k.

Ignominy
Par. 17. - THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT WHICH ADD
IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE ACT.

IGNOMINY – it is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace ad obloquy to the
material injury caused by the crime.

• This AC is applicable to crimes against chastity and persons.

• When the accused raped a woman after winding cogon grass around his genital organ, he thereby
augmented the wrong done by increasing its pain and adding ignominy there to (People v. Torrefiel).
* NOTE: According to Professor Ambion, this is not ignominy but cruelty.

• The means employed or the circumstances brought about must tend to make the effects of the crime
MORE HUMILIATING or TO PUT THE OFFENDED PARTY TO SHAME.
ex. When the accused raped a married woman in the presence of her husband.

People vs. Torrefiel, 45 0.G. 803

Facts:
• December 17, 1942, 5:00 p.m. Torrefiel and Ormeo were on their way to the USSAFE headquarters in the mountains.
• They passed by Eady’s residence and talked to him at the balcony to ask for khakis.
• Ceferina Cordero also came to the balcony and inquired about their mission.
o She scolded Torrefiel and Ormeo because all their belongings have been looted by USSAFE soldiers.
o Torrefiel threatened her with slapping; brought out revolver.
• Eady and Cordero were charged with being fifth columnists as they refused to give aid to them. Subsequently they were
taken to the USSAFE headquarters.
o Torrefiel: Eady and Ormeo: Cordero
o Their hands were free but were blindfolded.
o Cordero called to Eady every now and then to know if he was following. After a while Eady did not respond anymore
so they stopped to wait for them.
• Torrefiel had taken the wrong way so he went back to a guardhouse & left Eady there.
o He tried to find a way to overtake Ormeo and Cordero but was unsuccessful.
o At the guardhouse, he discovers Eady had escaped.
o Torrefiel followed a different route enabling him to find Ormeo and Cordero.
• Ormeo rushed back to the guardhouse upon discovering that Eady had escaped; Cordero was left with Torrefiel.
• As Cordero was about to urinate, Torrefiel pushed her and carried her to a log and laid her on it and raped her.
o Torrefiel began to unbutton his pants and wound cogon leaves around her genitals.
o It was visible to Cordero as her blindfold had fallen down a little.
o Pressing her neck so she would remain silent, Torrefiel proceeded to have intercourse with her.
o Ormeo taking advantage, also had sex with her.
• The soldiers desisted from bringing Cordero to their headquarters and returned her to their house.
o Servant informed Cordero that Eady had gone away.
o Upon Eady’s return, Cordero informed him that she was abused by Torrefiel.

IGNOMINY is present.
o The novelty of the act of winding cogon grass on his genitals before raping the victim augmented the
wrong done by increasing its pain and adding moral disgrace thereto.

People vs. Jose, 37 SCRA 450

Facts:
- Magdalena ―Maggie‖ de la Riva. 25. single. Actress. Maggie was driving home with her maid 4:30am in June 26, 1967
when the appelants‘ car bump her car.
- Pineda went to her car, he tried to force her out, she screamed together with the maid but the other 3 helped Pineda. They
took her to their car, left the maid and sped away. She was seated in the backseat between Jose and Aquino. She pleaded
for them to release her but they replied with abusive language and threats (shoot her and throw acid at her face). Jose and
Aquino busied themselves by kissing and touching her. They exchange knowing glances. When they were at Makati she
was blindfolded, told not to shoot otherwise theyd kill her. They entered the Swanky Hotel (Pasay).
- When they were inside the room they removed her blindfold and she was told to undress but she refused. They undressed
her and feast their eyes. They left the room with her clothes. This time, Jose entered the room, undressed himself, she
defended herself but he hit her and raped her. He left. Aquino entered the room. Did the same thing.
- When she got into a state of shock, they poured water and slapped her to revive her. Pineda took his turn on her. She got
into a state of shock again but they revived her again so that she would know whats happening. Canal was the last to
raped. While each of them take their turns the others are outside the room just behind the door threatening her and telling
her to give in because she cant escape anyway. When they were done they asked her to tidy herself up and that when she
gets home tell her mom that a she was mistaken as a hostess but was released after knowing that she is an actress. They
threatened her not to tell anyone. She was so weak that they had to carry her to the car. Jose held her head down to his lap
 for other people not to see her. They stopped near channel 5 to make it appear that she just came from a taping.
- Pineda told Jose to hail a taxi from a not well known company. Canal accompanied her to the cab. In the cab she burst in
tears. The appellants didn‘t follow her. She came back home at about 630 am. There are police and media in their house.
She told her mom what happened. Her mom told her to clean up and douche to avoid infection and pregnancy. She was
treated by the family doctor but they didn‘t tell him about the sexual assault.
- On June 29, they finally decided to file the complaint. Jose was apprehended. He said that they waited for her in abs cbn,
followed and abducted her. He named the other three but only Aquino and Pineda criminally assaulted her. The other
three were apprehended. Canal and Pineda confirmed that they abducted her. But they said that Maggie yielded her body
on the condition that she will be released. When they took the witness stand the three (except Pineda) said that they just
took Maggie for a striptease which she agreed to for 1000 pesos. The court did not buy it for it was apparent from medical
exams that Maggie was physically and
sexually assaulted and she is earning a lot as an actress.
Issue:
WON PINEDA should get a lighter sentence because of his plea of guilty
Held: No
Ratio:
- While a plea of guilty is mitigating, at the same time it constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the information,
including the aggravating circumstances, and it matters not that the offense is capital, for the admission (plea of guilty) covers both
the crime and its attendant circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the crime
- Since he pleaded guilty his presence in court for evidence is not required.
- The situation would be different if he asked to prove mitigating circumstances. He was advised by his counsel of the effects of the
plea of guilty.
- The voluntary plea of guilty does not in the least affect the nature of the proper penalties to be imposed, for the reason that there
would still be three aggravating circumstances remaining. As a result, appellants should likewise be made to suffer the extreme
penalty of death in each of these three simple crimes of rape. (Art. 63, par. 2, Revised Penal Code.)
WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby modified as follows: appellants Jaime G. Jose, Basilio Pineda, Jr.,
and Edgardo P. Aquino are pronounced guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, and each and every
one of them is likewise convicted of three (3) other crimes of rape. As a consequence thereof, each of them is hereby
sentenced to four (4) death penalties; all of them shall, jointly and severally, indemnify the complainant of the sum of
P10,000.00 in each of the four crimes, or a total of 40,000.00; and each shall pay one-fourth (1/4) of the costs.

People vs. Butler, 120 SCRA 281

Facts:
- Accused-appellant Michael Butler and the victim, Enriquita Alipo alias Gina Barrios were together at Colonial Restaurant
in Olongapo City.
- They were seen together by Lilia Paz, an entertainer and friend of the victim, who claimed to have had a small
conversation with the accused and one Rosemarie Suarez.
- The accused left the restaurant with the victim together with Rosemarie.
- Emelita Pasco, housemaid of the victim testified that Gina came home with Michael. They immediately went into the
former’s bedroom. Shortly thereafter, the victim left the room with a paper containing the ff. words: MICHAEL BUTLER,
44252-8519 USS HANCOCK.
- She then rushed back to her room after instructing Pasco to wake her up in the morning. But before retiring. Rosemarie
arrived and had a small conversation with her.
- Pasco, in the morning, knocked at the door. She found that the victim was lying on her bed, facing downward, naked up to
the waist, with legs spread apart with a broken figurine beside her head. She immediately called the landlord and the
authorities.
- An investigation was conducted by the authorities. After being located and identified as a crew member of USS Hancock,
the accused was brought to the legal office of the ship. The accused was searched, handcuffed and was brought to the
Naval Investigation Services Resident Agency office.
- The result of the NISRA investigation was a document taken from the accused consisting of 3 pages signed and initialed on
all pages by him and containing a statement that he was aware of his constitutional rights and a narration of the facts of the
case.
- Dr. Roxas testified that the anal intercourse happened after the victim’s death. He also testified that the victim died of
asphyxia due to suffocation when extreme pressure was exerted on her head pushing it downward, thereby pressing her
nose and mouth against the mattress.
- After trial, the accused was found guilty of murder.
- A motion for new trial was filed by the accused-appellant alleging that he was a minor at the time the offense was
committed. The motion was denied. A motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed which was also denied. Hence, a
petition for mandamus.
Issues:
1. WON the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of the prosecution witness
- As a matter of established jurisprudence, the findings of the trial court on credibility of a witness are not disturbed on
appeal unless there is a showing that it failed to consider certain facts and circumstances which would change the same.
- There were three persons who identified the accused. the finger print examination showed that one of the three prints lifted
from the cellophane wrapping of the figurine was identical with the accused finger; and the accused failed to present clear
and positive evidence to overcome the scientific and specific finding and conclusion of the medico-legal officer.

2. WON the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the alleged extra-judicial admission of the accused and appreciating it
against him
 - Contrary to what the counsel for the accused-appellant contends, there is no evidence showing that the accused was
roughly handed from the very start. Neither is there any evidence to prove that he was first handcuffed and informed that
he was first handcuffed and informed that he was a suspect in a murder case before he was warned of his rights.
- While it may be true that a considerable span of time elapsed from the moment the accused was brought to the NISRA
office to the time the interrogation was begun and reduced to writing, there is no competent evidence presented to support
the allegation that the statement made by the accused was a result of pressure and badgerings.

3. WON the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength
- The Court holds that there was an abuse of superior strength attending the commission of the crime. It is not only the
notorious advantage of height that the accused had over the hapless victim, but also his strength which he wielded in
striking her with the figurine on the head and in shoving her head and pressing her mouth and nose against the bed
mattress.

4. WON the trial court erred in appreciating treachery and abuse of superior strength simultaneously and separately
- The evidence on record, however, is not sufficient to show clearly and prove distinctly that treachery attended the
commission of the crime since there was no eyewitness account of the killing.

5. WON the trial court erred in accepting the testimony of Dr. Roxas, the medico-legal Officer, that asphyxiation by
suffocation was the cause of death of the victim
- The Court sustains the finding of the lower court that the aggravating circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of
the deceased applies against the accused since it is established that he mocked or outraged the person or corpse of his
victim by having an anal intercourse with her after she was already dead.
- The fact that the muscles of the anus did not close and also the presence of spermatozoa in the anal region as testified to by
Dr. Roxas and confirmed to be positive in the Laboratory Report clearly establishes the coitus after death.

6. WON the trial court erred in denying the accused the benefits of Sec. 192 of PD 603 before its amendment by PD 1179 on
Aug. 15, 1977
- At the time of the commission of the offense, the trial and rendition of judgment, the applicable law was PD 603. The
Court does not agree with the reasoning of the trial court that the accused did not invoke the law because the records
manifestly show the vigorous plea of the accused for its application.
- The Court likewise holds that the penalty of death was not justified. The accused is a minor and he is entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of minority.
- The amendment to keep away from its beneficient provision cases of conviction of a minor when penalty imposed is death
cannot prejudice the accused whose case was pending appeal when the amendment took effect.

Disposition: The case against the accused is DISMISSED. Civil liability imposed upon him by the lower court shall remain.

DISSENTING OPINION

Aquino, J

- The speculations of the medico-legal officer and the trial judge that there was posthumous sodomy are unwarranted. The
prosecution is bound by Butler’s confession. He alleged that the squabble over his five-peso bill which the victim took
without his consent, was the cause of the fight which he had with the victim.
- The confession also proves that Butler did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that which he committed and that he
was intoxicated at the time the killing was perpetrated.
- I dissent from the ponente’s opinion that Butler should have been given a suspended sentence and that, by reason of his
good behavior while confined in the Subic Naval Base Stockade , he should now be released and discharged.
- If at the time the case is decided by this Court, the accused is no longer a minor with more reason, he is not entitled to a
suspended sentence.

People vs. Saylan, 130 SCRA 159

People vs. Sultan, 331 SCRA 216

l. Unlawful entry
Par. 18. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED AFTER AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY.
THERE IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY WHEN AN ENTRANCE OF A CRIME A WALL, ROOF,
FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW BE BROKEN.

• There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
• Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and not for escape.
• There is no unlawful entry when the door is broken and thereafter the accused made an entry thru the
broken door. The breaking of the door is covered by paragraph 19.

RATIONALE FOR PAR. 18: One who acts, not respecting the walls erected by men to guard their property
and provide for their personal safety, shows a greater perversity, a greater audacity; hence, the law
punishes him with more severity.
• This AC is inherent in robbery with force upon things.
• Dwelling and unlawful entry is taken separately in murders committed in a dwelling.
• Unlawful entry is not aggravating in trespass to dwelling.

m. Breaking a wall, door, etc.

Par. 19 - THERE IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY WHEN AN ENTRANCE OF A CRIME A WALL, ROOF,
FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW BE BROKEN.

• To be considered as an AC, breaking the door must be utilized as a means to the commission of the
crime.
• It is only aggravating in cases where the offender resorted to any of said means TO ENTER the house. If
the wall, etc. is broken in order to get out of the place, it is not aggravating.

n. With aid of persons under 15, or with motor vehicles, etc.

Par. 20. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1) WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER FIFTEEN
YEARS OF AGE OR (2) BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MOTORIZED WATERCRAFT, AIRSHIPS,
OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS. (AS AMENDED BY RA 5438).

(1) WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE

(2) BY MEANS OF A MOTOR VEHICLE
• It is aggravating where the accused used the motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime,
in carrying away the effects thereof, and if facilitating their escape.
• If the motor vehicle was used only in facilitating the escape, it should not be an aggravating
circumstance.
• Estafa, which is committed by means of deceit or abuse of confidence, cannot be committed by
means of motor vehicle.
• Theft, which is committed by merely taking personal property which need not be carried away,
cannot be committed by means of motor vehicles.
“or other similar means” – the expression should be understood as referring to MOTORIZED
vehicles or other efficient means of transportation similar to automobile or airplane.

o. Cruelty
Par. 21. - THAT THE WRONG DONE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BE DELIBERATELY
AUGMENTED BY CAUSING OTHER WRONG NOT NECESSARY FOR ITS COMMISSIONS.

CRUELTY
• There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.

• For cruelty to exist, it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making his victim
suffer.

REQUISITES:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender.

• Cruelty refers to physical suffering of victim purposely intended by offender.

• Plurality of wounds alone does not show cruelty.

• There is no cruelty when other wrong was done after the victim was dead.

IGNOMINY CRUELTY
Involves moral suffering. Refers to physical
suffering.

People vs. Ilaoa, supra

The fact that Nestor’s decapitated body bearing 43 stab wounds, 24 of which were fatal, was found
dumped in the street is not sufficient for a finding of cruelty where there is no showing that appellant
Ilaoa, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused Nestor to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him
unnecessary physical and moral pain. Number of wounds alone is not the criterion for the appreciation of
cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. Neither can it be inferred from the mere fact that the victim’s
dead body was dismembered.

F. Special aggravating, qualifying, and “aggravating qualifying” circumstances

 1. Specific felonies under Book II, RPC
2. Special laws

- Use of illegal firearm or explosives – Sec. 1, par. 3 and Sec. 3, par. 2,

P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294; People vs. Lara, 505 SCRA 137

- Use of dangerous drugs while committing a felony – Sec. 25, R.A. 8165,
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

G. Alternative circumstances - Art. 15

• Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as AGGRAVATING or
MITIGATING according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its
commission.

Art. 15. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions
attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and
education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party
in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by
affinity in the same degrees of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstances when
the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to
the plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as
an aggravating circumstance.

The alternative circumstances are:

a. RELATIONSHIP
b. INTOXICATION
c. DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION OF THE OFFENDER

1. Relationship
This is taken into consideration when the offended party is the:
a. spouse
b. ascendant
c. descendant
d. legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister
e. relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender

• As a rule, relationship is MITIGATING in crimes against property by analogy to the provisions of Art.
332.
- Under Art. 332 of the RPC, no criminal, but only civil, liability shall result from commission of
the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses, ascendants,
and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line; brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together.
- Relationship becomes actually an exempting circumstance since there is no occasion to consider
a mitigating or an aggravating circumstance because there is no criminal liability.

♣ It is aggravating in CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS in cases where the offended party is a relative of a
higher degree than the offender, or when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same
level, as killing a brother, a brother-in-law, a half-brother or adopted brother.

♣ When the CRIME AGAINST PERSONS is any of the SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES (Art. 263), even if the
offended party is a descendant of the offender, relationship is an AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
- But the serious physical injuries must not be inflicted by a parent upon his child by excessive
chastisement.

♣ When the crime is less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries, ordinary rule applies;
relationship is MITIGATING if the offended party is a relative of lower degree and AGGRAVATING if the
offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the offender.

♣ When the crime against persons is homicide or murder, relationship is aggravating even if the victim of
the crime is a relative of lower degree.
• Relationship is mitigating in trespass to dwelling.

• Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating, when relationship is an element of the offense.

• In crimes against chastity, relationship is always aggravating.

- Because of the nature and effect of the crime committed, it is considered AGGRAVATING
although the offended party is a relative of lower degree.

People vs. Atop, 286 SCRA 157

Facts: 11-year-old Regina lives with her grandmother. Atop is the common-law husband of her
grandmother. Atop was found guilty of 4 counts of rape which was committed in 1993 (2x), 1994 and
1995. The lower court took into account the AC of relationship.
Held: The law cannot be stretched to include persons attached by common-law relations. In this
case, there is no blood relationship or legal bond that links Atop to his victim.

2. Intoxication
MITIGATING
a. if intoxication is not habitual, or
b. if intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony.

AGGRAVATING
a. if intoxication is habitual; or
b. if it is intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit a felony)
- It is intentional when the offender drinks liquor fully knowing its effects, to find in the
liquor a stimulant to commit a crime or a means to suffocate any remorse.

• When the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication.

- This clause means that the offender’s mental faculties must be affected by drunkenness.
- The accused’s state of intoxication must be proved.

WHEN THE INTOXICATION IS HABITUAL

- A habitual drunkard is one given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The
habit should be actual and confirmed, but it is not necessary that it be continuous or by daily occurrence.

3. Degree of instruction

Low degree of instruction and education or lack of it is generally mitigating. High degree of instruction and
education is aggravating, when the offender avails himself of his learning in committing the crime.

LACK OF INSTRUCTION, AS MITIGATING

- Lack of instruction cannot be taken into account where the defendant admitted that he studied
in the first grade in a public elementary school. Art. 15 applies only to him who really has not received any
instruction.

• Not illiteracy alone, but also lack of sufficient intelligence are necessary to invoke the benefit of the
alternative circumstance of lack of instruction, the determination of which is left to the trial court.

• Lack of sufficient instruction is not mitigating when the offender is a city resident who knows how to sign
his name.

• Lack of instruction must be proved positively and directly and cannot be based on mere deduction or
inference.

• The question of lack of instruction cannot be raised for the first time in appellate court.

• Ordinarily, LOW DEGREE OR LACK OF INSTRUCTION IS MITIGATING IN ALL CRIMES.

Exceptions:
(1) crimes against property such as estafa, theft, robbery arson except theft of large cattle and
robbery with homicide.
(2) crimes against chastity
(3) treason – because love of country should be a natural feeling of every citizen, however
unlettered or uncultured he may be
(4) murder – because to kill is forbidden by natural law which every rational being is endowed to
know and feel.
HIGH DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION, AS AGGRAVATING

Degree of instruction is aggravating when the offender availed himself or took advantage of it in
committing the crime.

People vs. San Pedro, 95 SCRA 306

Facts: A lifeless body of Felimon Rivera was found. It was found that the group of San Pedro, who
pretended to hire Rivera’s jeep to haul coconuts, had hit Rivera at the nape with a water pipe. He was able
to jump out of the jeep but was chased and stabbed at the back several times at the back. The jeep was
then sold by the accused.
Held: Lack of instruction is not applicable to the crimes of theft and robbery, much less the crime of
homicide. The reason is that robbery and killing are, by their nature wrongful acts and are manifestly so to
be enlightened, equally as to the ignorant.

IV. Persons who incur criminal liability – Arts. 8 and 16

A. Conspirators - Art. 8
RPC Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
- A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.
- There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some
other person or persons.

Important Words
1. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony
Conspiracy and proposal are two different felonies.
2. Only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty thereof
Unless there is a specific provision in the RPC providing a penalty for conspiracy or proposal to commit a
felony, mere conspiracy or proposal is not a felony.

General Rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not punishable.
Exception: They are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty thereof.
(Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory acts and the law regards them as
innocent or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases)

RPC provides a penalty for mere conspiracy in the ff:

- Art. 115- Conspiracy to commit treason
- Art. 136- Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection
- Art. 141- Conspiracy to commit sedition
- Art. 186- Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.

Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability

- When the conspiracy relates to a crime actually committed, it is not a felony but only a manner of
incurring criminal liability, that is, when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

Requisites of conspiracy
1. That two or more persons came to an agreement (meeting of the minds of two or more persons);
2. That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony ( the agreement must refer to the
commission of a crime); and
3. That the execution of a felony be decided upon (the conspirators have made up their minds to
commit the crime)

- Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy.

- Quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy.

People vs. Jorge, 231 SCRA 693

Facts: Francisco Palma was being molested by three men. Jorge and Lajera held the hands of Palma and a
woman stabbing him on the left chest with a long instrument which caused his death.
Held: In order to convict appellant as a principal by direct participation in the case, it is necessary that
conspiracy among them be proved. No conspiracy was established. Conspiracy must be proved as
sufficient as the crime itself through clear and convincing evidence not only be mere conjectures. The
appealed decision does not mention much less discuss conspiracy.

People vs. Elijorde, 306 SCRA 188

Facts: Hierro and others were drinking. Together with Visbal, he went out to buy mango at a sari-sari store.
The accused and his companions were in front of the store. One of them approached Hierro but the latter
warned not to touch him. They eventually got into a fight. The deceased and Visbal ran for their lives. As
Hierro and his wife was on their way home, the accused and his companions assaulted the deceased.
Despite Hierro’s plea, Elijorde stabbed him with a knife on the chest which caused his death.
Held: In the absence of a previous plan or agreement or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal
responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same person is individual and not
collective and that each of the participant is liable only for his own acts. Consequently, accused Punzalan
must be absolved. It may be emphasized that at the time accused Elijorde intervened in the assault,
Punzalan had already desisted from his own acts of aggression.

People vs. Sanchez, 308 SCRA 264

Facts: The deceased Miranda was celebrating the birthday of his daughter with his friends at a fishpond.
On their way home, the accused and others, holding bolos and stones, stopped the group and confronted
Miranda about his accusation. As the argument heated, Sanchez moved back to his companion and
encircled the Miranda’s group. They assaulted Miranda and threatened the others. Miranda died as a result
of the stabbing.
Held: Appellants were convicted of murder on the theory of conspiracy. Proof of the agreement need not
rest on direct evidence. The co-accused were not merely present in the crime scene, they directly
participated in the criminal design of appellant Sanchez by their concerted acts.

People vs. De Vera, 312 SCRA 640

Facts: The trial court relied on the testimony of the eyewitness Cacao in ruling that there was conspiracy
on the part of the accused. Appellant was seen with the other accused inside the victim’s car. The victim
was clearly struck with a blunt object while inside the car, and it was unlikely for Florendo to have done it
all by himself. Moreover, it was impossible for De Vera and Garcia to have been unaware of Florendo’s
dark design on Roderick.
Held: Cacao’s testimony contains nothing that could inculpate appellant. Aside from the fact that he was
inside the car, no other act was imputed to him. Mere presence does not amount to conspiracy. Such
suppositions do not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal conspiracy must be founded on
facts not on mere surmises or conjectures.

People vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 158754, August 10, 2007

Facts: Joseph Estrada, then a public officer, by himself and/or connivance conspiracy with his co-accused
who are members of his family, relatives, business associates and others amassed ill gotten wealth more
or less unjustly enriching himself of themselves at the expense and to the damage of the Filipino people.
Co-accused Jinggoy Estrada was granted bail. Petitioner presented voluminous documents and transcripts
of stenographic notes purporting to prove that Jinggoy had been deep inside the web of implied
conspiracy.
Held: Regardless of whatever legal strategy petitioner may have in mind, the fundamental principle that
the court is not a trier of facts remains. Petitioner’s 2nd and 3rd arguments are to be sure relevant to the
proceedings for the grant or denial of bail. They are of little moment here where the only issue is WON
there was a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan in granting bail to the private
respondent.

Bahilidad vs. People, G.R. No. 185195, March 17, 2010

B. Principals - Art. 17
The ff. are considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it.
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which
it would not have been accomplished.
Difference between a principal under Art. 17 and a co-conspirator
- While the former’s criminal liability is limited to his own acts, as a general rule, the latter’s
responsibility includes the acts of his fellow conspirators.
PAR.1- Principals by direct participation
- Two or more offenders as principals by direct participation
 Requisites
• That they participated in the criminal resolution- conspiracy (To be a
party to a conspiracy, one must have the intention to participate in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and
purpose)
• That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its
execution by acts which directly tended the same end (He must be at
the scene of the commission of the crime, personally taking part in its
execution).
PAR. 2- Principals by Induction
- Two ways of becoming principal by induction
 By directly forcing another to commit a crime and
• By using irresistible force.
• By causing uncontrollable fear.
  By directly inducing another to commit a crime.
• By giving price or offering reward or promise.
• By using words of command
- Requisites
 That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime and
 That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime
by the material executor (The inducement must precede the act induced and
must be so influential in producing the criminal act that without it, the act would
not have been performed).
PAR. 3- Principals by indispensable cooperation
- Requisites
 Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior
conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the
commission of the crime charged; and
 Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act,
without which it would not have been accomplished.

People vs. Yanson-Dumancas, 320 SCRA 584, 588-602

FACTS: Acting upon the inducement of spouse Jeanette Yanson-Dumancas and Charles Dumancas, under
the direction exerted by P/Col. Nicolas Torres with the participation of other police officers, with the use of
motor vehicle abduct, kidnap and detain Danilo Lumanyao. After failing to extort money, shot and kill he
victim. They then buried the corpse for to conceal the crime.
HELD: Upon review of the testimony of all the witnesses of the prosecution, we find nothing to conclude
that Jeanette used irresistible force or caused uncontrollable fear upon the other accused-appellants. The
record is entirely bereft of any evidence to show that Jeanette directly forced the participants of the said
meeting to come up with such a plan. Also, the court finds no evidence to show that Jeanette offered any
price, reward or promise to the rest. If at all, the prosecution witness mentioned the name of Ricardo
Yanson as having lent money to accused-appellant Col. Torres to be used for paying the latter’s debts or
obligs.

People vs. Maluenda, 288 SCRA 225

FACTS: Spouses Resus were arrived at their residence from a novena. The accused waited for them and
declared that they came upon the order of an NPA commander. The demanded money from the couple.
Also, Mondega demanded that very early in the morning, the couple should prepare a vehicle so Engr.
Resus could drive them. Afterwhich, they ordered Engr. Resus to go with them in the mountains. They left
them there and told Dr. Resus that she should prepare an amount as ransom for the release of her
husband. After giving the amount, Engr. Resus was released but that he would come back to get the
balance. Later, the accused were arrested by the police.
HELD: Legarto cannot be convicted as principal because the prosecution failed to allege, much less prove,
any overt act on his part showing direct participation in the kidnapping itself, his participation in the
incident being limited to acts committed after the abduction was already consummated. In short, the
prosecution failed to piece together a clear story as to how Legarto figured in the kidnapping caper.

C. Accomplices - Art. 18
Accomplices are the persons who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense
by previous or simultaneous acts.
- Quasi-collective responsibility- between collective and individual
- Why not included in Art. 17- When there is no conspiracy between or among the defendants but
they were animated by one and the same purpose to accomplish the criminal objective, those
who cooperated by previous or simultaneous acts but cannot be held liable as principals are
accomplices.
- In case of doubt, one will be considered an accomplice rather than a principal.
- Distinction between accomplice and conspirator
 Common- They know and agree with the criminal design
 Difference- Conspirators know the criminal intent because they themselves
have decided upon such course of action. Accomplices come to know about it
after the principals have reached the decision and only then do they agree to
cooperate in its execution.
- Requisites
 That there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the
principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose
 That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
acts, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of
the crime in an efficacious way; and
 That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those
attributed to the person charged as accomplice.
 Abejuela vs. People, 200 SCRA 806
FACTS: Balo, an employee of Banco Filipino befriended businessman Abejuela. One day, Balo went to
Abejuela’s welding shop and asked him if he could borrow his passbook so he could deposit a sum of
money. Abejuela reluctantly agreed. This practice lasted for quite some time. Abejuela decided to close his
account. The bank noticed discrepancies in his account. As a result, it confronted Balo and the latter
admitted the offense. An action for estafa was filed against the two. During the trial, Balo was killed by the
NPA. Abejuela was found guilty of the crime.
HELD: In a number of cases decided by the court, it has been held that knowledge of the criminal intention
of the principal is indispensable in order to hold a person liable as an accomplice. It has been satisfactorily
established that Banco Filipino suffered damage. Although abejuela was unaware of the criminal workings
of Balo, he nevertheless contributed to their eventual consummation by recklessly entrusting his passbook
to Balo and by signing the withdrawal slips. He failed to exercise prudence and care. Therefore he must be
held civilly accountable.

People vs. Doble, 114 SCRA 131

FACTS: A group of men robbed the Navotas branch of Prudential Bank. Shots were heard which caused the
people to panic. After a while, they loaded in their bancas and left the place killing many people.
HELD: The circumstances pointed out would not make appellants liable as co-principals in the crime
charged. At the most their liability would be that of mere accomplices. They joined in the criminal design
when Cresencio consented to look for a banca and Romaquin provided it when asked by the gang leader
Joe and then brought the malefactors to the scene of he robbery despite the knowledge of the evil purpose
for which th banca was used. Appellants thus cooperated but not in an indispensable manner. Even
without appellants providing the banca, the robbery could have been committed especially with the
boldness and determination shown by the robbers in committing the crime.

People vs. Doctolero, 193 SCRAI 632

FACTS: Epifania and Lolita were killed in the house of Marcial where they were living. A few meters from
the house, Marcelo was fatally injured. The evidence of the prosecution tend to show that the three
accused were responsible for the deaths of Epifania and Lolita and in inflicting injuries to Jonathan. And
immediately, with their father and co-accused, Antonio Doctolero they hacked Marcelo with their bolos
which caused the death of the latter.
HELD: We have held that where one goes with the principals and in staying outside of the house while the
others went inside to rob and kill the victim, the former effectively supplied the criminals with material and
moral aid, making him guilty as an accomplice. Appellant contend that the murders occurred as a
consequence of a sudden thought or impulse, thus negating common criminal design in their minds. This
pretension must be rejected since one can be an accomplice even if he did not know if the actual crime
intended by the principal provided that he was aware that it was an illicit act.

People vs. De Vera, supra

Garces vs. People, G.R. No. 173858, July 17, 2007
FACTS: AAA was on her way to the chapel when the five accused suddenly appeared and approached her.
Rosendo Pacursa covered her mouth with his hands and told her not to shout or she will be killed. He then
brought her inside a nearby tobacco barn while his four companions stood guard outside. Pacursa
succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. Pacursa released the victim in the house of Florentino
Garces.
HELD: The facts show that petitioner participated in the commission of the crime even before complainant
was raped. He was present when Pacursa abducted complainant and when he brought her to the barn. He
positioned himself outside the barn together with the other accused as a lookout. Having known of the
criminal design and thereafter acting as a lookout, petitioner is liable as an accomplice there being
insufficient evidence to prove conspiracy and not merely as an accessory.

D. Accessories - Art. 19 & 20; P.D. 1612

Art. 19- Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having
participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of
the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in
order to prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the
accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty
of some other crime.

Specific acts of accessories:

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
a. By profiting themselves by the effects of the crime.
b. Assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime to prevent its discovery
Two classes of accessories are contemplated in par 3 of Art. 19
 a. Public officers who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of any crime
(not light felony) with abuse of his public functions.
i. Requisites
1. The accessory is a public officer
2. He harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the principal
3. The public officer acts with abuse of his public functions
4. The crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not a
light felony.
b. Private persons who harbor, conceal, or assist in the escape of the author of the crime-
guilty of treason, parricide, murder or an attempt against the life of the President or who
is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
i. Requisites
1. The accessory is a private person
2. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the author of the
crime
3. The crime committed by the principal is either: a) treason, b) parricide,
c) murder, d) an attempt against the life of the President; or e) that the
principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

PD No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law of 1979)- Heavy penalties for accessories in robbery and theft

Accessory distinguished from principal and from accomplice.

1. The accessory does not take direct part or cooperate in, or induce, the commission of the crime.
2. The accessory does not cooperate in the commission of the offense by acts either prior thereto or
simultaneous therewith.
3. The participation of the accessory in all cases always takes place after the commission of the
crime.

Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. — The penalties prescribed for accessories
shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with
the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article.

- Ground: Based on ties of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name
- Accessory is not exempt from criminal liability even if the principal is related to him if such
accessory 1) profited by the effects of the crime, or 2) assisted the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime.
- Liability of a public officer when related to the principal- Such a public officer does not incur any
criminal liability. Ties of blood or relationship constitutes a more powerful incentive than the call
of duty.

People vs. Talingdan, 84 SCRA 19

Facts: Bernardo and Teresa lived together but for quite some time their relationship has gotten
bitter. Bernardo knew that Teresa had an illicit relationship with Talingdan. Their child testified that on the
day the killing occurred, there were 4 men inside their house and Bernardo knew about it but continued
plowing his field. Later, when Bernardo came inside the kitchen, Talingdan and Tobias fired at Bernardo
and the 4 climbed the stairs of the Batalan. Seeing that the victim was alive they fired at him again.
Teresa came out after from her room and pulled her child to question her. Teresa threatened to kill her if
she would reveal the incident.
Held: One who conceals or assists in the escape of the principal in the crime can be held guilty as
accessory. There is morally convincing proof that Teresa is an accessory to the offense. She was inside the
room when her husband was shot. As she came out after the shooting, she inquired from the child if she
was able to recognize the assailants and when the latter identified the 4 accused as the culprits, Teresa
did not only enjoin her daughter not to reveal what she knew to anyone but she went to the extent of
warning her not to tell anyone or else she would kill her. Later when the police came, she claimed she had
no suspects in mind. She, thus, became active in her cooperation with the 4 accused.

E. Proponents - Art. 8
- RPC provides a penalty for mere proposal in the ff:
- Art. 115- Proposal to commit treason
- Art. 136- Proposal to commit coup d’etat rebellion or insurrection
- Requisites of proposal
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony and
2. That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons
- There is no criminal proposal when—
 1. The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony.
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal.
3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
- The crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are against the security of the state or
economic security
- Treason- against external security
- Coup, rebellion and sedition- against internal security
- Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade- against economic security