Criminal Law A branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their

r punishment. Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws (ON) G. Must be general in application. E. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law. B. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder. U. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines. Characteristics of Criminal Law: GTP . Generality ! the law is binding to all persons who live or so"ourn in the #hilippines e.g.$ a. %riminal law of the countr& governs b. All person within the countr& regardless of their race, belief, sex and creed c. All persons that ma& be governed b& the penal law !ception: a" Article '. (except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application Treaty or Treaty of #tipulation e.g.: Law on preferential application R.A. 75 b" Article ) of the *ew %ivil %ode which provides that penal laws and those of public securit& and safet& shall be obligator& upon all who live or so"ourn in #hilippine territor& $subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty of Stipulation% . %iti+ens and foreigner are sub"ect to all penal laws. ,ill even attach regardless whether or not a foreigner is merel& so"ourning in #hilippine territor& &'T the& ma& however be immune from suit, and therefore, cannot be criminall& prosecuted in the #hilippines in certain cases where the #hilippine government has waived its criminal "urisdiction over them on the basis of the ( principle of public international an( treaty of #tipulation '. #ersons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws b& virtue of the principles of public international law$ i. #overeigns and other chiefs of stateii. )mbassadorsiii. *inisters plenipotentiar&vi. *inisters residentsv. Charges d. affaires '. Territoriality ! the law is binding to all crimes committed within the *ational /erritor& of the #hilippines e.g.$ /erritorial sea, contiguous +one, Exclusive Economic 0one 1EE02 Exception to Territorial Application$ 3nstances enumerated under Article '. 4. Prospecti+ity ! the law does not have an& retroactive effect. ,eason: Le! prospicit no respicit: means (-)/he law is prospective not retrospective. (/) /he law looks forward not backward. Exception to Prospective Application: a. when new statute is favorable to the accused. Exception to the exception a. The new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action

b. Offender is habitual delinquent

ffect of repeal of penal law to liability of offen(er !otal or absolute" or partial or relative repeal. As to the effect of repeal of penal law to the liability of offender! qualify your answer by saying whether the repeal is absolute or total or whether the repeal is partial or relative only. A repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the repealed law has been decri#inali$ed by the repeal. "ecause of the repeal! the act or omission which used to be a crime is no longer a crime. An example is #epublic Act $o. %&'&! which decriminali(ed subversion. A repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be a crime inspite of the repeal. This means that the repeal merely #odified the conditions affecting the crime under the repealed law. The modification may be pre)udicial or beneficial to the offender. *ence! the following rule: Conse0uences if repeal of penal law is total or absolute +,- 3f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law ! the same shall be dismissed! even though the accused may be a habitual delinquent. +.- 3f a case is alrea(y (eci(e( an( the accuse( is alrea(y ser+ing sentence by final 1u(gment, +&- if the convict is not a habitual (elin0uent! then he will be entitled to a release unless there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to those serving sentence at the time of the repeal. But if there is no reservation! those who are not habitual delinquents even if they are already serving their sentence will receive the benefit of the repealing law. They are entitled to release. 3f the& are not discharged from confinement ! a petition for habeas corpus should be filed to test the legality of their continued confinement in )ail. 3f the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delin5uent ! he will continue serving the sentence in spite of the fact that the law under which he was convicted has already been absolutely repealed. This is so because penal laws should be given retroactive application to favor only those who are not habitual delinquents. Conse0uences if repeal of penal law is partial or relati+e +,3f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and the repealing law is more favorable to the accused, it shall be the one applied to him. /o whether he is a habitual delinquent or not! if the case is still pending in court! the repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of action. 3f a case is alread& decided and the accused is alread& serving sentence b& final "udgment! even if the repealing law is partial or relative! the crime still remains to be a crime. /hose who are not habitual delin5uents will benefit on the effect of that repeal, so that if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that will henceforth appl& to them.

1'2

0nder Article ..! even if the offender is already convicted and serving sentence! a law which is beneficial shall be applied to him unless he is a habitual delinquent in accordance with #ule 1 of Article '.. %onse&uences if repeal of penal law is express or i#plied +,3f a penal law is impliedl& repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the original law. /o the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original law will be revived and the same shall again be crimes although during the implied repeal they may not be punishable. 3f the repeal is express! the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law! so the act or omission will no longer be penali(ed.

+.-

These effects of repeal do not apply to self repealing laws or those which have automatic termination. An example is the #ent 2ontrol 3aw which is revived by 2ongress every two years.

Theories of Criminal Law . Classical Theory ! Man is essentiall& a moral creature with an absolute free will to choose between good and evil and therefore more stress is placed upon the result of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself. a" Purpose: 6etribution '. Positi+ist Theory ! Man is subdued occasionall& b& a strange and morbid phenomenon which conditions him to do wrong in spite of or contrar& to his volition. a" Purpose: 6eformation
clectic or *i!e( Philosophy This combines both positivist and classical thin4ing. 2rimes that are economic and social and nature should be dealt with in a positivist manner5 thus! the law is more compassionate. *einous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner5 thus! capital punishment &)#2C *)32*# 2N C,2*2N)L L)4 5octrine of Pro ,eo 6henever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations 7 one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender 7 that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. Nullum crimen6 nulla poena sine lege There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law countries! but not to common law countries. Tantamount to: 'Ex Post (acto Law) "ecause of this maxim! there is no common law crime in the 8hilippines. $o matter how wrongful! evil or bad the act is! if there is no law defining the act! the same is not considered a crime. 9n relation to )rticle 7 of ,PC )ctus non facit reum6 nisi mens sit rea The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony characteri(ed by dolo! but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute one because it is

not applied to culpable felonies! or those that result from negligence.9n relation to )rticle -complete self (efense an( )rticle -/ Par 8" (5amum )bs0ue 2n1uria) 'tilitarian Theory or Protecti+e Theory The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society from actual and potential wrongdoers. The courts! therefore! in exacting retribution for the wronged society! should direct the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers! since criminal law is directed against acts and omissions which the society does not approve. 2onsistent with this theory! the mala prohibita principle which punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent! should not be utili(ed to apply the full harshness of the special law.

#ources of Criminal Law . /he 6evised #enal %ode '. 7pecial #enal 8aws ! Acts enacted of the #hilippine 8egislature punishing offenses or omissions. 4. Penal Presi(ential 5ecrees issue( (uring *artial Law Construction of Penal Laws 9 or :;#;); ;);5 . %riminal 7tatutes are liberall& construed in 9a+or of the offender. /his means that no person shall be brought within their terms who is not clearl& within them, nor should an& act be pronounced criminal which is not clearl& made so b& statute. a. $:oi(;for;+agueness 5octrine% this has been formulated in various wa&s, but is most commonl& stated to the effect that a statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that person of ordinar& intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited b& the statute ! it can onl& be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterl& vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either b& a saving clause or b& construction. '. 3n case of conflict with official translation original #panish te!t is controlling. /he original text in which a penal law is approved in case of a conflict with an official translation. 4. 3nterpretation b& )nalogy has no place in criminal law ). 0uipoise 5octrine ; ,hen the evidence of the prosecution and of the defense is e5uall& (balance%, the scale should be tilted in favor of the accused in obedience to the constitutional presumption of innocence. 9e should be )ac&uitted) :. 5octrine of Pro reo ! ,hen a circumstance is susceptible to two interpretation one favorable to the accused and the other against him, that interpretation favorable to him shall prevail.
*)L) 2N # )N5 *)L) P,O<2&2T) :iolations of the #evised 8enal 2ode are referred to as #alu# in se, which literall& means, that the act is inherentl& evil or bad or per se wrongful. ;n the other hand ! violations of special laws are generall& referred to as #alu# prohibitu#. *ote, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. ,hile intentional felonies are alwa&s mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are alwa&s mala prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherentl& wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense- unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.

8ikewise when the special laws re5uires that the punished act be committed knowingl& and willfull&, criminal intent is re5uired to be proved before criminal liabilit& ma& arise. ,hen the act penali+ed is not inherentl& wrong, it is wrong onl& because a law punishes the same. 5istinction between crimes punishe( un(er the ,e+ise( Penal Co(e an( crimes punishe( un(er special laws . As to moral trait of the offender 3n crimes punished under the 6evised #enal %ode, the moral trait of the offender is considered. /his is wh& liabilit& would onl& arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act. 3n crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered- it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntaril& done. '. As to use of good faith as defense 3n crimes punished under the 6evised #enal %ode, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense- unless the crime is the result of culpa 3n crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense 4. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime 3n crimes punished under the 6evised #enal %ode, the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender- thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in the commission of the crime. 3n crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime onl& when it is consummated- there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law expressl& penali+e the mere attempt or frustration of the crime. ). As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances 3n crimes punished under the 6evised #enal %ode, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in imposing the penalt& since the moral trait of the offender is considered. 3n crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalt&. :. As to degree of participation 3n crimes punished under the 6evised #enal %ode, when there is more than one offender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing the penalt&- thus, offenders are classified as principal, accomplice and accessor&. 3n crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penali+ed to the same extent. /here is no principal or accomplice or accessor& to consider. Test to (etermine if +iolation of special law is malum prohibitum or malum in se

Analy(e the violation: 9s it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such; 9f you remove the law! will the act still be wrong; 9f the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word <willfully! then malice must be proven. 6here malice is a factor! good faith is a defense. 9n violation of special law! the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability! unless the special law punishes an omission. 6hen given a problem! ta4e note if the crime is a violation of the #evised 8enal 2ode or a special law.

)rt" -" This Co(e shall ta=e effect on >anuary -6 -?@/" )rt" /" !cept as pro+i(e( in the treaties an( laws of preferential application6 the pro+isions of this Co(e shall be enforce( not only within the Philippine )rchipelago inclu(ing its atmosphere6 its interior waters an( *aritime Aone6 but also outsi(e of its 1uris(iction6 against those who: -" #houl( commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship. /" #houl( forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine 2slan(s or obligations an( securities issue( by the Go+ernment of the Philippine 2slan(s. @" #houl( be liable for acts connecte( with the intro(uction into these islan(s of the obligations an( securities mentione( in the prece(ing number. 8" 4hile being public officers or employees6 shoul( commit an offense in the e!ercise of their functions. or 1/ome of these crimes are bribery!
fraud against national treasury! malversation of public funds or property! and illegal use of public funds5 e.g.! A )udge who accepts a bribe while in =apan.-

7" #houl( commit any crimes against the national security an( the law of nations6 (efine( in Title One of &oo= Two of this Co(e" +These crimes
include treason! espionage! piracy! mutiny! and violation of neutralitya" )rticle /" Par" -" i" 2ntraterritorial application . 8aw ma& enforced within a. /he #hilippine archipelago, including its i. atmosphere ii. interior waters and iii. maritime +one '. ;n ships or airships registered or licensed in the #hilippines which are considered as extensions of #hilippine territor&. ii" !traterritorial application -" Co+ers acts committe( outsi(e the abo+e;(efine( territory in+ol+ing:

a. An&one who commits an offense while on a #hilippine ship or airshipb. An&one who forges #hilippine currenc& and government securitiesc. An&one who brings these into the countr&d. An&one who threatens national securit& and violates the law of nationse. #ublic officials and emplo&ees who commits offenses while exercising their functions. /" Crime against National #ecurity an( the law of the Nation @" #pecial Law: (,")" ?@B/) <uman #ecurity )ct #ec" 7C . to individual persons who commit an& of the crimes (efine( an( punishe( in this )ct within the $terrestrial (omain%. interior waters. maritime Aone. an( airspace of the Philippines" '. to individual person who, although P<D#2C)LLD O'T#25 the territorial limits of the #hilippines commit, conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes (efine( an( punishe( in the )ct insi(e the territorial limits of the Philippines. 4. to individual person who, although P<D#2C)LLD O'T#25 the territorial limits of the #hilippines commit any of the sai( crimes on boar( Philippine ship or Philippine )irship. ). to individual persons who commit an& of said crimes within any embassy6 consulate6 or (iplomatic premises belonging to or occupie( by the Philippine go+ernment :. to individual person who, although P<D#2C)LLD O'T#25 the territorial limits of the #hilippines commit said crimes against Philippine citiAens or persons of Philippine (escent6 where their $2iti(enship or Ethnicity) was a factor in the commission of the crime. an( <. to individual person who, although P<D#2C)LLD O'T#25 the territorial limits of the #hilippines commit said crimes (irectly against the Philippine go+ernment Rules as to crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels$ . 9rench ,ule ! 7uch crimes are not triable in the courts of that countr&, unless their commission affects the peace and securit& of the territor& or the safet& of the state is endangered. '. nglish ,ule ! 7uch crimes are triable in that countr&, unless the& merel& affect things within the vessel or the& refer to the internal management thereof. 1/his is applicable in the #hilippines2

two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if a crime was committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are:

+,+.-

6hen the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country! because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong5 6hen the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts the (rench Rule! which applies only to merchant vessels! except when the crime committed affects the national security or public order of such foreign country.

Requirements of an offense committed while on a Philippine Ship or Airship= . 6egistered with the #hilippine Bureau of %ustoms '. 7hip must be in the high seas or the airship must be in international airspace.

0nder international law rule! a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any country is considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against humanity in general! such that wherever the pirates may go! they can be prosecuted.

0/ v. "ull A crime which occurred on board of a foreign vessel, which began when the ship was in a foreign territor& and continued when it entered into #hilippine waters, is considered a continuing crime. 9ence within the "urisdiction of the local courts.
As a general rule! the #evised 8enal 2ode governs only when the crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public official>s functions! those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country. The functions contemplated are those! which are! under the law! to be performed by the public officer in the ?oreign /ervice of the 8hilippine government in a foreign country. Exception: The #evised 8enal 2ode governs if the crime was committed within the 8hilippine Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. This is because embassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty. 8aragraph 1 of Article .! use the phrase <as defined in Title One of "oo4 Two of this 2ode. This is a very important part of the exception! because Title 9 of "oo4 . +crimes against national security- does not include rebellion.

)rt" @ )cts an( omissions punishable by law are felonies "

(elonies > acts and omissions punishable b& the 6evised #enal %ode %ri#e > acts and omissions punishable b& an& law Acts ! an overt or external act An& bod& movement tending to produce an act. *#ission ! failure to perform a positive dut& re5uired b& law which is one bound to do. E.g.: of an omission$ failure to render assistance to an&one who is in danger of d&ing or is in an uninhabited place or is wounded > abandonment. General classes of crimes: . 2ntentional felonies felonies committed with malice or deliberate intent and intention to cause or inflict an in"ur& to another

a. A deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentiall& inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence. ,here such an unlawful act is willfull& done, a mistake in the identit& of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence 1People +s" Guillen6 C7 Phil" @EB) a. freedom ! act or omission was +oluntary an( without e!ternal compulsion <without external compulsion means without being frustrated b& external obstacles nor b& voluntar& desistance of the perpetrator, will logicall& and necessaril& ripen into a concrete crime. 9ree(om; voluntariness on the part of a person to commit an act or omission. ,eason: $,hen a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human being but a tool.% !ample of NO free(om: i" )rt -/" Par 7 an( Par F b. 3ntelligence> capacit& to know and understand the moralit& and conse5uences of an act but the perpetrator should not be a minor but unless he acted in lucid interval 1Article ' #ar. 42, insane or imbecile 1article '. #ar. 2c. 3ntent ! the purpose to use a particular means to achieve an ob"ective is presumed unless otherwise disproved, with the commission an unlawful act. <ow to (etermine the presence of intentG . /he e!istence of intent shown b& the O: ,T )CT# of a person '. 3t is presume( from the commission of a felonious or unlawful act 4. the presumption of criminal intent does NOT ),2# from the proof of the commission of an act which is lawful because of the absence of #ens rea +criminal mind2. 29 it accompanied b& other facts which show that the act complained of was not unlawful. Examples$ murder intent to kill , treason intent , and robber& intent to gain, forcible abduction intent to lewd designs. 2n intent to =ill6 if the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is presumed. b" ,e0uisites: i. ,ith malice ii. ,ith deliberate intent iii. ,ith intention to cause or inflict an in"ur& to another. Note: 3n intentional felon&, where such unlawful act is willfull& done, a mistake in the identit& of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence. ,atio: 3t is blatant that the intent present and the willful intention is of different of which the perpetrators intended. '. Culpable felonies felonies committed as a result of imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. a" ,e0uisites: i. No malice

ii. 3n"ured caused is Not intentional iii. 3n"ur& results from . imprudence '. negligence 4. lack of foresight and ). lack of skill Note: 3n culpable felon&, a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentiall& (inconsistent% with the idea of reckless imprudence. As held in the case of (People +s" Guillen6 G"," No" L;-8BB)6 in order that an act ma& be 5ualified as ma& be 5ualified as imprudence it is necessar& that neither malice nor intention to cause in"ur& should intervene- where such intention exists. /he act should 5ualified b& the felon& it has produced even thought it ma& not have been the intention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravit& as that produced. ! :ia(aHs Comments on the Penal Co(e6 +ol B6 7th e("
,hat re5uisites must concur before a felon& ma& be committed? There must be +,- an act or omission5 +.- punishable by the #evised 8enal 2ode5 and +/the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.

How felonies are committed$ . by means of (eceit (dolo) > /here is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent. Requisites: a. free(om ! act or omission was +oluntary an( without e!ternal compulsion @oluntariness on the part of a person to commit an act or omission. <without external co#pulsion means without being frustrated b& external obstacles nor b& voluntar& desistance of the perpetrator, will logicall& and necessaril& ripen into a concrete crime. b" 2ntelligence> capacit& to understand the moralit& and conse5uences of an act but the perpetrator should not be a minor, insane or imbecile 1article '. #ar. 2c" 2ntent ! is presumed unless otherwise disproved, with the commission an unlawful act. Examples$ murder, treason, and robber&.
2riminal intent is not necessary in these cases: +,6hen the crime is the product of culpa or ne0li0ence" rec1less i#prudence" lac1 of foresi0ht or lac1 of s1ill5 +.6hen the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called #alu# prohibitu# or #ala prohibita. +& 2istinction between %ri#es #ala in se and cri#es #ala prohibita 3ala in se a) *ala in se are wrong from their nature and the intent govern b) /hose so serious in their effects on societ& as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its members 3ala prohibita

c) *ala prohibita are wrong because the& are prohibited b& special laws and the onl& in5uir& is, has the law been violated? () ;r wrong merel& because prohibited b& statute, such as illegal possession of firearms. 9n criminal law! intent is categori(ed into two: +,+.@eneral criminal intent5 and /pecific criminal intent.

,., 4eneral cri#inal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent. ,.. 4eneral cri#inal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo. .., /pecific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime! li4e intent to 4ill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicideAparricideAmurder. The prosecution has the burden of proving the same. ... Specific cri#inal intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or cirmumstantial evidence..

Bistinction between intent and discernment 9ntent is the determination to do a certain thing! an aim or purpose of the mind. 9t is the design to resolve or determination by which a person acts. On the other hand! discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. 9t relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an element of dolo! distinct from intent. Bistinction between intent and motive 9ntent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result 7 it is not a state of mind or a reason for committing a crime. On the other hand! motive implies motion. 9t is the moving power which impels one to do an act. 6hen there is motive in the commission of a crime! it always comes before the intent. "ut a crime may be committed without motive. 9f the crime is intentional! it cannot be committed without intent. 9ntent is manifested by the instrument used by the offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is to be distinguished from the attempted or frustrated stage. Motive becomes essential onl& when there is doubt as to the identit& of the assailant (People +s" Ga(iana6 G"," No" ?/7E?) Motive is not essential to a conviction especiall& where the identit& of the assailant is dul& established b& other competent evidence or is not disputed, the absence of such motive is important in ascertaining the truth as between two antagonistic theories or version of the killing. (People +s" 'baleA6 G"," No" -B7F?/) #roof as to Motive is essential when the evidence on the commission of the crime is purel& circumstantial or inconclusive. (People +s" 'baleA6 G"," No" -B7F?/) ,hen there is no longer an& doubt that the defendant was the culprit, it becomes unimportant to know the exact reason or purpose for the commission of the crime. /he failure to establish motives becomes inconse5uential. (People +s" 9eliciano6 G"," No" L;@E@EB)

Motive to commit a felon& is not an element of a crime, hence, the prosecution is not burdened to prove the same. 3n conspirac&, all the conspirators are criminall& liable for the death of the victim regardless of the degree of their participation in the crime. (People +s" :as0ueA6 G"," No" -/@?@?) Motive is not essential to convict when there is no doubt as to the identit& of the culprit. ;n the contrar&, motive assumes significance onl& where there is no showing of who the perpetrator of the crime was. (People +s" :elasco6 G"," No" -FF8B?)

@" by means of fault (culpa > /here is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. a" &)#2#: i" a man must use common sense and exercise due reflection in all his acts a. !mprudence > deficienc& of action- e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. 9e hit B because it was raining > reckless imprudence. b. "egligence # deficienc& of perception- failure to foresee impending danger, usuall& involves lack of foresight c$ Requisites: . Areedom '. 3ntelligence 4. 3mprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight ). 8ack of intent
The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lac4 of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform an act. 9f the danger impending from that situation is clearly manifest! you have a case of rec4less imprudence. "ut if the danger that would result from such imprudence is not clear! not manifest nor immediate you have only a case of simple negligence.

*ista=e of fact > is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused in"ur& to another. 9e is not criminall& liable. a. Requisites$ . that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be'. intention of the accused is lawful4. mistake must be without fault of carelessness. a. *ista=e of fact is a valid (efense when there is (no e!istence% or $lac= of intention% to commit crime. ('"#" +s" Pealosa6 - Phil" -E?) b. *ista=e of fact C)NNOT be invoked as a defense if the accused act through negligence. c. *ista=e of fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for felon& b& (olo. such defense negates malice or intent. (People +s" *anuel6 G"," No" -F7C8/) 2gnorantia legis neminem e!cusat +s" 2gnorantia facti e!cusat 9gnorance of the law is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to 4now the law. (People +s" *anuel6 G"," No" -F7C8/) 9gnorance of the fact may excuse unless the act done in bad faith or with malice.

Example: 0nited /tates v. Ah 2hong. Ah %hong being afraid of bad elements, locked himself in his room b& placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened b& somebod& who was tr&ing to open the door. 9e asked the identit& of the person, but he did not receive a response. Aearing that this intruder was a robber, he leaped out of bed and said that he will kill the intruder should he attempt to enter. At that moment, the chair struck him. Believing that he was attacked, he sei+ed a knife and fatall& wounded the intruder.
Cista4e of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through dolo +deceit-! but not when the felony is a result of culpa. 6hen the felony is a product of %5LPA! do '6*!) discuss mista4e of fact.

)rt" 8" Criminal liability shall be incurre(: -" &y any person committing a felony6 although the wrongful act (one be (ifferent from that which he inten(e("
Article ), paragraph presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting felon&. 3t must be the direct, natural, and logical conse5uence of the felonious act.

%auses which produce a different result$ a. %ista&e in identity of the victim ('rror in personae ! in"uring one person who is mistaken for another 1this is a complex crime un(er )rt" 8C2 e.g., A intended to shoot B, but he instead shot % because he 1A2 mistook % for B.

9n error in personae! the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. 9t was the actual victim upon whom the blow was directed! but he was not really the intended victim. *ow does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender; Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was intended. 9f the crime committed is the same as that which was intended! error in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. 9n mista4e of identity! if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended! but on a different victim! error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. "ut if the crime committed was different from the crime intended! Article DE will apply and the penalty for the lesser crime will be applied. 9n a way! mista4e in identity is a mitigating circumstance where Article DE applies. 6here the crime intended is more serious than the crime committed! the error in persona is not a mitigating circumstance

,here such an unlawful act is willfull& done, a mistake in the identit& of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence 1 People +s" Guillen6 G"," No" L;-8BB)
%riminal liabilit& is incurred b an& person committing a felon&, although the actual +ictim be (ifferent form the one inten(e(" (People +s" Cabare o6 G"," No" -@CF87)

b. %ista&e in blow ! hitting somebod& other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous instances 1this is a complex crime under Art. )B2 e.g., B and % were walking together. A wanted to shoot B, but he instead in"ured %.
9n aberratio ictus! a person directed the blow at an intended victim! but because of poor aim! that blow landed on somebody else. 9n aberratio ictus! the intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.

aberratio ictus! generally gives rise to a complex crime. more serious crime is imposed in the maximum period.

This being so! the penalty for the

c. !n(urious result is greater than that intended ! causing in"ur& graver than intended or expected 1this is a mitigating circumstance due to lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong under Art. 42 e.g., A wanted to in"ure B. 9owever, B died.
praeter intentionem is mitigating! particularly covered by paragraph & of Article ,&. 9n order however! that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem! there must be a notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony

3n all these instances the offender can still be held criminall& liable, since he is motivated b& criminal intent. Requisites$ a. the felon& was intentionall& committed b. the felon& is the proximate cause of the wrong done

)octrine of Pro*imate +ause ! such ade5uate and efficient cause as, in the natural order of events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, which would necessaril& produce the event. L I' # C)'#) 5 L) C)'#) # C)'#) 5 L *)L C)'#)5O . $*e who is the cause of the cause of the cause of the evil caused '. *e who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically result therefrom whether foreseen or intended or not Requisites$ a. the direct, natural, and logical cause b. produces the in"ur& or damage c. unbroken b& an& sufficient intervening cause d. without which the result would not have occurred 8roximate 2ause is negated by: a. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutel& foreign from the felonious act of the accused, which serves as a sufficient intervening cause. b. 6esulting in"ur& or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.

8roximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended party. 9t is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that made him ris4 himself.

$3f a man creates in another person.s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes such a state of mind is responsible for the resulting in"uries.= +People +s" Page6 G"," L;@B7EB. People +s" Toling6 G"," L;/BE?B6 F/ #C,) -B) #equisite for 8resumption blow was cause of the death ! ,here there has been an in"ur& inflicted sufficient to produce death followed b& the demise of the person, the presumption arises that the in"ur& was the cause of the death. #rovided$ a. victim was in normal health b. death ensued within a reasonable time

The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable. The one who caused the immediate cause is also liable! but merely contributory or sometimes totally not liable.

/" &y any person performing an act which woul( be an offense against persons or property6 were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of ina(e0uate or ineffectual means"
6e5uisites$ (IMPOSSIBLE CRIME) a. Act would have been an offense against persons or propert& b. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the %ode or of a special penal law c. /here was criminal intent d. Accomplishment was inherentl& impossible- or inade5uate or ineffectual means were emplo&ed. *otes$ a. ;ffender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing another who he knew was alread& dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime. b. /he law intends to punish the criminal intent. c. /here is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. ?elonies against persons$ parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, ph&sical in"uries, etc. ?elonies against property: robber&, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc. 9nherent impossibility$ A thought that B was "ust sleeping. B was alread& dead. A shot B. A is liable. 3f A knew that B is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.

6hen we say inherent impossibility! this means that under any and all circumstances! the crime could not have materiali(ed. 9f the crime could have materiali(ed under a different set of facts! employing the same mean or the same act! it is not an impossible crime5 it would be an attempted felony.

Employment of inadequate means$ A used poison to kill B. 9owever, B survived because A used small 5uantities of poison > frustrated murder. 9neffectual means$ A aimed his gun at B. ,hen he fired the gun, no bullet came out because the gun was empt&. A is liable.

6henever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was committed! be careful about the question as4ed. 9f the question as4ed is: <9s an impossible crime committed;! then you )udge that question on the basis of the facts. 9f really the facts constitute an impossible crime! then you suggest than an impossible crime is committed! then you state the reason for the inherent impossibility. 9f the question as4ed is <9s he liable for an impossible crime;! this is a catching question. Even though the facts constitute an impossible crime! if the act done by the offender constitutes some other crimes under the #evised 8enal 2ode! he will not be liable for an impossible crime. *e will be prosecuted for the crime constituted so far by the act done by him. this idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort! )ust to teach the offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. 9f he could be taught of the same lesson by charging him with some other crime constituted by his act! then that will be the proper way. 9f you want to play safe!

you state there that although an impossible crime is constituted! yet it is a principle of criminal law that he will only be penali(ed for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the #evised 8enal 2ode.

)rt 7" 4hene+er a court has =nowle(ge of any act which it may (eem proper to repress an( which is not punishable by law6 it shall ren(er the proper (ecision an( shall report to the Chief !ecuti+e6 through the 5epartment of >ustice6 the reasons which in(uce the court to belie+e that sai( act shoul( be ma(e sub1ect of legislation" 2n the same way the court shall submit to the Chief !ecuti+e6 through the 5epartment of >ustice6 such statement as may be (eeme( proper6 without suspen(ing the e!ecution of the sentence6 when a strict enforcement of the pro+isions of this Co(e woul( result in the imposition of a clearly e!cessi+e penalty6 ta=ing into consi(eration the (egree of malice an( the in1ury cause( by the offense"
6hen a person is charged in court! and the court finds that there is no law applicable! the court will acquit the accused and the )udge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished.

#aragraph ' does not appl& to crimes punishable b& special law, including profiteering, and illegal possession of firearms or drugs. /here can be no executive clemenc& for these crimes.

)rt" F" Consummate( felonies6 as well as those which are frustrate( an( attempte(6 are punishable" ) felony is consummate( when all the elements necessary for its e!ecution an( accomplishment are present. an( it is frustrate( when the offen(er performs all the acts of e!ecution which woul( pro(uce the felony as a conse0uence but which6 ne+ertheless6 (o not pro(uce it by reason of causes in(epen(ent of the will of the perpetrator" There is an attempt when the offen(er commences the commission of a felony (irectly by o+ert acts6 an( (oes not perform all the acts of e!ecution which shoul( pro(uce the felony by reason of some cause or acci(ent other than his own spontaneous (esistance"
Bevelopment of a crime . 3nternal acts ! intent and plans- usuall& not punishable '. External acts a. #reparator& Acts ! acts tending toward the crime b. Acts of Execution ! acts directl& connected the crime 3n the case of People +s" ,i+era6 G"," No" -FF@/F6 the overt acts must have an immediate and necessar& relation to the offense. >:ia(a

Stages of Commission of a Crime

Attempt ;vert acts of execution are started *ot all acts of execution are present Cue to reasons other than the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator

,rustrated All acts of execution are present %rime sought to be committed is not achieved Cue to intervening causes independent of the will of the perpetrator

+onsummated All the acts of execution are present /he result sought is achieved

/tages of a 2rime does not apply in$ . ;ffenses punishable b& 7pecial #enal 8aws, unless the otherwise is provided for. '. Aormal crimes 1e.g., slander, adulter&, etc.2 4. 3mpossible %rimes ). %rimes consummated b& mere attempt. Examples: attempt to flee to an enem& countr&, treason, corruption of minors. :. Aelonies b& omission <. %rimes committed b& mere agreement. Examples: betting in sports 1endings in basketball2, corruption of public officers.

5esistance Besistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted stage. Besistance is true only in the attempted stage of the felony. 9f under the definition of the felony! the act done is already in the frustrated stage! no amount of desistance will negate criminal liability. The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all criminal liability. Even though there was desistance on the part of the offender! if the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a felony! that offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about his act 9n deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated! there are three criteria involved: +,+.+&The manner of committing the crime5 The elements of the crime5 and The nature of the crime itself.

Guillen did not succeed in assassinating Manuel 6oxas $by reason of so#e cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance) + People +s" Guillen6 G"," No" L;-8BB) 3t is not the gravit& of the wounds inflicted which determines whether a felon& is attempted or frustrated but whether or not the sub1ecti+e phase in the commission of an offense has been passed. (People +s" Listerio6 G"," No" -//E??)
1

Applications: a. A put poison in B.s food. B threw awa& his food. A is liable > attempted murder.

The difference between murder and homicide will be discussed in Criminal Law II. These crimes are found in Articles 248 and 249, Boo II of the !e"ised #enal Code.

b. A stole B.s car, but he returned it. A is liable > +consummated- theft. c. A aimed his gun at B. % held A.s hand and prevented him from shooting B > attempted murder. d. A inflicted a mortal wound on B. B managed to survive > frustrated murder. e. A intended to kill B b& shooting him. A missed > attempted murder. f. A doused B.s house with kerosene. But before he could light the match, he was caught > attempted arson. g. A cause a bla+e, but did not burn the house of B > frustrated arson. h. B.s house was set on fire b& A > +consummated- arson. i. A tried to rape B. B managed to escape. /here was no penetration > attempted rape. ". A got hold of B.s painting. A was caught before he could leave B.s house > frustrated robbery..
The attempted stage is said to be within the sub)ective phase of execution of a felony. On the sub)ective phase! it is that point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overt act until that point where he loses control of the commission of the crime already. 9f he has reached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence! the crime has already passed the sub)ective phase and! therefore! it is no longer attempted. The moment the execution of the crime has already gone to that point where the felony should follow as a consequence! it is either already frustrated or consummated. 9f the felony does not follow as a consequence! it is already frustrated. 9f the felony follows as a consequence! it is consummated. although the offender may not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence! if he could have continued committing those acts but he himself did not proceed because he believed that he had done enough to consummate the crime! /upreme 2ourt said the sub)ective phase has passed $OTE/ O$ A#/O$5 The weight of the authority is that the crime of arson cannot be committed in the frustrated stage. The reason is because we can hardly determine whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would result in arson! as a consequence! unless a part of the premises has started to burn. On the other hand! the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises has blac4ened! in law! arson is consummated. This is because consummated arson does not require that the whole of the premises be burned. 9t is enough that any part of the premises! no matter how small! has begun to burn. E/TA?A :/. T*E?T 9n estafa! the offender receives the property5 he does not ta4e it. "ut in receiving the property! the recipient may be committing theft! not estafa! if what was transferred to him was only the physical or material possession of the ob)ect. 9t can only be estafa if what was transferred to him is not only material or physical possession but )uridical possession as well. 6hen you are discussing estafa! do not tal4 about intent to gain. 9n the same manner that when you are discussing the crime of theft! do not tal4 of damage.

Nature of the crime itself

9n crimes involving the ta4ing of human life 7 parricide! homicide! and murder 7 in the definition of the frustrated stage! it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. 0nder the definition of the frustrated stage! to consider the offender as having performed all the acts of execution! the acts already done by him must produce or be capable of producing a felony as a
2

The difference between theft and robber$ will be discussed in Criminal Law II. These crimes are found in Title Ten, Cha%ters &ne and Three, Boo II of the !e"ised #enal Code.

consequence. The general rule is that there must be a fatal in)ury inflicted! because it is only then that death will follow. 9f the wound is not mortal! the crime is only attempted. The reason is that the wound inflicted is not capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide! murder or homicide as a consequence5 it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce parricide! homicide or murder as a result. An exception to the general rule is the so called sub)ective phase. The /upreme 2ourt has decided cases which applied the sub)ective standard that when the offender himself believed that he had performed all the acts of execution! even though no mortal wound was inflicted! the act is already in the frustrated stage. The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved! the participants are punished as principals. This notion is no longer absolute. 9n the case of People v. 6ierra" the /upreme 2ourt ruled that even though there was conspiracy! if a co conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts! such that even without his cooperation! the crime could be carried out as well! such co conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only.

)rt" B" Light felonies are punishable only when they ha+e been consummate( with the e!ception of those committe( against persons or property"
Examples of light felonies$ slight ph&sical in"uries- theft- alteration of boundar& marksmalicious mischief- and intriguing against honor. 3n commission of crimes against properties and persons, ever& stage of execution is punishable but onl& the principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies, accessories are not. As held in the case of (People +s" &aleros6 G"," No" -@CE@@)6 /here is no need to allege malice, restraint or compulsion in an information for un"ust vexation. As it were, un"ust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason that this term is broad enough to include an& human conduct which, although not productive of some ph&sical or material harm, would un"ustl& annoy or irritate innocent person" /he paramount 5uestion is whether the offender.s act causes annoyance6 irritation6 torment6 (istress or (isturbance to the min( of the person to whom it is (irecte(" >ustice ,amon C" )0uino

)rt" C" Conspiracy an( proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially pro+i(es a penalty therefore" ) conspiracy e!ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony an( (eci(e to commit it" There is proposal when the person who has (eci(e( to commit a felony proposes its e!ecution to some other person or persons"
2onspiracy is punishable in the following cases$ treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, and monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. 2onspiracy to commit a crime is not to be confused with conspiracy as a means of committing a crime. 3n both cases there is an agreement but mere conspirac& to

commit a crime is not punished ED%E#/ in treason, rebellion, or sedition. Even then, if the treason is actuall& committed, the conspirac& will be considered as a means of committing it and the accused will all be charged for treason and not for conspirac& to commit treason. %onspirac& and #roposal to %ommit a %rime %onspirac& #roposal Agreement among ' or more A person has decided to commit a crime persons to commit a crime 9e proposes its commission to another /he& decide to commit it . %onspirac& to commit sedition . #roposal to commit treason '. %onspirac& to commit rebellion '. #roposal to commit rebellion 4. %onspirac& to commit treason

Elements

%rimes

Mere conspirac& in combination in restraint of trade 1Art. B<2, and brigandage 1Art. 4E<2.

Two ways for conspiracy to exist: +,There is an agreement. +.- The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal ob)ective. 6hen several offenders act in a synchroni(ed! coordinated manner! the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement. 7ow to prove /he existence of conspirac& cannot be presumed. /he evidence for it must be shown be&ond reasonable doubt. %riminal conspirac& must be founded on (facts=, NOT on mere surmises, speculation or con"ecture. (People +s" Tolentino6 G"," No" -@?-B?) %onspirac& ma& be inferred for the acts of the accused before6 (uring an( after the commission of the crime which indubitabl& point to and are indicative a "oint purpose, concert of action and communit& of interest. (People +s" Listerio6 G"," No" -//E??) 3n the absence of direct proof thereof, as in the present case, it ma& be deduced from the mo(e6 metho(6 an( manner b& which the offense was pepetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a 1oint purpose an( (esign6 concerte( action an( community of interest" (People +s" Listerio6 G"," No" -//E??) 8ndication of conspiracy or concurrence of conspiracy in its absence #rior agreement or assent is usuall& inferred from the acts of the accused showing -) concerted action" .- co##on desi0n and objective" /- actual cooperation and 9- concurrence of sentiments or community of interest. Mere presence at the scene of the crime or even knowledge of the plan or ac5uiescence thereto are not sufficient grounds to hold a person liable as a conspirator. (People +s" Tolentino6 G"," No" -@?-B?) %onspirac& ma& be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed b& their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful ob"ect, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparentl& independent of each other, were in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiments. (People +s" Pilola6 G"," No" -/-C/C) Principal as co;conspirator 3n order to hold an accused guilt& as co>principal b& reason of conspirac&, it must be established that he performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspirac&, either b& activel&

participating in actual commission of the crime, or b& lending moral assistance to his co> conspirators b& being present at the scene of the crime or exerting moral ascendanc& over the rest of the conspirators as to move them to executing the conspirac&. (People +s" :as0ueA6 G"," No" -/@?@?. People +s" CorteA G"," No" @--EF) 3n order to hold an accused guilt& as co>principal b& reason of conspirac&, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspirac&. (People +s" Pilola6 G"," No" -/-C/C)

2n conspiracy $)n act of one is the act of all% 3n conspirac&, all the conspirators are criminall& liable for the death of the victim regardless of the degree of their participation in the crime. (People +s" :as0ueA6 G"," No" -/@?@?) ,here there are several accused and conspirac& has been established, the prosecution (nee( not% pinpoint who among the accused inflicted the fatal wounds. 3n conspirac&, all the conspirators are criminall& liable for the death of the victim regardless of the degree of their participation in the crime. (People +s" :as0ueA6 G"," No" -/@?@?) ,here conspirac& has been established, evidence as to who among the accused rendered the fatal blow is not necessar&. All the conspirators are liable as co>principals regardless of the intent character of their participation because ( the act of one is the act of all"% (People +s" :as0ueA6 G"," No" -/@?@?) All the conspirators are liable as co>principals regardless of the manner and extent of their participation since in contemplation of law, ( the act of one woul( be the act of all"% (People +s" Pilola6 G"," No" -/-C/C) Two 4inds of conspiracy: +,+.2onspiracy as a crime5 and 2onspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability

6hen conspiracy itself is a crime! no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy5 otherwise! the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason! rebellion! sedition! and coup d>etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable. 6hen the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability! there must be an overt act done before the co conspirators become criminally liable. ?or as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act! there is no crime yet. "ut when one of them commits any overt act! all of them shall be held liable! unless a co conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up! but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime As a general rule! if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place! anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind. ?or as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act! there is no crime yet. "ut when one of them commits any overt act! all of them shall be held liable! unless a co conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up! but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime

As a general rule! if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place! anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind. 6hen the conspiracy itself is a crime! this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. All that there is the agreement. On the other hand! if the co conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act! the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself conspiracy as a crime! must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. Every crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence! not by con)ectures or speculations. 6hen the conspiracy is )ust a basis of incurring criminal liability! however! the same may be deduced or inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of the crime. The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenders when such acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal ob)ective. mere 4nowledge! acquiescence to! or approval of the act! without cooperation or at least! agreement to cooperate! is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. There must be an intentional participation in the crime with a view to further the common felonious ob)ective. 6hen several persons who do not 4now each other simultaneously attac4 the victim! the act of one is the act of all! regardless of the degree of in)ury inflicted by any one of them. All will be liable for the consequences. A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not 4nown to each other. Bo not thin4 that participants are always 4nown to each other. 2onspiracy is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information! otherwise! the court will not consider the same. 8roposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet accepted the proposal. Once the proposal was accepted! a conspiracy arises. 8roposal is unilateral! one party ma4es a proposition to the other5 conspiracy is bilateral! it requires two parties. 7EC3/3;*8roposal to commit sedition is not a crime. "ut if 0nion " accepts the proposal! there will be conspiracy to commit sedition which is a crime under the #evised 8enal 2ode.

Composite crimes
2omposite crimes are crimes which! in substance! consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of the law! there is only one crime. ?or example! the crimes of robbery with homicide! robbery with rape! robbery with physical in)uries. 9n case the crime committed is a composite crime! the conspirator will be liable for all the acts committed during the commission of the crime agreed upon. This is because! in the eyes of the law! all those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime. As a general rule! when there is conspiracy! the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. This principle applies only to the crime agreed upon. The exception is if any of the co conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. This happens when the crime agreed upon and the crime committed by one of the co conspirators are distinct crimes.

Absent a conspirac&, his responsibilit&, as well as that of his co>accused, is $in(i+i(ual% ! $NOT collecti+e% as a co>conspirator ! and each is to be punished ONLD for his (own= separate acts. Exception to the exception: 9n acts constituting a single indivisible offense! even though the co conspirator performed different acts bringing about the composite crime! all will be liable for such crime. They can only evade responsibility for any other crime outside of that agreed upon if it is proved that the particular conspirator had tried to prevent the commission of such other act.

)rt" ?" Gra+e felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their are afflicti+e6 in accor(ance with )rticle /7 of this Co(e" Less gra+e felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their ma!imum perio( are correctional6 in accor(ance with the abo+e;mentione( article" Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which he penalty of arresto #ayor or a fine not e!cee(ing /EE pesos6 or both is pro+i(e("
%apital punishment > death penalt&. #enalties 1imprisonment2$ Grave > six &ears and one da& to reclusion perpetua 1life28ess grave > one month and one da& to six &ears- 8ight > arresto menor 1one da& to 4E da&s2.

CL)##292C)T2ON O9 9 LON2 #
This question was as4ed in the bar examination: *ow do you classify felonies or how are felonies classified; 6hat the examiner had in mind was Articles &! ' and E. Bo not write the classification of felonies under "oo4 . of the #evised 8enal 2ode. That was not what the examiner had in mind because the question does not require the candidate to classify but also to define. Therefore! the examiner was after the classifications under Articles &! ' and E.

Aelonies are classified as follows$

1 2 According to the manner of their commission 0nder Article &! they are classified as! intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent5 and culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence! rec4less imprudence! lac4 of foresight or lac4 of s4ill. +.According to the stages of their execution 0nder Article '.! felonies are classified as attempted felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts! and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance5 frustrated felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony as a consequence but which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator5 and! consummated felony when all the elements necessary for its execution are present. 142 According to their gravity

0nder Article E! felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive5 less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was correccional5 and light felonies or those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor. 6hy is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave! less grave or light; To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not! and to determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty. 9n other words! these are felonies classified according to their gravity! stages and the penalty attached to them. Ta4e note that when the #evised 8enal 2ode spea4s of grave and less grave felonies! the definition ma4es a reference specifically to Article .1 of the #evised 8enal 2ode. Bo not omit the phrase <9n accordance with Article .1 because there is also a classification of penalties under Article .' that was not applied. 9f the penalty is fine and exactly 8.FF.FF! it is only considered a light felony under Article E. 9f the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty! the fine of 8.FF.FF is considered a correctional penalty under Article .'. 9f the penalty is exactly 8.FF.FF! apply Article .'. 9t is considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes in ,F years. 9f the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years! he can be made to suffer the fine. This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription of crimes. 9n the case of light felonies! crimes prescribe in two months. 9f the crime is correctional! it prescribes in ten years! except arresto mayor! which prescribes in five years.

)rt" -E" Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable un(er special laws are not sub1ect to the pro+isions of this Co(e" This Co(e shall be supplementary to such laws6 unless the latter shoul( specially pro+i(e the contrary"
Aor 7pecial 8aws$ #enalties should be imprisonment, and not reclusion perpetua, etc. ;ffenses that are attempted or frustrated are not punishable, unless otherwise stated. #lea of guilt& is not mitigating for offenses punishable b& special laws. *o minimum, medium, and maximum periods for penalties. *o penalt& for an accessor& or accomplice, unless otherwise stated. 8rovisions of #82 applicable to special laws: a. Art. < #articipation of Accomplices b. Art. '' 6etroactivit& of #enal laws if favorable to the accused c. Art. ): %onfiscation of instruments used in the crime

#'PPL TO,D )PPL2C)T2ON O9 T< , :2# 5 P N)L CO5

9n Article ,F! there is a reservation <provision of the #evised 8enal 2ode may be applied suppletorily to special laws. Gou will only apply the provisions of the #evised 8enal 2ode as a supplement to the special law! or simply correlate the violated special law! if needed to avoid an in)ustice. 9f no )ustice would result! do not give suppletorily application of the #evised 8enal 2ode to that of special law. ?or example! a special law punishes a certain act as a crime. The special law is silent as to the civil liability of one who violates the same. *ere is a person who violated the special law and he was prosecuted. *is violation caused damage or in)ury to a private party. Cay the court pronounce that he is civilly liable to the offended party! considering that the special law is silent on this point; Ges! because Article ,FF of the #evised 8enal 2ode may be given suppletory application to prevent an in)ustice from being done to the offended party. Article ,FF states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. That article shall be applied suppletory to avoid an in)ustice that would be caused to the private offended party! if he would not be indemnified for the damages or in)uries sustained by him. 9n People v. Rodri0ue$" it was held that the use of arms is an element of rebellion! so a rebel cannot be further prosecuted for possession of firearms. A violation of a special law can never absorb a crime punishable under the #evised 8enal 2ode! because violations of the #evised 8enal 2ode are more serious than a violation of a special law. "ut a crime in the #evised 8enal 2ode can absorb a crime punishable by a special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crime in the #evised 8enal 2ode. 9n the crime of sedition! the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. prosecutions can be had: +,- sedition5 and +.- illegal possession of firearms. *ence! two

"ut do not thin4 that when a crime is punished outside of the #evised 8enal 2ode! it is already a special law. ?or example! the crime of cattle rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification of the crime theft of large cattle. /o 8residential Becree $o. 1&&! punishing cattle rustling! is not a special law. 9t can absorb the crime of murder. 9f in the course of cattle rustling! murder was committed! the offender cannot be prosecuted for murder. Curder would be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of qualified cattle rustling. This was the ruling in People v. 3artinada. The amendments of 8residential Becree $o. 'D.1 +The Bangerous Brugs Act of ,E%.- by #epublic Act $o. %'1E! which adopted the scale of penalties in the #evised 8enal 2ode! means that mitigating and aggravating circumstances can now be considered in imposing penalties. 8residential Becree $o. 'D.1 does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the #evised 8enal 2ode. The stages of the commission of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed.

Circumstances affecting criminal liability

There are fi"e circumstances affectin' criminal liabilit$( 1 2 1'2 142 1)2 1:2 >ustif&ing circumstancesxempting circumstances*itigating circumstances)ggravating circumstances- and )lternative circumstances.

/here are two others which are found elsewhere in the provisions of the 6evised #enal %ode$ 1 2 1'2 )bsolutor& cause- and xtenuating circumstances.

9n )ustifying and exempting circumstances! there is no criminal liability. 6hen an accused invo4es them! he in effect admits the commission of a crime but tries to avoid the liability thereof. The burden is upon him to establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to )ustify or exempt his acts from criminal liability. 6hat is shifted is only the burden of evidence! not the burden of proof. =ustifying circumstances contemplate intentional acts and! hence! are incompatible with dolo. Exempting circumstances may be invo4ed in culpable felonies.

)bsolutory cause
The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability! although not from civil liability. 9t has the same effect as an exempting circumstance! but you do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with the circumstances under Article ,.. Article .F provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses! ascendants! descendants! legitimate! natural and adopted brothers and sisters! or relatives by affinity within the same degrees with the exception of accessories who profited themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. Then! Article HE provides how criminal liability is extinguished: Beath of the convict as to the personal penalties! and as to pecuniary penalties! liability therefor is extinguished if death occurs before final )udgment5 /ervice of the sentence5 Amnesty5 Absolute pardon5 8rescription of the crime5 8rescription of the penalty5 and Carriage of the offended woman as provided in Article &DD. 0nder Article .D%! a legally married person who 4ills or inflicts physical in)uries upon his or her spouse whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally liable. 0nder Article .,E! discovering secrets through sei(ure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not penali(ed. 0nder Article &&.! in the case of theft! swindling and malicious mischief! there is no criminal liability but only civil liability! when the offender and the offended party are related as spouse! ascendant! descendant! brother and sister in law living together or where in case the widowed

spouse and the property involved is that of the deceased spouse! before such property had passed on to the possession of third parties. 0nder Article &DD! in cases of seduction! abduction! acts of lasciviousness! and rape! the marriage of the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action. Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting circumstance and they are predicated on lac4 of voluntariness li4e instigation. 9nstigation is associated with criminal intent. Bo not consider culpa in connection with instigation. 9f the crime is culpable! do not tal4 of instigation. 9n instigation! the crime is committed with dolo. 9t is confused with entrapment. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal liability. "ut instigation absolves the offender from criminal liability because in instigation! the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and! therefore! he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation! he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers.

2ifference between insti0ation and entrap#ent

9n instigation! the criminal plan or design exists in the mind of the law enforcer with whom the person instigated cooperated so it is said that the person instigated is acting only as a mere instrument or tool of the law enforcer in the performance of his duties. On the other hand! in entrapment! a criminal design is already in the mind of the person entrapped. 9t did not emanate from the mind of the law enforcer entrapping him. Entrapment involves only ways and means which are laid down or resorted to facilitate the apprehension of the culprit. The element which ma4es instigation an absolutory cause is the lac4 of criminal intent as an element of voluntariness. 9f the instigator is a law enforcer! the person instigated cannot be criminally liable! because it is the law enforcer who planted that criminal mind in him to commit the crime! without which he would not have been a criminal. 9f the instigator is not a law enforcer! both will be criminally liable! you cannot have a case of instigation. 9n instigation! the private citi(en only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when the private citi(en upon instigation of the law enforcer incriminates himself. 9t would be contrary to public policy to prosecute a citi(en who only cooperated with the law enforcer. The private citi(en believes that he is a law enforcer and that is why when the law enforcer tells him! he believes that it is a civil duty to cooperate. 9f the person instigated does not 4now that the person is instigating him is a law enforcer or he 4nows him to be not a law enforcer! this is not a case of instigation. This is a case of inducement! both will be criminally liable. 9n entrapment! the person entrapped should not 4now that the person trying to entrap him was a law enforcer. The idea is incompatible with each other because in entrapment! the person entrapped is actually committing a crime. The officer who entrapped him only lays down ways and means to have evidence of the commission of the crime! but even without those ways and means! the person entrapped is actually engaged in a violation of the law. 9nstigation absolves the person instigated from criminal liability. This is based on the rule that a person cannot be a criminal if his mind is not criminal. On the other hand! entrapment is not an absolutory cause. 9t is not even mitigating. 9n case of somnambulism or one who acts while sleeping! the person involved is definitely acting without freedom and without sufficient intelligence! because he is asleep. *e is moving li4e a

robot! unaware of what he is doing. /o the element of voluntariness which is necessary in dolo and culpa is not present. /omnambulism is an absolutory cause. 9f element of voluntariness is absent! there is no criminal liability! although there is civil liability! and if the circumstance is not among those enumerated in Article ,.! refer to the circumstance as an absolutory cause. Cista4e of fact is an absolutory cause. The offender is acting without criminal intent. /o in mista4e of fact! it is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be! this act is )ustified. 9f not! there is criminal liability! because there is no mista4e of fact anymore. The offender must believe he is performing a lawful act.

!tenuating circumstances
The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. 9n other words! this has the same effect as mitigating circumstances! only you do not call it mitigating because this is not found in Article ,&. Illustrations: An unwed mother 4illed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. The concealment of dishonor is an extenuating circumstance insofar as the unwed mother or the maternal grandparents is concerned! but not insofar as the father of the child is concerned. Cother 4illing her new born child to conceal her dishonor! penalty is lowered by two degrees. /ince there is a material lowering of the penalty or mitigating the penalty! this is an extenuating circumstance. The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide is an extenuating circumstance but not in the case of parricide when the age of the victim is three days old and above. 9n the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband! at the time she was abandoned by her husband! is it necessary for her to see4 the company of another man. Abandonment by the husband does not )ustify the act of the woman. 9t only extenuates or reduces criminal liability. 6hen the effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circumstance. A 4leptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation of stealing things which appeal to his desire. This is not exempting. One who is a 4leptomaniac and who would steal ob)ects of his desire is criminally liable. "ut he would be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance analogous to paragraph E of Article ,&! that of suffering from an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will power without! however! depriving him of the consciousness of his act. /o this is an extenuating circumstance. The effect is to mitigate the criminal liability.

5istinctions between 1ustifying circumstances an( e!empting circumstances

9n )ustifying circumstances 7 +,+.+&+DThe circumstance affects the act! not the actor5 The act complained of is considered to have been done within the bounds of law5 hence! it is legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law5 /ince the act is considered lawful! there is no crime! and because there is no crime! there is no criminal5 /ince there is no crime or criminal! there is no criminal liability as well as civil liability.

9n exempting circumstances 7

+,+.+&+D-

The circumstances affect the actor! not the act5 The act complained of is actually wrongful! but the actor acted without voluntariness. *e is a mere tool or instrument of the crime5 /ince the act complained of is actually wrongful! there is a crime. "ut because the actor acted without voluntariness! there is absence of dolo or culpa. There is no criminal5 /ince there is a crime committed but there is no criminal! there is civil liability for the wrong done. "ut there is no criminal liability. *owever! in paragraphs D and % of Article ,.! there is neither criminal nor civil liability.

6hen you apply for )ustifying or exempting circumstances! it is confession and avoidance and burden of proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on wea4ness of prosecution>s evidence

)rt" -- >ustifying Circumstances ; those wherein the acts of the actor are in accor(ance with law6 hence6 he is 1ustifie(" There is no criminal an( ci+il liability because there is no crime" Self:defense A. ,eason for lawfulness of self;(efense: because it would be impossible for the 7tate to protect all its citi+ens. Also a person cannot "ust give up his rights without an& resistance being offered. B. 2n legitimate self;(efense: the aggression must still be existing or continuing when the person making the defense has no more right to kill the former aggressor. (People +s" )nnibong6 G"," No" -@?CB?) %. 6ights included in self>defense$ . Cefense of person '. Cefense of rights protected b& law 4. Cefense of propert&$ a. /he owner or lawful possessor of a thing has a right to exclude an& person from the en"o&ment or disposal thereof. Aor this purpose, he ma& use such force as ma& be reasonabl& necessar& to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful ph&sical invasion or usurpation of his propert&. 1 Art. D.E! $ew 2ivil 2ode2 b. defense of chastit& C. Elements$ -" 'nlawful )ggression > is a ph&sical act manifesting danger to life or limb- it is either actual or imminent. a. ActualFreal aggression > 6eal aggression presupposes an act positivel& strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor, which is not merel& threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material attack. /here must be real danger to life a personal safet&. b. 3mminent unlawful aggression > it is an attack that is impending or on the point of happening. 3t must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merel& imaginar&. /he intimidating attitude must be offensive and positivel& strong.

c. ,here there is an agreement to fight, there is no unlawful aggression. Each of the protagonists is at once assailant and assaulted, and neither can invoke the right of self>defense, because aggression which is an incident in the fight is bound to arise from one or the other of the combatants. Exception$ ,here the attack is made in violation of the conditions agreed upon, there ma& be unlawful aggression. d. Unlawful aggression in self>defense, to be "ustif&ing, must exist at the time the defense is made. 3t ma& no longer exist if the aggressor runs awa& after the attack or he has manifested a refusal to continue fighting. 3f the person attacked allowed some time to elapse after he suffered the in"ur& before hitting back, his act of hitting back would not constitute self> defense, but revenge. A light push on the head with the hand is not unlawful aggression, but a slap on the face is, because his dignit& is in danger. A police officer exceeding his authorit& ma& become an unlawful aggressor. /he nature, character, location, and extent of the wound ma& belie claim of self>defense. 2 /" ,easonable necessity of the means employe( to pre+ent or repel it. a. 6e5uisites$ Means were used to prevent or repel Means must be necessar& and there is no other wa& to prevent or repel it Means must be reasonable ! depending on the circumstances, but generall& proportionate to the force of the aggressor. b. /he rule here is to stand &our ground when in the right which ma& invoked when the defender is unlawfull& assaulted and the aggressor is armed with a weapon. c. /he rule is more liberal when the accused is a peace officer who, unlike a private person, cannot run awa&. d. /he reasonable necessit& of the means emplo&ed to put up the defense. /he gauge of reasonable necessit& is the instinct of self>preservation, i.e. a person did not use his rational mind to pick a means of defense but acted out of self>preservation, using the nearest or onl& means available to defend himself, even if such means be disproportionatel& advantageous as compared with the means of violence emplo&ed b& the aggressor. 6easonableness of the means depends on the nature and the 5ualit& of the weapon used, ph&sical condition, character, si+e and other circumstances. @" Lac= of sufficient pro+ocation on the part of the person (efen(ing himself" a. ,hen no provocation at all was given to the aggressor b& the person defending himself. b. ,hen even if provocation was given b& the person defending himself, such was not sufficient to cause violent aggression on the part of the attacker, i.e. the amount of provocation was not sufficient to stir the aggressor into the acts which led the accused to defend himself.

c. ,hen even if the provocation were sufficient, it was not given b& the person defending himself. d. ,hen even if provocation was given b& the person defending himself, the attack was not proximate or immediate to the act of provocation. e. 7ufficient means proportionate to the damage caused b& the act, and ade5uate to stir one to its commission. 3n the case of ('"#" +s" )h Chong6 G"," No" L;7/B/)6 the intruder who forced to open the door of his room is significant the existence of unlawful aggression that hold him to get a kitchen knife as a means of reasonable necessit& to prevent or repel the imminent danger in his life and the provocation arise from the time his roommate entered the door and stabbed him thinking that he was a sladron. 9e also admits the commission of the crime produced that there was a lawful attack. All the necessar& re5uisite are presents to invoke self>defense. E. Ginds of 7elf>Cefense . 7elf>defense of chastit& > to be entitled to complete self>defense of chastit&, there must be an attempt to rape, mere imminence thereof will suffice. '. Cefense of propert& > an attack on the propert& must be coupled with an attack on the person of the owner, or of one entrusted with the care of such propert&. 4. 7elf>defense in libel > ph&sical assault ma& be "ustified when the libel is aimed at a person.s good name, and while the libel is in progress, one libel deserves another. H&ur(en of proof > on the accused 1sufficient, clear and convincing evidencemust rel& on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution2 5efense of ,elati+e A. Elements$ . unlawful aggression '. reasonable necessit& of the means emplo&ed to prevent or repel the attack4. in case provocation was given b& the person attacked, that the person making the defense had no part in such provocation. B. 6elatives entitled to the defense$ . spouse '. ascendants 4. descendants ). legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters :. relatives b& affinit& in the same degree <. relatives b& consanguinit& within the )th civil degree. /he third element need not take place. /he relative defended ma& even be the original aggressor. All that is re5uired to "ustif& the act of the relative defending is that he takes no part in such provocation. General opinion is to the effect that all relatives mentioned must be legitimate, except in cases of brothers and sisters who, b& relatives b& nature, ma& be illegitimate. /he unlawful aggression ma& depend on the honest belief of the person making the defense.

5efense of #tranger A. Elements . unlawful aggression '. reasonable necessit& of the means emplo&ed to prevent or repel the attack4. the person defending be not induced b& revenge, resentment or other evil motive. B. A relative not included in defense of relative is included in defense of stranger. %. Be not induced b& evil motive means that even an enem& of the aggressor who comes to the defense of a stranger ma& invoke this "ustif&ing circumstances so long as he is not induced b& a motive that is evil. #tate of Necessity A. Art. ,,! 8ar. a provides: )ny person who6 in or(er to a+oi( an e+il or in1ury6 (oes an act which causes (amage to another6 pro+i(e( that the following re0uisites are present: 9irst" That the e+il sought to be a+oi(e( actually e!ists. #econ(" That the in1ury feare( be greater than that (one to a+oi( it. an( Thir(" That there be no other practical an( less harmful means of pre+enting it" B. A state of necessit& exists when there is a clash between une5ual rights, the lesser right giving wa& to the greater right. Aside from the 4 re5uisites stated in the law, it should also be added that the necessit& must not be due to the negligence or violation of an& law b& the actor. %. /he person for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civill& liable in proportion to the benefit which ma& have been received. /his is the onl& "ustif&ing circumstance which provides for the pa&ment of civil indemnit&. Under the other "ustif&ing circumstances, no civil liabilit& attaches. /he courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which law one is liable. 9ulfillment of 5uty or Lawful !ercise of a ,ight or Office A. Elements$ . that the accused acted in the performance of a dut&, or in the lawful exercise of a right or office'. that the in"ur& caused or offense committed be the necessar& conse5uence of the due performance of the dut&, or the lawful exercise of such right or office. B. A police officer is "ustified in shooting and killing a criminal who refuses to stop when ordered to do so, and after such officer fired warning shots in the air. shooting an offender who refused to surrender is "ustified, but not a thief who refused to be arrested. %. /he accused must prove that he was dul& appointed to the position he claimed he was discharging at the time of the commission of the offense. 3t must be made to appear not onl& that the in"ur& caused or the offense committed was done in the fulfillment of a dut&, or in the lawful exercise of a right or office, but that the offense committed was a necessar& conse5uence of such fulfillment of dut&, or lawful exercise of a right or office. C. A mere securit& guard has no authorit& or dut& to fire at a thief, resulting in the latter.s death.

Obe(ience to a #uperior Or(er A. Elements$ . there is an order'. the order is for a legal purpose4. the means used to carr& out said order is lawful. B. /he subordinate who is made to compl& with the order is the part& which ma& avail of this circumstance. /he officer giving the order ma& not invoke this. %. /he subordinate.s good faith is material here. 3f he obe&ed an order in good faith, not being aware of its illegalit&, he is not liable. 9owever, the order must not be patentl& illegal. 3f the order is patentl& illegal this circumstance cannot be validl& invoked. C. /he reason for this "ustif&ing circumstance is the subordinate.s mistake of fact in good faith. E. Even if the order be patentl& illegal, the subordinate ma& &et be able to invoke the exempting circumstances of having acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear. 3 *PT2NG C2,C'*#T)NC #

Exempting circumstances 1non>imputabilit&2 are those ground for exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime of an& of the conditions which make the act voluntar&, or negligent. Basis$ /he exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused. A person who acts ,3/9;U/ MA83%E 1without intelligence, freedom of action or intent2 or ,3/9;U/ *EG83GE*%E 1without intelligence, freedom of action or fault2 is *;/ %63M3*A88I 83AB8E or is EDEM#/ A6;M #U*379ME*/. /here is a crime committed but no criminal liabilit& arises from it because of the complete absence of an& of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act. Burden of proof$ An& of the circumstances is a matter of defense and must be proved b& the defendant to the satisfaction of the court.

)rt" -/" C2,C'*#T)NC # 4<2C< 3 *PT 9,O* C,2*2N)L L2)&2L2TD" The following are e!empt from criminal liability: -" )n imbecile or insane person6 unless the latter has acte( (uring a luci( inter+al" ,hen the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felon& 1delito2, the court shall order his confinement on one of the hospital or as&lums established for persons thus afflicted. 9e shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court. 6e5uisites$ a. ;ffender is an imbecile b. ;ffender was insane at the time of the commission of the crime 3MBE%383/I ;6 3*7A*3/I a. Basis$ complete absence of intelligence, and element of voluntariness.

b. Cefinition $ An imbecile is one who while advanced in age has a mental development comparable to that of children between ' and J &ears of age. An insane is one who acts with complete deprivation of intelligenceFreason or without the least discernment or with total deprivation of freedom of the will. An imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liabilit&. /he insane is not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted during a lucid interval. 3n the latter, loss of consciousness of ones acts and not merel& abnormalit& of mental faculties will 5ualif& ones acts as those of an insane. #rocedure$ court is to order the confinement of such persons in the hospitals or as&lums established. 7uch persons will not be permitted to leave without permission from the court. /he court, on the other hand, has no power to order such permission without first obtaining the opinion of the C;9 that such persons ma& be released without danger. #resumption is alwa&s in favor of sanit&. /he defense has the burden to prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. Aor the ascertainment such mental condition of the accused, it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind during a reasonable period both before and after that time. %ircumstantial evidence which is clear and convincing will suffice. An examination of the outward acts will help reveal the thoughts, motives and emotions of a person and if such acts conform to those of people of sound mind. 3nsanit& at the time of the commission of the crime and not that at the time of the trial will exempt one from criminal liabilit&. 3n case of insanit& at the time of the trial, there will be a suspension of the trial until the mental capacit& of the accused is restored to afford him a fair trial. Evidence of insanit& must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the ver& moment of its execution. ,ithout such evidence, the accused is presumed to be sane when he committed the crime. %ontinuance of insanit& which is occasional or intermittent in nature will not be presumed. 3nsanit& at another time must be proved to exist at the time of the commission of the crime. A person is also presumed to have committed a crime in one of the lucid intervals. %ontinuance of insanit& will onl& be presumed in cases wherein the accused has been ad"udged insane or has been committed to a hospital or an as&lum for the insane. 3nstances of 3nsanit&$ a. Cementia praecox is covered b& the term insanit& because homicidal attack is common in such form of ps&chosis. 3t is characteri+ed b& delusions that he is being interfered with sexuall&, or that his propert& is being taken, thus the person has no control over his acts. b. Gleptomania or presence of abnormal, persistent impulse or tendenc& to steal, to be considered exempting, will still have to be investigated b& competent ps&chiatrist to determine if the unlawful act is due to the irresistible impulse produced b& his mental defect, thus loss of will>power. 3f such mental defect onl& diminishes the exercise of his willpower and did not deprive him of the consciousness of his acts, it is onl& mitigating. c. Epileps& which is a chronic nervous disease characteri+ed b& convulsive motions of the muscles and loss of consciousness ma& be covered b& the term insanit&. 9owever, it must be shown that commission of the offense is during one of those epileptic attacks. 6e&es$ Aeeblemindedness is not imbecilit& because the offender can distinguish right from wrong. An imbecile and an insane to be exempted must not be able to distinguish right from wrong.

6elova$ Aeeblemindedness is imbecilit&. %rimes committed while in a dream, b& a somnambulist are embraced in the plea of insanit&. 9&pnotism, however, is a debatable issue. %rime committed while suffering from malignant malaria is characteri+ed b& insanit& at times thus such person is not criminall& liable.

/" ) person un(er nine years of age" M3*;63/I a. 6e5uisite$ ;ffender is under K &ears of age at the time of the commission of the crime. /here is absolute criminal irresponsibilit& in the case of a minor under K> &ears of age. b. Basis$ complete absence of intelligence. Under nine &ears to be construed nine &ears or less. 7uch was inferred from the next subse5uent paragraph which does not totall& exempt those over nine &ears of age if he acted with discernment. #resumptions of incapabilit& of committing a crime is absolute. Age is computed up to the time of the commission of the crime. Age can be established b& the testimonies of families and relatives. 7enilit& or second childhood is onl& mitigating. ) periods of the life of a human being$ %riminal 6esponsibilit& Absolute irresponsibilit& %onditional responsibilit& ,ithout discernment ! no liabilit& ,ith Ciscernment ! mitigated liabilit& Mitigated responsibilit& Aull responsibilit& Mitigated responsibilit&

Age K &ears and below Between K and : &ears old Between : and B &ears old Between B and JE &ears old ;ver JE &ears old

@" ) person o+er nine years of age an( un(er fifteen6 unless he has acte( with (iscernment6 in which case6 such minor shall be procee(e( against in accor(ance with the pro+isions of article CE of this Co(e" 4hen such minor is a(1u(ge( to be criminally irresponsible6 the court6 in conformity with the pro+isions of this an( the prece(ing paragraph6 shall commit him to the care an( custo(y of his family who shall be charge( with his sur+eillance an( e(ucation. otherwise6 he shall be committe( to the care of some institution or person mentione( in sai( article CE" LUA83A3EC M3*;63/I$ Basis$ complete absence of intelligence 7uch minor over K &ears and under : &ears of age must have acted without discernment to be exempted from criminal liabilit&. 3f with discernment, he is criminall& liable. #resumption is alwa&s that such minor has acted without discernment. /he prosecution is burdened to prove if otherwise. Ciscernment means the mental capacit& of a minor between K and : &ears of age to full& appreciate the conse5uences of his unlawful act. 7uch is shown b&$ 1 2

manner the crime was committed 1i.e. commission of the crime during nighttime to avoid detection- taking the loot to another town to avoid discover&2, or 1'2 the conduct of the offender after its commission 1i.e. elation of satisfaction upon the commission of his criminal act as shown b& the accused cursing at the victim2. Aacts or particular facts concerning personal appearance which lead officers or the court to believe that his age was as stated b& said officer or court should be stated in the record. 3f such minor is ad"udged to be criminall& liable, he is charged to the custod& of his famil&, otherwise, to the care of some institution or person mentioned in article BE. /his is because of the court.s presupposition that the minor committed the crime without discernment. Allegation of (with intent to kill= in the information is sufficient allegation of discernment as such conve&s the idea that he knew what would be the conse5uences of his unlawful act. /hus is the case wherein the information alleges that the accused, with intent to kill, willfull&, criminall& and feloniousl& pushed a child of B F' &ears of age into a deep place. 3t was held that the re5uirement that there should be an allegation that she acted with discernment should be deemed ampl& met.

8" )ny person who6 while performing a lawful act with (ue care6 causes an in1ury by mere acci(ent without fault or intention of causing it" A%%3CE*/$ Basis$ lack of negligence and intent. Elements$ a. A person is performing a lawful act b. Exercise of due dare c. 9e causes in"ur& to another b& mere accident d. ,ithout fault or intention of causing it. Cischarge of a firearm in a thickl& populated place in the %it& of Manila being prohibited b& Art. :: of the 6#% is not a performance of a lawful act when such led to the accidental hitting and wounding of ' persons. Crawing a weaponFgun in the course of self>defense even if such fired and seriousl& in"ured the assailant is a lawful act and can be considered as done with due care since it could not have been done in an& other manner. ,ith the fact dul& established b& the prosecution that the appellant was guilt& of negligence, this exempting circumstance cannot be applied because application presupposes that there is no fault or negligence on the part of the person performing the lawful act. Accident happens outside the swa& of our will, and although it comes about some act of our will, lies be&ond the bounds of humanl& foreseeable conse5uences. /he accused, who, while hunting saw wild chickens and fired a shot can be considered to be in the performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without intention of doing harm when such short recoiled and accidentall& wounded another. 7uch was established because the deceased was not in the direction at which the accused fired his gun. /he chauffeur, who while driving on the proper side of the road at a moderate speed and with due diligence, suddenl& and unexpectedl& saw a man in front of his vehicle coming from the sidewalk and crossing the street without an& warning that he would

do so, in effect being run over b& the said chauffeur, was held not criminall& liable, it being b& mere accident. 7" )ny person who acts un(er the compulsion of an irresistible force" 366E737/3B8E A;6%E$ Basis$ complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness Elements$ a. /hat the compulsion is b& means of ph&sical force b. /hat the ph&sical force must be irresistible. c. /hat the ph&sical force must come from a third person Aorce, to be irresistible, must produce such an effect on an individual that despite of his resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a crime. 3t compels his member to act and his mind to obe&. 3t must act upon him from the outside and b& a third person. Baculi, who was accused but not a member of a band which murdered some American school teachers and was seen and compelled b& the leaders of the band to bur& the bodies, was not criminall& liable as accessor& for concealing the bod& of the crime. Baculi acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force. 3rresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion, or obfuscation. 3t must consist of an extraneous force coming from a third person.

F" )ny person who acts un(er the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an e0ual or greater in1ury" U*%;*/6;88AB8E AEA6$ Basis$ complete absence of freedom Elements a. that the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than, or at least e5ual to that wFc he is re5uired to commit b. that it promises an evil of such gravit& and imminence that the ordinar& man would have succumbed to it. Curess, to be a valid defense, should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for one.s life or limb. 3t should not be inspired b& speculative, fanciful or remote fear. /hreat of future in"ur& is not enough. /he compulsion must leave no opportunit& to the accused for escape or self>defense in e5ual combat. Curess is the use of violence or ph&sical force. /here is uncontrollable fear is when the offender emplo&s intimidation or threat in compelling another to commit a crime, while irresistible force is when the offender uses violence or ph&sical force to compel another person to commit a crime. (an act done b& me against m& will is not m& act= 3t is not incredible for an e&ewitness to a crime, especiall& if unarmed, to desist from assisting the victim if to do so would put the former.s life in peril. (People +s" Tolentino6 G"," No" -@?-B?)

B" )ny person who fails to perform an act re0uire( by law6 when pre+ente( by some lawful or insuperable cause. 8A,AU8 ;6 3*7U#E6AB8E %AU7E$ Basis$ acts without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felon&

Elements$ a. /hat an act is re5uired b& law to be done b. /hat a person fails to perform such act c. /hat his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause Examples of lawful cause$ a. #riest can.t be compelled to reveal what was confessed to him b. *o available transportation ! officer not liable for arbitrar& detention c. Mother who was overcome b& severe di++iness and extreme debilit&, leaving child to die ! not liable for infanticide /o be an EDEM#/3*G circumstance ! 3*/E*/ 37 ,A*/3*G 3*/E*/ ! presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence Cistinction between "ustif&ing and exempting circumstance$ a. Exempting ! there is a crime but there is no criminal. Act is not "ustified but the actor is not criminall& liable. General 6ule$ /here is civil liabilit& Exception$ #ar ) 1causing an in"ur& b& mere accident2 and #ar J 1lawful cause2 b. Mustif&ing ! person does not transgress the law, does not commit an& crime because there is nothing unlawful in the act as well as the intention of the actor. Cistinction between Exempting and Mustif&ing %ircumstances Exempting %ircumstance Mustif&ing %ircumstance Existence /here is a crime but there is no /here is no crime, the act is "ustified of a crime criminal, the actor is exempted from liabilit& of his act Absolutor& %auses ! are those where the act committed is a crime but for some reason of public polic& and sentiment, there is no penalt& imposed. Exempting and Mustif&ing %ircumstances are absolutor& causes. ;ther examples of absolutor& causes$ 2 Art < ! spontaneous desistance '2 Art 'E ! accessories exempt from criminal liabilit& 42 Art K par ! profiting one.s self or assisting offenders to profit b& the effects of the crime 3nstigation v. Entrapment 3*7/3GA/3;* E*/6A#ME*/ 3nstigator practicall& induces the would>be /he wa&s and means are resorted to for accused into the commission of the the purpose of trapping and capturing the offense and himself becomes co>principal lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan. Accused will be ac5uitted *;/ a bar to accused.s prosecution and conviction Absolutor& cause *;/ an absolutor& cause *2T2G)T2NG C2,C'*#T)NC # Cefinition ! /hose circumstance which reduce the penalt& of a crime Effect ! 6educes the penalt& of the crime but does not erase criminal liabilit& nor change the nature of the crime Ginds of Mitigating %ircumstance$ #rivileged Mitigating ;rdinar& Mitigating

;ffset b& an& aggravating circumstance Effect on the penalt& Ginds

%annot be offset b& an& aggravating %an be offset b& a generic circumstance aggravating circumstance 9as the effect of imposing the penalt& b& or ' degrees than that provided b& law Minorit&, 3ncomplete 7elf>defense, two or more mitigating circumstances without an& aggravating circumstance 1has the effect of lowering the penalt& b& one degree2 3f not offset, has the effect of imposing the penalt& in the minimum period /hose circumstances enumerated in paragraph to E of Article 4

)rticle -@" -" Those mentione( in the prece(ing chapter6 when all the re0uisites necessary to 1ustify the act or to e!empt from criminal liability in the respecti+e cases are not atten(ant >ustifying circumstances a. Self#defense-defense of relative-defense of stranger ! unlawful aggression must be present for Art 4 to be applicable. ;ther ' elements not necessar&. 3f ' re5uisites are present ! considered a privileged mitigating circumstance. Example: Muan makes fun of #edro. #edro gets pissed off, gets a knife and tries to stab Muan. Muan grabs his own knife and kills #edro. 3ncomplete self>defense because although there was unlawful aggression and reasonable means to repel was taken, there was sufficient provocation on the part of Muan. But since ' elements are present, it considered as privileged mitigating. b. State of "ecessity 1par )2 avoidance of greater evil or in"ur&- if an& of the last ' re5uisites is absent, there.s onl& an ordinar& Mitigating %ircumstance. Example$ ,hile driving his car, Muan sees #edro carelessl& crossing the street. Muan swerves to avoid him, thus hitting a motorbike with ' passengers, killing them instantl&. *ot all re5uisites to "ustif& act were present because harm done to avoid in"ur& is greater. %onsidered as mitigating. c. Performance of )uty 1par :2 Example$ Muan is supposed to arrest #edro. 9e thus goes to #edro.s hideout. Muan sees a man asleep. /hinking it was #edro, Muan shot him. Muan ma& have acted in the performance of his dut& but the crime was not a necessar& conse5uence thereof. %onsidered as mitigating. !empting circumstance a. %inority over . and under /0 ! if minor acted with discernment, considered mitigating Example$ 4 &ear old stole goods at nighttime. Acted with discernment as shown b& the manner in which the act was committed.

b. +ausing in(ury by mere accident ! if 'nd re5uisite 1due care2 and st part of )th re5uisite 1without fault ! thus negligence onl&2 are AB7E*/, considered as mitigating because the penalt& is lower than that provided for intentional felon&. Example$ #olice officer tries to stop a fight between Muan and #edro b& firing his gun in the air. Bullet ricocheted and killed #etra. ;fficer willfull& discharged his gun but was unmindful of the fact that area was populated. c. 1ncontrollable fear ! onl& one re5uisite present, considered mitigating Example$ Under threat that their farm will be burned, #edro and Muan took turns guarding it at night. #edro fired in the air when a person in the shadows refused to reveal his identit&. Muan was awakened and shot the unidentified person. /urned out to be a neighbor looking for is pet. Muan ma& have acted under the influence of fear but such fear was not entirel& uncontrollable. %onsidered mitigating. /" That the offen(er is un(er -C years of age or o+er BE years" 2n the case of a minor6 he shall be procee(e( against in accor(ance with the pro+isions of )rt -?/ of P5 ?E@ 3 Applicable to$ a. ;ffender over :, under B who acted with discernment b. ;ffender over :, under B c. ;ffender over JE &ears Age of accused which should be determined as his age at the date of commission of crime, not date of trial 2arious Ages and their 3egal 'ffects a. under : ! exempting circumstance b. over : but below B ! exempting- except if acted with discernment c. minor delin5uent under B ! sentence ma& be suspended 1#C <E42 d. under B ! privileged mitigating circumstance e. B and above ! full criminal responsibilit& f. JE and above ! mitigating circumstance- no imposition of death penalt&- execution g. of death sentence if alread& imposed is suspended and commuted.

@" That the offen(er ha( no intention to commit so gra+e a wrong as that committe( (praeter intentionam) 4 %an be used onl& when the facts prove to show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences 3ntention$ as an internal act, is "udged b& the proportion of the means emplo&ed to the evil produced b& the act, and also b& the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of the bod&. Mudge b& considering 1 2 the weapon used, 1'2 the in"ur& inflicted and 142 the attitude of mind when the accuser attacked the other. Example$ #edro stabbed /omas on the arm. /omas did not have the wound treated, so he died from loss of blood. *ot applicable when offender emplo&ed brute force

Example$ 6apist choked victim. Brute force of choking contradicts claim that he had no intention to kill the girl. Art 4, par 4 addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when he executes or commits the criminal act, not to his intention during the planning stage. 3n crimes against persons ! if victim does not die, the absence of the intent to kill reduces the felon& to mere ph&sical in"uries. 3t is not considered as mitigating. Mitigating onl& when the victim dies. Example$ As part of fun>making, Muan merel& intended to burn #edro.s clothes. #edro received minor burns. Muan is charged with ph&sical in"uries. 9ad #edro died, Muan would be entitled to the mitigating circumstance. *ot applicable to felonies b& negligence. ,h&? 3n felonies through negligence, the offender acts without intent. /he intent in intentional felonies is replaced b& negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill in culpable felonies. /here is no intent on the part of the offender which ma& be considered as diminished. Basis of par 4$ intent, an element of voluntariness in intentional felon&, is diminished

8" That the sufficient pro+ocation or threat on the part of the offen(e( party imme(iately prece(e( the act" #rovocation ! an& un"ust or improper conduct or act of the offended part&, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating an&one. Basis$ diminution of intelligence and intent 6e5uisites$ a. #rovocation must be sufficient. . 7ufficient ! ade5uate enough to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingl& be proportionate to its gravit&. '. 7ufficienc& depends on$ the act constituting the provocation the social standing of the person provoked time and place provocation took place 4. Example$ Muan likes to hit and curse his servant. 9is servant thus killed him. /here.s mitigating circumstance because of sufficient provocation. ). ,hen it was the defendant who sought the deceased, the challenge to fight b& the deceased is *;/ sufficient provocation. b. 3t must originate from the offended part& . ,h&? 8aw sa&s the provocation is (on the part of the offended part&= '. Example$ /omas. mother insulted #etra. #etra kills /omas because of the insults. *o Mitigating %ircumstance because it was the mother who insulted her, not /omas. 4. #rovocation b& the deceased in the first stage of the fight is not Mitigating %ircumstance when the accused killed him after he had fled because the deceased from the moment he fled did not give an& provocation for the accused to pursue and attack him. c. #rovocation must be immediate to the act., i.e., to the commission of the crime b& the person who is provoked . ,h&? 3f there was an interval of time, the conduct of the offended part& could not have excited the accused to the commission of the crime, he having had time to regain his reason and to exercise self>control.

'.

/hreat should not be offensive and positivel& strong because if it was, the threat to inflict real in"ur& is an unlawful aggression which ma& give rise to self>defense and thus no longer a Mitigating %ircumstance

7" That the act was committe( in the imme(iate +in(ication of a gra+e offense to the one committing the felony ((elito)6 his spouse6 ascen(ants6 (escen(ants6 legitimate6 natural or a(opte( brother or sisters6 or relati+es by affinity within the same (egree" . 6e5uisites$ there.s a grave offense done to the one committing the felon& etc. that the felon& is committed in vindication of such grave offense. '. 8apse of time is allowed between the vindication and the one doing the offense 1proximate time, not "ust immediatel& after2 4. Example$ Muan caught his wife and his friend in a compromising situation. Muan kills his friend the next da& ! still considered proximate. #6;@;%A/3;* Made directl& onl& to the person committing the felon& %ause that brought about the provocation need not be a grave offense *ecessar& that provocation or threat immediatel& preceded the act. *o time interval @3*C3%A/3;* Grave offense ma& be also against the offender.s relatives mentioned b& law ;ffended part& must have done a grave offense to the offender or his relatives Ma& be proximate. /ime interval allowed

More lenient in vindication because offense concerns the honor of the person. 7uch is more worth& of consideration than mere spite against the one giving the provocation or threat. @indication of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation can.t be counted separatel& and independentl&

F" That of ha+ing acte( upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to ha+e pro(uce( passion or obfuscation #assion and obfuscation is mitigating$ when there are causes naturall& producing in a person powerful excitement, he loses his reason and self>control. /hereb& dismissing the exercise of his will power. #A773;* A*C ;BAU7%A/3;* are Mitigating %ircumstances onl& when the same arise from lawful sentiments 1not Mitigating %ircumstance when done in the spirit of revenge or lawlessness2 6e5uisites for #assion N ;bfuscation a. /he offender acted on impulse powerful enough to produce passion or obfuscation b. /hat the act was committed not in the spirit of lawlessness or revenge c. /he act must come from lawful sentiments Act which gave rise to passion and obfuscation a. /hat there be an act, both unlawful and un"ust b. /he act be sufficient to produce a condition of mind c. /hat the act was proximate to the criminal act d. /he victim must be the one who caused the passion or obfuscation

Example$ Muan saw /omas hitting his 1Muan2 son. Muan stabbed /omas. Muan is entitled to Mitigating %ircumstance of #N; as his actuation arose from a natural instinct that impels a father to rush to the rescue of his son. /he exercise of a right or a fulfillment of a dut& is not the proper source of #N;. Example$ A policeman arrested Muan as he was making a public disturbance on the streets. Muan.s anger and indignation resulting from the arrest can.t be considered passionate obfuscation because the policeman was doing a lawful act. /he act must be sufficient to produce a condition of mind. 3f the cause of the loss of self>control was trivial and slight, the obfuscation is not mitigating. Example$ Muan.s boss punched him for not going to work he other da&. %ause is slight. /here could have been no Mitigating %ircumstance of #N; when more than ') hours elapsed between the alleged insult and the commission of the felon&, or several hours have passed between the cause of the #N; and the commission of the crime, or at least O hours intervened between the previous fight and subse5uent killing of deceased b& accused. *ot mitigating if relationship is illegitimate /he passion or obfuscation will be considered even if it is based onl& on the honest belief of the offender, even if facts turn out to prove that his beliefs were wrong. #assion and obfuscation cannot co>exist with treacher& since the means that the offender has had time to ponder his course of action. #A773;* A*C ;BAU7%A/3;* arising from one and the same cause should be treated as onl& one mitigating circumstance @indication of grave offense can.t co>exist wF #A773;* A*C ;BAU7%A/3;* 366E73/3B8E A;6%E Exempting 6e5uires ph&sical force Must come from a 4rd person Unlawful #6;@;%A/3;* %omes from in"ured part& Must immediatel& precede the commission of the crime 7ame

#A773;* A*C ;BAU7%A/3;* Mitigating *o ph&sical force needed Arom the offender himself Must come from lawful sentiments #A773;* A*C ;BAU7%A/3;* #roduced b& an impulse which ma& be caused b& provocation ;ffense, which engenders perturbation of mind, need not be immediate. 3t is onl& re5uired that the influence thereof lasts until the crime is committed Effect is loss of reason and self>control on the part of the offender

B" That the offen(er ha( +oluntarily surren(ere( himself to a person in authority or his agents6 or that he ha( +oluntarily confesse( his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the e+i(ence for the prosecution" ' Mitigating %ircumstances present$ a2 voluntaril& surrendered b2 voluntaril& confessed his guilt

3f both are present, considered as ' independent mitigating circumstances. Mitigate penalt& to a greater extent 6e5uisites of voluntar& surrender$ a2 offender not actuall& arrested b2 offender surrendered to a person in authorit& or the latter.s agent c2 surrender was voluntar& 7urrender must be spontaneous ! shows his interest to surrender unconditionall& to the authorities 7pontaneous ! emphasi+es the idea of inner impulse, acting without external stimulus. /he conduct of the accused, not his intention alone, after the commission of the offense, determines the spontaneit& of the surrender. Example$ 7urrendered after : &ears, not spontaneous an&more. Example$ 7urrendered after talking to town councilor. *ot @.7. because there.s an external stimulus %onduct must indicate a desire to own the responsibilit& *ot mitigating when warrant alread& served. 7urrender ma& be considered mitigating if warrant not served or returned unserved because accused can.t be located. 7urrender of person re5uired. *ot "ust of weapon. #erson in authorit& ! one directl& vested with "urisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some courtFgovernmentFcorporationFboardFcommission. Barrio captainFchairman included. Agent of person in authorit& ! person who b& direct provision of law, or be election, or b& appointment b& competent authorit& is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and securit& of life and propert& and an& person who comes to the aid of persons in authorit&. 6#% does not make distinction among the various moments when surrender ma& occur. 7urrender must be b& reason of the commission of the crime for which defendant is charged 6e5uisites for plea of guilt& a2 offender spontaneousl& confessed his guilt b2 confession of guilt was made in open court 1competent court2 c2 confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun does not entitle accused to have plea considered as Mitigating %ircumstance plea in the 6/% in a case appealed from the M/% is not mitigating > must make plea at the first opportunit& plea during the preliminar& investigation is no plea at all even if during arraignment, accused pleaded not guilt&, he is entitled to Mitigating %ircumstance as long as withdraws his plea of not guilt& to the charge before the fiscal could present his evidence plea to a lesser charge is not Mitigating %ircumstance because to be voluntar& plea of guilt&, must be to the offense charged plea to the offense charged in the amended info, lesser than that charged in the original info, is Mitigating %ircumstance present 6ules of %ourt re5uire that even if accused pleaded guilt& to a capital offense, its mandator& for court to re5uire the prosecution to prove the guilt of the

accused being likewise entitled to present evidence to prove, inter alia, Mitigating %ircumstance C" That the offen(er is (eaf an( (umb6 blin( or otherwise suffering from some physical (efect wJc thus restricts his means of action6 (efense or communication wJ his fellow beings" Basis$ one suffering from ph&sical defect which restricts him does not have complete freedom of action and therefore, there is diminution of that element of voluntariness. *o distinction between educated and uneducated deaf>mute or blind persons /he ph&sical defect of the offender should restrict his means of action, defense or communication with fellow beings, this has been extended to cover cripples, armless people even stutterers. /he circumstance assumes that with their ph&sical defect, the offenders do not have a complete freedom of action therefore diminishing the element of voluntariness in the commission of a crime.

?" #uch illness of the offen(er as woul( (iminish the e!ercise of the will;power of the offen(er wJo (epri+ing him of consciousness of his acts" Basis$ diminution of intelligence and intent 6e5uisites$ a2 illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will>power b2 such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts when the offender completel& lost the exercise of will>power, it ma& be an exempting circumstance deceased mind, not amounting to insanit&, ma& give place to mitigation

-E" )n( any other circumstance of a similar nature an( analogous to those abo+e; mentione( Examples of (an& other circumstance=$ a2 defendant who is <E &ears old with failing e&esight is similar to a case of one over JE &ears old b2 outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom is analogous to vindication of grave offense c2 impulse of "ealous feeling, similar to #A773;* A*C ;BAU7%A/3;* d2 voluntar& restitution of propert&, similar to voluntar& surrender e2 extreme povert&, similar to incomplete "ustification based on state of necessit& *;/ analogous$ a2 killing wrong person b2 not resisting arrest not the same as voluntar& surrender c2 running amuck is not mitigating M3/3GA/3*G %36%UM7/A*%E which arise from$ a2 moral attributes of the offender Example$ Muan and /omas killed #edro. Muan acted wF #A773;* A*C ;BAU7%A/3;*. ;nl& Muan will be entitled to Mitigating %ircumstance b2 private relations with the offended part&

Example$ Muan stole his brother.s watch. Muan sold it to #edro, who knew it was stolen. /he circumstance of relation arose from private relation of Muan and the brother. Coes not mitigate #edro. c2 other personal cause Example$ Minor, acting with discernment robbed Muan. #edro, passing b&, helped the minor. %ircumstance of minorit&, mitigates liabilit& of minor onl&. 7hall serve to mitigate the liabilit& of the principals, accomplices and accessories to whom the circumstances are attendant. %ircumstances which are neither exempting nor mitigating a2 mistake in the blow b2 mistake in the identit& of the victim c2 entrapment of the accused d2 accused is over B &ears old e2 performance of a righteous action Example$ Muan saved the lives of KK people but caused the death of the last person, he is still criminall& liable

)GG,):)T2NG C2,C'*#T)NC # Cefinition ! /hose circumstance which raise the penalt& for a crime without exceeding the maximum applicable to that crime. Basis$ /he greater perversit& of the offense as shown b&$ a2 the motivating power behind the act b2 the place where the act was committed c2 the means and wa&s used d2 the time e2 the personal circumstance of the offender f2 the personal circumstance of the victim Ginds$ a2 Generic ! generall& applicable to all crimes b2 7pecific ! appl& onl& to specific crimes 1ignomin& ! for chastit& crimes- treacher& ! for persons crimes2 c2 Lualif&ing ! those that change the nature of the crime 1evident premeditation ! becomes murder2 d2 3nherent ! necessaril& accompanies the commission of the crime 1evident premeditation in theft, estafa2

LUA83AI3*G AGG6A@A/3*G GE*E63% AGG6A@A/3*G %36%UM7/A*%E %36%UM7/A*%E Gives the proper and exclusive name, 3ncrease penalt& to the maximum, without places the author thereof in such a exceeding limit prescribed b& law situation as to deserve no other penalt& than that specificall& prescribed b& law %an.t be offset b& Mitigating %ircumstance Ma& be compensated b& Mitigating %ircumstance Must be alleged in the information. 3ntegral *eed not be alleged. Ma& be proved over part of the offense the ob"ection of the defense. Lualif&ing if not alleged will make it generic Aggravating %ircumstances which C; *;/ have the effect of increasing the penalt&$

2 which themselves constitute a crime specificall& punishable b& law or which are included in the law defining a crime and prescribing the penalt& thereof Example$ breaking a window to get inside the house and rob it '2 aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such degree that it must of necessit& accompan& the commission thereof Example$ evident premeditation inherent in theft, robber&, estafa, adulter& and concubinage Aggravating circumstances are not presumed. Must be proved as full& as the crime itself in order to increase the penalt&. aggra+ating

)rt -8" )ggra+ating circumstances" K The following are circumstances: -" That a(+antage be ta=en by the offen(er of his public position

6e5uisite$ a. /he offender is a public officer b. /he commission of the crime would not have been possible without the powers, resources and influence of the office he holds. Essential > #ublic officer used the influence, prestige or ascendanc& which his office gives him as the means b& which he reali+ed his purpose. Aailure in official is tantamount to abusing of office ,earing of uniform is immaterial ! what matters is the proof that he indeed took advantage of his position

/" That the crime be committe( in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities 6e5uisites$ a. /he offender knows that a public authorit& is present b. /he public authorit& is engaged in the exercise of his functions c. /he public authorit& is not the victim of the crime d. /he public authorit&.s presence did not prevent the criminal act Example$ Muan and #edro are 5uarrelling and the municipal ma&or, upon passing b&, attempts to stop them. *otwithstanding the intervention and the presence of the ma&or, Muan and #edro continue to 5uarrel until Muan succeeds in killing #edro. #erson in authorit& ! public authorit& who is directl& vested with "urisdiction, has the power to govern and execute the laws Examples of #ersons in Authorit& a. Governor b. Ma&or c. Baranga& captain d. %ouncilors e. Government agents f. %hief of #olice 6ule not applicable when committed in the presence of a mere agent. Agent ! subordinate public officer charged with the maintenance of public order and protection and securit& of life and propert& Example$ barrio vice lieutenant, barrio councilman

@" That the act be committe(: (-) with insult or in (isregar( of the respect (ue to the offen(e( party on account of his (a) ran=6 (b) age6 (c) se! or (/) that it be committe( in the (welling of the offen(e( party6 if the latter has not gi+en pro+ocation" circumstances 1rank, age, sex2 ma& be taken into account only in crimes against persons or honor! it cannot be invoked in crimes against propert& 6ank ! refers to a high social position or standing b& which to determine one.s pa& and emoluments in an& scale of comparison within a position Age ! the circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in case where the victim is of tender age as well as of old age 7ex ! refers to the female sex, not to the male sex- not applicable when a. /he offender acted wF #A773;* A*C ;BAU7%A/3;* b. there exists a relation between the offender and the victim 1but in cases of divorce decrees where there is a direct bearing on their child, it is applicable2 c. the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission of the crime 1Ex. #arricide, rape, abduction2 6e5uisite of disregard to rank, age, or sex a. %rimes must be against the victim.s person or his honor b. /here is deliberate intent to offend or insult the respect due to the victim.s rank, age, or sex Cisregard to rank, age, or sex is absorbed b& treacher& or abuse of strength Cwelling ! must be a building or structure exclusivel& used for rest and comfort 1combination house and store not included2 a. ma& be temporar& as in the case of guests in a house or bedspacers b. basis for this is the sanctit& of privac& the law accords to human abode dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and the enclosure under the house Elements of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling a. %rime occurred in the dwelling of the victim b. *o provocation on the part of the victim 6e5uisites for #rovocation$ A88 MU7/ %;*%U6 a. given b& the owner of the dwelling b. sufficient c. immediate to the commission of the crime ,hen dwelling ma& and ma& not be considered ,hen it ma& be considered ,hen it ma& not be considered although the offender fired the shot from 3f the offended part& has given outside the house, as long as his victim provocation was inside 3f both the offender and the even if the killing took place outside the offended part& are occupants of the dwelling, so long as the commission began same dwelling inside the dwelling 3n robber& with force upon things, it when adulter& is committed in the dwelling is inherent of the husband, even if it is also the

dwelling of the wife, it is still aggravating because she and her paramour committed a grave offense to the head of the house 3n robber& with violence against persons, robber& with homicide, abduction, or illegal detention

8" That the act be committe( with (-) abuse of confi(ence or (/) ob+ious ungratefulness 6e5uisites of Abuse of %onfidence 6e5uisite of ;bvious Ungratefulness a2 ;ffended part& has trusted the a2 ungratefulness must be obvious, that is, offender there must be something which the b2 ;ffender abused such trust offender should owe the victim a debt of c2 Abuse of confidence facilitated the gratitude for commission of the crime *ote$ robber& or theft committed b& a visitor in the house of the offended part& is aggravated b& obvious ungratefulness Example$ A "ealous lover, alread& determined to kill his sweetheart, invited her for a ride and during that ride, he stabbed her Abuse of confidence is inherent in$ a. malversation b. 5ualified theft c. estafa b& conversion d. misappropriation e. 5ualified seduction

7" That the crime be committe( in the palace of the Chief !ecuti+e6 or in his presence6 or when public authorities are engage( in the (ischarge of their (uties6 or in a place (e(icate( to religious worship" 6e5uirements of the aggravating circumstance of public office$ a. /he crime occurred in the public office b. #ublic authorities are actuall& performing their public duties A polling precinct is a public office during election da& *ature of public office should be taken into account, like a police station which is on dut& ') hrs. a da& place of the commission of the felon& 1par :2$ if it is MalacaPang palace or a church is aggravating, regardless of whether 7tate or official- functions are being held. as regards other places where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, there must be some performance of public functions the offender must have intention to commit a crime when he entered the place 6e5uisites for aggravating circumstances for place of worship$ a. /he crime occurred in a place dedicated to the worship of God regardless of religion b. ;ffender must have decided to commit the crime when he entered the place of worship ,hen #aragraph ' and : of Article ) are applicable

%ommitted in the presence of the %hief Executive, in the #residential #alace or a place of worship1#ar. :, Art. )2 #ublic authorities are performing of their duties when the crime is committed ,hen crime is committed in the public office, the officer must be performing his duties, except in the #residential #alace #ublic authorit& ma& be the offended part&

%ommitted in contempt of #ublic Authorit& 1#ar. ', Art )2 7ame ;utside the office 1still performing dut&2 #ublic authorit& is not be the offended part&

Fa" That the crime be committe( (-) in the nighttime6 or (/) in an uninhabite( place (@) by a ban(6 whene+er such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense" *ighttime, Uninhabited #lace or B& a Bang Aggravating when$ a. it facilitated the commission of the crime b. especiall& sought for b& the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunit& 3mpunit& ! means to prevent the accused.s being recogni+ed or to secure himself against detection or punishment c. when the offender took the advantage thereof for the purpose of impunit& d. commission of the crime must have began and accomplished at nighttime *ighttime begins at the end of dusk and ending at dawn- from sunset to sunrise a. commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime b. when the place of the crime is illuminated b& light, nighttime is not aggravating c. absorbed b& /reacher& Uninhabited #lace ! one where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from town, where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other 6e5uisites$ a. /he place facilitated the commission or omission of the crime b. Celiberatel& sought and not incidental to the commission or omission of the crime c. /aken advantage of for the purpose of impunit& what should be considered here is whether in the place of the commission of the offense, there was a reasonable possibilit& of the victim receiving some help

Fb" ; 4hene+er more than @ arme( malefactors shall ha+e acte( together in the commission of an offense6 it shall be (eeme( to ha+e been committe( by a ban(" 6e5uisites$ a. Aacilitated the commission of the crime b. Celiberatel& sought c. /aken advantage of for the purposes of impunit& d. /here must be four or more armed men if one of the four>armed malefactors is a principal b& inducement, the& do not form a band because it is undoubtedl& connoted that he had no direct participation, Band is inherent in robber& committed in band and brigandage

3t is not considered in the crime of rape 3t has been applied in treason and in robber& with homicide

B" That the crime be committe( on the occasion of a conflagration6 shipwrec=6 earth0ua=e6 epi(emic or other calamity or misfortune 6e5uisites$ a. %ommitted when there is a calamit& or misfortune . %onflagration '. 7hipwreck 4. Epidemic b. ;ffender took advantage of the state of confusion or chaotic condition from such misfortune Basis$ %ommission of the crime adds to the suffering b& taking advantage of the misfortune. based on time offender must take advantage of the calamit& or misfortune

Cistinction between #aragraphs J and ' of Article ) %ommitted during a calamit& or misfortune %ommitted with the use of wasteful means %rime is committed CU63*G an& of the %rime is committed BI using fire, inundation, calamities explosion or other wasteful means C" That the crime be committe( with the ai( of (-) arme( men or (/) persons who insure or affor( impunity based on the means and wa&s 6e5uisites$ a. that armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directl& or indirectl& b. that the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed Exceptions$ a. when both the attacking part& and the part& attacked were e5uall& armed b. not present when the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the commission of the crime acted under the same plan and for the same purpose. c. %asual presence, or when the offender did not avail himself of an& of their aid nor did not knowingl& count upon their assistance in the commission of the crime

,3/9 /9E A3C ;A A6MEC ME* BI A BA*C #resent even if one of the offenders merel& 6e5uires more than 4 armed malefactors relied on their aid. Actual aid is not who all acted together in the commission necessar& of an offense if there are more than 4 armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in the emplo&ment of a band. ?" That the accuse( is a reci(i+ist

6ecidivist ! one who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previousl& convicted b& final "udgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the 6#% Basis$ Greater perversit& of the offender as shown b& his inclination to commit crimes 6e5uisites$ a. offender is on trial for an offense b. he was previousl& convicted b& final "udgment of another crime c. that both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title of the 6#% d. the offender is convicted of the new offense ,hat is controlling is the time of the trial, not the time of the commission of the offense. At the time of the trial means from the arraignment until after sentence is announced b& the "udge in open court. ,hen does "udgment become final? 16ules of %ourt2 a. after the lapse of a period for perfecting an appeal b. when the sentence has been partiall& or totall& satisfied or served c. defendant has expressl& waived in writing his right to appeal d. the accused has applied for probation Example of %rimes embraced in the 7ame title of the 6#% a. robber& and theft ! title E b. homicide and ph&sical in"uries ! title B L$ /he accused was prosecuted and tried for theft, robber& and estafa. Mudgments were read on the same da&. 3s he a recidivist? A$ *o. Because the "udgment in an& of the first two offenses was not &et final when he was tried for the third offense 6ecidivism must be taken into account no matter how man& &ears have intervened between the first and second felonies #ardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist, but amnest& extinguishes the penalt& and its effects /o prove recidivism, it must be alleged in the information and with attached certified copies of the sentences rendered against the accused Exceptions$ if the accused does not ob"ect and when he admits in his confession and on the witness stand

-E" That the offen(er has been pre+iously punishe( for an offense to which the law attaches an e0ual or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty 6eiteracion or 9abitualit& ! it is essential that the offender be previousl& punishedthat is, he has served sentence. #ar. E speaks of penalt& attached to the offense, not the penalt& actuall& imposed 6E%3C3@37M Enough that final "udgment has been rendered in the first offense 7ame title Alwa&s aggravating

6E3/E6A%3;* *ecessar& that offender shall have served out his sentence for the first sentence #revious and subse5uent offenses must not be embraced in the same title of the %ode *ot alwa&s an aggravating circumstance

) Aorms of 6epetition a. 6ecidivism ! generic b. 6eiteracion or 9abitualit& ! generic c. Multiple recidivism or 9abitual delin5uenc& ! extraordinar& aggravating d. Luasi>6ecidivism ! special aggravating 9abitual Celin5uenc& ! when a person within a period of E &ears from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious ph&sical in"uries, robber&, theft, estafa or falsification is found guilt& of an& of said crimes a third time or oftener. Luasi>6ecidivism ! an& person who shall commit a felon& after having been convicted b& final "udgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished b& the maximum period of the penalt& prescribed b& law for the new felon&

--" That the crime be committe( in consi(eration of a price6 rewar( or promise" 6e5uisites$ a. At least ' principals . /he principal b& inducement '. /he principal b& direct participation b. the price, reward, or promise should be previous to and in consideration of the commission of the criminal act Applicable to both principals.

-/" That the crime be committe( by means of inun(ation6 fire6 poison6 e!plosion6 stran(ing a +essel or intentional (amage thereto6 or (erailment of a locomoti+e6 or by use of any other artifice in+ol+ing great waste or ruin" 6e5uisite$ /he wasteful means were used b& the offender to accomplish a criminal purpose

-@" That the act be committe( with e+i(ent preme(itation Essence of premeditation$ the execution of the criminal act must be preceded b& cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carr& out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm "udgment 6e5uisites$ a. the time when the offender determined to commit the crime b. an act manifestl& indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination c. a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the conse5uences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will %onspirac& generall& presupposes premeditation ,hen victim is different from that intended, premeditation is not aggravating. Although it is not necessar& that there is a plan to kill a particular person for premeditation to exist 1e.g. plan to kill first ' persons one meets, general attack on a villageQfor as long as it was planned2 /he premeditation must be based upon external facts, and must be evident, not merel& suspected indicating deliberate planning

Evident premeditation is inherent in robber&, adulter&, theft, estafa, falsification, and etc.

-8" That (-) craft6 (/) frau(6 or (@) (isguise be employe( %raft ! involves intellectual tricker& and cunning on the part of the accused. 3t is emplo&ed as a scheme in the execution of the crime 1e.g. accused pretended to be members of the constabular&, accused in order to perpetrate rape, used chocolates containing drugs2 Araud !involves insidious words or machinations used to induce victim to act in a manner which would enable the offender to carr& out his design. as distinguished from craft which involves acts done in order not to arouse the suspicion of the victim, fraud involves a direct inducement through entrapping or beguiling language or machinations Cisguise ! resorting to an& device to conceal identit&. #urpose of concealing identit& is a must.

Cistinction between %raft, Araud, and Cisguise %raft Araud Cisguise 3nvolves the use of intellectual 3nvolves the use of direct 3nvolves the use of tricker& and cunning to arouse inducement b& insidious devise to conceal suspicion of the victim words or machinations identit& 6e5uisite$ /he offender must have actuall& taken advantage of craft, fraud, or disguise to facilitate the commission of the crime. 3nherent in$ estafa and falsification

-7" That (-) a(+antage be ta=en of superior strength6 or (/) means be employe( to wea=en the (efense /o purposel& use excessive force out of the proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. a. 7uperiorit& ma& arise from aggressor.s sex, weapon or number as compared to that of the victim 1e.g. accused attacked an unarmed girl with a knife- 4 men stabbed to death the female victim2. b. *o advantage of superior strength when one who attacks is overcome with passion and obfuscation or when 5uarrel arose unexpectedl& and the fatal blow was struck while victim and accused were struggling. c. @s. b& a band $ circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what is taken into account is not the number of aggressors nor the fact that the& are armed but their relative ph&sical might vis>R>vis the offended part& 6e5uisite of Means to ,eaken Cefense a. Means were purposel& sought to weaken the defense of the victim to resist the assault b. /he means used must not totall& eliminate possible defense of the victim, otherwise it will fall under treacher& /o weaken the defense ! illustrated in the case where one struggling with another suddenl& throws a cloak over the head of his opponent and while in the said

situation, he wounds or kills him. ;ther means of weakening the defense would be intoxication or disabling thru the senses 1casting dirt of sand upon another.s e&es2 -F" That the act be committe( with treachery (ale+osia) /6EA%9E6I$ when the offender commits an& of the crime against the person, emplo&ing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directl& and speciall& to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended part& might make. 6e5uisites$ a. that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in the position to defend himself b. that the offender consciousl& adopted the particular means, method or form of attack emplo&ed b& him /reacher& ! can.t be considered when there is no evidence that the accused, prior to the moment of the killing, resolved to commit to crime, or there is no proof that the death of the victim was the result of meditation, calculation or reflection. a. does not exist if the accused gave the deceased chance to prepare or there was warning given or that it was preceded b& a heated argument b. there is alwa&s treacher& in the killing of child c. generall& characteri+ed b& the deliberate and sudden and unexpected attack of the victim from behind, without an& warning and without giving the victim an opportunit& to defend himself Examples$ victim asleep, half>awake or "ust awakened, victim grappling or being held, stacks from behind But treacher& ma& exist even if attack is face>to>face ! as long as victim was not given an& chance to prepare defense /6EA%9E6I MEA*7 EM#8;IEC /; ,EAGE* CEAE*7E Means are emplo&ed but it onl& materiall& weakens the resisting power of the offended part&

ABU7E ;A 7U#E63;6 7/6E*G/9 Means, methods or forms ;ffender does not emplo& are emplo&ed b& the means, methods or forms offender to make it of attack, he onl& takes impossible or hard for the advantage of his superior offended part& to put an& strength sort of resistance

,here there is conspirac&, treacher& is considered against all the offenders /reacher& absorbs abuse of strength, aid of armed men, b& a band and means to weaken the defense A victim who tried to run for his dear life because he is aware of the peril to his life does not 5ualified as treacher&. (People +s" :as0ueA6 G"," No" -/@?@?)
Even if the attack is frontal but is su((en an( une!pecte(6 giving no opportunit& for the victim to repel it or defend himself, there would be treacher&. (People +s" ,i+era6 G"," No" -FF@/F)

-B" That the means be employe( or circumstances brought about which a(( ignominy to the natural effects of the acts

3G*;M3*I ! is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and oblo5u& to the material in"ur& caused b& the crime Applicable to crimes against chastit& 1rape included2, less serious ph&sical in"uries, light or grave coercion and murder 6e5uisites$ a. %rime must be against chastit&, less serious ph&sical in"uries, light or grave coercion, and murder b. /he circumstance made the crime more humiliating and shameful for the victim Examples$ accused embraced and kissed the offended part& not out of lust but out of anger in front of man& people, raped in front of the husband, raped successivel& b& five men tend to make the effects of the crime more humiliating 3gnomin& not present where the victim was alread& dead when such acts were committed against his bod& or person

-C" That the crime be committe( after an unlawful entry Unlawful entr& ! when an entrance is effected b& a wa& not intended for the purpose. Meant to effect entrance and *;/ exit. ,h& aggravating? ;ne who acts, not respecting the walls erected b& men to guard their propert& and provide for their personal safet&, shows greater perversit&, a greater audacit& and hence the law punishes him with more severit& Example$ 6apist gains entrance thru the window 3nherent in$ /respass to dwelling, robber& with force upon things, and robber& with violence or intimidation against persons.

-?" That as a means to the commission of the crime6 a wall6 roof6 (oor or win(ow be bro=en 6e5uisites$ a. A wall, roof, window, or door was broken b. /he& were broken to effect entrance Applicable onl& if such acts were done b& the offender to effect entrance. Breaking is lawful in the following instances$ a. an officer in order to make an arrest ma& break open a door or window of an& building in which the person to be arrested is or is reasonabl& believed to beb. an officer if refused admittance ma& break open an& door or window to execute the search warrant or liberate himself,

/E" That the crime be committe( (-) with the ai( of persons un(er -7 years of age6 or (/) by means of motor +ehicles6 airships or other similar means" 6eason for S $ to repress, so far as possible, the fre5uent practice resorted to b& professional criminals to avail themselves of minors taking advantage of their responsibilit& 1remember that minors are given lenienc& when the& commit a crime2 Example$ Muan instructed a )>&ear old to climb up the fence and open the gate for him so that he ma& rob the house 6eason for S'$ to counteract the great facilities found b& modern criminals in said means to commit crime and flee and abscond once the same is committed.

*ecessar& that the motor vehicle be an important tool to the consummation of the crime 1bic&cles not included2 Example$ Muan and #edro, in committing theft, used a truck to haul the appliances from the mansion. /-" That the wrong (one in the commission of the crime be (eliberately augmente( by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission %6UE8/I$ when the culprit en"o&s and delights in making his victim suffer slowl& and graduall&, causing him unnecessar& ph&sical pain in the consummation of the criminal act. %ruelt& cannot be presumed nor merel& inferred from the bod& of the deceased. 9as to be proven. a. mere pluralit& of words do not show cruelt& b. no cruelt& when the other wrong was done after the victim was dead 6e5uisites$ a. that the in"ur& caused be deliberatel& increased b& causing other wrong b. that the other wrong be unnecessar& for the execution of the purpose of the offender %6UE8/I #h&sical suffering

3G*;M3*I Moral suffering ! sub"ected to humiliation

)rt -7" )LT ,N)T2: C2,C'*#T)NC #" Their concept" K )lternati+e circumstances are those which must be ta=en into consi(eration as aggra+ating or mitigating accor(ing to the nature an( effects of the crime an( the other con(itions atten(ing its commission" They are the relationship6 into!ication an( the (egree of instruction an( e(ucation of the offen(er" The alternati+e circumstance of relationship shall be ta=en into consi(eration when the offen(e( party in the spouse6 ascen(ant6 (escen(ant6 legitimate6 natural6 or a(opte( brother or sister6 or relati+e by affinity in the same (egrees of the offen(er" The into!ication of the offen(er shall be ta=en into consi(eration as a mitigating circumstances when the offen(er has committe( a felony in a state of into!ication6 if the same is not habitual or subse0uent to the plan to commit sai( felony but when the into!ication is habitual or intentional6 it shall be consi(ere( as an aggra+ating circumstance" Alternative %ircumstances ! those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its commission. /he& are$ a. relationship ! taken into consideration when offended part& is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative b& affinit& in the same degree of the offender b. intoxication ! mitigating when the offender has committed a felon& in the state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subse5uent to the plan to commit the said felon&. Aggravating if habitual or intentional c. degree of instruction and education of the offender 6E8A/3;*793#

M3/3GA/3*G %36%UM7/A*%E 3n crimes against propert& 1robber&, usurpation, fraudulent insolvenc&, arson2

AGG6A@A/3*G %36%UM7/A*%E 3n crimes against persons ! in cases where the offender, or when the offender and the offended part& are relatives of the same level, as killing a brother, adopted brother or half>brother. Alwa&s aggravating in crimes against chastit&.

Exception$ Art 44' of %% ! no criminal liabilit&, civil liabilit& onl& for the crimes of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutuall& b& spouses, ascendants, descendants or relatives b& affinit& 1also brothers, sisters, brothers>in> law or sisters>in>law if living together2. 3t becomes an EDEM#/3*G circumstance. 6elationship neither mitigating nor aggravating when relationship is an element of the offense. Example$ parricide, adulter&, concubinage.

3*/;D3%A/3;* M3/3GA/3*G %36%UM7/A*%E AGG6A@A/3*G %36%UM7/A*%E a2 if intoxication is not habitual a2 if intoxication is habitual ! such habit b2 if intoxication is not subse5uent to the must be actual and confirmed plan to commit a felon& b2 if its intentional 1subse5uent to the plan to commit a felon&2 Must show that he has taken such 5uantit& so as to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of control A habitual drunkard is given to inebriet& or the excessive use of intoxicating drinks. 9abitual drunkenness must be shown to be an actual and confirmed habit of the offender, but not necessaril& of dail& occurrence.

CEG6EE ;A 3*7/6U%/3;* A*C ECU%A/3;* M3/3GA/3*G %36%UM7/A*%E AGG6A@A/3*G %36%UM7/A*%E 8ow degree of instruction education or the 9igh degree of instruction and education ! lack of it. Because he does not full& reali+e offender avails himself of his learning in the conse5uences of his criminal act. *ot committing the offense. "ust mere illiterac& but lack of intelligence. Cetermined b&$ the court must consider the circumstance of lack of instruction Exceptions 1not mitigating2$ a. crimes against propert& b. crimes against chastit& 1rape included2 c. crime of treason

)rt -F 4ho are criminally liable" K The following are criminally liable for gra+e an( less gra+e felonies:

-" Principals" /" )ccomplices" @" )ccessories" The following are criminally liable for light felonies: -" Principals /" )ccomplices" Accessories ! not liable for light felonies because the individual pre"udice is so small that penal sanction is not necessar& ;nl& natural persons can be criminals as onl& the& can act with malice or negligence and can be subse5uentl& deprived of libert&. Muridical persons are liable under special laws. Manager of a partnership is liable even if there is no evidence of his direct participation in the crime. %orporations ma& be the in"ured part& General 6ule$ %orpses and animals have no rights that ma& be in"ured. Exception$ defamation of the dead is punishable when it blackens the memor& of one who is dead.

)rt -B" Principals" K The following are consi(ere( principals: -" Those who ta=e a (irect part in the e!ecution of the act. /" Those who (irectly force or in(uce others to commit it. @" Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it woul( not ha+e been accomplishe(" Principals by 5irect Participation 6e5uisites for ' or more to be principals b& direct participation$ a. participated in the criminal resolution 1conspirac&2 b. carried out their plan and personall& took part in its execution b& acts which directl& tended to the same end %onspirac& ! 3s unit& of purpose and intention. Establishment of %onspirac& a. proven b& overt act b. *ot mere knowledge or approval c. 3t is not necessar& that there be formal agreement. d. Must prove be&ond reasonable doubt e. %onspirac& is implied when the accused had a common purpose and were united in execution. f. Unit& of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime ma& be shown in the following cases$ . 7pontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of the crime '. Active %ooperation b& all the offenders in the perpetration of the crime 4. %ontributing b& positive acts to the reali+ation of a common criminal intent ). #resence during the commission of the crime b& a band and lending moral support thereto. g. ,hile conspirac& ma& be implied from the circumstances attending the commission of the crime, it is nevertheless a rule that conspirac& must be established b& positive and conclusive evidence.

%onspirator not liable for the crimes of the other which is not the ob"ect of the conspirac& or is not a logical or necessar& conse5uence thereof Multiple rape ! each rapist is liable for another.s crime because each cooperated in the commission of the rapes perpetrated b& the others Exception$ in the crime of murder with treacher& ! all the offenders must at least know that there will be treacher& in executing the crime or cooperate therein. Example$ Muan and #edro conspired to kill /omas without the previous plan of treacher&. 3n the crime scene, Muan used treacher& in the presence of #edro and #edro knew such. Both are liable for murder. But if #edro sta&ed b& the gate while Muan alone killed /omas with treacher&, so that #edro didn.t know how it was carried out, Muan is liable for murder while #edro for homicide. *o such thing as conspirac& to commit an offense through negligence. 9owever, special laws ma& make one a co>principal. Example: 0nder the 8ure ?ood and Brug Act! a storeowner is liable for the act of his emplo&ees of selling adulterated coffee, although he didn.t know that coffee was being sold. %onspirac& is negatived b& the ac5uittal of co>defendant. /hat the culprits (carried out the plan and personall& took part in the execution, b& acts which directl& tended to the same end=$ a. /he principals b& direct participation must be at the scene of the crime, personall& taking part, although he was not present in the scene of the crime, he is e5uall& liable as a principal b& direct participation. b. ;ne serving as guard pursuant to the conspirac& is a principal direct participation. 3f the second element is missing, those who did not participate in the commission of the acts of execution cannot be held criminall& liable, unless the crime agreed to be committed is treason, sedition, or rebellion. Principals by 2n(uction a. <Those who directly force or induce others to commit it b. #rincipal b& induction liable onl& when principal b& direct participation committed the act induced c. 6e5uisites$ . inducement be made directl& with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime '. such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime b& the material executor d. Aorms of 3nducements . B& #rice, reward or promise . B& irresistible force or uncontrollable fear d. 3mprudent advice does not constitute sufficient inducement e. 6e5uisites for words of command to be considered inducement$ . %ommander has the intention of procuring the commission of the crime '. %ommander has ascendanc& or influence 4. ,ords used be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful ). %ommand be uttered prior to the commission :. Executor had no personal reason f. ,ords uttered in the heat of anger and in the nature of the command that had to be obe&ed do not make one an inductor.

3*CU%/;6 3nduce others 8iable onl& when the executed %overs an& crime

crime

is

#6;#;7E7 /; %;MM3/ A AE8;*I 7ame #unishable at once when proposes to commit rebellion or treason. /he person to whom one proposed should not commit the crime, otherwise the latter becomes an inductor %overs onl& treason and rebellion

Effects of Ac5uittal of #rincipal b& direct participation on liabilit& of principal b& inducement a. %onspirac& is negated b& the ac5uittal of the co>defendant. b. ;ne can not be held guilt& of instigating the commission of the crime without first showing that the crime has been actuall& committed b& another. But if the one charged as principal b& direct participation be ac5uitted because he acted without criminal intent or malice, it is not a ground for the ac5uittal of the principal b& inducement. Principals by 2n(ispensable Cooperation a. (Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished b. 6e5uisites$ . #articipation in the criminal resolution '. %ooperation through another act 1includes negligence2 Hthere is collective criminal responsibilit& when the offenders are criminall& liable in the same manner and to the same extent. /he penalt& is the same for all. there is individual criminal responsibilit& when there is no conspirac&.

)rt" -C" )ccomplices" K )ccomplices are those persons who6 not being inclu(e( in )rt" -B6 cooperate in the e!ecution of the offense by pre+ious or simultaneous acts" 6e5uisites$ a. there be a communit& of design 1principal originates the design, accomplice onl& concurs2 b. he cooperates in the execution b& previous or simultaneous acts, intending to give material and moral aid 1cooperation must be knowingl& done, it must also be necessar& and not indispensable c. /here be a relation between the acts of the principal and the alleged accomplice Examples$ a2 Muan was choking #edro. /hen /omas ran up and hit #edro with a bamboo stick. Muan continued to choke #edro until he was dead. /omas is onl& an accomplice because the fatal blow came from Muan. b2 8ending a dagger to a killer, knowing the latter.s purpose. An accomplice has knowledge of the criminal design of the principal and all he does is concur with his purpose. /here must be a relation between the acts done b& the principal and those attributed to the person charges as accomplice 3n homicide or murder, the accomplice must not have inflicted the mortal wound.

;hen a cri#inal to be considered as 'A%%*3PL8%E)

2 /o be deemed as accomplice, 3t is necessar& that the accused be aware of the criminal intent of the principal and then cooperate knowingl& or intentionall& b& suppl&ing material or moral ai( for the efficacious e!ecution of the crime" (People +s"
Tolentino6 G"," No" -@?-B?)

'2 (one needs to have had both knowledge of and participation in the criminal act. /he principal and accomplice must have acted in con"unction and directed their efforts to the same end. /hus it is essential that both were united in their criminal design.
(People +s" Tolentino6 G"," No" -@?-B?)

)rt" -?" )ccessories" K )ccessories are those who6 ha+ing =nowle(ge of the commission of the crime6 an( without ha+ing participate( therein6 either as principals or accomplices6 ta=e part subse0uent to its commission in any of the following manners: -" &y profiting themsel+es or assisting the offen(er to profit by the effects of the crime" /" &y concealing or (estroying the bo(y of the crime6 or the effects or instruments thereof6 in or(er to pre+ent its (isco+ery" @" &y harboring6 concealing6 or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime6 pro+i(e( the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whene+er the author of the crime is guilty of treason6 parrici(e6 mur(er6 or an attempt to ta=e the life of the Chief !ecuti+e6 or is =nown to be habitually guilty of some other crime" Example of #ar $ person received and used propert& from another, knowing it was stolen Example of #ar '$ placing a weapon in the hand of the dead who was unlawfull& killed to plant evidence, or bur&ing the deceased who was killed b& the principals Example of #ar 4$ a2 public officers who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of an& crime 1not light felon&2 with abuse of his public functions, b2 private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the crime ! guilt& of treason, parricide, murder or an attempt against the life of the #resident, or who is known to be habituall& guilt& of some crime. General 6ule$ #rincipal ac5uitted, Accessor& also ac5uitted Exception$ when the crime was in fact committed but the principal is covered b& exempting circumstances. Example$ Minor stole a ring and Muan, knowing it was stolen, bought it. Minor is exempt. Muan liable as accessor& /rial of accessor& ma& proceed without awaiting the result of the separate charge against the principal because the criminal responsibilities are distinct from each other 8iabilit& of the accessor& ! the responsibilit& of the accessor& is subordinate to that of a principal in a crime because the accessor&.s participation therein is subse5uent to its commission, and his guilt is directl& related to the principal. 3f the principal was ac5uitted b& an exempting circumstance the accessor& ma& still be held liable. Cifference of accessor& from principal and accomplice$ a. Accessor& does not take direct part or cooperate in, or induce the commission of the crime b. Accessor& does not cooperate in the commission of the offense b& acts either prior thereto or simultaneous therewith

c. #articipation of the accessor& in all cases alwa&s takes place after the commission of the crime d. /akes part in the crime through his knowledge of the commission of the offense. )rt" /E" )ccessories who are e!empt from criminal liability" K The penalties prescribe( for accessories shall not be impose( upon those who are such with respect to their spouses6 ascen(ants6 (escen(ants6 legitimate6 natural6 an( a(opte( brothers an( sisters6 or relati+es by affinity within the same (egrees6 with the single e!ception of accessories falling within the pro+isions of paragraph - of the ne!t prece(ing article" Basis$ /ies of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of one.s name which compels one to conceal crimes committed b& relatives so near as those mentioned. *ephew and *iece not included Accessor& not exempt when helped a relative>principal b& profiting from the effects of the crime, or assisted the offender to profit from the effects of the crime. ;nl& accessories covered b& par ' and 4 are exempted. #ublic officer who helped his guilt& brother escape does not incur criminal liabilit& as ties of blood constitutes a more powerful incentive than the call of dut&. #E*A8/I ! suffering inflicted b& the 7tate for the transgression of a law. 4 fold purpose$ a. retribution or expiation ! penalt& commensurate with the gravit& of the offense b. correction or reformation ! rules which regulate the execution of penalties consisting of deprivation of libert& c. social defense ! inflexible severit& to recidivists and habitual delin5uents Muridical %onditions of #enalt& a. Must be productive of suffering ! limited b& the integrit& of human personalit& b. Must be proportionate to the crime c. Must be personal ! imposed onl& upon the criminal d. Must be legal ! according to a "udgment of fact and law e. Must be e5ual ! applies to ever&one regardless of the circumstance f. Must be correctional ! to rehabilitate the offender