Criminal Law I

COURSE OUTLINE

I. Introduction to Criminal Law

A. Definitions
1. Criminal Law
a. Classical Theory of Criminal Law
b. Positivist Theory of Criminal Law

2. Crime

3. Sources of Criminal Law

a. Revised Penal Code
b. Special penal laws
c. Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law
d. Are there common law crimes in the Philippines?

B. State Authority to Punish Crimes

1. Police Power
US v. Taylor, 28 Phil 599

2. Constitutional Sources
a. Art. II, sec. 5
b. Art. VI, sec. 1
c. Art. II, sec. 1

3. Limitations on the enactment of penal legislation

a. Art. III (Bill of Rights), 1987 Constitution
i. Art. III, Sec. 1
ii. Art. III, Sec. 14 (1)
iii. Art. III, Sec. 18
iv. Art. III, Sec. 19
v. Art. III, Sec. 20

vi. Art. III, Sec. 22

 Ex Post Facto Laws
Pp v. Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95
In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 429
Benedicto v. CA, G.R. No. 125359, Sept. 4, 2001
  Bills of Attainder
Pp v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382
b. Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 115
c. Civil Code, Art. 2

C. Characteristics of Criminal Law

1. General

a. General Rule
Const. (1987), art. VI, sec. 1
Art. 14, New Civil Code
Pp v. Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027

b. Offenses with a Military Element

i. Concurrent jurisdiction of civil courts and general courts-

martial
US v. Sweet, 1 Phil 18
Valdez v. Lucero, 76 Phil 356
Marcos and Concordia v. Chief of Staff, AFP, 89 Phil 246

ii. Jurisdiction over war crimes

Cantos v. Styer, 76 Phil 748
Kuroda v. Jalandoni, 83 Phil 171

c. Exceptions to the general application of Criminal Law

i. Principles of public international law

Persons exempt from operation of Philippine Penal Laws

by Virtue of PIL
Schneckenburger v. Moran, 63 Phil. 249
Raquiza v. Bradford, 75 Phil 50
Minucher v. CA, G.R. No. 97765, Sept. 24, 1992

Optional reading: “Various Categories of Diplomatic

Immunity from Local Jurisdiction” in 323 SCRA 699-715
(2000)

Rule on Public Vessels

US v. Fowler, 1 Phil 614

2
 ii. Laws of preferential application
Republic Act No. 75
Republic Act No. 7055

iii. Treaties
Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines and the Government of the United States
of America Regarding the Treatment of United States
Armed Forces Visiting the Philippines, 10 February 1998
(Visiting Forces Agreement), Art. V

2. Territoriality
a. General Rule
i. Art. 2, RPC
ii. Art. 1, 1987 Constitution

b. Exceptions to the General Rule

See Art. 2, RPCand VFA again

c. Jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant

vessels

i. French rule
ii. English rule

US v. Fowler, supra.
US v. Bull, 15 Phil 7
US v. Look Chow, 18 Phil 573
US v. Ah Sing, 36 Phil 978
Pp v. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729

d. RA 9372

3. Prospective

a. General Rule: Criminal laws have no retroactive effect.

i. Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Constitution

ii. RPC
 Art. 1
 Art. 21

3
  Art. 22
 Art. 366

iii. Civil Code, Art. 4

b. Exceptions to the rule: If law favors the accused

i. Art. 22, RPC: Penal laws have retroactive effect insofar

as they favor the person guilty of a felony, although at
the time of publication of such laws a final sentence
has been pronounced and the convict is serving the
same.

ii. New statutes dealing with crimes that establish

conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused
can be given retroactive effect.

c. Exception to the exception

i. New law expressly made inapplicable to pending
actions or existing causes of action
Tavera v. Valdez, 1 Phil 468

ii. Offender is a habitual criminal

d. Effects of repeal on penal law

Pp v. Tamayo, 61 Phil 225
US v. Cuna, 12 Phil 241
Pp v. Sindiong and Pastor, 77 Phil 1000
Tavera v. Valdez, 1 Phil 468

D. Construction of Penal Laws

Laurel v. Abrogar, 483 SCRA 649
Pp v. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006
Santos To v. Pano, 120 SCRA 8.
Pp v. Manaba, 58 Phil 665

E. Revised Penal Code

Book 1 – contains:
 Basic Principles
 Rules for the Application of Penalties

4
 Book 2 – Elements and Penalties for Specific Felonies
Exceptions:
 Art. 160 – quasi-recidivism
 Art. 247 – death or physical injuries under exceptional
circumstances = constitutes a specific mitigating circumstance

II. Felonies and Criminal Liability

A. Felony

1. Definitions
RPC, Art. 3

2. Elements

a. Act
Pp v. Gonzales, 183 SCRA 309

b. Omission
RPC, Art. 116
RPC, Art. 137
RPC, Art. 208
RPC, Art. 213 (2)(b)
RPC, Art. 223
RPC, Art. 234
RPC, Art. 275 (1)

Pp v. Silvestre and Atienza, 56 Phil 353

c. Act/omission punishable by RPC

Nullumcrimen, nullapoena sine lege
RPC, Art. 3
RPC, Art. 5, 1st par., Sec. 21

d. Manner of Commission
Calimutan v. Pp, 482 SCRA 47
Pp v. Guillen, 85 Phil 07

1. Deceit/Dolo

i. Requisites

5
  Freedom
Correlate with Art. 12 (5), (6) & (7), RPC

 Intelligence
Correlate with Art.12 [1][2][3], RPC; Sec.6, RA 9344

Pp v. Rey, G.R. No. 80089 (1989)

Kui v. CA, G.R. No. 85291 (1989)

 Criminal Intent
Correlate with Art.11, RPC and Art.12[4], RPC

US v. Apostol, 14 Phil 92
US v. Catolico, 18 Phil 504
Guevarra v. Almodovar, G.R. No. 75256, January 26, 1989
Maneul v. Pp, 476 SCRA 461

ii. Presumption of intent

Pp v. SiaTeb Ban, 54 Phil 52
US v. Apostol, supra

iii. General vs. Specific intent

US v. Catolico, supra.
Pp. v. Puno, 219 SCRA 85
Pp. v. Delim, 396 SCRA 386

iv. Intent v. Motive

Pp. v. Temblor, 161 SCRA 623 (1988)
Pp. v. Hassan, 157 SCRA 261 (1988)
Velasco v. Pp, 483 SCRA 649

v. How is criminal intent determined

US v. Reyes, 26 Phil 791
Pp v. Flores, 50 Phil 548
Pp v. Amit, 32 SCRA 95

vi. Mistake of fact

US V. Ah Chong, 15 Phil 488
Pp v. Oanis, 74 Phil 257
Pp v. De Fernando, 49 Phil 75

3. Fault/Culpa

a. Elements

6
 i. Freedom
Correlate with Art. 12 (5), (6) & (7), RPC

ii. Intelligence
Correlate with Art.12 [1][2][3], RPC; Sec.6, RA 9344
iii. Intent to perform an act
iv. Negligence or Imprudence

Pp v. Nangquil, 43 Phil 232

US v. Barnes, 12 Phil 93
Pp v. Guillen, 85 Phil 307

b. Distinguished from dolo

Pp v. Pugay, 167 SCRA 439

B. Crimes defined and penalized by special laws

1. Crimes Mala in seandMala prohibita

Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323
Magno v. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 475
USv. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128

2. Relation of RPC to special laws

RPC, Art. 10

Ladonga v. Pp., 451 SCRA 673

C. Criminal Liability
Art. 4, RPC

1. How incurred
a. Committing a felony
See discussions on Art. 3, RPC

b. Wrongful act done be different from what was intended

RPC, Art. 4(1)
RPC, Art. 13(3)
RPC, Art. 48
RPC, Art. 49
RPC, Art. 14(3)

i. Concept of proximate cause

Quinto v. Andres, 453 SCRA 511
Pp v. Ural, 56 SCRA 138

7
 ii. How intent is determined
US v. Reyes, 26 Phil 791
Pp v. Amit, 32 SCRA 95
Pp v. Retubado, G.R. No. 58585, June 20, 1988

iii. PraeterIntentionem
Pp v. Boyles, 11 SCRA 88
Pp v. Amit, supra
Pp v. Pugay, 167 SCRA 439

iv. Aberratio Ictus

Pp v. Pinto, G.R. No. 39519, 1991
Pp v. Sabalones, G.R. No. 123485, 1998
Pp v. Itlanas, 135 SCRA 302

v. Error in Personae
Pp v. Oanis, 74 Phil 257
Pp v. Cabareno 349 SCRA 297
Pp v. Albequerque, 59 Phil 150

c. Impossible crimes
RPC, Art. 4(2)

Pp. v. Balmores, 85 Phil. 493 (1950)

Intod v. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 52 (1992)

2. Stages of commission

a. Definitions
RPC, Art. 6
RPC, Art. 7

United States v. Eduave, 36 Phil. 209

Pp. v. Enriquez, 281 SCRA 103 (1997)
Pp. v. Listerio, 335 SCRA 40 (2000)

b. Attempted Felony
i. Elements
ii. Concept of Overt Act
iii. Subjective Phase
Rivera v. Pp, 480 SCRA 188 [January 25, 2006]
Velasco v. Pp, 483 SCRA 649 [February 28, 2006]
Pp v. Valledor, 383 SCRA 653
Pp v. Dela Cruz, 431 SCRA 388 [June 8, 2004]
Perez v. CA, 382 SCRA 182, May 9, 2002]
Pp v. Lamahang, 61 Phil 703
Baleros v. Pp, 483 SCRA 10

8
 c. Frustrated Felony
i. Elements

ii. Concept of Objective Phase

Pp v. Caballero, 400 SCRA 424 [April 2, 2003]
Andrada v. Pp, 452 SCRA 685)

iii. Specific felonies which cannot be frustrated

Pp v. Aca-ac, 357 SCRA 373, April 20, 2001
Pp v. Oscar, 48 Phil 527
Pp v. Amores, 58 SCRA 505
Pp v. Tayaba, 62 Phil 559
Pp v. Rabadan, 53 Phil 694

d. Consummated Felony

3. Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony

RPC, Art. 8
RPC, Art. 115
RPC, Art. 136
RPC, Art. 141
RPC, Art. 186
RPC, Art. 306

Pp. v. Peralta, 25 SCRA 759

United States v. Bautista, 6 Phil. 581
Garcia v. CA, 368 SCRA 222
Angeles v. Desierto, 501 SCRA 202
Pp v. Mapalo, G.R.No. 172608, February 6, 2007
Pp v. Comadre, 431 SCRA 366
Astudillo v. Pp, 509 SCRA 302

4. Multiple offenders
a. Recidivism, RPC, Art. 14(9)
b. Habituality (Reiteracion), RPC, Art. 14(10)
c. Quasi-Recidivism, RPC, Art. 160
d. Habitual Delinquency, RPC, Art. 62(5)
e. Classification of felonies, RPC, Arts. 7 and 9

III. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

A. Definition/Concepts:
A. Imputability
B. Responsibility
C. Guilt

9
 o What is the effect of invoking Justifying and Exempting Circumstances?
o Burden of Proof—Accused.
o Quantum of Proof—Clear and Convincing Evidence.

B. Justifying Circumstances (Art.11, RPC).

 No crime; No criminal liability
 No criminal; perpetrator acts in accordance with law
 No civil liability except in Art.11(4), RPC where civil liability is borne by
persons benefited
 RPC recognizes 6 justifying circumstances.

1. Self-Defense (Art.11[1], RPC)

a. Rationale
People v. Dagani, G.R.No.153875, August 16, 2006

b. Effect of invoking Self-Defense

People v. Concepcion, G.R.No.169060, February 6, 2007

c. Quantum of Proof
Cabuslay v. People, 471 SCRA 241

d. What may be defended? Defense of body/person or rights

People v. Roxas, 58 Phil 733
People v. Sabio, G.R.no. L-23734, April 27, 1967

e. Elements
People v. Enfectana, 381 SCRA 359

i. Unlawful Aggression
 Indispensable
Palaganas v. People, 501 SCRA 533
People v. Beltran, G.R.No. 168051, September 27, 2006
Cano v. People, 413 SCRA 92

 Must be actual and imminent

People v. Cabungcal, 51 Phil 803

10
  Must be real and not imaginary
People v. Arnante, 391 SCRA 155
People v. CA, 352 SCRA 599

 Must be continuing; effect of cessation

People v. San Juan, 386 SCRA 400
People v. Geneblazo, 361 SCRA 572
Sanchez v. People, G.R.No. 161007, December 6, 2006

ii. Reasonable Necessity

 What is reasonable?
People v. Dagani, G.R.No. 153875, August 16, 2006
People v. Ubaldo, 367 SCRA 432

 Rational equivalence
People v. Rabanal, 387 SCRA 85
People v. Palaganas, G.R.No.165483, September 12, 2006

 Prevention/Repulsion distinguished from retaliation

U.S. v. Carrero, 9 Phil 544
Senoja v. People, 440 SCRA 695

iii. Lack of Sufficient Provocation

 Not given cause for aggression by virtue of unjust conduct
Rimano v. People, 416 SCRA 569

 Provocation by the person claiming self-defense, if any, must

not be the proximate or immediate cause of the victim’s
aggression
People v. Annibong, 403 SCRA 92

 Concepts of provocation in the RPC

People v. CA, 352 SCRA 59

***Battered Woman Syndrome

Secs. 3 & 26, RA 9262 “AVAWC Act of 2004”
—Evidence must be considered in the context of self-defense
People v. Genosa, 419 SCRA 537

2. Defense of Relative (Art.11[2], RPC)

a. What may be defended? Defense of body/person or rights

b. Elements
People v. Mendez, 387 SCRA 294

11
  Unlawful Aggression (See Art.11[1], RPC)
Balunueco v. CA, 401 SCRA 76

 Reasonable Necessity (See Art.11[1], RPC)

 Person defending had no part in provoking the victim

3. Defense of Stranger (Art.11[3], RPC)

a. What may be defended? Defense of body/person or rights

b. Elements
People v. Dijan, 383 SCRA 15

 Unlawful Aggression (See Art.11[1], RPC)

 Reasonable Necessity (See Art.11[1], RPC)
 Person defending is not induced by resentment, revenge or other
evil motive

Cabuslay v. People, G.R.No. 129875, September 30, 2005.

4. Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury (Art. 11[4], RPC)

Elements
1. Actual existence of the evil sought to be avoided; not
expected/anticipated
2. Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it.
3. No other practical and less harmful means of preventing it

Ty v. People, 439 SCRA 220

People v. Ricohermoso, 56 SCRA 431

5. Fulfillment of Duty/Lawful Exercise of Right (Art.11[5], RPC)

Elements:
Mamangun v. People, G.R.No.149152, February 2, 2007
Angcaco v. People, 378 SCRA 297

 The accused acted in the lawful performance of a duty or in the

lawful exercise of such right
People v. Peralta, 350 SCRA 198

 The injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the

due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office
Baxinela v. People, 485 SCRA 331
People v. Ulep, 340 SCRA 688

12
 ***Distinguished from Self-Defense—different principles, elements
Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan, 464 SCRA 324

6. Obedience to Lawful Order of a Superior (Art.11[6], RPC)

People v. Beronilla, 96 Phil 566
People v. Rogado, 106 Phil 816

C. Exempting Circumstances (Art.12, RPC)

I. Imbecility (Art.12[1], RPC)
People v. Ambal, 100 SCRA 325
People v. Formigones, 87 Phil 658

II. Insanity, unless the crime was committed during a lucid interval
Art.12[1], RPC
- Complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of commission

People v. Valledor, 383 SCRA 653

People v. Robinos, 382 SCRA 751

III. Minority
Art.12[2], RPC
Jose v. People, 448 SCRA 116
Llave v. People, 488 SCRA 376)

**Modified by RA 9344 JJWA, Eff.: April 28, 2006

a. Fifteen (15) years of age or under—exempted (Sec.6, par.1, RA 9344);

Intervention Program (Sec.20, RA 9344)

b. Over fifteen (15) to eighteen (18) years of age—exempted, unless

with discernment (Sec.6, par.2, RA 9344). If exempt—Intervention
Program (Sec.20, RA 9344); If not exempt—appropriate proceedings
under RA 9344

c. Eighteen (18) years or under—exempt from prosecution for:

 Vagrancy & Prostitution (Art.202, RPC)
 Mendicancy (PD 1563)
 Sniffing of Rugby (PD 1619)
But must undergo appropriate counseling and treatment
program

IV. Accident—meaning; rationale for exemption

Toledo v. People, 439 SCRA 94

Elements
People v. Concepcion, 386 SCRA 74
 Accused is performing a lawful act with due care

13
  Injury is caused by mere accident
 Accused had neither fault nor intent to cause injury

V. Irresistible force
U.S. v. Caballeros, 4 Phil 350
People v. Loreno, 130 SCRA 311

VI. Uncontrollable fear

Ty v. People, supra.
U.S. v. Exaltacion, 3 Phil 339
People v. Borja, 91 SCRA 340

VII. Lawful or insuperable cause.

U.S. v. Vicentillo, 19 Phil 118
People v. Bandian, 63 Phil 530

D. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES

1. The Offender’s Spontaneous Desistance in the Attempted Stage of a

Felony (Article 6, RPC)
2. Attempted or Frustrate Light Felonies which are not against persons or
property (Art.7, RPC)
3. Accessories in light felonies (Art. 16 cf. Art. 20, RPC).
4. Accessories who are S, A, D, LNA B & S, Rel. by Affinity (same degrees)
of the principal offender, except if they profit or assist the latter in
profiting by the effects of the crime (Art. 20 cf. Art. 19[1], RPC).
5. Slight or Less Serious Physical Injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances (Art.247, RPC)
6. Theft, Swindling or Malicious Mischief caused mutually by: (1) S, A, D,
Rel. by Affinity in the same line, (2) Widowed Spouse re: property
belonged to the deceased spouse before possession is passed onto
another, (3) B, S, BiL & SiL, if living together (Art. 332, RPC).
7. Instigation (U.S. v. Phelps, 16 Phil 440; Araneta v. CA, 142 SCRA 532)

E. OTHER DEFENSES AGAINST CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. Marriage of the Offender and Offended Party in cases of Seduction,

Abduction, Acts of Lasciviousness and Rape (Art.344 [4], RPC; Art.89 [7],
RPC).
2. Pardon by the Offended party in cases of Seduction, Abduction, Acts of
Lasciviousness and Rape, prior to the institution of the criminal action
(Art. 344[3], RPC; U.S. v. Luna, 1 Phil 360)
3. Amnesty, Prescription of Crimes (Art. 89[3 & 5], RPC)
4. In the crime of Trespass, when there is Legal Ground (Art.280[3], RPC)
5. Continued detention when there is Legal Ground (Art.124 [last par.], RPC)

14
IV. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

A. Incomplete Justifying/Exempting Circumstances (Art.13[1])

a. Incomplete Justifying/Exempting Circumstances (Arts, 11, 12 & 69, RPC)

In SD, DoR, DoS—Unlawful aggression is indispensable (US v. Navarro,
7 Phil 73).

b. Incomplete Accident (Arts. 12(4), 67 & 365, RPC)

B. Minority
Art.12[2], 13[2] & 68, RPC as Modified by RA 9344 JJWA, Eff.: April 28, 2006

a. Over fifteen (15) to eighteen (18) years of age—with discernment, not

exempt—appropriate proceedings under RA 9344(Sec.6, par.2, RA 9344).

b. Material age—date of commission

Jose v. People, G.R.No. 162052, January 13, 2005
People v. Doqueña, G.R.No.46539, September 27, 1939

C. Seniority (Art.13[2], Over 70 years of age)

a. Material Age—
 Date of Commission (Art. 13[2])
 Date of Execution, in cases where the penalty is death (Art.83)

D. Lack of Intent to Commit so grave a wrong (Art.13[3])

a. Effect of Praeter Intentionem (Art.4, par.1)
b. Differentiate the acts covered by Art.13(3) from those covered by Art.49.
c. Lack of Intent to Commit so grave a wrong is not appreciated when the
wrongful act results from criminal negligence but only because mitigating
and aggravating circumstances are not considered in the imposition of
penalties in quasi-offenses (Art.365, RPC).

People v. Badriago, G.R.No.183566, May 8, 2009

People v. Enrique, 58 Phil 536

E. Sufficient Provocation or Threat (Art.13[4])

a. Sufficient Provocation
Tangan v. CA, G.R.No. 105830, January 15, 2002
People v. Maribung, G.R.No. L-47500, April 29, 1987

b. Sufficient Threat
People v. Rivero, G.R.No.112721, March 15, 1995
Monroy v. People, G.R.No. L-11177, October 30, 1958

Is this a privileged or ordinary mitigating circumstance?

15
 What if the provocation constitutes unlawful aggression?

c. What if the provocation or threat in Art. 13 (4) constitutes unlawful

aggression?

U.S. v. Vinco, G.R.No.2126, September 25, 1905

U.S. v. De Ocampo, G.R.No.2949, September 17, 1906 **

F. Proximate Vindication of a Grave Offense (Art.13[5])

a. Factors to consider - Age, Social Standing, Place and Time of Offense
b. Must the offense vindicated be criminal in nature?
c. What if the offense vindicated in Art. 13 (5) constitutes unlawful
aggression? (cf. discussion in item 3 [c] above)
d. Is this a privileged or ordinary mitigating circumstance?

People v. Ventura, G.R.Nos. 148145-46, July 5, 2004

People v. Benito, G.R.No. L-32042, February 13, 1975 (Composure test)
People v. De Guia, G.R.No.L-3731, April 20, 1951 (Discuss/distinguish
Sufficient Provocation from Vindication)

G. Passion or Obfuscation (Art.13[6])

a. Related Concept: Art.247, People v. Solanga, G.R.No.25338, September 9,
1926
b. Differentiate Provocation, Vindication and Passion.

U.S. v. Zamora, G.R.No.10615, November 16, 1915

People v. Dalag, G.R.No.129895, April 30, 2003
People v. Ventura, G.R.No.148145-46, July 5, 2004

H. Voluntary Surrender (Art.13 [7])

Who are persons in authority and their agents? (Art.152, RPC)

People v. Tac-an, G.R.Nos.76338-29, February 26, 1990

People v. Badriago, G.R.No.183566, May 8, 2009

I. Voluntary Plea Of Guilt (Art.13[7])

People v. Juan, G.R.No.152289, January 14, 2004
People v. Intal, 101 Phil 306

J. Physical Defect (Art.13[8])

People v. Garillo, G.R.No.L-30281, August 2, 1978
People v. Lopit, G.R.No.177742, December 17, 2008

K. Illness (Art.13[9])
People v. Tampus, G.R.No.181084, June 16, 2009
People v. Balneg, 79 Phil 805

16
 L. Analogous Circumstances (Art.13[10])
a. Not appreciable as analogous circumstances
1. Family Man
People v. Castro, G.R.No.31883, December 3, 1929
2. No Irreparable Damage
People v. Pol, G.R.No.45537, July 30, 1937
3. Deserving Victim
People v. Canja, G.R.No.L-2800, May 30, 1950
4. Error in Personae & Aberratio Ictus
People v. Gona, G.R.No.32066, March 15, 1930
5. Running amuck
People v. Salazar, G.R.No.L-11601, June 30, 1959
6. Repentance
People v. Gravino, G.R.No.L-31327, May 16, 1983
7. Principal confessing as accomplice
People v. Tabian, G.R.No.L-30917, February 14, 1983
8. Running amuck
People v. Salazar, G.R.No.L-11601, June 30, 1959

b. Appreciable as analogous circumstances

1. Extreme Poverty (state of necessity)—

People v. Macbul, G.R.No.48976, October 11, 1943
Gallardo v. Tabamo, A.M.No.RTJ-92-881, June 22, 1994
2. Analogous to minority
—People v. Abad, G.R.No.L-430, July 30, 1947
3. Analogous to old age
—People v. Reantillo and Ruiz, CA, G.R.No.301, July 27, 1938
—People v. Mirabete, G.R.Nos.111294-95, September 7, 1995
4. Analogous to passion
—People v. Ong, G.R.No.L-34497, January 30, 1975
—People v. Quintos, G.R.No.51107, June 4, 1990
5. Restitution of Stolen/Malversed Property (Voluntary Surrender)
—Cimafranca v. People, G.R.No.94408, February 14, 1991
6. Testifying for prosecution (Voluntary Plea of Guilty)
—People v. Navasca, G.R.No.L-28107, March 15, 1977

V. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

 Distinguish ordinary aggravating from qualifying circumstances.

 Basis and rationale in providing for aggravating circumstances.

17
  Must be alleged in the information and proven during trial before they
can be appreciated
People v. Guevarra, G.R.No. 182192, October 29, 2008 citing People v.
Simon, G.R. No. 130531, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 330, 353-354
Section 8 & 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court

 Manner of Alleging Aggravating/Qualifying Circumstances

People v. Dela Cruz, G.R.No.174371, December 11, 2008 citing People v.
Aquino, 435 Phil. 417 [2002]

 Must be proven with equal certainty as the crime itself

People v. Dela Cruz, G.R.No.174371, December 11, 2008 citing People v.
Aquino, 435 Phil. 417 [2002]

Aggravating Circumstances under Art. 14 RPC

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. (Art.14[1]

RPC)

2. In contempt of or with insult to the public authorities. (Art. 14[2] RPC)

3. Age, Rank, Sex, Dwelling (Art. 14[3] RPC)

a. With insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on

account of his—
 Rank
 Age
 Sex

b. Dwelling

People v. Montesa, G.R.No.181899, November 27, 2008

People v. Gayeta, G.R.No.171654, December 17, 2008

 Meaning of Dwelling
 Effect of provocation by the offended party
 Requisites of provocation under Art.14(3) RPC?

4. Abuse of Confidence or Obvious Ungratefulness. (Art. 14[4], RPC)

5. That the crime be committed—

a. In the palace of the Chief Executive
b. In the presence of the Chief Executive
c. Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties
d. In a place dedicated to religious worship. (Art. 14[5] RPC)

Differentiate a,b,c,d above

18
6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, band (Art. 14[6] RPC)
a. Nighttime
Pp v. Nanquil, supra
People v. Gayeta, G.R.No.171654, December 17, 2008

b. Uninhabited Place
c. Band

Meaning of Band—More than three (3) armed malefactors acting together in

committing an offense. (People v. Abdul, G.R.No.128074, July 13, 1999)

7. On the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other

calamity or misfortune. (Art. 14[7] RPC)

8. Aid of armed men or persons who insure/afford impunity (Art. 14[8] RPC)
a. Aid of Armed Men
Differentiate from Band under Art. 14[6] RPC

b. Aid of Persons who insure/afford impunity

9. Recidivism (Art. 14[9] RPC)

1. Definition—A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime,
shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of this Code
2. How established?

10. Reiteracion (Art. 14[10] RPC)

Definition—That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to
which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes
to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

11. Price, Reward, or Promise (Art. 14[11] RPC)

Correlate with Art.17 RPC on Principals

12. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or

intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any
other artifice involving great waste and ruin. (Art. 14[12] RPC)
Differentiate from Art. 14[7] RPC

13. Evident Premeditation (Art. 14[13] RPC)

People v. De Guzman, G.R.No.173477, February 4, 2009
Mendoza v. People, G.R.No.173551, October 4, 2007

Why can Evident Premeditation absorb other aggravating circumstances?

14. Craft, Fraud, Disguise (Art. 14[14] RPC)

19
 15. Abuse of Superior Strength; Means to Weaken Defense (Art. 14[15] RPC)

a. Abuse of Superior Strength

People v. Regalario, G.R.No.174483, March 31, 2009
Mendoza v. People, G.R.No.173551, October 4, 2007

b. Means to weaken Defense

Distinguish from Treachery (Art. 14[16] RPC)

16. Treachery (alevosia) (Art. 14[16] RPC)

a. Meaning of Treachery—when the offender commits any of the crimes

against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without
risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.
b. Is this applicable to the crime of rape?
c. Is this applicable to the crime of robbery with homicide?

People v. Delpino, G.R.No.171453, June 18, 2009

People v. Cuasay, G.R.No.180512, October 17, 2008

17. Ignominy (Art.14 [17] RPC)

Is it aggravating if the ignominious acts were done after the victim’s death?

People v. Regalario, G.R.No.174483, March 31, 2009

18. Unlawful Entry (Art. 14[18] RPC)

Meaning of unlawful entry—Entry by a way not intended for the purpose.

19. Breaking of Wall, Roof, Floor, Door, or Window (Art.14[19] RPC)

20. Aid of Minors less than 15 years of age; By means of motor vehicles, airships,
or other similar means (Art. 14[20] RPC)

21. Cruelty (Art. 14[21] RPC)

a. Distinguish from Ignominy.
b. Is it aggravating if the cruel acts were done after the victim’s death?

V. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

A. Concept of Alternative Circumstances (Art.15 RPC)

20
 Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the
other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication
and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.

B. Alternative Circumstances:
1. Relationship—taken into consideration when the offended party is the
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or
sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender.

People v. Abello, G.R.No.151952, March 25, 2009

People v. Ceballos, G.R. No. 169642, September 14, 2007

2. Intoxication

3. Degree of Instruction/Education

21