CRIMINAL LAW I CRASH

COURSE

By
ELDRED DONGALLO COLE
JUDGE
CRIMINAL LAW

- is that branch of law which:

a. defines crimes
b. treats of their nature
c. provides for their
punishment
Limitations on the power of
Congress to enact penal laws
Cannot enact ex post facto law
Penal must be of general
application
Cannot provide for a cruel or
unusual punishment nor can it
impose excessive fines.
Must not partake of the nature of a
bill of attainder.
Rule of prospectivity also applies to administrative
rulings and circulars

In Co v. CA, decided on October 28, 1993,

it was held that the principle of
prospectivity of statutes also applies to
administrative rulings and circulars
 The Archipelagic Rule
All bodies of water comprising the maritime
zone and interior waters abounding
different islands comprising the Philippine
Archipelago are part of the Philippine
territory regardless of their breadth, depth,
width or dimension.
Under this Rule, there is no more center
lane, all these waters, regardless of their
dimension or width are part of Philippine
territory.
 People v. Muoz
1987 Constitution does not expressly
declare the abolition of the death penalty. It
merely says that the death penalty shall not
be imposed and if already imposed, shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua;
 People v. Bon
repeal of RA 7659 by RA 9346 There can
be no harmony between RA 9346 and the
RPC unless the latter statute is construed as
having downgraded those penalties
ATTACHED to death by reason of the
graduated scale under Art. 71 of the RPC;
RA 9346 unequivocally bars the application
of the death penalty
Bill of Attainder

People v. Ferrer
constitutionality of the [then] Anti-
Subversion Act A bill of attainder is a
legislative act which inflictspunishment
without a trial; Anti-Subversion act not a
bill of attainder;
Bill of Attainder

It does not specify the CPP or its members;

CPP is used for definition purposes only
because in the law, it also says any other
organization having the same purpose and
their successors; mere membership to the
CPP not punished; even if the Act specifies
individuals, this feature is not enough to
consider it a bill of attainder
Bill of Attainder

People v. Sandiganbayan
violation under Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act The new 15-year
prescriptive period (formerly 10) in the Act
cannot be given retroactive effect because it
will be prejudicial to the accused.
Bill of Attainder vs. Ex Post
Facto Law

An ex post facto law makes something you

did in the past, that was perfectly legal
when you did it, and makes it illegal. For
example (and not to drag in politics) let's
say you smoke cigarets. Then your local
state legislature passes a law making using
cigarets illegal--as of a year ago, and you
get arrested for having smoked during the
past year.
Bill of Attainder vs. Ex Post
Facto Law
A bill of attainder makes simply being a
particular person illegal. It was widely used in
England and Scotland when the local lords
were trying to gain power over one another.
One would go to the King and suggest that if
Baron so and so were outlawed by a bill of
attainder, they could split his possessions. An
example would be if Congress were to pass a
law saying that Osama bin Laden is illegal
CHARACTERISTICS OF
CRIMINAL LAW:
GENERALITY- the law is binding upon
all persons who resides or sojourn in
the Philippines, irrespective of age,
creed or sex.
Except:
a. treaties or treaty stipulations
b. law on preferential application
c. persons exempt by virtue of principles of
public international law
CHARACTERISTICS OF
CRIMINAL LAW:
TERRITORIAL- in that criminal laws
undertake to punish crimes committed
within the Philippine territory

Except: As provided for under Article 2 of the

Revised Penal Code
Example: Should commit an offense while on
Philippine ship or warship.
CHARACTERISTICS OF
CRIMINAL LAW:

IRRETROSPECTIVITY- law does not

have any retroactive effect.

Except: except if it favors the offender

Unless: he is a habitual delinquent or the

law otherwise provides.
Rule of prospectivity also applies to administrative
rulings and circulars

In Co v. CA, decided on October 28, 1993,

it was held that the principle of
prospectivity of statutes also applies to
administrative rulings and circulars
Effects of Repeal/Amendment of
Penal Law

What affects the criminal liability of an

offender is not whether a penal law is
expressly or impliedly repealed; it is
whether it is absolutely or totally repealed,
or relatively or partially repealed
Total or Absolute Repeal

A repeal is absolute or total when the crime

punished under the repealed law has been
decriminalized by the repeal. Because of
the repeal, the act or omission which used
to be a crime is no longer a crime. An
example is Republic Act No. 7363, which
decriminalized subversion
 A repeal is partial or relative when the crime
punished under the repealed law continues
to be a crime inspite of the repeal. This
means that the repeal merely modified the
conditions affecting the crime under the
repealed law. The modification may be
prejudicial or beneficial to the offender.
Consequences if repeal is total
or absolute-

If a case is pending in court involving the

violation of the repealed law, the same shall
be dismissed, even though the accused may
be a habitual delinquent.
Consequences if repeal is total
or absolute-

If a case is already decided and the accused

is already serving sentence by final
judgment, if the convict is not a habitual
delinquent, then he will be entitled to a
release unless there is a reservation clause
in the penal law that it will not apply to
those serving sentence at the time of the
repeal.
If repeal is partial or relative

If a case is pending in court involving the

violation of the repealed law, and the
repealing law is more favorable to the
accused, it shall be the one applied to him.
If repeal is partial or relative

If a case is already decided and the accused

is already serving sentence by final
judgment, even if the repealing law is
partial or relative, the crime still remains to
be a crime.
Express repeal -

Express repeal takes place when a

subsequent law contains a provision that
such law repeals an earlier enactment
Implied repeal

An implied repeal will take place when

there is a law on a particular subject matter
and a subsequent law is passed also on the
same subject matter but is inconsistent with
the first law, such that the two laws cannot
stand together, one of the two laws must
give way.
Consequences of repeal if
express or implied

If a penal law is impliedly repealed, the

subsequent repeal of the repealing law will
revive the original law.
If the repeal is express, the repeal of the
repealing law will not revive the first law,
so the act or omission will no longer be
penalized.
 BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

Doctrine of Pro Reo

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory
Felony
- is an act or omission
punishable by law
Elements:
-There must be acts or omissions
-That the acts are punishable by the
Revised Penal Code
-That the acts are committed either by
dolo or culpa
IS CULPA OR CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE A CRIME?
Dolo

involves malice or deliberate intent.

Concurrence of 3 ingredients:
-criminal intent
-sufficient intelligence of
offender
-freedom of action
Requisites of intentional felonies:
Freedom - act or omission was
voluntary. Negated by: irresistible
force; uncontrollable fear
Intelligence - knowledge needed to
determine the morality and consequences
of an act. Negated by: minority,
insanity or imbecility
Criminal Intent - is presumed,
unless otherwise disproved, with the
commission of an unlawful act. Negated
by: mistake of fact
Intent-

- defined as a determination to do a certain

thing, an aim, the purpose of the mind
including such knowledge as essential to
such intent, the design, or determination of
with which a person acts.
Criminal intent-

ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an

unlawful act for there to be a crime. Actus
non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can
be no crime when the criminal mind is
wanting (PP vs. Pacana, 47 Phil. 48).
 Criminal Intent is not deceit. Do not use
deceit in translating dolo, because the
nearest translation is deliberate intent.
In criminal law, intent is categorized into two:

General criminal intent

- presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act.
The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove
that he acted without such criminal intent.
Specific criminal intent.
- not presumed because it is an ingredient or
element of a crime. The prosecution has the
burden of proving the same.
CRIMINAL INTENT IS ON THE
BASIS OF THE ACT, NOT ON
THE BASIS OF WHAT THE
OFFENDER SAYS.
Criminal intent in mala prohibita
As far as mala prohibita is
concerned, the violation of
the law exists when the act
prohibited is committed. It
has no concern with the
character and effect of the
act. Good faith and absence
of criminal intent are not
valid defenses.
 MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA

1. Criminal liability is based on the moral trait of the 1. The moral trait of the offender is not considered, it
offender. Liability arise only when there is dolo or is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily
culpa in the commission of the crime done.

2. Good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid 2. Good faith is not a defense
defense, unless the crime is a result of culpa

3. Degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken 3. The act gives rise to a crime only when it is
into account in punishing the offender. There are consummated. There are no stages in the commission
attempted, frustrated and consummated stages in the of the crime unless the special law expressly provides
commission of the crime. for such.

4. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are 4. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not
taken into account in imposing the penalty. taken into account in imposing the penalty.

5. When there is more than one offender, the degree 5. The degree of participation of the offenders is not
of participation of each in the commission of the considered. All those who perpetrated the prohibited
crime is taken into account in imposing the penalty. act are penalized to same extent.
Culpa
E results from negligence,
imprudence, and lack of
foresight or lack of skill
Elements:
-negligence, imprudence, lack
of skill, lack of foresight
-sufficient intelligence
-freedom of action
 Real concept of culpa

Under Article 3, it is clear that culpa is just

a modality by which a felony may be
committed.
Culpa is just a means by which a felony may
result.
 Real concept of culpa
The concept of criminal negligence is the
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of
the person performing or failing to perform
an act.
If the danger impending is clearly manifest,
reckless imprudence.
But if the danger is not clear, not manifest
nor immediate, only a case of simple
negligence.
Is culpa or criminal negligence a
crime?
IMPRUDENCE is deficiency of
action. NEGLIGENCE is
deficiency of perception.
Note: In view of the
distinction between dolo and
culpa, there is no crime of
frustrated homicide through
reckless imprudence. Because
in frustrated homicide, there
must be present the specific
intent to kill.
Whether felony is committed by means of
dolo or by means of culpa, the element
of voluntariness must always be present.
In dolo, it must be done with deliberate intent,
which implies the presence of freedom and
intelligence which are necessary attributes
or elements of voluntariness.
In culpa, it defines reckless imprudence as
voluntary but without malice doing or
failing to do an act.
Criminal liability is incurred -
By committing a felony if the wrong
produced as a consequence thereof
is not intended by the offender.
(PROXIMATE CAUSE)
By any person performing an act,
which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not
for the inherent impossibility of
its accomplishment or on account of
the employment of inadequate and
ineffectual means.(IMPOSSIBLE
CRIME)
Important things to consider:

The act from which the presumption in par.

1 springs from must be an unlawful act.
The following elements must be present:
a. an intentional felony is committed;
b. the felony committed resulted in the
commission of another felony.
Question

A man thought of committing suicide and

went on top of a tall building. He jumped,
landing on somebody else, who died
instantly. Is he criminally liable?
Proximate cause -

Is that cause which in natural and

continuous sequence unbroken by an
efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without the result would not
have occurred.
It must be the direct, natural, and logical
consequence of the felonious act.
Cause and effect-
The cause and effect relationship is not altered
or changed because of the pre-existing
conditions, such as the pathological
condition of the victim; the predisposition
of the offended party; the physical condition
of the offended party; or the concomitant or
concurrent conditions, such as the
negligence or fault of the doctors; or the
conditions supervening the felonious act
such as tetanus, pulmonary infection or
gangrene.
Not proximate when:

There is an active force that intervened

between the felony committed and the
resulting injury, and the active force is a
distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from
the felonious act of the accused; or
The resulting injury is due to the intentional
act of the victim
There are three situations contemplated
under paragraph 1 of Article 4

Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow;

Error in personae or mistake in identity;
and
Praeter intentionem or where the
consequence exceeded the intention.
Mistake of the blow (aberratio
ictus)

The offender delivers the blow upon the intended

victim but because of poor aim the blow landed on
somebody else.
It generally gives rise to a complex crime. The
only time when a complex crime may not result in
aberratio ictus is when one of the resulting
felonies is a light felony.
It is not a defense, neither does it mitigate the
criminal liability of the offender.
Mistake of identity (error in
personae)
It is an act or omission which is the result of
a mistake in the identity of the victim. It is
not a defense or an exempting circumstance
because the actor is committing a felony.
Article 49 applies only in a case of error in personae and
not in a case of abberatio ictus, when the crime intended is
more serious than the crime actually committed or vice-
versa, whichever crime carries the lesser penalty, that
penalty will be the one imposed
Praetor intentionem (lack of intent
to commit so grave a wrong)
Occurs when the actor performs an act or
omission which resulted in a more serious
offense not intended by him. Generally, he
is committing a felony but the acts
performed by him exceeds his criminal
intent.
It is mitigating, particularly covered by Art.
13, par. 3. ( However, there must be a notable disparity
between the means employed and the seriousness of the act
committed or the resulting felony.)
 Impossible crime

An impossible crime is an act which would

be an offense against person or property
were it not for the inherent impossibility of
its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
Elements of an impossible crime
acts are performed which would be a
crime against person or property
act is not an actual violation of
another provision of the Revised Penal
Code or special laws
there is a criminal intent
it is not accomplished because of
inherent impossibility or because the
means employed is inadequate or
ineffectual
Question
Accused was a houseboy in a house where only a
spinster resides. It is customary for the spinster to
sleep nude because her room was warm. It was
also the habit of the houseboy that whenever she
enters her room, the houseboy would follow and
peek into the keyhole. Finally, when the houseboy
could no longer resist the urge, he climbed into the
ceiling, went inside the room of his master, placed
himself on top of her and abused her, not knowing
that she was already dead five minutes earlier. Is
an impossible crime committed?
Stages of execution of felony-
Purpose
is to bring about a proportionate penalty and
equitable punishment.
The penalties are graduated according to their
degree of severity.
The stages may not apply to all kinds of felonies.
There are felonies which do not admit of division.

Stages of execution of felony-

ATTEMPTED - the offender begins
the execution of the felony by
direct overt acts but does not
perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony as
a consequence by reason of some
cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
Elements:
The offender commences the commission of
a felony directly by overt acts;
He does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony;
The non-commission of the felony by
reason of some cause or accident, and;
The offender must have been stopped by
entities other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
Overt Acts-

Open manifest act from which criminality

may be implied, an outward act done in
pursuance and manifestation of an intent or
design, an open act which should be
manifestly proved.
 When the wound inflicted could not have caused
instantaneous death, the offender is liable for the
attempted stage of the crime. To be liable for
the frustrated stage of a felony, the offender
must perform all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence but
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason
of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator. The testimonies of the medical
experts show that the wound inflicted was not of
the kind which could have caused instantaneous
death. (PEOPLE vs. PABLO DELA CRUZ, G.R. Nos.
154348-50. June 8, 2004)
Directly by overt
acts-
Acts performed by the offender
manifesting his criminal design, which
is intimately related to the felony
intended to be committed. There must be
a close relation between the overt acts
performed and the felony intended to be
committed in order to qualify the overt
acts as directly connected or intimately
related to the intended felony. The acts
of execution must be considered to have
been actually performed and should not
exist merely in the mind of the
offender.
Stages of execution of felony-
FRUSTRATED - the offender has
performed all the acts of
execution to produce the
felony as a consequence but
the crime does not result due
to some cause independent of
the will of the offender
Elements -

The offender performs all acts of execution;

The acts performed would produce the
felony as a consequence;
The felony was not produced;
By reason of causes independent of the will
of the perpetrator.
Stages of execution of felony-
CONSUMMATED - all elements
necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present
LIGHT FELONIES

Are punishable ONLY when they

are consummated, except in
crimes against persons or
property. Only the
principals and accomplices
are liable
CONSPIRACY -
exists when two or more persons
agree to commit a crime and they
decide to commit it. The act of
one is the act of all. Conspiracy
may be proved by circumstantial
evidence only not necessarily by
direct evidence, but evidence must
be positive and convincing.
Note:
Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony
are not punishable, except when such are
specifically penalized by law. ( Arts. 115,
141, 186, RPC, etc.)
No evidence of a formal agreement is required
to prove conspiracy. When several offenders
act in synchronized, coordinated manner,
the fact that their acts complemented each
other is indicative of the meeting of the
minds.
Note:
The presence of conspiracy among the
accused can be proven by their conduct
before, during or after the commission of
the crime showing that they acted in unison
with each other, evincing a common
purpose or design. (People vs. Ramos, 427 SCRA
299)
Conspiracy must be alleged in the
information.
Conspirators vs. Accomplices
Conspirators know the criminal intention
because they themselves have decided upon
such course of action. Accomplices come to
know about it after the principal/s have
reached the decision, and only then do they
agree to cooperate in its execution.
Conspirators decide that a crime should be
committed; accomplices merely concur in
it.
Conspirators vs. Accomplices
Accomplices do not decide whether the
crime should be committed; they merely
assent to the plan and cooperate in the
accomplishment.
Conspirators are the authors of the crime.
Accomplices are merely instruments who
perform acts not essential to the
perpetration.
 How do you classify felonies or how are
felonies classified? Articles 3, 6 and 9.
Why is it necessary to determine whether
the crime is grave, less grave or light?
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONY
ACCORDING TO GRAVITY

Grave felonies-those in which the law

attaches a capital punishment or a penalty
which is afflictive in any of its periods
Less grave felonies-those in which the
penalties are in their maximum period as
correctional
Light felonies- those infractions of
law, which the penalty is arresto menor or a
fine not exceeding P200.00 or both.

Gravity of the offense determinant in complexing offenses

SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE

Article 10 is the consequence of the legal

requirement that you have to distinguish
those punished under special laws and
those under the Revised Penal Code.
Apply the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code as a supplement to the special law, or
simply correlate the violated special law, if
needed to avoid an injustice.
 CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING
CRIMINAL LIABILITY-
JUSTIFYING - those wherein the
acts of the actor are in
accordance with the law and hence,
he incurs no criminal liability
EXEMPTING - those wherein there is
an absence in the agent of the
crime any of all the conditions
that would make an act voluntary
and hence, although there is no
criminal liability, there is civil
liability
 AGGRAVATING - those which
serve to increase the penalty
without exceeding the maximum
provided by law because of
the greater perversity of the
offender as shown by the
motivating power of the
commission of the crime, the
time and place of its
commission, the means
employed or the personal
circumstances of the offender
 MITIGATING are those
circumstances that decrease
the penalty either in periods
or degrees
ALTERNATIVE - those which are
either aggravating or
mitigating according to the
nature and effects of the
crime and other conditions
attending its commission
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
When an accused invokes them, he in effect
admits the commission of a crime but tries to
avoid the liability thereof.
The burden is upon him to establish beyond
reasonable doubt the required conditions to
justify or exempt his acts from criminal
liability.
What is shifted is only the burden of evidence,
not the burden of proof.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
A. SELF-DEFENSE (includes the right to life, proterty and
honor or ones reputation)
Elements:
1. Unlawful aggression- must consist in
a material or physical attack
manifesting danger to the person
attacked
Two Kinds of unlawful aggression:
Actual-attack with physical force or
with a weapon
Imminent-attack that is impending or at
the point of happening
Elements of unlawful aggression:
the attack is material
it manifests danger to the person or
right or integrity of the person
attacked
The rule of unlawful aggression is that
it must be continuing. An act of
aggression when its author does not
persist in his purpose or when he
discontinues his attitude to the extent
that the object of his attack is no
longer in peril is not unlawful
aggression warranting self-defense
 Reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or
repeal it-

Points to be considered in the

application of the 2nd element:
Is the unlawful aggression still
present?
If it is still present, is the
means employed by the person
attacked reasonable?
Two situations that may arise while
aggression is taking place -

To repel an actual aggression

To prevent an imminent or impending
aggression
Reasonableness of the means employed
depends upon the nature and quality of the -

Weapons used by the aggressor

His physical condition, character, size and
other circumstances
Those of the person defending himself
The place and occasion of the assault
To determine the reasonableness of
the means employed, the following
must be considered :

whether the means employed

was the only one which the
defender could avail of under
the circumstances
that a person attacked does
not use his rational mind but
acts according to his
instinct of self-preservation
 Lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending
himself.
Where although there is sufficient
provocation, the third element
will still be present - when the
provocation though sufficient is
not immediate to the unlawful
aggression same as no
provocation whatsoever. For
provocation to be present, it
should be immediate to the
unlawful aggression.
Battered wife syndrome equivalent to self
defense
Under Republic Act 9262, Sec. 26. Battered
Woman Syndrome as a Defense. Victim-survivors who
are found by the courts to be suffering from battered
woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil
liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under
the Revised Penal Code.

In the determination of the state of mind of the woman

who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the
time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be
assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists.
 Do not confuse unlawful aggression with
provocation. What justifies the killing of a
supposed unlawful aggressor is that if the
offender did not kill the aggressor, it will be
his own life that will be lost. That will be the
situation. If that is not the situation, even if
there was an unlawful aggression that has
already begun, you cannot invoke self-
defense.
B. DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
Elements:
Unlawful aggression
Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it
In case provocation was given by
the person attacked, the person
making the defense had no part in
the provocation
Mistake of fact can be the basis of defending a
relative.
Defense of relative is present
as long as there is an honest
belief that the relative
being defended was a victim
of an unlawful aggression,
and the relative defending
has knowledge of the
agreement or fight. But
defense of relative cannot be
claimed if the relative
defended is the aggressor.
C. DEFENSE OF STRANGER

Elements:
o Unlawful aggression
o Reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or
repel it
o Persons defending not induced
by revenge, resentment or
other evil motives
D. STATE OF NECESSITY
-exists when there is a clash
between two unequal rights, the
lesser right giving way to the
greater right. Must not be due to
the negligence of or violation of
any law by the actor.
Elements:
The evil sought to be avoided actually
exists.
The injury feared be greater than that
done to avoid it.
There is no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it
THE STATE OF NECESSITY
MUST NOT HAVE BEEN
CREATED BY THE ONE
INVOKING THE JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES.
E. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR
EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE
Elements:
a. The offender acted in the
performance of a duty or the
lawful exercise of a right or
office
b. The injury caused or the
offense committed is the necessary
consequence of the due performance
of such right or office
DO NOT CONFUSE
FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY
WITH SELF-DEFENSE.
F. OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR
ORDER
Elements:
An order has been issued by
a superior
The order is for a legal
purpose
The means used to carry out
said order is lawful
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

A. IMBECILITY AND INSANITY

-complete deprivation of
intelligence in the commission
of the act, that is, the accused
acted without the least
discernment. Imbecility is
exempted at all cases. Insanity
is not exempting when the crime
is committed during a lucid
interval
B. MINORITY-(a) 9 years old or
under are exempt; (b) 9 years
over but under 15, not liable
unless acted with discernment
Discernment means the mental
capacity to fully appreciate
the consequences of one's
unlawful acts, or to
determine the differences
between right and wrong.
C. ACCIDENT-is any happening
beyond the control of a person the
consequences of which are not
foreseeable. If foreseeable, there
is fault or culpa
Elements:
Performance of a lawful act
Acted with due care
Causes injury to another due to
accident
Without any fault or intention of
causing it
D. COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE
FORCE-irresistible force must produce
such effect upon the individual that in
inspite of al the resistance, it
reduces him to a mere instrument and,
as such, incapable of committing a
crime,or compels his members to act and
his mind to obey. Such force can never
consist in anything, which springs
primarily from the man himself; it must
be a force which acts upon him from the
outside and by means of a third person.
The offender must be totally deprived of freedom.
 The irresistible force must be physical
and must come from a third person. The
accused must not only have acted
without a will but against his will.
Elements:
a. the force is physical
b. the force is irresistible which
means it cannot be overcome by the
volition of the offender
C. the force should come from a third
person
E. IMPULSE OF UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
It is an impulse emanating from
within the person of the offender.
This is manifested by intimidation
and duress. Uncontrollable fear
must be actual, real and
reasonable. It should not be
speculative. The fear must be
insuperable and he who acts under
insuperable fear is completely
deprived of freedom.
Elements:
The threat which caused the fear was
of an evil greater than or at least
equal to that which the accused was
required to commit
It promised an evil of such gravity
and imminence that the ordinary man
would have succumbed to it
Threat must be grave, actual, serious and
such kind that the majority of men
would have succumbed to such moral
compulsion. The compulsion must be of
such character as to leave no
opportunity for the accused to escape
F. INSUPERABLE OR LAWFUL CAUSE-
applies to felonies committed by
omission.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Kinds:
1. Ordinary-can be offset by a generic
aggravating circumstance. One ordinary
mitigating circumstance if not offset
by a generic aggravating circumstance
has the effect of imposing the lesser
penalty;
2. Privileged- cannot be offset by any
aggravating circumstance. It has the
effect of imposing the penalty by one
or two degrees lower than that
provided by law.
CORRELATE ARTICLE 13 WITH
ARTICLES 63 AND 64. ARTICLE
13 IS MEANINGLESS WITHOUT
KNOWING THE RULES OF
IMPOSING THE PENALTIES
UNDER ARTICLES 63 AND 64.
A. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
B. OFFENDER UNDER 18 - age at the
time of the commission of the
crime
C. LACK OF INTENTION TO COMMIT SO
GRAVE A WRONG-addresses itself to
the intention of the offender at the
particular moment when he executes or
commits the criminal act. Applicable
only to felonies resulting in
material/physical injuries and
felonies committed through negligence,
or felonies committed without intent.
D. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
Requisites:
provocation must be
sufficient (adequate)
it must be immediate to the
commission of the crime (no
interval time between the
provocation and the
commission of the crime)
it must originate from the
offended party
E. VINDICATION OF A GRAVE
OFFENSE in determining the
gravity of the offense, the
age of the accused, his
social standing, the time and
place when the offense was
committed and other attendant
circumstances are to be
considered. The word offense should
not be taken as a crime. . It is enough if
what was imputed or what was done was
wrong
F. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION- It
is mitigating only when it
arose from lawful sentiments
or legitimate feelings.
This stands on the premise or proposition that
the offender is suffering from a diminished
self control because of the passion or
obfuscation.
The passion must be legitimate
G. SURRENDER AND CONFESSION OF
GUILT
Requisites of voluntary surrender:
that the offender had not been actually
arrested
that the offender surrendered himself to a
person in authority or to the latter's agent
that the surrender was voluntary (spontaneous,
unconditional)

The essence of voluntary surrender requires

that the offender, after having committed the
crime, had evaded the law enforcers and the
law enforcers do not know of his
whereabouts.
Requisites of plea of guilty:

that the offender spontaneously

confessed his guilt
that the confession of guilt was
made in open court
that the confession of guilt was
made prior to the presentation of
evidence for the prosecution
G. ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER
Requisites:

E that the illness of the

offender must diminish the
exercise of his will-power
E that such illness should not
deprive the offender of
consciousness of his act
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Four Kinds of Aggravating circumstances:

Generic -those that can generally apply

to all crimes
Specific -those that apply only to
particular crimes
Qualifying -those that change the nature
of the crime
Inherent - those that must of necessity
accompany the commission of the crime
A. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC
POSITION - Position must in any way
facilitate the commission of the
crime. It is not enough that the
offender is a public officer. It
must be shown that in committing
the crime, the public officer
relied upon the influence of the
public office, thereby,
facilitating the commission of the
crime. Hence, manifesting greater
perversity.
B. CRIME COMMITTED IN CONTEMPT
OF OR WITH INSULT TO PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES
Requisites:
the public authority is
engaged in the discharge of
his duties
he is not the person against
who the crime is committed
the offender knows the
identity of the public
authority
C. INSULT OR DISREGARD OF AGE, SEX
OR RANK AND DWELLING OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY
Age, sex or rank is considered in crimes
against persons, security or honor.
There must be proof showing the accused
deliberately intended to offend or
insult the age, sex of the offended
party. Dwelling is aggravating when the
crime is committed in the dwelling of
the offended party and the latter did
not provoke either of the accused-
appellants. The aggravating circumstance
of dwelling should be appreciated where
the victim was killed inside his house,
even though the assailants were outside
the house.
D. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR
OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS- this
aggravating circumstance is to be
considered where there exists trust and
confidence between the accused and the
victim and the accused made use of such
relation to commit the crime.
Requisites:
the offended party had trusted the
offender
the offender abuse such trust
that such abuse of confidence
facilitated the commission offense
E. PALACE & OTHER PLACES OF
COMMISSION OF OFFENSE
refers to the place of the
commission of the crime. It
is necessary to show that the
offender must have sought any
of the place mentioned in
this article for the
commission of the crime.
F. NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE, OR
BAND - if all these aggravating circumstances
concur in the commission of the crime, all will
constitute one aggravating circumstance only as
a general rule but these can be considered
separately if their elements are distinctly
perceived and can subsist independently,
revealing a greater degree of perversity.

Band- four armed malefactors acting together in

the commission of the offense.

Nighttime as an aggravating circumstance must

have specially been sought to consummate the
crime, facilitate its success or prevent
recognition of the felon.
G. ON OCCASION OF CALAMITY OR
MISFORTUNE - this is
aggravating because the
offender who in the midst of
a great calamity, instead of
lending aid to the afflicted,
adds to their suffering by
taking advantage of their
misfortune to despoil them.
H. AID OF ARMED MEN WHO INSURE
OR AFFORD IMPUNITY
Casual presence of armed men
or two persons not
aggravating; they must take
part, directly or indirectly
in the commission of the
crime.
I. RECIDIVISM
Requisites:

that the offender is on trial

for an offense
that he was previously convicted
by final judgment of another
crime
that both the first and the
second offenses are embraced in
the same title of the Code
that the offender is convicted
of the new offense
J. REITERATION AND HABITUALITY

Habituality- offender has

served sentence for an
offense which the law
attaches for an equal or
greater penalty than that
attached by law to the second
offense.
K. PRICE, REWARD OR MONEY
Appreciated against the one
who gave the price, reward or
money and also to the person
who received it. The price,
reward or money must be the
primary consideration in the
commission of the crime.
L. BY MEANS OF INUNDATION,
FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION,
STRANDING OF A VESSL OR
INTENTIONAL DAMAGE,
DERAILMENT OF LOCOMOTIVE OR
BY USE OF ANY OTHER ARTIFICE
INVOLVING ARTIFICIAL GREAT
WASTE OR RUIN-this is the
only aggravating circumstance
that may constitute a crime
in itself.
M. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION-requires
planning on the part of the assailants
on when and how they would accomplish
their criminal intent.
Requisites:
a) the time when the accused determined
to commit the crime
b) an act manifestly indicating that the
accused has clung to his determination
c) sufficient lapse of time between such
determination and execution to allow
him to reflect upon the consequence of
his acts
N. CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE These
are intellectual means to
facilitate the commission of the
crime, and are separate
aggravating circumstances.
O. SUPERIOR STRENGTH OR MEANS TO
WEAKEN DEFENSE -Intentionally
employing excessive force out of
proportion to the means of
defense available to the
offended party. The aggravating
circumstance of abuse of
superior strength is already
absorbed in treachery.
P. TRECHEARY (ALEVOSIA)
Applicable in crimes against person,
may co-exist with evident
premeditation. The essence of treachery
is the sudden and unexpected attack
without the slightest provocation on
the part of the person attacked.
For treachery to qualify the killing to
murder, the following requisites must
concur: (1) the employment of means of
execution that gives the person
attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate; (2) the
deliberate and conscious adoption of
the means of execution
Q. IGNOMINY
Pertaining to moral order which adds
disgrace and obloquy to the material
injury caused by the crime. There is
ignominy if the offended party was
humiliated or put to shame because of
the commission of the crime. Moral
suffering must be related to the
material effects of the crime.

R. UNLAWFUL ENTRY - Exists when an

entrance into a building is made
by a way not intended for such
purpose.
S. BREAKING WALLS, ROOF, FLOOR, DOORS OR
WINDOWS, except as provided for in Rule 113
of the Rules of Court (effecting warrant of
arrest). Inherent in the crime of trespass to
dwelling.

T. AID OF MINORS OR BY MEANS OF MOTOR

VEHICLE -Taking advantage of youthfulness
and availing of a faster means of conveyance.

U. CRUELTY-a crime is attended by cruelty when

offender deliberately performed an act to
augment the suffering of the offended party,
but which is not necessary in the commission of
the crime. The act must be deliberately
performed to increase the physical pain of the
victim.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
A. RELATIONSHIP - Mitigating in crimes
against property, but in theft, estafa
and malicious mischief, it is
exempting for some relatives.
Aggravating in crimes against person
if relative is of higher degree of
same level
B. INTOXICATION-Mitigating if not
habitual or is not subsequent to the
plan of the commission of the crime.
Aggravating if it is habitual or
intentional (subsequent to the plan to
commit a felony)
For intoxication to be mitigating, the
following conditions must be present:

the same is not habitual or is not

subsequent to the plan of the
commission of a felony; otherwise, it
is aggravating if it is habitual and
intentional; and

the consumption of alcoholic drinks was

in such quantity as to blur the
accused's reason and deprive him of a
certain degree of control.
C. DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND
EDUCATION
Mitigating generally, except
against property.
Aggravating if offender availed
himself or took advantage of
it.
Absolutory cause
The effect of this is to absolve the offender
from criminal liability, although not from
civil liability. It has the same effect as an
exempting circumstance, but you do not call
it as such in order not to confuse it with the
circumstances under Article 12.
Absolutory cause has the effect of an
exempting circumstance and they are
predicated on lack of voluntariness like
instigation.
Absolutory cause
Article 20 provides that the penalties
prescribed for accessories
Marriage of the offended woman as
provided in Article 344
Article 247
Article 332
Article 219
Instigation
Extenuating circumstances

The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal

liability of the offender. In other words, this
has the same effect as mitigating
circumstances, only you do not call it
mitigating because this is not found in
Article 13.
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

1. PRINCIPALS

principal by direct
participation
principal by induction
principal by indispensable
cooperation
2. ACCOMPLICES -not being
principals, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by
previous or simultaneous acts.
Knowledge of the crime is
necessary. Where co-accused's
assistance merely facilitated
the commission of the felonious
act of shooting, and that the
principal accused could have
accomplished his criminal act
without the forcer's cooperation
and assistance, the former could
be held guilty only as an
accomplice the killing.
3. ACCESSORIES
profiting from the effects of the
crime
concealing or destroying the body
of the crime
assisting the principal to escape

ACCESSORIES EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Those who are such with respect to their
spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural and adopted brothers or sisters or
relatives by affinity within the same degree
provided the accessories do not profit or
assist the offender to profit from the effects
of the crime.
 There is an earlier Supreme Court ruling
that the accessory and accomplice must be
charged together with the principal and that
if the latter be acquitted, the accomplice and
the accessory shall not be criminally liable
also, unless the acquittal is based on a
defense which is personal only to the
principal.
 Presidential Decree No. 1829

penalizes obstruction of apprehension and

prosecution of criminal offenders, effective
January 16, 1981, punishes acts commonly
referred to as obstructions of justice.
Thank You.