Crim Cornejo2

7/29/2019 Crim Cornejo2

1/76

ARTICLE 1TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECTARTICLE 2SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF THECODE3 Important Characteristics of Criminal Law

1. Generality2. Territoriality3. Prospectivity

1. GeneralityGeneral criminal law applies to all wholives/ sojourn within the Philippine territory.Lives committed a crime here, Phil.Criminal law applies to youSojourn even if you are simply passing thru

you are subjected to Phil. Criminal law.

General Rule:Who lives / sojourn in the Phil Territory

Exceptions:Heads of state, ambassadors, ministers,resident diplomatic

Q: Consuls, Vice-consuls?A: not exempt from the operation of Phil.Criminal law

2. Territoriality

- physical boundaries, that wouldinclude Phil. Criminal law nowwill apply to all crimes within thePhil. Territory.

- Phil. Territory- the land, waterand the air

Q: What about the extent of Phil territory?(because of the Phil. boundaries nga?)

A: water- formerly 3 mile limit but now 12 milelimit from low water mark.

Originally 3 mile limit extended from the lowwater mark 12 mile limit from the low watermark- by virtue of the New Convention of theLaw on the Sea, which was ratified in 1982 bymember states, 50+ member states, 52/55expand the territorial water jurisdiction of Phil.

Criminal Law

Exemptions to the Territoriality Characteristicsof Phil. Criminal Law are found in Art. 2 of theRPC (memorize)

meaning Phil. Criminal law will apply tothose persons who committed it evenoutside the Phil. Territory

so, it applies to all those who commitan offense while on board/ Philippineship/airship it shall apply to those who

counterfeit currency notes, bank notes,coins which have been issued by thegovernment of the RP, it shall apply tothose who are responsible for theintroduction of those counterfeit, banknotes that has been forge; publicofficials and employees who commitoffenses in the course/ discharge ofduties/official functions as such; and tothose who commit crimes againstnational security and the law of thenations

5 Exceptions - that Even CommittedOutside the Philippine Territory Air, Landand Water Still Subject to PhilippineCriminal Law

Page 1 Faye Marie C. Martinez Jessica Lopez Chato Cabigas July 2008Moral Support & Entertainment by Ayce, Gerard, Ariel, Charles & Saskia

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

CRIMINAL LAW 1Judge Ma. Cristina Cornejo

Dont Sweat the Small Stuff


2/76

1. Crime committed within a Philippine ship orairship.2. Forgery is committed by giving to a treasuryor bank note or any instrument payable tobearer or to order the appearance of a truegenuine document or by erasing, substituting,counterfeiting, or altering by any means the

figures, letters, words or signs containedtherein.3. If forgery was committed abroad, it mustrefer only to Philippine coin, currency note orobligations and securities.4. A public officer or employee who commits acrime related to the exercise of his office.5. Title I of Book II on crimes against nationalsecurity and the law of nations covers treason,espionage, provoking war and disloyalty incase of war, piracy and mutiny but notrebellion.

Note: When rebellion is committed abroad, thePhilippines will not acquire jurisdiction becauserebellion is a crime against public order.

Board/ Phil. Ship/ Airship

it is not a question of ownership of avessel

it is a question of registration

where it was registered

for our court to acquire jurisdiction, itmust be registered in accordance of ourPhil. Laws

even it was Filipino owned but notregistered under our law, even if thecrimes committed there, we do nothave jurisdiction

registration in the Bureau of Customs

for as long as the crime committed onboard of Phil ship / Airship

Q: What if the crime is committed on boardon a warship?

A: Of course internationally accepted thatwould fall under the jurisdiction - still which thecountry to which that warship belongs, even ifit is here within the Phil. Territory, if the crimeis committed in that warship that is stillconsidered an exception in the territory of thecountry to which that warship belongs.

Q: Crime committed on board of foreignmerchant vessel?

A: 2 rules:

a. French rule - if the crime committed onboard of a foreign merchant vessel.Example:Here in our territory, under the French rule, wedo not have jurisdiction except if that crimeeven if on board of a foreign merchant vesselaffects public order/ national security

b. English rule - the crime is committed onboard of a foreign merchant vessel which issituated in Phil. territory, it is subject to our

jurisdiction except if that crime relates tointernal affairs/ internal management of theforeign merchant vessel.

3. Prospectivity

the law will apply only to facts,circumstances, events, transactionsafter the promulgation of the law

so the law must made to apply forward,it may not apply backward, it cannot begiven a retroactive application, that isthe rule

Exception:If it is favorable to the accused, it is not

enough that RA is favorable to the. Theaccused must not be habitual delinquent (HD)

HD - Art. 62

2 requisites must concur:1. RA is favorable to the accused

2. He must not be a HD

Q: Who / What is HD?A: It is a special aggravating circumstancebecause it adds to penalty

if within a period of 10 years, reckonedfrom the date of his last release or thelast conviction (2 reckoning point)

of the crimes of (any of the crimes of)serious physical injuries, less seriousphysical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa

and falsification, is found guilty of anyof the said crimes, the third time oroftener

Take note the effect of repeal of the PenalLawa.) New law provides a lighter penalty than thepenalty provided in the old law with respect toa crime then the new law will apply because it


Make Peace with Imperfection


3/76

is favorable to the accused but remember hemust not be a HD

b.)What if the new law provides a heavierpenalty? At the time of the commission of thecrime, then you apply because it is not totallyrepealed, its only that it apply to the same

offense but the point th4e lighter penalty in theold law that would have to be made to apply.

c.) What if the new law does not anymorepenalize the act which has been penalizebefore the old law

- the crime is obliterated- acquitted

Schools of Thought1. Classical Theory2. Positivist Theory

3. Protective / Utilitarian

1. Classical Theory

Man is considered a creature ofabsolutely free will (voluntary)

Wherefore he has a choice

If he chooses to do wrong, he will sufferthe consequences

If he chooses to be right, fine!

Purpose of penalty retribution

2. Positivist

does not do it voluntarily but there is astrange & morbid phenomenon thatcompels it to do the act

psychological

did not really mean to commit the crimebut compel him by a strange or morbidphenomenon to commit the crime

not penalty, subjected to a battery ofpsychological test

he did not to do it on his own - forced todo it

3. Protective / UtilitarianCaseFacts: Violation of BP22, he was being madeto pay something, the alleged creditor wouldnot have any cash out, there is a propensity tofool somebody who is already in a dire straight-he took advantage on the accused.Held - SC: Criminal Law, the penalty providedunder the criminal law is not there to protect

society only from actual wrongdoers, butlikewise from potential wrongdoers. Those whohave propensity/ intonations to commit a crime

ARTICLE 3FELONYArt. 3 relate to Art. 4

Art 3- defines what a felony isArt. 4- how is criminal liability incurred

Q. What is a felony?Art. 3, a felony is an act or omissionspunishable by law.

Q. Did he incur criminal liability?A. Go back to Art. 3 & 4

Q. How is that act/omission?A. Either dolo or culpa.

Q. How is criminal liability incurred?A. Felony is an act/omission punishable by lawit could be by means of dolo (deceit, intent )culpa (imprudence, negligence, lack offoresight/skills)

2 Basic Kinds of felony1. Intentional felonies2. Culpable Felonies

Q. What are the elements: Art 365 CulpableA.

Intentional vs. Culpable

-freedom -freedom

-intelligence - intelligence

-intent -negligence

Act - overt act, violation of law, you penalize it

Omission - why it is omission of a felony? orpunishable by a law?

Omission - we do not do anything - inaction,Q. So why do we penalize for something wedo not do?

A. because there is a law that tells you to dothis, if you do not to do this, so you omit theobligations to do.


Let Go of the Idea that Gentle, Relaxed PeopleCant Be Super Achievers


4/76

ExampleTreason (misprision) you are aware of theconspiracy to commit treason- you have toreport it to the proper authorities.

ARTICLE 4HOW IS CRIMINAL LIABILITYINCURREDQ. How is criminal liability incurred?

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

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

before you can incur criminal liability - you do afelony, if you do something which is not afelonious, you may be civilly liable but notcriminally liable

Q. So how do you incur criminal liability?A. If you perform a felony

Definition of felonyIt is an act/omission punishable by law, if theact is incorrect merely or otherwise but it is notpunishable by law and you commit it but itappears that it is morally wrong but notpunishable by law, you do not incur criminalliability.

ExampleQ. A commit suicide and she jumps from abuilding and nibagsak sya kay B, did Aincur criminal liability?

A. No, the act is not felonious. Suicide is not afelony. Even it is immoral.

Opinion: He can be liable for recklessimprudence resulting to homicide

Judge Cornejo : those person who commitsuicide, theres something in their head (whenyou go up in the tallest building) di kana titinginkung may madadaganan ka pa), I do notsubscribed to the opinion.The only question is if there is a criminalliability - if your act is felonious.

If the act is not felonious, you will not incurcriminal liability.

To be able to incur criminal liability, 2requisites must concur:1. The act is felonious

2. The act is the proximate cause of the injury

Concept of Proximate CauseThe cause of the cause is the evil caused

Q: How it is defined in criminal law?A: People vs IliganIt is that cause which in the natural &continuous sequence of events unbroken byany events, unbroken by any active interveningcause produces an injury without which theresult would not have result.

Q: When there is a proximate cause?A: From the cause to the effect nothing musthappen in between

___________________________________________________Proximate cause Effect which is the result

Case of Rockwell:Offender punched the victim, the victim fell onthe floor (cemented pavement), he did not die,while on the ground, dumating si horsie

horsie!!! Die

Q: Was the punching - that is an exertion ofviolence, protective of injury? Was thepunching, that is a felonious act is theproximate cause of the death of the victim?

A: From the cause which is the act to the effectof the death nothing must happen in between,o di ba may nangyari the horsie, horsie,. Theintervening cause - horsie horsie

Case of Rockwell vs Case of ChuacoIn Chuaco Case, the horse is not in the scene

Punched -died of cerebral hemorrhage incurcriminal liability from the cause to the effectthere is no intervening

People vs. Iligan

may view that the concept of ProximateCause was modified

the victim was hacked on the head andthen he run until he reached the


Be Aware of the Snowball Effect of Your Thinking


5/76

highway and he fell and run over by thevehicles.

SC said: It was still a proximate causeeven if the immediate cause was therunning over.

Judge Cornejo : it is not modified

explained by the Supreme Court, that it is amortal wound na eh!

Highway - mabilis ang takbo ngvehicles so you do not consider that asan efficient intervening cause

it was an isolated case

you do not drive less than 100 km perhour still it is the same concept

Felonious Act - effect nothing happened inbetween

Factors Affecting Intent andCorrespondingly the Criminal Liability

1. Mistake of Fact2. Error in Personae (Mistake in Identity)3. Aberratio Ictus (mistake in the victim of

the blow)4. Proximate Cause

1. Mistake of FactIf you commit an act which is felonious,because it is punishable by law but you did it

under a mistake of fact, you will not becriminally liableRequisites (the 3 must concur):1. That act would have been lawful had thefacts been as the accused believe them to be-the act would have been lawful - nakapatay ka2. The intention of the accused in performingthe act must be lawful3. No negligence/carelessness on the part ofthe accused

U.S. vs. Anchongkilled the victim, absolved because of mistakeof fact voluntary yan but under differentspecial circumstances kaya siya na absolve,fall under the concept of mistake of fact.

1. The act would have been lawful had thefacts been as the accused believe them tobe.Example

He slept, locked the door, he heard somebodyknocking trying to open the door, he taught itwas a murderer. But before he opened / beforehe killed the victim, the intention was to protecthimself or defend himself, because he believesthere is somebody trying to kill him, but he wasnot careless, not negligent, because he asked

- sino yan, sino yan? bukas bukas pa din3rdtime asking, upon opening the door he killedthe person and after that he found out that itwas only his roommate He is acting in self-defense which is lawful No fault or carelessness / negligence,

precisely he was calling / asking 3 times

2. Error in Personae (Mistake in Identity)If the act is criminal act but as was committednot under the mistake of fact, it was voluntary,it was with knowledge, he knew what he was

doing, talagang penalize siya, only that there isa mistake in the identity of the victim.Criminally liable.Example

A intended to kill B but A killed C insteadQ: Will A be liable for killing C?

A: Naturally, liable

3. Aberratio Ictus (Mistake in the vicitim ofthe blow)

A intended to shoot B, but A fired to C- mistakein the blow (Aberatio Ictus) liable

ExampleThe husband stopped the wife from talking,

punched the pregnant wifebut there is nointention to kill the wife, intention to exert ofviolence into her person, to stop her fromtalking. There is intent to cause harm but nointent to kill the wife. No intention to commit sograve / praeter intentionem - criminally liable

Impossible CrimesBy any person performing an act which wouldbe an offense against persons or property,

were if not for the inherent impossibility of itsaccomplishment or on account of theemployment of inadequate or ineffectualmeans

Q: Is it a crime?A: technically, No! Impossible crime is not acrime because the act is not a criminal act itwould be an offense or it would have been anoffense against person or property for if not for


Develop Your Compassion


6/76

the impossibility of its accomplishment or onaccount of the employment of inadequate orineffectual means.

Q: Then if it is not a crime why it ispenalize?

A: it is penalize because the fact of the

commission of that act, how which is not forthe productive of a crime, against person/property, he has shown his criminal propensity,intention to commit a crime only that he do notaccomplish the crime because it is inherentlyimpossible.

The criminal propensity, criminal tendency thatis the one which is penalize, not the crimeitself, because technically it is not a crime.Example

Q: A intended to kill B, A went to the houseof B, he saw B lying on the bed, believingthat B was sleeping but in fact B died in acardiac arrest and A stabbed B.Had the person (B) has been alive at thetime of stabbing - homicide/murder

A: the point is A will not be liable formurder/homicide, because he cannot killsomebody who is dead (inherent impossibilityon account of the employment of inadequateineffectual means)

ExampleBuying a substance, you knew it is a poisonbut it is sugar so your intended victim did notdie.

For purposes of impossible crimeThe act would be an offense

Additional According to the SCThe act should not constitute another violationof any other provision in the RPC

Case:Intod vs. Court of AppealsOffenders intended to kill Mr. X, so theyconducted a surveillance there is evidentpremeditation (go out, what time?), so on theday they decide to execute their plan to kill Mr.X, they TA! TA! TA! TA! And yet the housespecifically the room - the supposed victim isnot there, Mr. X is somewhere else

Argue in the SC: attempted murder, they triedto kill but he was not there

Another Justice - impossible crimeHow can it be - when one of the requisite iswhen the act must not constitute any violationof the RPC, eh di ba TA! TA! TA! Caused

damage to the property, that is a violation ofthe RPC.

modified version of the impossiblecrime

hindi pumasok yung last provision- thatdo not constitute another violation ofany other provision of the RPC

but they considered it as an ImpossibleCrime, because of the inherentimpossibility

kapag attempted murder dapat andunyung tao and about to commit the crime

definition of a felony

not attempted/ frustrated stage inImpossible Crime

ARTICLE 5

THERE IS NO CRIME WHEN THERE IS

NO LAW THAT DEFINES AND

PUNISHES IT

ARTICLE 6STAGES OF EXECUTION OF FELONY

Different Stages of Execution of felony1. Consummated2. Frustrated3. Attempted

Discussion

hindi ito crime

Attempted murder or is hereby foundguilty beyond reasonable doubt of thecrime of attempted murder as defined

and penalized in Art. 248 of the RPC inrelation to Art. 6 - stages of executionof a felony - attempted homicide asdefined and penalized in Art. 249 of theRPC in relation to Art. 6

1. ConsummatedAll the essential elements of the crime areconsummated


Remind Yourself that When You Die,Your In Basket Wont be Empty


7/76

ExampleHe kills somebody - die sya - consummatedthe moment you put that thing, you havecontrol, consummated na but there are certaininstances the consummation/frustration of thecrime will depend on the disposability of the

articles taken.

Case:People vs. EspirituRifles they put it in a truck then at thecheckpoint the rifles were found, they wereunlawfully takenConsummated? No!SC: it is simply frustrated because they couldnot have easily disposed the rifle

Case:

People vs. Bino they got hospital linen fromthe placed it was stored. They loaded it in thetruck. Na-check point silaSC: consummated, because the linen is easilydisposableSo it would depend on the disposability of thearticles taken for the purposes of theconsummation

2. FrustratedOffender performs all the acts of execution,which would produce it by reason of some

cause independent of the will of the perpetrator- perpetrator - offender- offender - he is the one who

commit a crime- all the acts of execution-

naperform na nya

Examplesa. Frustrated Homicide - offender performs allthe act of execution if the offender has inflicteda mortal wound (sufficient to cause death)(fatal would yan) nisaksak mo in the dibdib-

consummated but if you have inflicted of amortal wound and then you have change ofheart ikaw na mismo ang nagdala sa hospitalor because you are a doctor, you save his life-frustrated, because the prevention of thecommission of the crime/ consummation of thecrime is due to youb. you inflicted the mortal wound, doctorscame in, administered the necessarymedication and necessary healing that save

his life- frustrated, the offender performs all theact of execution that would produce a homicideas a consequence kasi mortal wound nasufficient to death but nevertheless homicide isnot committed coz the victim did not die, why?Due to some cause not on the will of the

perpetrator but due to the will of timely

medical assistancec. Rape- no frustratedd. Arson- no frustratede. Impossible Crime- no frustrated

3. AttemptedThe offender merely commences, merelybegins the performance of the act, thecommission of the crime directly by overt acts

Frustrated naperform na lahatAttempted be merely begins, merely

commences, how? By directly overt acts, butdoes not perform all the acts of execution byreason of some cause or accident other thanhis own spontaneous desistance

Attempteda. Commences directly by overt actsb. If the act is preparatory he has not reachedthe attempted stage of felony

overt means direct external / outer

for the purpose of attempted felony theovert act must have a direct relation to

the crime intended to be committed not necessary that there is a physical

act because the physical act may bepreparatory or overt act

overt act may have a relation to be thecrime intended to be committed

ExampleQ: Person decides to kill somebody, hegoes to the drug store, and buys rat killerintended to mix that to be fed to theintended victim. His acts in purchasing rat

killer, has reached the attempted stage?A: NO! preparatory lang yan dib a, no directrelation in his mind has a direct relation, but inthe state of his mind, so it is a preparatory act,malay mo maraming rats talaga, so it isdifferent however he comes home he mixesthe poison on the food, he attempted to feed it,overt act, attempted homicide, because thedirect relation.Paano magiging attempted?


Dont Interrupt Others or Finish Their Sentences


8/76

Susubo pa lang nya and the cat went to him,cat ate it and the cat died attempted, takenote that he did not feed because of somecause other than his spontaneous desistance

No attempted

Impossible Crime

Homicide

ArsonNotes:

You put flammable articles, nibuhusan mo nggas, overt act - attempted

Rape - no frustrated- only attempted andconsummatedConsummated rape, when? Slightestpenetration of the ano into the ano is alreadyconsummated di na kelangan to go deeper,slightest penetration, for as long as there is aslightest penetrationWhat if walang penetration? yung haginghaging lng, kasi obviously may intent, forexample, you undress a women, the maleorgan, walang penetration that is attempted itis not acts of lasciviousness why you placeyour thing over her thing without intent to,attempted but the moment slightest penetration- consummated

Case:

People vs.

Attempted male organ was placed andnagkiskis dun sa thigh nung girl. NopenetrationSC: that is only an attempted rape. It simplyconstituted the strange thing of the castle ofthe orgasmic potency or the shelling of thevariable passion.

ExampleThey inflicted injury on the victim, believing thevictim has already died? Survive, is thatfrustrated homicide?They belief is immaterial. What matter is if allthe acts of execution were performed.

ARTICLE 7WHEN LIGHT FELONIES AREPUNISHABLELight Felonies

Are punishable when consummated exceptthose against person or property.

Generally: when consummatedExcept: attempted theft, attempted homicide

ExampleOral defamationSlander

ARTICLE 8CONSPIRACYQ: When is there a conspiracy?

A: When 2 or more persons come into anagreement concerning the commission of thecrime and decide to commit it.

Conspiracy can be taken into 2 senses:1. Generally as a mode of incurring criminalliability or it is taken as a crime itself only whenexpressly made a crime under the RPC / law2. If conspiracy is not expressly made a crimeunder the law specifically the RPC andconspiracy is simple a mode of incurringcriminal liability.

1. Conspiracy as a CrimeIt is defined in the law as a crime

ExampleConspiracy to commit treason, rebellion, coupdetat, sedition, particular penalty

for as long it is defined a crime and gives apenalty, conspiracy is a crime but if it is notmade/expressly made a crime, more it is givena penalty in the RPC, it is simple a mode ofincurring criminal liability.

2. Mode of incurring criminal liabilityBecause the act of 1 is the act of all

ExampleEven if I, even if Mr. X is the only one whomaterially perform the act, even he is the onewho is directly stub and kill the victim, kami we

were there, did not participate in the actualkilling for as long as it can be establish that weconspired to kill, then, we are likewise liable asPrincipals.

Q. Mode of incurring liability when do youincur criminal liability?

A. When you perform an act or felony.


Do Something Nice for Someone Else and Dont TellAnyone About It


9/76

So you perform an act, you are the one whokilled the victim, kami hindi but we conspired tocommit a crime, in any other manner, weconspire to kill the victim, we are equally liableas to his death, as Principals, but of course inconspiracy, it must be established clearly andconvincingly as the crime itself although there

is no direct evidence of conspiracy of courseits inferred from circumstantial evidence, wasthere some agreement if any part is done bythem that would show there is common decideto commit a crime, there is conspiracy.

Even we say there is a conspiracy, becausethe act of 1 is the act of all, they conspire but ifsomebody or one of the conspirators try toprevent the commission of an act which wasnot one of those agreed upon, he cannot beheld liable.Example:

We conspire to kill A but napatay na thensusunugin yung bahay but you prevent it, youmay not be held liable for arson

General rule: the act of 1 is the act of allException: if 1 of the conspirators try toprevent the commission of another act whichwas not agreed upon.

Proposal to Commit a FelonyA mode of incurring criminal liability, is likewisea crime only if it is made expressly a crime

under the RPC

ExamplesProposal to commit treason, proposal tocommit rebellion, proposal to commit sedition

if it is made expressly made a crime

it is not necessary that a proposal isaccepted, mere proposal even if notaccepted, it is made a crime in so far asthe offense and liable, not specificallymade a crime it must be accepted

perjuryExample

I decide to induce him to execute a falseaffidavit, propose the execution, if he will notaccept my proposal. He is not liable

Accept both will be liable, Principal byInducementQ: What if several persons were charged asconspirators, have been acquitted, the

last are guilty/ convicted, is theresomething wrong?

A: No, People vs. Nothing irregular because conspiracy is amode of incurring criminal liability.

ARTICLE 9GRAVE, LESS GRAVE, LIGHTFELONIESARTICLE 10SPECIAL PENAL LAWSARTICLES 11 TO 15

Art. 11 Justifying CircumstancesArt. 12 Exempting CircumstancesArt. 13 Mitigating Circumstances

Art. 14 Aggravating CircumstancesArt. 15 Alternative Circumstances

JEMAA they are referred to as modifyingcircumstances.Q. Why modifying?

A. Because they modify either to increase ordecrease the degree of criminal liability of aparticular accused.

J there is no criminal liabilityE there is no criminal liability

M there is criminal liability but reducedA there is criminal liability but liability isincreased or if it is in the nature of qualifyingaggravating circumstance then the crime ischanged. It changes the nature of the crime.Example Qualifying aggravating circumstance

killing generally would amount to homicidebut there is an attendance in the commissionof the crime of qualifying aggravatingcircumstance of treachery or evident

premeditation, the crime is qualified fromhomicide to murder.

Justifying vs. Exempting1. J there is no crime, there is no criminalliability because the act is justified (neithercrime nor criminal)E there is a crime but there is no criminalBecause the criminal or perpetrator of the actis exempt from criminal liability


Let Others Have the Glory


10/76

2. J since there is no crime, there is no civilliability except Paragraph 4 state ofnecessity or avoidance of greater injury.

(We all know even in criminal procedure civilliability flows from the commission of the crimeso if there is no crime, there is no source from

which the civil liability might flow or spring)

E since there is a crime, there is civil liability.There is no criminal liability but there is civilliability except paragraphs 4 (accident) and 7(insuperable cause).Meaning: with respect to paragraphs 4 and 7there is neither criminal liability nor civil liability.

JEM invoked by the accused.Aggravating invoked by the prosecution forthe purpose of increasing the degree of

criminal liability of the accused. Theprosecution is requesting and trying to prove tothe court that this circumstance should beappreciated against the accused in thecommission of the crime so as to increase thecriminal liability of the accused.

ARTICLE 11JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

1. Self defense (SD)2. Defense of Relatives (DR)3. Defense of Strangers (DS)

4. State of Necessity or Avoidance ofGreater Evil

5. Fulfillment of a Duty6. Obedience to Superior

In self-defense, defense of relatives anddefense of strangers, the first two elementsof these three defenses are the same:

1. Unlawful aggression from the victim2. Reasonable necessity of the means

employed to prevent or repel theunlawful aggression

They differ in the 3rd requisite:SD lack of sufficient provocation on the partof the person defending himself

DR - in case the provocation was given by theperson attacked, that the one making thedefense (the accused) had no part therein /even if the relative being defended gives the

provocation, it is important that the persondefending had no part in the provocation.DS the person defending the stranger wasnot motivated by hate, revenge, resentment orother evil motives.The unlawful aggression should have comefrom the private offended party.

In all these defenses the indispensablerequisite is unlawful aggression.Q. Why unlawful aggression isindispensable?

A. Because if there is no unlawful aggression,the second requisite (which is reasonablenecessity of the means employed to prevent orrepel the unlawful aggression) has no basisbecause you are invoking SD, DR, DS so theunlawful aggression should have come fromthe victim. Meaning without the unlawful

aggression, there is nothing to prevent orrepel.

Incomplete Justifying Circumstance (IJC) if not all the conditions are present

Q. What is the effect of IJC?A. It is a privileged mitigating circumstance(PMC).

Q. What is the effect of PMC?A. It serves to reduce the penalty by degrees.

It is 1 degree lower to the mitigating.

Incomplete SD, Incomplete DR, IncompleteDS, Incomplete exempting circumstance not all the conditions necessary to justify theact or exempt the accused from criminalliability are present.

If in any of these defenses (SD, DS, DR) thereis no unlawful aggression, even if the two otherrequisites are present, you cannot invoke ofthe PMC of IJC because as far as these

defenses are concerned, the indispensableelement is unlawful aggression coming fromthe private offended party.

Examples:1. If in SD reasonable necessity of the meansemployed to prevent or repel the unlawfulaggression and lack of sufficient provocationon the part of the person defending himself are


Learn to Live in the Present Moment


11/76

present but there is no unlawful aggression no PMC2. If in SD unlawful aggression and reasonablenecessity of the means employed to prevent orrepel the unlawful aggression are present there is PMC3. If in SD unlawful aggression and lack of

sufficient provocation on the part of the persondefending himself are present there is PMC4. If in SD one requisite is present, which isunlawful aggression ordinary mitigatingcircumstance.

PAR. 1 - SELF DEFENSERequisites:

1. Unlawful aggression from the victim2. Reasonable necessity of the means

employed to prevent or repel theunlawful aggression

3. Lack of sufficient provocation on thepart of the person defending himself

1. Unlawful Aggression from theVictim

Aggression should have come from thevictim of the accusedThe unlawful aggression must have come fromthe victim because he is defending himself ordefending his relative or defending a strangerso the aggression should have come from the

victim of the accused.

Q. What is unlawful aggression / Whatwould consist of unlawful aggression?

A. It is an action either an actual physicalassault coming from the victim or the threat toinflict real injury on the offender and the threatto inflict real injury must be immediate andimminent. The threat to inflict real injury in notmerely imagined.

Immediate / Imminent about to happen.

There are signs to show that the aggression isabout to happen.

ExampleLumalapit lang sayo yung tao, no threat, youimagined that he will kill you this is notimminent.

It must be at the time the unlawfulaggression is still existing

If you act / claim in SD, it must be at the timethe unlawful aggression is still existingbecause of you attack somebody after theunlawful aggression has already ceased toexist, that is no longer SD, you are no longerpreventing, you are no longer preventing anyaggression. When the unlawful aggression

ceased to exist that is simply retaliation.ExampleNi-saksak ka nya, umalis na sya tapos ni-attack mo pa sya retaliation

Binugbog ka, after binugbog ka, bumagsak ka,he left and did not do anything else and thenyou stood up and you followed him andstabbed him.Q. Is that SD?

A. No. Tapos na eh! It should be on going orabout to happen. You are simply repelling the

aggression so the aggression must be existingat the time you reacted.

2. Reasonable Necessity of theMeans Employed to Prevent orRepel the Unlawful Aggression- Case to case basis. It would depend on theexistence of the aggression as well as thenature and extent of the aggression becauseyou are trying to repel or trying to prevent theaggression so it must be reasonable and mustdepend on the nature and extent of the

aggression.ExampleNisampal ka nya, sinaksak mo sya. Is thatreasonable? No. Kung sinampal ka, sampalinmo din or suntukin mo.

Minura ka, sinaksak mo that isunreasonable!

It must be proportionate to the aggression. Soit would depend on the nature and extent orgravity of the aggression. The reasonableness

would depend on the existence of aggression.If there is no aggression there is no basis forrepelling.

3. Lack of Sufficient Provocationon the Part of the PersonDefending Himself

Q. What is provocation?


Imagine that Everyone is Enlightened Except You


12/76

A. It is something that would steal somebody toaction.

Q. What is lack of provocation?A. Even if the accused gave the provocation, itwas not sufficient.Meaning: kung wala syang ginawang

provocation that could have illicited theaggression from the private offended party(POP) or magbigay man sya ng provocation, itwas not sufficient to illicit such unlawfulaggression from the POP.

PAR. 2 - DEFENSE OF RELATIVESRequisites:

1. Unlawful aggression from the victim2. Reasonable necessity of the meansemployed to prevent or repel the unlawfulaggression

3. In case the provocation was given by theperson attacked, that the one making thedefense (the accused) had no part therein /even if the relative being defended givesthe provocation, it is important that theperson defending had no part in theprovocation.

Q. Who are the relatives?A. Spouse, ascendants, descendants, orlegitimate, natural or adopted brothers andsisters, or relatives by affinity in the same

degrees, relatives by consanguinity within thefourth civil degree.

Note: If not included in the list, you are simplyacting in defense of a stranger.

Spouse must be Legitimate SpouseThe spouse must be a legitimate spouse. Ifcommon law spouse, that is defense ofstranger. There should be legitimaterelationship between you and the spouse.

Note: The concept of unlawful aggression andreasonable necessity in SD is the same in DR.

3. Even if the Relative BeingDefended Gives the Provocation,it is Important that the PersonDefending had no Part in theProvocation

ExampleGerard (brother of Ayce) saw Ayce on theground about to be hit by the group of Chat.Gerard did not know that Ayce gave the

provocation but it was Ayce who started it all.Gerard thought that it was Ayce who was thevictim. So what Gerard did, he assaulted the

group of Chat. Gerard was acting in defense ofa relative even if Ayce was the one who gavethe provocation. What is important is that itGerard was not part of the provocation.PAR. 3 - DEFENSE OF STRANGERSRequisites:

1. Unlawful aggression from the victim2. Reasonable necessity of the meansemployed to prevent or repel the unlawfulaggression3. the person defending the stranger wasnot motivated by hate, revenge, resentment

or other evil motives.

Q. Who is a stranger?A. A person who is not listed under the conceptof relatives.

Note: The concept of unlawful aggression andreasonable necessity in SD is the same in DS.

3. The Person Defending theStranger was not Motivated byHate, Revenge, Resentment or

other Evil Motives

Most of these are circumstantial. It is a matterof proof.

ExampleAriel saw Jessica (a stranger) being mauled byAyce. Ayce is Ariels mortal enemy. Arielassaulted Ayce. Ariel claimed that he isdefending Jessica who was assaulted by Ayce.Nobody knew that Ayce is the mortal enemy of

Ariel so it is a matter of proof. What is

important is that the person defending was notmotivated by hate, revenge, resentment orother evil motives.

PAR 4 - STATE OF NECESSITY ORAVOIDANCE OF GREATER INJURY / EVILRequisites:

1. That the evil sought to be avoidedactually exists;


Let Others be Right Most of the Time


13/76

2. That the injury feared be greater thanthat done to avoid it;

3. That there be no other practical andless harmful means of preventing it.

G.R.: There is no but there is civil liabilityEXC: Paragraph 4. Meaning there is no crime,

there is no civil liability.

ExampleFaye was driving her Jaguar car in the zigzagroad, head on collision with a bus. If sheswerves her car to the left, she would hit apedestrian. If she swerves her car to the right,she would fall and would die. This is avoidanceof greater injury, and naturally, greater injurywould be her life. So she swerved her car tothe left. This is self-preservation.Faye is relieved of criminal liability because

she acted in avoidance of greater injury.Hence, she has to bear the civil liability for anydamages that she caused to the victim.

OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY ASUPERIOR

Rules:1. It must be obedience to a lawful order

of a superior. It is not a blindobedience. It must be proved that it is alawful order of superior.

2. If the accused complied with anunlawful order under a mistake of fact,he has no liability. He will not becriminally responsible.

3. If he acted in compliance with an orderwhich is clearly and patently 7unlawful,he cannot invoke the defense of actingin obedience to a lawful order.

Q. What if he acted in obedience to anunlawful order but he acted in obediencebecause of an irresistible force or under a

compulsion of an uncontrollable fear?A. He is not justified but he will be exemptunder Art. 12.

ARTICLE 12

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

The following are exempt from criminal liability:

1. An imbecile or insane person unlessthe latter has acted during a lucidinterval.

2. A person under nine years of age.3. A person over nine years of age and

under fifteen unless he has acted withdiscernment, in which case such minor

shall be proceeded against inaccordance with the provisions of

Article 80 of this Code.4. Any person who, while performing a

lawful act with due care, causes aninjury by mere accident without fault orintention of causing it.

5. Any person who acts under thecompulsion of irresistible force.

6. Any person who acts under the impulseof an uncontrollable fear of an equal orgreater injury.

7. Any person who fails to perform an actrequired by law, when prevented bysome lawful or insuperable cause.

1. An Imbecile or Insane PersonUnless the Latter has ActedDuring a Lucid Interval

Imbecility the person has the mentality of achild 2 to 7 years old. It is not the chronologicalage.

Lucid aware of what he is doing

Insanity the act must have been performedby the accused in a state of total deprivation ofintelligence. Insanity would includeschizophrenia and epilepsy.

ExampleGerard does not know what he is doing at thetime he committed the crime because even ifhe has been declared insane but at the timehe committed the act, he was acting during

lucid interval that is not exempting. Because ifhe did it under lucid interval (sane or aware ofwhat he was doing) from his insanity (declaredor diagnosed insane) not exempt.

Note: Burden of proof is on the accused toprove that he is exempt / insane


Become More Patient


14/76

2. A person under nine years ofage.3. A person over nine years ofage and under fifteen unless hehas acted with discernment, inwhich case such minor shall be

proceeded against in accordancewith the provisions of Article 80of this Code.

Minority under the RPC, if he is under 9 heis exempt. But by virtue of R.A. 9344 or TheJuvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (KikoPangilinan Law) under 9 or over 9 but under15, exempt from criminal liability.

15 or under at the time of the commission ofthe offense shall be exempt from criminal

liability but the child shall be subjected to anintervention program.

Q. What about above 15 but below 18 (16 to17 years old)?

A. Exempt but the child shall be subjected toan intervention program in accordance with aparticular act unless he acted with discernment(he knows what is right and wrong), in whichcase, he shall be subjected to the appropriateproceeding in accordance with law.

The exemption from criminal liability underR.A. 9344 shall not include exemption fromcivil liability which shall be enforced inaccordance with law.

Before R.A. 9344 Juveniles in Conflict withthe Law (A.M. by SC) it is still consistent. Itprovides that a minor under 9 at the time of thecommission of the offense shall be exemptfrom criminal liability. Over 9 under 15 at thetime of the commission of the offense, he shallbe committed to the care of his father or

mother or the nearest relative or family friend.If however, the prosecution proved that heacted with discernment, he shall be subjectedto appropriate proceedings in accordance withlaw.

Prevailing Rule R.A. 9344 because it waspromulgated 2006.

4. Any person who, whileperforming a lawful act with duecare, causes an injury by mereaccident without fault orintention of causing it

*Relate this with criminal negligence.

Q. Why will I be penalized for something Idid not intend to do?Because we said that felony is an act oromission punishable by law committed not onlyby means of deceit (dolo) but also by means offault (culpa)

Concept of Accident as an ExemptingCircumstance

Accident as an Exempting Circumstance

there is no criminal liability but in Accident(plain) there is criminal liability under Article365 of the RPC.Note: To be exempt from criminal liability, theoffender must be performing a lawful act withdue care causing injury to another or damageto the property of another.

Q. If Charles has a license to drive, hedrives his vehicle and in the course of hisdriving, he hit another vehicle or run oversomebody, liable under Art. 365. But why

he would liable? (He never wanted that tohappen.)A. Because it is in the way that he performedhis lawful act. He has a license and he isdriving he is performing a lawful act, but ifhe caused injury because he performed thelawful act recklessly without due care, then heis criminally liable.

It is only when you perform a lawful act withdue care can you make use of accident as anexempting circumstance.ExampleLicensed driver ka and you are driving in thehighway, ang bagal bagal mo na nga 20km/hour, you are reckless? No.

Saskia is driving inside the compound of SanSebastian at 70-100 km/hour. She is licensedto drive but she is driving in an area wherethere are kids playing that is reckless.


Create Patience Practice Periods


15/76

5. Any person who acts under thecompulsion of irresistible force.

6. Any person who acts under theimpulse of an uncontrollable fearof an equal or greater injury.

Irresistible force & uncontrollable fear they are connected because both have thesame concept.

RationaleQ. Why is the offender exempt fromcriminal liability if he commits a crime whileacting under the impulse of an irresistibleforce (IF) or compulsion of anuncontrollable fear (UF)?

A. IF means actual physical force exerted on

the person of the offender. UF means you arebeing threatened but the force to be exerted onthe person of the accused or the threat orintimidation that is employed on the accusedthat could have prompted him to commit thecrime simply reduced him to a mereinstrument. He has no choice but to do it.

IF for it to be exempting, always rememberdid this physical force reduced him to simplybeing a tool or instrument? He has no choicebut do it.

Example:Bugbog sarado na sya Pasasabugin mo baito o hindi? Pak! Pak! Pak! Pasasabugin mo bayung building o hindi? Pak! Pak! Pak! O sige,

pasasabugin ko na

Note: Common denominator of UF / IF reduced to being a mere instrumentNote: It does not mean that he has no moreintelligence but it should be he has no morewill power or choice.

UFExample:You kill this particular person otherwise I willkill your wife or child. He has no choicebecause it would mean the death of his wife orchild.

IF / UF always remember for these to beexempting, he was reduced or the force to beexerted in his person or the intimidation

employed was simply reduced him to being aninstrument. He has no choice but do it.

7. Any person who fails toperform an act required by law,when prevented by some lawfulor insuperable cause.

Insuperable Cause it is a cause that cannotbe overcomed.

ExampleJoan gave birth in the forest so she was soweak and she has to leave her baby to seekfor help. She was not able to come backbecause she was seriously ill, the baby died.She was subsequently, sued for infanticide.Joan said she was exempt. Is Joan correct?Yes. Because she was seriously ill at the time(cause that cannot be overcomed) making hergo back to her child.

Liability in Exempting CircumstanceIf there is an exempting circumstance, there isa crime and therefore there is civil liabilitybecause there is a source from which you getthe civil liability except paragraph 4 (accident)and paragraph 7 (insuperable cause). Thismeans that if the exempting circumstance is

paragraph 4 or paragraph 7, there is nocriminal liability and no civil liability.

ABSOLUTORY CAUSESAbsolutory means the offender is relieved.

Entrapment vs. InstigationEntrapment the person is engaged in anunlawful activity or the offender is actuallydoing the crime only that he cannot be arrestedso ways and means are resorted to by thepolice officers to catch him in the act or inflagrante delicto. A common form ofentrapment is a buy bust operation.

Instigation it is in the nature of inducement.The offender or the one who committed thecrime did not even think of committing thecrime only that he was instigated to commit thecrime and then when he committed the crime,


Be the First One to Act Loving or Reach Out


16/76

the police officers arrested him. The policeofficer simply induced him to commit the crime,the offender never even thought of committingthe crime from the very beginning.

Q. What could be the absolutory cause asbetween instigation and entrapment?

A. Instigation because the offender is simplyinduced or lead to commit the crime. It is notentrapment because entrapment is valid thepolice officers are simply catching the offenderin the act. The offender had been doing the actbefore.

ARTICLE 13MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCESThe following are Mitigating Circumstances:

1. Incomplete justifying or exemptingcircumstances.2. Minority / senility (Wala na kasi exempt na)3. Praeter intentionem4. Sufficient provocation or threat5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense6. Passion or obfuscation7. Voluntary surrender8. Voluntary plea of guilt9. Deaf and dumb, blind or other physicaldefect.10. Illness11. Analogous circumstances

Q. What is the effect of mitigatingcircumstance (MC)?

A. It is either to reduce the penalty by period orby degrees.

Kinds of Mitigating Circumstances1. Ordinary MC it serves to reduce theperiod of the penalty.In cases of divisible, it serves to reduce thepenalty in its minimum.Note: We talk of the periods of the penalty if itis divisible because a period is one of the threeequal portions of divisible penalty. But it mayhave an effect with respect to indivisible notsingle indivisible, if the penalty consists of 2indivisible penalties.

We do not talk of periods in cases of indivisiblepenalty.Example

Death penalty is indivisible. There is no deathminimum, death maximum!

2. Privileged MC it serves to reduce thepenalty by degrees. Reduces the penalty by 1or 2 degrees.Example

1 penalty is 1 degreeR Temporal Prision Mayor

Kinds of Privilege MC:A. Incomplete JustifyingB. Incomplete Exempting

A & B meaning not all the conditions arepresent. Majority of the conditions are present.

G.R. For purposes of Incomplete Justifying andIncomplete Exempting as a PrivilegedMitigating Circumstances, the majority of the

requisites should be present.

Note: if there are 2 or more mitigating andthere is no aggravating, it is already aprivileged MC, which means it will reduce thepenalty by 1 degree.Note: In SD / DS / DR unlawful aggressionshould always be present. Even if the majorityof the requisites are present for as long as theunlawful aggression is not present noincomplete justifying.

6. Passion or Obfuscation

Passion or obfuscation is an ordinary MC.

Obfuscation is confusion.

If you commit an offense under passion orobfuscation, it can be mitigating.Jurisprudence: for passion or obfuscation tobe mitigating, it must have arisen from lawfulsentiments.Example:

A man witnessed a woman taking a bath. Hewas so aroused that after the woman took abath, when the woman came out, he raped thewoman. The man admitted but he contendedthat he acted under passion.Held: The Supreme Court said that the mandid not act under passion. He acted under lust.Lust was never a lawful sentiment.

Q. What if a girl acted because of jealousy?


Lower Your Tolerance to Stress


17/76

A. Generally, jealousy is an unlawful sentimentbut it will be mitigating if it has a legitimatebasis.

7. Voluntary Surrender andConfession of Guilt

Voluntary SurrenderRequisites:

1. The surrender must be voluntary2. The surrender must be unconditional3. It must be a surrender of oneself.

Discussion: There is no problem that involuntary surrender, the offenderacknowledges having committed the crime.The liability is mitigated because by voluntarysurrendering, the offender unconditionallyplaced himself subject to the custody of the

authorities. The offender saved thegovernment from the time and expense inlooking for him. The offender is given aconcession his liability is mitigated.

Surrender must be VoluntaryQ. When is voluntary surrender mitigating?

A. It must be made immediately after thecommission of the crime.

Example

Paparating na ang mga pulis, the you said, Isurrender.This is not mitigating because what promptedyou to surrender yourself is not because youreally wanted save the government from thetime and expense in looking for you butbecause palapit na sila.

Surrender of OneselfNote: You do not surrender the instrument ofthe crime but yourself

ExampleYou killed somebody then pumunta ka sa

police station and you said Ito sinu-surrenderko na yung bolo, may dugo dugo pa, pinatayko si Mr. X.This is not mitigating because you simplysurrendered the instrument of the crime andnot yourself.

8. Voluntary plea of guilt

Confession of Guilt (at the arraignment orduring the pre-trial) / Admission of GuiltDiscussion: If you offer to plea guilty to alesser offense and your offer to plea guilty to alesser offense is accepted by the publicprosecutor and by the private offended party, it

is valid and you will be allowed to plea guilty toa lesser offense.

Q. Murder under the original information atthe time of the pre-trial, you offered to pleaguilty to a lesser offense of homicide. Sinceyou pleaded guilty and since you made aconfession of guilt in open court, will it beconsidered as mitigating in your favor?

A. No more. For it to be mitigating, it must be aplea of guilt or confession of guilt only to theoffense as originally charged in the information

and that plea should be a plea of guilt to alesser offense.

9. Deaf and dumb, blind or otherphysical defect.

Physical defects you committed it when youare blind or deaf.

11. Analogous mitigatingcircumstances

Analogous means similar

ExampleExtreme poverty if you commit theft underextreme poverty, it is analogous to state ofnecessity. This is self-preservation, you haveto live and eat.

If you voluntarily surrendered the stolenproperty, the Supreme Court said that it wouldbe analogous to voluntary surrender in a

prosecution for theft or robbery.

Note: There are only analogous mitigatingcircumstances but there are no analogousaggravating circumstances.ExampleThe judge considered rape as analogous toignominy or physical injuries as analogous tocruelty.


Ask Yourself the Question,Will This Matter a Year from Now?


18/76

SC said: by express provision of Article 13,there are only analogous mitigatingcircumstances but no analogous aggravatingcircumstances. (People vs. Regala, December2000)

ARTICLE 14

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances1. Generic2. Specific3. Inherent4. Qualifying5. Special

1. GenericApplies to all kinds crimes

ExamplesRecidivism, habituality

2. SpecificThey apply only to particular casesExamplesEvident premeditation, treachery and cruelty,they are aggravating circumstances butspecifically applied to crimes against persons3. InherentThey are necessarily present in the crime butthey are not used in the definition of the crime.They are part of the crime.Examples

Abuse of authority / public office is inherent inbribery. Fraud is an aggravating circumstanceinherent in estafa. Deceit is inherent in simpleseduction. Unlawful entry in trespass todwelling

4. QualifyingIt changes the nature of the crimeExamples

Abuse of superior strength, cruelty

When killing is attended by qualifyingaggravating circumstances, that killing will bequalified from homicide to murder.Simple theft can be qualified to qualified theft.

Example of Qualifying AggravatingCircumstances treachery, evident

premeditation, abuse of superior strength,cruelty.

5. SpecialThey arise under special conditions in order toincrease the penalty but they cannot be offsetby any mitigating circumstances.ExampleQuasi-recidivism (Article 160 RPC), if after

having been convicted of final judgment orbefore serving sentence or while servingsentence, the offender commits another (new)crime and therefore he will be imposed a

penalty with a maximum of the imposablepenalty for the new crime.

If a crime is committed by a syndicate syndicated estafa, syndicated illegalrecruitment, membership in an organizedsyndicated crime group.

The following are aggravatingcircumstances:

1. Taking advantage of official position2. In contempt of or insult to public

authorities3. Age, sex, rank, dwelling4. Abuse of confidence / obvious

ungratefulness5. Committed in the palace of the chief

executive, etc.6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, band7. On the occasion and by means of

calamity or misfortune8. Committed with the aid of armed men9. Recidivism10. Habituality11. Price, promise or reward12. Inundation, fire, poison, explosion,

stranding of a vessel etc.13. Evident premeditation14. Craft, fraud or disguise15. Abuse of superior strength16. Treachery17. Ignominy

18. Unlawful Entry19. Breaking of wall, roof, floor, door or

window20. Aid of minor, use of motor vehicle21. Causing other wrong not necessary for

its commission

1. Taking advantage of officialposition


Surrender to the Fact that Life Isnt Fair


19/76

2. In contempt of or insult topublic authoritiesThis is a generic aggravating circumstance.

Public Authorities do not include the agentsof persons in authority.

3. Age, sex, rank, dwelling

DwellingQ. When is dwelling aggravating?

A. If the crime is committed in the dwelling ofthe offended party who has not givenprovocation.

Q. The mother was walking along the streetwhere a house is situated where herdaughter is working as a household helper.The mother heard the daughter crying (the

daughter was verbally and physicallyabused). The mother entered the dwellingof the employer of the daughter andassaulted the employer. Is dwellingaggravating?

A. No. Because the offended party here, whois the employer gave the provocation. Notethat the mother is still liable only that herliability will not be aggravated.

Q. If the offender enters the dwelling ofanother person who has not given

provocation. Inside the dwelling he draggedthe victim. Outside the dwelling, heassaulted the victim. Can dwelling beappreciated against him?

A. Yes. For as long as the violence or assaultstarted inside the dwelling. Against theoffended party who has not given theprovocation.

Q. What if from the outside, there is noentry into the dwelling, but from the outsidenibaril nya yung private offended party

who was there inside. No provocation onthe part of the private offended party. Isdwelling aggravating?

A. Yes. The violence was committed therealthough from the outside and the victim gaveno provocation.

Note: Burden of proof prosecution

4. Abuse of confidence / obviousungratefulness

5. Committed in the palace of thechief executive, etc.

Situations:1. Committed in the palace2. Committed in the palace in the presence ofthe president3. Committed anywhere in the presence of thepresident

Q. What if the crime was committed in theArlgeui Residence which is situated in theMalacanan grounds?

A. It is not aggravating (unless in the presenceof the president) because the term palace

contemplates Malacaan Palace only.

Note: The Arlegui Residence was built duringthe time of President Corazon Aquino becausePres. Aquino does not want to live inMalacaan Palace so a house was built for herinside the Malacaan grounds.

6. Nighttime, uninhabited place,band

Discussion: For these three aggravatingcircumstances to be appreciated against theaccused, the crime was committed in order tofacilitate the crime.

NighttimeIt is not enough that the crime was simplycommitted at night time.

ExampleYou killed somebody now (nighttime) but thereis no showing that you purposely waited fornight time to facilitate the commission of thecrime. It just simply happens that the crimewas committed at nighttime. Nighttime in thiscase is not aggravating.

Nighttime will only be aggravating to increasethe criminal liability of the accused if it can be


Allow Yourself to be Bored


20/76

shown that it was purposely sought for tofacilitate the commission of the crime.

Q. Why?A. Because pag night time mas mahirap ang

identification lalo na kung maitim sya

The Crime is Committed in an UninhabitedPlaceExampleYou want to kill him in a far place, in awarehouse or bodega, wala syang means ofescape or he cannot ask help from anybody. Inthis case, uninhabited place was purposelysought for the commission of the crime.

The burden of proof - is in the prosecutionthat it is an uninhabited place. Na hinanap yanor dinala sya don for the victim not to be able

to seek help from anybody.

By a Band

This is not a rock band This is a criminal band.

Q. When is a crime considered to havebeen committed by a band?

A. If there are more than 3 armed male factorswho committed the crime.

Note: 4 male factors - 3 of them armed and 1

not armed no band

Note: There is another aggravatingcircumstance that speaks of armed men (No. 8of Article 14).If the crime is committed with the aid of armedmen that is a different aggravatingcircumstance but if you notice whethercommitted by a band or with the aid of armedmen, the men in those circumstances arearmed.

Q. What would make a band as anaggravating circumstance?

A. 1. The (whole) band or all of them must bearmed.2. At least 4 or more than 3 armed malefactorsmust have participated in the commission ofthe crime.3. They must be principals by directparticipation in the commission of the crime.

Q. If 4 sila but only 3 directly participated inthe commission of the crime 1 participatedby virtue of inducement. Can youappreciate band as an aggravatingcircumstance?

A. No. because at least 4 armed malefactorsmust have directly participated in the

commission of the crime. All of them must beprincipals by direct participation.

Q. How is it different from the aggravatingcircumstance of the crime being committedwith the aid of armed men?

A. 1. With the aid of armed men the armedmen need not necessarily take part on thecommission of the crime. This aggravatingcircumstance is appreciated only against thevery person who committed the crime. So angnag-direct participate ay yung taong nag-rely

sa kanila.If the crime is committed by a band it will beappreciated against all of them because theyare all principals by direct participation.2. With the aid of armed men thisaggravating circumstance will only be takenagainst the very person who committed thecrime and the armed men who aided him willbe considered as accomplices not conspiratorsbecause it was not mentioned what kind of aid.

As long as they are there, they areaccomplices.

If the crime is committed by a band All musthave participated directly in the commission ofthe crime so that will be appreciated against allof them.

7. On the occasion and by meansof calamity or misfortune

Q. What is the purpose of committing thecrime?

A. You are taking advantage of the misfortune.

ExampleIn the course of relief operations, nagnanakaw

ka pa. Super criminal ka!

8. Committed with the aid ofarmed men

9. Recidivism


Once a Week, Write a Heartfelt Letter


21/76

Forms of Repetition1. Recidivism2. Habituality or Reiteracion3. Habitual Delinquency (Art. 62)4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160)

1. Recidivism if the offender after having

been previously convicted by final judgment isnow on trial for a new offense embraced in thesame title of the code.

Q. If he has been previously convicted oftheft by final judgment and after which hekilled somebody. Is he a recidivist?

A. No. Because theft is a crime againstproperty and the killing or homicide is a crimeagainst persons. Both crimes must beembraced in the same title of the code.

Q. What if the person after having beenpreviously convicted of homicide, killsanother person. Is he a recidivist?

A. Not necessarily because he has not beenpreviously convicted by final judgment. Notethat at the time of his trial for the new crimewhich is embraced in the same title, he musthave been previously convicted by final

judgment to make him a recidivist.

Q. When is judgment by conviction final?A. After the expiration of the 15-day periodreckoned from notice of promulgation of

judgment without any appeal taken from thejudgment.

10. Habituality

2. Habituality or Reiteracion the offenderhas been previously punished for an offense towhich the law attaches an equal or greaterpenalty than the penalty for the new crime or

he has been previously punished for 2 or morecrimes to which the law attaches a lighterpenalty.

Punished for an Offense to which the LawAttaches an Equal or Greater PenaltyQ. Serious physical injuries it turns outthat before he committed serious physicalinjuries, records show that he has been

previously punished or he has servedsentence for homicide. Is there habituality?

A. Yes. Because what he committed is equalor greater than homicide.

Note: pag baliktad hindi pwede.Example

He commits homicide now and he has beenpreviously punished of physical injuries.

Note: homicide to homicide pwede kasiequal.

Note: In habituality, we are talking about thepenalty, if it is greater or equal than the newcrime.

Two or More Offenses to which the LawAttaches a Lighter Penalty

Q. He has been previously punished for 2counts of slight physical injuries. He nowstands trial for maltreatment. Is therehabituality? Is he punished for 2 or morecrimes to which the law attaches a lighterpenalty?

A. Yes. Lighter than the new crime.

He has been previously punished for lessphysical injuries (light offense) to which thelaw attaches a lighter penalty. He is now ontrial, he commits slight physical injuries. Is

there habituality?A. None. Light yan eh!

Note: Lagyan nyo lagi ng than. Equal orgreater than what? Than the new penalty forthe new offense. Lighter than the penalty forthe new offense.

3. Habitual Delinquency (Art. 62) if within aperiod of 10 years reckoned from the date ofhis last release or last conviction of the crimesof:

a. Serious physical injuriesb. Less serious physical injuriesc. Robberyd. Thefte. Estafaf. Falsificationhe is found guilty of any of said crimes a thirdtime or oftener.

Note: Any of the said Crimes


Imagine Yourself at Your Own Funeral


22/76

ExampleHe has been convicted of robbery, convictedfor 10 years. He has been found guilty ofserious physical injuries. He is a habitualdelinquent.

The 3rd time or Oftener 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th

Q. Why is this aggravating?A. (In a way this is a special aggravatingcircumstance). Because under Art. 62, if it iscommitted for the third time or any of the sixcrimes this is penalty for the new crimeplus plus. The penalty will be increased oradded.

4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) after havingbeen previously convicted by final judgment or

before serving sentence or while servingsentence, he commits a new crime.

ExampleHindi pa sya nakaka-serve or he has notfinished serving his sentence by final

judgment, nag commit na naman sya ng newcrime, there is quasi-recidivism.

Note: Please remember pareho lang sila ngapelido ng recidivism but they are totallydifferent.

Recidivism vs. Quasi-recidivismRecidivism the second crime must havebeen embraced in the same title of the code asthe previous crime of which he was convictedby final judgment.Quasi-recidivism there is no suchrequirement

11. Price, promise or reward

12. Inundation, fire, poison,

explosion, stranding of a vesseletc.

13. Evident PremeditationRequisites:

1. Time when the offender has decidedto commit the crime.

2. Act manifestly indicating that he hasclung to his determination to committhe crime.

3. Sufficient lapse of time from the timehe decided to commit the crime up tothe time he actually executed his clungto commit the crime.

ExampleHe decided to kill somebody after his decisionto kill somebody he makes preparation heconducted a survey where does his intendedvictim reside? What time does he go back tothe house? Then he buys the instrument forkilling these are acts manifestly indicatinghis clung or determination to commit the crime.

Evident Premeditation meaning that thereis sufficient lapse of time. Note that evident

premeditation is not presumed.

Premeditation there is cool reflection.ExampleIsip?! Isip?! Itutuloy ko ba?

If you kill somebody, you will be liable but yourpenalty will be increased. You could havedesisted from doing it but the fact that youdeliberated on it and you have sufficient timeto reflect on it Evident premeditation is veryobvious. May criminal perversity ka because

you sought / thought to do it you planned to doit

Q. If the offender says I plan and I havedecided to kill the first person I meet on thestreet. He gets an instrument of the crime.He goes out of his house and seessomebody who is walking and kills thatsomebody. Can evident premeditation beappreciated?

A. Yes. The 3 elements are present.

Q. What if he says I plan to kill Mr. X. Imade the necessary preparations. I havedecided to kill Mr. X. I purchased thenecessary instrument jungle bolo to kill Mr.X. I conducted the necessary moves withwhich to execute my plan to kill Mr. X. Onthe day when I am supposed to kill Mr. X, Isaw somebody and I killed that somebody.


Repeat to Yourself, Life Isnt an Emergency


23/76

It turned out that somebody is not Mr. X butMr. Y. Will I be liable for the death of Mr. Y?

A. Yes. But evident premeditation will not beappreciated against me if I killed anotherperson because my plan was to kill X. I killedMr. Y so with respect to the killing there is noevident premeditation.

14. Craft, fraud or disguiseCraft cunning presentation

Fraud misrepresentation

Disguise Intended to make identificationmore difficult.ExampleYou put a mask to commit a crime

Q. What is the purpose for resorting to

this? Why is it aggravating?A. It would show a greater criminal perversityon the part of the offender. When an offenderresorted to craft or fraud or disguise to deceivethe victim and he was able to accomplish theplan criminal perversity.

15. Abuse of superior strengthIt means greater strength. It is a notoriousinequality of forces between the victim and theaggressor. It does not refer to numericalsuperiority.

Example3 offenders and 1 victim it does notnecessarily mean that there is abuse ofsuperior strength

1 on 1 your victim is parang hindi kumain ng10 araw, victim mo lelembot lembot. Ikawincedible hulk you abuse your superiorstrength. There is abuse of superior strength.The offender took advantage of his greaterstrength.

16. TreacheryTreachery applies only to crimes againstpersons.

Note: There is a deviation. A case decided bySC (People vs. Escote, 2003). In this casetreachery was considered in a case of robberywith homicide (eh di ba ang robbery withhomicide is a special complex crime?) What is

the main crime in this case? Di ba robbery?Robbery with homicide is a crime againstproperty and yet in this case treachery wasconsidered only to increase the penalty forhomicide. How can they increase? Eh specialcomplex crime nga yan eh. 1 penalty langbinibigay dyan eh. This case is a deviation.

For Purposes of Determining Whether thereis Treachery Remember 2 things thesemust Concur:

1. Mode of attack must have beenconsciously adopted by the accused.

2. To make sure that at the time of theattack, the victim is defenseless.

Mode of AttackThe mode of attack must have beenconsciously adopted by the accused meaning

that the mode of attack must have beendeliberately chosen by the accused. It is not animpulsive attack. It is not simply an impulsivereaction of the accused to any provocation onthe part of the victim.

Q. It must have been consciously adoptedby the accused or deliberately chosen bythe accused, for what purpose?

A. To ensure the accomplishment of hispurpose (without risking self), arising from anydefense that the victim might put up and to

make sure that at the time of the attack, thevictim was defenseless.For as long as it was shown that the victim wasdefenseless at the time of the attack treachery is there.

Q. What if X and Y quarreled. After theirfight, X attacked Y from behind. Is theretreachery? (People vs. Samson)

A. No. The SC said that the fact that theyquarreled, it must have put the victim Y onguard that something is going to be done after

the fight.

Note: Even if the victim was attacked in frontbut the attack was sudden and that at the timeof the attack, the victim had no weapon(defenseless) treachery

17. Ignominy

Ignominy vs. Cruelty


Experiment with Your Back Burner


24/76

Ignominy you committed the crime but in thecommission of the crime you still do somethingto add to the moral suffering of the victim.

Note: Generally, ignominy is not applied tocrimes against chastity.

Cruelty You commit a crime and you still dosomething else in addition to the crime thatwould add to the physical suffering of thevictim.

ExampleCase of grave coercion an old woman wasasked to show her underwear. That act adds tothe moral suffering of the old woman.

People vs. Yao (March 2000) when youcommitted rape in dog style position. This is

ignominy. But note that rape is a crime againstperson.

Note: In cruelty, at the time you do other acts,the victim must have been alive kasi nga itadds to the physical suffering of the victim. Themanner is to augment the victims physicalsufferings.

New SC Decision: The number of woundssustained by the victim is not determinative ofexistence of cruelty in the commission of the

crime. It must be proved that those woundswere inflicted in a manner that would add tothe physical suffering of the victim.

People vs. Salvador (1987) victim sustained56 stabbed wounds. The offender wasconvicted of murder. Is there cruelty?Held: No cruelty. It must be shown by theprosecution that those wounds were inflicted toaugment the victims physical sufferings.Homicide not murder.

ExampleIf the wounds were inflicted successively andthe victim is still alive, usually, if it issuccessive, hindi mo na nararamdaman. Itmust be proved that such wounds wereinflicted to augment the physical sufferings ofthe victim. There must be circumstantialevidence to show that tsak! Aray! Tsak! Aray!Tsak! Ang sakit!

18. Unlawful Entry

19. Breaking of wall, roof, floor,door or window

20. Aid of minor, use of motor

vehicle

Use of Motor VehicleDifferentiate if the offense was committed withthe use of a motor vehicle it is aggravatingbut if the offense was committed inside a motorvehicle not aggravating.

Crime was Committed Under 15 Years ofAgeMahirap na kasi di ba lahat ng 15 exempt?

It is hard to prosecute kasi sino nagsabi sakanila na gawin nila?

21. Causing other wrong notnecessary for its commission

ARTICLE 15

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Alternative (either or) meaning that itmay either be mitigating or aggravating or evenempting.

1. Relationship2. Intoxication3. Degree of Instruction or Education of

the Offender

Q. Why 1, 2, 3 are alternativecircumstances?

A. Meaning that relationship could either beaggravating or mitigating, intoxication couldeither be aggravating or mitigating, degree ofinstruction could either be aggravating or

mitigating. It would depend on thecircumstances that would be established.

1. RelationshipGenerally, mitigating in crimes against propertyalthough relationship may be exempting intheft, estafa or swindling, malicious mischief, ifthe crime is committed mutually by therelatives.


Spend a Moment Every Day Thinking of Someone to Tha


25/76

Relatives mutually committed between:1. Spouses the husband and the wife,ascendants, descendants, relatives by affinityin the same lineExampleDarling nasan na yung alahas ko? Di ka naman nag aalahas ha. Binigay mo siguro sa

babae mo. (Nagnakawan sila)2. The widowed spouse3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law andsisters-in-law, if living together. (Art. 332)

Other Rules:1. Relationship is aggravating if the victim

is a relative of a higher or equal degreethan the accused.

2. Relationship is neither mitigating noraggravating if relationship is aningredient of the crime.

Example parricide

2. IntoxicationIntoxication of the offender is mitigating - if theoffender has committed a felony in a state ofintoxication, if the same is not habitual orsubsequent to the plan to commit a felony.

If intoxication is habitual (G.S.M. Blue -

morning, noon and night) or intentional it isaggravating but it must be subsequent to theplan to commit the crime.

Q. Why is it aggravating?A. If it is subsequent to the plan or after yourplan to commit the crime, uminom ka in orderfor you to commit the crime this isaggravating. But if intoxication is subsequent tothe commission of the crime this is notaggravating because you already committedthe crime. Your purpose for drinking is that you

are celebrating

3. Degree of Instruction or

Education of the OffenderGenerally, it is mitigating if the offender has alow degree of instruction or education butdefinitely not mitigating or aggravating incrimes against property or crimes againstchastity, even in treason. Why? Because noneed to be a lawyer to commit rape or robberyor theft.

ARTICLE 16WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE?Persons criminally liable

1. Principals2. Accomplices

3. Accessories

ARTICLE 17PRINCIPALSPrincipals:

1. Principals by direct participation material perpetrator of the crime. Theone who actually committed the crime.

2. Principals by inducement offeringpromises to another to commit thecrime. The inducement must be the

determining factor for the commissionof the crime.

3. Principals by indispensablecooperation without him or withouthis cooperation, the crime would nothave been committed. (relate this toaccomplice)

1, 2, 3 for these principals to be liable, theremust be evidence of conspiracy. Why?Because the act of 1 is the act of all. Even ifyou induced him and he was not induced, he is

not liable.

If no evidence of conspiracy only the onewho materially perpetrated the crime is liable.

Principals by indispensable cooperation vs.AccompliceBoth cooperates only that in principals byindispensable cooperation the crime could nothave been accomplishes without him orwithout his cooperation.

ExampleHe was the only 1 who owns a banca thatcould bring the offender to a very remoteisland. The crime could not have beenaccomplished without him.

ARTICLE 18ACCOMPLICES


Smile at Strangers, Look into Their Eyes and Say Hello


26/76

Accomplice cooperates but even without hiscooperation, the crime could still have beencommitted. The cooperation of the accompliceis merely necessary to facilitate thecommission of the crime.

Rule: If there is a doubt with respect to theliability of a person who gives cooperation,whether he is a principal by indispensablecooperation or accomplice, doubt should beresolved in favor of the accused beingconsidered as an accomplice. Use thisprinciple only when there is doubt. Analyze ifhis cooperation is necessary.

ARTICLE 19ACCESSORIESAccessories takes part subsequent to thecommission of the crime. He is an accessoryafter the fact of the commission of the crime.

Note: PD 1612 Anti Fencing Law.Yung fence takes part subsequent to thecommission of robbery or theft. This person willbe charged as a fence under PD 1612 or if hetakes part subsequent to the commission ofrobbery or theft.ExampleSold articles if he profits.

If the offender takes part subsequent to thecommission of any other crime other thanrobbery or theft. He will be charged as anaccessory under the RPC.

ImportanceThis is important because if you take partsubsequent to the commission of robbery ortheft, you are a fence, you are charged underspecial law the penalty is higher.But if you take part subsequent to thecommission of any other crime other than theft

or robbery, you will be charged as anaccessory under RPC entitled to a penaltyof 2 degrees lower.

Accomplice 1 degree lower than the penaltyof the principal

Accessory 2 degrees lower but that wouldapply to accessories under the law and not

those of taking part subsequent to thecommission of theft or robbery.

Q. Can there be conviction of anaccomplice or accessory even withoutprosecution or conviction of the principal?

A. Yes. If let us say that principal is acquitted

because he is exempt from criminal liability.The importance is you have established thefact of the commission of the crime.

Q. What if the principal is unknown or hiswhereabouts is unknown or the principal isat large or the principal is being triedseparately, can there be a conviction of anaccessory?

A. Yes. For as long as the act of thecommission of the crime had been established.For as long as corpus delicti have been

established.

Corpus delicti means the fact of thecommission of the crime.

ARTICLE 20ACCESSORIES WHO ARE EXEMPTFROM CRIMINAL LIABILITYAccessories under Art. 20 who are exemptfrom criminal liability exempt with respectto their spouses, ascendants, descendants,legitimate, natural, adopted brothers andsisters or relatives by affinity within the samedegree except if they are accessories whoprofited by the effects of the crime or whoassisted the offender to profit by the effects ofthe crime.Meaning: They are exempt with respect to 2and 3 (of Article 19) from criminal liability.

ARTICLE 21NO FELONY SHALL BEPUNISHABLE BY ANY PENALTYNOT PRESCRIBED BY LAW PRIORTO ITS COMMISSIONEven if the act appears to be illegal or immoralif there is no law punishing it, the same cannotbe penalize if its not even defined or


Set Aside Quiet Time, Everyday


27/76

constitutive of a crime and there is no penaltyprovided by the law, hence cannot be penalize.

ARTICLE 22EXCEPTION WHEN THE LAWSHALL BE GIVEN RETROACTIVEAPPLICATIONARTICLE 23PARDON BY THE OFFENDEDPARDON

1. By the Chief Executive (Art. 36)

a. extinguishes criminal liability(absolute pardon)

b. does not extinguish civil liabilitybecause the president cannot

give away anything which doesnot belong to him/her

2. By the Offended partya. Does not extinguish criminal

Documents

Crim Cornejo2