NOTES

IN CRIMINAL LAW I
AND RELATED PENAL LAWS
Prof. Plazo
(2018)

General Principles

A. Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact penal legislation?
(2012) (1998)
1. A: No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted (2015)
2. No person shall be held to answer for criminal offense without due process of law
3. The law must not impose cruel, unusual or degrading punishment

No double jeopardy in the following cases:

Estafa through falsification of a public document under the RPC and violation of
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Ramiscal, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169727-28
August 18, 2006; Suero v. People, G.R. No. 156408 January 31, 2005)

Direct bribery under the RPC and violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 (Merencillo v.
People, G.R. Nos. 142369-70 April 13, 2007)

There is a Double Jeopardy in the following cases:

Double jeopardy in Cybercrime Law of 2012 and Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code
“libel by means of writing and other similar means” (Disini, Jr. et al. v. Secretary of
Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014)

Cybercrime Law and Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (ACPA) (Disini, Jr. et al. v.
Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014)

B. Mala in se and Mala prohibita

Garcia vs. CA 484 SCRA 617, March 14, 2006. the Supreme Court held that acts
prohibited in Section 27(b) of RA 6646 (Election Law) are mala in se.
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 November 19, 2011. The SC held that the
crime of plunder penalized by RA 7080 as amended by RA 7659 is malum in se.
Ysidoro vs. People G.R. 192330, November 14, 2012. The supreme court said that
good faith or lack of criminal intent not applicable in technical malversation for he reason
that this crime is considered malum prohibita.

C. Motive is important and may be used only: (2013) (2011) (2006) (1999)
(1984) (1978)
1. to prove intent/freedom/intelligence or lack thereof

1
 2. to prove the identity of offender when there is doubt
3. to prove the truth as between to different set of fact/theories. (2013)

D. Distinguish Motive from intent (1996) (1984)
Motive – is the moving power which impels a person to do an act for a definite result
Intent – is the purpose for using particular means to bring about a desired result.

Salvador vs. People 559 SCRa 461, July 23, 2008. The accused is the brother-in-law
of the victim Arlene. He and his wife lived in the house of his parents-in-law together with
the victim. Prior to the fateful night when Arlene’s body was discovered, accused was
seen peeping through the bathroom while Arlene was taking a bath and through the
bedroom while Arlene was inside the room. One night, Arlene’s and the accused were left
in the house. There were no properties missing. The short of the accused was found
stained with blood. The accused can be convicted based on circumstantial evidence.
Intent to kill was duly established by the witness when they testified relative to the
peeping incident. Such peeping incident manifested accused’s evil motive. Motive and
intent may be considered one and the same, in some instances.

E. Requisite of mistake of fact (2003) (1985) (1977)
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be.
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act is lawful
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the
accused.

F. Criminal Liability (2013) (2008) (2007) (2005) (2001) (1999) (1997) (1996)

Bahalidad vs. People 615 SCRA 597, March 17, 2010. A money was disbursed by
Provincial Government of Saranggani to an NGO namely Women in Progress (WIP)
amounting to P20,000.00. The check was payable to accused Bahalidad treasurer of WIP,
however, Zoleta who is the head of WIP made several irregularities in the disbursement of
money such as forging the signature of Bahalidad.
Bahalidad is not liable, he had no knowledge of any irregularity committed in the
disbursement of the money. Evil intent must unite with the unlawful act for a crime to exist.
There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting

Fantastico, et. al. v. People, Malicse, Sr., G.R. No. 190912, Jan. 12, 2015. Intent to kill
is a state of mind that the courts can discern only through external manifestations, to wit: (1)
the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained
by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the
killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and

2
the motives of the accused.

Quibac vs. People, G.R. No. 213886, June 22, 2015. If the victim dies because of a
deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. In such case,
even if there is no intent to kill, the crime is homicide because with respect to crimes
of personal violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following
the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.

G. Instances where the resulting injury is different from that intended by the
offender? (2012) (1999) (1995) (1989)
(a) Mistake in the identity of the victim (error in personae);
(b) Mistake in the blow (aberratio ictus); (2015) (1996) (1993)
(c) The injury result is greater than that intended (praeter intentionem). (2011)

H. Doctrines enunciated by the Supreme Court in holding an offender liable for the
resulting injury even if not intended by him.
(a) Proximate cause rule (2008) (2003)(1994)
(b) Acceleration of death rule
(c) Instilling fear rule (2004) (2001) (1997) (1996) (1976) (1975

I. Article 4. Criminal Liability

People vs. Ilgan, 191 SCRA 643, November 26, 1990. That the wrong done to the
aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by
the offender

Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1, January 7, 1988. Based on the doctrine that “el que es causa
de la causa del mal cusado” (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused).
The hacking is the proximate cause of the death of Esmeraldo who was ran over by a vehicle.
Proximate cause is that cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury without which the result would not have
occurred.
People vs. Adriano, G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015. In aberratio ictus, treachery applies
to the unintented victim. Logically, Bulanan's death was random and unintentional and the
method used to kill her, as she was killed by a stray bullet, was, by no means, deliberate.
Pursuant to the doctrine of aberratio ictus, which imposes criminal liability for the acts
committed in violation of law, the accused is liable for all the natural and logical
consequences resulting therefrom. While it may not have been Adriano's intention to shoot
Bulanan, it was the natural and direct

3
 J. Requisites of Impossible Crime
(2015)(2014)(2013)(2012)(2009)(2008)(2004)(2000) (1998) (1994)(1976)
1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property
2. That the act done with evil intent
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means employed is
either inadequate or ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of
the RPC. (2009)

Intod vs. CA, et la., 215 SCRA 52, October 21, 1992. With intent to kill, Intod et al. went
to the place of their intended victim. Upon reaching the place, they fired at their intended
victim’s bedroom but it turned out, however, that the intended victim was in another city
and no one was in the room when the accused fired the shots.

Jacinto vs. People 592 SCRA 426, July 13, 2009. Not consummated theft. For theft to be
committed, the personal property subject of the theft must have some value. Jacinto may
have unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Mega Foam, but the same was without
value because it was dishonored. However, Jacinto committed an impossible crime of theft.
Where it not for the fact that the check bounced, she would have received the face value
thereof, which was not rightfully hers.

K. Stages of execution

Baleros vs. People, 483 SCRA 10, February 22, 2006. There is no overt act of rape in the
present case. Overt act is some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention or
preparation. Chito’s act of pressing a chemical-soaked cloth in the face of Malou which would
induce her to sleep cannot be construed as an overt act of rape. Chito who is fully clothed,
did not commence at all the performance of any act indicative if an intent or attempt to rape
Malou.

Koh Tieach Heng vs. People 192 SCRA 533, December 21, 1990. Tomas Flores forged
the signature of Dycaico in a PBC check then deposited the same in his SBTC account. Dycaico
complained with SBTC bank. When Tomas about to withdraw the money he was
apprehended by NBI agents. There are two elements of estafa: (1) deceit and (2) damage.
Where apart from deceit, there was merely an intent to cause damage, only attempted estafa
is committed. Here, since only the intent to cause damage and not the damage itself was
shown. Tomas is only liable for attempted estafa.

People vs. Campuhan, 329 SCRA 270. There must be sufficient and convincing proof
that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked
the external surface thereof, for the accused to be convicted of consummated rape. Absent of

4
any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, it can only be attempted rape,
if not acts of lasciviousness

Valenzuela vs. People, 525 SCRA 306, June 21, 2007. the crime committed is
consummated theft. In theft under Art. 308, there is only one operative act of execution by
the actor involved in theft, that is the taking of personal property of another. The ability of
the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen is not an element of theft. At the same
time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be attempted
theft.

People vs. Enriquez October 23 1997. Crimes punished by special penal laws have no
attempted and frustrated stage. Such as incomplete delivery of dugs in Dangerous Drug Act.
The act of conveying prohibited drugs to an unknown destination has been held to be
punishable and it is immaterial whether or not the place of destination of the prohibited drug
is reached.

L. Article 9. RA 10951 August 29, 2017

Light Felonies – are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) or both is
provided.

M. Two concepts of conspiracy (2015)(2012)
(1) Conspiracy as a crime
(2) Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability.

N. Different circumstances in criminal liability

1. Article 11. Self-defense

Q: What are the requisites of self-defense? (2011) (1989) (1982) (1980) (1978)
(1) Unlawful aggression2000) (1981)
(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
(3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

People vs. Manlulu 231 SCRA 701, April 22, 1994 While they were having a drinking
session, Alfaro, the victim, drew his gun and pointed it to Samson who said “Pare, wala tayong
biruan ng ganyan. Baka Pumutok yan.” Fearful that it might go off, he held the gun and tried
to ward it off, resulting in a struggle for its possession. A gun aimed at the accused, without
more, is not sufficient unlawful aggression.

5
 Dulin v. People, G.R. No. 171284, June 29, 2015. Batulan, albeit the initial aggressor
against Dulin, ceased to be the aggressor as soon as Dulin has dispossessed him of the
weapon. In retaliation, the aggression that the victim started already ceased when the
accused attacked him, but in self-defense, the aggression was still continuing when the
accused injured the aggressor. As such, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of
Batulan to justify his fatal stabbing by Dulin.

2. Defense of Strangers (2016) (2002) (1993

Paera vs People, 649 SCRA 384, May 30, 2011. a case regarding a dispute of the use of
communal water, when a punong barangay Paera enraged because he discovered a tap from
the main line. Then Indalecio arrived then accused picked-up his bolo and charged Indalecio
“I will kill you”. While chasing Indalecio, accused chanced upon his wife Diosetea and said “I
don’t spare anyone, even if you are a woman, I will kill you” Diosetea sought refuge and
Paera saw Vicente and repeatedly thrust his bolo and said “Even if you are old, I will crack
open your skull. Charge of rave Threats, He claim defense of strangers because he was just
defending the constituents who failed to receive the supply of water. Peara is not entitled to
the defense of strangers. First, there was no aggression on the part of the victim; Second,
there is no reasonable necessity to prevent the aggression and third, Peara acted with
resentment, borne out of the some constituents to follow his water distribution scheme.

3. Avoidance of Evil or Injury
Elements:
(a) Evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
(b) that the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
(c) That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing i

People vs. Punzalan 687 SCRA 687 December 10, 2012, the SC said that “infliction of
damage or injury to another so that a greater evil or injury may not befall one’s self may be
justified only if it is taken as a last resort and with the least prejudice to another. If there is
another way to avoid the injury without causing damage or injury to another, then such
course should be taken. In this case, the Supreme Court did not apply the state of necessity
as a defense because the road where the incident happened was wide, some 7 meters width
and the place was well lighted.

4. Obedience to an order.

Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan, 464 SCRA 324, July 28, 2005. Cabanlig acted in the
performance of his duty. There are two requisites of this circumstances. One, the public
officer is performing his duty and two, the injury he caused to the victim is the consequence
of the due performance of his duty. The only question is whether Cabanlig’s firing at the

6
escaping prisoner without firing a warning shot is a violation of the rules of engagement.
Firing a warning shot is not at all times mandatory. In case the life of a policeman is in danger,
non-firing a warning shot is excusable.

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan 624 SCRA 470 June 25, 2012. The Policemen are not
entitled to the justifying circumstance of performance of duty. There was a violation of rules
of engagement, hence the policemen were not performing their lawful duty. Even if the group
of Licup did not stop when flagged down the rules of engagement do not require the police
officer to immediately fire his weapon if the person to be accosted does not heed his call.
Pursuit without danger should be his next move.

Sydeco v. People, G.R. No. 202692, November 12, 2014. There can be no quibble that
P/Insp. Aguilar and his apprehending team are persons in authority or agents of a person in
authority manning a legal checkpoint. However, the officers involved appeared not to have
performed their duties as required by law. They spotted the petitioner's purported swerving
vehicle. They then signaled him to stop which he obeyed. But they did not demand the
presentation of the driver's license or issue any ticket or similar citation paper for traffic
violation as required under the particular premises of Sec. 29 of RA 4136. Moreover,
petitioner's act of exercising one's right against unreasonable searches to be conducted in
the middle of the night cannot, in context, be equated to disobedience let alone resisting a
lawful order in contemplation of Art. 151 of the RPC

5. RA 9262 – Anti-VAWC

BATTERED WIFE SYNDROME

People vs. Marivic Genosa January 15, 2004. The battered woman must prove that all
three phases of cycle of violence have occurred at least twice.
(1) The tension building phase (minor battering)
(2) The acute battering incident (brutal battering)
(3) The tranquil, loving (or, at least nonviolent) phase

Ang vs. CA et al., 618 SCRA 592 April 20, 2010. Irish and Rustan were “on-and-off” of
“away-bati” relationship. The girl broke up with Rustan. But Rustan continued to txt Irish.
One morning, Irish received through multimedia message service (MMS) from Rustan, a
picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with Irish’s face superimposed on the figure.
After she got the obscene picture., Irish got another txt message from Rustan. He boasted
that it would be easy for him to create similar scandalous pictures of her. And he threatened
to spread the picture he sent through the internet unless she talked to him. Later the
cellphone was confiscated thru entrapment operation. Rustan is liable under Sec 5 (h) of RA

7
9262 – “Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through
another that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman
or her child.

Dabalos vs. RTC Branch 59, Angeles City, 688 SCRA 64, January 7, 2013 - Acts of
violence may be committed even after the dating relationship had ceased, hence may be
punishable under section 5 (a) RA 9262

Socorra vs. Van Wilsen, 744 SCRA 516, December 16, 2014 – A foreign national may be
held criminally liable under RA No. 9262 if he fails to prove that under the laws of his country,
he has no obligation to support his minor child.

Go Tan vs. Sps. Perfecto and Juanita Tan, 567 SCRA 231, September 30, 2008. In
violation of “RA No. 9262 Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” The
SC held that the parents of the husband may liable for the said act applying the principle of
under Art. 8 of the RPC. Conspiracy

Note: Violence against women and their children is a public offense which may be
prosecuted upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen having personal knowledge of the
circumstances involving the commission of the crime (Sec. 25)

6. RA 9344 “An Act Establishing a Comprehensive Juvenile Justice and Welfare

System” (2014) (2012) (2011)
Salient features:
(1) “Child” is below 18 years of age.
(2) Child offender is called “child in conflict with the law”
(3) It has a retroactive effect, applied to all crime committed prior to May 20, 2006.
(Madali vs. People 495 SCRA 274 August, 2009)
(4) Allows the retroactive application of the Act to those who have been convicted and
are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of this Act, and who were below the
age 18 years at the time of the commission of the offense.

RULE under R.A. 9344
Person 15 years old and below (even if acted with discernment)
a) EXEMPT from criminal liability not civil liability
b) Applicable to RPC and Special laws
c) Intervention
Person between 16 and 17 years of age
a) Who do not act with discernment
èExempt from criminal liability
b) Who act with discernment

8
 è NOT Exempt but proceeded with diversion proceedings to determine
liability
Note: Minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance is always considered as a
modifying circumstance in the imposition of the penalty of a child in conflict with the
law
Note: Under Sec. 6 of RA 9344, the exemption from criminal liability of a child does
not include the exemption from civil liability. If the child is exempted from
criminal liability, the person who has legal authority or control (i.e. the father or the
mother) is principally liable pursuant to Art. 101 of the RPC

Suspension of Sentence (2009) (2013)(2003)

A child, under 18 years of age (16 & 17) at the time of the commission of the
offense but has not reached 21 years old, who is found guilty of the offense charged,
the court shall not pronounce a judgment of conviction but place the child in conflict
with the law under suspended sentence without need of application.

Offense not applicable to children

(1) Vagrancy and prostitution under Sec 202 of the RPC
(2) Mendicancy under PD 1563
(3) Sniffing of rugby under PD 1619
(4) Prosecution inconsistent with the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the
Child (Sec. 58)

7. Pure accident
Element:
(1) person is performing a lawful act
(2) with due care
(3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident
(4) without fault or intention of causing it

People vs. Nepomuceno, 298 SCRA 450, November 11, 1998. the husband cannot invoke
the exempting circumstance of pure accident. In this case the wife was accidentally killed
when the gun of the husband went off. The act of the husband of drawing a weapon in the
course of a quarrel is unlawful and considered light threat.

People vs. Latosa, 621 SCRA 586, June 23, 2010. Susan is liable for parricide. To avail of
the exempting circumstance of accident, the offender must be performing a lawful act with
due care. The pointing of the gun towards her husband cannot be considered as performing
a lawful act with due care. Susan held the gun in one hand and extended it towards her
husband who was still lying in bed. Prudence dictated that when handing over a gun, the

9
muzzle should not be pointed to a person. Here the muzzle of the gun was pointed at her
husband. Besides, a gun does not fire unless there was pressure on the trigger.

8. Distinguish entrapment form Instigation (2015) (2011) (2003)(1995) (1991)

(1985) (1984)(1978) (1990)
(1) Instigation – the instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the
commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal.
Entrapment – ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and
capturing.
(2) Instigation – the accused must be acquitted
Entrapment – the accused must be convicted
(3) Instigation – the idea and the resolve to commit the crime come from the police
officer
Entrapment – that means originated from the mind of the criminal

9. Uncontrollable fear

Elements:
(1) existence of un uncontrollable fear
(2) the fear must be real and imminent
(3) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed.

Manansala vs. People, G.R. No. 215424, Dec. 9, 2015. For such defense to prosper, the
duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such
nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act
be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. In the instant case, while the records show
that Manansala was apprehensive in committing a falsity in the preparation of the subject
report as she did not know the repercussions of her actions, nothing would show that
Lacanilao, or any of her superiors at UMC for that matter threatened her with loss of
employment should she fail to do so. As there was an absence of any real and imminent
threat, intimidation, or coercion that would have compelled Manansala to do what she did,
such a circumstance cannot be appreciated in her favor.

10. Had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (2000)

People vs. Maglian, 646 SCRA 770, March 30, 2011. Mandy and Mary, husband and wife
had a heated argument. Mandy collected the clothes of Mary and started pouring kerosene
on the cloths. Mandy also poured kerosene on Mary and setting both the clothes and his wife
on fire. Mary died. Mandy argued he had no intention to commit so grave a wrong Mandy is
liable for the death of Mary. Art. 13 par 3 of the RPC addresses the intention of the offender
at the particular moment when he executed or commits the criminal act. Taking into

10
consideration the weapon, the mode of attack and the injury sustained. Mandy knew the fatal
injuries that could cause when he poured kerosene all over his wife and lit a match to ignite
a fire.

Perez vs. People 544 SCRA 533, February 12, 2008. This mitigating circumstance was
applied to Perez, a Municipal Treasurer who misappropriate a government funds for the food
of his family and for his medicine because he was suffering from diabetes.

11. Vindication of grave offense (2011) (1993) (1988)

Pelonio vs. People 521 SCRA 207, April 13, 2007. Extreme humiliation may constitute
grave offense. The owner of the house was humiliated in front of her guest after preparing a
dinner for them

Bacabac vs. People 532 SCRA 557, September 2007. Hitting his ear with a stick or with
a bamboo pole is not grave offense. An uncle is not covered relative in this mitigating

People v. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011. The established rule is that there can
be no immediate vindication of a grave offense when the accused had sufficient time to
recover his equanimity.

12. Passion or obfuscation (2013) (1988)

People vs. Cabalhin, 231 SCRA 486 March 28, 1994. This mitigating was applied to a
husband who was surprised his wife lying with a man on the bed but the two were covered
with blanket. He killed both of them.

People vs. Real, 242 SCRA 671, March 24, 1995. The act of the victim in beating and
humiliating was enough to produce passion and obfuscation.

People vs. Germina, 290 SCRA, May 19, 1998 – Maltreatment/physical injuries inflicted
by the victim on his mentally retarded brother may produce passion or obfuscation.

People vs. Layson et al. 30 SCRA 92 October 31, 1969. The mitigating was not
appreciated because the act of urinating on their coffee cups several times took place at least
ten days before the killing.

13. Voluntary surrender (2013) (2012) (2011)(2009)(1999)(1997)(1996) (1992)

Elements:
(1) That the offender had not been actually arrested
(2) That the offender surrender himself to a person in authority or to his agent
(3) That the surrender was voluntary
(4) That the surrender was spontaneous – indicative of acknowledgment of guilt and

11
 not for convenience nor conditional

Voluntary means
è He submits himself unconditionally to the authorities either because
1. He acknowledges his guilt or
2. He wishes to save the government the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in
his search

De Vera vs. De Vera, 58 SCRA 506 April 7, 2009. The mere filing of an information
and/or the issuance of a warrant of arrest will not automatically make the surrender
“involuntary”. As long as the warrant of arrest has not yet been implemented, the surrender
still voluntary.

People v. Maglian, G.R. No. 189834, March 30, 2011. The essence of voluntary
surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself
to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the
authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture

People v. Magallanes, 275 SCRA 222, July 8, 1997 – to consider voluntary, it is not
required to give himself up to the authorities in the municipality where the offense was
committed. All that the law requires is for the offender to surrender to the authorities to save
the government the trouble and the expense of looking for him.

People vs. Pinca, 318 SCRA 270, November 17, 1999 – Voluntary surrender was not
appreciated because:
a. The reason is for the safety of the accused
b. The surrender is not spontaneous
c. Denying to the police any personal knowledge
d. He even tried to distance himself from the place of the incident

14. PLEA OF GUILTY ( Par. 7 Art. 13) (2013) (1999)(1997)(1993)(1985)

Elements: That the offender confessed his guilt
1. That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent
court that is t try the case
2. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution (1992 Bar)
3. That confession must be unconditional

15. Aggravating Circumstances

12
 16.
Distinctions between generic aggravating and qualifying aggravating (1999)
(1984)

1. Generic – Increase the penalty to the maximum period
Qualifying – It gives the crime its proper and exclusive name
2. Generic – May be offset by a mitigating circumstance. Example: Nighttime can
be offset by voluntary surrender.
Qualifying – May not be offset by a mitigating circumstance. Example:
Treachery cannot be offset by voluntary surrender, hence, the crime would
still be murder.

People vs. Rebucan 654 SCRA 726 July 27, 2011 The SC held that both generic and
qualifying circumstances must be specifically alleged in the information or complaint,
otherwise, they will not be appreciated even if proved during the trial. (Sections 8 and 9 Rule
110 of the Rules of Court)

17. Contempt or Insult to Public Authority.

People vs. Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601, February 26, 1990. A teacher is not covered by the
paragraph. While the last paragraph of Art. 152 will show that a teacher is deemed a person
in authority, for purposes of application of Articles 148 and 151, meaning when direct assault
and resistance is being committed against the teacher.

18. Dwelling
Note:
a. Dwelling should mean exclusively used for living quarters, it does not include
house of prostitution or combined house and store.
b. However, it includes room of the bedspacer thus, the crime of rape against a
woman who was renting a bedspace in a boarding house is aggravating
c. Include boarding houses or Lease apartment
d. Dwelling should includes the stairs BUT not at the foot or about to step on the
first rung of the ladder.
e. However, where the victim was hacked at the top of the rung of the stairs, then
killed after he fell to the ground, dwelling is aggravating
f. This circumstance is also present where the victim was hit inside his house by a
shot fired at the outside (People vs. Bagsit GR No. 148877, August 19, 2003)
g. Include the terrace (Pp vs. Rios, 333 SCRA 823, June 19, 2000)

Dwelling is not aggravating
a. Where the victim gave provocation (Pp v. Molina 311 S 517, July 28, 1999)

13
 b. Victim is not a dweller of the house or where he merely went to his neighbor’s house
c. The dwelling of the victim is also that of the perpetrator (Pp v. Morales GR. L-
35413, November 7, 1979) (1981 Bar)

People vs. Badilla, 185 SCRA 554, May 21, 1990. A case of robbery with homicide.
Dwelling may mean temporary dwelling. It is aggravating even though the victim was not the
owner of the house where the crime was committed. In this case, the victim was as living in
that house with her niece as guest of the owner and the owner was in manila.

People v. Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011. In robbery with violence and
intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery, the
crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended
party's house. In robbery with force upon things, dwelling is inherent.

19. RECIDIVISM (Par. 9) (2014) (2013) (2012) (2009) (2001) (1993) (1989)

Note:

a. This is ordinary aggravating applicable in all offenses

b. Who is Recidivist – is one, at the time of his trial for one crime (from arraignment),
he shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of this code
c. At the time of his trial” è should not be restrictively construed as to mean the date
of arraignment. The said phrase is meant to include everything that is done in the
course of the trial, from arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge
in open court (People vs. Lagarto, 196 SCRA, May 6, 1991)
d. People vs. Lacao, et al., 201 SCRA 317, September 4, 1991 – Pardon does not
obliterate the previous conviction, hence the accused will still be considered
recidivist if he committed another crime embrace in the same title of this code
despite of the pardon extended to him
e. If both offenses were committed on the same date they shall be considered as only
one, hence they cannot be separately counted in order to constitute recidivism.

20. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION (Par. 13) (2009) (1997) (1996) (1991)
Elements:
a. The time when the accused determined to commit the crime
b. An act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his
determination
c. Sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him
to reflect upon the consequences of his act

14
 Note:

a. This is absorbed in aggravating circumstances of price, reward or promise but

only insofar as the inducer is concerned since he obviously reflected thereon in
planning the crime
b. Evident premeditation is generally inherent in robbery, theft, estafa and arson
c. In robbery with homicide, evident premeditation is aggravating if the plan is not
only to rob but also to kill.

People v. Alawig, G.R. No. 187731, July 18, 2013. When it is not shown how and
when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out,
evident premeditation cannot be considered. It must appear not only that the accused
decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution but also that this decision
was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempt.

21. TREACHERY (Par. 16) (2012) (2009) (2008)(1997) (1993) (1992) (1985)
(1980) (1979)

Note:

a. This is specific and qualifying circumstance. Applicable only to crimes against

person and it qualifies the killing into murder
b. treachery means employing methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might take.
c. Usually treachery is present if the attack is from behind however, even if the attack
is frontal, treachery may also be considered if the attack on the victim is sudden
People vs. Feliciano Jr., 724 SCRA 148 May 5, 2014
d. The treacherous mode of attack must have been deliberately chosen by the accused
in order to deprive the victim of the chance to either to fight People v. Likiran, G.R.
No. 201858, June 4, 2014
e. Treachery is a generic aggravating in Robbery with Homicide. It does not lose its
classification as a crime against property or as a special complex crime because
treachery is applied to the constituent crime of "homicide" and not to the
constituent crime of "robbery". (People v. Escote, G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003)


22. ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGHT

Note:

a. In People vs. Escoto 244 SCRA 87, May 11, 1995– the SC said the mere fact that one
person was attacked by two aggressors does not constitute this aggravating
circumstance if the relative physical strength of the parties does not appear of

15
 record. There must be evidence that the accused were physically stronger and
abused such superiority.
b. A superior number per se is not sufficient to bring the case within the purview of
this qualifying or aggravating circumstance.
c. As long as the killing was done with abuse of superior, even without treachery, it is
murder
This is generic aggravating in special complex crime of Robbery with homicide. People
v.Torres, G.R. No. 189850, Sept. 22, 2014)

23. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE

When relationship mitigating and when aggravating (2012)
1. Exempt in crimes against property such as:
a. Art. 332 - Theft, Swindling (estafa). Malicious mischief – includes qualified theft
(2013) (2008) (2000)
b. Art. 312 – Usurpation of real rights
c. Art. 314 - Fraudulent insolvency
2. Aggravating in crimes against chastity

INTOXICATION (2003) (2000) (1978)
Mitigating
- If not habitual
- not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony
Aggravating
- If habitual
- Subsequent to the plan

24. IMPLIED CONSPIRACY (2005) (2003)(1998)(1994)(1992) (1991)(1986)(1976)

Note:
a. When the participants do not expressly agree on the commission of the crime
but acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the
minds towards a common criminal objective.
b. Macadangdang vs. Sandiganbayan, 170 SCRA 300, February 14, 1989 - Mere
signature of accused as budget officer in the vouchers certifying the existence of
appropriation for the repair of the motor vehicle which turned out to be
spurious does not make him co-conspirator he did not participate in the
inspection of the vehicle, bidding process.

25. ACCOMPLICES (2016) (2005) (2012) (2009) (2011)

a. One who, not having participated as principals, cooperated in the execution of
the offense by previous or simultaneous act.

16
 b. Accomplices should not conspire with the commission of the crime (2005)
c. People vs. De Vera, 312 SCRA 640, August 18, 1999 - a person who acted as a
lookout was considered as an accomplice absence of conspiracy

26. ACCESSORIES (2014) (2013) (2004) (1988) (1985) (1984)
Requisites:
(a) Have knowledge of the commission of the crime (2013)
(b) Did not take part in its commission as principal or accomplices, but
(c) Took part in it subsequent to its commission by any of the three modes enumerated
in the law.

27. ANTI-FENCING LAW (P.D. No. 1612) (2016) (2014) (2013) (2010) (2005)
(1998) (1995) (1992) (1990) (1988) (1985) (1984) (1981)
Elements:
a. A crime of robber or theft has been committed
b. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the
crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals,
sells or dispose, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item,
object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the
said crime.
c. The accused knows or should have known that the said article , item, object or
anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft (2009)
d. 4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.

Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA 63, July 11, 1994 – actual knowledge that the
goods were stolen is not required. 3rd element says “that the accused should have
known that the goods were proceeds of the crime of robbery and theft”
Sec. 5 of the decree, provides that “mere possession” of any good, article,
item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery
shall be prima facie evidence of fencing

28. COMPLEX CRIME (Art. 48) (2013) (2012) (2011)(2009)(2005) (2004)
(2001) (2000)(1999)(1996) (1995) (1991)

kinds of complex crime?
a. Compound crime (delito compuesto)
- when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies
b. Complex crime proper (delito complejo)
- when an offense is necessary means for committing another crime

Pp v. Fabros 214 S 694 October 19, 1992 Where the killings are not shown to have
been committed by a single discharge of firearms, the crime cannot be complexed, hence
separate crimes

17
 People v. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012. The victims sustained
gunshot wounds in different parts of their bodies. Each act by each gunman pulling the
trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons
constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime. Obviously,
appellants and their co-accused performed not only a single act but several individual and
distinct acts in the commission of the crime. Thus, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code would
not apply for it speaks only of a "single act." It does not include “single impulse.”

(Pp vs. Ducay 225 S 1) When various victims expire from separate shots such as
constitute separate and distinct crime


29. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER (delito complejo)

Q: Is there a complex crime of Estafa through falsification of private document?
(2009) (1984)
A: None, because the element damage in falsification of private document is the
same element needed in Estafa. Such damage can only be utilized once. And since it
can be used only once, it cannot furnish the element of damage in the other crime.
This is called “Doctrine of common elements”

Rule in estafa with falsification of private document: Batulanon v. People, G.R. No.
139857, September 15, 2006

a. If the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit

estafa, the proper crime to be charge is falsification
b. If the estafa can be committed without the necessity of presenting a falsified a
document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa

Pp v. Salvilla, 184 SCRA 671, April 26, 1990 (David v. People, G.R. No. 208320,
Aug. 19, 2015) In this case, the crime of serious illegal detention was necessary means to
facilitate and carry out more effectively the evil design to stage a robbery. “Necessary
means” does not connote indispensable, it merely signifies that one crime is committed to
facilitate and insure the commission of the other.

Distinguish an ordinary complex crime and special complex crime (Composite crime)
(2004) (2003) People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012

Ordinary – made up of two or more crimes but with a single penalty which is the most severe
penalty will be imposed in its maximum period
Special – made up of two or more crime but wit a single/specific penalty provided in the
Revised Penal Code

18
 30. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME

Art. 48 does not apply when the law provides one single penalty for special complex
crime or composite crimes (2011) (2005)
a. Rape with homicide (Art. 266-B)
b. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention with killing of the victim (Art. 267)
c. Robbery with homicide (Art. 294 [1])
d. Attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide (Art.297)

People v. Dionaldo, et. al. G.R. No.. 207949, July 23, 2014 Where the person kidnapped
is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely
sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer
be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a
special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659.

31. DELITO CONTINUADO (Continued/continuous crime not continuing crime)
(2009) (2005) (1996) (1995)

ELEMENTS:
a. Plurality of acts performed during a period of time.
b. Unity of penal provision violated
c. Unity of criminal intent or purpose
(Santiago vs. Garchitorena, 228 SCRA 214 December 2, 1993)

Note:

In appearance, a delito continuado consist of several crimes but in reality there is
only one crime in the mind of the perpetrator. The trend in theft cases is to follow
the so calle “single larceny doctrine”, that is the taking of several things, whether
belonging to the same or different owners, at the same time and place constitutes but
one larceny.

In the latest case of Paera vs. People 649 SCRA 384, May 30, 2011 –

FACTS: This is a case regarding a dispute in water supply, Peara was surprised to see
Indalecio (first victim) near the water tank and he said “I will kill you” and then Peara
came across Diosetea (second victim) when he was chasing Indalecio he uttererd “I
don’t spare anyone, even if you are a woman, I will kill you” and Peara crossed
path with Vicente while running after Indalecio and said “even if you are old, I will
crack open your skull”
Ruling: the SC held that the accused committed three (3) counts of grave threats
because of the following reasons
Having spoken the threat and at different points in time to Indalecio, Diosetea and
Vicente

19
 2. Absence of foreknowledge of the presence of other two victims in the scene.
3. The accused in these case was surprised by the presence of the other two
individuals.
4.The threat cannot be said to have arose in a single mental resolution



32. Reclusion perpetua v. Life imprisonment (2001) (1995) (1991)
a. Reclusion perpetua is imposed by the RPC, while life imprisonment is by SPL
b. Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for only 40 years while life imprisonment
does not appear to have any definite extent or duration
c. Reclusion perpetua carries accessory penalties while it is not so in life
imprisonment

People vs. Orita, 184 SCRA 105, April 3, 1990 – the penalty of Reclusion perpetua in
rape is a single indivisible penalty. It will be imposed regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances as provided in paragraph 1 of Art. 63. In this case the accused
voluntarily surrendered to the authorities but it was not appreciated to mitigate the penalty.

33. PERIOD OF PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT DEDUCTED FROM TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT (Art. 29) (1995) (1984) (1980)

Preventive imprisonment – Is the period of detention undergone by an accused where
the crime with which he is charged ins non-bailable or even bailable, he is unable to
post the requisite bail.

a. 100% - If he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules
imposed upon convicted prisoner
b. 4/5 – if he does not agree
Except
1. Recidivist and habitual delinquents
2. Those who failed to surrender upon summoned by the court in order to serve
sentence

34. Habitual distinguished from Recidivism (2012) (1986)
a. Habitual – the crimes are specified (FRETSEL)
Recidivism –crime must be embraced in the same title of the RPC
b. Habitual – duration of 10 years from the last release or last conviction
Recidivism – No period of time between the first conviction and the last conviction


35. PROBATION LAW RA 10707 (2014) (2013) (2012) (2011) (2010) (2009) (2005)
(2004) (2003) (2002) (2001) (1992) (1991) (1990) (1981)

Note:

20
 a. Is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence is released,
subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation
officer (Sec. 3(a), P.D. No. 968 as amended by P.D. No. 1257, P.D. No. 1990 and B.P.
Blg. 76)
b. Probation is not a service of sentence but a suspension of the imposition of sentence.
c. The Probation Law of 1976 applies to all offenders, except those entitled to the benefit
under the provisions of PD 603, as amended, and similar laws. [Sec. 1, Pres. Decree
No. 968, as amended)

Updates on Probation
1. Minor offenders are entitled to probation as alternative to imprisonment (Sec. 42 RA
NO. 9344)
2. Amendments on disqualified offenders (Sec. 9 of RA 10707)
3. Those who appealed when penalty imposed was non-probationable and which was
lowered by appellate court to a probationable penalty may now apply for probation
(Sec. 4. Of RA 10707)
4. Final discharge restores civil rights and extinguish criminal liability (Sec. 16 of RA
10707)
5. Probation or community service for a first-time minor offender in lieu of
imprisonment (Sec. 70 of RA 10707)
6. Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or
a fine only. The filing of application shall be deemed waiver of the right to appeal (Sec.
1 of RA 10707)


Offender disqualified from being placed on probation Sec. 9 of RA 10707
a. Sentence to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years
(2002) (2001) (1985) (6yrs and 1 day)
b. Convicted of any crime against the national security
c. Those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished
by imprisonment of more than six (6) months and one (1) day and/or a fine of more
than one thousand pesos (1,000.00)
d. Who have been once on probation under the provisions of this decree; and
e. Who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this
Decree became applicable pursuant to Sec. 33 hereof.

Other prohibition

a. those convicted under RA 9165 – Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
particularly of illegal drug trafficking or pushing under Section 24 (Except minors who
are first time offenders);
b. Those convicted of violations of election law.
c. Those convicted for malicious reporting under the Anti-Money Laundering
Law (Section 14[c], RA 9160)

21
 Q: When probation may be granted?
1. Granted only after conviction
2. Before the accused perfected an appeal (2001) (1989)
3. Filing an application for probation is a waiver of right to appeal (1984)
4. Accessory penalties are suspended once probation is granted

Francisco v. CA, April 1995 multiple prison terms should not be added up to disqualify
the offender from applying for probation

Pagaduan v. CSC and Salvador, G.R. No. 206379, November 19, 2014 Probation does
not erase the effects and fact of conviction, but merely suspends the penalty imposed. The
reform and rehabilitation of the probationer cannot justify his retention in the government
service. Probation only affects the criminal liability of the accused, and not his administrative
liabilities, if any.

36. INDETEMINATE SENTENCE LAW (Act. No. 4103) (2012) (2010) (2005) (2003)
(1999) (1995) (1994) (1991) (1990)1988) (1984) (1982) (1975)

Not applicable in the following:
As to penalty
1. Death
2. Life imprisonment
3. Does not exceed 1 year
4. Destierro
5. Suspension only

As to crime
1. Treason
2. Conspiracy to commit treason
3. Proposal to commit treason
4. Misprision of treason
5. Rebellion
6. Sedition
7. Espionage
8. Piracy

As to person (1988)
1. Habitual delinquents
2. Those fugitive of judgment
3. Those who violated the condition of their pardon

2007 – those who violated the penalty of destierro are not entitled to ISLAW

RULE of ISLAW (2012) (2009)(2002)

22
 1. In RPC
a. The maximum term – is that which could be properly imposed under the RPC
considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
b. The minimum term – is within the range of the penalty one degree lower than that
prescribed by the RPC without considering the circumstances

2. If the penalty is imposed by SPL (2014) (1999) (1989)
a. the maximum – must not exceed the maximum term fixed by said law.
b. the minimum term – must not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the
same


37. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY (Art. 89) (1991) (1988)
Total
1. Death of the convict
2. Service of the sentence
3. Amnesty
4. Absolute Pardon
5. Prescription of the crime
6. Prescription of the penalty
7. Marriage of the woman

Partial
1. Conditional Pardon
2. Commutation – substitution of a lesser penalty, granted by the President
3. Good conduct allowance which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing
preventive imprisonment or serving sentence

38. PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME (Art. 90) (2015) (2010) (2009) (2004) (2001) (2000)
(1994)

It is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute the offender or file
criminal action after the lapse of a certain period of time.

RULE IN RPC (2010)
è the period of prescription shall commence to run from the day of discovery of the
crime by the offended party, the authorities or their agents
è The period shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information and
shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused
being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustly stopped for any reason not imputable to
him (2001) (1977)

23

Exception to the discovery rule:
Constructive notice rule
a. In falsification involving sale/conveyances of real properties, the period of
prescription starts to run form the registration of the deed in the Register of
Deeds (People vs. Reyes 175 SCRA 597 [1989]) (1993 Bar)
However, constructive notice rule should not be applied in the crime of bigamy –
the registration of a marriage contract is different from the registration of a deed
of real property (Sermonia vs. CA 233 SCRA 155, June 14, 1994) (1995 Bar)

RULE IN SPL

A: Prescription shall begin to run from the violation of the special penal laws, if the
same is known at that time.

Republic v. Cojuangco, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 139930, June 26, 2012 In the prosecution of
cases of behest loans, the prescriptive period should be reckoned from the discovery of
such loans. The reason for this is that the government, as aggrieved party, could not have
known that those loans existed when they were made. The behest loans could only have
been discovered after the 1986 EDSA Revolution when the people ousted President Marcos
from office. And, prior to that date, no person would have dared question the legality or
propriety of the loans.

39. Amnesty and Absolute pardon (2006 Bar)

a. Amnesty- granted in favor of a class of persons
Pardon – may be granted to individual or group of person
b. Amnesty – granted before or after conviction
Pardon – granted only after conviction
c. Amnesty – usually political offenses
Pardon – any crime
d. Amnesty – an official act of the President with the concurrence of congress
Pardon – Private act of the president hence, concurrence of congress is not required
e. Amnesty – it obliterates the penalty hence the ex-convict is cleansed of the
circumstance of recidivism. (2009)
Pardon – convict can still be considered recidivist

NOTE: Both amnesty and pardon do not extinguish civil liability ex delicto

40. EFFECTS OF PARDON (Art. 36) (2015) (2009) (2004) (1990)

Effects of Pardon

24
 1. A pardon shall not restore the right to hold public office or the right of suffrage.
EXCEPTION when any or both such rights is/are expressly restored by the term of the
pardon
2. Shall not exempt the culprit from payment of the civil liability
3. If absolute pardon – merely extinguishes criminal liability, removed her
disqualification, and restored her eligibility for appointment to office. The pardonee
has to re-apply for a new appointment (Mansanto vs. Factoran, Jr, 170 SCRA 191)
4. The pardonee only excused him from serving sentence but did not erase the effects of
the conviction, unless expressly remitted by the pardon

Limitations upon the exercise of the pardoning power

1. Can be exercised only after conviction “by final judgment”
2. That such power does not extend to cases of impeachment
3.
Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015 - The first sentence refers to
the executive clemency extended to former President Estrada who was convicted by
the Sandiganbayan of plunder and imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua. The latter
is the principal penalty pardoned which relieved him of imprisonment. The sentence
that followed, which states that "(h)e is hereby restored to his civil and political
rights," expressly remitted the accessory penalties that attached to the principal
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hence, even if we apply Articles 36 and 41 of the
Revised Penal Code, it is indubitable from the text of the pardon that the accessory
penalties of civil interdiction and perpetual absolute disqualification were expressly
remitted together with the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua.

- End -

25


26