THE REVISED PENAL CODE (Act No. 3815, as amended AN ACT REVISIN!

THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LA"S P#e$%m%na#%es "HAT IS CRI&INAL LA" ' Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment. "HAT IS A CRI&E' A crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. "HAT IS THE RATIONALE (OR CRI&INAL LA"' Two theories justify criminal law: relative and absolute. The relative theories of punishment are: (1 prevention, or to prevent the offender from further offending! (" public self#defense, or the right of the $tate to repel an attac% threatening its e&istence! (' reformation! (( deterrence or to terrify others! and () e&emplarity, penal justice is law teaching by e&ample. The absolute theory is that punishment is an act of retributive justice to which reformation and e&ample are incidental. *egel says that punishment is for the negation of a negation, or an effort to annihilate the wrong in its effort to annihilate the right. "HO HAS THE PO"ER TO P)NISH CRI&ES' The $tate has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and lay down the rules of criminal procedure (+eople v. $antiago "HAT IS THE LI&ITATION O( THE PO"ER O( THE LA"&A*IN! +OD, TO ENACT PENAL LE!ISLATION' ,ust be general in application. ,ust not parta%e of the nature of an ex post facto law. ,ust not parta%e of the nature of a bill of attainder. ,ust not impose cruel and unusual punishment or e&cessive fines.

Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law anne&ed to the crime when committed! Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authori-es conviction upon less or different testimony than the law re.uired at the time of the commission of the offense! Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful! and /eprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or ac.uittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.

"HAT IS A +ILL O( ATTAINDER' A bill of attainder is legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. 0ts essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt. "HAT IS THE RATIONALE O( THE PROHI+ITION A!AINST A +ILL O( ATTAINDER' The rationale is that 12o person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.3 ($ec. 1(, Art. ', +hilippine Constitution "HAT ARE THE CONSTIT)TIONAL RI!HTS O( THE ACC)SED' All persons shall have the right of a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, .uasi#judicial, or administrative bodies. 2o person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. All persons, e&cept those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recogni-ance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. 4&cessive bail shall not be re.uired. 0n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until guilty, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. *owever, after

"HAT IS AN E- POST (ACTO LA"' An e& post facto law: ,a%es criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act! Aggravates a crime, or ma%es it greater than it was, when committed!

arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that the has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. 2o person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any persons under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remains silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. 0f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot e waived e&cept in writing and in the presence of counsel. 2o torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will of shall be used against him. $ecret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or $ection 15 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. 4&cessive fines shall not be imposed, not cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. 2o person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. 0f an act is punished by law and an ordinance, conviction, or ac.uittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. 6ree access to the courts and .uasi#judicial bodies and ade.uate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason poverty.

a.

6oreigner criminals are liable within the +hilippines if they commit a crime while living or sojourning in +hilippine territory. 4ven foreign military employees, can be held liable, so long as there isn:t an e&press legislation holding otherwise. The 8evised +enal Code, however, is not applicable when the military ta%es cogni-ance of the case, since the accused will instead be subject to a court martial. A case before a court# martial is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense, this invo%es the principle of double jeopardy. ;ffenders of war crimes are triable under a military commission, which has jurisdiction so long as a technical state of war continues. This includes the period of an armistice, or military occupation, up to the effective date of a treaty of peace.

b.

c.

d.

E-CEPTIONS' 0n instances provided for in 1treaties and laws of preferential application,3 and 1principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.3 E-A&PLES' a. b. c. Treaties: <ases Agreement of 1=(5 between the >nited $tates and the +hilippines. ?aw of +referential Application: 8A. 5), in favor of diplomatic representatives and their domestic servants. +rinciples of +ublic 0nternational ?aw: $overeign immunity, which include: 1. sovereigns and other chiefs of state, and ". ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident and charges d:affaires. 7consuls, vice#consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign nationals, do not enjoy such sovereign immunity9

Certain rights may be waived 78ight of the accused to confrontation and cross#e&amination9 however, some acts are non#waivable, such as the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. This is true because, some rights involve public interest, and as such may be affected, it could not be waived for the general benefit as against to rights that can be waived which are personal in nature. "HAT ARE THE CRI&INAL LA"' CHARACTERISTICS O(

TERRITORIAL. That criminal laws underta%e to punish crimes committed within +hilippine territory. "HAT DOES THE TERRITOR, INCL)DE' PHILIPPINE

!ENERAL. That criminal laws are binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the +hilippine territory.

+hilippine territory includes the +hilippine archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters, and maritime -one. E-CEPTIONS'

"

$ee Article " PROSPECTIVE. That criminal laws cannot ma%e an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. (Art. '@@ of the 8evised +enal Code E-CEPTIONS' Ahenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused, but not if: a. The new law is e&pressly made inapplicable to pending actions or e&isting causes of action. b. The offender is a habitual criminal "HAT ARE THE E((ECTS O( REPEAL O( PENAL LA"' Ahen repeal ma%es the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be applied, e&cept when (1 the new law is e&pressly made inapplicable to pending actions or e&isting causes of actions or (" where the offender is a habitual criminal Ahen repeal imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of the commission shall be applied. Ahen repeal totally repeals the e&isting law so that the act is no longer punishable, the crime is therefore obliterated.

HO" IS THE REVISED PENAL CODE DIVIDED' The 8evised +enal Code includes <oo% 1, basic principles affecting criminal liability (Arts. 1#"F , and the provisions on penalties including criminal and civil liability (Arts. "1#11' . <oo% ", defines felonies and their corresponding penalties, classified and grouped under fourteen titles (Arts. 11(#'@) . "HAT ARE THE T"O THEORIES IN CRI&INAL LA"' The classical theory that holds that the basis of criminal liability is the human free will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution. The positivist theory that holds that crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon and which subdues man occasionally causing him to do wrong, contrary to his volition. PHILIPPINES

"HAT THEOR, DOES THE (OLLO" IN CRI&INAL LA"'

The 8evised +enal Code is based on the principle of old or classical school, though some provisions are eminently positivistic. "HAT IS THE ESPO)SED +, THE CLASSICAL THEOR,' The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of penalty is retribution. ,an is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act than upon the man itself. To establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty. Aith scant regard to the human element.

HO" ARE PENAL LA"S CONSTR)ED' +enal laws are strictly construed against the government and liberally in favor of the accused, this is invo%ed only when the law is ambiguous. This is %nown as the doctrine of pro reo. 0n interpretation of the provisions of the 8evised +enal Code, the $panish te&t is controlling, because it 7the 8evised +enal Code9 was approved in its $panish te&t.

+OO* ONE !ene#a$ P#o/%s%ons Re0a#d%n0 t1e Date o2 En2o#cement and A33$%cat%on o2 t1e P#o/%s%ons o2 t1%s Code, and Re0a#d%n0 t1e O22enses, t1e Pe#sons L%a4$e and t1e Pena$t%es PRELI&INAR, TITLE Date o2 E22ect%/eness and A33$%cat%on o2 t1e P#o/%s%ons o2 t1%s Code ART. 1. DATE O( E((ECTIVIT,. 55 T1%s code s1a$$ ta6e e22ect on t1e 2%#st da7 o2 8an9a#7, n%neteen 19nd#ed and t1%#t75t:o. "HEN DID THE REVISED PENAL CODE TA*E E((ECT' The 8evised +enal Code (Act 2o. 'B1) too% effect on F1 Canuary, 1='"

"HAT IS THE HISTOR, O( THE REVISED PENAL CODE' The 8evised +enal Code is a revision of the old +enal Code of 1BB5 (1( Culy, 1BB5 to '1 /ecember, 1='1 and inclusion into the draft of other penal laws related to it. The 8evised +enal Code does not embody the latest progress of criminal science, as the results of the application of advanced and radical theories 1still remain to be seen.3 The committee formed to revise the old +enal Code included Anacleto /ia- as chairman, with members Duintin +aredes, Euillermo Euevara, Ale& 8eyes and ,ariano de Coya, deriving it:s authority from Administrative ;rder =( of the /epartment of Custice.

'

ART. ;. APPLICATION O( ITS <REVISED PENAL CODE=S> PROVISIONS. 55 E?ce3t as 3#o/%ded %n t1e t#eat%es and $a:s o2 3#e2e#ent%a$ a33$%cat%on, t1e 3#o/%s%ons o2 t1%s Code s1a$$ 4e en2o#ced not on$7 :%t1%n t1e P1%$%33%ne A#c1%3e$a0o, %nc$9d%n0 %ts atmos31e#e, %ts %nte#%o# :ate#s and ma#%t%me @one, 49t a$so o9ts%de o2 %ts A9#%sd%ct%on, a0a%nst t1ose :1o. 1. ;. S1o9$d comm%t an o22ense :1%$e on a P1%$%33%ne s1%3 o2 a%#s1%3B S1o9$d 2o#0e o# co9nte#2e%t an7 co%n o# c9##enc7 note o2 t1e P1%$%33%ne Is$ands o# o4$%0at%ons and sec9#%t%es %ss9ed 47 t1e !o/e#nment o2 t1e P1%$%33%ne Is$andsB S1o9$d 4e $%a4$e 2o# acts connected :%t1 t1e %nt#od9ct%on %nto t1ese Is$ands o2 t1e o4$%0at%ons and sec9#%t%es ment%oned %n t1e 3#eced%n0 n9m4e#. "1%$e 4e%n0 394$%c o22%ce#s o# em3$o7ees, s1o9$d comm%t an o22ense %n t1e e?e#c%se o2 t1e%# 29nct%onsB o# S1o9$d comm%t an7 o2 t1e c#%mes a0a%nst nat%ona$ sec9#%t7 and t1e $a: o2 nat%ons, de2%ned In T%t$e One o2 +oo6 T:o o2 t1%s Code. +, PHILIPPINE

"HAT IS THE SHIP OR AIRSHIP IS IN THE TERRITOR, O( ANOTHER CO)NTR,, AND A CRI&E IS CO&&ITTED ON THE SAID VESSEL' 6ollowing the principle of territoriality, if on a ship or airship in the territory of another country, the laws of the country shall govern. Art. ", par. 1 applies when the crime is committed outside +hilippine territory, but not inside the territory of another country, for e&ample, in the high seas. "HAT IS THE R)LE "ITH RE!ARD PHILIPPINE VESSEL OR AIRCRA(T' TO A

The +hilippine vessel or aircraft must be registered in the <ureau of Customs, notwithstanding the citi-enship of the owner. "HAT ARE CRI&ES THAT &A, +E CO&&ITTED IN THE E-ERCISE O( P)+LIC ()NCTIONS' Crimes that may be committed in the e&ercise of public functions include direct and indirect bribery, malversation, etc. "HAT ARE SEC)RIT,' CRI&ES A!AINST NATIONAL

3.

C.

5.

Crimes against national security include treason, espionage, inciting to war, violation of neutrality, etc. "HICH CO)RTS HAVE 8)RISDICTION OVER CRI&ES CO&&ITTED A+OVE THE TERRITOR,' 8egional Trial Courts cogni-ant of such crimes, where such is first filed. "HAT A+O)T CONTIN)IN! O((ENSES' Continuing offense on a foreign vessel are triable when such reaches territorial jurisdiction. "HO HAS 8)RISDICTION OVER CRI&ES CO&&ITTED ON +OARD A (OREI!N &ERCHANT SHIP' 0f the ship is within +hilippine waters, it is triable before our courts. 0f the ship is in the high seas, it is 2;T triable in our courts following the principle of territoriality since the merchant ship is considered an e&tension of the country:s territory to which it belongs.

"HAT IS ENCO&PASSED TERRITOR,'

+hilippine territory is comprised by the +hilippine archipelago including atmosphere, interior waters and maritime -ones. IN "HAT CASES ARE THE PROVISIONS O( THE REVISED PENAL CODE APPLICA+LE EVEN I( THE (ELON, IS CO&&ITTED O)TSIDE O( THE PHILIPPINES' ;n a +hilippine ship or airship 6orge counterfeit any coin or currency note, obligations and securities issued by the Eovernment Acts connected with the introduction into the islands of such counterfeit obligations and securities. +ublic officers and employees, should they commit an offense in the e&ercise of their function. Crime against national security and law of nations (defined in Title 1, <oo% " of the 8evised +enal Code

"HAT ARE THE R)LES )SED IN DETER&ININ! 8)RISDICTION ON (OREI!N VESSELS IN TERRITORIAL "ATERS O( ANOTHER' The 6rench 8ule provides that the nationality of the vessel follows the flag which the vessel flies, unless the crime committed endangers the national security of a foreign country where the vessel is within jurisdiction in which case such foreign country will never lose jurisdiction over such vessel.

E-CEPTIONS' 4&cept in application. treaties and laws of preferential

The 4nglish 8ule strictly enforces the territoriality of criminal law. The law of the foreign country where a foreign vessel is within its jurisdiction is strictly applied, e&cept if the crime affects only the internal management of the vessel in which case it is subject to the penal law of the country where it is registered. <oth the rules apply only to a foreign merchant vessel if a crime was committed aboard that vessel while it was in the territorial waters of another country. 0f that vessel is in the high seas or open seas, there is no occasion to apply the two rules. 0f it is not within the jurisdiction of any country, these rules will not apply. "HICH R)LE PHILIPPINES' The 4nglish 8ule. A (OREI!N &ERCHANT VESSEL IN O)R TERRITORIAL "ATERS IS IN TRANSIT AND IS IN POSSESSION O( OPI)&. DOES THE PHILIPPINES HAVE 8)RISDICTION' 2;. ,ere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit is not triable in +hilippine courts, because that fact alone does not constitute a breach of the public order. (>$ v. ?oo% Chaw <ut, smo%ing opium aboard an 4nglish vessel while anchored in ,anila <ay constitutes a breach of public order and can be tried in our courts. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Aong Cheng Also, when the foreign merchant vessel is not in transit, or the opium is landed in +hilippine soil, the person in possession of opium is liable and can be tried in our courts. (>$ v. Ah $ing HO" A+O)T THE DI((ERENCE AS RE!ARDS &ERCHANT SHIP AND "ARSHIPS' The merchant ship is subject to territorial waters and the warship is sacrosanct the territory of registration of such vessel. Aarships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of another state. (>$ v. 6owler TITLE ONE (e$on%es and C%#c9mstances :1%c1 A22ect C#%m%na$ L%a4%$%t7 CHAPTER ONE (e$on%es ART. 3. DE(INITION. 55 Acts and om%ss%ons 39n%s1a4$e 47 $a: a#e 2e$on%es (de$%tos . (e$on%es a#e comm%tted not on$7 47 means o2 dece%t (do$o 49t a$so 47 means o2 2a9$t (c9$3a . IS O+SERVED IN THE

T1e#e %s dece%t :1en t1e act %s 3e#2o#med :%t1 de$%4e#ate %ntentB and t1e#e %s 2a9$t :1en t1e :#on029$ act #es9$ts 2#om %m3#9dence, ne0$%0ence, $ac6 o2 2o#es%01t, o# $ac6 o2 s6%$$. "HAT ARE (ELONIES' 6elonies are acts or omissions punishable by the 8evised +enal Code. "HAT ARE O((ENSES' A crime punished under a special law is called as statutory offense. "HAT ARE &ISDE&EANORS' A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an ordinance, is referred to as a misdemeanor. "HAT IS A CRI&E' Ahether the wrongdoing is punished under the 8evised +enal Code or under a special law, the generic word crime can be used. "HAT IS AN ACT' An act is bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the e&ternal world. "HAT *IND O( ACT IS P)NISHED' The act must be e&ternal, because internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law. A criminal thought or a mere intention, no matter how immoral or improper will never constitute a felony. 0t must also be voluntarily made. "HAT IS AN O&ISSION' ;mission means inaction or failure to perform a positive duty. "HAT IS THE RED)ISITE P)NISHED +ECA)SE O( A O&ISSION' (OR +EIN! (ELON, +,

There must be a law re.uiring the doing or performance of an act The person re.uired to do the act voluntarily fails to perform it.

SILVESTRE SA" ATIENEA SET (IRE TO A HO)SE. SILVESTRE DID NOT REPORT THE INCIDENT TO THE A)THORITIES. IS SHE CRI&INALL, LIA+LE' 2;. ,ere passive presence at the scene of another:s crime, mere silence, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy is not punishable. There is no law re.uiring that a person must report a crime that he witnessed.

"HAT RED)ISITES &)ST CONC)R +E(ORE A (ELON, &A, +E CO&&ITTED' 1. ". '. An act or omission +unishable by the 8evised +enal Code The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo (deceit or culpa (fault .

imprudence, negligence, lac% of foresight or lac% of s%ill is lac%ing. Aithout voluntary#ness, there can be no dolo or culpa, hence, there is no felony. DOLO "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( DOLO' 1. ". '. 6844/;, to commit or omit an act. 02T4??0E42C4 while committing or omitting an act 02T42T while committing or omitting an act

HO" IS DOLO DI((ERENT (RO& C)LPA' /olo is e.uivalent to malice, so an intentional felony is that which is performed with malice, and the act resulting from a deliberate intent to cause an injury. A culpable felony on the other hand is that which is performed without malice, the act resulting from imprudence, negligence, lac% of foresight, or a lac% of s%ill. "HAT IS &EANT +, N)LL)& CRI&EN, N)LLA POENA SINE LE!EG 2ulla crimen, nulla poena sine lege means that there is no crime where there is no law punishing it. "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE +ET"EEN A (ELON, AND A CRI&E' A felony is specific to the +enal Code, a crime or offense is used for special laws. DISTIN!)ISH +ET"EEN C)LPA+LE (ELONIES. INTENTIONAL AND

"H, (REEDO&' Aithout freedom, man ceases to be human, but a tool, thus there should be no liability. "H, INTELLI!ENCE' Aithout intelligence, man cannot determine the morality of the acts "H, INTENT' 0ntent is mental but presumed from the commission of overt acts. IS CRI&INAL INTENT PRES)&ED' H4$. Criminal intent is always presumed to e&ist, provided that there is proof of the commission of an unlawful act. This presumption does not arise when the act performed is lawful. ,oreover, the presumption can always be rebutted by proof of lac% of intent. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A was walking in his sleep, he got a bolo and injured his wife, is he criminally liable? 2;. *is acts were not voluntary because he acted in a dream. As such, he had no criminal intent. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Taneo &A, A CRI&E +E CRI&INAL INTENT' CO&&ITTED "ITHO)T

0ntentional and Culpable felonies are both voluntary in nature. *owever, intentional felonies means that the act is malicious and intentional, while culpable felonies are acts without malice and are unintentional. "HAT IS &EANT +, I&PR)DENCE' 0mprudence means a deficiency in action or lac% of s%ill "HAT IS &EANT +, NE!LI!ENCE' 2egligence means deficiency in perception or lac% of foresight "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE NE!LI!ENCE AND I&PR)DENCE' +ET"EEN

0n negligence, there is deficiency of action, while in imprudence, there is deficiency of perception. "H, IS IT, THAT +OTH ACTS ARE CONSIDERED VOL)NTAR,' The word voluntary in criminal law does not mean acting in one:s own volition. 0n criminal law, voluntary comprehends the concurrence of freedom of action, intelligence and the fact that the act was intentional. 0n culpable felonies, there is no voluntary#ness if either freedom, intelligence or

H4$I Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases: Crime is a product of culpa or negligence, rec%less imprudence, lac% of foresight or lac% of s%ill! Crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum prohibitum. "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE +ET"EEN INTENT AND DISCERN&ENT' 0ntent is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. 0t is the design to resolve or determination by which a person acts.

;n the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. 0t relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an element of dolo, distinct from intent. "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE +ET"EEN &OTIVE AND INTENT' ,otive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. Ahen there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. <ut a crime may be committed without motive. 0ntent, on the other hand, is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such a resultJ it is not a state of mind or a reason for committing a crime. 0f the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. 0ntent is manifested by the instrument used by the offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is to be distinguished from the attempted or frustrated stage. 6or e&ample, a husband came home and found his wife in a pleasant conversation with a former suitor. Thereupon, he got a %nife. The moving force is jealousy. The intent is the resort to the %nife, so that means he is desirous to %ill the former suitor. 4ven if the offender states that he had no reason to %ill the victim, this is not criminal intent. Criminal intent is the means resorted to by him that brought about the %illing. 0f we e.uate intent as a state of mind, many would escape criminal liability. "HEN IS &OTIVE RELEVANT' Ahen there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant (+eople of the +hilippines v. ,andapat Ahen there is a need in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of the crime (+eople of the +hilippines v. Tabije Ahere the evidence is merely circumstantial (+eople of the +hilippines v. ;.uino

,ista%e of fact means a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another, therefore, it cannot be said that he acted with criminal intent. This is absolutory if crime involves dolo. "HAT ARE THE ELE&ENTS O( &ISTA*E O( (ACT' 1. ". '. Act done must be lawful had the facts been as accused believed them to be. 0ntention of accused in performing such an act is lawful. ,ista%e must be without fault or carelessness on the accused:s part.

0??>$T8AT0;2: Ah Chong was afraid of bad elements so one evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in his room and placed a chair against the door. After going to bed, he was awakened by someone who was trying to open the door. He called out, !ho is there?" twice but received no answer. He then said, #f you enter the room, # will kill you." At that moment, he was struck by the chair. $elieving he was being attacked, he took a kitchen knife and stabbed the intruder who turned out to be his roommate. #s he criminally liable? 2;. there was mista%e of fact. *ad the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be, he would have been justified in %illing the intruder under Article 11, paragraph 1, which is self#defense. (>$ v. Ah Chong %wo police officers were instructed to arrest one $alagtas, a notorious criminal. %hey went to his room and finding a person sleeping, fired at him without in&uiring as to his identity. %he victim turned out to be an innocent man and not $alagtas. Are the officers criminally liable? H4$. ,ista%e of fact must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. 0n this case, there was no circumstances which would re.uire immediate action. The two officers had ample time to determine the identity of the accused, which they did not do so. A wanting to kill $ shot C instead. A invokes mistake of fact. #s his defense proper? 2;. 0n mista%e of fact, the intention of the accused in performing the act must be lawful. $ince the act and intention of A is unlawful, he cannot properly invo%e mista%e of fact as a defense. "HAT IS &EANT +, ACT)S &E INVITO (ACT)S NON EST &E)S ACT)SG Actus me invito factus non est meus actus means cct done by me against my will is not my act. C)LPA "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES IN C)LPA'

"HAT IS &EANT +, ACT)S NON TACIT RE)&, NISI &ENS SIT REAG Actus non tacit reum, nisi mens crime is not committed if the performing to act complained to itself doesn:t ma%e a man guilty were so "HAT IS E-C)SATG &EANT +, sit rea means a mind of person be innocent (act unless his intent (ACTI

I!NORATIO

0gnoratio facti e&cusat means ignorance or mista%e of fact relieves accused from liability. "HAT IS &EANT +, &ISTA*E O( (ACT'

6844/;, to commit or omit the act 02T4??0E42C4 while committing or omitting to the act '. 0,+8>/42C4K24E?0E42C4 while committing or omitting an act "HEN CAN IT +E SAID THAT A PERSON "AS NOT NE!LI!ENT' Ahen the person acted with due care, without fault or negligence, such as when a person doing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault of causing it. (Art. 1", par. ( 0??>$T8AT0;2: A, with his two companions, $ and C were hunting at night. A saw a pair of eyes with his lantern and thinking it belonged to a deer, shot it. #t turned out to be his companion $. #s A criminally liable? H4$. A performed a voluntary act in discharging his gun. Although the resulting homicide is without malice, A should have e&ercised all the necessary diligence, %nowing he had two other companions. A is guilty of homicide through rec%less imprudence. (+eople of the +hilippines v. 8amireA and $ were hunting. $oth had their guns already cocked. 'uddenly, A stumbled on a rock and fell down, accidentally discharging the gun which hit $ and killed him. #s A criminally liable? 2;. *unting is not prohibited by law and there was no criminal intent nor negligence on the part of A which may classify the act as a felony. (>$ v. Catangay "HEN IS A CRI&E NOT A (ELON,' A crime is not a felony when it doesn:t have the re.uisites of either a felony committed by dolo or culpa, or when it is a crime punished by a special law. CRI&ES P)NISHED +, A SPECIAL LA" "HAT IS THE &AIN CHARACTERISTIC O( A CRI&E P)NISHED +, A SPECIAL LA"' 0t is generally mala prohibita. Ahen the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. 0t is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law freely and consciously. "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE +ET"EEN &AL)& IN SE AND &AL)& PROHI+IT)&' ,ala in se (Arong in itself is inherently immoral. ;n the other hand, ,ala prohibita (Arong by law is injurious to public welfare. &ALA IN SE &AL)& PROHI+IT)&

1. ".

The moral trait of the offender is considered. The moral trait of the offender is not considered! it is This is why liability would only arise when there enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done. is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act. Eood faith or lac% of criminal intent is a valid Eood faith is not a defense defense! unless the crime is the result of culpa The degree of accomplishment of the crime is The act gives rise to a crime only when it is ta%en into account in punishing the offender! consummated! there are no attempted or frustrated thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and stages, unless the special law e&pressly penali-e the consummated stages in the commission of mere attempt or frustration of the crime. the crime. ,itigating and aggravating circumstances ,itigating and aggravating circumstances are are ta%en into account in imposing the penalty not ta%en into account in imposing the penalty. since the moral trait of the offender is considered. Ahen there is more than one offender, the The degree of participation of the offenders degree of participation of each in the is not considered. All who perpetrated the commission of the crime is ta%en into account prohibited act are penali-ed to the same e&tent. in imposing the penalty! thus, offenders are There is no principal or accomplice or accessory classified as principal, accomplice and to consider. accessory. 0??>$T8AT0;2: An election registrar was prosecuted for having failed to include in the voter(s register the name of a certain voter. %here is a provision in the election law which proscribes any person from preventing or disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote. He claims good faith. !ould such defense prosper? /isenfranchising a voter from casting his vote is not wrong because there is a provision of law declaring it as a crime, but because with or without a law, that act is wrong. 0n other words, it is malum in se. Conse.uently, good faith is a defense. $ince the prosecution failed to prove that the accused acted with malice, he was ac.uitted. (+eople of the +hilippines v. $unico

ART. C. CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT,. $%a4%$%t7 s1a$$ 4e %nc9##ed.

55

C#%m%na$

The act or omission should not be punished by special law because the offender may not have the intent of injuring another. 0??>$T8AT0;2:

+7 an7 3e#son comm%tt%n0 a 2e$on7 (de$%to a$t1o901 t1e :#on029$ act done 4e d%22e#ent 2#om t1at :1%c1 1e %ntended. +7 an7 3e#son 3e#2o#m%n0 an act :1%c1 :o9$d 4e an o22ense a0a%ns 3e#sons o# 3#o3e#t7, :e#e %t not 2o# t1e %n1e#ent %m3oss%4%$%t7 o2 %ts accom3$%s1ment o# on acco9nt o2 t1e em3$o7ment o2 %nadeF9ate o# %ne22ect9a$ means. "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT,' 1. ". '. 0ntentional felony is committed. Arong done be direct, natural and logical conse.uence of the felony. Anyone who creates an immediate sense of danger which causes something resulting in injuries is liable for such injuries. "A,S O(

A was trying to snatch $(s bolo. #n the course of the struggle, $ wrenched the bolo from A(s hand with such force that the point of the bolo hit C(s chest who was standing behind $, the latter not knowing of the other(s presence. #s $ criminally liable? There is no evidence to show that the accused injured the deceased deliberately and with the intention of committing a crime. *e was only defending his possession of the bolo. Ahen a person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally liable for the result which is not intended. (+eople of the +hilippines v. <indoy A, attempting to commit suicide, jumped out of the window to kill himself. He then fell on an old woman on the street who died. #s A criminally liable? 2;. A was not committing a felony when he attempted suicide. "HAT ARE THE CA)SES "HICH &A, RES)LT TO SO&ETHIN! DI((ERENT (RO& "HAT "AS INTENDED' ,ista%e in identity (error in personae ## 0n error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. 0t was the actual victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim. There was really a mista%e in identity. (A, wanting to %ill <, %illed C instead ,ista%e in blow (aberratio ictus )) A person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else. 0n aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime. (A, shot at <, but because of lac% of precision, hit C instead. 0njurious result greater than intended ( praeter intentionem ## 0n praeter intentionem, it is essential that there is a notable disparity between the means employed or the act of the offender and the felony which resulted. This means that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen from the acts of the offender. (A, without intent to %ill, struc% the victim on the bac%, causing the victim to fall down and hit his head on the pavement. 0f the resulting felony can be foreseen or anticipated from the means employed, the circumstance of praeter intentionem does not apply. "HAT IS &EANT +, DIRECT NAT)RAL AND LO!ICAL CONSED)ENCE' <low was efficient cause of death <low accelerated death <low was pro&imate cause of death

"HAT ARE THE T"O OTHER INC)RRIN! CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT,'

The wrongful act is different from that intended. (par. 1 0mpossible crimes (par. "

DISTIN!)ISH ARTICLE 3 (RO& ARTICLE C. Criminal liability is incurred by any person in the cases mentioned in Article (. This article has no reference to the manner criminal liability is incurred. Article ' refers to the manner of incurring criminal liability. PARA!RAPH 1 G "RON!()L ACT DI((ERENT (RO& "HAT INTENDED "HAT IS &EANT +, EL D)E ES CA)SA DE LA CA)SA ES CA)SA DEL &AL CA)SADOG 4l .ue es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado means he who is the cause of cause if the cause of the evil caused. E-PLAIN THE PHRASE HCO&&ITTIN! (ELON,I IN ARTICLE C, PAR. 1. A

The felony committed by the offender should be one committed by means of dolo, that is, with malice, because par. 1 of Article ( spea%s of wrongful act done different from that intended. 0f the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lac% of foresight or lac% of s%ill, his liability should be determined under Article '@), which defines and penali-es criminal negligence.

"HAT IS THE &EANIN! O( PRO-I&ATE CA)SE' +ro&imate cause means the cause which in natural and continuous se.uence, unbro%en by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, without which the result would not have occurred. As a general rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the conse.uences of his felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the pro&imate cause of the felony or resulting felony. A pro&imate cause is not necessarily the immediate cause. This may be a cause which is far and remote from the conse.uence which sets into motion other causes which resulted in the felony.

process of recovery. $ut , days later, $ developed paralytic ileum which takes place sometimes in conse&uence of the exposure of the internal organs. #s A liable for $(s death? H4$. Although the stab wound was not the immediate cause of <:s death, it was the pro&imate cause of <:s death. 0t has been established that the e&posure of the internal organs in conse.uence of surgical operation in the abdomen sometimes result in paralysis of the ileum. The accused is responsible for the natural conse.uences of his own acts. (+eople of the +hilippines v. 8eloj "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES THAT THE DEATH CAN +E PRES)&ED THE NAT)RAL CONSED)ENCE O( PH,SICAL IN8)RIES IN(LICTED' Lictim at time of physical injuries was in normal health ". /eath may be e&pected from inflicted physical injuries. '. /eath ensued within a reasonable time. "HAT IS A S)((ICIENT INTERVENIN! CA)SE' A sufficient intervening cause is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from criminal act which causes the aggravation of the effects of the crime. HO" CAN "E DETER&INE I( IT IS NOT THE PRO-I&ATE CA)SE' Active force intervened between felony and resulting injury 8esulting injury due to intentional act of victim or a third person 1.

0??>$T8AT0;2: *uring a robbery in the jeepney, one of the culprits told the women passengers to bring out their money and not to shout or else there will be shots." +ne of the women jumped out of the jeepney, hitting her head on the pavement. #s the culprit criminally liable for the death of the woman? H4$. 0f a man creates in another person:s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes such person to try to escape, and, in so doing, the latter injures himself, the man creates such a state of mind is responsible for the resulting injuries. The reason for the ruling is that when the culprit demanded money, a felony was already being committed, and so the culprit is responsible for all the conse.uences of his acts. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Toling A is in charge of the crewmembers engaged in the loading of cargo in the vessel. $ecause $ was slow in his work, A shouted at him. $ replied that they would be better if A would not insult them. A resented this, and rising in rage, he moved towards the victim, with a big knife in hand threatening to kill him. $ believing himself to be in immediate peril, threw himself into the water. %he victim died of drowning. #s A criminally liable only for grave threats or homicide? *;,0C0/4. *is contention that his liability should be only for grave threats since he did not even stab the victim, that the victim died of drowning, and this can be considered as a supervening cause, does not hold weight. 0t was held that the deceased, in throwing himself into the river, acted solely in obedience to the instinct of self#preservation, and was in no sense legally responsible for his own death. As to him, it was but the e&ercise of a choice between two evils, and any reasonable person under the same circumstance might have done the same. The accused must, therefore, be considered as the author of the death of the victim. (>$ v. LaldeA stabbed $ with an ice pick. $ was brought to the hospital where an operation was performed upon him. %he operation was successful and $ was in the

0??>$T8AT0;2: A punched $ who fell to the ground. A horse nearby suddenly jumped upon $ killing him. #s A responsible for $(s death? 2;. 0f the conse.uences produced have resulted from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act, the offender is not responsible for such conse.uences. A inflicted slight physical injuries upon $, and the latter deliberately immerses his body in a contaminated cesspool, thereby causing his injuries to become infected and serious. #s A liable for serious physical injuries? 2;. The infection of the injury, ma%ing it a serious physical injury was not the pro&imate cause of the felony committed. The act of < in deliberately immersing his body in a contaminated cesspool was the pro&imate cause and not the slight physical injuries caused by A. (>$ v. de los $antos #s the accused responsible for the result, if there is a neglect of the wound or there is improper treatment of the wound?

1F

H4$. These are conse.uences of the criminal act and which might naturally follow in any case, and they must in law be deemed to have been among those conse.uences which were in contemplation of the guilty party and for which he is to be held responsible. >ns%illful and improper treatment may be an active force, but is not a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act. #s the accused criminally liable for the conse&uences which originate through the fault or carelessness of the injured person? 2;. +ersons who are responsible for an act constituting a crime are also liable for all the conse.uences arising therefrom and inherent therein, other than those due to incidents entirely foreign to the act e&ecuted, or which originate through the fault or carelessness of the injured person. (>$ v. ,onasterial The fault or carelessness of the injured party, which would brea% the relation of the felony committed and the resulting injury, must have its origin from his malicious act or omission, as when the injured party had a desire to increase the criminal liability of his assailant. (>$ v. 2avarro A and $ had a &uarrel and started hacking each other. $ was wounded at the back. Cooler heads intervened and they were separated. 'omehow, their differences were patched up. A agreed to shoulder all the expenses for the treatment of the wound of $, and to pay him also whatever lost of income $ may have failed to receive. $, on the other hand, signed a forgiveness in favor of A and on that condition, he withdrew the complaint that he filed against A. After so many weeks of treatment in a clinic, the doctor pronounced the wound already healed. %hereafter, $ went back to his farm. %wo months later, $ came home and he was chilling. $efore midnight, he died out of tetanus poisoning. %he heirs of $ filed a case of homicide against A. #s A liable? 2;. Ta%ing into account the incubation period of tetanus to&ic, medical evidence were presented that tetanus to&ic is good only for two wee%s. That if, indeed, the victim had incurred tetanus poisoning out of the wound inflicted by A, he would not have lasted two months. Ahat brought about tetanus to infect the body of < was his wor%ing in his farm using his bare hands. <ecause of this, the $upreme Court said that the act of < of wor%ing in his farm where the soil is filthy, using his own hands, is an efficient supervening cause which relieves A of any liability for the death of <. A, if at all, is only liable for physical injuries inflicted upon <. (>rbano v. 0ntermediate Appellate Court PARA!RAPH ; G I&POSSI+LE CRI&ES "HAT ARE THE I&POSSI+LE CRI&E' RED)ISITES (OR AN

Act performed is a crime against persons and property Act done with evil intent Accomplishment inherently impossible or the means employed is either inade.uate or ineffectual. Act should not constitute a violation of another provision of the 8evised +enal Code.

"HAT IS THE PENALT, (OR AN I&POSSI+LE CRI&E' Arresto mayor or a fine ranging from "FF to )FF pesos. "HAT ARE THE I&POSSI+ILIT,' THREE T,PES O(

0nherent impossibility +hysical impossibility ?egal impossibility O( PENALIEIN!

"HAT IS THE P)RPOSE I&POSSI+LE CRI&ES'

The purpose is to suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies, he may have not committed a crime, but he is a criminal. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A, who wanted to kill $, looked for him. !hen A saw $, he found out that $ was already dead. %o satisfy his grudge, A stabbed $ in the breast - times with a knife. #s this an impossible crime? 2;. A %new that < was already dead when he stabbed the lifeless body of <. There was no evil intent on the part of A because he %new he could not cause an injury to <. Also, in crimes against persons, it is necessary that the victim could be injured or %illed. 0n this case, it is impossible for that to happen. A, an employee who, having known the combination of the safe, opens the safe in the office for the purpose of stealing money. $ut he found that the safe was empty. #s A guilty of an impossible crime? H4$. The act performed would have been a crime of theft were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment. 0f there is no personal property that could be ta%en, it is inherently impossible to commit crimes against property. A, determined to poison $, uses a small &uantity arsenic by mixing it with the food given to believing that the &uantity employed by him sufficient. $ut since in fact it is not sufficient, $ not killed. #s there an impossible crime? of $, is is

H4$. The means employed in this e&ample is inade.uate to %ill a person. <ut where the means employed is ade.uate and the result e&pected is not

11

produced (for e&ample, the victim has developed a resistance to poison it is not an impossible crime but a frustrated felony. A tried to kill $ by putting his soup a substance which he thought was arsenic when in fact it was sugar, is he criminally liable? H4$. A committed the impossible crime of murder. The means employed by him was ineffectual. A wanted to rob $ of the watch he was wearing. A poked a gun at him and asked for the watch. .pon getting the watch, A reali/ed that the watch was his. !as there an impossible crime of robbery? 2;. The act of A in pointing his gun at < already constituted at least the crime of grave threats. An essential re.uisite of an impossible crime that it should not violate another provision of the 8evised +enal Code. 0our culprits, all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the intended victim(s house and after having pinpointed the latter(s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled said room with bullets, thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 12322 in the evening. #t so happened that the intended victim did not come home on the evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. !as an impossible crime committed? The $upreme Court held the petitioner liable only for the so#called impossible crime. As a result, petitioner#accused was sentenced for the felonious act he committed with intent to %ill: this despite the destruction done to the intended victim:s house. $omehow, the decision depreciated the seriousness of the act committed, considering the lawlessness by which the culprits carried out the intended crime, and so some members of the bench and bar spo%e out against the soundness of the ruling. (0ntod v. Court of Appeals ART. 5. D)T, O( THE CO)RT IN CONNECTION "ITH ACTS "HICH SHO)LD +E REPRESSED +)T "HICH ARE NOT COVERED +, THE LA", AND IN CASES O( E-CESSIVE PENALTIES. 55 "1ene/e# a co9#t 1as 6no:$ed0e o2 an7 act :1%c1 %t ma7 deem 3#o3e# to #e3#ess and :1%c1 %s not 39n%s1a4$e 47 $a:, %t s1a$$ #ende# t1e dec%s%on and s1a$$ #e3o#t to t1e C1%e2 E?ec9t%/e, t1#o901 t1e De3a#tment o2 89st%ce, t1e #easons :1%c1 %nd9ce t1e co9#t to 4e$%e/e t1at sa%d act s1o9$d 4e made t1e s94Aect o2 3ena$ $e0%s$at%on. In t1e same :a7 t1e co9#t s1a$$ s94m%t to t1e C1%e2 E?ec9t%/e, t1#o901 t1e De3a#tment o2 89st%ce, s9c1 statement as ma7 4e deemed 3#o3e#, :%t1o9t s9s3end%n0 t1e e?ec9t%on o2 t1e sentence, :1en a st#%ct en2o#cement o2 t1e 3#o/%s%ons o2 t1%s Code :o9$d #es9$t %n t1e %m3os%t%on o2 a c$ea#$7 e?cess%/e 3ena$t7, ta6%n0 %nto cons%de#at%on t1e de0#ee o2 ma$%ce and t1e %nA9#7 ca9sed 47 t1e o22ense.

"HAT IS THE PARA!RAPH 1'

+ASIS

O(

ARTICLE

5,

0t is based on the legal ma&im that there is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act. "HAT ARE THE ELE&ENTS O( ARTICLE 5, PARA!RAPH 1' 1. ". '. (. Act committed is not punishable by any law Court deems it proper to repress such act Court must render proper decision, dismiss the case and ac.uit the accused 8eport to chief e&ecutive through the secretary of justice.

"HAT ARE THE ELE&ENTS O( ARTICLE 5, PARA!RAPH ;' 1. ". '. (. ). @. Court finds accused guilty after trial Court finds penalty clearly e&cessive Accused acted with lesser degree of malice 2o injury or injury caused is of lesser gravity Court should not suspend e&ecution of sentence. Cudge submits statement to Chief 4&ecutive through the $ecretary of Custice re.uesting 4&ecutive Clemency.

"HAT IS A !)IDLINE (OR DETER&ININ! "HETHER A PENALT, IS E-CESSIVE' +enalties are not e&cessive when it is intended to enforce a public policy. "HEN IS ARTICLE 5, PARA!RAPH ;, NOT APPLICA+LE' 0t is not applicable to an offense defined and penali-ed in a special law, since Article ), par. " specifically mentions 1the provisions of this Code.3 (+eople of the +hilippines v. $ala-ar 0t also cannot be invo%ed in cases involving acts mala prohibita, because said Article applied only to acts mala in se, or crimes committed with malice or criminal intent (+eople of the +hilippines v. Duebral

0??>$T8AT0;2: Her deceased husband, not content with s&uandering away the family substance, and not satisfied with keeping a mistress, became a habitual drunkard. He also continuously hit his wife. +ne day, when he was about to box his wife, the latter killed him. #f you were the judge, how would you rule? The violence with which appellant %illed her husband reveals the pent#up righteous anger and rebellion

1"

against years of abuse. Considering the circumstances, the appellant is deserving of e&ecutive clemency, not of full pardon but of a substantial if not a radical reduction of her life sentence. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Canja A, a trial judge, felt that the penalty set by law was too excessive, and imposed a lesser penalty. #s he correct? 2;. The courts should interpret and apply the laws as they find them on the statute boo%s, regardless of the manner their judgments are e&ecuted and implemented by the 4&ecutive /epartment. (+eople of the +hilippines v. ;laes The same rule applies regarding laws interpreted by the $upreme Court. A judge may state his opinion on the matter, but rather than disposing of the case in accordance with his personal view, he must interpret them in accordance with the interpretations of the $upreme Court. (+eople of the +hilippines v. $antos ART. J. CONS)&&ATED, (R)STRATED AND ATTE&PTED (ELONIES. 55 Cons9mmated 2e$on%es, as :e$$ as t1ose :1%c1 a#e 2#9st#ated and attem3ted, a#e 39n%s1a4$e. A 2e$on7 %s cons9mmated :1en a$$ t1e e$ements necessa#7 2o# %ts e?ec9t%on and accom3$%s1ment a#e 3#esentB and %t %s 2#9st#ated :1en t1e o22ende# 3e#2o#ms a$$ t1e acts o2 e?ec9t%on :1%c1 :o9$d 3#od9ce t1e 2e$on7 as a conseF9ence 49t :1%c1, ne/e#t1e$ess, do not 3#od9ce %t 47 #eason o2 ca9ses %nde3endent o2 t1e :%$$ o2 3e#3et#ato#. T1e#e %s an attem3t :1en t1e o22ende# commences t1e comm%ss%on o2 a 2e$on7 d%#ect$7 47 o/e# acts, and does not 3e#2o#m a$$ t1e acts o2 e?ec9t%on :1%c1 s1o9$d 3#od9ce t1e 2e$on7 47 #eason o2 some ca9se o# acc%dent ot1e# 1%s o:n s3ontaneo9s des%stance. "HAT ARE THE STA!ES THAT A CRI&E PASSES THRO)!H +E(ORE ITS CO&&ISSION' 0nternal Acts 4&ternal Acts

4&ternal acts include preparatory acts and acts of e&ecution. "HAT ARE PREPARATOR, ACTS' +reparatory acts are those that do not have a direct connection with the crime which the offender intends to commit. These are ordinarily not punishable e&cept when e&pressly provided for. "HAT ARE ACTS O( E-EC)TION' $tages of acts of e&ecution are those punishable under the 8evised +enal Code, namely attempted, frustrated and consummated. DO THE STA!ES O( E-EC)TION APPL, TO ALL CRI&ES )NDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE' 2;. There is no attempted or frustrated stage when a crime is done by means of culpa. "HAT IS A CONS)&&ATED (ELON,' A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for the e&ecution and accomplishment of the felony are present. "HAT IS A (R)STRATED (ELON,' A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of e&ecution which would produce the felony as a result, but which nevertheless do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. ATTE&PTED (ELON, "HAT IS AN ATTE&PTED (ELON,' There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by over acts, and does not perform all the acts of e&ecution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause of accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. "HAT ARE THE ELE&ENTS O( THE ATTE&PTED STA!E O( E-EC)TION' Commences commission of the offense directly by overt acts /oes not perform all the acts of e&ecution which should produce the felony ;ffenders act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance 2on#performance of all acts of e&ecution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. "HAT IS AN OVERT ACT' ;vert acts are some physical activity or deed, indication the intention to commit a particular crime, more than mere planning or preparation, which it carried to its complete termination following is

"HAT IS &EANT +, INTERNAL ACTS' 0nternal acts are mere ideas in the mind of a person, not punishable even if had they been carried out, they would constitute a crime. "HAT IS &EANT +, E-TERNAL ACTS' 4&ternal acts must be related to the overt acts of the crime the offender intended to commit. "HAT DO E-TERNAL ACTS INCL)DE'

1'

natural cause, without being frustrated by e&ternal obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE O( PREPARATOR, ACTS (RO& OVERT ACTS' ;vert acts have a direct connection to the crime. 6or e&ample, buying rat poison is a preparatory act, because a crime is not committed by mere buying of rat poison. "HAT IS AN INDETER&INATE O((ENSE' An indeterminate offense is where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. 0ts nature and relation to its objective is ambiguous. IN ATTE&PTED (ELON,, IT IS STATED THAT THE O((ENDER NEVER PASSES THE S)+8ECTIVE PHASE O( THE O((ENSE. "HAT IS THE S)+8ECTIVE PHASE O( THE O((ENSE' $ubjective phase is that portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he still has control over his acts, including the natural course. 0??>$T8AT0;2: 4 points a gun at A with intent to kill the latter. However, just before he pulls the trigger, 4 desists at the last moment. #s 4 guilty of an attempted homicide? 2;. 0n attempted felonies, the non#performance of all the acts of e&ecution must be due to cause or accident other than the offender:s spontaneous desistance. A, a policeman, while talking to $, made a motion to draw his pistol. $ then suddenly embraced him to prevent him from drawing out the pistol. !as there an overt act of homicide on the part of A? 2;. The action of A in placing his hand on his revolver is susceptible of different interpretations. 0t cannot be definitely concluded that the attempt of the accused in drawing out his pistol, would develop to a concrete offense. To constitute attempted homicide, the person using a firearm, with intent to %ill, must fire at the offended party, without however inflicting a mortal wound. At an early dawn, A was surprised by a policeman while in the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap good. At that time, the owner of the store was sleeping inside. A had only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening another from the wall. #s there an attempted robbery in this case? 2;. There is no direct connection between brea%ing one board and unfastening another with the crime of

robbery. 0n order that it would be considered an attempted robbery using force upon things, it must be shown that the offender clearly intended to ta%e possession for the purpose of gain, of some personal property of another. The purpose is not clear in this case. The crime committed was attempted trespass to dwelling, because the intention of the accused was obviously disclosed by his act of ma%ing an opening, and because A was not able to perform all the acts of e&ecution which should produce the offense of attempted trespass to dwelling. A induced $ to kill C, but $ refused to do it. #s A liable for attempted homicide because of conspiracy? 2;. Although there was an attempt on the part of A, such an attempt was not done directly by overt acts. The inducement by A to < is in the nature of a proposal which is not directly punished by law. <ut if <, pursuant to the agreement with A, commenced the commission of the homicide, both A and < would be guilty of an attempted felony. Ahen there is conspiracy, the act of one, is the act of all. A stole a chicken under the house of $ one evening. 5eali/ing that what he did was wrong, A returned the chicken. A claims that there was no attempted felony because he desisted in committing the crime. #s his contention correct? 2;. The crime of theft has already been consummated. The return of the stolen property does not relieve A of criminal liability. A had already performed all the acts of e&ecution which produced the crime of theft before he returned the chic%en. $hould an accused who admittedly shot the victim but is shown to have inflicted only a slight wound be held accountable for the death of the victim due to a fatal wound caused by his co#accusedG H4$. The slight wound did not cause the death of the victim nor materially contribute to it, his liability should therefore be limited to the slight injury he caused. *owever, the fact is that he inflicted a gunshot wound on the victim with the intent to %ill. The use of a gun fired at another certainly leads to no other conclusion than there is intent to %ill. *e is therefore liable for the crime of attempted homicide. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Araneta (R)STRATED (ELON, "HAT ARE THE ELE&ENTS O( A (R)STRATED (ELON,' +erforms all the acts of e&ecution All the acts would have produced the felony 6elony is not produced <y reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator

1(

DISTIN!)ISH +ET"EEN A (R)STRATED AND ATTE&PTED (ELON, 0n both, offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose. *owever, in frustrated, performance of all acts of e&ecution which should:ve produced the felony as a conse.uence. 0n attempted, commencement of the commission of the felony by overt acts does not perform all acts of e&ecution. 6rustrated reaches the objective phase while the attempted only reaches the subjective phase. DISTIN!)ISH +ET"EEN ATTE&PTED, (R)STRATED AND I&POSSI+LE CRI&E. 0n all, the evil intent was not accomplished. 0n impossible crime, intent cannot be accomplished, while in attempted and frustrated, evil intent can be accomplished. 0n impossible, it is inherently impossible or ineffectual and inade.uate means is used. 0n attempted and frustrated, intervention of certain cause or accident in which offender had no part. "HAT IS )SED TO DETER&INE "HETHER THE CRI&E IS ONL, ATTE&PTED OR (R)STRATED OR CONS)&&ATED' 2ature of the offense 4lements constituting the felony ,anner of committing the crime.

A doctor conceived the idea of killing his wife. He mixed arsenic with her soup. $ut immediately after the victim took the poisonous food, the offender was overcome with guilt. 'o he himself washed out the stomach of the victim and administered to her the ade&uate antidote. #s this a frustrated felony? 2;. The most important re.uisite for a frustrated crime is lac%ing, that the cause which prevented the consummation of the offense be independent of the will of the perpetrator. DISTIN!)ISH +ET"EEN A CONS)&&ATED (ELON, (RO& A (R)STRATED (ELON,. 0n a frustrated felony, as well as an attempted felony, the offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose. 0n a consummated felony, the felony is accomplished. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A is prosecuted for estafa which re&uires that the element of deceit or abuse of confidence is provided. 6ither was not proven. Can A be held guilty for estafa? 2;. All the elements of the felony for which the accused is prosecuted must be present in order to hold A liable in its consummated stage. 4 picked A(s wallet. 7erceiving the theft, A suddenly turned around and caught 4 by the shirt just as the latter was about to run with the wallet. #s 4 guilty of consummated, frustrated, or attempted theft? N is guilty of consummated theft. *e was able to perform all the elements necessary for the e&ecution and accomplishment of the crime when the wallet was ta%en from A. %he culprits, after breaking the floor of the bodega through which they entered the same, removed a sack of sugar from the pile, but were caught in the act of taking it out through the opening on the floor. !as the crime of robbery consummated? 2;. The crime is frustrated robbery. 0n robbery by force upon things, since the offender must enter the building to commit the crime, he must be able to carry out of the building the thing ta%en to consummate the crime. 0n robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, the crime is consummated the moment the offender gets hold of the thing ta%en or is in a position to dispose of it freely. IN THE CRI&E O( ARSON, "HEN IS THE CRI&E ATTE&PTED, (R)STRATED OR CONS)&&ATED' 0t is consummated even if a part of the house, no matter how small is burned. 0t is not necessary that the property is totally destroyed by fire. The consummation of the crime of arson does not depend upon the e&tent of the damage caused. (+eople of the +hilippines v. *ernande-

"HAT ARE THE CLASSI(ICATIONS O( CRI&ES )SIN! THE &ANNER CO&&ITTIN! S)CH' 6ormal crimes: consummated in an instant, no attempt, for e&ample, slander. Crimes consummated by the mere attempt or proposal or the overt acts, for e&ample, treason, or flight to enemy country 6elony by omission: no attempted stage. Crimes re.uiring the intervention of " persons are consummated by the mere agreement (eg. <etting ,aterial crimes (' phases

0??>$T8AT0;2: A, with intent to kill, shot $, who did not die. #s A liable for attempted or frustrated homicide? 0t depends. 0n the crime of murder which re.uires that the victim should die to consummate the felony, it is necessary for the frustration of the same that a mortal wound is inflicted. <ut if the wound inflicted was not mortal or if there was no wound, then the crime is attempted homicide. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Malalo

1)

0f there was a bla-e, but no part of the house is burned, the crime of arson is frustrated. Ahen a person had poured gasoline under the house of another and was about to stri%e a match to set the house on fire when he was apprehended, he is guilty of attempted arson. The acts performed by him are in direct connection with the crime of arson. IS THERE S)CH A CRI&E AS (R)STRATED RAPE' 2;. 6or the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Ta%ing into account the nature, elements and manner of e&ecution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage of rape can be committed. (+eople of the +hilippines v. ;rita This case reverses the earlier judgments of frustrated rape including +eople of the +hilippines v. 4rina. CAN THERE +E AN ATTE&PT OR (R)STRATION O( AN I&POSSI+LE CRI&E' 2;. $ince the offender has already performed all the acts for the e&ecution of an impossible crime, there can no attempted impossible crime. There is also no frustrated impossible crime because the acts performed by the offender are considered as constituting a consummated offense. ART. K. "HEN LI!HT (ELONIES ARE P)NISHA+LE. 55 L%01t 2e$on%es a#e 39n%s1a4$e on$7 :1en t1e7 1a/e 4een cons9mmated, :%t1 t1e e?ce3t%on o2 t1ose comm%tted a0a%nst 3e#sons o# 3#o3e#t7. "HAT ARE LI!HT (ELONIES' ?ight felonies are infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not e&ceeding "FF pesos or both as provided. "H, IS THE ATTE&PTED AND (R)STRATED STA!E O( A LI!HT (ELON, NOT P)NISHA+LE' 2o penalty is provided for the attempted or frustrated stage of a light felony because wrong is so slight there is no need of providing a penalty. 4&cept if felony is against a person or property because of moral depravity. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A, because of hunger, tried to steal 712.22 from $. $ut before he could do so, a policeman stopped him. #s A liable under the 5evised 7enal Code? 2;. A committed a light offense which is punishable only when consummated.

ART. 8. CONSPIRAC, AND PROPOSAL TO CO&&IT (ELON,. 55 Cons3%#ac7 and 3#o3osa$ to comm%t 2e$on7 a#e 39n%s1a4$e on$7 %n t1e cases %n :1%c1 t1e $a: s3ec%a$$7 3#o/%des a 3ena$t7 t1e#e2o#. A cons3%#ac7 e?%sts :1en t:o o# mo#e 3e#sons come to an a0#eement conce#n%n0 t1e comm%ss%on o2 a 2e$on7 and dec%de to comm%t %t. T1e#e %s a 3#o3osa$ :1en t1e 3e#son :1o 1as dec%ded to comm%t a 2e$on7 3#o3oses %ts e?ec9t%on to some ot1e# 3e#son o# 3e#sons. "HAT IS THE !ENERAL R)LE AS RE!ARDS CONSPIRAC, AS A (ELON,' Conspiracy as a felony is only punishable when provided for, for e&ample, treason and rebellion. "HAT IS A CONSPIRAC,' A conspiracy is when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning commission of a felony and decide to commit it. "HAT ARE THE T"O *INDS O( CONSPIRAC,' Conspiracy as a crime Conspiracy as a means of incurring liability

"HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE +ET"EEN THE T"O' Ahen conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminal liability. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only true when the law e&pressly punishes the mere conspiracy! otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup d:etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable. Conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability applies where there is a crime actually committed. The conspiracy here 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. 6urthermore, it is not punishable as a separate offense. "HEN IS THERE A CONSPIRAC, AS A &ANNER O( INC)RRIN! CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT,' Ahen the acts are aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Eeronimo

1@

0n short, there must be unity of purpose, and the acts of the conspirators must show a common design. DISTIN!)ISH CONSPIRAC, AS A &ANNER O( INC)RRIN! CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT, (RO& EVIDENT PRE&EDITATION, AN A!!RAVATIN! CIRC)&STANCE' >nli%e in evident premeditation, where a sufficient period of time must elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection and for the perpetrator to deliberate on the conse.uences of his intended deed, (>$ v. Eil conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, e&pressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it. (+eople of the +hilippines v. ,onroy "HAT IS A PROPOSAL' A proposal is when a person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its e&ecution to some other person or persons. "HAT IS AN INDICATION O( CONSPIRAC,' An indication of conspiracy is that the acts of defendants must show a common design. "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( CONSPIRAC,' Two or more persons came to an agreement Agreement concerned the commission of a crime 4&ecution of a felony was decided upon +E CO&&ITTE+ +, &ERE

A, $ and C after having conceived a criminal plan, decided to kill *. A acted as guard outside *(s house, while $ held *(s arms as C stabbed him. !hat are the liabilities of A, $, and C? They are all liable for murder. Their conspiracy is a manner of incurring criminal liability, and so the act of one is the act of all. !hat if A, the guard, before the murder, ran away because of guilt. !ill he still be held liable? 2;. Although A was part of the criminal plan, his part in the felony has not been consummated. Therefore, this is li%e in Article @, spontaneous desistance, therefore no criminal liability. !hat if A, was supposed to drive the conspirators to the site of the crime, and before the murder, again because of guilt, ran away. !ill he still be held liable? H4$. <ecause although the crime has yet to be consummated, his part in the criminal design has already been consummated, therefore holding him liable for the entire criminal design. ART. L. !RAVE (ELONIES, LESS !RAVE (ELONIES, AND LI!HT (ELONIES. 55 !#a/e 2e$on%es a#e t1ose to :1%c1 t1e $a: attac1es t1e ca3%ta$ 39n%s1ment o2 3ena$t%es :1%c1 %n an7 o2 t1e%# 3e#%ods a#e a22$%ct%/e, %n acco#dance :%t1 t1e A#t%c$e ;5 o2 t1%s Code. Less 0#a/e 2e$on%es a#e t1ose :1%c1 t1e $a: 39n%s1es :%t1 3ena$t%es :1%c1 %n t1e%# ma?%m9m 3e#%od a#e co##ect%ona$, %n acco#dance :%t1 t1e a4o/e5ment%oned a#t%c$e. L%01t 2e$on%es a#e t1ose %n2#act%ons o2 $a: 2o# t1e comm%ss%on o2 :1%c1 t1e 3ena$t7 o2 a##esto meno# o# a 2%ne not e?ceed%n0 ;MM 3esos, o# 4ot1, %s 3#o/%ded. HO" DOES ARTICLE L CLASSI(, (ELONIES' They are classified according to gravity, which is determined by the penalties attached to them by law. "HAT IS A !RAVE (ELON,' Erave felonies are those punished by the capital punishment or penalties in the afflictive, fine of @FFF and more. "HAT IS CAPITAL P)NISH&ENT' Capital punishment is the death penalty. "HAT IS AN A((LICTIVE PENALT,' Afflictive penalties are those that when there are two or more distinct penalties, the higher or the highest. "HAT ARE THE A((LICTIVE PENALTIES'

&A, A CRI&E PROPOSAL'

H4$. A crime li%e treason should be actually committed by reason of the proposal, if crime was committed, liable for the felony not the proposal "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( A PROPOSAL' A person has decided to commit a felony *e proposes its e&ecution to other person or persons The proposal need not be accepted or else it shall be a conspiracy

0??>$T8AT0;2: A desires that the present government be overthrown. $ut A is afraid to do it himself. A then proposed the overthrowing of the government to some desperate people who will do it at the slightest provocation. #s A liable for proposal to commit rebellion? 2;. The person who proposes must be determined to commit the felony. 0n this case, A has not decided to commit rebellion.

15

8eclusion perpetua 8eclusion temporal +erpetual or dis.ualification +erpetual or dis.ualification +rision mayor

temporary temporary

absolute special

special laws3. Hou will only apply the provisions of the 8evised +enal Code as a supplement to the special law, or simply correlate the violated special law, if needed to avoid an injustice. 0f no justice would result, do not give suppletorily application of the 8evised +enal Code to that of special law. "HAT ARE SPECIAL LA"S' A penal law which punishes acts not defined and penali-ed by the 8evised +enal Code. "HAT ARE E-A&PLES O( PROVISIONS IN THE REVISED PENAL CODE "HICH CANNOT +E APPLIED TO O((ENSES P)NISHA+LE )NDER SPECIAL LA"S' Article @, attempted and frustrated stages of e&ecution, Article 1' and 1(, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, Article 1B and 1=, accessories and accomplices, Articles )F to )5, penalties, and Article @(, application of penalties. $pecial laws do not provide for a scale of penalties. 0??>$T8AT0;2: 7* ,-- is a special law amending the 5evised 7enal Code. #s it subject to the other provisions of the 5evised 7enal Code? H4$. $pecial laws amending the 8evised +enal Code are subject to its provisions. (+eople of the +hilippines v. ,acatanda CHAPTER T"O 89st%27%n0 C%#c9mstances and C%#c9mstances "1%c1 E?em3t 2#om C#%m%na$ L%a4%$%t7 "HAT ARE CIRC)&STANCES CRI&INAL LIA+ILIT,' A((ECTIN!

"HAT ARE LESS !RAVE (ELONIES' ?ess grave felonies are those whose penalties in the ma&imum period are correccional. "HAT ARE THE CORRECCIONAL PENALTIES' +rision correccional Arresto mayor $uspension /estierro

"HAT ARE LI!HT (ELONIES' ?ight felonies are those whose penalty is not more than arresto menor or the fine is not more than "FF pesos or both, plus public censure. 0??>$T8AT0;2: #f the penalty prescribed by the offense is prision correccional 8correccional penalty9 to prision mayor 8afflictive penalty9, what is the classification according to Article :? An afflictive penalty. Ahen the penalty prescribed by the offense is composed of two or more distinct penalties, the highest of the penalties will determine the classification of the penalty according to Article =. !hen the fine for the offense is exactly 7;22, what is the classification of the offense according to Article :? 0t is a light felony. Although Article "@ provides that a fine not less than +"FF is a correccional penalty, Article = which states that a fine not e&ceeding +"FF is a light felony, should prevail because Article = classifies according to gravity, while Article "@ classifies according to the amount. ART. 1M. O((ENSES NOT S)+8ECT TO THE PROVISIONS O( THIS CODE. 55 O22enses :1%c1 a#e o# %n t1e 29t9#e ma7 4e 39n%s1a4$e 9nde# s3ec%a$ $a:s a#e not s94Aect to t1e 3#o/%s%ons o2 t1%s Code. T1%s Code s1a$$ 4e s933$ementa#7 to s9c1 $a:s, 9n$ess t1e $atte# s1o9$d s3ec%a$$7 3#o/%de t1e cont#a#7. "HAT IS &EANT +, ARTICLE 1M' 0n Article 1F, there is a reservation 1provision of the 8evised +enal Code may be applied suppletorily to

Custifying circumstances (Article 11 4&empting circumstances (Article 1", and other absolutory causes (Articles "F! 1"(, last paragraph! "BF, last paragraph, ''"! '((! etc. ,itigating circumstances (Article 1' Aggravating circumstances (Article 1( Alternative circumstances (Article 1)

ART. 11. 8)STI(,IN! CIRC)&STANCES. 55 T1e 2o$$o:%n0 do not %nc9# c#%m%na$ $%a4%$%t7. 1. An7one :1o acts %n de2ense o2 1%s 3e#son o# #%01ts, 3#o/%ded t1at t1e 2o$$o:%n0 c%#c9mstances conc9#. a. )n$a:29$ A00#ess%onB 4. Reasona4$e necess%t7 o2 t1e means em3$o7ed to 3#e/ent o# #e3e$ %tB c. Lac6 o2 s922%c%ent 3#o/ocat%on on t1e 3a#t o2 t1e 3e#son de2end%n0 1%mse$2.

1B

;. An7one :1o acts %n de2ense o2 t1e 3e#son o# #%01t o2 1%s s3o9se, ascendants, descendants, o# $e0%t%mate, nat9#a$, o# ado3ted 4#ot1e#s and s%ste#s. O# o2 1%s #e$at%/e 47 a22%n%t7 %n t1e same de0#ees, and t1ose 47 consan09%n%t7 :%t1 t1e 2o9#t1 c%/%$ de0#ee, 3#o/%ded t1at t1e 2%#st and second #eF9%s%tes 3#esc#%4ed %n t1e ne?t 3#eced%n0 c%#c9mstance a#e 3#esent, and t1e 29#t1e# #eF9%s%te, %n case t1e 3#o/ocat%on :as 0%/en 47 t1e 3e#son attac6ed, t1at t1e one ma6%n0 de2ense 1ad no 3a#t t1e#e%n. 3. An7one :1o acts %n de2ense o2 t1e 3e#son o# #%01ts o2 a st#an0e#, 3#o/%ded t1at t1e 2%#st and second #eF9%s%te ment%oned %n t1e 2%#st c%#c9mstance o2 t1%s a#t%c$e a#e 3#esent and t1at t1e 3e#son de2end%n0 4e not %nd9ced 47 #e/en0e, #esentment o# ot1e# e/%$ mot%/e. C. An7 3e#son :1o, %n o#de# to a/o%d an e/%$ o# %nA9#7 does an act :1%c1 ca9ses dama0e to anot1e#, 3#o/%ded t1at t1e 2o$$o:%n0 #eF9%s%tes a#e 3#esent. a. T1at t1e e/%$ so901t to 4e a/o%ded act9a$$7 e?%stsB 4. T1at t1e %nA9#7 2ea#ed 4e 0#eate# t1an t1at done to a/o%d %t. c. T1at t1e#e 4e no ot1e# 3#act%ca$ and $ess 1a#m29$ means o2 3#e/ent%n0 %t. 5. An7 3e#son :1o acts %n t1e 29$2%$$ment o2 a d9t7 o# %n t1e $a:29$ e?e#c%se o2 a #%01t o# o22%ce. J. An7 3e#son :1o acts %n o4ed%ence to an o#de# %ss9ed 47 a s93e#%o# 2o# some $a:29$ 39#3ose. "HAT ARE 8)STI(,IN! CIRC)&STANCES' They are those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. The law recogni-es that there is the non#e&istence of a crime. "HO HAS THE +)RDEN O( PROVIN! THE E-ISTENCE O( 8)STI(,IN! CIRC)&STANCES' The accused. The circumstances mentioned in Article 11 are matters of defenses so that it is incumbent upon the accused, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstances claimed by him to the satisfaction of the court. PARA!RAPH 1 G SEL(5DE(ENSE "HAT IS SEL(5DE(ENSE' Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided the following circumstances concur: >nlawful aggression

8easonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it ?ac% of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

&)ST ALL THE RED)ISITES CONC)R IN ORDER TO INVO*E SEL(5DE(ENSE' H4$. 6or complete self#defense to apply, there must be a concurrence of all three re.uisites. 6urthermore, the first re.uisite is an indispensable re.uisite, there can be no self#defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression. "HAT ARE THE RI!HTS INCL)DED IN SEL(5 DE(ENSE' $elf defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his rights. Ahen there is a defense of property, it must be coupled with an attac% on the person entrusted with the said property. "HAT IS )NLA"()L A!!RESSION' There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one:s life limb or right is either actual or imminent. 0t is actual when there is an actual physical assault, and imminent when there is a threat to inflict real injury. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A, a policeman, threw stones at the accused who was avoiding arrest. %he accused threw the stones back and hit the policeman in the head. Can the accused plead self)defense? 2;. The first re.uisite of self#defense re.uires the aggression must be unlawful. 0n this case, the aggression caused by the policeman was lawful since the accused was trying to avoid arrest. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Eayrama %wo policeman, A and $, were kidding each other. A told $ that he had no singing voice. $, in the spirit of fun, sei/ed A by the throat. A then took hold of his gun and killed $. Can A plead self)defense? 2;. The mere fact of sei-ing the accused by the throat in the spirit of fun cannot be considered unlawful aggression since there was no peril to A:s life, limb or right. A, uttered insulting words against $ who retaliated by hitting A on the head. Can $ invoke self)defense? 2;. 0nsulting words, addressed to the accused, no matter how objectionable they may have been without physical assault, could not constitute unlawful aggression. 0n this case, there was no peril to one:s lie which was actual or imminent.

1=

%wo persons met in the street. +ne slapped the face of the other and the latter repelled it by clubbing him and inflicting less serious physical injuries. #s a slap on the face considered unlawful aggression? H4$. $ince the face represents a person and his dignity, slapping it is a serious personal attac%. 0t is a physical assault coupled with a willful disregard, nay, a defiance of an individual:s personality. 0t may, therefore, be fre.uently regarded as placing in real danger a person:s dignity, rights and safety. (+eople of the +hilippines v. $abio A, who was looking for her husband, went to the paramour(s house. As she was about to go up the latter(s stairs, she saw the paramour with a knife in her hand and in a threatening manner asked what had brought A there. A then took the gun she brought and fired at the paramour. Can A invoke self)defense? 2;. There was no unlawful aggression on the part of the paramour. 0n order to consider that unlawful aggression was actually committed, it is necessary that an attac% or material aggression, an offensive act positively determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient. A and $ were walking down an alley. A suddenly attacked C to the surprise of $. C drew out his knife, causing A to run, and stabbed $. Can C invoke self) defense? 2;. Although the accused was unlawfully attac%ed, nevertheless, the aggressor was not the deceased but another person. Conse.uently, this unlawful aggression cannot be considered in this case as an element of self#defense! because in order to constitute an element of self#defense, the unlawful aggression must come, directly or indirectly, from the person who was subse.uently attac%ed by the accused. (+eople of the +hilippines v. EuttiereA, a ;<)year old male armed with a gun and a bolo, claims that $, who is =2 years old, suddenly attacked him. According to A, he was only defending himself when he struck $ and killed him. #s A(s contention correct? 0t was unli%ely that a se&agenarian would have gone to the e&tent of assaulting the "(#year old accused who was armed with a gun and a bolo. 0n a plea of self#defense the circumstances of the case (nature of the wound, improbability of the deceased being the aggressor , must be considered. A, unlawfully attacked $ with a knife. $ then took out his gun which caused A to run away. $, after treating his wounds, pursued A and shot him. Can $ invoke self)defense? 2;. Ahen lawful aggression which has begun no longer e&ists, because the aggressor runs away, the one ma%ing a defense has no more right to %ill or even to wound the former aggressor. 0n order to

justify homicide on the ground of self#defense, it is essential that the %illing of the deceased by the defendant be simultaneous with the attac% made by the deceased, or at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time. A, with a knife in his hand, challenged $ to a fight. $ accepted. #n the course of the fight, A got killed. Can $ claim self)defense? 2;. There is no unlawful aggression when there is an agreement to fight. <ut if the challenge to a fight was not accepted, the accused can invo%e self# defense. A, in the peaceable pursuit of his affairs, sees $ rushing toward him, with a pistol in his hand and shouting violent words against him. Having approached near enough in the same attitude, A suddenly strikes $ with a club, killing him. #t turned out that gun was only a toy. Can A invoke self) defense? H4$. The honest belief of the accused may be considered in determining the e&istence of unlawful aggression, provided he really believed it was a real gun. E-PLAIN THE SECOND RED)ISITE O( SEL(5 DE(ENSE' The second re.uisite means that there must be: 2ecessity of the course of action ta%en by the person ma%ing a defense, and 2ecessity of the means used. <oth must be reasonable, which is dependent on the e&istence of the unlawful aggression. The law protects the person who repels (which refers to actual as well as the person who prevents (which refers to imminent the unlawful aggression. HO" CAN ,O) DETER&INE THE REASONA+LENESS O( THE NECESSIT, O( THE CO)RSE O( ACTION TA*EN' The necessity of the course of action ta%en depends on the e&istence of unlawful aggression, without which there would be no necessity for any course of action to ta%e as there is nothing to prevent or to repel. The e&istence of unlawful aggression can be determined by e&amining the place and occasion of the assault as well as other circumstances. HO" DO ,O) TEST THE REASONA+LENESS )SED +, THE PERSON IN &A*IN! THE DE(ENSE' 8easonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability between the means of attac% and defense. Ahat the law re.uires is rational e.uivalence, in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attac%ed is e&posed and the instinct, more than reason, that moves or impels the defense, and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the

"F

harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. (+eople of the +hilippines v. 4ncomienda "HAT IS THE R)LE RE!ARDN! THE REASONA+LENESS O( THE NECESSIT, O( THE &EANS E&PLO,ED "HEN THE ONE DE(ENDIN! HI&SEL( IS A PEACE O((ICER' The peace officer, in the performance of his duty, represents the law which he must uphold. Ahile the law on self#defense allows a private individual to prevent or repel an aggression, the duty of a peace officer re.uires him to overcome his opponent. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A was attacked by $, who &uickly ran after the attack. !hen A recovered, he took a knife and looked for $ and stabbed him. Can A invoke self) defense? 2;. $elf#defense is based on the necessity of the part of the person attac%ed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. 0n this case, the danger or ris% of aggression has disappeared so the second re.uisite of self#defense is lac%ing. At the moment A was about to stab $, the latter hit the deceased with a piece of wood on the head. #t is contended that $ should have only struck the hand of A or hit him in a less vulnerable part. #s the contention correct? 2;. Ahen the aggression is so sudden that there is no time left to the one ma%ing a defense to determine as to what course of action to ta%e, the second re.uisite of self#defense is satisfied. A was suddenly hit on the head by $ with an iron bar at the mall. >nowing there were many people, A fired at random hoping that he would hit $. As a conse&uence, a lot of other people were shot. Can A invoke self)defense? 2;. The course of action ta%en by A was not necessary. 0n repelling or preventing an unlawful aggression, the one defending must aim at his assailant, and not indiscriminately fire his deadly weapon. A slapped $ in the face. $ then drew out his gun and killed A, invoking self)defense. #s $(s contention correct? 2;. The means employed by the person ma%ing a defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. 0n this case, there was no rational necessity to employ the means used. A, being abruptly awakened by shouts that $ was pursuing A(s children, and seeing upon awakening that in fact $ was infuriated and pursuing A(s husband with a bolo in his hand and his arm raised in an attitude as if to strike, took up a shotgun lying

within her reach and fired at $, killing him at once. !as the means reasonable? >nder the circumstances, in view of the imminence of the danger, the only remedy which would be considered reasonably necessary to repel or prevent that aggression, was to render the aggressor harmless. As A had on hand a loaded shotgun, this weapon was the most appropriate one that could be used for the purpose, even at the ris% of %illing the aggressor, since the latter:s aggression also gravely threatened the lives of the parties assaulted. "HAT IS THE REASON (OR RED)ISITE O( SEL(5DE(ENSE' THE THIRD

Ahen the person defending himself from the attac% by another gave sufficient provocation to the latter, the former is also to be blamed for having given cause for the aggression. *ence, to be entitled to the benefit of the justifying circumstance of self#defense, the one defending himself must not have been given cause for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by inciting or provo%ing the assailant. "HAT ARE THE CA)SES IN "HICH THE THIRD RED)ISITE O( SEL( DE(ENSE IS CONSIDERED PRESENT' Ahen no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself! or Ahen, even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient! or Ahen, even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself! or Ahen, even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not pro&imate and immediate to the act of aggression.

HO" DO ,O) DETER&INE THE S)((ICIENC, O( THE PROVOCATION' The provocation must be sufficient, which means that it should be proportionate to the act of aggression and ade.uate to stir the aggressor to its commission (+eople of the +hilippines v. Alconga IS IT NECESSAR, (OR THE PROVOCATION TO +E S)((ICIENT THAT THE ONE "HO !AVE IT &)ST HAVE +EEN !)ILT, O( )SIN! VIOLENCE AND TH)S +ECO&IN! AN )NLA"()L A!!RESSOR HI&SEL(' 2;. 0t is not necessary. The sufficiency depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A was running amuck with a dagger and was rushing towards $. %he latter then got a club and hit A with it in the head. #s there self)defense?

"1

H4$. The first and second re.uisite of self#defense is present, as well as the third re.uisite since there was no provocation whatsoever on the part of <. A, having discovered that $ had built a part of his fence on A(s land asked $ why he had done so. %his &uestion angered $ who immediately attacked A. #f A would kill $ to defend himself, is the third re&uisite of self)defense present? H4$. 4ven if it is true that the .uestion of A angered <, thereby ma%ing < attac% A, such provocation is not sufficient. (>$ v. +ascua A(s brother provoked $. $ then unlawfully attacked A, who defended himself and hit $ on the head. A invoked self)defense. $ut $ holds that there was sufficient provocation given by A(s brother, and so the third re&uisite of self)defense is not present. !ho is correct? A is correct. There is self#defense in this case. The sufficient provocation was not given by the person defending himself which in this case is A, but by A:s brother. The third re.uisite of self#defense refers e&clusively to the 1person defending himself.3 A slapped $ two days before and $, upon meeting A, attacked the latter but was seriously injured when A defended himself. Can A invoke self)defense? H4$. The provocation by A of slapping < in the should be disregarded. 0t was not pro&imate immediate to the aggression made by <. 0n case, the third re.uisite of self#defense s present. PARA!RAPH ; G DE(ENSE O( RELATIVES "HO ARE RELATIVES THAT &A, +E DE(ENDED' $pouse Ascendants /escendants ?egitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters 8elatives by affinity in the same degree 8elatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree face and this still

in#law is a stranger to A for purposes of the law on defense of relatives. "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( DE(ENSE O( RELATIVES' >nlawful aggression 8easonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it 0n case the provocation was given by the person attac%ed, the one ma%ing a defense had no part therein.

DISTIN!)ISH SEL(5DE(ENSE (RO& DE(ENSE O( A RELATIVE. The first two re.uisites are the same for both. <ut the third re.uisite for both are different. 0n defense of relative, the third re.uisite does not mean that the relative defended should give provocation to the aggressor. The clause merely states an event which may or may not ta%e place. There is still legitimate defense of relative even if the relative being defended has given provocation, provided that the one defending such relative has no part in the provocation. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A slapped the face of $, who as a conse&uence drew out his knife and tried to stab A. C, the father of A, saw $ trying to stab his son so he killed the latter. !as there defense of relative? H4$. The fact that the relative defended gave the provocation is immaterial. The third re.uisite re.uires only that the one defending had no part in the provocation. <ut if C induced his son to slap <, then there would not be a complete defense of relative since C already too% part in the provocation. A was previously shot by the brother of $, starting a feud between them. +ne day, $ unlawfully attacked A(s cousin and was about to kill him when A suddenly took his gun and shot $. #s there defense of relative in this case? 0t cannot be said that in attac%ing the victim, the accused was impelled by pure compassion or beneficence or the lawful desire to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin. 8ather he was motivated by revenge, resentment or evil motive because of a running feud between them. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Toring PARA!RAPH 3 G DE(ENSE O( A STRAN!ER "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR DE(ENSE O( A STRAN!ER' >nlawful aggression 8easonable necessity of the employed to prevent or repel it

0??>$T8AT0;2: A is the husband of $. A died. #s $ still related by affinity to A(s brother? 0t depends. /eath of the spouse terminates the relationship by affinity unless the marriage has resulted in issue, a child, who is still living, in which case, the relationship of affinity continues. A acted in defense of the husband of A(s sister)in) law. #s there defense of the relative in this case? 2;. the relation between A and the husband of A:s sister#in#law is not one of those mentioned in paragraph " of Article 11. The husband of A:s sister#

means

""

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

where the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit. 6or e&ample, if a driver swerved his car to prevent hitting a child and hit a car instead, he will be civilly liable for the damages caused in the other car. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A, fearing that a pregnancy would cause the death of his wife and the expected child, gave abortive pills to his wife. He is accused of the crime of intentional abortion. Can he invoke avoidance of a greater evil or injury? 2;. The evil sought to be avoided must actually e&ist. 0f the evil sought to be avoided is merely e&pected or anticipated or may happen in the future, par. ( of Article 11 is not applicable. A was driving his car with due diligence. 'uddenly, a truck appeared in front of him. #f he would swerve his car to the left, he would fall into a precipice, or if he would swerve it to the right he would injure a passerby. #s there a crime if he injures the passerby? 2;. *e was forced to choose between losing his life and injuring the passerby. 0t is reasonable that between his life and that of another, it is justified to choose one:s life due to man:s nature for self# preservation. 0n this case, all the re.uisites for avoidance of a greater evil has been met. 'uppose in the above example, A was driving his car at a very high speed and although he saw the truck approaching, he did not slacken his speed. Can he still invoke avoidance of a greater evil or injury? 2;. The greater evil or injury must not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence of the actor. A, with a bolo, was attacking $ who was wounded. $(s son was about to shoot A to defend his father when C, A(s friend, embraced him and grappled with the gun. #n the course of the struggle, $(s son got killed. Can C claim that he was trying to avoid a greater evil or injury? 2;. C was not avoiding any evil when he sought to disarm <:s son. The act of C in preventing <:s son from shooting A was designed to insure the %illing of < without any ris% to the assailant. PARA!RAPH 5 G ()L(ILL&ENT O( D)T, OR LA"()L E-ERCISE O( RI!HT OR O((ICE "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( ()L(ILL&ENT O( D)T, OR LA"()L E-ERCISE O( RI!HT OR O((ICE' That the accused acted in the performance of a duty in the lawful e&ercise of a right or office

"HO ARE DEE&ED STRAN!ERS' Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph " of Article 11, is considered a stranger for purposes of this law. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A heard screams and cries for help. !hen A responded, he saw $ attacking his 8$(s9 wife with a dagger. A approached $ and struggled for the possession of the weapon, in the course of which A inflicted wounds on $. *id A commit a crime? 2;. 0n this case, there is a defense of a stranger because all the three re.uisites are present. A has a grudge against $. +ne day, A saw $ attacking a woman. A got a cane and hit $ on the head. #s A justified in accordance with a defense of a stranger? 0t depends. +aragraph ' of Article 11 uses the phrase 1be not induced.3 *ence, even if the person enters upon the defense of a stranger out of generous motive to save the stranger from bodily harm, the third re.uisite of defense of stranger still e&ists. The third re.uisite would be lac%ing if such person was prompted by his grudge against the assailant, because the defense of a stranger would be only a prete&t. A, an assassin was trying to kill $. %hey were fighting for the possession of A(s gun. After $ was able to grab the gun, he pointed it to A and when about to shoot. C then came and saw $ about to kill A. C took out his own gun and shot $. A then ran away. #s C guilty for killing $? 2;. All the three re.uisites of defense of stranger is present in this case. The fact that it was the innocent man who was %illed will not matter because C acted in the honest belief that it was < who was the aggressor. PARA!RAPH C G AVOIDANCE O( !REATER EVIL OR IN8)R, "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR AVOIDANCE O( !REATER EVIL OR IN8)R,' That the evil sought to be avoided actually e&ists That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. THE

"HAT DI((ERENTIATES PAR. C (RO& OTHER PARA!RAPHS O( ARTICLE 11'

As a rule, there is no criminal nor civil liability in justifying circumstances. 0t is only in paragraph (

"'

That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary conse.uence of the due performance of duty or the lawful e&ercise of such right or office.

DI((ERENTIATE THIS PARA!RAPH (RO& SEL(5 DE(ENSE. 0n this paragraph, it is not necessary that there be unlawful aggression against the person charged with the performance of a duty or lawful e&ercise of a right or office. 0f there is unlawful aggression, then it is self#defense. 0??>$T8AT0;2: %wo police officers were ordered to apprehend A, a very dangerous criminal. %hey went to his house and opened the door to his bedroom. %hey saw a person lying down on the bed, sleeping. $ecause they didn(t want to take any chances, they shot the person. #t turned out that the person was not A. Can the two officers invoke paragraph ,? 2;. Although the first re.uisite is present because the police officers, who were trying to get a wanted criminal, were acting in the performance of a duty. <ut the second re.uisite is not present because through impatience, over#an&iety, or in their desire to ta%e no chances, the accused e&ceeded in the fulfillment of their duty when they %illed a sleeping person without ma%ing an in.uiry to his identity. (+eople of the +hilippines v. ;anis A escaped from jail. He was spotted $, a policeman, outside a bar. !hen $ tried to arrest him, A took out his knife and tried to stab $. A fled and $ told him to stop or he would shoot. A continued running so $ shot him, killing him. *id $ commit a crime? 2;. The %illing was done in the performance of a duty. The deceased was under obligation to surrender and had no right to commit assault on the officer. The policeman was compelled to resort to such an e&treme measure, which although it may prove fatal was justified in the circumstances. <ut it must always be remembered that the force used in the circumstances must be reasonably necessary and the use of unnecessary force is never justified. A, a thief, was confronted by $, a policeman. A tried to put his hand on his pocket. $ shot him, because he was afraid that A would get a weapon. #t turned out that there was no weapon in A(s pockets. Can $ invoke the defense of fulfillment of duty? 2;. The attitude adopted by A in putting his hands in his poc%et is not sufficient to justify the accused to shoot him. *e was unarmed and the accused could have warned him, to stop where he was, raise his hands, or do the things a policeman is trained to do, instead of mercilessly shooting him upon a mere suspicion that the deceased was armed. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Tan

A leveled his gun at $, threatening the latter with death. $ grabbed the mu//le of the gun and in the struggle for the possession, A s&uee/ed the trigger causing it to fire, hitting and killing $. #s A criminally liable? H4$. There is in this case no performance of a duty or a lawful e&ercise of a right or office. A is criminally liable under Article (, paragraph 1 of the 8evised +enal Code. A, the neighbor or $, entered the latter(s property one night. !hile he was about to steal a guava fruit, $ threw a stone at him resulting in injuries. #s $ criminally liable? 2;. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to e&clude any person from the enjoyment or disposal thereof. 6or this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. Can a surgeon be held liable for the crime of mutilation if he amputates a leg to save a patient from gangrene? 2;. *e is acting in the lawful e&ercise of his office. PARA!RAPH J G O+EDIENCE TO ORDER "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( O+EDIENCE TO ORDER' That an order has been issued by a superior That such order must be for some lawful purpose That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.

0??>$T8AT0;2: %he court ordered A, an executioner to execute a convict on a certain date. A put him to death a day earlier than scheduled. Can A invoke paragraph =? 2;. There is in this case an absence of the third re.uisite. Although a lawful order has been issued, the means used by the subordinate to carry out the order was not lawful since he went against the date set by the court, in accordance with Article B" of the 8evised +enal Code. A, a soldier, was ordered by his superiors to torture a man. %he man died as a conse&uence. A contends that he was justified since he was only following an order in accordance with paragraph =. #s his contention correct? 2;. ;bedience to an order of a superior is justified only when the order is for some lawful purpose. The order to torture the deceased was illegal, and the accused was not bound to obey it. (+eople of the +hilippines v. ,argen

"(

A, a soldier, was ordered by his sergeant to capture $, dead or alive. $ got killed. #t turned out that the sergeant(s orders were personal and was not given by his superiors. #s A criminally liable? 2;. The accused acted upon the order of a superior officer, which he as a military subordinate could not .uestion. *e obeyed the orders in good faith without being aware of their illegality, without any fault or negligence on his part. *e is not liable because he had no criminal intent and was not negligent. (+eople of the +hilippines v. <eronilla ART. 1; E-E&PTIN! CIRC)&STANCES. 55 T1e 2o$$o:%n0 a#e e?em3t 2#om c#%m%na$ $%a4%$%t7. 1. An %m4ec%$e o# an %nsane 3e#son, 9n$ess t1e $atte# 1as acted d9#%n0 a $9c%d %nte#/a$. "1en t1e %m4ec%$e o# an %nsane 3e#son 1as comm%tted an act :1%c1 t1e $a: de2%nes as a 2e$on7 (de$%to , t1e co9#t s1a$$ o#de# 1%s con2%nement %n one o2 t1e 1os3%ta$s o# as7$9ms esta4$%s1ed 2o# 3e#sons t19s a22$%cted, :1%c1 1e s1a$$ not 4e 3e#m%tted to $ea/e :%t1o9t 2%#st o4ta%n%n0 t1e 3e#m%ss%on o2 t1e co9#t. ;. A 3e#son 9nde# n%ne 7ea#s o$d. 3. A 3e#son o/e# n%ne 7ea#s o2 a0e and 9nde# 2%2teen, 9n$ess 1e 1as acted :%t1 d%sce#nment, %n :1%c1 case s9c1 m%no# s1a$$ 4e 3#oceeded a0a%nst %n acco#dance o2 A#t. LM o2 t1%s Code. (No: A#t. 1L;, P.D. JM3 "1en s9c1 m%no# %s adA9d0ed to 4e c#%m%na$$7 %##es3ons%4$e, t1e co9#t %n con2o#m%t7 :%t1 t1e 3#o/%s%ons o2 t1%s and t1e 3#eced%n0 3a#a0#a31, s1a$$ comm%t 1%m to t1e ca#e and c9stod7 o2 1%s 2am%$7 :1o s1a$$ 4e c1a#0ed :%t1 s9#/e%$$ance and ed9cat%onB ot1e#:%se, 1e s1a$$ 4e comm%tted to t1e ca#e o2 some %nst%t9t%on o# 3e#son ment%oned %n A#t. 8M (No: A#t. 1L;, P.D. JM3 C. An7 3e#son :1o, :1%$e 3e#2o#m%n0 a $a:29$ act :%t1 d9e ca#e, ca9ses an %nA9#7 47 me#e acc%dent :%t1o9t 2a9$t o# %ntent%on o2 ca9s%n0 %t. 5. An7 3e#son :1o acts 9nde# t1e com39$s%on o2 an %##es%st%4$e 2o#ce. J. An7 3e#son :1o acts 9nde# t1e %m39$se o2 an 9ncont#o$$a4$e 2ea# o2 an eF9a$ o# 0#eate# %nA9#7. K. An7 3e#son :1o 2a%$s to 3e#2o#m an act #eF9%#ed 47 $a:, :1en 3#e/ented 47 some $a:29$ o# %ns93e#a4$e ca9se. "HAT ARE E-E&PTIN! CIRC)&STANCES' 4&empting circumstances are those grounds for e&emption from punishment because there is an absence in the agent of the crime any of the

conditions which ma%e the act voluntary or negligent. ;ne who acts by virtue of any of the e&empting circumstances commits a crime although by the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arises. IN E-E&PTIN! CIRC)&STANCES, "HO HOLDS THE +)RDEN O( PROO(' 4&emption being a defense, the burden of proof in these instances is held by the defense. DISTIN!)ISH CIRC)&STANCES CIRC)&STANCES. +ET"EEN AND 8)STI(,IN! E-E&PTIN!

C>$T06H02E C08C>,$TA2C4$ 4N4,+T02E C08C>,$TA2C4$ The circumstance affect the actor, not the act The act complained of is considered to have The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the been done within the bounds of law! thus, it is actor acted without voluntariness. *e is a mere tool legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law or instrument of the crime $ince the act is considered lawful, there is no $ince the act complained of is actually wrongful, crime, and because there is no crime, there is there is a crime. <ut because the actor acted without voluntariness, there is absence of dolo or culpa. There is no criminal $ince there is no crime or criminal, there is no $ince there is a crime committed but there is no criminal, there is civil liability for the wrong done. <ut there is no criminal liability. *owever, in paragraphs ( and 5 of Article 1", there is neither criminal nor civil liability. Ahen you apply for justifying or e&empting circumstances, it is confession and avoidance and burden of proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on wea%ness of prosecution:s evidence PARA!RAPH 1 G I&+ECILIT, AND INSANIT, "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE INSANE AND I&+ECILE' +ET"EEN AN

0mbecile is distinguished from insane because an imbecile, one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of committing a crime, is e&empt by virtue that imbeciles does not gain intelligence, therefore he is at all times e&empt from criminal liability. The insane, however, can ac.uire intelligence, when it

")

can be proven that he acted during a lucid interval. The insane, to be e&empt must prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused upon committing the crime, is completely deprived of intelligence, reason or discernment, or deprived of freedom of will. A defense of insanity which would only plead a mere abnormality of mental faculties is not suffice to e&empt the offender, because consciousness of the act is not lost. 0t could however be, accepted as a mitigating circumstance. "HAT HAPPENS "HEN IT IS PROVED THAT THE INSANE OR I&+ECILE CO&&ITTED THE (ELON,' >pon conviction, the insane or imbecile, would be ordered confined in a mental hospital or asylum, and would only be allowed to leave with the permission of the court. The permission of the court would only be granted with the opinion of the /irector of *ealth, the may do so. "HAT ARE THE R)LES RE!ARDIN! THE PRES)&PTION O( THE CONTIN)ANCE O( INSANIT,' 0f the insanity is only occasional, the presumption of its continuance does not arise. 0f the defendant had lucid intervals, it is presumed that the offense was committed in one of them. <ut a person who has been judged insane or who is committed to a hospital for the insane, is presumed to continue to be insane. +)RDEN TO PROVE THIS

imbecile or an insane cannot distinguish right from wrong. (+eople of the +hilippines v. 6ormigones "HAT ARE OTHER INSTANCES "HERE THE CO)RT &A, DEE& A PERSON INSANE' A person suffering from dementia praeco&, can be considered insane because though capable of lucidity, he suffers from delusions that can ma%e him violent and homicidal. At such times, he is deemed without control of his actions. Aith regards to %leptomania, with no immediate jurisprudence, it is stated that if the condition only lessened his will power, and not lose his consciousness, it could not be held as an insanity defense. ;n epilepsy, a nervous disease with intervals of lac% of consciousness, it may be used as an insanity defense, if the committing of the crime happened during such epileptic attac%. 6eeblemindedness, though lessens intelligence, does not amount to the loss of intelligence, thus, it can not e.ual to imbecility with regards to e&emplifying circumstances. ;ther instances that could totally diminish intelligence are somnambulism or sleepwal%ing and malignant malaria. "HAT IS THE +ASIS O( PARA!RAPH 1' 0t is based on the complete absence of intelligence, an element of voluntariness. PARA!RAPH ; AND 3 5 &INORIT, "HAT IS THE R)LE "ITH RE!ARD &INORIT,' An absolute rule that the law follows is one that persons under nine years old are presumed incapable of committing a crime, even in instances of superior mental capacity or actual appreciation of the crime as shown in his actions or declarations. This is primarily because a person of such a tender age, has complete absence of intelligence. A senile person, though can be considered as one with mental faculties of a child below nine years old, can only be construed as a mitigating circumstance. I( THE &INOR "HO CO&&ITTED THE CRI&E IS E-ACTL, L ,EARS OLD, DOES HE (ALL )NDER PARA!RAPH ;' H4$. The phrase 1under nine years3 should be construed 1nine years or less3 as may be inferred from the ne&t subse.uent paragraph which does not totally e&empt a person 1over nine years of age 1if he acted with discernment.3 "HEN IS A!E CO)NTED' The age of the accused for the purpose of determining whether he comes within the e&empting circumstance of minority should be computed only up to the time of the commission of the crime charged, and not up to the date of the trial.

"HO HAS THE CIRC)&STANCE'

The court:s bias being for sanity, the burden of proof rests in the defense. 0n such a defense, it is significant to note the person:s mental condition before and after the incident. The mind, can only be %nown by overt acts. The thoughts, including motives and emotions, can only be adjudged if his actions conform to that of insanity. Clear and convincing circumstantial evidence is suffice to prove insanity. "HEN SHO)LD INSANIT, +E PRESENT TO D)ALI(, AS AN E-E&PTIN! CIRC)&STANCE' 0nsanity must be proved during the commission of the crime and not insanity during trial. An insane person, if lucid during the commission of the crime, and insane during trial remains criminally liable. *is trial would however be suspended until he regains lucidity to afford him a fair trial. IS (EE+LE&INDEDNESS CIRC)&STANCE' AN E-E&PTIN!

2;. 6eeblemindedness is not e&empting because the offender could distinguish right from wrong. An

"@

"HAT IS THE +ASIS O( PARA!RAPH ;' Again, the basis of this e&emption is the complete absence of intelligence. "HAT IS &EANT +, PARA!RAPH 3' +aragraph ' enunciates that minors over = years and under 1) years of age must have acted without discernment. 0f he acted with discernment, he is not e&empt from criminal liability, but he will be proceeded against in accordance with Article BF of the 8evised +enal Code which is now Article 1=" of +residential /ecree @F'. "HAT IS DISCERN&ENT' /iscernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong including the capacity to fully appreciate the conse.uences of his unlawful act. $uch capacity may be %nown and should be determined by ta%ing into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the manner the crime was committed, and the conduct of the offender after its commission. "HO HAS THE DISCERN&ENT' +)RDEN TO PROVE

0f the conse.uences are plainly foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence. "HAT IS THE +ASIS O( ACCIDENT' This e&empting circumstance is based on the lac% of negligence and intent. >nder this paragraph, the person does not commit either an intentional or culpable felony. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A attacked $. !hile $ was defending himself against the unjustified assault, he accidentally hit C who died. #s $ entitled to the exempting circumstance of paragraph <? H4$. < was performing a lawful act when he defended himself. The fact that he %illed C was an accident. <ut it must be noted that when < was defending himself, he did so with due care as re.uired. A, while hunting, saw wild chickens and fired a shot. After hitting the chicken, the bullet recoiled and struck a person who died. #s A criminally liable? 2;. 0f life is ta%en by misfortune or accident while the actor is in the performance of a lawful act e&ecuted with due care and without intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability. (>$ v. Tanedo A was driving very fast in a populated area. !hen he turned a corner, he suddenly hit $ who was crossing the street. Can A invoke paragraph <? 2;. 0t is apparent that A did not ta%e the necessary precautions demanded by the circumstances. $ince A was driving fast in a populated area, the conse.uence here was clearly foreseeable. PARA!RAPH 5 G IRRESISTA+LE (ORCE

The phrase 1unless he acted with discernment3 indicates an e&ception, so it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that such minor, over = and under 1) years of age, acted with discernment. "HAT HAPPENS "HEN THE CO)RT (INDS THAT THE &INOR CO&&ITTED THE CRI&E "ITH DISCERN&ENT' $uch minor will then be proceeded against in accordance with 1The Child and Houth Aelfare Code3 (Articles 1B= to 1=" of +residential /ecree @F', as amended "HAT IS THE +ASIS O( PARA!RAPH 3' This e&empting circumstance is complete absence of intelligence. PARA!RAPH C G ACCIDENT "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( ACCIDENT' A person is performing a lawful act Aith due care *e causes an injury to another by mere accident Aithout fault or intention of causing it. based on the

"HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES O( IRRESISTA+LE (ORCE' That the compulsion is by means of physical force That the physical force must be irresistible That the physical force must come from a third person

"HAT IS THE NAT)RE O( PH,SICAL (ORCE RED)IRED +, PARA!RAPH 5' The force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well# grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused

"HAT IS AN ACCIDENT' An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable conse.uences. 0t presupposes a lac% of intention to commit the wrong done.

"5

for escape r self#defense in e.ual combat. (+eople of the +hilippines v. ?oreno "HAT IS (ORCE' THE +ASIS (OR IRRESISTA+LE

"HAT IS THE +ASIS O( )NCONTROLLA+LE (EAR' This e&empting circumstance complete absence of freedom. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A and $ were compelled under fear of death to swear allegiance to the >atipunan whose purpose was to overthrow the government by force of arms. Can A and $ be held liable for rebellion? 2;. They joined the rebels under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an e.ual or greater injury. A threatened to burn the house of $ should he not kill his own father. $ killed his father for fear that A might burn his house. #s $ exempt from criminal liability? 2;. < is not e&empt from criminal liability since the civil with which he was threatened was much less than that of %illing his father. PARA!RAPH K G PREVENTED +, INS)PERA+LE CA)SE "HAT ARE THE RED)SITES O( INS)PERA+LE CA)SE' That an act is re.uired by law to be done. That a person fails to perform such act. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause. THE +ASIS (OR INS)PERA+LE is based on the

This e&empting circumstance is based on the complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A band of rebels murdered some American school teachers. .pon reaching a banana plantation, they spotted A and striking him with the butt of their guns, compelled him to bury the bodies of their victims. Can A be held criminally liable as an accomplice to murder? 2;. A is not criminally liable since he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force. (>$ v. Caballeros A(s wife was killed by $. .pon learning this, A immediately got a gun, sought $, and killed him. A contends that he was acting under an irresistible force caused by the anguish of his wife(s death. #s his contention correct? 2;. The irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion, or obfuscation as in this case. 0t must consist of an e&traneous force coming from a third person. PARA!RAPH J G )NCONTROLLA+LE (EAR "HAT ARE RED)ISITES O( )NCONTROLLA+LE (EAR' 4&istence of an uncontrollable fear The fear must be real and imminent The fear of an injury is greater than or at least e.ual to that committed. (ORCE AND

"HAT IS CA)SE'

The basis for this e&empting circumstance is that the accused acts without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felonies. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A confessed to a priest that he and several other persons were in conspiracy against the government. .nder Article 11=, a 0ilipino citi/en who knows of a conspiracy must report the same. #f the priest does not disclose the information, is he criminally liable? 2;. >nder the law the priest cannot be compelled to reveal any information which he came to %now by reason of the confession made to him in his professional capacity. .nder the law, the arrested person must be delivered to the nearest judicial authority at most within -= hours 8Article 1;,9, otherwise the public officer will be guilty of arbitrary detention. A, the municipal president detained the offended party for - days because to take him to the nearest judicial authority re&uired a journey for - days by boat as there was no other means of transportation. #s A guilty of arbitrary detention?

DI((ERENTIATE IRRESISTA+LE )NCONTROLLA+LE (EAR.

This paragraph presupposes that a person is compelled to commit a crime by another by means of intimidation of or threat unli%e in irresistible force where the compulsion is by means of force or violence. "HAT IS THE NAT)RE O( THE )NCONTROLLA+LE (EAR SO THAT IT CAN +E )SED AS A VALID DE(ENSE' 0t should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one:s life or limb and should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self#defense in e.ual combat.

"B

2;. The distance which re.uired a journey for ' days was considered an insuperable cause. A is e&empt from criminal liability. (>$ v. Lincentillo A+SOL)TOR, CA)SES "HAT ARE A+SOL)TOR, CA)SES' Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed. "HAT ARE THE A+SOL)TOR, CA)SES IN THE REVISED PENAL CODE' $pontaneous desistance during attempted stage (Article @ and no crime under another provision of the Code or other penal law is committed. ?ight felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is not against persons or property. (Article 5 The accessory is a relative to the principal (Article "F ?egal grounds for arbitrary detention (Article 1"( ?egal grounds for trespass (Article "BF, paragraph ' The crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is committed against a relative (Article ''" Ahen only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who surprised his spouse or daughter in the act of se&ual intercourse with another person (Article "(5 ,arriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime committed is rape, abduction, seduction, or acts of lasciviousness (Article '(( 0nstigation

the crime and suggests to the accused who criminal, the idea and resolve to commit the adopts the idea and carries it into e&ecution. crime comes from him Absolutory cause, the accused must be ac.uitted 2o bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbrea%er. "HO &A, +E !)ILT, O( INSTI!ATION' ;nly public officers or private detectives. 0f the one who made the instigation is a private individual, not performing a public function, both he and the one induced are criminally liable, the former as principal by inducement and the latter as principal by direct participation. 0??>$T8AT0;2: An agent of the law posed as private individual and went to A and induced him to look for a place where he could smoke opium. %he agent went to A - times to convince him. $ecause of the agent(s insistence, A made efforts to look for a place where they could smoke opium. After doing so, the agent arrested A. #s A criminally liable? 2;. A was instigated to commit the crime of smo%ing opium. (>$ v. +helps A detective represented himself as a private individual who was in need of money. He befriended a well)known thief who told him there was a way they could get money. %he detective asked the thief how and the latter told him that they were going to break into the house of a rich man to steal jewels. After stealing the jewels, the detective arrested the thief. #s the thief criminally liable? H4$. There was entrapment. The original design of committing the crime was formed by the thief independently of the agent. ART. 13 &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES. 55 T1e 2o$$o:%n0 a#e m%t%0at%n0 c%#c9mstances. 1. T1ose ment%oned %n t1e 3#eced%n0 c1a3te#, :1en a$$ t1e #eF9%s%tes necessa#7 to A9st%27 t1e act o# to e?em3t 2#om c#%m%na$ $%a4%$%t7 %n t1e #es3ect%/e cases a#e not attendant. ;. T1at t1e o22ende# %s 9nde# e%01teen 7ea#s o2 a0e o# o/e# se/ent7 7ea#s. In t1e case o2 t1e m%no#, 1e s1a$$ 4e 3#oceeded a0a%nst %n acco#dance :%t1 t1e 3#o/%s%ons o2 a#t%c$e 8M. 3. T1at t1e o22ende# 1ad no %ntent%on to comm%t so 0#a/e a :#on0 as t1at comm%tted. C. T1at s922%c%ent 3#o/ocat%on o# t1#eat on t1e 3a#t o2 t1e o22ended 3a#t7 %mmed%ate$7 3#eceded t1e act.

"HAT IS INSTI!ATION' 0nstigation happens when a public officer or a private detective induces an innocent person to commit a crime and would arrest him upon or after the commission. DISTIN!)ISH ENTRAP&ENT. INSTI!ATION (RO&

INSTI!ATION ENTRAP&ENT The instigator practically induces the would#be Aays and means are resorted to for the accused into committing an offense and himself purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbrea%er. becomes a co#principal. The law enforcer conceives the commission of The means originates from the mind of the

"=

5. T1at t1e act :as comm%tted %n t1e %mmed%ate /%nd%cat%on o2 a 0#a/e o22ense to t1e one comm%tt%n0 t1e 2e$on7 (de$%to 1%s s3o9se, ascendants, descendants, $e0%t%mate, nat9#a$ o# ado3ted 4#ot1e#s o# s%ste#s o# #e$at%/es 47 a22%n%t7 :%t1%n t1e same de0#ees. J. T1at o2 1a/%n0 acted 93on an %m39$se so 3o:e#29$ as nat9#a$$7 to 1a/e 3#od9ced 3ass%on o# o429scat%on. K. T1at t1e o22ende# 1ad /o$9nta#%$7 s9##ende#ed 1%mse$2 to a 3e#son %n a9t1o#%t7 o# 1%s a0ents, o# t1at 1e 1ad /o$9nta#%$7 con2essed 1%s 09%$t 4e2o#e t1e co9#t 3#%o# to t1e 3#esentat%on o2 e/%dence 2o# t1e 3#osec9t%on. 8. T1at t1e o22ende# %s dea2 and d9m4, 4$%nd o# ot1e#:%se %s s922e#%n0 some 317s%ca$ de2ect :1%c1 t19s #est#%cts 1%s means o2 act%on, de2ense, o# comm9n%cat%on :%t1 1%s 2e$$o: 4e%n0s. L. S9c1 %$$ness o2 t1e o22ende# as :o9$d d%m%n%s1 t1e e?e#c%se o2 t1e :%$$53o:e# o2 t1e o22ende# :%t1o9t 1o:e/e# de3#%/%n0 1%m o2 consc%o9sness o2 1%s acts. 1M. And, 2%na$$7, an7 ot1e# c%#c9mstance o2 a s%m%$a# nat9#e and ana$o0o9s to t1ose a4o/e ment%oned. "HAT ARE &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES' ,itigating circumstances are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty. They are based on the diminution of either freedom or action, intelligence, or intent or on the lesser perversity of the offender. They have the effect of reducing the penalty, but they do no change the nature of the crime. "HAT ARE THE T"O CLASSES O( &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES' ;rdinary mitigating circumstances which are enumerated in Article 1' and privileged mitigating circumstances which are in the other parts of the 8evised +enal Code. DI((ERENTIATE ORDINAR, (RO& PRIVILE!ED &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES. ORDINAR, &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES PRIVILE!ED&ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES $usceptible of being offset by any aggravating Cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances circumstance

0f

by an aggravating circumstance, +roduces the effect of imposing upon the offender produces the effect of applying the penalty the penalty lower by one or two degrees that that provided by law for the crime in its minimum provided by law for the crime. period, in case the penalty is divisible. "HAT ARE THE CIRC)&STANCES' PRIVILE!ED &ITI!ATIN!

not

offset

Ahen the offender is a minor under 1B years of age (Article @B Ahen the crime committed is not wholly e&cusable (Article @= Ahen there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, the court shall impose the penalty ne&t lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according the number and nature of such circumstances (Article @(, paragraph ) Loluntary release of the person illegally detained within ' days without the offender attaining his purpose and before the institution of the criminal action (Article "@B, paragraph ' Abandonment without justification of the spouse who committed adultery (Article ''', paragraph '

0??>$T8AT0;2: A was charged with homicide. #t was proved that there was the presence of the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, and no aggravating circumstance. !hat effect would that have on A(s criminal liability? A would be charged with homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. As a general rule, penalties in the 8evised +enal Code are divided in ' periods (ma&imum, medium, minimum . $ince there is a mitigating circumstance, A:s penalty will be reduced to the minimum of the penalty for murder which is reclusion temporal minimum. 0f there was no mitigating circumstance, the penalty would be reclusion temporal medium. The number of ordinary mitigating circumstances corresponds to the number of time the penalty will be reduced by a period. $o if there are " ordinary mitigating circumstances, the penalty will be reduced by " periods. 0n the case given above, it would prision mayor ma&imum. *owever, if there is one aggravating circumstance, such will offset the effect of one mitigating circumstance, so the penalty will be reduced only by one period. A, who is less than 1? years old, was charged with robbery. He committed the crime during nighttime which was purposely sought, an aggravating

'F

circumstance. !ill the circumstances offset each other? 2;. The aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot offset the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. PARA!RAPH 1 G INCO&PLETE 8)STI(,IN! AND E-E&PTIN! CIRC)&STANCES "HICH CIRC)&STANCES DOES PARA!RAPH 1 RE(ER TO' The justifying (Article 11 and e&empting (Article 1" circumstances. HO" DOES THIS PARA!RAPH APPL, TO THE THREE CLASSES O( DE(ENSES' 0n self#defense, defense of relatives and defense of stranger, unlawful aggression must be present, it being an indispensable re.uisite. Ahat is absent are the two other re.uisites. *owever if two of the three are present (one of which must be unlawful aggression , such would be a privileged mitigating circumstance in accordance with Article @= of the 8evised +enal Code, and will not fall under this paragraph. DOES THIS PARA!RAPH APPL, TO PARA!RAPH C O( ARTICLE 1;' 2;. >nder Article 1", paragraph ', there are four re.uisites for the e&empting circumstance of accident. 6irst, a person must be performing a lawful act. $econd, such must be done with due care. Third, an injury was caused to another by mere accident. 6ourth, there is no fault or intention of causing such injury. 0f the second re.uisite and the first part of the fourth re.uisite are absent, the case will fall under Article '@), felonies by negligence or imprudence. The effect would be li%e a mitigating circumstance since said article states that the penalty will be lower than if the felony was committed intentionally. 0f the first re.uisite and the second part of the fourth re.uisite are absent, it will be an intentional felony, the second and third re.uisite will no longer apply. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A, who was very drunk, attacked $ who was teasing him. $ defended himself by getting a knife which he used to stab A repeatedly. #s he entitled to the justifying circumstance of self)defense? 2;. There is in this case incomplete self#defense. The deceased was in a state of drun%enness and so the necessity of the means used to repel the aggression is clearly not reasonable. Also, < gave sufficient provocation. $o there is only a mitigating circumstance, which is in this case is paragraph 1 of Article 1'.

A and $ were ordered to capture C, a dangerous criminal, dead or alive. %hey went to his house, and finding a person lying down in the bed in C(s room, shot him. #t turned out to be another person. A and $ contend that their act was justified since they were in the performance of a duty. $ut the court found out that the second re&uisite for the justifying circumstance of performance of duty was lacking. #s Article 1- paragraph 1 applicable in this case? 2;. Although there is an incomplete justifying circumstance, ma%ing the said circumstance mitigating, Article @= and not Article 1', paragraph 1 should be applied. The former article states that a majority of such conditions to ma%e an act justifying or e&empting will merit a penalty lower by one or two degrees. $ince there are only two re.uisites for the justifying circumstance of performance of duty, the presence of one re.uisite is already a majority. There is therefore a privileged mitigating circumstance (Article @= in this case, not an ordinary mitigating circumstance (Article 1', paragraph 1 . The same principle applies to the e&empting circumstance of uncontrollable fear which also has only " re.uisites. A, a sergeant in the army, had a grudge against $. He therefore ordered C, his subordinate to kill $. C complied. C now contends that his act is justified since he was just obeying an order. #s his contention correct? 2;. The other re.uisites in order the obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose is lac%ing in this case. At most, C is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of Article 1', paragraph 1. (+eople of the +hilippines v. <ernal A, is a 12 year old boy who committed a crime. #t was proved that he acted with discernment. 'ince the second re&uisite of the exempting circumstance of minority of a person over : but under 1, is lacking, is this article applicable? 2;. The case of such minor is specifically covered by Article @B, which is a privileged mitigating circumstance. A, was expecting to be attached by his enemies. However he fell asleep. He was awakened by a shot, and he immediately grabbed his gun and shot $ who was in the vicinity but was innocent and unarmed. #s A entitled to the mitigating circumstance of paragraph 1? H4$. There was the incomplete e&empting circumstance of uncontrollable fear (Article 1", paragraph @ . The fear in this case was not uncontrollable and was not real and imminent. PARA!RAPH ; G )NDER 18 OR OVER KM ,EARS O( A!E "HAT SIT)ATIONS DOES PARA!RAPH ; RE(ER TO'

'1

Ahen the offender is over = years but under 1) years of age and acted with discernment (in which case, Article @B applies Ahen the offender is 1) years or over but under 1B years of age (in which case, Article @B applies Ahen the offender is over 5F years of age.

,itigated responsibility: over nine (= under fifteen (1) , if acting discernment, fifteen (1) or over but than eighteen (1B , and over seventy years of age

and with less (5F

I( IT IS PROVED THAT THE &INOR CO&&ITTED A CRI&E, HO" "O)LD HE +E PROCEEDED A!AINST' Through Article 1=" of the +/ @F' which is applied in lieu of Article BF of the 8evised +enal Code. 0nstead of pronouncing a judgment of conviction, the court, upon application of the youthful offender and if it finds that the best interest of the public as well as that of the offender will be served thereby, may suspend all further proceedings. $uch minor shall then be committed to the custody or care of the /$A/, or to any training institution operated by the government or any responsible person. This will go on until he shall have reached "1 years of age, or for a shorter period as the court may deem proper after considering the reports and recommendation of the department, institution or person under whose care he has been committed. "HAT IS THE E((ECT O( THIS &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCE' 0t depends on the age of the accused. 0f the accused is over = years and under 1) years of age and it was proven that he acted with discernment, Article @B will apply. The penalty will be lowered by " degrees. 6or e&ample, in this crime of homicide which is punishable by reclusion temporal, the penalty two degrees lower would be prision correccional. 0f the accused is over 1) years or over but under 1B years of age, Article @B will also apply and the penalty will be lowered by 1 degree. 0n the same e&ample, it would be prision mayor, which is 1 degree lower than reclusion temporal. 0f the accused is over 5F years of age, this paragraph will apply, and the penalty will be lowered by one period, provided there is no aggravating circumstance, which is in this case, reclusion temporal minimum. ARE THE STA!ES O(

A, CO&&ITTED A CRI&E "HEN HE "AS 1J ,EAR O( A!E. +)T THE TRIAL STARTED "HEN HE "AS ALREAD, 1L. CAN HE STILL +ENE(IT (RO& PARA!RAPH ;' H4$. 0t is the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime which should be determined and not at the time of the trial. (+eople of the +hilippines v. +la-a "HAT IS THE DI((ERENCE +ET"EEN A CRI&E CO&&ITTED +, A &INOR AND THAT +, A PERSON OVER KM ,EARS OLD, IN ACCORDENCE "ITH PARA!RAPH ;' A crime committed by a minor is specifically covered in Article @B which provides for a mitigating circumstance. Article @B does not cover crimes committed by a person over 5F years of age. PARA!RAPH 3 G NO INTENTION TO CO&&IT SO !RAVE A "RON! "HAT IS THE R)LE (OR THE APPLICATION O( THIS PARA!RAPH' The facts proven must show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to e&ecute the criminal act and its conse.uences. (>$ v. 8eyes HO" DO ,O) SHO)" THAT THE ACC)SED DID NOT INTENT THE "RON! CO&&ITTED' 0ntention, being an internal act, must be judged by the circumstance surrounding the case, li%e the weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury inflicted, the manner it was inflicted, and the effects of the injury committed. &A, THE LAC* O( INTENT TO CO&&IT SO !RAVE A "RON! +E CONSIDERED IN CONSPIRAC,' 2;. 0n conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. $o even though some of the conspirators did not intend to commit so grave a wrong, the fact that they were in conspiracy ma%es them liable for all the acts made by their companions. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A had a &uarrel with his wife. #n the course of the fight, A punched her in the abdomen. %he punch caused her spleen to rupture, killing her. #s the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong applicable in this case? H4$. At most, the husband only wanted to cause physical injuries. *e never intended to %ill his wife.

THERE(ORE, "HAT RESPONSI+ILIT,'

$tages of 8esponsibility: Absolute irresponsibility: nine (= years and below Conditional responsibility: between nine (= and fifteen (1) years 6ull responsibility: eighteen (1B or over to seventy (5F

'"

A, armed with a bolo, attacked $, the abdomen , times. 7rosecuted contends that he is entitled to circumstance in paragraph -. #s correct?

stabbing him in for murder, he the mitigating his contention

That the provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime by the person provo%ed.

"HAT IS S)((ICIENT PROVOCATION' Any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party capable of e&citing, inciting or irritating a person to commit a wrong and must be proportionate to its gravity. The sufficiency of the provocation will depend on the circumstances in each case. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A is a foreman in a construction company. $, who was one of the laborers in the line waiting to receive their wages, left his place and forced himself up front. %he accused ordered him to get back in line but he persisted vehemently. %hereafter, A hit him in the head. A contends that he was acting in self) defense. #s his contention correct? 2;. ;bviously there was no unlawful aggression on the part of <. *owever, A can be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of paragraph (. A was walking along @uneta when $ approached him and pointing to him, asked what he was doing in their territory. A then took out his knife and stabbed $. Can A avail of the mitigating circumstance of paragraph <? 2;. The provocation in this case is not sufficient. A and $ were together. A hit C on the head with a piece of stone from his sling shot and ran away. As he could not overtake A, C faced $ and assaulted him. C contends that he should be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of paragraph <. #s his contention correct? 2;. The paragraph says that the provocation must come from the offended party. 0n this case, < never gave any provocation. A provoked $ in front of a large crown. , hours later, when $ saw A walking alone, $ stabbed him in the back. Can $ benefit from paragraph <? 2;. +rovocation must commission of the crime. be immediate to the

The weapon used, the part of the body injured, and the number of stab wounds point to the fact that the accused had intent to %ill when he attac%ed <. A, wanted to rape $, a = year old girl. $ut when he tried to do so, she shouted so A had to cover her mouth and choke her. $ecause of this, $ died. A contends that he had no intention to kill $, only rape her. #s A entitled to the mitigating circumstance of paragraph -? 2;. A %new that the girl was very tender in age, wea% in body, helpless and defenseless and he ought to %now that natural and inevitable result of the act of strangulation. $ince the offender:s real intent cannot be determined, the circumstances show that A had the intent to commit the grave crime. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Hu A, $ and C went to rob *(s house. As they were about to escape with their loot, * awoke and shouted at them. 0earing that * would call the police, they killed him. At the trial, all the accused contend that they are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of paragraph - since their plan was only to rob and not kill *. #s their contention correct? 2;. Article 1', paragraph ' addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when he e&ecutes or commits the criminal act, not to his intention during the planning stage. 0n this case, at the precise moment they ganged up on /, they did intend to %ill him. 0t is that moment to which this paragraph applies. (+eople of the +hilippines v. <oyles A, a jail guard, forgot to lock $(s cell since he was very drunk. $ was able to escape. A is prosecuted for the crime of infidelity in the custody of prisoners through negligence. A contends that he had no intention to commit a wrong. #s his contention correct? 2;. This paragraph is not applicable to felonies by negligence where the offender acts without intent. *ence in felonies through negligence there is no intent on the part of the offender which may be considered as diminished. PARA!RAPH C G PROVOCATION OR THREAT "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR PARA!RAPH C TO APPL,' That the provocation must be sufficient That it must originate from the offended party

A threatened $ with bodily harm because of which the latter attacked and injured the former. Can $ benefit from paragraph <? H4$. The threat immediately preceded the act. <ut it must be noted that vague threats is not sufficient provocation. ;n the other hand, if the threat was offensive and positively strong, then it would be an unlawful aggression which may give rise to self# defense. PARA!RAPH O((ENSE 5 G VINDICATION O( !RAVE

''

"HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR PARA!RAPH 5 TO APPL,' That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degree. That the felony is committed in the immediate vindication of such grave offense.

H4$. The re.uisites for this paragraph to apply is present in this case. A committed physical injuries on $. : months later, when $ saw A alone, $ stabbed him to death. Can he avail of the mitigating circumstance in paragraph ,? 2;. 0t cannot be said that the second incident was a pro&imate vindication of the first. Although a lapse of time is allowed, the lapse of time in this case has already been too long. A was facing criminal and administrative charges in the Civil 'ervice Commission. !hile he was eating lunch with his fellow employees, $ remarked that the C'C was a hang)out for thieves. A, feeling that a grave offense was committed against his person, waited for $ after work, and attacked him. Can A avail of the mitigating circumstance in paragraph ,? 2;. The supposed grave offense must be directed to the accused. 0n this case, the remar% was general in nature and could have applied to the other people in the vicinity. (+eople of the +hilippines v. <enito PARA!RAPH J G PASSION OR O+()SCATION "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR THE &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCE O( PASSION OR O+()SCATION TO APPL,' That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind and That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal e.uanimity.

The word 1immediate3 in paragraph ) is not an accurate translation of the $panish te&t which uses the term 1pro&ima.3 A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense. HO" DO ,O) DETER&INE THE !RAVIT, O( THE O((ENSE IN VINDICATION' $uch must be decided by the court, ta%ing into consideration the circumstances surrounding each case. HO" LON! SHO)LD THE LAPSE O( TI&E +E +ET"EEN THE !RAVE O((ENSE AND VINDICATION' 0t depends on the circumstances of each case. The court must consider the lasting effect and influence of the grave offense to the offender when he resorted to commit the crime to vindicate such grave offense. DISTIN!)ISH PROVOCATION VINDICATION. PROVOCATION VINDICATION (RO&

,ade directly to the person committing the Erave offense may be committed against felony. offender:s relatives mentioned by law. ;ffended party need not have done a grave ,ust be a grave offense. offense to the offender.

also

"HAT IS THE R)LE (OR THE APPLICATION O( THIS PARA!RAPH' +assion or obfuscation may constitute a mitigating circumstance only when the same arose from lawful sentiments provided by prior unjust or improper acts of the offended party. Therefore, even if it is proved that there is actually passion and obfuscation but the act was done in a spirit of lawlessness or revenge, then this mitigating circumstance cannot apply. The passion and obfuscation must have caused a diminution of intelligence and intent on the part of the accused. HO" LON! &)ST THE LEN!TH O( TI&E +E +ET"EEN THE ACT THAT !AVE RISE TO THE PASSION AND O+()SCATION O( THE ACC)SED AND THE CRI&E' 0t depends on the circumstances. The defense must be able to prove that the act which produced passion or obfuscation too% place at a time not far removed from the commission of the crime. 0t actually depends on whether the accused has recovered his normal e.uanimity during the length of time

There must not be an interval of time between $uch may be pro&imate, which admits of an the provocation and the commission of the interval of time between the grave offense done by the offended party and the commission of the crime by the accused.

!hen A returned home one night, he saw his son stabbed to death with a knife which he recogni/ed to belong to $. A immediately got the knife, looked for $, and stabbed him. #s he entitled to the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense?

'(

between the two acts. 0n one case, half an hour was not considered. &A, PASSION OR O+()SCATION LA"()LL, ARISE (RO& CA)SES E-ISTIN! ONL, IN THE HONEST +ELIE( O( THE O((ENDER' H4$. Thus the belief of accused that the deceased had caused his dismissal from his employment, even though the latter had no part in it, is sufficient to confuse his reason and impel him to commit the crime. (>$ v. 6errer DISTIN!)ISH PASSION (RO& PROVOCATION. OR O+()SCATION

taking his carabao, the former shot the latter. Can $ claim that he was overcome by passion and obfuscation? 2;. The action of A in ta%ing the carabao to the barrio lieutenant was perfectly legal and proper and constituted no reasonable cause for provocation to the accused. +assion and obfuscation in this case is not justified because A was clearly within his rights in what he did. (+eople of the +hilippines v. 2oynay 0or about , years, A and $ lived illicitly in the manner of husband and wife. Afterwards, $ separated from A and lived with another man. A was enraged by such conduct, and so he killed $. Can paragraph = apply to him? 2;. 4ven if it is true that A acted with obfuscation because of jealousy, the mitigating circumstance cannot be considered because the causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for the loss of self# control must originate from legitimate feelings, and not those which arise from vicious, unworthy and immoral passions, li%e in this case where the relationship was illegitimate. (>$ v. *ic%s A and $ were living together for a long time already. !hen A went home one night, he saw $ in flagrante, having carnal relations with a common ac&uaintance. A then got hold of a knife, and shot $. #s A entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation? H4$. This case must be distinguished from the *ic%s case because since the impulse causes here was the sudden revelation that < was untrue to him, and his discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another. 0n *ic%s, the cause of passion and obfuscation was his ve&ation, disappointment and anger by his wife:s refusal to continue in their illicit relations with him, which she had a perfect right to do. (>$ v. de la CruA saw $ almost naked in front of him. He was overcome with uncontrollable passion and he wanted to have carnal knowledge with $. 'o he raped her. #s A entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation? 2;. The passion and obfuscation here was motivated by a spirit of lawlessness, so the mitigating circumstance wouldn:t apply. A poisoned the :)month)old child entrusted to her since a few hours before, the child(s mother scolded her for being with a man in the master(s bedroom. Can A invoke paragraph =? 2;. $he was actuated by a spirit of revenge rather than a sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Caliso A and $, believing that C would inflict other wounds upon their father who was already wounded, immediately killed C. .nder great excitement, they also proceeded to kill C(s son who was near the

PROVOCATION PASSION OR O+()SCATION Comes from the injured party +roduced by an impulse which may be caused by provocation 0mmediately precede the commission of the +assion and obfuscation need not be immediate. 0t crime is re.uired only that the influence thereof lasts until the moment the crime is committed. 0n both, the effect is the loss of reason and self# control on the part of the offender. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A was insulted by $ in front of a large crowd. 'o A deliberately planned to injure $, and he did so. A contends that the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation be applied to his case. #s his contention correct? 2;. The crime committed must be the result of a sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury, not when the crime was planned and calmly meditated. 0n this case, A was motivated in a spirit of revenge, so the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot apply. A and $ were causing trouble in the wake of C(s father. !hen C saw them wreaking havoc on the place, he got a stick and his both A and $ on the head. #s paragraph = applicable in this case? H4$. Considering that the trouble created by the deceased was both unlawful and sufficient to infuriate C, his guilt is mitigated by passion and obfuscation. A went to $(s house to collect the debt $ owed him which he has not paid for in a long time. $ still refused to pay so A got hold of $(s carabao, so he could take it to the barrio lieutenant. !hen $ saw A

')

scene at that time. Can they invoke passion and obfuscation regarding the death of C(s son? 2;. C:s son had no part in the .uarrel and had not in any manner provo%ed the sons. The provocation that caused passion and obfuscation must come from the offended party. A told $ that he was good)for)nothing husband and that he was gay. $linded by passion because of A(s remark, $ took out a knife and stabbed A. $ contends that he is entitled to ; mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, one for each insult by his wife. #s his contention correct? *4?? 2;I +rovocation and obfuscation arising from one and the same cause should be treated as only one mitigating circumstance. A went home to find his wife killed. He saw $(s gun nearby. A immediately took the gun, looked for $ and shot him. A contends that there are two mitigating circumstances in his crime. Aindication of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation. #s his contention correct? 2;. Lindication of grave offense cannot co#e&ist with passion and obfuscation. At most, only one of them could be considered, not both simultaneously. PARA!RAPH K G S)RRENDER AND CON(ESSION O( !)ILT E-PLAIN PARA!RAPH K. Two mitigating circumstances are provided for in this paragraph: Loluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents Loluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution Ahen both are present, they should have the effect of mitigating as two independent circumstances. "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR VOL)NTAR, S)RRENDER' That the offender had not actually been arrested That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter:s agent That the surrender was voluntary

and security of life and property and any person who come to the aid of persons in authority. (for e&ample, a policeman "HEN IS S)RRENDER VOL)NTAR,' A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because: *e ac%nowledges his guilt, or *e wishes to save them the trouble and e&penses necessarily incurred in his search and capture 0f none of the two reasons impelled the accused to surrender, the surrender is not spontaneous and therefore not voluntary. 0??>$T8AT0;2: After killing A, $ ran toward the municipal building, threw away his bolo, raised his two hands, offered no resistance, and said to the patrolman3 Here is my bolo, # stabbed the victim." #s he entitled to the mitigating circumstance of paragraph B? H4$. There was intent or desire to surrender voluntarily to the authorities (+eople of the +hilippines v. Tenorio A killed $, thereafter he went into hiding. After a warrant of arrest was served upon him, he immediately surrendered. Can he avail of the mitigating circumstance of surrender? 2;. Ahen an accused surrenders only after a warrant of arrest has been served upon him, it is not mitigating. (+eople of the +hilippines v. 8oldan !hen the warrant of arrest had not been served or not returned unserved because the accused cannot be located, and the accused surrendered, is the surrender mitigating? H4$. 0n the absence of proof to the contrary, the act of the accused in surrendering is voluntary since he had no %nowledge of his warrant of arrest. (+eople of the +hilippines v. <rana After committing a crime, A and $ went into hiding. +ne day, police and military authorities surrounded their house and asked them to surrender. %hereafter, A and $, with arms raised, shouted that they would be surrendering. Can this paragraph apply to them? 2;. Their surrender was not spontaneous as it was motivated more by an intent to insure their safety. (+eople of the +hilippines v. $alvilla A, after committing a crime, went into hiding and refused to surrender until he had spoken to the town councilor. After doing so, he surrendered himself. #s he entitled to a mitigating circumstance? 2;. Ahen the offender imposed a condition, his surrender is not voluntary.

"HO IS A PERSON IN A)THORIT,' AN A!ENT O( A PERSON IN A)THORIT,' A person in authority is one vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board or commission. (for e&ample, a barangay captain An agent of a person in authority is a person, who, by direct provision of the law, or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order, and the protection

'@

A killed $. $ecause of fear from the retaliation of $(s brothers, A immediately gave himself up to the police. #s paragraph B applicable in this case? H4$. That the surrender was induced by his fear of retaliation does not gainsay the spontaneity of the surrender, nor alter the fact that by giving himself up, this accused saved the $tate the time and trouble of searching for him until arrested. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Clemente After killing A, $ went to the Chief of 7olice to surrender the bolo, but not himself. 7rosecuted for murder, he contends that he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of surrender. #s his contention correct? 2;. The law re.uires that the offender must have voluntarily surrendered 1himself3 to a person in authority or his agents. (+eople of the +hilippines v. 8amos After committing malversation, A surrendered to the chief clerk of a district engineer. #s paragraph B applicable? 2;. The chief cler% is not a person in authority or his agent. After committing the crime, A went into hiding. Co search warrant was issued. He hid for , days, and it was only after the fifth day did he surrender. Considering the length of time before his surrender, is A still entitled to the mitigating circumstance of surrender? H4$. The 8evised +enal Code does not ma%e any distinction among the various moments when the surrender may occur. 0t is enough that the accused satisfy the re.uisites for voluntary surrender. "HAT ARE THE R)LES SO A PLEA O( !)ILT, CAN +E A &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCE' That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt That the confession was made in open court The court is the competent court to try the case That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution 0t is made at the first opportunity and not on appeal 0t is an unconditional plea The plea is to the offense charge, and not to a lesser offense.

0??>$T8AT0;2: A confessed to the fiscal while he was in custody at the police head&uarters, that he was guilty of the crime. Can this mitigate his liability? 2;. The confession in this case was made e&tra# judicially. The confession of guilt must be made in open court in order for the confession to be mitigating. A committed a crime which was punishable by death. He pleaded guilty in the municipal trial court. *oes paragraph B apply to his case? 2;. A plea of guilty, to be mitigating, must be made in a competent court, or a court where the case is to be tried. Crimes punishable by death must be tried at the 8egional Trial Court. *uring the trial of A, the prosecution had already presented evidence on the guilt of the accused. After that, he changed his plea of not guilt to a plea of guilty. #s he still entitled to the mitigating circumstance of paragraph B? 2;. The plea must be made before trial begins. ,oreover, it must be done at the first opportunity. A plea of guilty on appeal is not mitigating. A(s trial had already begun on the original information for murder and frustrated murder. He expressed willingness to plead guilty for a lesser offense. %he court granted this and the information was amended to that of homicide and frustrated homicide. Can A avail himself of the mitigating circumstance of paragraph B? H4$. There was an entirely new information and no evidence was yet presented in connection with the charges made therein before the accused entered his plea of guilty. A pleaded guilty but held that evident premeditation which was alleged in the information did not attend the commission of the crime. !hen the court re&uired the presentation of evidence on premeditation, the prosecution failed to prove it. Considering that the plea of guilty was to a lesser offense, can paragraph B still apply? H4$. Although a plea of guilty must be to the offense charged and not to a lesser offense, the .ualification here did not deny the accused: guilt. ,oreover, it was subse.uently justified. 0t was not A:s fault that aggravating circumstances were erroneously alleged in the information. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Hturriaga A pleaded guilty to murder. 'ince he has already acknowledged his guilt, is it still necessary to proceed with the trial? H4$. The court should determine whether the accuses really and truly comprehended the meaning, full significance and conse.uences of his plea and

IS A PLEA O( !)ILT, APPLICA+LE TO ALL CRI&ES' 2;. A plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable felonies, and in crimes punished by special laws.

'5

that the same was voluntarily and intelligently entered or given by the accused. ,oreover, when it is a capital offense, it is mandatory that evidence be presented in accordance with the 8evised 8ules of Court. PARA!RAPH 8 G PH,SICAL DE(ECT "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR PARA!RAPH 8 TO APPL,' The offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect $uch physical defect restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings.

A was adjudged sane. However, she is suffering from a mild behavior disorder. !ill A be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of illness? H4$. Although judged mentally sane, her mild behavior disorder can be considered a mitigating circumstance. (+eople of the +hilippines v. Amit PARA!RAPH 1M G SI&ILAR AND ANALO!O)S CIRC)&STANCES "HAT IS THE PARA!RAPH' SI!NI(ICANCE O( THIS

DOES THIS PARA!RAPH APPL, "HEN THE DEA(5&)TE OR +LIND IS ED)CATED' H4$. This paragraph does not distinguish between educated and uneducated deaf#mute or blind persons. 0??>$T8AT0;2: A is armless, he was charged with libel. #s he entitled to the mitigating circumstance in this paragraph? 2;. The physical defect must restrict his means of action, defense, or communication. The restriction must relate to the mode of committing this crime. 0n this case, the physical defect of A has no relation to the mode of committing the crime of libel. PARA!RAPH L G ILLNESS O( THE O((ENDER "HAT ARE THE RED)ISITES (OR PARA!RAPH L TO APPL,' That the illness of the offender must diminish the e&ercise of his will#power That such illness should not deprive the offender of the consciousness of his acts. "HAT IS THE REASON (OR RED)ISITE O( PARA!RAPH L' THE SECOND

The significance of this paragraph is that even though a particular circumstance does not fall under any of the enumerated circumstances in Article 1', the court is authori-ed to consider in favor of the accused 1any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those mentioned.3 0??>$T8AT0;2: A, a =2 year old man with failing sight, committed the crime of homicide. #s he entitled to a mitigating circumstance? H4$. A:s case falls under paragraph 1F since his case is similar to that of paragraph ", or a person over 5F years of age. A, on the occasion of extreme poverty, stole two sacks of paper and sold them at a cheaper price. #s he entitled to a mitigating circumstance? H4$. 4&treme poverty maybe a mitigating circumstance based on Article 11, paragraph (. <ut it can only mitigate when the crime is against property li%e theft and not when the crime is violent such as murder. Also, when the accused impoverished himself and lost his occupation by committing crimes and he was not driven to crime by reason of poverty, then this paragraph cannot be a mitigating circumstance. A found out that his neighbor was a terrorist and that the latter was planning to bomb a mall. 'o A took out his gun and killed his neighbor. !hen prosecuted, he claims that what he did was right since he saved a lot of people from being killed. !hat is the effect of his claim to his criminal liability? The performance of righteous action, no matter how meritorious it may be, is not justifying, e&empting or mitigating in the commission of wrongs. And although the accused had saved the lives of a lot of persons, if he caused the %illing of a single human being, he is nonetheless, criminally liable. &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES PERSONAL TO THE O((ENDERS "HICH ARE

0f the offender is deprived of all consciousness of his acts, then it may be an e&empting circumstance based on insanity. DOES THIS &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCE INCL)DE ILLNESS O( THE &IND' H4$. >sually, this paragraph applies to diseases of a pathological state that trouble the conscience or will. *owever, illness of the mind is also included as long as it doesn:t amount to insanity, for in that case such illness would be an e&empting circumstance. 0??>$T8AT0;2:

"HAT ARE THE &ITI!ATIN! CIRC)&STANCES "HICH ARE PERSONAL TO THE O((ENDERS'

'B

Those which arise: 6rom the moral attributes of the offender 6rom his private relations with the offended party 6rom any other personal cause. $uch shall serve to mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. (Article @", paragraph ' 0??>$T8AT0;2: A and $ killed C, A acting under an impulse which produced obfuscation. #s $ also entitled to the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation? 2;. The circumstance arose from the moral attribute of A and it shall mitigate the liability of A only. 0t shall not mitigate the liability of <. A, son of $, committed robbery against the latter, which C, a stranger, bought the property taken by A from $, knowing that the property was the effect of the crime of robbery. Are both A and $ entitled to the mitigating circumstance of relationship? 2;. The mitigating circumstance of relationship (Article 1) arose from the private relations of A with < and it shall mitigate the liability of A only. 0t shall not mitigate the liability of C, an accessory. A, 1< years old and acting with discernment, inflicted serious physical injuries on C. $, seeing what A had done to C, kicked the latter, thereby concurring in the criminal purpose of A and cooperating with him by simultaneous acts. Are both A and $, entitled to a mitigating circumstance?? 2;. The circumstance of minority arose from other personal causes and it shall mitigate the liability of A only. 0t will not mitigate the liability of <, an accomplice.

'=