and the others would simply be Rape.

 COMPLEXING CULPABLE CRIMES (Reodica vs CA, GR 125066)

There can be complexing of imprudence crimes under Art. 48. Unless one of the crimes is a light offense, it has to be
filed separately.

POINTS EMPHASIZED BY ATTY. PETRALBA:

o Memorize all the special complex crimes

o When the offense is not a special complex crime, then you determine whether any of the two formula under Art.
48 is applicable.

o If Article 48 is not applicable, determine whether the Doctrine of Absorption applies.

o If the Doctrine of Absorption does not apply, determine whether it is a Continuing Crime, or a Continued Crime,
or the Single Larceny Doctrine applies.

o If none of these work, then you have separate crimes. Then that’s the time you file separate cases.

Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is
different from that intended. — In cases in which the felony committed is different from that
which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed:

1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the
offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be
imposed in its maximum period.

2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one
which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its
maximum period.

3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts
committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if
the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty
provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.

- Remember that this article tell us that it’s ALWAYS the LOWER penalty which should be imposed.

- So if the crime intended to committed is Homicide and what actually committed was Parricide, then the penalty
shall for Homicide

- If the intention was to commit Parricide but the resulting crime is Homicide, still the penalty should be for
Homicide.

- It is always the lower penalty to be imposed, whether it is the intended crime or the crime actually committed.

 PENALTY FOR ERROR IN PERSONAE

o Penalty of actual crime is higher than the intended crime – penalty is for the intended crime at maximum period

o Penalty of actual crime is lower than the intended crime – penalty is for actual crime at maximum period

o If the acts constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime which prescribes a higher penalty – such shall be
imposed in its maximum period

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 47
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
o If the crime and/or the penalties are the same – article 49 does not apply.

Article 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. - The penalty
next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed
upon the principal in a frustrated felony.

Article 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes. - A penalty

lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed
upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.

Article 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in consummated crime. - The

penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated shall be imposed
upon the accomplices in the commission of a consummated felony.

Article 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a

consummated felony. - The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a
consummated felony.

Article 54. Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated crime. - The penalty
next lower in degree than prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the
accomplices in the commission of a frustrated felony.

Article 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated crime. - The penalty
lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon
the accessories to the commission of a frustrated felony.

Article 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime. - The

penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for an attempt to commit a felony shall
be imposed upon the accomplices in an attempt to commit the felony.

Article 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted crime. - The

penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the attempted felony shall be
imposed upon the accessories to the attempt to commit a felony.

 ARTS. 50 TO 57 – APPLICATION OF PENALTIES TO PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES, ACCESSORIES, CONSUMMATED,

FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED STAGES (BY DEGREE)

Consummated Frustrated Attempted

0 (Penalty provided in
Principal 1 2
the RPC)

Accomplice 1 2 3

Accessory 2 3 4

- In the RPC, the penalty provided is for the Principal in its Consummated stage.

- For Principals, and it is in the frustrated stage, it is 1 degree lower. And 2 degrees lower, if it in the attempted
stage (based from the penalty given in the consummated stage for Principals). So on and so forth for Accomplices
and Accessories.

- However, if the crime committed is Homicide, Parricide, or Murder (in its Frustrated or Attempted stage), the
court may impose more than 1 degree (which can be 2 degrees)

- Exception: when the crime is a light felony, no penalty imposed for Accessory-offender.

o Lowering by Degree

- When there is a privilege mitigating circumstance present

- When there is 2 or more ordinary mitigating circumstance, without aggravating circumstance, present

o Increasing/Lowering by Period

- When there is an ordinary mitigating circumstance present

- When there is an ordinary aggravating circumstance present

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 48
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1

o Penalty is ALWAYS in its MAXIMUM period

- When it is an ordinary complex crime under Art. 48

- When the offender is a quasi-recividist

- When the crime is performed by a syndicate

Article 58. Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain accessories. - Those

accessories falling within the terms of paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code who should act with
abuse of their public functions, shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute perpetual
disqualification if the principal offender shall be guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute
temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of a less grave felony.

 ART. 58 – ADDITIONAL PENALTY OF DISQUALIFICATION FOR ACCESSORIES NO. 3 WHO ACT IN ABUSE OF THEIR
PUBLIC FUNCTIONS.

Article 59. 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.

 ART. 59 – PENALTY FOR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

Article 60. Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57. - The provisions
contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the
law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be
imposed upon accomplices or accessories.

 AR. 60 – WHEN ARTS. 50 TO 57 ARE NOT APPLICABLE

Article 61. Rules for graduating penalties. - For the purpose of graduating the penalties
which, according to the provisions of Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed
upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or attempted felony, or as accomplices or
accessories, the following rules shall be observed:

1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in
degrees shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated
scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code.

2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one
or more divisible penalties to be impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall
be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated
scale.

3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and
the maximum period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be
composed of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum
periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in
said respective graduated scale.

4. when the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods, corresponding to
different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period
immediately following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be
taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following
in the above mentioned respective graduated scale.

5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not especially provided for in
the four preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties
upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and
upon accomplices and accessories.

 ART. 61 – RULES FOR GRADUATING PENALTIES, IN RELATION TO ART. 50 TO 57 (BY DIFFERENT DEGREES)

Graduating penalties by period

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 49
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
REMINDER: Regardless of the number of aggravating circumstances we can never increase by degree we can only reach
up to the maximum because to prescribe more would be unconstitutional.

When the penalty is indivisible either

a. single indivisible or

b. complex penalty which is partly divisible and partly indivisible.

If the penalty is single indivisible such as life or reclusion perpetua, this will not matter anymore because ordinary
mitigating or aggravating will not have effect anymore.

However penalties like reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua that is not indivisible. It is capable of being divided. So
automatically RP becomes the maximum and RT will have to be divided by two. That makes 16 years and 1 day to 20
years being the medium range and 12 years and 1 day to 16 years being the minimum. Even if let’s just say that the
reclusion temporal is maximum, if the penalty attached to the crime charged is RT maximum to RP that is a divisible
penalty. RP will be maximum and the RT maximum will have to be divided to 3 and the highest years will be the
maximum and that maximum will have to be divided by two. The higher portion will become the medium while the lower
will become the minimum because the RP is the maximum. So what we have is not exactly minimum of RT maximum it is
a different formula altogether.

It could also happen that the penalty for example is prision coreccional maximum to prison mayor minimum. So you have
to get the duration of these two because you cannot easily divide them into 3 you have to get the whole period and
divide by 3. What happens if you have a complex crime? If the penalty is prision correcional maximum and prison mayor
minimum. We have to get the whole period divide it by three then you will have the maximum then you will have the
medium and the minimum. And because it is a complex crime you will always maximum. What is the effect of an ordinary
mitigating? Yes it will have an effect because here we already have the maximum and we further have to subdivide it into
three and then it will be the minimum of the maximum that will be imposed. Remember always maximum if complex
crime. When we say always it does not mean that we do not take into consideration anymore ordinary mitigating
circumstance. Rather either increasing or lowering by sub periods not periods anymore because it is always maximum.

PROBLEM:

Minor pleaded guilty to the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents attendant
circumstances are minority and plea of guilty to a complex crime. Complex crime you have to remember is always
maximum. Penalty for estafa is prson mayor and estafa is the graver of the two.

STEPS:

1. Prison mayor should be at the maximum being complex

2. Because of the presence of minority which is a privileged mitigating circumstance we go one degree lower so we
have prison correcional maximum

3. and then ordinary MC of plea of guilty so what we have is in PC maximum in its minimum sub period. That
is not yet the penalty that is going to be imposed.

4. Applying the ISLAW that will only constitute the maximum range.

5. Then you have to go 1 degree lower to get the minimum range but the question is what is the minimum range
under ISLAW. Should it be one degree lower from the maximum? Where do we get the minimum?

Now section 1 in ISLAW clearly states that the minimum should be one degree lower from the penalty attached to the
crime charged prescribed by law. So the minimum shall not be computed from the maximum range we have arrived at
but the maximum is fixed/ prescribed by law. Which means that is it possible that the minimum could be higher than the
maximum? For example homicide and the offender is a minor and two ordinary MC without aggravating. The penalty will
become PC and what is the minimum under ISLAW? It gets more difficult in SPL because in graduating penalties the
minimum cannot be lower than the minimum prescribed in the law and yet minority has the effect of lowering one
degree. It would seem that we can have a grotesque situation where the minimum is higher than the maximum but that
is the wording of ISLAW.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

- For purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower should be determined WITHOUT regard as
to whether the basic penalty provided by the Code should be applied in its maximum or minimum period as the
circumstances modifying liability may require (People vs Gonzales, 73 Phil 549)

- Thus, a mitigating circumstance cannot be factored in in computing the minimum under ISLAW

- How to get the maximum?

o That which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the RPC

- How to get the minimum?

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 50
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
o The range of penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code, Sec 1, RA 4103

o Where in the penalty next lower? It is anywhere

o So that even if we have a complex crime, mitigating or aggravating, a syndicate, quasi-recidivism, the
minimum under ISLAW is anywhere. It is always maximum if we are talking about the maximum range but
for the minimum range under ISLAW it could be anywhere.

o In this case, for purposes of ISLAW, the penalty next lower should be determined without regard as to
whether the basic penalty provided by the code should be applied in its maximum or minimum period as the
circumstances modifying the liability may require. Mitigating circumstances are not factored in. There is a
wide latitude for the judge.

- If a crime is punished by special law, max should be within the max fixed therein and min within the range
prescribed by law

THREE PERIODS BUT BELONGING TO DIFFERENT PENALTIES

Eduarte v People, GR No 176566, Oct 2,2009

- The penalty prescribed under Art 294(5) is prision correctional maximum to prision mayor medium.

- Applying ISLAW, the minimum should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e. arresto mayor
max to prision correctional medium (anywhere), and whose maximum should be the proper period of prision
correctional maximum to prision mayor medium.

- The maximum range here is divided into 3 periods. There being 1 mitigating of voluntary surrender, the maximum
term is set at the minimum of the maximum range.

- The voluntary surrender only becomes a factor in determining the maximum range. For the minimum, it does not
matter.

ISLAW FOR COMPLEX PENALTIES

Vidal v People, GR No 211023, April 7, 2014

- The penalty prescribed under ART 217 (4) RPC is reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua

- This is not a case of an indivisible penalty, this is in fact a divisible penalty.

- Applying ISLAW, the minimum should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e. prision mayor max
to reclusion temporal medium (anywhere) and whose maximum should be the proper period of reclusion temporal
maximum.

- The maximum range here is divided into 3 periods. RT max is divided into 2 sub-periods, the lower sub-period is the
minimum (of the maximum indeterminate range), the higher sub-period is the medium and the RP is the max of the
range

ISLAW

- Mandatory only for sentences involving imprisonment (unless the sentence constitutes and exception)

- ISLAW applies to SPL. If the penalty provided is fixed, the penalty under ISLAW shall be within those limits. If the
penalty is borrowed from RPC, the rules for RPC shall apply

- People vs Simon, July 29, 1994

o ISLAW still applies even in crimes or offenses punished under SPL

 FACTS : Accused-appellant was charged with a violation of Section 4, Article II of RA no. 6425 under an
indictment alleging that on or about October 22, 1988, at barangay Sto. Cristo, Guagua, Pampanga, he sold four
tea bags to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM)poseur-buyer in consideration of the sum of P40.00, which tea bags,
when subjected to a laboratory examination, were found positive for marijuana. On December 4, 1989, the trial
court rendered judgment convicting appellant, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment

 ISSUE: Whether or not the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to the case?

 HELD: Yes. Drug offenses are not included in nor has appellant committed any act which would put him within
the exceptions to said law and the penalty to be imposed does not involve reclusion perpetua to death. The
Indeterminate Sentence Law is a legal and social measure of compassion, and should be liberally interpreted in
favor of the accused.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 51
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
- “If the offense is punished by any other 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 prescribed by the same” We hold that this quoted portion of the section indubitably refers to an offense
under an SPL, wherein the penalty imposed was not taken from and is without reference to the RPC, such that it may
be said that the “offense is punished under that law” (Caringal v People GR No 197086, February 12, 2014)

o So if the penalty under the special penal law is for example 8-15 years, the maximum shall not exceed 15
years, the minimum should not be lower than 8 years. You cannot go lower than that. Unlike in penalties
under the RPC, wherein you can go a degree lower. If in the SPL, the penalty is not borrowed from the RPC,
you can only impose within that range.

- There can be no indeterminate sentence if the penalty impose is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, otherwise it
will result in commingling divisible and indivisible penalties in the same sentence to be served by the convict (People
v Lian, March 29, 1996)

o If you go to ISLAW, it will only tell you that it does not apply when the penalty is death or life. It does not
mention about reclusion perpetua but Lian made it clear that there is also no application for reclusion
perpetua

- The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua is not singular, unusual or prohibited
in the scheme of penalties in the RPC.

- Such a penalty is in Article 61 which speaks of a principal penalty composed of one indivisible penalty and the
maximum period of a divisible penalty, in which case the penalty next lower in degree consists of the three
succeeding periods taken from the penalties next lower in degree, that is, prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its medium period. What is sought to be emphasized and clarified by this illustration, and which
appears to have been overlooked in previous decisions, is the aforesaid penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to reclusion perpetua is a complex and divisible penalty consisting of three periods ( People v Lian)

- Even if the penalty imposed is Reclusion Perpetua, if there is a privileged mitigating circumstance (e.g. minority),
ISLAW can only be applied after taking into consideration the privileged mitigating. Being privileged, it always takes
precedence. Criminal laws are to be applied in a manner that is advantageous to the accused.

o This is because the maximum range of ISLAW is computed from the penalty actually imposed. So if the
accused is a minor, reclusion perpetua can never be the penalty imposed because minority is always
privileged mitigating and always taken into consideration.

o Ergo, there is no crime, however heinous, wherein a minor offender cannot post bail.

WHEN NOT APPLICABLE:

1. When the penalty is indivisible (PP v Lian; PP v Estrada GR 104906, Oct 27, 1992)

2. When the maximum penalty imposed does not exceed 1 year

3. When the penalty is not imprisonment

4. To those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason, misprision, rebellion,

sedition or espionage, piracy

5. To those who are habitual delinquents

 The law is very specific. It does not say habitual offenders. It says habitual delinquents
which means that recidivists can avail of ISLAW.

6. To those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence

 Escapees here do not only refer to those convicted prisoners. The escapees may have
escaped during pre-trial detention

7. To those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the
terms thereof

8. Does not apply in offenses punished by death or life imprisonment

 How about reclusion perpetua?

o If the RP is single and indivisible, ISLAW cannot apply. Art. 63 applies

Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the law
prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 52
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:

1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance,
the greater penalty shall be applied.

2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is
no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act,
the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and
importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules,
according to the result of such compensation.

o If the RP is part of a complex penalty which is divisible, ISLAW applies

o If there is a privileged mitigating which lowers RP to a divisible penalty, ISL applies

o If RP of 30 years is arrived at after computing additional years under the

Incremental Penalty Rule, ISL applies

 There are certain crimes where the penalty would depend on the amount
(theft, estafa, robbery, etc). For example, if the amount in damage is ten
million then the penalty for the estafa could reach up to 30 years. 30 years
is also the limit. So if the amount of damage of five million, it has the same
penalty as if there had been damage of 100 million because of the 30 year
limit. This maximum of 30 years is also termed as Reclusion Perpetua but
this is actually derived at by adding one year for every 10,000 pesos. Even if
it is RP, it will still be considered divisible thus ISLAW applies.

CAN THE MAXIMUM REACH UP TO 30 YEARS? - Yes

People v Villanueva GR 163662, Feb 25, 2015

- Accused shall be meted an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which shall be taken from the maximum period
of the basic penalty, that is, reclusion temporal, to be imposed in its maxim period, plus 1 year for each additional
P10,000 of the amount of the fraud, but the total penalty should not exceed 30 years ( temed reclusion perpetua
under PD 818)

- The minimum of the indeterminate sentence shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that
prescribed by the Code, without first considering any modifying circumstance not the incremental penalty for the
amount of the fraud in excess of P22,000. Such penalty is prision mayor, with a duration of 6 years and1 day to 12
years.

People v Tuguinay GR 186132, Feb 27, 2012

- The additional years of the incremental penalty was added to the lowest of the maximum period, not the highest, in
the absence of any aggravating circumstance.

- So if the range for estafa is 6 years to 8 years, the one year (incremental penalty) is added to the 6 years not the 8
years.

Plea Bargaining

What is the result of plea bargaining to ISLAW?

In this case, the accused was charged with robbery with homicide. Robbery with homicide, the penalty there is actually
reclusion perpetua. But he pleaded guilty to the lower offense by virtue of a plea bargaining agreement. So he pleaded
guilty to homicide only and it was agreed by the court, by the prosecutor, by the heirs of the victim. So what happens is
that even if the original charge was for robbery with homicide, when he pleaded guilty to the lower offense of homicide,
the penalty imposable now is reclusion temporal. It is also possible to incorporate another ordinary mitigating nga plea of
guilty. Because now the penalty is lower, ISLAW applies. ISLAW applies even if the penalty has already been lowered by
virtue of the plea bargaining. So what will happen is that the maximum will be taken from reclusion temporal medium and
the minimum range will be anywhere within prision mayor.

Crime committed was murder punished with reclusion perpetua. Attendant’s circumstances are minority with discernment,
incomplete self-defense, ordinary mitigating no aggravating.
Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 53
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1

What is your problem with Graduating?

If the penalty is simple such as the penalty for homicide, reclusion temporal, that’s very simple. You can never go up
more than reclusion temporal regardless of any kind of penalty. The problem is when the penalty is complex penalty.
Complex meaning the penalty is not composed of 3 periods of a certain degree but rather, it could be 1 or 2 periods of a
penalty and then 1 or 2 of another. That becomes the complication, or when you have a penalty which consists in certain
period of a divisible penalty and an indivisible penalty. But if you have an indivisible penalty, automatically the indivisible
becomes the maximum. It becomes the maximum.

So you do not have to worry if you have an indivisible penalty as the maximum because regardless of any attendant’s
circumstances you will still be in the maximum which means that no aggravating, whether special or ordinary, no ordinary
mitigating will affect that. It will always be that indivisible penalty. You will have to divide now the divisible part of that
complex penalty in order to determine the minimum medium. And that’s where you can graduate them if there are
mitigating which are ordinary because if the mitigating is privileged, you have to get out from that penalty and go 1
degree lower. But even if you have a, let us say, privileged mitigating, take note that in privileged mitigating you go 1
degree lower? Still if it is a complex crime you always go to the maximum period. Or if there is a quasi-recidivism, you
also have to go to the maximum always because there are instances like what we wrote on the board wherein the
maximum always applies. So we said earlier that even if the mitigating is ordinary it can still be appreciated. It can still be
appreciated even if the penalty should always be in the maximum because then what you do is simply to divide the
maximum into sub-periods. But if you have a privileged mitigating, always 1 degree.

Remember even if the law says it’s always in the maximum, you can always subdivide it. The only time you cannot
subdivide or divide it is when it is indivisible. And also remember if the penalty is destierro, destierro is divisible
so you can also divide it. There is such a thing as destierro minimum, destierro medium, and destierro maximum.
However, even if destierro is a divisible penalty, you cannot apply ISLAW. Why? Because ISLAW only
applies when the penalty is imprisonment.

Art. 70 Successive service of sentences:

Material accumulation system – service of sentence shall be successive, unless
simultaneous service is possible
Juridical accumulation system – limits on the duration of service of sentence in case of
multiple sentences to be served
Absorption system – greater penalties absorb lesser penalties where there is a single
criminal intent, or in the case of continuing crimes, complex crimes, or special complex
crimes

Material accumulation. that first, it has to be simultaneous if the nature of the penalty so permits, and then successive.
For example, fine and disqualification; or fine and imprisonment. The convict can serve these penalties because they
capable of being served simultaneously.

 If the penalties are not capable of being served simultaneously, then it should be served successively starting
with the gravest.

 Example: Accused is sentenced to serve prision mayor and prision correcional. He will serve prision mayor first
and then prision correcional thereafter.

Judicial accumulation system, in which case the imprisonment cannot be more than 40 years and also it cannot be more
than 3 times of the most severe penalty.

 Even if there 20 reclusion perpetua, the maximum years of imprisonment would still be 40 years.

 Example: 3 arresto mayors, and then you have 1 reclusion temporal, the maximum of which is 20. All of them
may be served.

 However, if the gravest penalty multiplied by 3 would be lesser than the total of all the penalties, then the
former shall apply because it’s always the more advantageous penalty that is meted to the convict.

Three fold rule – the maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than three-fold 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 equals the same maximum period. In other words, the maximum penalty is three
times the most severe or the total of the penalties imposed, whichever is lower.

In absorption, in certain instances the penalty of another may be absorbed by another crime. Such as in the case of
ordinary or special complex crime.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 54
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
INCREASING OR REDUCING THE PENALTY OF FINE BY ONE OR MORE DEGREES

Art. 75 How to graduate fine by degree

- This is based on the degree of participation or the stage of the commission of the felony
- ¼ of maximum amount – 1 degree; minimum shall remain unchanged
- Maybe fixed anywhere within the limits according to mitigating, aggravating and wealth or means Can we graduate
of the culprit. (Art. 66) fines by degrees?

Yes, according to Article 75; one degree is equal to ¼ of the maximum. Deduct a quarter of the fine in order to get the
next degree. However, the graduated fine will always stay within the minimum and maximum limits.

 Example: If the fine prescribed by law is P200 to P600, ¼ of the maximum amount of P600 or P150 is taken.

 Example: If the penalty is reduced by 2 degrees, the penalty is computed as follows:

1. P600 divided by 4 = P150

2. P150 x 2 degrees = P300

3. P600 – P300 = P300

The penalty lowered by 2 degrees is P200 to P300.

How about graduation by periods?

The graduation should be within the range. That’s for ordinary mitigating. If the penalty is fine, it does not matter
whether it is ordinary or privilege mitigating.

 Example: If the fine prescribed by law is P2000 to P8000 and there is 1 privilege mitigating. The maximum is
P6000 and the minimum remains unchanged (P2000).

***ATTY. Petralba once again discusses Graduation of Penalties, ISLAW.***

Example 1: The penalty is prision correcional maximum to prision mayor minimum. If the penalty impose is compose of
2 periods, the next degree lower should also be compose of 2 periods.

Example 2: The penalty is prision correcional maximum to prision mayor minimum and it involves a complex crime in
which the penalty to be applied is in its maximum period. How do you get the maximum? Just divide the penalty by 3.

This maximum will now be the penalty for the complex crime. This will have to be further subdivided in order to obtain
the proper period for the penalty to be impose because this is where you will place the ordinary mitigating or aggravating
circumstances. So if there’s 1 aggravating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed would be:

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 55
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1

If there’s 1 mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed would be:

If there’s no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed would be:

Rule on effects of attendance of privileged mitigating, special aggravating, ordinary mitigating and
ordinary aggravating circumstances:

1. The presence of privileged mitigating will have the effect of lowering the penalty by one or two degrees to that
prescribed by law.

2. The presence of 2 ordinary mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance will have the effect of
lowering the penalty by one degree to that prescribed by law.

 The term ‘aggravating’ here is generic which refers to both ordinary and special aggravating
circumstance. If you cannot lower the penalty by 1 degree when there are 2 ordinary mitigating but there
is 1 ordinary aggravating, with more reason when you have a special aggravating.

3. The presence of special aggravating circumstances like (1) taking advantage of one’s public position or (3)
commission by a person belonging to an organized/syndicated crime group; (3) when the accused is a relative of
the victim; or when the felony committed is a complex crime ( not a special aggravating circumstance), will have
the effect of the penalty being impose in its maximum period.

 Take note: Presence of any or all of them will have the same effect of the penalty being impose in its
maximum period.

 Example: The crime committed is direct assault with homicide which is a complex crime. So the penalty
is imposed in its maximum period. The crime is also committed by a public official taking advantage of his
public position. The complex crime and the presence of such special aggravating circumstance will have
the same effect of having the penalty impose in its maximum period.

4. Assuming the penalty is already imposed in its maximum because of the presence of a special aggravating
circumstance, the presence of an ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstances will have the effect of further
subdividing the maximum period into 3 periods in order to arrive at the proper period.

 If in the same example given above, the accused voluntarily pleaded guilty, there is a now an ordinary
mitigating circumstance which has the effect of further subdividing the maximum period imposed in order
to accommodate the ordinary mitigating circumstance.

5. The only instance when you no longer subdivide the maximum term in order to consider ordinary mitigating or
ordinary aggravating circumstances is when the felony committed is a complex crime or there is a special
aggravating circumstance, and the penalty is reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua because the
maximum term in this instance is indivisible.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 56
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
Reclusion perpetua, standing alone, is single and indivisible. You cannot graduate reclusion perpetua, neither can you
apply ISLAW because according to the Lian case, that would be co-mingling of divisible and indivisible penalties which is
prohibited. However, if the penalty is reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua, that is considered a complex
penalty and divisible. In such case, reclusion perpetua will be the maximum period and reclusion temporal maximum will
have to be divided by 2 in order to obtain the medium and minimum period.

Now let’s apply ISLAW. The 1 degree lower in ISLAW is taken not from the penalty imposed but from the penalty
prescribed by law. The one degree lower will be the range of the minimum term.

Example 1: The penalty prescribed is reclusion temporal. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the
maximum term of the indeterminate penalty should be imposed in the medium period. The minimum term is anywhere
within the range of prision mayor, the penalty next lower from reclusion temporal.

ISLAW for Complex Penalties

(Vidal vs People GR 211023, April 7, 2014)
The penalty prescribed under Article 217, par. 4 RPC is reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua.

Applying ISLAW, the minimum should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, .i.e prision
mayor max to reclusion temporal medium {anywhere} and whose maximum should be the proper period of
reclusion temporal maximum. [Applying the rule in Art 61(3)]

The maximum range here is divided into 3 periods. RT max is divided into 2 sub-periods, the lower sub-period
is the min (of the maximum indeterminate range), the higher sub-period is the med and Reclusion Perpetua is
the max of the range.

ISLAW: 3 periods but belonging to different penalties

(Eduardo vs People GR 176566 Oct 2 2009)

The penalty prescribed under Art 294 (5) is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium.

Applying ISLaw, the minimum should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e arresto
mayor max to prision correctional medium {anywhere}, and whose maximum should be the proper period
of prision correcional maximum to prision mayor medium.

The maximum range here is divided into 3 periods. There being 1 mitigating of voluntary surrender, the
maximum term is set at the minimum of the maximum range.

Take note: The only instances wherein the penalty imposed would exceed the penalty prescribed is when the penalty is
incremental or if the convict is penalized due to habitual delinquency.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 57
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1

INCREMENTAL PENALTIES

Example: The penalty is prision mayor and we add 1 year for every P10,000. If we reach 30 years, such is not
considered single and indivisible. It is still called reclusion perpetua but it is divisible because the 30 years has been
arrived at after adding the additional years in increment. Applying ISLAW, the minimum term is not reclusion temporal
but the penalty next lower in degree to prision mayor because the minimum term is always the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by law. Take note that the 30 years can only be arrived at if there is an aggravating circumstance. If there is
no aggravating, it could be below 30 years.

Probation

Here is probation, the penalty may be served outside the detention facility and the convict has to make periodic reports to
the probation officer. The grant of probation is made by the court. It can only be granted to a convict whose maximum
sentence is not more than 6 years.

Who are the disqualified offenders? Memorize!

Those who had been:

1. Sentenced to a maximum term of more than 6 years imprisonment.

2. Convicted of subversion or any crime against national security or the public order. (Title 1 and 3, Book II)

3. Previously convicted by final judgment of offense punished by imprisonment of note less than 1 month and 1
days and /or fine of not less than P200.

4. Granted probation for it is available only once.

5. Already serving sentence upon the effectivity of the law.

6. Perfected an appeal for appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies.

Case Study: Yes, he can still avail

(People vs Colinares Dec 13, 2011) of probation.
Ordinarily,
Juan was convicted by the RTC for Frustrated Homicide. He appealed. Appellate court found him liable Arnel
would no longer be
only for Attempted Homicide. The penalty for attempted homicide does not exceed 6 years. Can he still
avail of probation? entitled to apply for
probation, he having
appealed from the judgment of the RTC convicting him for frustrated homicide. But, the Court finds Arnel guilty only of
the lesser crime of attempted homicide and holds that the maximum of the penalty imposed on him should be lowered to
imprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prision correccional, as
maximum. With this new penalty, it would be but fair to allow him the right to apply for probation upon remand of the
case to the RTC.

Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to apply for probation. He did not have a choice
between appeal and probation. He was not in a position to say, By taking this appeal, I choose not to apply for probation.
The stiff penalty that the trial court imposed on him denied him that choice. Thus, a ruling that would allow Arnel to now
seek probation under this Courts greatly diminished penalty will not dilute our previous rulings. It 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.

ARTICLE 86. The penalties of reclusión perpetua, reclusión temporal, prisión mayor, prisión correccional,
Burdeos, Bonghanoy,
and arrestoCadorna,
mayor, Corominas, Entera, Erojo,
shall be executed Gocuan,
and served in Honculada,
the places Otero, Querubin,
and penal Quibod, Rocha,
establishments Sevillaby the
provided 58
Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the future.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
If the convict is not eligible for probation, he has to serve the sentence in a detention facility. Minor offenders may be
committed to detention facility operated by DSWD.

ARTICLE 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or
places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than Extinction of
250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated. criminal liability

ARTICLE 88. Arresto Menor. — The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in 1. Death of the
the house of the defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so accused
provides in its decision, taking into consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which
may seem satisfactory to it. - Death of the
offended party will
not affect the criminal case.

2. Service of Sentence

3. Amnesty or Pardon

Amnesty Pardon

Granted before conviction Granted after conviction

For political offenses All offenses

Granted by the legislative Granted by the president

department, with the concurrence of
the President
(Executive Clemency)

Erases the effects of penalty for Does not erase effects of penalty
purposes of Recidivism

Absolute Absolute or Conditional

(Conditions must be complied with.

Otherwise, there will be a revocation of
the pardon)

Does not obliterate civil liability Does not obliterate civil liability

Normally, Amnesty does not only refer to a particular person but to a group of persons charged with the same
offenses.

4. Novation

Neri Case: There was novation. Initially the elements of Estafa were present. However, before the filing of the
case in court, they made an agreement where payment will instead be made. It changed the nature of the
obligation from Agency to Sale. The contract was changed. As such, the elements of Estafa are no longer
present. The obligation is no longer to return or remit the proceeds, but to pay. There is no longer an agency, but
a contract of sale. Although it is not one of the means to extinguish criminal liability as recognized by the RPC, it
may prevent the rise of criminal liability or it may cast a doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction
provided that the novation takes place before the filing of information with the Trial Court.

If there is juridical possession of a thing taken and this person who had juridical possession failed to return or
remit the thing or money to the rightful owner, there could be Estafa.

Example: There was a jewelry entrusted by Maria to Juana so the latter may sell it on commission. If she fails to
sell, she may return it. If she is successful, she has to remit the proceeds. In the meantime, she retains juridical
possession. If she fails to perform her obligation, she commits Estafa. However, if Maria gave the jewelry to
Juana and the latter gave a downpayment, there is no longer a transfer of juridical personality but a transfer of
ownership.

Prescription of the crime

1. Reclusion Perpetua and Reclusion Temporal: 20 years

2. Other Afflictive Penalty (Prison Mayor): 15 years

3. Correctional (Prision Correctional and Destierro):

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 59
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
a. Arresto Mayor: 10 years

b. Libel: 5 years

c. Defamation and Slander by Deed: 1 year

d. Light Offenses: 2 months (60 days)

e. Special Penal Laws: Provided in the SPL itself or the general provision of RA 3326

As you know way mapriso sa utang. There can be no more estafa.

 People vs Nery 10 SCRA 224

The novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the filing of the criminal information in court by the state prosecutors
because up to that time the original trust relation may be converted by the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor
situation, thereby placing the complainant in estoppel to insist on the original trust. But after the justice authorities
have taken cognizance of the crime and instituted action in court, the offended party may no longer divest the
prosecution of its power to exact the criminal liability, as distinguished from the civil. The crime being an offense
against the state, only the latter can renounce it.

It may be observed in this regard that novation is not one of the means recognized by the Penal Code whereby
criminal liability can be extinguished; hence, the role of novation may only be to either prevent the rise of criminal or
to cast doubt on the true nature of the original petition, whether or not it was such that its breach would not give rise
to penal responsibility, as when money loaned is made to appear as a deposit, or other similar disguise is resorted to.

- Not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability for the estafa.

- It merely means that there is no more estafa in the first place, because what transpired was there was an
agreement to convert the original obligation to a contract of sale.

- Therefore, when the contract is one sale, there is no more criminal liability but only civil liability. Provided that the
novation should take place BEFORE THE FILING of the criminal case.

- Because once the case is already filed in court, the real offended party is the STATE, not the private complainant.
And the State will not change the nature of the obligation, neither can the private offended party represent the
state and change the nature of the obligation.

- Once the criminal case is filed in court, the victim/private offended party would have no more personality to enter
into another contract which will abandon the old contract.

However,

 SSS vs DOJ G.R. 158131

The facts of this case negate the application of novation. In the first place, there is, between SENCOR and petitioner,
no original contract that can be replaced by a new contract changing the object or principal condition of the original
contract, substituting the person of the debtor, or subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor. The original
relationship between SENCOR and petitioner is defined by law – RA 1161, as amended – which requires employers
like SENCOR to make periodic contributions to petitioner under pain of criminal prosecution. Unless Congress enacts a
law further amending RA 1161 to give employers a chance to settle their overdue contributions to prevent
prosecution, no amount of agreements between petitioner and SENCOR (represented by respondent Martels) can
change the nature of their relationship and the consequence of SENCOR’s non-payment of contributions.

The indispensability of a prior contractual relation between the complainant and the accused as requisite for the
application of novation in criminal cases was underscored in People v. Tanjutco. In that case, the accused, who was
charged with Qualified Theft, invoked People v. Nery to support his claim that the complainant’s acceptance of partial
payment of the stolen funds before the filing of the Information with the trial court converted his liability into a civil
obligation thus rendering baseless his prosecution. The Court rejected this claim and held that unlike in Nery, there
was, in that case, no prior "contractual relationship or bilateral agreement, which can be modified or altered by the
parties.”

- In this case, SC said that this novation thing does not apply if there was no prior contract, meaning, if the
criminal liability did not arise from a contract.

- So if the criminal liability arose from a contract and the parties changed the terms and conditions in the contract
such that it would now preclude or bar the offender from enforcing the original contract, there can be no more
criminal liability.

- However, if the criminal liability did not arise from a contract, but arose from a different source of obligation,
which is a law (RA 1161), therefore, novation, as to extinguish criminal liability, cannot be applied.

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 60
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
NOTE: be mindful of the facts given in a question because it would seem that the Nery case can be applied only if the
case involves estafa and such other cases that the OBLIGATIONS AROSE FROM A CONTRACT. But all other cases, you
cannot apply the novation theory as to extinguish criminal liability.

 Tanjutco case

- Qualified theft case. When the private complainant would inform the offender that the former will already file a
criminal case. The offender would then pay.

- SC said you cannot invoke Nery case because in theft, there is no prior contract.

SUMMARY:

- Although it would seem that the SC rulings stretched the modes of extinction of criminal liability, but that’s not
the case. It’s just that there are instances when the offended party maybe estopped by his action, like changing
the terms and conditions of the original contract wherein it would result to novation.

PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES

- General Rule: Prescription runs from the date of commission of the crime, if it is discoverable at the time of the
commission of the crime.

- Exception: Reckoned from the date of discovery, if it was not discoverable at the time of the commission.

- Provided, that in both instances, the period will not run If the offender is not within the Philippine territory.

- Example: if even if the crime was committed 30 years ago but the offender was outside of the country, the
prescription will not start to run.

Case Study: Juan falsified a Deed of Sale of a land worth P1M legally belonging to Pedro, then sold the same to
Jose in January 1980. Pedro did not know of the crime until after he came home from the US in January 1, 1995 and
found out that Jose was already making improvements thereon. Juan has since went to work in Japan from 1992 until
2005. 
Let’s assume that the prescription period is 15 years and the offender is a public official. Can Pedro still file the case
in court?

Answer: YES, as provided in the case of Recebido. Date of commission was 1980. Date of discovery was January
1995, but in the meantime the offender went to Japan in 1992, which was before the discovery, and came back in the
Philippines only in 2005.

 Recebido vs People 346 SCRA 881

The crime charged has not prescribed. The petitioner is correct in stating that whether or not the offense charged has
already prescribed when the information was filed would depend on the penalty imposable therefor, which in this
case is "prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000.00 pesos.” Under
the Revised Penal Code, said penalty is a correctional penalty in the same way that the fine imposed is categorized as
correctional. Both the penalty and fine being correctional, the offense shall prescribe in ten years. The issue that the
petitioner has missed, however, is the reckoning point of the prescriptive period. The petitioner is of the impression
that the ten-year prescriptive period necessarily started at the time the crime was committed. This is inaccurate.
Under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, the period of prescription shall "commence to run from the day on which
the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents,……" In People v. Reyes, this Court has
declared that registration in public registry is a notice to the whole world. The record is constructive notice of its
contents as well as all interests, legal and equitable, included therein. All persons are charged with knowledge of
what it contains.

The prosecution has established that private complainant Dorol did not sell the subject land to the petitioner-accused
at anytime and that sometime in 1983 the private complainant mortgaged the agricultural land to petitioner Recebido.
It was only on September 9, 1990, when she went to petitioner to redeem the land that she came to know of the
falsification committed by the petitioner. On the other hand, petitioner contends that the land in question was
mortgaged to him by Juan Dorol, the father of private complainant, and was subsequently sold to him on August 13,
1983. This Court notes that the private offended party had no actual knowledge of the falsification prior to September
9, 1990. Meanwhile, assuming arguendo that the version of the petitioner is believable, the alleged sale could not
have been registered before 1983, the year the alleged deed of sale was executed by the private complainant.

Considering the foregoing, it is logical and in consonance with human experience to infer that the crime committed
was not discovered, nor could have been discovered, by the offended party before 1983. Neither could constructive
notice by registration of the forged deed of sale, which is favorable to the petitioner since the running of the
prescriptive period of the crime shall have to be reckoned earlier, have been done before 1983 as it is impossible for
the petitioner to have registered the deed of sale prior thereto. Even granting arguendo that the deed of sale was
executed by the private complainant, delivered to the petitioner-accused in August 13, 1983 and registered on the

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 61
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
same day, the ten-year prescriptive period of the crime had not yet elapsed at the time the information was filed in
1991. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the crime had not prescribed at the time of the filing of the
information.

The answer is It can still be filed as a general rule

The exception is when there was already registration prior to year 2000. (kay 15 years naman). If these are the only facts
of the case, it would seem that the answer is “Yes Pedro can still file the case in court because the 15 year period,
counted from year 2005 which was the time he was already available to be sued, has not yet elapsed.”

However, if there was already registration more than 15 years ago, then the case can not be filed anymore because
registration would be notice to the whole world.

Exception to the Exception is, even if there is registration but the offender was out of the country because he could not
be sued.

SUMMARY

GR: you need to count the number of years

EX: if falsification, registration would be considered as the date of discovery.

EX to the EX: If the offender was outside of the country. Because even if the date of registration is also the date
of discovery, is already beyond the prescription period, but during that time, he could not be sued because he is outside
of the country and is outside the jurisdiction of the court, then the reckoning would be the date of his return.

Prescription of the crime means that no case at all or no steps at all is being made. Or if there are made, that the case
has not yet reach the court yet.

For example the crime is punished of a penalty of less than one year. under the local gov’t code, if the penalty is less
than 1 year, you need to go first to the Lupon before you can file a criminal case. And the laws says while the case is
pending in the lupon, the prescriptive period will not run. The LGC gives the lupon an maximum of 45 days to complete
the conciliation mediation period. However, it is possible that the Lupon may go beyond that period. Probably through no
fault of his own. Probably the barangay was wiped out by Yolanda therefore no proceedings can be taken on that case.
Then while it is true that the Lupon is only given a max of 45, it does not mean that beyond the 45 the prescriptive period
will run. So long as the case is still pending through no fault of the parties, then the prescriptive period will not run. And
then it (the prescription) begins to run again after the certificate to file action is given.

You go to the prosecutor’s office, because you can not file a case in a chartered city without passing through the
prosecutor’s office. During the time that the case is pending in the prosecutor’s office, the prescriptive period will not run.

And then once the prosecutor’s office files the case in court, it will never run until there is a termination such as when
there is a provisional dismissal. When there’s a provisional dismissal, from the dismissal, the prescriptive period runs
again.

Now if the case was dismissed at the prosecutor’s level, the case will run unless you file a MR or Petition for review or any
other thing. But once there are no such moves taken, then the prescriptive period will run from the dismissal.

Once it is pending in court even if it is already archived in court, the prescription will not run. So long as it is not
terminated.

PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES

Here what will prescribe is not the crime but the penalty, which means that there must already be a conviction. So the
case must already be tried in court. Either in absencia or may be while the presence of the accused. And the case was
terminated resulting in a conviction where the court imposed a sentence. It is the sentence that prescribes; probably due
to the flight of the accused.

In the case of Pangan vs gatbalite, there can be prescription only if after the sentence is being handed down that the
accused must not have escaped already by that time.

While the case was ongoing, the accused jumped bail. The trial proceeded in his absence and was convicted in
absencia. Then he was able to successfully evade arrest for 50 years. Now, did the penalty prescribe? No. The penalty will
not prescribe. It will only start to run upon escape after he has already started serving the sentence. (after a short while
he has served the sentence, he escaped.) If he has not started serving even a day of his sentence, the sentence will not
prescribe.

Escape means the unlawful departure and one who was not committed to prison can not be said to have escape from
prison. (padakop sah siya then mu.escape)

PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 62
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
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 RA No. 10592)

Conditional pardon is granted by the president.

Commutation and good conduct allowances will be computed by and granted by the Bureau of Prisons under the
provisions of Parole. So it would be computed according to the good behaviour.

There’s a new law, basically it is the same. Four-Fifths gihapon. But now, it’s not anymore presumed. There has to be an
acceptance in writing that you abide by the rules of the prison in order to be credited.

CIVIL LIABILITY

GENERAL RULE: PERSON GUILTY OF THE CRIME, THAT PERSON IS LIKEWISE CIVILLY LIABLE

 The General Rule is that when a crime is committed and there is a victim in that crime then there could arise
from such act civil liability.

 Take note that not all crimes have victims. There are crimes, which we call as victimless crimes.

o Ex. illegal possession of firearms, dangerous drugs, illegal gambling.

o Since in this cases there are no victims then there wont be any civil liability.

 But when crimes committed with private offended parties, although they are not the plaintiffs in the case they
are also entitled to civil award of damages.

 Here the civil liability is not totally dependent on the outcome of the criminal case because the quantum of
evidence required in criminal case is more stringent than that of civil case.

 So when an offender is acquitted because no crime is attributed to him this does not mean that he cannot pay
civil liability anymore.

o Example of this is in cases of Estafa. Here when the fraud has not been established but their could be an
award of civil damages so not automatic.

o Also in cases where the offender was found not criminally liable because the act was justified such as
self-defense or the offender is exempt from criminal liability such as when the offender is a minor. Here
there is still civil liability.

EXCPETION:

1. Accused is a minor

a. the person who would pay for him is his parents or guardians

b. here the obligation of the parents are PRIMARY. No need to see if whether the minor can pay. Once
found guilty the liability shall be borne by the parents

2. Crimes committed by Employees

a. if such EE cannot bear the civil penalty then they should be paid by the ER.

b. Here the GR still applies that person criminally liable shall also be civilly liable. BUT if the ER
(SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY) answers the civil liability of the EE if:

i. UNABLE TO SATISFY THE CIVIL OBLIGATION and

ii. Crime is committed while the offender was PERFORMING HIS FUNCTION AS EE OF THE ER

CIVIL CASE INSTITUTED WITH CRIMINAL CASE:

 GR: CIVIL LIABILITY FOR THE CRIME IS DEEMED INSTITUTED WITH THE FILING OF THE CRIMINAL CASE.

 Example: Jeep driver hits a pedestrian. The driver is primary liable to the civil liability while the owner is only
subsidiary liable when the driver is unable to pay. BUT DO WE NEED TO INCLUDE THE ER IN THE CRIMINAL
CASE:

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 63
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
o No. Because he has no criminal liability so you do not file a criminal case against him.

o According to RULE 111 of the RC, when you file a criminal case is filed automatically the civil case is
deemed instituted with the criminal case.

o Mere filing of the prosecutor of the criminal case with the court. This already constitutes both the criminal
and civil.

 EXCPETION: R-W-I

o R –reservation

o W – Waiver

o I – prior Institution of the civil from the criminal case

 So here when the criminal case is settled and civil damages are ruled against the driver and the driver is unable
to pay. The victims can file a MOTION with the court to execute the civil aspect as against the employer.

 BUT the private offended party who seek a judgment against a person who is not primary liable but secondary
liable he must prove that:

o The person primary liable is an employee

o That he did not perform an obligation of an employer that would exempt him from subsidiary liability.

 Not automatic execution of subsidiary liability but there is no need to file a separate case against the employer.

CASE STUDY:

 Pedro is a taxi driver of Bombero Taxi owned by Nestor. He hit Vicente’s car due to reckless imprudence causing
damage to the latter’s car.

 Is pedro civilliy liable?

o Yes. If found to have committed the crime.

 Is Nestor civilly liable?

o He could be civilly liable but his liability obligation is only subsidiary .

 Must nestor be included with pedro in the criminal case to be filled by Vicente?

o No. because he has not committed a crime therefore no probable cause to hold nestor for trial.

CASE STUDY:

 Joselito, minor, burned the house of Pedro. Pedro filed a criminal case, for which joselito was found guilty.

 Is Jose, the parent of joselito, civilly liable? When?

o Yes and the liability is PRIMARY

 What if joselito was an employee of Ramon’s general service company and the arson was committed while
joselito was working at Pedro’s House, would your answer be the same?

o In this case, the hierarchy is that the parent is first to the employer. So that you must go after first the
parent of the minor who are PRIMARY liable and then go after the ER who is only subsidiary.

 Ozoa vs Madula 1987

o “The subsidiary civil liability of the ER can be determined in the criminal action unless it was waived or
reserved. There is no need for bringing a separate civil action for that purpose”

o FACTS:

 Petitioner Ozoa was the employer of Policarpio Balatayo, who was convicted by the Court of First
Instance of Bukidnon of homicide with serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence.

 the judgment of conviction having become final, a writ of execution issued at the instance of the
widow of the deceased (Caridad Madula, herein private respondent), for the enforcement of the
defendant's civil liability. The writ was however returned unsatisfied by reason of the insolvency
of the accused.

 The widow Madula then moved for the issuance of a writ of execution against the accused's
employer, Ozoa. Ozoa opposed the motion. He stated that the widow had executed an "Affidavit

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 64
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
of Desistance" acknowledging full satisfaction of civil liability; and a separate civil case "should
and must be ventilated .. in order that the Court can acquire jurisdiction over .. (his) person .. so
that the employer-employee relationship could be established and to afford .. (him) the
opportunity to prove his defense.

 The Court held a hearing on the motion. It received evidence on the issues, presented by the
widow-movants as well as Ozoa. In addition to the fact that execution against the accused
Balatayo had been returned unsatisfied on account of his insolvency, not disputed, the Court
found other facts to have been adequately proven by the evidence adduced by both parties, to
wit:

 1) Ozoa was the employer of Balatayo, and was a businessman engaged in the hauling of corn,
these being admitted by him in his affidavit marked Exhibit "F".

 2) Ozoa promised to pay the widow Madula P6,000 and thus persuaded her to sign an affidavit of
desistance (marked Exhibit 1), but this amount was never paid. The only amount in fact given by
Ozoa was P1,500.00, which was used to defray the burial expenses.

 Upon these facts, the Court a quo directed execution against Ozoa. In support of its ruling the
Court placed reliance on Article 103, in relation to Article 102, of the Revised Penal Code,
declaring the employer subsidiarily responsible for the civil liability of his employee when the
latter is insolvent; holding that the conviction of the employee is binding and conclusive upon the
employer not only with regard to the civil liability but also as to its amount because the
employer's liability is inseparable from and indeed follows that of the employee; and that in
substance and in effect, the employer is a party to the criminal action where his employee's civil
liability is adjudged.

 This order of May 12, 1982 is now challenged by Ozoa before us.

o SC:

 A person criminally liable is also civilly liable; and upon the institution of the criminal action, the
civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the crime is also impliedly instituted
unless waived, or the filing of a separate action therefor is reserved. 8 The employer is
subsidiarily answerable for the adjudicated civil liability ex delito of his employee in the event of
the latter's insolvency; and the judgment in the criminal action pronouncing the employee to be
also civilly liable is conclusive on the employer not only as to the actuality of that liability but also
as to its amount.

 But the foregoing statement does not exhaust the entirety of the rules relevant and applicable to
the juridical situation under consideration. There is the additional precept, of which sight should
not be lost because essential due process, that before the employer's subsidiary liability is
exacted, there must be adequate evidence establishing that (1) he is indeed the employer of the
convict; (2) that he is engaged in some kind of industry; (3) the crime was committed by the
employee in the discharge of his duties; and (4) execution against the employee is unsatisfied.
The determination of these issues need not be done in a separate civil action. But a
determination there must be, on the basis of evidence that the offended party and the employer
may fully and freely present; and this may be done in the same criminal action at which the
employee's liability, criminal and civil, has been pronounced. it may be done at a hearing set for
that precise purpose, with due notice to the employer, "as part of the proceeding for the
execution of the judgment.

 We have gone over the record quite carefully and are convinced that Ozoa's subsidiary civil
responsibility has been duly established by the evidence. That evidence was presented at a
hearing at which Ozoa was given opportunity to submit, as he did submit proofs in his behalf. We
agree that the facts proven adequately demonstrate the existence of the requisites for holding
Ozoa subsidiarily liable as an employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, specified
earlier in this opinion.

ART 104: WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES:

1. RESTITUTION

2. REPARATION

3. INDEMNIFICATION FOR CONSEQUENSTIAL DAMAGE

 Restitution

o The thing itself should be given back or restore.

 Reparation

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 65
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
o If the thing cannot be returned because it was sold or destroyed or anything happened to it. Then give
reparation which is the AMOUNT or VALUE of the thing.

o Restitution and reparation are applicable when properties have been taken or destroyed.

 Indemnification

o These are damages paid not for the thing but for the inconvenience to the peson or awarded when in
crimes against the persons and honor.

 Example: physical injuries may carry damages such as actual damages, unearned income,
hospital expenses and etc.

o the award of damages maybe increased or decrease and the attendant mitigating or aggravating
circumstances may determine when the damages maybe reduced or increased.

Constitutionality of Incremental Penalty Rule

In one case the SC said that civil indemnity is not a penalty or fine and it can be increased. In this case, what
happened was there was a case for estafa and then the amount involved was more than 50milliion. In estafa what is
being adopted by the RPC, is the incremental penalty rule (IPR). But in the incremental penalty rule, if the amount is
1million, you’ve already reached the maximum penalty. So here the amount was way more than the maximum. So, there
was that question of the constitutionality of the IPR, because considering that the RPC was enacted in 1932, when 10
pesos was a lot of money and so therefore to say that when you commit estafa and the amount is 200,000, at that time,
it would be justified if the penalty is Reclusion Perpetua. Justifiable siya because at that time, 200,00 would be a lot of
money. Remember in estafa where the penalty is already maximum, the penalty is Reclusion Perpetua, a more serious
crime than homicide. Kay sa homicide, 20 years raman, niya sa estafa ma 30 years.

Q: Is it constitutional, considering that there is no valid classification anymore?

A: Justice Carpio said that, well laws can have relative constitutionality, meaning it can be constitutional at that time, but
not anymore.

 Example, there could be laws which were constitutional before but not anymore. But ARTICLE 10 of RPC
provides that courts cannot impose penalties that are not provided by law and they have to impose
penalties which are provided by law, however article 10 courts may make representation or communications
with the legislature who are making the laws in order to point out certain inconsistencies or when injustice could
result in the strict application of the law.

 So according to the case of Lopez, the court said that while it is true that we cannot change or impose a penalty
higher than what is provided by law, there is no such restriction with respect to civil liability. So that if the penalty
seems to be very miniscule or gamay ra kau, the courts have a wide latitude in so far as the grant of civil liability,
because civil liability is not a penalty

 Because it is not a penalty, the court may award more

 Court: the reasoning of increasing the value civil liability cannot be the same reasoning that would sustain the
adoption of the ratio in the IPR.

Exemplary damages

 the imposition of exemplary damages is required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of the offender and
to sever as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings and as a vindication of undue suffering

 also referred to as punitive or vindictive damages

Also, exemplary damages may be awarded by the court if the crime is heinous, is so reprehensible and obnoxious to the
public conscience.

Art. 109. Share of each person civilly liable. — If there are two or more persons civilly
liable for a felony, the courts shall determine the amount for which each must
respond.

Art. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices and accessories of
a felony; Preference in payment. — Notwithstanding the provisions of the next
preceding article, 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

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 66
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 PRE-MID BOOK 1
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.

Article 109 and 110

 If there are two more persons civilly liable, the courts shall determine the amount for which each must respond,
but only if both of them are arrested and convicted and brought before the court.

 That notwithstanding, principals, accomplices and accessories, each within, their class, shall be liable solidarily
among themselves for their quotas, and subsidiarily for those of the others

So the nature of the co-conspirators in the commission of the crime requires solidarity, and each debtor may be
compelled to pay the entire of obligation. As a co-conspirator his civil liability is similar to that of a joint tort-feasor. Under
the civil code, joint tort-feasors are solidarily liable.

Illegal Recruitment Case

 In this case, what happened was a group of persons were involved in illegal recruitment. A, B, C, D, E. A is the
mastermind, B, C, and D, also had participation, E was part of the conspiracy but he performed a very minor role.
So what happened was ang tanan na money, the placement fees, ang nakadawat sa bulk of the money went to
A. so ang uban, they just get some amounts every now and then. But the problem is that, A B C D, were not
arrested. Anb na arrest si E ra, so if A was able to scam 10 million, mau nalang nakadawat si E og 10,000. Pero
siyay nadakpan, so tungod siya man ang nadakpan, siya ang g kiha, tungod g kiha and na proven man na guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, he was convicted.

 50 private offended parties seek the civil award, they will now want to collect back the placement fees.
Unfortunately, only one person is convicted, and this person does not appear to be the person to get most of the
money.

 So there is 10 million taken from all these private offended party, here is one guy who is convicted, he got only
10,000.

 Q: How much should the civil award be as against E who has been convicted?

 A: SC said that there is a conspiracy, and when there is a conspiracy, their liability under the Civil Code is the
same as the civil liability of joint tort-feasors. Thus, the liability of E would be solidary for the whole amount. D
siya ka ingon nga 10,000 ra iya nakuha and mao ra iya e uli. He should pay all the 10m as a whole. He cannot
pay for his share only.

 So each of them would be liable for the total damage solidarily.

 SC said that it would not be an excuse for any of the joint tort-feasors to assert that his individual participation in
the wrong is insignificant as compared to the others. Joint tort-feasors are not liable pro rata, they are jointly and
severally liable for the whole amount.

 Thus, in this case the liability is solidary, regardless if she actually received the amount paid or not.
Notwithstanding that her co accused were not yet arrested and have remained untried.

Civil Liability

 When acquittal will not bar civil liability:

1. Acquittal is based on reasonable doubt;

2. Court declares that accused’s liability is only civil in nature;
3. Civil liability did not arise from the criminal act

Civil liability ex-delicto

 When acquittal bars civil liability:

1. Accused did not commit the act;

He was not guilty of criminal or civil negligence.

- END of Book 1 –

“I don't feel stupid, just inadequate. After three years of studying the law, I'm very much
aware of how little I know.” ― John Grisham, The Rainmaker

Burdeos, Bonghanoy, Cadorna, Corominas, Entera, Erojo, Gocuan, Honculada, Otero, Querubin, Quibod, Rocha, Sevilla 67