C2013 Crim1 Reviewer

C2013 | CRIMINAL LAW 1 FINALS REVIEWER | PROF. THEODORE O. TE | 1

I. DEFINITION Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment. (Esguerra Notes) Estrada v. Sandiganbayan [Plunder is mala in se requiring proof of criminal intent. RATIO: The application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances in the RPC to prosecutions under the AntiPlunder Law indicates quite clearly that mens rea is an element of plunder since the degree of responsibility of the offender is determined by his criminal intent. Congress in 1993 included it among the heinous crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The legislative declaration in R.A.7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special law, especially since in the case of plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. Important Concepts: Statute/Act = vague WHEN it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence most necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects – it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. Pesigan v. Angeles (1984) [Carabaos] - Laws which are penal in nature need to be published for the citizens to know what they are being charged of. The E.O. should not be enforced against the Pesigans because it is a penal regulation (because of its confiscation and forfeiture provision) and was published only in the Official Gazette on June 14, 1982. Justice and fairness dictate that the public must be informed of that provision by means of publication in the Gazette before violators of the executive order can be bound thereby. The summary confiscation was not in order. The carabaos must be returned. However, the Pesigans cannot transport the carabaos to Batangas because they are now bound by the said E.O. II. STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIME

* Through police power A. Sources Provision A2, S5 1987 Consti A6, S1 1987 Consti

Law The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.

SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW (REYES) 1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments 2. Special penal laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National Assembly, the Congress of the Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa. 3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law. B. Limitations * NCC 2 needs to be updated. WHY? When a law is not published yet, it is not yet in effect. Once it is published, even if one does not read the papers or have not seen the OG, it is presumed that the subjects know the law already and therefore, one cannot claim ignorance even when one really is. Ignorance will not even mitigate the crime. Provision NCC 2

OCC 2

NCC 4 Rule 115, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure

Law Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such publication. (1a) Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. (3) Rights of accused at trial. – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: (a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.


A3, S1 Consti A3, S14 (1&2)

(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. (c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel. (d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to crossexamination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him. (e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself. (f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to crossexamine him. (g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf. (h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws 1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. 2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the

A3, (1&2)

S18

A3, (1&2)

S19

A3, S20 A3, S21

A3, S22

accusation against him, to have a 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. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. (2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. (2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

People v. Marti [Marti attempted to ship marijuana. Busted.] ~ A3 of the 1987 Consti is a LIMITATION on the State. The people cannot invoke Article 3 for its benefit. ~ The Bill of Rights can only be invoked AGAINST THE STATE. The State is infinitely more powerful, thus the law, in criminal cases, guarantees the rights of the accused. Pesigan v. Angeles, supra Tanada v. Tuvera Before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially informed of its contents. (A4, S6 1973 Consti) The generality of law will never work w/o constructive


notice. The ruling of this case provides the publication constitutes the necessary constructive notice & is thus the cure for ignorance as an excuse. Held: The publication of all presidential issuances of a public nature or of general applicability is mandated by law. It is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of general application which have not been published shall have no force and effect. However, the implementation of the PDs prior to its publication is an operative fact which may have consequences which cannot be justly ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. From the report submitted by the clerk of court, it is undisputed that none of these unpublished PDs has ever been implemented by the government. Bouie v. Columbia [Trespassing, ex post facto-ed] - State, through police power, punished 2 Afro-Am students for conduct which was not criminal at the time they have committed it ~ To be convicted of criminal trespassing, the law statute states: “entry upon the lands of another after notice from the owner prohibiting such entry.” The petitioners should have been warned prior to entering the restaurant that to do so would constitute criminal trespassing. No prior warning was made; they were only asked to leave when they were inside. Important Concept: A criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a crime. 2 instances of an Ex post facto law: 1. It makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal & punishes such action. 2. It aggravates a crime and makes it greater than it was when committed. When an unforeseeable state-court construction of a statute is applied retroactively and subjects a person to criminal liability, it deprives that person of due process in the sense of fair warning. People v. Billaber Facts: Recruiter brought to the police station because of a commotion caused in a canteen, turns out he was accused of estafa & IR Issues: 1. WoN Billaber being brought to UN WPD be considered as a warrantless arrest. NO. The police did not arrest him for the estafa & illegal recruitment charges, but because of the commotion.

2. WoN Billaber’s right to a speedy trial was violated. NO, proceedings were not attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, or unjustified postponements 3.Billaber’s claim to double jeopardy is without merit 3 requisites of jeopardy 1.) first jeopardy attached prior to the second 2.) first jeopardy validly terminated 3.)second jeopardy must be for the same offense as the first. The cases before Branch 52 consisted of two counts of estafa, while present cases consisted of one count of estafa and illegal recruitment in large scale. Estafa and illegal recruitment are two different cases. Under Art 315 2(a) RPC, a person may be convicted for estafa (malum in se), and at the same time, illegal recruitment (malum prohibitum). Dimayacyac v. CA 1. WON the prosecution of petitioner would constituted double jeopardy NO. The Court held that not all elements for double jeopardy exist in the case at bench. The elements that must exist for double jeopardy to be invoked are: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered, and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. - In the present case, although there was a valid indictment before a competent court and petitioner has already been arraigned as the accused, the last requisite that the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent, is not present. Considering that since the dismissal of the previous criminal case against petitioner was by reason of his motion for the quashal of the information, petitioner is thus deemed to have expressly given his consent to such dismissal. There could then be no double jeopardy in this case since one of the requisites therefore, that the dismissal be without accused’s express consent, is not present. 2. WON petitioner’s constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case has been violated NO. The right to a speedy disposition of cases, like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceedings is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive


delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or unjustifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. In the determination of whether or not that right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are: the delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7055 AN ACT STRENGTHENING CIVILIAN SUPREMACY OVER THE MILITARY BY RETURNING TO THE CIVIL COURTS THE JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN OFFENSES INVOLVING MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OFFICE, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PRESIDENTIAL DECREES

III. BASIC PRINCIPLES A. Legality Article 3. Definition. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. Article 21. Penalties that may be imposed. - No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission. Bernardo v. People PD772 applicable only to squatters in urban areas. Hence, Bernardo can’t be charged for squatting in agricultural lands. . No person should be brought within the terms of a penal statute who is not clearly within them, nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by the statute. People vs. Pimentel RA 1700 punishes subversion while PD 1866 punishes illegal possession of firearms. But, since RA 7636 totally repealed subversion or RA 1700, & since this is favorable to the accused, accused can no longer be charged with RA 1700. PD 1866 should be amended to mere illegal possession of firearms without furtherance of subversion. B. Generality Art. 14. Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. (8a)

US vs. Sweet Jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special character brought before them for trial. VFA Article V Criminal Jurisdiction 1. Subject to the provisions of this article: (a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses committed within the Philippines and punishable under the law of the Philippines. (b) United States military authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the United States over United States personnel in the Philippines. 2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the Philippines, punishable under the laws of the Philippines, but not under the laws of the United States. (b) United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the United States, punishable under the laws of the United States, but not under the laws of the Philippines. (c) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 3 of this article, an offense relating to security means: (1) treason;


(2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national defense. 3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent, the following rules shall apply: (a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed by United States personnel, except in cases provided for in paragraphs l (b), 2 (b), and 3 (b) of this Article. (b) United States military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States personnel subject to the military law of the United States in relation to: (1) offenses solely against the property or security of the United States or offenses solely against the property or person of United States personnel; and (2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty. (c) The authorities of either government may request the authorities of the other government to waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case. (d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United States military authorities to maintain good order and discipline among their forces, Philippine authorities will, upon request by the United States, waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction except in cases of particular importance to the Philippines. If the Government of the Philippines determines that the case is of particular importance, it shall communicate such determination to the United States authorities within twenty (20) days after the Philippine authorities receive the United States request. (e) When the United States military commander determines that an offense charged by authorities of the Philippines against United States personnel arises out of an act or omission done in the performance of official duty, the

commander will issue a certificate setting forth such determination. This certificate will be transmitted to the appropriate authorities of the Philippines and will constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty for the purposes of paragraph 3(b)(2) of this article. In those cases where the Government of the Philippines believes the circumstances of the case require a review of the duty certificate, United States military authorities and Philippine authorities shall consult immediately. Philippine authorities at the highest levels may also present any information bearing on its validity. United States military authorities shall take full account of the Philippine position. Where appropriate, United States military authorities will take disciplinary or other action against offenders in official duty cases, and notify the Government of the Philippines of the actions taken. (f) If the government having the primary right does not exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other government as soon as possible. (g) The authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall notify each other of the disposition of all cases in which both the authorities of the Philippines and the United States have the right to exercise jurisdiction. 4. Within the scope of their legal competence, the authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall assist each other in the arrest of United States personnel in the Philippines and in handing them over to authorities who are to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this article. 5. United States military authorities shall promptly notify Philippine authorities of the arrest or detention of United States personnel who are subject to Philippine primary or exclusive jurisdiction. Philippine authorities shall promptly notify United States military authorities of the arrest or detention of any United States personnel. 6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so request, from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings. United States military authorities shall, upon formal notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make such personnel available to those authorities in time for any investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which the person has been charged. In extraordinary cases, the Philippine Government shall present its position to the United States Government regarding custody, which the United States


Government shall take into full account. In the event Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the United States shall be relieved of any obligations under this paragraph. The one year period will not include the time necessary to appeal. Also, the one year period will not include any time during which scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United States authorities, after timely notification by Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so. 7. Within the scope of their legal authority, United States and Philippine authorities shall assist each other in the carrying out of all necessary investigations into offenses and shall cooperate in providing for the attendance of witnesses and in the collection and production of evidence, including seizure and, in proper cases, the delivery of objects connected with an offense. 8. When United States personnel have been tried in accordance with the provisions of this article and have been acquitted or have been convicted and are serving, or have served their sentence, or have had their sentence remitted or suspended, or have been pardoned, they may not be tried again for the same offense in the Philippines. Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall prevent United States military authorities from trying United States personnel for any violation of rules of discipline arising from the act or omission which constituted an offense for which they were tried by Philippine authorities. 9. When United States personnel are detained, taken into custody, or prosecuted by Philippine authorities, they shall be accorded all procedural safeguards established by the law of the Philippines. At the minimum, United States personnel shall be entitled: (a) To a prompt and speedy trial; (b) To be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or charges made against them and to have reasonable time to prepare a defense; (c) To be confronted with witnesses against them and to cross examine such witnesses; (d) To present evidence in their defense and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses; (e) To have free and assisted legal representation of their own choice on the same basis as nationals of the Philippines;

(f) To have the services of a competent interpreter; (g) To communicate promptly with and to be visited regularly by United States authorities, and to have such authorities present at all judicial proceedings. These proceedings shall be public unless the court, in accordance with Philippine law, excludes persons who have no role in the proceedings. 10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippine and United States authorities. United States personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and material assistance. 11. United States personnel shall be subject to trial only in Philippine courts of ordinary jurisdiction, and shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine military or religious courts. BAYAN vs. Exec Secretary “VFA” Under the VFA, Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses committed within the Philippines and punishable under the law of the Philippines. So, Philippine courts are not deprived of their jurisdiction to hear and try offenses committed by US military personnel Nicolas vs. Romulo VFA constitutional; The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter one’s territory is immune from local jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon. Schneckenburger vs. Moran A consul is not entitled to the privilege of diplomatic immunity. Raquiza vs. Bradford A foreign army permitted to march through a friendly country or to be stationed in it, is exempt from civil & criminal jurisdiction of the place. Liang vs. People


ADB economist not covered by immunity because slandering a person is not covered by the agreement (immunity). Our laws do not allow the commission of a crime such as defamation in the name of official duty Gonzales vs. Abaya “Oakwood Mutiny” “Service-connected crimes or offenses” as “limited to those defined in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97” of the Articles of War are triable by court martial, not in civil courts. C.

Territoriality

RPC 2-Application of its provisions. – Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who: 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship; 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands; 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding chapter; 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in the Title One of Book Two of this Code. Article I, Constitution The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimension, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

8 cans of opium owned by Ah Sing were found in a steamship which came from the port of Saigon and arrived at the port of Cebu. Ah Sing guilty of illegal importation. Vessel came from a foreign country with the drug on board. Guilty even if the drug was not landed. The mere act off going to a port, without breaking bulk is prima facie evidence of importation. Miquiabas vs. Philippines-Ryukus Command The issue is the jurisdiction of the Court Martial over a Filipino charged with disposing in the Port of Manila things belonging to US government. General rule: Philippines has jurisdiction over all offenses committed within its territory, but it may, by treaty or agreement consent foreign government to have jurisdiction over some offenses committed within a certain territory. SC ruled that Court Martial had no jurisdiction over Miquiabas according to agreement between US and Phil because: 1. Port of Manila is not included in the list of bases where if offenses are committed therein, US has jurisdiction; 2. Miquiabas is a civilian employee, not a member of US forces. Rule 110, Sec 15 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure Sec. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. - (a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. (b) Where an offense is committed in a train, aircraft, or other public or private vehicle in the course of its trip, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of any municipality or territory where such train, aircraft, or other vehicle passed during its trip, including the place of its departure and arrival.chan robles virtual law library (c) Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the first port of entry or of any municipality or territory where the vessel passed during such voyage, subject to the generally accepted principles of international law. (d) Crimes committed outside the Philippines but punishable under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code shall be cognizable by the court where the criminal action is first filed. D. Prospectivity

US vs Ah Sing


RPC Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission. RPC Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. NCC Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such publication NCC Art. 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. Gumabon vs Director They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua for the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder on May 5, 1953. They now invoke the doctrine of People vs Hernandez which negates such complex crime. Hence, the doctrine laid down by the judiciary was given retroactive effect since it benefits the accused. In re: Kay Villegas Kami Petitioners say that Sec. 8 of RA 6132 is unconstitutional. However, it is a prospective law that only punishes violations after its enactment. Hence, it is not an ex post facto law. An ex post facto law is one which:. (1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act; (2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed; (3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; (4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense; (5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and (6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty People vs Narvaez Narvaez was convicted of murder with treachery for killing two persons. But he was not mandated to pay suffer subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of civil indemnity because of RA 5465; which was given retroactive effect.

People vs Ringor Ringor was guilty of a separate charge of illegal possession of firearm whose sentence was 17-20 years and guilty of murder qualified by treachery. SC says that RA 8294 cannot be applied retroactively since the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance would increase his penalty. But they retroactively applied it in the sense that in cases where murder or homicide is committed, illegal possession of firearms is no longer considered as a separate offense. People vs Lacson 1 Judge Agnir issued an order provisionally dismissing the case against Lacson on March 29, 1999. Then on June 6, 2001 11 informations of murder was filed in the RTC. Lacson said that the dismissal has become permanent since it has been 2 years already since the order, pursuant to Section 8 Rule 117. Supreme Court did not rule in thecase. People vs Lacson 2 They agreed that Section 8 Rule 117 can be applied retroactively but not in this particular case. The effectivity period was counted not from the order but from November of the year 2000. They made a new effectivity rule for one person. They said that you cannot deny the state of due process, and that you cannot retroact the law which is prejudicial to the state. People vs Masapol Masapol raped Beatriz while she was walking in a grassy area. He used a knife to rape her. However, even though Section 8 Rule 110 of RRC was not yet in effect at the commission of the crime. It needs to be retroactively applied since the circumstance was never alleged in the Information as required by the new rule. People vs Ignas Ignas guilty of murder aggravated by the use of unlicensed firearm. But RA 8294 was applied retroactively so that the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms will be absorbed in the murder. People vs Garcia Garcia convicted of murder for killing Engineer dela Cruz. He was convicted with qualifications of treachery and use of a motor vehicle. But since this was not alleged in the information as mandated by Section 8 Rule 110 of RRC (which must be applied retroactively), the aggravating circumstance of motor vehicle cannot prosper.


De Joya vs The Jail Warden Of Batangas City Norma De Joya says that her detention was illegal. She was charged with a violation of BP 22 and convicted under BP 22. Petitioner says that SC Admin. Circular 12-2000 deleted the penalty of imprisonment on BP 22 and allows a fine only. But SC Admin. Circular is not a penal law, hence RPC 22 does not apply. It applies only to pending cases and not to those which are final. People vs Buayuban Buayuban was guilty for the crime of robbery with Homicide. The aggravating circumstance of a band was not alleged in the information so Section 8 Rule 110 of RRCP is to be applied retroactively. E.

Interpretation of Penal Statutes

1987 Constitution Article 3 Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, 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 a 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. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable Pascual vs Board of Examiners Pascual, faced with administrative cases for immorality, is being called to testify by the prosecution as the first witness. However, the right against self-incrimination is present in criminal AS WELL as administrative proceedings. People vs Lopez Accused’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. Direct evidence is not needed if all circumstantial evidence is consistent with the accused’s guilt. People vs Muleta

Muleta was made to confess without the presence of a counsel. The accused has the right to be informed of his constitutional rights. IV. FELONIES AND CRIMES A. Nature, Concepts, Definition and Elements RPC Art. 3 Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. People v Temblor  Proof of motive is not essential when the culprit has been positively identified.  In order for alibi to be properly accepted as a defence, it is not enough that the appellant was somewhere else when the crime was perpetrated. It must be demonstrated beyond doubt that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime  flight can be an impled addmission of guilt People v Hassan  guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence must convince us with moral certainty that would allow us to pronounce without uneasiness of concience, the accused guilty  motive is essential when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit. While as a general rule, motive is not essential in arriving at a conviction (because motive is a state of mind), however for purposes of complying with the requirement that accused should be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt (and since the evidence and investigation in this case was not satisfactory to prove guilt), lack of motive is pivotal in an acquittal. People v Delim  Specific intent is not synonymous with motive. Specific Intent is used to describe






a state of mind which exists where circumstances indicate that an offender actively desired a specific result to follow his act or failure to act. Motive generally is generally reffered to as the reason which prompts the accused to engage in a particular criminal activity. In this case, the specific intent was the main issue -was the intent to kidnapp or to murder? (it makes all the difference because different crimes would arise if the intent was to kidnapp only or to murder). In murder, the intent is to kill while in kidnapping the intent is to deprive the victim of liberty. Lack of motive not a ground for acquittal when evidence shows otherwise.

Estrada v Sandiganbayan (supra) People v Pabiona  Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the ff requisites are complied with: ◦

there is more than one circumstance

◦

the facts from which the inferances are derived are proven

◦ 



the combination of all circumstances warrant a conviction beyond reasonable doubt the mere presence of the accused in the scene of the crime does not suffice to implicate the accused, more so when the presence was sufficiently explained and corrobated by evidence. While motive is generally immaterial, it become important when evidence is merely circumstantial or inconclusive and there is some doubt as to whether a crime has been committed or if the accused committed the crime.

B. Culpa and Dolo People v Carmen  When the accused do not have any criminal intent in the killing (they believed they were exorcising an evil spirit in beating up the boy), their liability arises from reckless imprudence.  Reckless imprudence because they ought to know their actions would not cure the boy (not necessarily true in remote provinces where spritism is for them a matter of fact). It appears that the accused are members of a cult and that the bizzare ritual which involved beating up the boy, performed with the consent of

the parents, was thought to relieve demon possession. RPC art 3 ...Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). ...there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. RPC 365 Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed. Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed. When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos. A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony. In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four. The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable: 1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty


next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the period which they may deem proper to apply. 2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, to death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest. The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be in this hand to give. (As amended by R.A. 1790, approved June 21, 1957) People v Buan (1968)  Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. The essence of the quasi-offense of criminal negligence under RPC A365 lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof.  The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty; it does not qualify the substance of the offense. As the carelessness of the act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense remains one and the same. It cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions. Reodica v CA (1998)  felonies are committed by culpa and dolo. Reckless imprudence resulting in light physical injuries is punishable by public censure only. Article 9 par 3 of the RPC defines light felonies as punishable by arresto menor. Since public censure is a light penalty (art25), recless imprudence resulting in light physical injuries is a





light felony. R.I. Resulting in damage to property is penalized by arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods. Since arresto mayor is a correctional penalty, R.I. Resulting in damge to property is a less grave felony. No complex crime since both light offenses came from a single act

Lontok v Gorgonio (1979)  where one of the resulting offences in criminal negligence constitutes a light felony, there is no complex crime. (Art.48 by inference) People v Nepumucemo  A deliberate intent to do an unlawful act (the pulling out of a gun which at best is considered a threat) is essentially inconsistent with reckless imprudence.  Here he also claimed accident in the shooting of his wife (w/c is an exempting circumstance). Accident is also incompatible when he drew out his gun in the middle of a heated argument. Effect of mistake of fact on liability RPC 3 (again to memorize) Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. US v Ah Chong  the cook who killed his roomate, mistaking him for a robber because it was dark(forcibly opening the door). Mistake of fact does not absolve one from criminal liability, it in this case however, allowed the court to appreciate the justifying circumstance of self defence. People v Oanis  Policeman supposed to arrest a notorious criminal open fired on what they believed to be the accused without bothering to ascertain the identity of the victim. The victim turned out to be an innocent person. Both accused are guilty




C.

of murder, because even if it were true that the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused would not be justified in killing him while the latter was sleeping. In apprehending even the most notorious criminal, the law does not permit the captor to kill him. It is only when the fugitive from justice is determined to fight the officers of law who are trying to capture him that killing him would be justified. In doing an unlawful act, mistake of fact does not absolve them. (see mistake in Identity under art 4)

◦

Distinction of mala in se and mala prohibita ▪    

mala in se: wrongful from their nature (ex. theft, rape, homicide, etc.) those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its members the intent governs refers generally to felonies defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code.

▪

Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws

mala prohibita: wrong merely because prohibited by statute (ex. illegal possession of firearms)  violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society  the only inquiry is: has the law been violated?; criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy  refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws. When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se, even if ▪ punished by special laws, although there are crimes in the Revised Penal Code which were originally defined and penalized by special laws. Among them are possession and use of opium, malversation, brigandage and libel.

▪

intent to commit the crime (criminal intent) is not necessary. it is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act (done freely and consciously) prohibited by the special law

▪

▪

the rule is that in crimes mala in se, there must be a criminal intent; but in those mala prohibita, it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done.

Crimes Defined and Penalized by special laws



Crimes mala in se and mala prohibita from Reyes: ◦

the third class of crimes are those punished by special laws ▪

(1) the intentional felonies

▪

(2) the culpable felonies

▪ ◦

those defined and penalized by special laws which include crimes punished by municipal or city ordinances

◦

In crimes punished by special laws, the act alone, irrespective of the motives, constitutes the offense

◦

Reason: When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.

◦

Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws ▪

Exceptions:

◦

mala per se - not only wrong because it is prohibited; it is wrong per se because it violates fundamental rights, and for such acts to be punishable, it has to be shown that it has been committed with malice.

intent distinguished from motive ▪

motive  the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result  is not an essential element in crime, and hence, need not be proved for purposes of conviction

▪ 

intent the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (2001) Facts: Estrada is challenging the plunder law. One of the issues he raised is plunder is malum prohibitum or malum in se.

whether


Held: Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent. Precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in se the element of mens rea must be

Article 17, with reference to the participation of criminals in the ◦ proven in a prosecutioncommission for plunder.ofItthe is noteworthy that the amended information alleges that t crime

Relation of RPC to Special Penal Laws RPC Art. 10 Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. - Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should especially ◦

1st clause and 2nd clause reconciled: ▪

◦

◦

1st clause offenses under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the RPC should be understood to mean only that the Penal Code is not intended to supersede special penal laws, which are controlling with regard to offenses therein specially punished  restates the elementary rule of statutory construction that special legal provisions prevail over general ones 2nd clause makes the RPC supplementary to special laws unless the special laws provide for the contrary

“special laws”  defined in US v, Serapio 23 Phil 584 as a penal law which punishes acts not defined and penalized by the Penal Code  a statute enacted by the Legislative branch, penal in character, which is not an amendment to the RPC.

▪  

“supplementary” means supplying what is lacking; additional some provisions of the RPC are perfectly applicable to special laws, especially with the addition of the second clause of Art. 10 ◦

Article 22, with reference to the retroactive effect of penal laws if they favor the accused

◦

Article 45, with reference to the confiscation of the instruments used in the commission of the crime.

“unless the latter should specially provide the contrary”  the special law must contain a provision that it exclusively applies to the provide the contrary. offense defined and penalized therein, otherwise the RPC has supplementary application to the special law under Art. 10 of the RPC

  Important words or phrases: ▪

Article 39, with reference to subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay the fine

▪

 

▪

◦

◦

the provisions of the RPC on penalties cannot be applied to offenses punishable under special laws ▪

Art. 6 (attempted and frustrated stages of execution), Arts. 18 and 19 (accomplices and accessories), Arts. 50 to 57 (penalty for the prinicipal in an attempted felony is two degrees and in a frustrated felony one degree lower than the penalty for the consummated felony, that the penalty for the accomplice is one degree lower and for the accessory two degrees lower than that for the consummated felony), Arts. 13 and 14 (mitigating and aggravating circumstances) and Art. 64 (rules for the application of penalties with three periods)

▪

reason: special laws do not provide for a scale of penalties, as that in Art. 71 of the RPC, where a given penalty could be lowered by one or two degrees, and that the penalty provided by the special law does not contain three periods

▪

the term “imprisonment” should be used in reference to the penalty for the crimes punished by special laws because terms like prision correccional, prision mayor, or arresto mayor is peculiar to penalties for crimes punished by the RPC

Offenses under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the Code relating to attempted and frustrated crimes ▪

the attempted or frustrated stage of the execution of a offense penalized by a special law is not punishable, unless the special law provides a penalty therefor (first clause)


◦

The special law has to fix penalties for attempted of frustrated crimes in order that the crime may be punished in case its commission reached only the attempted or frustrated stage of execution

◦

When a special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime defined by it, the attempted stage is punishable by the same penalty provided by that law

◦

Art. 10 of the RPC is not applicable to punish an accomplice under the special law. ▪

◦ ◦

Indemnity and subsidiary imprisonment in the RPC can be applied to violations of the Motor Vehicle Law a plea of guilty is not mitigating in illegal possession of firearms, a special law ▪

◦ ◦

◦

nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege, when the special law provides no punishment for an accomplice, the pertinent provisions of the RPC on accomplices cannot be given effect as the rules on graduation of accomplices must be resorted to. it would be a legal impossibility to determine the what penalty is to be imposed.

The plea of guilty, as a mitigating circumstance under Par. 7 Art. 13 of the RPC is not available to offenses punishable under special laws because they are not subject to the provisions of Art. 64 of the RPC, relative to the application of the circumstances modifying the criminal liability of the accused, because the penalty prescribed by the special law is usually indeterminate and does not contain three periods.

no accessory penalty, unless the special law provides therefor Par. 3 Art. 12 of the RPC can be applied to a minor over nine but less than fifteen years old who violated a special law, as the offender must act with intelligence, even if in crimes mala prohibita intent is immaterial (the prohibited act must be voluntarily committed) special laws amending the RPC are subject to its provisions

RA 9165 Sec. 98 Section 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. – Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

Padilla v. Dizon, 158 SCRA 127 (1988) Facts: Padilla filed an administrative complaint against RTC Judge Dizon for rendering a manifestly erroneous decision acquitting Lo Chi Fai of the offense charged for smuggling foreign currency out of the country in violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960. The Circular prohibits transmission of foreign currency out of the Philippines without authorization from the Central Bank Penal sanction for such violation is provided in PD No. 1883. Judge Dizon acquitted accused because of lack of intent to violate and benefit from the act alone. Held: Judge showed gross ignorance of the law. He ought to know that proof of malice or mens rea is not essential in offense punished by special laws which are mala prohibita. The judge did not take into consideration the admission of the accused that he was a “carrier” of foreign currency for other people but chose to give credence to the fantastic tale of the accused that he and his alleged business associate were using money for a particular investment. Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 402 (1997) Facts: Padilla driving his Pajero at high speed despite the bad weather, hit a balot vendor. A chase took place and eventually, Padilla’s vehicle was stopped. He was arrested and several firearms were found inside his vehicle. He admitted possession claiming he used them for shooting but was not able to produce any permit to carry. Held: PD 1866 provides only 2 requisites to establish crimes involving illegal possession of firearms: (1) existence of subject firearm and (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding permit to possess. Either the testimony of a representative of or a certification from the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of illegal possession. PD 1866 is constitutional. To justify nullification, there must be a clear breach of the constitution. The contention that the penalty of simple illegal possession is cruel and excessive in contravention of the constitution does not merit consideration. The severity of a penalty does not ipso facto make the same cruel and excessive.


The court cited People v. Simon doctrine as to the penalties imposed although PD 1866 is a special law, the penalties therein were taken from the RPC, hence the rules in the said code for graduating by degrees or determining the proper period should be applied People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 555 (1994) Facts: The accused was arrested after a buy-bust operation conducted by the police wherein the accused sold 2 tea-bags of marijuana to a poseur buyer for P40. Held: To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, the sale must be clearly established. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction. The court held that in the instant case the imposable penalty under RA 6425 as amended by RA 7659 is prision correccional to be taken from the medium period thereof pursuant to Art. 64 of the RPC, there being no aggravating and mitigating circumstance. Dissent: It is thus clear that an offense is punished by the RPC if both its definition and the penalty therefore are found in the special law; that the latter imports or borrows from the RPC its nomenclature of penalties. In short, the mere use by a special law of a penalty found in the RPC can by no means make an offense there under an offense “punished or punishable” by the RPC. Specific Acts Punished by Special Laws ◦

RA 4200 (Wire Tapping)

◦

RA 7080 (Plunder)

◦

PD 1866 (Possession of Firearms and Ammunition)

◦

RA 9165 (Dangerous Drugs)

◦

RA 7610 (Child Abuse)

◦

RA 7877 (Sexual Harassment)

◦

RA 8484 (Access Devices Regulation Act)

◦

RA 9160 (Money Laundering)

◦

RA 9208 (Trafficking in Persons)

◦

BP 22 (Bouncing Checks)

◦

RA 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes)

D.

◦

RA 6539 (Carnapping)

◦

RA 9372 (Terrorism) Punishable Conduct

Wrongful Act Different From that intended Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. People vs. Sabalones Facts: -Assailants shot the car and jeep. -Appellants believed that they were suspected of having killed the recently slain Nabing Velez. They had to defend their turf against the invasion of a revengeful gang of the supporters of Velez. -Assailants killed the wrong persons (maling akala). They thought the avenging men of Nabing Velez were in the vehicles. -case describes error in personae (mistake in the identity of the victims) rather than aberration ictus (aiming at one but hitting the other due to imprecision in the blow Urbano vs IAC Facts: -Oct 23: Urbano hacked Javier and hit his right palm -they agreed to have a settlement -Nov 14: Javier was rushed to the hospital due to tetanus toxin -Nov 15: Javier died Principle: accused is criminally responsible for acts committed by him in violation of law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therein Infection of wound by tetanus: -efficient intervening cause -failure to take necessary precautions because Javier was catching fish in the shallow (dirty) irrigation canals even if his wound hasn’t healed yet. (in short, kasalanan ni Javier.) -Urbano is not liable for homicide Compare: 1. Aberratio Ictus (mistake in the blow)


2.

3.

-there are 2 targets: the actual and the intended target -blow is intended for x but it lands on y Error in personae -there is one target -blow intended for person x, person x is hit but x is actually person y. -Mistake in identity of target Praeter intentionem (no intent to commit so grave a wrong) -refer to mitigating circumstance

Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating circumstances xxx 4. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed Omission: Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 2. 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 an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Art. 116. Misprision of treason. — Every person owing allegiance to (the United States) the Government of the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy against them, conceals or does not disclose and make known the same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an accessory to the crime of treason. Art. 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon public officers or employees who have failed to resist a rebellion by all the means in their power, or shall continue to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the rebels or shall accept appointment to office under them. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187). Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and suspension shall be imposed upon any public

officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses. Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. — Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished: 1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty. 2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification, in case the fugitive shall not have been finally convicted but only held as a detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance. Art. 234. Refusal to discharge elective office. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who, having been elected by popular election to a public office, shall refuse without legal motive to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office. Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one's own victim. — The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon: 1. Any one who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more serious offense. 2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured. 3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to the authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe place. PD 953 REQUIRING THE PLANTING OF TREES IN CERTAIN PLACES AND PENALIZING UNAUTHORIZED CUTTING, DESTRUCTION, DAMAGING AND INJURING OF CERTAIN TREES, PLANTS AND VEGETATION Section 1. The following shall plant trees: 1. Every person who owns land adjoining a river or creek, shall plant trees extending at least five meters on his land adjoining the edge of the bank of the


river or creek, except when such land, due to its permanent improvement, cannot be planted with trees; 2. Every owner of an existing subdivision shall plant trees in the open spaces required to be reserved for the common use and enjoyment of the owners of the lots therein as well as along all roads and service streets. The subdivision owner shall consult the Bureau of Forest Development as to the appropriate species of trees to be planted and the manner of planting them; and 3. Every holder of a license agreement, lease, license or permit from the Government, involving occupation and utilization of forest or grazing land with a river or creek therein, shall plant trees extending at least twenty (20) meters from each edge of the bank of the river or creek. The persons hereinabove required to plant trees shall take good care of them, and, from time to time, remove any tree planted by them in their respective areas which has grown very old, is diseased, or is defective, and replant with trees their respective areas whenever necessary PD 1153 REQUIRING THE PLANTING OF ONE TREE EVERY MONTH FOR FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS BY EVERY CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES Section 1. It is the policy of the State to call upon every citizen of the Philippines to help, as a duty and obligation, to conserve and develop the resources of the country. Section 2. In furtherance of said policy, every citizen of the Philippines at least ten (10) years of age, actually residing therein, unless physically disabled to do so, shall plant one tree every month for five (5) consecutive years. Section 3. The planting of such trees shall be done in any of the following places: (a) In lands or lots owned by his family; (b) In lands or lots leased by his family with the consent of the owner thereof; (c) In lands which are parts of public grounds or places such as plazas, schools, markets, roadside and parks, and (d) In lands of the public domain designated by the Presidential Council for Forest Ecosystem Management, hereafter referred to as the Council, such as appropriate forest lands, grazing or pasture lands, mineral lands, resettlement lands, civil and military reservations. Section 4. The trees to be planted shall be fruit-bearing, shade, ornamental or forest trees, and the same shall be taken care of for at least two years after each planting and replaced if the same die, are diseased or are defective. Proposal and Conspiracy

Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons. Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Penalty. — The conspiracy or proposal to commit the crime of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P10,000 pesos, and prision correccional and a fine not exceeding P5,000 pesos. Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or insurrection. — The conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be punished by prision mayor in minimum period and a fine which shall not exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00). The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos (P2,000.00). (As amended by R.A. 6968, approved October 24, 1990). Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. — Persons conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187). Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon: 1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free competition in the market; 2. Any person who shall monopolize any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or shall combine with any other person or persons to monopolize and merchandise or object in order to alter the price thereof by spreading false


rumors or making use of any other article to restrain free competition in the market; 3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, or processor of any merchandise or object of commerce or an importer of any merchandise or object of commerce from any foreign country, either as principal or agent, wholesaler or retailer, shall combine, conspire or agree in any manner with any person likewise engaged in the manufacture, production, processing, assembling or importation of such merchandise or object of commerce or with any other persons not so similarly engaged for the purpose of making transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or of increasing the market price in any part of the Philippines, of any such merchandise or object of commerce manufactured, produced, processed, assembled in or imported into the Philippines, or of any article in the manufacture of which such manufactured, produced, or imported merchandise or object of commerce is used. If the offense mentioned in this article affects any food substance, motor fuel or lubricants, or other articles of prime necessity, the penalty shall be that of prision mayor in its maximum and medium periods it being sufficient for the imposition thereof that the initial steps have been taken toward carrying out the purposes of the combination. Any property possessed under any contract or by any combination mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, and being the subject thereof, shall be forfeited to the Government of the Philippines. Whenever any of the offenses described above is committed by a corporation or association, the president and each one of its agents or representatives in the Philippines in case of a foreign corporation or association, who shall have knowingly permitted or failed to prevent the commission of such offense, shall be held liable as principals thereof. Art. 306. Who are brigands; Penalty. — When more than three armed persons form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom or for any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence, they shall be deemed highway robbers or brigands. Persons found guilty of this offense shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period if the act or acts committed by them are not punishable by higher penalties, in which case, they shall suffer such high penalties. If any of the arms carried by any of said persons be an unlicensed firearms, it shall be presumed that said persons are highway robbers or brigands, and in case of convictions the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum period.

Art. 340. Corruption of minors. — Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of persons underage to satisfy the lust of another, shall be punished by prision mayor, and if the culprit is a pubic officer or employee, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, he shall also suffer the penalty of temporary absolute disqualification. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 92). RA 9165: AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. – Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act: (a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; (b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; (c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form; (d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; and (e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs. RA 9372: AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM Sec. 4: Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. “Persons who conspire to commit the crime of terrorism shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism as defined in Section 3 hereof and decide to commit the same. US v. Bautista Appellants were charged with conspiracy to overthrow the US government in the Philippines. The fact that one of the accused has actually and voluntarily accepted the appointment by conspirators to be an officer to their plan may be used as an evidence for the accused to commit conspiracy. People v. Vengco Accused was charged with murder. Conspiracy is discerned from the conduct of the accused and his companions, with the way they assaulted their victim, even if no actual meeting among them were proven.


People v. Valdez Appellants were charged with murder. Any act of a co-conspirator becomes the act of the other regardless of the precise degree of participation in the act. People v. Escober Although Puzalan’s participation in the crime was to act a look out, it is a well established rule that whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on occasion of robbery, all those who took part of as principals in the commission of the robbery, although they did not take part in homicide, are also guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide. People v. Nacional Appellants were charged with murder. Conspiracy, once established, makes each of the conspirators liable for the acts of the others regardless of the extent of participation. The act of one is the act of all. People v. Elijorde Murder. In the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same person is individual and not collective, and that each of the participants is liable only for his own acts. At the time accused Elijorde intervened in the assault, Punzalan had already desisted from his own acts of aggression. He did nothing to assist Elijorde in the immediate commission of the murder. People v. Botona Proof of an actual planning of the perpetration of the crime is not a condition for conspiracy. It is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, they had the same purpose and were united in its execution. Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan Charged with estafa through falsification of public documents. Conspiracy must be established separately from the crime itself and must meet the same degree of proof. The evidence must reasonably strong enough to show community of criminal design. People v. Bello Robbery with Homicide. Even though the original plan may have been to simply rob the victim and while one of the accused may not have actually participated in the killing, the

conspirators are equally liable as co-principals for all planned or unanticipated consequences of their criminal design. People v. Rom Murder. Proof of previous agreement among the malefactors to commit the crime would be unnecessary to establish conspiracy when by their overt acts it could be deduced that they conducted themselves in concert with one another in pursuing their unlawful design. People v. Comadre Murder with multiple frustrated murder. Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship. Stages Of Execution Giving Rise To Liability 1. Attempt Art. 6: Consummated, frustrated and attempted felonies Consummated- when all necessary accomplishment are present.

elements

for

its

execution

and

Frustrated- when the offender perform all acts which would produce the felony as a consequence but do not produce by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Attempt- when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. RA 9165: AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002: Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy RPC Art. 134- A: Coup d’etat – How committed. The crime of coup d’etat is the swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth directed against the authorities of RP, or any military camp or installation, communications networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, singly simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to military or police or holding any


public office or employment with or without civilian support or participation for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. People v. Lamahang Attempted robbery. It must be shown that the offender clearly intended to take possession for the purpose of gain, of some personal property belonging to another. It is necessary to prove that said beginning of execution, if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. People v. Dio Where the killing of the victim was merely incidental to and an offshoot of the plan to carry out the robbery, which, however, was not consummated, because of resistance by the deceased, the crime committed was only attempted robbery with homicide. People V Trinidad (1989) 169 SCRA 51 Policeman Trinidad hitched a ride with several fish vendors to Bayugan, Agusan del Sur. Driver Tan witnessed Trinidad shooting 2 co-fish vendors. Tan ran from the vehicle, hid in the bushes then rode a jeep but noticed Trinidad was in the same jeep. Trinidad demanded they get off the jeep, Trinidad chased and fired at Tan, hid again. W Trinidad is guilty of frustrated or attempted murder in relation to Tan. SC held Attempted Murder. The doctrinal rule is that where the would inflicted is not mortal, the crime is only attempted. Trinidad had commenced the commission of felony directly by overt acts but was unable to perform all the acts of execution by reason other than his own desistance. People V Campuhan (2000) GR 129433 Campuhan found guilty by RTC of statutory rape of 4-year-old. Mother found Campuhan kneeling in front of girl, short pants down to his knees. SC held mother could not have established inter-genital contact between Campuhan and daughter because of relative position and view point. It is not enough that she claims that she saw it, it is required that her claim be demonstrated. Daughter said she resisted his advances by putting her legs closed together and that she did not felt pain but felt “not happy”. People v Orita

Rape has no frustrated stage. Only attempted and consummated. Consummation is acquired when there is any penetration of vagina, however slght. Entry of labia, even without rupture of hymen is sufficient to warrant consummated rape. Entry means/synonymous with mere touching of external genitalia, where touching is part of process of penetration. If entry is not established (ie grazing the surface of female organ), crime is only attempted rape. People v Dela Pena There must be proof that penis touched the labia and not merely stroked the mons pubis. To touch labia means there is some degree of penetration. RPC 266-A: Rape; When And How Committed. — Rape is Committed — "1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a. Through force, threat, or intimidation; b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. 2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. (NOTE: does not require victim is female) People V Lopez (1999) 312 SCRA 684 Amboy Lopez shot 3 farmers on their way home from a rice land at night. 2 killed, 1 survived. Survivor positively identified Lopez. W the crime in relation to survivor is frustrated or attempted murder. SC held it was only attempted murder. It was murder because there was intent to kill and treachery. Attempted because the injuries that survivor sustained were not life threatening. Survivor was treated and not confined, physician said wounds will heal in 7 days. People V Lizada (2003) 369 SCRA 62 Consummation (AHEVM) US v Adiao (1955) 38 PHIL 754 Adiao, a customs officer secreted a leather belt owned by a Japanese, belt was later found by other customs employees under Adiao’s desk. W crime is frustrated or consummated


theft. SC held Adiao is guilty of consummated theft. He has performed all the acts of execution necessary for accomplishment of felony. People v Hernandez (1925) 49 PHIL 980 Hernandez, husband of grandmother, guilty of rape of 9-year-old granddaughter by force and threat of killing her with a knife. W Hernandez was guilty of frustrated rape or consummated rape. SC held guilty of consummated rape. Rupture of hymen is not necessary for conviction of consummated rape. There must be proof of some degree of entrance. Here, girl’s labia was found inflamed with abundance of semen, hymen intact. Girl said she felt intense pain. SC held consummated rape. People V Erina (1927) 50 PHIL 998 Erina found guilty of consummated rape of 3 yrs 11 mon-old girl. W there was penetration. Physician found slight inflammation indicating effort to enter vagina but not conclusive if there was entry. SC held complete penetration not necessary. It is sufficient that there is penetration of labia. However in the case, there is not conclusive evidence of penetration. SC held frustrated rape. People V Velasco (1976) 73 SCRA 574 Velasco found guilty of rape of 5-year old. Witnesses Perez and Castro and several other gave fist blows to Velasco. Girl was taken to hospital where she was treated, fresh laceration of hymen, vagina opening is painful, doctor opined that girl must have had sexual intercourse recently – conclusion that organ passed labia majora and minora. Judge Lantin of CFI disregarded finding of impartial and disinterested witness, expert doctor. SC ruled consummated crime, reclusion perpetua. People V Mendoza (2003) 414 SCRA 461 st Mendoza found guilty of 2 counts of rape by RTC sentenced him to 2 Death Penalties. 1 nd rape – March 18, 1998, 2 rape – Sept 10, 1999, Pregnancy (4 months) discovered on Sept 22, 1999. Raped several times in between. st W there is incestuous rape on 1 count. SC held testimony does not establish carnal knowledge. (Unconscious, blood has dried, found on thigh and not on vagina, pain) “Pain” is subjective and easy to feign unless specific cause is pinpointed. However, accused is guilty of attempted rape. (Testimony: both were naked, kissed and touched breasts, threatened to kill) Although no introduction of penis was established, there was intent to lie – overt acts of rape. nd W there is incestuous rape on 2 count (reportedly raped several times) SC held yes. SC found Maricar’s testimony credible. SC held Maricar’s testimony is clear, straightforward and convincing.

Art. 4(2) Impossible Crimes Intod v CA GR103119 1992 Intod et.al., all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, fired at the room of Bernardina Palangpangan. Palangpangan however was not in the room when the accused fire shots. Witnesses positively identified accused. RTC convicted Intod of attempted murder. Intod pleaded only “impossible crime” W Intod’s felony was attempted murder or only an impossible crime. SC: Impossible Crime, based on factual/physical impossibility. Intod still criminally liable, under RPC 4(2) RP (respondent): Crime of murder was not consummated not because of inherent impossibility of its accomplishment but because of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance. SC: RPC 4(2) recognizes offender’s formidability. The act cannot be produced because of: 1) inherent impossibility, 2) means employed were either inadequate or ineffectual. Impossible = impossible of accomplishment. There must either be: 1. legal impossibility – occurs where intended acts, even if completed would not amount to a crime. Where: a. motive is to perform an act in violation of the law b. there is intent to perform the physical act c. there is performance of intended act d. the consequence resulting from intended act does not amount to a crime. E.g. killing a person already dead 2.

*factual impossibility – occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent consummation. E.g. Man who puts his hand in the pocket of another intending to steal the latter’s wallet but finds pocket empty. E.g. Man shoots at place where his intended victim should be but victim was not present in said place. (Intod v CA)


In US, their Code of Crimes and Criminal Procedure does not make mention of IC, only makes mention of attempts of crimes. Impossibility of committing offense is only a defense against criminal liability. ( Only Legal impossibility is a defense.) - factual impossibility is not a defense because the crime could have been committed had the circumstances been as the accused believed them to be. Act will be penalized as an attempt to commit crime. (US v Wilson) In Phils, RPC does not distinguish between legal or factual impossibility. Impossible Crime is not merely a defense but is penalized by itself. The factual situation in Intod presents a physical impossibility which is sufficient to make the act and impossible. V. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE A. Principals Art 17 Principals- The following are considered principals:  ) Those who take part in the direct execution of the act;  ) Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;  )Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished 1.

Direct Participation

People vs Yanson-Dumancas By force is by irresistible force or uncontrollable fear. Inducing is also by giving a price/reward or issuing commands People vs Bolivar Moral ascendancy of supposed inducer was not found as the moral ascendancy of inducer was not established. People vs Ong Chiat Lay Appellant was acquitted because the crime of arson supposedly committed by the one's he induced was not proven. There is no punishment if there is no crime. People vs Dela Cruz Dela cruz was the mastermind behind the kidnapping and murder of Yu Chi Chong. The inducer need not take part in the commission of the offense, one who induces another to commit a crime is guilty as principal even though he might have taken no part in its material execution. People vs Indanan Indanan is the Headman of Parang. He used force and superiority in ordering his men to kill one Sariol. He is the only one liable for the criminal offense.

People vs Nunag A case of 5 gang rapists, only 3 counts of rape were appreciated as the victim was incapacitated after the first three. The three rapists were principals by direct participation, the remaining two by indispensible cooperation by holding her down.

People vs Kiichi Omine Creation of new road. Kiichi uttered words of inducement to Eduardo who hacked Pulido but the words were insufficient to make Kiichi a principal by induction. Kiichi act was found to be NOT influential to Eduardo’s criminal offense.

People vs Dela Cerna All were guilty as principals by direct participation, as all 5 accused shot at the victim even if only one shot was fatal,

3.

People vs Doria Buy-bust – Arrest of co-accused and subsequent search and seizure of marijuana in the house of co-accused was invalid as she did not directly sell the marijuana. 2.

Induction

Indispensable Cooperation

People vs Maluenda The use of Legarto’s motorcycle in keeping the ransom money for the kidnapping did not make him a principal by indispensable cooperation but only as an accessory since he did not participate in the criminal act of kidnapping itself. People vs Montealegre


Police caught 2 men smoking marijuana. The other one stabbed the policeman while Montealegre held the hands of the said police officer. He was found guilty of homicide as a principle by indispensable cooperation. People vs Eguia Luciano approved the check of Buanco even if the latter had no actual credit in the bank. Therefore, Luciano acted as a co-principal by indispensable cooperation. B. Accomplices People vs Mandolado Mandolado and Ortillano were part of the AFP and when the former got drunk, he fired his gun at the occupants of a public jeepney. Ortillano likewise fired his gun but aimed on the ground. He was an accomplice because he knew Mandolado’s criminal design and he gave him moral aid. People vs Doble Bank robbery with the use of banca. Cresencio and Romaquin were left in the banca. They were only accomplices since they only learned about the criminal design hours earlier and they were in-charge of the banca which is necessary in the robbery. People vs. Doctolero 1. Doctoleros were charged and convicted of multiple murder. 2. Among the brothers, Virgilio & Conrado were considered accomplices even if they were just standing outside the house while their brother Ludovico was killing the women inside, for one, because they heard their screams and did nothing. 3. “Where one goes with the principals and in staying outside of the house while the others went inside to rob and kill the victim, the former effectively supplied the criminals with material and moral aid making him guilty as an accomplice.” 4. “One can be an accomplice even if he did not know of the actual crime intended by the principal provided he was aware that it was an illicit act.” People vs. Elijorde 1. Hierro (victim) was walking then he was kicked at the back by Punzalan. Hierro then ran away but was pursued and subsequently stabbed to death by Elijorde alone.

2.

3. 4.

Evidence didn’t show that Punzalan knew that Elijorde had a knife and intended to use it to stab the victim – “Kicking the victim prior to the actual stabbing by the other accused does not itself demonstrate concurrence of wills or unity of purpose.” “To hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of it.” Accomplices – Requisites a. Community of design – knowing the criminal design of the principal, he concurs with the latter in his purpose. b. He cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts c. There must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice

People vs. De Vera 1. Accused was found guilty of the crime of murder by the lower courts. Conviction was based on lone testimony that De Vera was in the victim’s car along with the other accused while the crime was happening. 2. Mere presence does not amount to conspiracy – it must be founded on facts. There was no proof that De Vera was part of the conspiracy. He did not participate in the decision to kill, he only joined after “kasi nagkahiyaan na.” Conspirator & Accomplice Distinguished a. CONSPIRATORS know the criminal intent because they themselves are the source of it. ACCOMPLICES know the criminal intent only after the principals have reached a decision, and only then do they agree to cooperate in its execution b. CONSPIRATORS decide that a crime should be committed; the authors of the crime. ACCOMPLICES don’t decide; merely instruments who perform acts not essential to the commission of the crime. c. SIMILARITY – knowledge of & agreement with the criminal design 3. “Absent complete evidence of conspiracy which creates doubt as to whether accused had acted as principals or accessories, Court resolved to hold them as accomplices, it being milder.” 4. Penalty of an accomplice is one degree lower than the principal.


People vs. Cachola 1. The accused shot to death 4 people in one house. Neighbors saw a distinct jeep just outside the house of the deceased being guarded and subsequently used to escape by the accused. 2. 3 of the accused were acquitted because the only reason they were charged was because they were on board the jeep which was intercepted. Witnesses did not seem them & evidence was insufficient to prove actual participation or cooperation by previous/simultaneous acts. 3. “Absent a link between the crime & their presence in the jeep 2 hours later, we cannot consider their participation even as accessories to the crime.” C.

Accessory

People vs. Talingdan 1. Deceased’s wife had deserted the family home and had illicit relations with one of the accused. 2. Wife was inside the room when her husband was shot, and she subsequently warned her daughter not to talk or else she would kill her. When asked by the police, she claimed she had no suspects in mind when, in fact, she knew the assailants. 3. The above acts constitute “concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal in the crime”, and so she was held liable as an accessory. People vs. Cui 1. Robbers raided the compound of the Lim family and abducted their daughter. After paying ransom she was released. Basingan, house guard, was interrogated and identified Cui as chief plotter of the crime. He was found to be an accomplice by the lower courts. 2. Conspiracy was not sufficiently established, only that the Cuis profited from the kidnapping of the daughter. They are therefore accessories. 3. Accessory – Elements a. Knowledge of the commission of the crime b. Took part in it subsequent to its commission by any of the 3 modes enumerated in RPC 19, subject to the exemption under RPC 20.

VII. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY A. Application Of Special Penal Statutes RPC ART 10 Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. — Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. RA 9165- COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 Section 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. – Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death (no def duration, dependent on law providing for penalty) provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death. (20y 1 day – 40 y) People V Simon Martin Sunga was caught in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The issue is whether or not mitigating circumstances may apply to the special law. The SC held that mitigating circumstances may only apply if special laws provide own specific penalties for offenses. If special laws did not specifically state their min, medium and max sentences it would make it impossible to consider modifying circumstances. It may also apply if the special law used penalties from the RPC. In this case, the Dangerous Drugs Act used penalties from the RPC thus the mitigating circumstances can apply. People V Saley Annie Saley was found guilty of 11 counts of estafa punished under RPC, and 6 counts of illegal recruitment, one committed In large scale punished under Labor Code. The issue is if application of circumstances may be tried in special laws. The Court held that it could not be modified since it is a special law and the crime is mala prohibita. PADILLA V CA Robin Padilla is convicted of illegal possession of firearms. The issue is if circumstances in the RPC may apply to the special law. The SC held that although Presidential Decree No.


1866 is a special law, the penalties therein were taken from the Revised Penal Code, hence the rules in said Code for graduating by degrees or determining the proper period should be applied B. RPC ART 11 JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES Define: Justifying circumstances do not incur criminal liability because of the absence of voluntariness. Act is however still willful. o a crime is deliberate, voluntary, willful, intelligent Different from exempting because acts in exempting only lack willfulness and intelligence. In exempting, they did not know fully what they were doing. Still may incur civil liability 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; First. Unlawful aggression. - INDISPENSABLE o Viewpoint is from the one practicing self-defense because if one doesn’t consider it an act of aggression one can’t say there was reason for self-defense. o However, Must show response was reasonable and proportionate to aggression received, can achieve purpose by using means that are less grave  “were the means employed reasonable under the circumstances?” Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent (expected) or repel (imminent) it. o Also determined by the offended person, the one who engages in selfdefense. o If the response of the offended party is EXCESSIVE then it becomes an incomplete defense = mitigating Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

- Attack would have been a crime were it not for actions of defense.

crim liability is a function of the existing circumstances at the time that the actions were performed. And always at the vantage of point of the one who gives defense for 1-3 - If third element of self-defense is absent, unlawful aggression disappears which means there is provocation on part of accused. Victim would then be acting in self-defense since he is now defending himself against the accused - diff from retaliation since aggression began by accused already ceased to exist. In selfdefense it is still present. 2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein. Who falls under: Spouse Ascendants Descendants Legitimate natural or adopted siblings, relatives by affinity in same degrees (include in laws) relatives by consanguinity within fourth civil degree - parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles of both fraternal and maternal side, 1st cousins. Elements: unlawful aggression – may be in the honest belief that relative is being attacked even when relative provoked it reasonable necessity – gauged according to the defender of the relative if relative being defended was actually the one who provoked, the defender did not know or took no part in the provocation. 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger (not enumerated in par 2) provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. Unlawful aggression Reasonable necessity


-

Defender is not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

People V Abagon self-defense was not present as proven by lack of defensive wounds, absence of stating need for defense when they were arrested, and sudden, immediate and unexpected attack meant stabbing was intentional and treachery present People V Narvaez incomplete self-defense was proven since there was aggression since his land was being fenced in and there was lack of provocation in his part since at the time he was just sleeping. However his act of killing was disproportionate to the necessity of the occasion People V Boholst Caballero location of wound can prove self-defense. In this case, woman showed that she killed wife in self-defense through the wounds he inflicted. People V Genosa – BWS case - Case wanted to replace aggression with BWS syndrome - However SC decided that for BWS syndrome to be appreciated, aggression must still be present since without it, an act couldn’t be considered as self-defense. - Wife did not prove that there was imminent danger or actual attack. In fact husband already ceased beating her for a time. SC ruled that aggression, if not continuous, does not warrant self-defense. Even in BWS cases, imminent danger must still be shown. - SC: equated BWS = illness and turned it to mitigating circumstance for her as well as praeter intentionem. - TE: Genosa was not suffering from BWS because if she was, she would have been acquitted. Not the absence of aggression but the absence of a battered woman 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present; First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; o Without this, can’t be justifying Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. -

Diff from 1-3 since person who benefited from the action can now incur civil liability. There is no civil liability in 1-3 since the act is deemed lawful

People v Ricohermoso can’t claim avoidance of greater evil since intent was clearly to help aggressors. People V Retubado when one invokes state of necessity, it is indispensable that one did not provoke such state. Otherwise, you can’t use it as defense. - Define state of necessity: situation of grave peril, actual or imminent - Must not be brought about by the intentional provocation of the party that invokes the state of necessity since JC happens when where accused does not commit a crime in legal contemplation thus can’t be criminally and civilly liable. Ty V People evil sought to be avoided cannot be merely expected or anticipated. Should be clearly present in order to invoke state of necessity. - Greater evil should also not have been brought by own negligence or freedom or willful inaction of the actor which in this case happened since she issued bouncing checks to pay for her mom’s bills. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL ERXERCISE OF RIGHT RPC Article 11(6) Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. Civil Code Article 429 The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For 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. People v. Delima PRINCIPLE: Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm People v. Oanis


PRINCIPLES: Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm (People vs. Delima, 46 Phil, 738), yet he is never justified in using unnecessary force or in treating him with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be effected otherwise (6 C.J.S., par. 13, p. 612). A peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if he uses unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest. People v. Catbagan There are two requisites in order that the circumstance may be taken as a justifying one: o (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right; and o (b) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. -

-

-

Unlawful aggression must be actual physical assault or a threat to inflict real, imminent harm/danger so offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury Reasonability of Means Employed involves the: o Necessity of the action made in defense, and o Necessity of means used Reasonability of Means Employed depends upon: o Nature/quality of weapon o Physical condition, character, size and other circumstances of the aggressor and defender o Place and occasion of the assault

OBEDIENCE to SUPERIOR ORDER RPC Article 11(6): Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for a lawful purpose. People v. Beronilla

Principle: When one has acted upon orders of a superior, such orders which cannot be questioned, obeyed in good faith without being aware of their illegality, without any fault or negligence in his/her part, the act is nit accompanied by criminal intent. Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan Even if the order is illegal, if it is patently legal, and the subordinate is not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable for then, there is only a mistake of fact committed in good faith. Liability for not following procedures is civil or administrative only, not criminal since Tabuena acted in good faith. C.

Exempting Circumstances

RPC Article 12 Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability: 1.

An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement to one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court. In Re: M’Naghten Justice Maule says: There is no law that makes persons in the state described in the question not responsible for their criminal acts. To render a person irresponsible for crime on account of unsoundness of mind, the unsoundness should, according to the law, as it has long been understood and held, be such as rendered him incapable from knowing right from wrong. The questions to be submitted to the jury are those questions of fact which are raised on record. They are supposed to assist the jury in coming to a right conclusion. What those questions are, and the manner of submitting them, is a matter of discretion for the judge, a discretion to be guided by a consideration of all the circumstances attending the inquiry. -CJ Tindal says: He is punishable according to the nature of the crime committed, if he knew at the time of committing such crime that he was acting contrary to law. Every man is to be presumed sane, and to possess a sufficient degree


of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction. To establish a defense of the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong. People v. Belonio The moral and legal presumption is that one acts with free will and intelligence, and that a felonious or criminal act has been done with deliberate intent, that is, with freedom and intelligence. Whoever invokes insanity as a defense has the burden of proving its existence. Insanity is a defense in the nature of confession and avoidance, and as such must be adequately proved. The law presumes that all persons are of sound mind, and that acts are done consciously. In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Proof of the existence of some abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability, if it can be shown that the offender was not completely deprived of freedom and intelligence. This abnormal behaviour must exist immediately before or simultaneous to the commission of the crime. People v. Estrada No direct proof that Estrada was afflicted with insanity at the time he killed Mararac. The absence of direct proof, nevertheless, does not entirely discount the probability that appellant was not of sound mind at that time. The fact that Estrada was able to answer the questions asked by the trial court is not conclusive evidence that he was competent enough to stand trial and assist in his defense. People v. Villa The ff. negate a complete absence of intelligence on victim’s pat:  he surrendered himself immediately after incident  he showed remorse in the mental hospital  he gave a sworn statement wherein he gave a lucid and detailed account of the carnage Following his sworn statement, it seems he slaughtered the victims in a fit of rage after Fernandez allegedly accused him of stealing his chickens and cursing him. SC failed discern

from the psychiatric evaluation report whether Villa’s judgment and mental faculties were totally impaired during the killing and when he was admitted for psychiatric center. Villa failed to discharge the burden of overcoming the presumption that he committed the crime freely, knowingly and intelligently People v. Madarang In the Philippines insanity implies: a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, the accused is deprived of reason; acted without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is a total deprivation of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. Moreover the defect must be proven to exist immediately before or simultaneous to the commission of the crime. People v. Aldemita Period of reckoning for proof of insanity: immediately during or prior to commission requires complete deprivation of intelligence burden of proof with one alleging it. People V. Banez Although schizophrenia is not exempting if it does not completely deprive the offender of the consciousness of his acts, it may nevertheless be considered mitigating under Art. 13(9) if it diminishes the exercise of his will power. - Formigones established two (2) distinguishable tests: (a) the test of cognition “complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the *criminal+ act,” and (b) the test of volition - “or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will.” - A person’s volition naturally reaches out only towards that which is presented as desirable by his intelligence, whether that intelligence be diseased or healthy. People v. Caneta Insanity is not appreciated. The presumption of sanity is not overcome with the absence of proof of complete deprivation of reason in committing the act, lack of consciousness of responsibility for his acts, and complete absence of the power to discern. People v. Diaz The defense of insanity is not appreciated. Pedophilia does not fall within the category of insanity that merits an exemption from criminal liability since it does not rob a person of reason or volition. People v. Medina


It is now well settled that mere mental depravity, or moral insanity, so called, which results, not from any disease of mind, but from a perverted condition of the moral system, where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one from responsibility for crimes committed under its influence.” - The defense of insanity can only be mitigating if it diminishes the exercise of will. (as in Rafanan and Formigones) People v. Tabugoca Amnesia, in and of itself, is no defense to a criminal charge unless it is shown by competent proof that the accused did not know the nature and quality of his action and that it was wrong. Failure to remember is in itself no proof of the mental condition of the accused when the crime was performed. People v. Puno Makiasar dissent highlights that a relapse in the accused’s condition shortly before the crime along with bizarre behavior (claiming to see God, claiming to have knowledge of evil witches, tying up and boxing a dog, long stares, odd fondness for a puppy) before and after the said crime may be seen as signs of the accused’s insanity. It is sufficient doubt as to the sanity of the accused since his condition is medically considered to be manifest in such strange conduct that can lead to the subsequent violent act. Moreover his assertion that the “mankukulam” had to be killed was a reaction in self defense to his delusional belief that the old woman was attacking him with magic. Thus he should not be held liable since his intellect and will was impaired by his mental illness. People v. Bonoan The mind can only be known by outward acts, so his thoughts, motives and emotions may be evaluated to determine if his external acts conform to those of people with sound mind.

intelligence in committing the act

◦

cognition;

discernment;

◦

freedom of the will.



Under foreign jurisdiction, there are three major criteria in determining the existence of insanity, namely: delusion test, irresistible impulse test, and the right and wrong test.



Section 1039 of the Revised Administrative Code: ◦

insanity is "a manifestation in language or conduct, of disease or defect of the brain, or a more or less permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality, functional or organic, and characterized by perversion, inhibition, or by disordered function of the sensory or of the intellective faculties, or by impaired or disordered volition."

◦

Insanity is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties which is manifested in language or conduct. An insane person has no full and clear understanding of the nature and consequence of his act.



Insanity may be shown by surrounding circumstances fairly throwing light on the subject, such as evidence of the alleged deranged person's general conduct and appearance, his acts and conduct inconsistent with his previous character and habits, his irrational acts and beliefs, and his improvident bargains



Evidence of insanity must have reference to the mental condition of the person whose sanity is in issue, at the very time of doing the act which is the subject of inquiry.



Case at bar, defense's expert witnesses concluded that the accused was suffering from psychosis or insanity classified under organic mental disorder secondary to cerebro-vascular accident or stroke before, during and after the commission of the crime charged. (Exhibit L, p. 4). Accordingly, the mental illness of the accused was characterized by perceptual disturbances manifested through impairment of judgment and impulse control, impairment of memory and disorientation, and hearing of strange voices. The accused allegedly suffered from psychosis which was organic. The defect of the brain, therefore, is permanent.



However, Dr. Echavez disclosed that the manifestation or the symptoms of

People v. Dungo [199 SCRA 860 (1991)] Definition of Insanity  One who suffers from insanity at the time of the commission of the offense charged cannot in a legal sense entertain a criminal intent and cannot be held criminally responsible for his acts. His unlawful act is the product of a mental disease or a mental defect. In order that insanity may relieve a person from criminal responsibility, it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of: ◦

◦


psychosis may be treated with medication. (TSN, p. 26, August 2, 1988). Thus, although the defect of the brain is permanent, the manifestation of insanity is curable. 

 

Generally, in criminal cases, every doubt is resolved in favor of the accused. However, in the defense of insanity, doubt as to the fact of insanity should be resolved in favor of sanity. The burden of proving the affirmative allegation of insanity rests on the defense.

People v. Taneo [58 Phil. 255 (1933)] Sleepwalking = Insanity The defendant acted while in a dream & his acts, therefore, were not voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability. People v. Formigones [87 Phil. 658 (1950)] Jealousy NOT Insanity Issue: WON Abelardo is an imbecile at the time of the commission of the crime, thus exempted from criminal liability Held: No. He is not an imbecile. According Dr. Francisco Gomes, although he was feebleminded, he is not an imbecile as he could still distinguish between right & wrong & even feel remorse. In order that a person could be regarded as an imbecile w/in the meaning of RPC A12 so as to be exempt from criminal liability, he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment & freedom of will at the time of committing the crime. (Note that definition is same as insanity) 

Feeblemindeness of the accused warrants the finding in his favor of the MC of passion or obfuscation. He was in a fit of jealousy. Jealousy had some color of justification and was not a mere product of hallucination and abberrations of a disordered mind as that an imbecile or a lunatic.

MINORITY People v. Pruna The Court now sets guidelines in appreciating age either as an element of crime or a qualifying circumstance:  Best evidence: original/certified true copy of the certificate of live birth

 



of part. absence of such: similar authentic records such as baptismal cert & school records showing date of birth would be sufficient If documents were lost, destroyed or unavailable, clear & credible testimony of victim’s mom or other family members either by affinity/consanguinity qualified to testify re pedigree such as exact age/date of birth of victim pursuant to Sec. 40, Rule 130, ROE shall be sufficient under ff conditions:  victim’s alleged to be below 3 & seek to prove that she’s below 7.  victim’s alleged to be below 7 & seek to prove that she’s below18.  victim’s alleged to be below 12 & seek to prove that she’s below 18. Absence of aforementioned, victim’s testimony will suffice as long as such is clearly & expressly admitted. Prosecution has burden of proof of proving victim’s age. Accused’s failure to object to the testimonial evidence shall not be taken against him. Trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the victim’s age.

People v. Gavino [399 SCRA 285] Proof of Filiation The testimony of the mother or the victim relative to the latter's age cannot be accepted as adquate proof thereof. Although victim's filiation to appellant and minority was neither refuted nor contested by the defense, proof thereof is critical considering the penalty of deadth imposed for qualified rape. People V. Rullepa [GR NO. 131516] Judicial Notice of a Minor's Appearance  The minority of a victim of tender age who may be below the age of ten is quite manifest and the court can take judicial notice thereof. The crucial years pertain to the ages of fifteen to seventeen where minority may seem to be dubitable due to one's physical appearance. In this situation, the prosecution has the burden of proving with certainty the fact that the victim was under 18 years of age when the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty under the above-cited provision.




Judicial notice is based upon convenience and expediency for it would certainly be superfluous, inconvenient, and expensive both to parties and the court to require proof, in the ordinary way, of facts which are already known to courts.38 As Tundag puts it, it "is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them."



A person's appearance, where relevant, is admissible as object evidence, the same being addressed to the senses of the court.



A person's appearance, as evidence of age (for example, of infancy, or of being under the age of consent to intercourse), is usually regarded as relevant; and, if so, the tribunal may properly observe the person brought before it.41 Experience teaches that corporal appearances are approximately an index of the age of their bearer, particularly for the marked extremes of old age and youth. In every case such evidence should be accepted and weighed for what it may be in each case worth. In particular, the outward physical appearance of an alleged minor may be considered in judging his age; a contrary rule would for such an inference be pedantically over-cautious.42 Consequently, the jury or the court trying an issue of fact may be allowed to judge the age of persons in court by observation of such persons.43 The formal offer of the person as evidence is not necessary. The examination and cross-examination of a party before the jury are equivalent to exhibiting him before the jury and an offer of such person as an exhibit is properly refused.



As the alleged age approaches the age sought to be proved, the person's appearance, as object evidence of her age, loses probative value. Doubt as to her true age becomes greater and, following Agadas, supra, such doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

People v. Estepano [307 SCRA 707 (1999)] Presumption of Non-Discernment WON the appellants are guilty of murder (particularly Rene, who was 13) With respect to accused-appellant Rene Estepano, the records show that he was only 13 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. Under A12. par. 3 of the RPC, a person over 9 years of age & under 15 is exempt from criminal liability unless it is shown that he acted with DISCERNMENT. The minor referred to here is presumed to have acted without discernment. Thus, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove htat such minor acted otherwise.

Case at bar, prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of non-discernment. Hence, Rene Estepano is ACQUITTED. People v. Doquena [68 Phil. 580 (1939)] Premeditation vs Discernment The accused acted with discernment. Accused mistakes the discernment for premeditation, or at least for lack of intention, as a mitigating circumstance. However, the DISCERNMENT that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under 15 years but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his MENTAL CAPACITY to understand the difference between right and wrong, and such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial. ACCIDENT **Art. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of exemption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12 are present.— When all the conditions required in circumstances Number 4 of Article 12 of this Code to exempt from criminal liability are not present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit if he shall have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave felony.** People v. Agliday [367 SCRA 273 (2001)] Elements of Accident Issue: WON appellant's shooting was an accident which may be used as an exempting circumstance Held: 



No, it cannot. Before accused can be exempted from criminal liability under A12 (4), there should be: A person performing a lawful act; Due care; Causes an injury to another by mere accident; Without any fault and intention of causing it. Act of firing a shotgun (& an unlicensed one at that) is not lawful. Accident is an occurrence that "happens outside the sway of our will, & although it comes


about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences” – connotes absence of criminal intent. 

Firearm was a shotgun that needs to be cocked first before it can be fired.

US v. Tanedo [15 Phil. 196 (1910)] Burden of Proof Not Guilty. When the accused, under the plea of accidental killing, offers testimony tending to prove the substance of his plea, the burden is upon the State to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was intentional. People v. Bindoy [56 Phil. 15 (1931)] Hitting a bystander = accidental Issue: WON the crime of which Bindoy was found guilty of can be mitigated on the ground of accident. Held: Yes. Decision is reversed. Bindoy is acquitted according to Article 8, No. 8 of the Injury was accidental and the defendant should be acquitted. People v. Lising [285 SCRA 595 (1998)] To be exempt from criminal liability, a person invoking irresistible force or uncontrollable fear must show that the force exerted was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument who acted not only without will but against his will. Such compulsion must be of some character as to leave the accused no opportunity for selfdefense in equal combat or for escape. Garcia's participation and presence from the time the abduction was hatched, up to the killing of the victims is undisputed. People (U.S.?) v. Elicanal [35 Phil. 209 (1916)] Evil greater or equal to No Threat.  Before the defense in a criminal action that the defendant in committing the crime acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear produced by a threat of an equal or greater injury to himself can be held to be sustained, it must appear that the threat which caused the fear was of an evil greater than, or at least equal to, that which he was required to commit, and that it promised an evil of such gravity and imminence that it might be said that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.



Certain evil-minded persons seize me and threaten me with death If I do not set fire to a neighbor's house; if I perform the act under such threat, as grave as it is imminent, I would fall within the exemption from criminal responsibility provided for in this number; but if the same persons threatened to lay waste my forest if I do not kill my father my act would not come within the exemption for the reason that the evil with which I was threatened was much less than that of killing my father.

People v. Loreno [130 SCRA 311 (1984)] Robbery-rape. Compulsion = no opportunity for self defense The force must be irresistible to reduce him 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 not done. 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 equal combat. US v. Caballeros [4 Phil. 350 (1905)] Striking with the butt of a gun = coercion Not only is Baculi’s confession that he only assisted in the burial of the corpses because he was compelled by the murderers, but this was corroborated by the only eyewitness to the crime, Sabate. U.S. v. Exaltacion [3 Phil. 339 (1905)] Coercion to join rebellion That the duress under which the defendants acted relieves them from criminal liability. People v. Fronda [222 SCRA 71 (1993)] Remaining silent for 3 years NOT uncontrollable fear Uncontrollable fear is based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for one's life or limb. Also, as aforesaid, appellant was not able to explain his failure to report the incident to the explain his failure to report the incident to the authorities for more than three (3) years. These circumstances, among others, establish the fact that appellant consciously concurred with the acts of the assailants. In order that the circumstance of uncontrollable fear may apply, it is necessary that the compulsion be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to escape or self-defense in equal combat. (People vs. Loreno, 130 SCRA 311, [1984]) Appellant had the opportunity to escape when he was ordered by the armed men to go hoome after bringing the victims the mountains. He did not. People vs Morales


Morales et al accused of kidnapping. They plead the defense of uncontrollable fear (UF). Held: Guilty. Person is exempt from liability if he acts under impulse of UF of fear or greater injury because such person does not act w/ freedom. For UF to apply, it must be that the compulsion leaves no opportunity to escape or self-defense in equal combat (which Morales had when he was left unaccompanied in the van by the other accused) rd

RPC - 101, 3 rule Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules: xxx xxx Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution. INSUPERABLE OR LAWFUL CAUSE US vs Vincentillo A policeman is charged with illegal detention of a criminal. Held: The police is not liable for it was not his fault that there was no judge available and that the nearest judge would require a 3 day boat ride. The distance and situation warrant an insuperable cause. ii. People vs Bandian Dizzied woman leaves her newborn in the bushes w/o knowing she gave birth. Infanticide. Held: Her dizziness w/c caused her to be “unaware” of what was happening is a lawful/insuperable cause. There was no fault or intention on her part. Furthermore, there’s the fact that she did not know she actually gave birth. d) Absolutory Causes and Other Special Situations ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION People vs Lua Chu The Chief of Customs allegedly induced Lua Chu (accused) into bringing the shipment of opium to the Philippines. Held: the Chief may have made the transaction smoother/easier but this was AFTER the accused had already planned the importation. He merely pretended to have an understanding of the illegal smuggling to make the capture of the opium easier, there is no instigation nor inducement.

Araneta vs CA Atty. Araneta was found guilty of accepting money. She was caught through an entrapment of 2 50-peso bills. Held: Entrapment here is when law officers employed schemes to ensure the apprehension of the criminal. This is different from instigation where the accused is induced to commit the crime. In entrapment, mens rea comes from the criminal. Entrapment may not exempt criminal from liability, Instigation does. Cabrera vs Pajares Judge Pajares was caught through entrapment and hence charged with indirect bribery. Held: The Judge accepted the money and knew that he received it by reason of his office. His claim of an alleged frame-up is without basis. He was asking for money to begin with therefore the offense originated in his mind, and officials merely facilitated the commission of the crime. People vs Ahmad Law officials pretend to be buyers of shabu in order to catch Ahmad, an alleged drug pusher. Held: Court rules that a buy-bust operation is an entrapment w/c is a valid means of arresting violators of Dangerous Drugs Law. Defense of frame-up is treated with disfavor and needs clear and convincing evidence to be given credence. EFFECT OF PARDON RPC - 23, 266-C, cf RPC - 89 (4), 94 (1) Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. — A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver. Art. 266-C. Effect of Pardon - The subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed. In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty. Provided, that the crime shall extinguish or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio. Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal l extinguished: 4. By absolute pardon;

iability

is

totally


Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is extinguished partially: 1. By conditional pardon; iii. Absolutory Causes RPC - 6 (3), 7, 16, 20, 247, 280, 332, 344 Art. 6 (3). Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance. Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property. Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: 1. Principals. 2. Accomplices. 3. Accessories. The following are criminally liable for light felonies: 1. Principals 2. Accomplices. Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. — The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article. Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. — Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.

These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents. Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article. Art. 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. — Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter's will shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos. If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos. The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while the same are open. Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. — No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons: 1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line. 2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and 3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together. The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime. Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. — The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents,


grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be. In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes. People vs Oyanib Upon catching his wife having coitus with another man, Oyanib ended up killing them both. Held: RPC - 247 applies - “absolutory cause is present where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.” 3 elements to invoke this exempting circumstance (all present in this case) 1. Legally married persons surprises his spouses having sex with another. 2. He kills any or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. 3. He has not promoted the prositution of his wife or that he has not consented to the other spouse’s infidelity. ACTS NOT COVERED BY LAW AND IN INSTANCES OF EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation. In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense. People vs Veneracion Veneracion found guilty of Rape w/ Homicide. Petition against the judge that failed to impose the death penalty w/c is ordered by RA 7659. Held: When the law itself provides for death sentence as a penalty to a specific and well defined instance, judges have no choice but to impose it. Courts are not concerned w/ the wisdom and morality of laws. VII. PENALTIES

A. Indivisible Penalties RPC47: When not to impose Death Penalty = (a) the guilty person to be sentenced is more than 70 years old; (b) when upon review the members of the Supreme Court are not unanimous in the imposition of the death penalty. Decisions involving the death penalty are rendered per curiam and must be signed by all members of the SC. RPC27: This is an enumeration of the definition of penalties, their duration and effects. It is better to read them in full. People v. Gatward This is a case involving the illegal transport of heroin in the vicinity of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. Trial court sentenced Gatward to serve 35 years R.P. and to pay PhP5M in damages, 0MC, 0AC and U Aung Win to serve 25 years R.P. and PhP1M, 1MC (plea of guilt), 0AC. Meanwhile, RPC27 is amended by R.A. No. 7659. Supreme Court ruled that the penalty imposed by the trial court is wrong in that it considered R.P. now a divisible penalty in view of R.A. No. 7659. SC ruled that despite the amendment putting the duration of R.P. at 20y1d to 40y, it should remain an indivisible penalty, absent any legislative intent to reclassify it as divisible penalty. People v. Bon Alfredo Bon was convicted by trial court of 8 counts of rape. He was sentenced to 8 death sentences. On automatic review, Court of Appeals downgraded 2 convictions of rape into attempted rape only, and sentenced him from 10y P.M. min to 17y4mo R.T max. Meanwhile, R.A. No. 9346 went into effect, thereby prohibiting the imposition of the Death Penalty. With this development, there is now only one imposable indivisible penalty, R.P., because death is effectively struck from the enumeration of penalties in the scale in RPC71. B. Divisible Penalties RPC76: This tells us that divisible penalties are considered divided into three parts: the minimum, medium, and maximum periods. RPC77: When penalty is complex, i.e., composed of 3 distinct penalties, each penalty is considered a period, the lightest being the minimum, next the medium and the most severe is maximum. Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms provided for in RPC, periods shall be distributed, applying by analogy the prescribed rules.


ACCESSORY PENALTIES

2.

The penalties in the RPC carry with them Accessory Penalties which are deemed attached to the penalties themselves.

3. 4.

RPC40: When death is not imposed by reason of commutation or pardon, the penalties of perpetual absolute disqualification and civil interdiction 30y after date of sentence shall be imposed, unless these accessory penalties are expressly remitted in the pardon. RPC41: R.P. and R.T. = civil interdiction for life or during the period of sentence as the case may be, and perpetual absolute disqualification which offender shall suffer despite pardon, unless expressly remitted. RPC42: P.M. = temporary absolute disqualification, perpetual special absolute disqualification from right of suffrage which offender shall suffer although pardoned, unless expressly remitted. RPC43: P.C. = suspension from public office, right to follow a profession or calling, perpetual special disqualification from right of suffrage if imprisonment>18mos. Offender shall suffer disqualification although pardoned, unless expressly remitted. RPC44: Arresto = suspension of right to hold office and right of suffrage during term of sentence RPC45: Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime = Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime in favor of Government unless they be the property of a third person not liable for the offense. Articles subject of unlawful commerce are to be destroyed (This is why we often see the OMB destroying mountains and mountains of pirated DVDs). MEASURES NOT CONSIDERED PENALTY RPC24: Measures of prevention or safety which are not considered penalties are: 1. arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility, illness requiring their confinement in hospital

5.

Commitment of a minor to any of the institutions in RPC80 for the purposes listed therein Suspension from employment of public office during trial and in order to institute proceedings Fines and other corrective measures which superiors may impose on subordinates Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form

RPC247: Married person catching his spouse in carnal indulgence with another person in flagrante delicto shall suffer destierro. Destierro, literally meaning “to take out of/ to uproot from the land,” means that the accused who shall inflict death or physical injuries in this circumstance will be ordered to stay out of a certain place for a period of time.

FC228. Parental authority terminates permanently: (1) Upon the death of the parents; (2) Upon the death of the child; or (3) Upon emancipation of the child. (327a) FC229. Unless subsequently revived by a final judgment, parental authority also terminates: (1) Upon adoption of the child; (2) Upon appointment of a general guardian; (3) Upon judicial declaration of abandonment of the child in a case filed for the purpose; (4) Upon final judgment of a competent court divesting the party concerned of parental authority; or (5) Upon judicial declaration of absence or incapacity of the person exercising parental authority. SPECIFIC PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY PENALTIES AND THEIR NATURE, DURATION AND EFFECTS Republic Act No. 9346 June 24, 2006 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:


SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed. (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code. SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. SEC. 4. The Board of Pardons and Parole shall cause the publication at least one a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation of the names of persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment by reason of this Act who are being considered or recommend for commutation or pardon; Provided, however, That nothing herein shall limit the power of the President to grant executive clemency under Section 19, Article VII of the Constitutions.

People vs Gatward (February 7, 1997) In spite of the amendment (by RA 7659 section 21) putting the duration of reclusion perpetua at 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, it should remain as an indivisible penalty since Congress never intended to reclassify it into a divisible penalty. This is evident from the fact that neither Article 63 nor Article 76 of the Code had been correspondingly altered. Republic Act No. 7659 had simply restated existing jurisprudence when it specified the duration of reclusion perpetua at 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. People vs Malakas (December 8,1993) •

Life imprisonment is not synonymous with reclusion perpetua. The penalty prescribed by the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, for the offense charged is life imprisonment, not reclusion perpetua.

•

The Code (Revised Penal Code) does not prescribe the penalty of life imprisonment for any of the felonies therein defined, that penalty being invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized not by the Revised Penal Code but by special law.

People vs Ballabare (November 19, 1996) • The crime of illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form is punishable by the penalty of death. Since the offense was committed on September 16, 1990, at a time when the imposition of the death penalty was prohibited, the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., reclusion perpetua, should instead be imposed.

SEC. 5. This Act shall take effect immediately after its publication in two national newspapers of general circulation.

• Life imprisonment is invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized by special laws, while reclusion perpetua is prescribed under The Revised Penal Code.

People vs Bon (January 28, 2003)

• Life imprisonment, unlike reclusion perpetua, does not carry with it accessory penalty.

•

Accused sentenced to death for raping his 6-year old niece.

•

Pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code (automatic review of death penalty cases), the case was sent to the Supreme Court for Automatic Review

•

Accused found guilty of acts of lasciviouness and not rape. Sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal as maximum.

• Life imprisonment does not appear to have any definite extent or duration, while reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon, although the maximum period thereof shall in no case exceed forty (40) years. People vs Gregorio (March 29, 1996) → reiterated the differences between life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua → the correct sentence for murder pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is


reclusion perpetua and not life imprisonment PRINCIPAL PENALTIES Capital punishment: Death. Afflictive penalties: Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion temporal, Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Prision mayor. Correctional penalties: Prision correccional, Arresto mayor, Suspension, Destierro. Light penalties: Arresto menor, Public censure. Penalties common to the three preceding classes: Fine, and Bond to keep the peace. ACCESSORY PENALTIES  Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,  Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,  Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling.  Civil interdiction,  Indemnification,  Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense,  Payment of costs. RPC. 27. Reclusion perpetua. — Any person sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years, unless such person by

reason of his conduct or some other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon. Reclusion temporal. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years and one day to twenty years. Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. — The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. — The duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six months. Arresto menor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES: LIFE IMPRISONMENT Imposed for serious offenses penalized by special laws Does not carry with it accessory penalties Does not appear to have any definite extent or duration

RECLUSION PERPETUA Prescribed under the RPC Carries with it accessory penalties Entails imprisonment for at least 30 years after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon although the maximum period shall in no case exceed 40 years


RECLUSION TEMPORAL - Duration: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years - Accessory Penalties: - Civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be. - Perpetual Absolute Disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. PRISION MAYOR - Duration: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years - Accessory Penalties: - Temporary Absolute Disqualification - Perpetual Special Disqualification from the right to suffrage which the offender shall suffer although pardoned as to the principal penalty unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES PRISION CORRECCIONAL - Duration: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years - Accessory Penalties: - Suspension from public office - Suspension from the right to follow a profession or calling - Perpetual Special Disqualification fro the right of suffrage, if the duration of the imprisonment shall exceed 18 months ARRESTO MAYOR - Duration: 1 month and 1 day to 6 months - Accessory Penalties: - Suspension of right to hold office - Suspension of the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. LIGHT PENALTIES ARRESTO MENOR - Duration: 1 day to 30 days - Accessory Penalties: - Suspension of right to hold office - Suspension of the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.

PUBLIC CENSURE  Censure, being a penalty is not proper in acquittal. FINES Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. — A fine, whether imposed as a single of as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it less than 200 pesos. Fine is: Afflictive – over P6,000 Correctional – P200 to P6,000 Light Penalty – less than P200 Art. 66. Imposition of fines. — In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law; in fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit. VIII. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING THE PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED A. MITIGATING People v. Ural Policeman Ural was boxing the detention prisoner. After prisoner collapsed, he poured liquid over the dude and then ignited him. TC failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance “that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.” Appellant had no intent to kill. He just wanted to maltreat him may be because of his drunken condition. He later allowed the dude to secure medical treatment. People v. Amit Dude was charged with the complex crime of rape and homicide. Woman he raped was 25 years his senior and he boxed her while forcing himself onto her. Death penalty, being an indivisible penalty was imposed regardless of the presence of mitigating circumstances, especially this case where the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength.


People v. Regato Charged with robbery with homicide, accused pretended to buy cigarettes from sari-sari store. Later, they ransacked the place looking for money in the house. They shot the old man after he showed them 870 pesos. Shooting took place after money had been taken. It is clear that the killing was done by reason or on the occasion of the robbery so they are guilty of robbery with homicide. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated considering that the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce the result which is the death of the victim. People v. Pagal Dudes were charged with robbery with homicide. Since the alleged provocation which caused the obfuscation of the appellants arose from the same incident, that is, the alleged maltreatment and/or ill-treatment of the appellants by the deceased these two MCs cannot be considered two MCs but just one. The MC of passions and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which is planned and calmly mediated before its execution. Provocation in order to be an MC must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act. Article 13 (5): That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. People v. Canete On the way home from a wedding, dude was shot multiple times. MC of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of one of the accused. He freely placed himself at the disposal of the authorities. The MC of immediate vindication of grave offense conceded in favor of all of the appellants. Immediately prior to the incident, victim punched one of the accused in the presence of many people at the wedding party. Although incident did not immediately precede the killing, its impact by reason of its seriousness and the circumstances under which it was inflicted, festered till the commission of the crime. US v. Ampar During the fiesta, accused asked victim for some delicacy. He felt that the victim was talking to him condescendingly so he grabbed an ax and struck him. The court gave the accused the benefit of a MC of the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony. To an old man like the accused, it evidently was a serious matter to be made the butt of a joke in the presence of so many guests.

People v. Parana Accused is charged with murder. Victim was playing monte. Later he fell into a ditch and was stabbed by accused. Apparently, the night before, the victim slapped the accused after he failed to buy beer. The MC that he had acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against him a few hours before, when he was slapped by the deceased in the presence of many persons, was given. Although it was not so immediate, the influence, thereof, by reason of its gravity and the circumstances under which it was inflicted, lasted until the moment the crime was committed. The MC of voluntary surrender must also be appreciated . People v. Diokno For a conservative family of old customs, the elopement of the daughter is a grave offense against family honour. The disturbance of the family’s peace and tranquillity and the spread of uneasiness and anxiety among them did not cease while her whereabouts remained unknown and her relationship with her fiancé remained un-legalized. Hence, the offense to the family is a mitigating circumstance for her father and brother’s act of killing her fiancé even though it took place three days after the elopement especially when the fiancé tried to ran away from them when the father and brother arrived to retrieve the daughter.

Article 13 (6) That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. Elements: 1. Passion or obfuscation must originate from lawful/legitimate feelings (People v. Rabanillo, US v. Hicks, People v. Germanina) a. Loss of reason and self-control must not have originated from vicious, unworthy and immoral feelings (US v. Hicks) 2. The sentiment or excitement in the mind of a person injured must be to such degree as to deprive him of his sanity and self-control (People v. Rabanillo, People v. Germanina) a. It is different from excitement which is natural and inherent in all persons who quarrel (People v. Rabanillo) b. The feeling of resentment resulting from rivalry in amorous relations with a woman is a powerful stimulant, sufficient to produce loss of


3.

reason and self-control, and a powerful instigator of jealousy, producing anger and obfuscation. (People v. Muit) c. P/O cannot coexist with Treachery because the accused loses his control and reason and could not have deliberately employ a particular means, method, or form of attack in the execution of the crime (People v. Germanina) The act producing the obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused might have regained his normal equanimity (People v. Rabanillo) a. The attack of the accused must result from a sudden impulse of natural or uncontrollable fury (People v. Rabanillo) b. The sudden revelation of disloyalty in catching a partner in flagrante with another produced sufficient impulse that, in the natural and ordinary course, would produce the violent passion/obfuscation which the law regards as a special reason for extenuation (US v. Dela Cruz)

People v. Rabanillo The accused hacked his victim with a samurai where passion/obfuscation was not considered because his angry sentiment was naturally produced by the fistfight that they had earlier. His anger thus was not derived from lawful feelings. Also, the fight had already ended thirty minutes prior to the attack. People v. Muit Passion/obfuscation was appreciated because the accused shot and killed his victim as a result of the rumoured affair between the victim and the accused’s wife that made the accused extremely jealous, losing his reason and self-control. US v. Hicks Passion/obfuscation is not appreciated for the murder of the victim by the accused because the accused’s jealousy arose from his immoral passions of wanting to kill the victim, his ex-girlfriend, due to her new relationship. US v. Dela Cruz Accused killed his querida whom he had caught in flagrante with another man. He is deemed to have acted in the heat of passion since such sudden revelation of her disloyalty immediately caused the crime, having produced in him a strong emotion of violent passion that impelled him to kill her.

People v. Germanina The accused killed the victim in passion because his anger was triggered by the alleged maltreatment of the victim against the accused’s retarded brother, thus weakening the exercise of his willpower.

RPC 13 (7) That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. Elements: (People v. Pinca) 1. The offender has not been actually arrested 2. The offender surrendered to a person in authority 3. The surrender was voluntary a. Not present if the reason for the surrender is to ensure the safety of the accused whose arrest is inevitable b. Denial of participation in the crime and distancing oneself from the authorities are not marks of spontaneity People v. Pinca The accused did not voluntarily surrender because he denied his participation in the crime and even distanced himself from the police. He only ‘surrendered’ to clear his name but he was already a suspect and his arrest was already inevitable. People v. Amaguin Pacifico Oro invited his brothers Diosdado, Hernando and other relatives to their home for a fiesta. After the gathering, Pacifico accompanied the others to get a ride at the plaza. On the way, Celso Amaguin summoned Pacifico to come to him. The latter said he has to entertain the Oros first. Celso suddenly attacked Pacifico with a butcher’s knife. Gildo, Celso’s brother, followed with a knife and a slingshot (Indian pana). Willie, eldest of the Amaguins, appeared with a gun and began shooting. Pacifico and Diosdado died. Celso is still at large. Held: SC appreciated voluntary surrender. Even if it took Willie and Gildo a week before voluntary surrender to police, they did it before arrest could be effected. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following must be present: (a) the offender has not been actually arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (c) the surrender must be voluntary. All these were present in this case.


People v. Dulos Dulos hired Susan as an entertainer for P100. A customer offered Susan P500 to check in. She got the money but changed her mind and argued with the customer. Dulos confronted Susan w/ her boyfriend Paul. Paul apologized saying that his girlfriend does not accept intimate dates. On their way home, Dulos followed them with a gun. He demanded the money back. Susan gave him P100 and denied having received P500. She pleaded but then later grappled for the gun but was violently pushed and fell to the ground. Paul pleaded for mercy but Dulos shot him twice. Held. No voluntary surrender. "It must be spontaneous, shows the intent to surrender unconditionally, because he acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save authorities the trouble and expenses for his search and capture. There was no conscious effort to voluntarily surrender to the military authorities when he went to Camp Siongco after the killing. He was not placed under custody by the military authorities as he was free to roam around as he pleased. He went to the said camp to take up residence, not to voluntarily surrender to the authorities. Assuming that the gun was surrendered, without surrendering his person to the authorities, there is still no voluntary surrender. PLEA OF GUILT People vs. Crisostomo On Christmas of 1967, Crisostomo invited Geronimo to drink when he passed near the latter’s house. Geronimo declined. Crisostomo then rushed towards Geronimo from behind and shot him with a revolver. He pleaded not guilty but after the arraignment and again during the trial, he signified his intention to withdraw his plea of not guilty to the charge of murder and to substitute it with a plea of guilty to a lesser charge of homicide. He made the same plea after the prosecution had rested its case but the fiscal did not agree and the trial court denied the petition. Held: No mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty. The plea of guilty was offered only after some evidence of the prosecution had been presented. The requisites of voluntary plea of guilty are: (1) that the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) that the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case; and (3) that the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. People vs. Jose The Maggie de la Riva case. She was abducted from her car on her way from ABS CBN by 4 men. She was blindfolded and taken to a hotel. She was asked to strip and raped by force. The four were apprehended. Pineda pleaded guilty. The other three went on trial. Trial

court decided that all four are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of forcible abduction and rape and sentenced to death penalty. Pineda contends he should get a lighter penalty because of his plea of guilty. Held: All four are sentenced to death. Pineda contends that the court should have asked his presence during trial because they were charged with a capital offense that when aggravating circumstances were proved would raise the penalty to death. It is untenable. The plea of guilty is mitigating but at the same time it constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstances, and it does not matter that the offense is capital, the admission covers both the crime and its attendant circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the crime. Because of the aforesaid legal effect of Pineda’s plea of guilty, it was not incumbent upon the trial court to receive his evidence or require his presence in court. PHYSICAL DEFECTS ILLNESS People v. Javier Eduardo Javier and his wife, Florentina, were quarelling. When their children checked on them, their mother is already dead. Eduardo admitted hacking her and he stabbed himself in the stomach afterwards. Before he was taken to the hospital, he surrendered his bolo to his son and said he hasn’t slept for a month and his mind was completely blank when he killed his wife. Held: No Illness. For illness to be appreciated, the requisites are: (1) illness must diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender; and (2) such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts. The defense failed to show medical evidence and since he remembered the vital circumstances surrounding the incident, including trying to commit suicide by stabbing himself, it shows that he was in full control of his mental faculties People v. Parazo (As to how the complaint got to RTC, there is no info in the case.) Parazo is deaf and mute. He was sentenced to death for rape with homicide. He filed motion for recon. The facts presented evidence to show that Parazo deserves a re trial because he was sentenced to death without a sign language expert even though he is deaf/mute and mentally retarded. Held: He deserves re trial. Based on the collateral information's (sic) gathered from persons who have known the patient since childhood, together with the results of the diagnostic test at UP-PGH and evidenced by the psychological report, it is now established


that Marlon Parazo is suffering from (1) Profound Hearing Loss, left ear; (2) Severe Hearing Loss, right ear; (3) Mental Retardation, Mild. Added info: Criteria for Mental Retardation as follows: 1. Significantly sub-average intellectual functioning: an IQ. of approximately 70 or below on an individually administered IQ. test. 2. Concurrent deficits or impairments in present adaptive functioning (i.e., the person's effectiveness in meeting the standards expected for his or her age by his or her cultural group) in at least two of the following skill areas: communication, self-care, home-living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health and safety). 3. Onset before age of 18. Records on hand show that appellant was tried below without the benefit of a sign language expert. He deserves a re-arraignment and re-trial, to the end that only upon proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt may he be consigned to the lethal injection chamber.

B. AGGRAVATING SEC. 8. Rule 110 of Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure Designation of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. People v. Garcia Ricardo Garcia, Christopher and Andrew were accused of killing Engr. Dela Cruz. Engr. Dela Cruz was in his car with driver-witness PO3 Wilfredo Sanoy. The car stopped because a jeep blocked its way. Then the motor vehicle where the 3 accused rode went to the right side of the car. Ricardo shot dela Cruz. Trial court convicted Garcia of murder with aggravating of use of motor vehicle and sentenced to death. Christopher and Andrew are still at large. Held. Ricardo is guilty of murder with no aggravating circumstance (Reclusion perpetua). The use of said motorcycle cannot be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance because the same was not alleged in the information as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

People v. Buayaban RTC: robbery in band with homicide – Reclusion Perpetua SC: did not appreciate band because no allegations in the complaint that “3 or more…” People v. Capalac RTC: murder – Death appreciated (Aggravating Circumstance) accused was a policeman SC: murder – Prision Mayor (min.) to Reclusion Temporal (max.)  did not appreciate taking advantage of public office but instead appreciated that accused acted bec. he is brother of the victim’s victim People v. Gapasin *Philippine Constabulary killed using armalite issued to him RTC: murder- Reclusion Perpetua SC: affirmed – RTC properly appreciated that accused took advantage of his public position People v. Bajar RTC: robbery with homicide – Reclusion Perpetua SC: homicide - Reclusion Temporal + 0mitigating + 0aggravating = indeterminate penalty of 9 yrs. of the medium period of Prision mayor (min) to 15 yrs. and 4 months of the medium period of reclusion temporal (max) *accused is ex-employee of grocery store owned by victim’s mother * SC did not appreciate his reasoning that his arrest in a place near the scene of the crime negates his guilt *it was not established that he took the cash from the grocery People v. Inggo RTC: murder – Death SC: homicide – Reclusion Temporal 0-mitigating and 0-aggravating because: a. there is no treachery b. Rule 110 Sec. 8 and Sec. 9 applied: intoxication and disregard for victim’s sex not alleged in Information c. Pepito v. CA RTC: father and 2 sons – homicide


CA: affirmed SC: son1- affirmed, son2 and father – acquitted did not appreciate dwelling bec. victim gave provocation People v. Paraiso RTC: Robbery with homicide-death SC: affirmed appreciated dwelling bec. victim did not provoke appellant and victim was killed in his house did not appreciate disregard for sex bec. robbery is a crime against property and not person/honor RPC 14, Par. 3 That the act be committed (1) with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his (a) rank, (b) age, or (c) sex, or (2) that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation. WITH INSULT OR IN DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE THE OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RANK People v. Rodil It is essential that the accused must have knowledge that the person offended was a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties, because the accused must have the intention of assaulting the offended party as a person I authority or agent of a person in authority. THAT IT BE COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY, IF THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN PROVOCATION People v. Daniel Although offended party was merely renting a bedspace in a boarding house, her room constituted for all intents and purposes a “dwelling” as the term is used in Art. 14(3) of the RPC. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a bedspacer, the place is his home the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect and uphold. People v. Banez The AC of dwelling cannot be considered aggravating where the accused and the victim were living in the same house where the crime was committed. The rationale for considering dwelling an AC is the violation by the offender of the sanctity of the home of

the victim by trespassing therein to commit the crime. This reason is entirely absent in this case. RPC 14 Par. 4 That the act be committed with (1) abuse of confidence or (2) obvious ungratefulness. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE People v. Mandolado In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary that “there exists a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and one against whom the crime was committed and that the accused made use of such a relationship to commit the crime. It is also essential that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal such as would give the accused some advantage to commit the crime. Par. 5. - That the crime be committed in the palace of the chief executive or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship. Par. 6. - That the crime be committed (1) in the night time, or (2) in an uninhabited place, or (3) by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense. Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. People v. Jose The court claimed that there was an AC of nighttime because of appellants have purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate the commission of these crimes. People v. Desalisa The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether or not in the place of the commission, there was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. RPC 296. DEFINITION OF A BAND AND PENALTY INCURRED BY THE MEMBERS THEREOF. — when more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. When any of the arms used in the commission of the offense be an unlicensed firearm, the penalty to be imposed upon all the malefactors shall be the maximum of the corresponding penalty provided by law,


without prejudice of the criminal liability for illegal possession of such unlicensed firearms. Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same. RPC 62. EFFECT OF THE ATTENDANCE OF MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND OF HABITUAL DELINQUENCY. — Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules: 1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof. 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. RPC 14 Par. 7 That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune. RPC 310. QUALIFIED THEFT The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (as amended by r.a. 120 and b.p. blg. 71. May 1, 1980). RPC 14 Par. 8 That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.

RPC 14 Par. 9. - THAT THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST. 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. RPC 160. Commission Of Another Crime During Service Of Penalty Imposed For Another Offense; Penalty Besides the provisions of rule 5 of article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency. People v. Molina To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the same in the information and to attach thereto certified copies of the sentences rendered against the accused. Nonetheless, the trial court may still give such AC credence if the accused does not object to the presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism. In this case, the accused never voiced out any objection when confronted with the fact of his previous conviction for attempted homicide. RPC 14 Par. 10 That the offender has been previously punished by 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. RPC 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules: 5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects: (a) upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods;


(b) upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and C) upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years. For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. People v. Gaorana Quasi-recidivism, like recidivism and reiteracion, necessitates the presentation of a certified copy of the sentence convicting an accused. The fact that appellant was an inmate of DAPECOL does not prove that final judgment had been rendered against him. RECIDIVISM People vs. Baldogo  Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance  Prosecution was burdened to adduce in evidence a certified copy of the judgment convicting accused and to prove that the said judgment had become final and executory Excerpt of prison record is merely secondary or substitutionary evidence which is inadmissible absent proof that the original of the judgment had been lost or destroyed or that the same cannot be produced without the fault of the prosecution EVIDENT PREMEDITATION People vs. Sumalpong Elements of Evident Premeditation: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time, between determination and execution, to allow himself to reflect upon the consequences of his act People vs. Bibat

The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. People vs. Lug-aw Evident premeditation must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be appreciated People vs. Camilet Ill-feelings  not proof of premeditation of commit criminal act People vs. Lim  Murder and Frustrated Murder  From cockpit, Lim and company followed the victims to the gas station, where three successive gunshots were fired (Long story!) Premeditation was not proven People vs. Parangan  Only Felipe Ponggan stood trial  found guilty of Murder  Information alleged evident premeditation  Victim was roused from sleep by someone calling from outside their house, urging him to come down. As he emerged from the house and stood at the top of the stairway, Prangan and Ponggon suddenly began firing their guns at him.  Ponggon’s co-accused, Semil, who was discharged to be a state witness, testified that he and his companions were there because “they had a mission to execute”  Evident premeditation proven. Although there was no adequate showing of the source of the “mission” note, there was no refutation of Semil’s testimony that when he and the others were at the house of Jamarolin, it was Ponggan who led and directed them towards the house of the victim. There is persuasive showing of evident premeditation and Ponggan’s participation in the criminal “mission” or design People v Ilaoa June 16, 1994  There must be a time interval between the meditation and the commission. He must have done acts that are in preparation to the crime done. Must not be under any influence that would render him incapacitated to think (EX. Passion and Obfuscation) The crime must be from accused’s own volition.




In the case at bar, there was no time interval between the meditation and the killing. It was one chain of events. In can even be said that the accused did not even “meditate.” In order for the AC of EP to be applied:  Prior to the commission of the crime, the accused must have resolved to commit the crime  Crime must be a result of meditation, calculation or resolution CRAFT, FRAUD, DISGUISE People v Marquez The fact that they were willing to pretend as PC soldiers in order to get inside the house and then rob the inhabitants thereof is enough for the AC to attach. People v Empacis G.R. No. 95756 May 14, 1993 When the accused pretended to be buyers of the store so that they could get close to the victim, such is sufficient for the AC to attach. Some stratagems and ruses of that constitute the aggravating circumstance of fraud or craft, e.g: where the accused — a) pretended to be constabulary soldiers and by that ploy gained entry into the 24 residence of their prey whom they thereafter robbed and killed; b) pretended to be needful of medical treatment, and through this artifice, 25 entered the house of the victim whom they thereupon robbed and killed; c) pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way and by this means gained entry into a house, in which they then perpetrated the crime of robbery with 26 homicide; 27 d) pretended to be customer wanting to buy a bottle of wine; 28 e) pretended to be co-passengers of the victim in a public utility vehicle; f) posed as customers wishing to buy cigarettes; and as being thristy, asking for 29 drink of water. SUPERIOR STRENGTH People v Cabato G. R. L-37400 April 15,1988 In the case at bar, even though there was a discrepancy between the strengths of the accused and the victim, the victim being of old age, and the accused, a young man at his prime, the prosecution failed to show that excessive force disproportional to the victim’s available defense was purposely sought for by the accused.

Additional Notes:  The physical condition of the victim after the crime will help tell whether or not there was abuse of superior strength  there must be a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,  The discrepancy must be known to the accused and such discrepancy is selected or taken advantage of by the accused in the commission of the crime.  The accused must purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of the defense available to the person attacked People v Ruelan G.R. No. 106152 April 19, 1994 In this case, the victim was 76 years old and the accused was 26. The latter also had an axe. AC appreciated. Additional Notes:  AC Must be alleged in info People v Jose The four accused, in conspiracy, abducted the actress Jose and dropped her at a hotel. They made her strip against her will and thereafter raped her. Abuse of superior strength is appreciated because the crime was committed by the four appellants in conspiracy with one another. Therefore, conspiracy may be indicative of abuse of superior strength as long as the discrepancy is proved and that he purposely sought to use excessive force out of proportion to the means of the defense available to the person attacked People v Padilla June 10, 1994 The accused a police officer was chasing another officer. When the former caught up with the latter, the victim tried to do shield himself with a piece of plywood while pleading for his life. No use. Shot to the head! There was abuse of superior strength in this case because he was armed with a powerful pistol and the victim only had a piece of plywood as shield. People v Castillo April 20, 1998


Notes: Treachery is committed when two conditions concur, namely, that  the means, methods, and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate[;]  that such means, methods, and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person.” In the case at bar, when the accused appeared from nowhere and unexpectedly stabbed the victim just as he was bidding goodbye to his friend, said action rendered it difficult for the victim to defend himself. Pp V. Sangalang Treachery qualifies killing to murder. Treachery absorbs Band. A group of 5 men shot and killed Cortez while he was up on a coconut tree. When his wife came, they shot at her too. She was constrained to leave and came back to find husband dead. Cortez was unarmed and defenseless; the assault, unexpected. No provocation. Surprise attack insured he will be killed without any risk arising from any defense he could have made. Pp V. Crisostomo Fleeing after committing the crime and remembering the details thereof negates the claim of INTOXICATION. Attacking victim with his back turned = TREACHERY Elements of voluntary surrender: 1. offender had not actually been arrested 2. surrendered to a person in authority or the latter's agent 3. surrender was voluntary PLEA not mitigating when made after prosecution rested its case. Elements of plea of guilt: 1. spontaneous confession of guilt 2. confession of guilt made in open court (court that is to try the case) 3. confession of guilt made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. Crisostomo passed by Geronimo’s house and invited him to go someplace and have a drink. Geronimo declined. Thereafter, Crisostomo shot and killed Romeo who was standing near a store with his back to him.

Pp V. Gutierrez Earlier altercation negates TREACHERY. Supervening event between altercation and assault removes preclusion of TREACHERY Mantuano was stabbed in the back and killed by Catalino. Son Benjamin testified that his father Florentino and Catalino had a fight; he tried to pacify them, to which Catalino answered to the effect that he listened to Benjamin (supervening event). However, Catalino stabbed the unarmed and unsuspecting Florentino in the back. Pp V. Verchez DISRESPECT appreciated only when there is intent to insult the rank of victim. A/Cs must be alleged to be appreciated. No TREACHERY when victim is aware of a conflict that may ensue. Elements of TREACHERY: 1. Employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate 2. Said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted Accused was stopped by police officers at a subdivision gate. He asked that they accompany him to his friends’ place. Upon arrival, they were fired at by his cohorts, killing and injuring them. Pp V. Siao Doggy-rape = IGNOMINY. Indivisible penalty must be imposed regardless of M/A Cs. Circumstances that attended the crime must be alleged. Employer Siao forced his houseboy Gimena to rape housegirl Raymundo at gunpoint. He was convicted as principal by induction of rape. When he refused, Siao said he would kill both of them. Pp V. Baello Extrajudicial confessions admissible; PAO assistance cannot be condemned when freely accepted. Window = UNLAWFUL ENTRY. NOCTURNITY appreciated when crime was committed in darkness and advantage was sought therefrom. Totong Baello and Jerry robbed a barangay captain’s house, killing his daughter in the process. They entered through a second floor window and were apprehended when Baello’s relative admitted that it was him who brought


the stolen TV in his house. They were convicted as conspirators.c) Special Aggravating/Qualifying Circumstances NEED FOR ALLEGATION IN INFORMATION

Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

Rule 110, secs. 8 and 9 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure Sec. 8. Designation of the offense.- The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation.- The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. People v. Garcia 399 SCRA 155 (2003) Ricardo Garcia was found guilty of murder qualified by treachery. Although he used a motor vehicle in the commission of the crime, it cannot be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance because it is not alleged in the information. Likewise, the use of a .45 caliber gun is not a special aggravating circumstance because it is not alleged in the information that Garcia had no license to possess such gun. People v. Buayaban 400 SCRA 48 (2003) Buayaban, together with four other men, robbed a household and killed one person. Even though they may be considered a band (they were armed and more than three), such ordinary aggravating circumstance cannot be appreciated because it was not alleged in the information. SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES 1) Rape RPC Article 266-B. Penalties

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution: When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity; When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime; When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old; When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim; When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or paramilitary units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime; When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability;


When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime; and When the offender knew of the mental disability emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor. Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal. When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article. People v. Llanto Capt. Llanto was convicted of rape of his 12-year old niece. However, Article 266-B of the RPC cannot be applied since the allegation that Llanto is the “uncle” and the victim his “niece” is not specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship under 266-B. For an allegation to be specific, it must state if the accused is a relative by consanguinity or affinity, and that such relationship is within the third civil degree. Thus, Llanto is liable only for simple rape and sentenced with reclusion perpetua. People v. Pruna Pruna saw a three-year old girl defecating, called her then raped her. Victim identified accused, testimony is competent. Medical examination showed presence of sperm cells. Art. 335, par. 2, no. 4 of the RPC (this was in 1995; the pertinent provisions now are 266-A to D) states that death penalty shall be imposed if rape is committed to victim below 7.

Victim’s testimony about her age is conflicting. Pertinent documents were not presented. Pruna was convicted of statutory rape (not qualified) and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. People v. Galigao Galigao was found guilty of raping his three minor daughters. He was only convicted for two counts of rape because one of the victims did not file a criminal complaint (she did not want to be the subject of gossip). RA 8353 (took effect in 1997) cannot be applied retroactively since it will be unfavorable to the accused. Although Art. 335 states that death penalty shall be imposed when the accused is the parent of the victim, the SC reduced the penalty of Galigao to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. The death penalty could be decreed. Sec. 22. Article 47 of RA 7659 states: ART. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of Death Penalty Cases. – The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except when the guilty person is below eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years of age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty, in which cases, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.


People v. Rullepa Three-year old victim told her mother that Rullepa, the houseboy, inserted his organ in her vagina, mouth and anus. When asked by the victim’s parents, Rullepa admitted doing those things. Medical examination showed abrasions in her labia minora. Rullepa was found guilty of statutory rape (below 12). No document was offered to prove that victim is below seven, which can result to qualified rape. Because there is reasonable doubt as to the victim being below 7 when she was raped, Rullepa was sentenced the penalty of reclusion perpetua and not death.

Baring rapes alleged stepdaughter. TC appreciates the circumstance of “when offender is the parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim” (RPC 266-B) thus sentenced him to death. SC: For accused-appellant to be considered the stepfather of the complainant, he must be legally married to complainant’s mother. Baring and raped girl’s mother were not legally married but lived only in common-law relation. Prosecution failed to show proof of affinity. Considering RA 7659 and no qualifying and aggravating circumstance under RPC 266B, penalty only reclusion perpetua.

People v. Balgos (2000) Balgos was found guilty of rape of a six-year old. Medical examination showed lacerated wound on hymen. Victim’s testimony was coherent and straightforward. Even if there’s no penetration, the touching of the organ of the accused into the hole of the victim’s vagina already constituted rape. Age of victim was proven by mother’s testimony and certificate of live birth. Since victim is below 7 (Art. 335 amended by Sec. 11 of RA 7659), death penalty was sentenced on the accused.

Cross-refer to: People v Magabo Knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime of rape qualifies the crime and makes it punishable by death under Article 266-B, paragraph 10 of the Revised Penal Code. Here Magabo rapes an alleged mental retardate, Noemi. TC convicted him of murder, reclusion perpetua and not death due to 7659. SC: Even if actual retardation of victim and knowledge of Magabo of retardation be proven, there was no allegation in the information that the accused had knowledge of the mental disability of the victim at the time rape was committed. Thus, despite proof, accused can only be held liable for simple rape. Effect of 7659, suspension of death penalty: Qualifying circumstance for rape in 266B as exemplified by the Baring and Magabo cases bears no legal effect on the penalty being imposed for the crime of rape.

People v. Onabia Onabia was found guilty of raping his stepsister. Although he had a bolo when he raped her, he never used such weapon to threaten her it was just usual for him to be carrying such. Thus, use of deadly weapon does not qualify the rape. Their relationship also does not qualify the rape, since they are not relatives by blood or by affinity. Onabia was charged with simple rape and sentenced with reclusion perpetua. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING PENALTIES CIRCUMSTANCES; SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES

IMPOSED;

SPECIAL

QUALIFYING

RAPE; RPC ART 266-B People v. Berana Berana was allegedly the husband of 14-year old victim Elena’s sister. TC appreciated qualifying circumstance of “when offender is the parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim”. SC: However, In view of the fact that relationship between accused-appellant and the complainant was not properly established, it reduced the penalty imposed by the lower court from death to reclusion perpetua. People v Baring

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITIONS PD 1866 ACT CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION, OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES. Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms of Ammunition. - The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any firearm, part of firearm, ammunition or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition.


If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the penalty of death shall be imposed. If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or subversion, the penalty of death shall be imposed. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs. The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal authority therefor. Section 3. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Explosives. - The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose or possess handgrenade(s), rifle grenade(s) and other explosives, including but not limited to "philbox bombs", "molotov cocktail bomb", "fire-bombs", or other incendiary devices capable of producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any person.1awphi1©ITC Any person who commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or special laws with the use of the aforementioned explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices, which results in the death of any person or persons shall be punished with the penalty of death. If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or subversion, the penalty of death shall be imposed. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the explosives owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs. People v Hamton Hamton was one of the 4 kidnappers in exchange for ransom of a businessman named Teofilo Garcia. When the exchange of ransom and Teofilo was taking place, a Nissan Sentra driven by the police authorities chased the getaway car used by Hamton et al. A car-chase and shoot-out between the police and the kidnappers who possessed .45

caliber and M16 armalite, took place.Hamton with 2 other kidnappers arrested. Charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention and illegal possession of firearms. SC ruled all three appellants are guilty of kidnapping for ransom, but not of illegal possession of firearm because under PD 1866 if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any other crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. People v De Castro Jose De Castro was charged with 6 counts of rape for allegedly raping 6 times his 3 daughters. The father-daughter relationship was proven sufficiently. Convicted only for 5 counts. Since Art 355 RPC prescribes death for rape with the qualifying circumstance of “when offender is the parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim”, and RA 7659 is held unconstitutional under People v Echegaray, death penalty was imposed. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES RPC Art 15. Article 15. Their concept. - Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender. The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender. The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Relationship: People v Atop REGINA GUAFIN, 11 years old, was raped by Alejandro Atop the live-in partner of her grandmother. Appreciating the circumstance of "when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim," under RPC 355 (now 266B) and Sec 11 of 7659 (same provision). SC held that Sec. 11 of RA 7659 prescribes the capital penalty in rape only on the


enumerated kinds of kinship. On the other hand, "relationship" as an alternative aggravating circumstance under Art. 15 of the Revised Penal Code encompasses only "the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, and relative by affinity in the same degrees." Except for these enumerations, no other relationship, kinship or association between the offender and the victim may serve as aggravating. Fact that the offended party is the granddaughter or descendant of appellant's live-in partner (not encompassed under the enumerations, check niyo) cannot justify the imposition of death upon Atop. Intoxication: People v Renejane Renejane et al double murdered a Regino Maga-asin during a drinking spree. The aggravating circumstances that attended the commission of the crime are: (1) abuse of superior strength; (2) outraging the victims' corpses; (3) disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank; and (4) drunkenness. Only number 3 was appreciated. As regards drunkenness: The fact that the accused drank liquor prior to the commission of the crime did not necessarily qualify it as an aggravating circumstance. Intoxication is aggravating only if it is habitual or intentional. The spree was ordinary drinking party. Neither can this be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the absence of proof that the intake of alcoholic drinks was of such quantity as to blur the appellant's reason and deprive him of a certain degree of control. Since treachery was clearly proven, it would be inconsistent to appreciate drunkenness here as having the effect of a mitigating circumstance. IX. Application and Computation of Penalties A.) General Principles

to serve his sentence. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. — Offenders who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases:  1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and  2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.  If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with fourfifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment. (As amended by Republic Act 6127, June 17, 1970). Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. (As amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988).

RPC 28, 29, 46, 71 (CF. 70)

 Preventive Imprisonment defined: When the offense charged is nonbailable, or even so, he cannot furnish the required bail.

28. Computation of penalties. — If the offender shall be in prison, the term of the duration of the temporary penalties shall be computed from the day on which the judgment of conviction shall have become final.

46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general. — The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony.

If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration of the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty shall be computed from the day that the offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities for the enforcement of the penalty. The duration of the other penalties shall be computed only from the day on which the defendant commences

Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony in general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to the consummated felony.  general principle: It depends on the STAGES OF EXECUTION and the DEGREE OF


CRIMINAL PARTICIPATION. - regarding a penalty provided in the RPC – the same applies to the consummated stage and for the principal UNLESS specifically provided otherwise. - regarding the penalty for accomplices and accessories for the attempted and frustrated stages will either be 1, 2 or 3 degrees lower than the principal in the consummated stage. 71. Graduated Scales  SCALE NO. 1 1. Death, 2. Reclusion perpetua,   3. Reclusion temporal,   4. Prision mayor,   5. Prision correccional, 6. Arresto mayor,   7. Destierro,   8. Arresto menor,   9. Public censure,   10. Fine.  SCALE NO. 2 1. Perpetual absolute disqualification, 2. Temporal absolute disqualification 3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be  voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, 4. Public censure, 5. Fine. Cf. 70. Service 1. Death, 2. Reclusion perpetua,   3. Reclusion temporal, 4. Prision mayor,   5. Prision correccional, 6. Arresto mayor,   7. Arresto menor, 8. Destierro,   9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,  

10 Temporal absolute disqualification.   11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and   12. Public censure. NOTE: (Sir Te discussed this in class) RPC 70 and RPC 71 differ with regard to the order of destierro and arresto menor. RPC 70 (SUCCESIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCES) Scale to be used when imprisonment is involved

RPC 71 (ACTUAL GRAVITY OF PENALTIES) Does not involve imprisonment

Service of sentence is be successive People v. Formigones A man declared feebleminded by the Court had suddenly, without any provocation, stabbed his wife in the back. The penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. The Court did not find any aggravating circumstances (ruled out treachery) and found two mitigating circumstances (illness/physical defect and powerful impulse). The Court also applied RPC 63: For felonies committed when the penalty contains two indivisible penalties AND when there is MC and no AC, the lesser penalty shall apply. b.) Principals, Accomplices, Accessories in Consummated, Frustrated and Attempted Felonies B. Principals, Accomplices, Accessories in Consummated, Frustrated and Attempted Felonies RPC 46, 50-57, 60-61 Participation/Stage Consummated Frustrated Attempt Principal X 1 2 Accomplice 1 2 3 Accessory 2 3 4 *summary of the RPC 50-57 re: number of degrees lower, depending on circumstance – Sir Te 60. Exception


Basically tells us that RPC 50-57 will not apply to cases where the law expressly prescribes a penalty for an frustrated or attempted felony, or a penalty for accomplices or accessories. 61. Rules for graduating penalties 1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code. Ex. Reclusion perpetua will become reclusion temporal. 2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale.   Ex. Reclusion perpetua to Death will become reclusion temporal 3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective graduated scale.   Ex. A penalty of RT max to death will be lowered to PM max to RP med 4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned respective graduated scale.   5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not especially provided for in the four preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and upon accomplices and accessories. People v. Campuhan

The mother of a 4-year old girl catches the appellant in the act of raping her daughter. The act was declared attempted statutory rape of a minor below 7. The penalty for statutory rape is reclusion perpetua to death. Considering that it is attempted, the penalty would thus be 2 degrees lower, making it reclusion temporal. The Court also applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law (will be explained later!); in the absence of AC or MC, the final penalty would be reclusion temporal in its medium period. C.) Effects of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances RPC 62-64, 67, 69, 71 62 Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. (Simplified) - MC, AC and habitual delinquency diminish or decrease the penalty, depending on the following: 1.) AC in themselves that constitute a crime specially punishable by law or are included in the law in defining a crime or; 2.) are inherent in the crime are absorbed into the crime are not to increase the penalty anymore. 3.) AC or MC that arise from the moral attributes of the offender, his private relations with the offended party or any other personal cause serve to increase or decrease the liability ONLY of the offender to whom such circumstances are attendant. 4.) AC or MC will only affect those who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act, especially if these were material in the accomplishment of the crime. 5.) Effects of Habitual Delinquency: (a.k.a. the confusing provision!) rd a. Additional penalty upon the 3 conviction will be prision correctional in its medium and maximum periods. th b. Additional penalty upon the 4 conviction will be prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods th c. Additional penalty upon the 5 (or more) conviction will be prision mayor in its maximum period and reclusion temporal in its minimum period It must be noted that the total of the two penalties cannot exceed 30 years. A person shall be deemed a habitual delinquent “if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious


physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any said crime as a third time or oftener.” 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. - In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.  3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.  4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. - In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or not mitigating or aggravating circumstances: 1. Where there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period. 2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period. 3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period. 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against the other according to their relative weight. 5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it deems applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.

6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the court shall not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period. 7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of exemption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12 (accident) are present. – When all the conditions required in circumstances Number 4 of Article 12 of this Code to exempt from criminal liability are not present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit if he shall have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave felony 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable. — A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the period which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of the conditions of exemption present or lacking. 71. Graduated Scales (see 3 pages back) ii.) Lacanilao v. CA  A police officer was found guilty of homicide but with the MC of incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty. The CA penalized the accused based on RPC 64, sentencing him to RT min period. The SC said the CA erred, and that RPC 69 applies. The incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty is a privileged MC, which means that it cannot be offset by any AC and it reduces the penalty by 1-2 degrees. The indeterminate penalty is now from prision correctional (2y,4m,1s) to prision mayor (8y,1d) D. Special Rules COMPLEX CRIMES


RPC 48 Penalty for complex crimes — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period     

Compound Crime: Single act constitutes 2 or more grave or less grave felonies Complex Crime Proper: Offense is a necessary means for committing the other Penalty: for the most serious crime shall be imposed, max period a complex crime, although 2 or more crimes are actually committed constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender offender has only one criminal intent

Requisites of a complex crime  That at least 2 offenses are committed  One or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other  That both or all the offenses must be punished under the same statute People v. Hernandez  Offense: crime of rebellion (Art 134), one crime only thus no complex crime  (even though in committing rebellion, the accused committed murder, arson and robbery)  Discussion of Article 48 o Constitutes only crime according to the law o To favor the accused and not to implement a penalty graver than the aggregate penalty of the offense o This is because when 2 or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits said crimes through separate and distinct acts o One offense is a necessary means for the commission of the other, the evil intent is one and is lesser than when the 2 offenses are unrelated to each other, because in such event, he is twice guilty of having harbored criminal designs o In this case at bar, if the other offenses would be complexed with rebellion (thereby making it a complex crime), it would be unfavorable to the accused because the extreme penalty would be imposed even in the absence of any aggravating circumstance, if it won’t be complexed, then absent ay

 

 



aggravating circumstance, the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him. Thus, this goes against why Art 48 was created. What the court did is to absorb all the crimes committed in the occasion of committing rebellion to rebellion itself. The policy of statues on rebellion is to consider all acts committed in furtherance thereof as specified in Art 143 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code Murders, Arsons and Robberies described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by said defendants as means necessary for the perpetration of said offense of rebellion Thus the offense is only simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies Rebellion shouldn’t be merged with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion The maximum penalty imposable is 12 years of prision mayor

People v. Geronimo  Not every act of violence is to be deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely because it happens to be committed simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion  \If the killing, robbing, were done for private purposes or profit without any political motivation, the crime would be separately punishable, thus in this case, the accused is separately convicted with murder and not a complex crime of rebellion with murder  But even then, the individual misdeed could not be taken with the rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive acts and intent would be unrelated to each other. He would then be liable for 2 separate acts  All crimes committed in the occasion of rebellion, as a means necessary to commit rebellion or in connection therewith, the accused could only be punished of simple rebellion  This case reiterates the Hernandez ruling  Sentenced to prision mayor of 8 years for rebellion considering his plea of guilt as a mitigating circumstance  For murder, applying the ISL, not less than 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 18 years of reclusion temporal Ponce Enrile v. Salazar


 



Hernandez doctrine prohibits complexing of rebellion with any other offense However there’s a n appeal that the Hernandez doctrine doesn’t apply in this case because even though the accused committed murders and other common crimes on the occasion of rebellion but in it wasn’t in furtherance of rebellion Court rules though that all rebellion should absorb all the crimes committed whether in furtherance to rebellion or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion

People v. Bulaong (see CARAANG)  The accused is convicted of 8 complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape aggravated by the use of motor vehicle and mitigated by voluntary surrender to the authorities and sentencing him to 8 reclusion perpetuas, instead of death, out of compassion for Bulaong considering he is married with five minor children  SC held that the trial court erred in imposing 8 reclusion perpetua. Bulaong committed the continuing complex offense of forcible abduction with rape (only one count of the complex offense of forcible abduction with rape even though he committed rape 8 times)  As the rape was committed with the use of a deadly weapon and the crime is complex, the death penalty should be imposed  However, for lack of necessary votes, the same is commuted to reclusion perpetua Napolis v. CA  Accused broke a wall, entered with deadly weapon an inhabited house and stole there valuable effects is punishable under Art 299 of the RPC with reclusion temporal  There is a complex crime under Art 48 thus the penalty will be reclusion temporal in its maximum period owing to the aggravating circumstances of nighttime People v. Toling (no complex crime here!  TRAIN/TWINs)  The 8 killings and the attempted murder were perpetrated by means of different acts. They can’t be regarded as constituting a complex crime under Art 48 which refers to cases were a single act constitutes 2 or more grave felonies or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other  No mitigating and aggravating circumstance, the penalty imposed should be reclusion perpetua in its medium period  A separate penalty for attempted murder should be imposed on the appellants People v. Escober (naïve security guard)

 



 

Accused is charged with special complex crime of robbery with homicide Whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, although they did not take part in the homicide unless they did something to prevent the homicide Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of the robbery are also guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they didn’t take part in the homicide Thus, although one of the accused participated as a look-out only, and did not help in the killing, he can’t evade the responsibility for the homicide Penalty: reclusion perpetua

People v. Silongan  The accused are members of the MILF and MNLF; they committed the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention (Art 267)  However the Hernandez doctrine can’t be used because it does not follow that just because they are members of the MILF or MNLF means that kidnapping is in furtherance of rebellion. It wasn’t proven, likewise, that the crime committed is politically motivated.  It was established that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom  Under Art 63, penalty is death, an indivisible penalty thus the mitigating circumstance of illiteracy couldn’t be made to apply People v. Caraang (rape a lot!)  In the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, when there are 2 victims, the accused would be guilty of 2 counts of such crime  There’s no violation of the consti right of appellant against double jeopardy  The complex crime of forcible abduction with rape is when there is carnal knowledge of the abducted women and when force or intimidation is used  However there can only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape committed against each victim. The crime of forcible abduction was necessary only for the first rape. Any subsequent rape of the same victim is simply rape and can no longer be considered as a separate complex crime of forcible abduction with rape  Reclusion perpetua for each count


People v. Nuguid  Nuguid was accused with the complex crime of serious illegal detention or kidnapping with rape(Art 267)  Even if the accused kept the victim in his room formore than an hour, if it is clear that the former’s real aim was to have carnal knowledge of the latter, such circumstance does not constitute illegal detention.  When the information charges a complex crime and the evidence fails to support one of the component offenses, the defendant is still liable for the other offense supported by the evidence.  It is true that Niguid kept Rowena inside his room for more than an hour while the police tried to negotiate with him; however this does not constitute illegal detention in light of the fact that appellant was on top of Rowena raping her even while he was shouting at the police who were outside. 

  

1. Special Complex Crimes Examples: o Rape with homicide o Robbery with homicide o Robbery with rape o Kidnapping with serious physical injuries o Kidnapping with murder or homicide o Kidnapping with rape 2 separate acts, one penalty because the law says so One intent only THE SECOND offense is committed on occasion or arising out of the first

People v. Fabon (2000)  When the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is accompanied by another offense, such additional offense is treated as an aggravating circumstance which would result in the imposition of the maximum penalty of death.  Robbery with homicide is defined and penalized under Art. 294 of the RPC as amended by RPC 7659 with the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to Death  Dwelling as aggravating circumstance  Applying Art 63, the imposable penalty in the present case is death due to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling and the absence of any mitigating circumstance

People v. Escote, Jr. (merged with robbery)  Offense is robbery with homicide  Treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in the felony of robbery with homicide; Treachery here is applied to homicide, a crime against persons.  Treachery is applied to the constituent crime of homicide (crime against persons) and not to the constituent crime of robbery (crimes against property) of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.  All the crimes committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged and integrated into a single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide.  Apply Article 63, treachery increases the penalty for the crime  Accused should be penalized according to Art 294 with reclusion perpetua to death  Death penalty since it is aggravated by treachery People v. Larranaga  Kidnapping and serious illegal detention with murder and rape  Art 267: if the victim is killed or died as a consequence of the detention, or is raped or subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the max penalty shall be imposed  This provision gives rise to a special complex crime  Convicted of the special complex crime of kidnapping and illegal detention with homicide and rape  For the kidnapping of Jacqueline (who had remained missing until now) – crime committed is only simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention >> reclusion perpetua  For the murder of Marijoy (who was kidnapped, detained, raped and thrown to a deep ravine which resulted to her death) death penalty  For the accused James who was a minor at that time, one degree lower for each of the 2 penalties thus reclusion temporal for the first and reclusion perpetua for the second CRIME DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED RPC 49 Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that intended. — In cases in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed:


1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period. 2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period. 3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES RPC 59 Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime because the means employed or the aims sought are impossible. — When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos. 

Impossible crimes - - penalty is ARRESTO MAYOR or a fine of 200-500pesos

ADDITIONAL PENALTY FOR CERTAIN ACCESSORIES RPC 58 Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain accessories. — Those accessories falling within the terms of paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code who should act with abuse of their public functions, shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal offender shall be guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of a less grave felony 

Key phrase: abuse of their public functions

Paragraph 3, Article 19 By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime THE THREE-FOLD RULE RPC 70 Successive service of sentence When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed: In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or should they have been served out. For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the respective severity of the penalties shall be determined in accordance with the following scale: 1. Death, 2. Reclusion perpetua, 3. Reclusion temporal, 4. Prision mayor, 5. Prision correccional, 6. Arresto mayor, 7. Arresto menor, 8. Destierro, 9. Perpetual absolute disqualification, 10 Temporal absolute disqualification. 11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and 12. Public censure. Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period. Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years. In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years


 



 



For the imposition of successive penalties 2 or more penalties o Simultaneous if nature permits o Successively (Art. 70 determines which penalty serviced will be served first) Example: there are 3 offenses: arresto mayor, destierro and arresto menor, what will be the order then? 1. Arresto mayor 2. Arresto menor 3. Destierro Maximum duration >> not be more than 3 fold of the length of time corresponding to the most sever of the penalties involved Example: (same offenses above) o According to Art 71, the most sever is arresto mayor which is 1m, 1 day to 6 m >> multiply this by 3 However, sentence must not exceed 40 years

Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan  Crime: Sec3E of RA 3019 known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act  The petitioner appealed saying that the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan which totals 56 years and 8 days of imprisonment is contrary to the three-fold rule and insists that the duration of the aggregate penalties should not exceed forty years  Petitioner is mistaken in his application o the 3-fold rule. This article is to be taken into account not in the imposition of the penalty but in connection with the service of the sentence imposed  Article 70 speaks of service of sentence, duration of penalty and penalty to be inflicted. Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned about the imposition of the penalty  It merely provides that the prisoner can’t be made to serve more than 3 times the most sever of these penalties the maximum of which is 40 years WHERE PENALTY IS NOT COMPOSED OF THREE PERIODS RPC 65 In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three portions


The Indeterminate Sentence Law i.) Act. No. 4103 Note: Penalty may vary from judge to judge so long as it falls between the maximum or minimum term. Steps: (1) Find out w/n ISL is applicable (refer to Sec. 2, RA 4130) and if act is either felony or crime (2) If felony: Determine the Maximum Term of the ISL: MAX-IS = PENALTY BY LAW  (PMC)(AC-MC) If crime: MAX-IS is that which is fixed by law (3) Determine the Minimum Term which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by the law for the offense. If it is a crime, MIN-IS is that which is fixed by law. (4) From the range covered by the minimum to maximum, impose ANY sentence within that period.

ii.) RPC 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. (see previous pages)

iii.) Dela Cruz v. CA  A woman is charged with the crime of estafa. Under the RPC 315 par2(a), the trial court and CA sentenced her to 4y,2m prision correccional minimum to 20 y reclusion temporal maximum. The SC finds no error in the penalty given. Adhering to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by the Code for the offense committed, which is prision correccional. The CA was also right in limiting the max period to reclusion temporal, because it was declared in the law. iv.) Ladino v. Garcia  Petitioner and another accused is charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. They pleaded guilty and was given the penalty of 14y,



 

8m and 1d to 17y, 4m and 1d of reclusion temporal and to severally pay the civil liability. The Court is asked to determine w/n the application of the ISL is correct. It is not. The penalty for homicide (RPC 249) is reclusion temporal in its entire extent; the fault of the trial court is they added one day extra to the max period. It also disregarded a lowering of the minimum period “within the penalty next lower”. Minimum period should then be within the range of prision mayor. The new indeterminate penalty is 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17y and 4m of reclusion temporal as maximum.

v.) People v. Campuhan Case of the attempted rape on a 4 year old  The penalty for statutory rape is reclusion perpetua to death. Considering that it is attempted, the penalty would thus be 2 degrees lower, making it reclusion temporal. Applying the ISL, the penalty will now be prision mayor (determinate number of years up to the judge) to reclusion temporal in its medium period. vi.) People v. Nang Kay (NO ISL coz it’s unfavorable to the accused!)  Accused is charged with illegal possession of firearms. He pleaded guilty and the RTC sentenced him to 5 years and 1 day imprisonment. The SolGen, on his behalf, questions the non-application of the ISL. The ISL is to be imposed for the benefit of the appellant. The SC finds that imposing the ISL will NOT be beneficial to the accused (the minimum would have to be more than 5 years, see last lines of Sec 1, RA 4103). The next best thing would be to be released on parole, instead. vii.) People v. Saley (confusing, please don’t trust my digest so much - kriska)  Case of illegal recruitment and estafa. The penalty for the crime of estafa is under RPC 315. It is the Labor Code that punishes illegal recruitment. The ISL imposes an indeterminate sentence whenever the offense is punishable by a special law, which is “the max term of which shall not exceed the max fixed by law, and the min term which shall not exceed the min prescribed by the same.” The accused may also be punished on the grounds of estafa, which was filed by only 5 victims, the ISL will also apply to each one. (for all our sakes, I won’t provide here the individual modified penalties for the 11 people she wronged)




In special laws that use the nomenclature of the RPC, the max term that may be imposed can still be divided into 3 periods in order to appreciate mitigating and aggravating circumstance (this is according to our discussion – sam, yen, althea… please to RPC 10)

viii.) People v. Saberola (G.R. 132023, Oct. 12, 1998) Appellant is charged with the crime of murder. The penalty is reclusion temporal in its max period to death. RPC 64 provides that in the absence of MC or AC, penalty is imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua. THE APPELLANT CANNOT AVAIL OF THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW BECAUSE HE SENTENCED TO DEATH, contrary to Sec. 2 of the law.

ix.) Garcia v. People (G.R. 144785, Sept. 11, 2003)  Woman is charged with estafa for purchasing vegetables for over P87,000 with post-dated checks, which were all dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Under RPC 315 par2(a) and applying the ISL, note that the maximum penalty under a felony is the one applied by law (only modified with the presence of MC or AC) and the minimum will be a penalty next lower to the one prescribe by law. The penalty for estafa is prision correccional min to prision mayor max. She will have to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify the complainant in the amount of P87,000.00 X. EXECUTION OF PENALTIES a.) Execution of Penalties RPC 78 - GENERAL RULE: judgment must be final before a penalty can be executed o This is because the accused may still appeal within 15 days from its promulgation - EXCEPTION: if defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal judgment becomes final immediately RPC 86

-

RP, RT, PM, PC, AM shall be executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the future

RPC 87: Destierro - a sentence removing permission to enter the place or places designated in the sentence, within the radius specified  shall not be more than 250km and not less than 25km from the place designated (25km  r  250km, where r= radius) - When is Destierro impose: 1. RPC 247- When death or serious physical injuries is caused or are inflicted under exceptional circumstances. 2. RPC 284- When a person fails to give bond for good behavior. 3. RPC 334- As a penalty for the concubinage in the crime of concubinage. 4. When after lowering the penalty by degrees, destierro is the proper penalty - entering the prohibition area is evasion of the service sentence RPC 88: Arresto Menor - shall be served in the municipal jail - BUT may be served in the house of the defendant subject to the ff conditions: o When the court so provides unless the court says so, the accused cannot be permitted to serve his penalty at home o Should be under the surveillance of an officer of the law - grounds for allowing service of penalty at home: o health o other reasons satisfactory to the court i.) IN RE: HABEAS CORPUS OF PETE C. LAGRAN FACTS: - P was convicted by RTC of 3 counts of estafa and was sentenced to suffre 1 year of imprisonment for each (and to pay a fine of P125,000) - P’s appeal was dismissed by the CA - Aug. 6, 1997 decision became final and executory - March 5, 1998 entry of judgment was made - Feb. 24, 1999 P was committed to the QCJ (by virtue of a commitment order) - April 3, 1999P was transferred to the New Bilibid Prison


March 19, 2001 petitioner filed for habeas corpus, arguing as per RPC 70 that if the penalties or sentences imposed on the accused are identical, and such penalties or sentences emanated from one court and one complaint, the accused shall serve them simultaneously. He stated that he has been incarcerated for 2 years and 4 days, counted from February 28, 2001, thus, his detention in the New Bilibid Prison is now without legal basis. ISSUE: W/N P has served his sentence. RATIO: NO - RPC 70 allows simultaneous service of two or more penalties only if the nature of the penalties so permit - Penalties that can be simultaneously served: (1) perpetual absolute disqualification (2) perpetual special disqualification (3) temporary absolute disqualification (4) temporary special disqualification (5) suspension (6) destierro (7) public censure (8) fine and bond to keep the peace (9) civil interdiction (10) confiscation and payment of costs - destierro cannot be served simultaneously with imprisonment  deprivation of liberty cannot be served simultaneously by reason of the nature of such penalties - Where the accused is sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment, the terms should be served successively - The nature of P’s sentence does not allow him serve all the prison terms simultaneously. Applying the rule on successive service of sentence, P has not yet completed the service of his sentence as he commenced serving his sentence only on February 24, 1999. NOTE: what is relevant for the discussion of execution of penalties is that there was a final judgment before P sentence was executed. -

-

-

-

-

b.) Effects of the Probation Law (PD 968)

-

Probation when a defendant, after convictiion and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer o Probation is NOT a sentence o A suspension of the imposition of sentence o NOT a final judgment but an interlocutory judgment o Grant is not automatic or ministerial o A privilege; its grant rests upon the discretion of the court REQUIREMENTS: 1. conviction and sentence of defendant 2. application for probation 3. done within the period for perfecting an appeal the grant of an application for probation is prohibited if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction (sec. 4) filing of application= waiver of the right to appeal an order granting or denying probation is not appealable When shall it be denied: o Offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution o There is an undue risk that during the period of probation, the offender will commit another crime o Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed Offenders disqualified from being placed on probation: o Maximum term of imprisonment of more than 6 years o Convicted of subversion or any crime against the national security or public order o Convicted previously by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than 1 month and 1 day and/ or a fine of not more than P200 o Have been once on probation under the provisions of the Decree o Already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of the Decree became applicable EFFECT OF PROBATION ON ACCESORY PENALTIES o AP are deemed suspended once probation is granted violation of probation order = service of penalty imposed for the offense under which he was placed on probation


Allowed length of Probation: o Sentence of imprisonment of not more than 1 year= probation shall not exceed two years o Sentence of more than 1 year= period shall not exceed 6 years o Fine only w/ an order of subsidiary imprisonment = twice the total number of days if subsidiary imprisonment - At any time during probation, the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a probationer for any serious violation of the conditions of probation o Effects:  If violation is established= court may revoke or contine his probation and modify the conditions thereof  If revoked= court shall order probationer to serve sentence  The order revoking grant of probationer or modifying the term and conditions is not apealable - WHEN AND HOW PROBATION IS TERMINATED o Upon issuance of the court of a final order of discharge o Only from such issuance can the case of the probationer be deemd terminated o Expiration of the probation period alone does not automatically terminate probation o Probation is NOT coterminous with its period - EFFECTS OF TERMINATION o It restores to the probationer all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction o Fully discharges liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was granted - Probation affects only the criminal aspect of the case o Suspension of the sentence imposed on the accused who is granted probation has no bearing on his civil liability i.) Llamado vs. CA FACTS: - P was convicted of violating BP 22 when he co-signed a post-dated check which was dishonored for lack of sufficient funds - P was sentenced to imprisonment of 1 year PC and a fine of P200k with subsidiary imprisonment and to reimburse amount in check -

March 20, 1987 after the decision of the trial court was read to him, petitioner through counsel orally manifested that he was taking an appeal - November 30, 1987 while his appellant’s brief was being finalized, P filed a petition for probation at the RTC - RTC did not accept petition since the records of the case have already been forwarded to the CA, which denied the petition ISSUE: W/N P’s petition for probation has been filed within the allowable period. RATIO: NO - Sec. 4 of PD968 states that an application for probation may be filed with the trial court after the trial court shall have sentenced and convicted defendant and within the period for perfecting an appeal - Grant of application is prohibited if the defendant ahs perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction - Sec. 5 Rule 122 Revised Rules of Court o Period of perfecting an appeal is 15 days from the promulgation or notice of judgment appealed from - Sec. 3 (a) Rule 122 o such appeal is taken or perfected by simply filing a notice of appeal with the Regional Trial Court which rendered the judgment appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the People of the Philippines - P had manifested orally and in open court his intention to appeal at the time of promulgation of the judgment of conviction, a manifestation at least equivalent to a written notice of appeal and treated as such by the RTC -

ii.) Bala vs. Martinez FACTS: - P has been convicted wit falsification of a public document (passport) - Sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of not less than 1 year and 1 day and not exceeding 3 years, 6 months and 21 days of PC - Aug. 11, 1982 P was granted probation for a period of 1 year subject to the terms and conditions of the probation - Sept. 23, 1982 P was verbally permitted by his probation officer to transfer residence upon his request - By the terms of the petitioner's probation, it should have expired on August 10, 1983, one year after the order granting the same was issued.


But, the order of final discharge could not be issued because the respondent probation officer had not yet submitted his final report on the conduct of his charge - R filed a motion to revoke probation of petitioner alleging that he had violated the terms and conditions - Jan. 4, 1984 P filed an opposition, saying that he was no longer under probation since it terminated on Aug. 10, 1983 - The probation officer filed a supplemental report, recommending the revocation of the probation ISSUE: W/N the expiration of probation period terminates the probation. RATIO: NO - Sec. 16, PD 968 o the expiration of the probation period alone does not automatically terminate probation. Nowhere is the ipso facto termination of probation found in the provisions of the probation law. Probation is not coterminous with its period. There must first be issued by the court of an order of final discharge based on the report and recommendation of the probation officer. Only from such issuance can the case of the probationer be deemed terminated. iii.) Salgado vs. CA FACTS: - P was convicted with the crime of serious physical injuries and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 4 months and 20 days and to indemnify the victim in the sum of P126,633.50 as actual or compensatory damages, and the sum of P50,000.00 as damages for the incapacity of Francisco Lukban to pursue and engage in his poultry business - P was granted probation with the condition that he indemnify the victim in a monthly installment of P2k during the entire period of his probation - From July to October 1987, petitioner complied with the condition - On Sept. 1987 private respondent filed a motion for a writ of execution for the enforecement of the civil liability which was granted by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, stating that the probation does not affect the civil liability of P ISSUE: W/N the civil liability of P was affected by the conditions of the probation. RATIO: NO

- Courts are allowed to impose practically any term it chooses, the only limitation being that it does not jeopardize constitutional rights of the accused. Courts may impose conditions with the end that these conditions would help the probationer develop into a law-abiding individual  this includes developing a system of payment that will aid the probationer in paying his civil liability iv.) People vs. Evangelista FACTS: - R was convicted with frustrated homicide by the RTC - CA modified his sentence to to an indeterminate penalty of 2 months Arresto mayor as minimum to 2 years and 4 months of PC as maximum - R filed for probation - Probation officer recommended denial of probation since R already appealed to the CA - RTC granted probation ISSUE: W/N the RTC erred in granting probation to R. RATIO: YES - PD 968 o no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction o The perfection of the appeal referred in the law refers to the appeal taken from a judgment of conviction by the trial court and not that of the appellate court, since under the law an application for probation is filed with the trial court which can only grant the same “after it shall have convicted and sentenced [the] defendant, and upon application by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal.” o the filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal - Having appealed from the judgment of the trial court and having applied for probation only after the Court of Appeals had affirmed his conviction, private respondent was clearly precluded from the benefits of probation v.) Office of the Court Administrator vs. Librado


FACTS: - R, who is a deputy sheriff at the MTC, was charged with violation of RA 6425 for selling and possessin prohibited drugs - He was found guilty and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment - an administrative complaint seeking for his dismissal was filed by P - Respondent admits the conviction and claims that he is on probation - The RTC granted suspension from office, not dismissal, “to provide him with the incentive and the will to rehabilitate himself and apply his time to his work as a judicial employee.” ISSUE: W/N the RTC erred in not dismissing R from service RATIO:YES While indeed the purpose of the Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended) is to save valuable human material, it must not be forgotten that unlike pardon probation does not obliterate the crime of which the person under probation has been convicted. The reform and rehabilitation of the probationer cannot justify his retention in the government service. He may seek to reenter government service, but only after he has shown that he is fit to serve once again. It cannot be repeated too often that a public office is a public trust, which demands of those in its service the highest degree of morality.

c.) Suspension in Case of Insanity or Minority RPC 79 -

-

RULES RE EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES IN CASE OF INSANITY o When imbecility or insanity comes after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution of sentence is suspended only as regards the personal penaltly  Civil liability may be executed even in case of insanity of convict o If convict recovers reason, sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty prescribed o Above provisions shall be observed even if insabity or imbecility occurs while serving sentence o Payment of civil or percuniary liabilities shall not be suspended Other Effects of Insanity o If insane at the time of commission of offense= exempt from criminal liability (RPC 12 par. 1)

o

If insanity occurs during trial= suspension of proceedings, confinement of defendant in a hospital until reason is recovered (RPC 12 par. 1)

Rules on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law Sec. 32. Automatic Suspension of Sentence and Disposition Orders.– The sentence shall be suspended without need of application by the juvenile in conflict with the law. The court shall set the case for disposition conference within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation of sentence which shall be attended by the social worker of the Family Court, the juvenile, and his parents or guardian ad litem. It shall proceed to issue any or a combination of the following disposition measures best suited to the rehabilitation and welfare of the juvenile: 1. Care, guidance, and supervision orders; 2. Community service orders; 3. Drug and alcohol treatment; 4. Participation in group counseling and similar activities; 5. Commitment to the Youth Rehabilitation Center of the DSWD or other centers for juveniles in conflict with the law authorized by the Secretary of the DSWD. The Social Services and Counseling Division (SSCD) of the DSWD shall monitor the compliance by the juvenile in conflict with the law with the disposition measure and shall submit regularly to the Family Court a status and progress report on the matter. The Family Court may set a conference for the evaluation of such report in the presence, if practicable, of the juvenile, his parents or guardian, and other persons whose presence may be deemed necessary. The benefits of suspended sentence shall not apply to a juvenile in conflict with the law who has once enjoyed suspension of sentence, or to one who is convicted of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, or when at the time of promulgation of judgment the juvenile is already eighteen (18) years of age or over.

d.) Subsidiary Imprisonment RPC 38 -

applicable only to an offender whose property is insufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities ORDER OF PAYMENT OF PECUNIARY LIABILITIES


-

o 1. Reparation of damaged caused o 2. Indemnification of the consequential damages o 3. Fine o 4. Cost of the proceedings Courts cannot disregard this order of payment

RPC 39: SUBSIDIARY PENALTY - Def: it is a subsidiary personal liability to be suffered by the convict who has no property with which to meet the FINE at the rate of one day for each P8 o It is NOT an imprisonment for debt - An accused cannot be made to undergo subsidiary imprisonment unless the judgment expressly so provides - There is NO subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of other pecuniary liabilities - NOT an accessory penalty - RULES ON SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT 1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his fine referred in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner.

2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony. 3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit. 4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivation as those of which the principal penalty consists. 5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve." i.) Jao Yu vs. People FACTS: - P was found guilty with 19 counts of violation of BP 22 - The RTC imposed P to pay fines for each of the 19 counts of BP 22 and to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine - CA affirmed the RTC’s decision - P now contends that nowhere in BP 22 allows for subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment ISSUE: W/N the court can impose subsidiary imprisonment in cases under BP 22 RATIO: YES - The imposition of subsidiary imprisonment is expressly provided under Articles 38 and 39 of the Revised Penal Code - These can be applied suppletorily to Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 pursuant to RPC 10 o Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary - the absence of an express provision on subsidiary imprisonment in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does not and cannot preclude its imposition in cases involving its violations


XI. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

paragraphs of this article. (As amended by RA 4661, approved June 19, 1966).

A. Total 1. Absolute pardon 2. Service of sentence 3. Death. It abolishes if the charge is personal in nature. If pecuniary, only before final judgment. 4. Amnesty. It's when Congress makes an act lawful. For example, rebellion. 5. When the offense or the penalty prescribes. 6. Marriage of the woman to the rapist.

Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him. The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.

B. Partial 1. Conditional pardon 2. Commutation - lesser sentence granted 3. Good conduct - lowers one period.

Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows: 1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years; 2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years; 3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years; 4. Light penalties, in one year.

Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. 2. By service of the sentence; 3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects; 4. By absolute pardon; 5. By prescription of the crime; 6. By prescription of the penalty; 7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code. Art. 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years. Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years. Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years. The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year. The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months. Light offenses prescribe in two months. When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second and third

Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. — The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription. Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. — The commutation of the original sentence for another of a different length and nature shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former. Monsanto v. Factoran - Pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted felon to public office. A pardon although full and plenary, cannot preclude the appointing power from refusing appointment to anyone deemed of bad character, a poor moral risk, or who is unsuitable by reason of the pardoned conviction. Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee v. Desierto = The applicable law in the computation of the prescriptive period for RA 3019 is Sec. 3 of Act No. 3326 which provides that prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the


violation of the law and if the same be not known at the tie, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. Republic v. Desierto - prescription of an offense. As a rule, if the commission of the crime is known, the prescriptive period shall commence to run on the day it was committed. However, in cases where the time of commission is unknown, prescription shall only run from its discovery and institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. Ordinarily, there is no problem in determining the date when the crime consists of a series of acts, especially when some or all of these acts are innocent in themselves. Brillante v. CA - The Court deleted the penalty of imprisonment imposed upon petitioner, a local politician, but maintained the penalty of fine of P4,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, in each of the (5) cases of libel, on the ground that the intensely feverish passions evoked during the election period in 1988 must have agitated petitioner into writing his open letter; and that incomplete privileged communication should be appreciated in favor of petitioner, especially considering the wide latitude traditionally given to defamatory utterances against public officials in connection with or relevant to their performance of official duties or against public figures in relation to matters of public interest involving them. PCGG v. Desierto - prescription. Offense is under a special law, RA 3019. The applicable law in the computation of the prescriptive period is Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended, which provides: Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same not be known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. XII. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY RPC 100: Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. NCC. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

NCC 1161. Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses shall be governed by the penal laws, subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the pertinent provisions of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, on Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book, regulating damages. (1092a) NCC 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a) NCC 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. (n) RULE 111 - PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION (Revised Rules on Crim Pro) Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. – (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation. When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or information, the filing fees therefore shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such damages. Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court. Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages. No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action. (b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed. Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered


as the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment. Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions. Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended. – After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.chan robles virtual law library If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever state it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witness presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly. During the pendency of the criminal action, the running period of prescription of the civil action which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. – In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. Sec. 4. Effect of death on civil actions. – The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising

from the delict. However, the independent civil action instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the case may be. The heirs of the accused may be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased.chan robles virtual law library If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased. Sec. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar. – A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability is not a bar to a criminal action against the defendant for the same act or omission subject of the civil action. Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. – A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. – The elements of a prejudicial questions are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. b) Special cases 1) insanity, imbecility- the person who shall shoulder should there be civil liabilities of the following will be their legal guardian 2) state of necessity-liability on person who benefitted from such 3) irresistible force, uncontrollable fear of greater or equal injury-liability shall be on the person who exerted such force RPC 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules: First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over


nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law. Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable. When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have been caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations. Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution. RPC 102 Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. — In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees. Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees. RPC 103: Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.

Carpio v. Doroja: Edwin Ramirez, jeep driver herein was tried for reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries after he bumped a certain Dionisio Carpio while the latter was crossing the street. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced with arresto mayor, including the liability certain sum as indemnification for the victim. Pleading as insolvent, Dionisio Carpio therefore filed moved for the operator to shoulder the costs of the civil liabilities incurred by his employee. SC said that the operator is indeed subsidiarily liable to his employee’s civil liabilities.

c. Civil Liability RPC 104. What is included in civil liability. — The civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes: 1. Restitution; 2. Reparation of the damage caused; 3. Indemnification for consequential damages. RPC 105. Restitution; How made. — The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the court. The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person, who may be liable to him. This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been acquired by the third person in the manner and under the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery. RPC 106. Reparation; How made. — The court shall determine the amount of damage, taking into consideration the price of the thing, whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to the injured party, and reparation shall be made accordingly. RPC. 107. Indemnification; What is included. — Indemnification for consequential damages shall include not only those caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the crime. People v. Paraiso: Appellant is convicted of rape with homicide and according to current jurisprudence, civil liability is equal to 100k. Caniezo: Appellant herein is found guilty of rape and was ordered to pay civil indemnity of 50k + exemplary damages of 20k + moral damages of 50k Galvez: appellant is found guilty of murder (qualified by treachery) and was made to pay 50k as civil indemnity, 30k for actual damages, 50k for moral damages + unearned income of 769,884.75. Exemplary damages was however deleted because the single AC herein (treachery) was already appreciated for homicide to become murder.


Pajotal: appellant is found guilty of the special complex crime robbery with homicide and was thus made to pay civil indemnity of 50k + 41k as actual damages + 50k as moral damages + and 20k as exemplary damages Bantiling: appellant is found guilty of murder and was made to pay civil indemnity of 50k + 21,960 as actual damages + 50k as moral damages and 800k for the loss of earning capacity. d) persons civilly liable RPC 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or indemnification for consequential damages and actions to demand the same; Upon whom it devolves. — The obligation to make restoration or reparation for damages and indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of the person liable. The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person injured. RPC 109. Share of each person civilly liable. — If there are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts shall determine the amount for which each must respond. RPC 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices and accessories of a felony; Preference in payment. — Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within their respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other persons liable. The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of the principals; next, against that of the accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the accessories. Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person by whom payment has been made shall have a right of action against the others for the amount of their respective shares. RPC 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. — Any person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation. e) extinction of civil liability RPC 112. Extinction of civil liability. — Civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code shall be extinguished in the same manner as obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law. RPC 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. — Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the next preceding article the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason.

Art. 1231. Obligations are extinguished: (1) By payment or performance: (2) By the loss of the thing due: (3) By the condonation or remission of the debt; (4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and debtor; (5) By compensation; (6) By novation. Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a resolutory condition, and prescription, are governed elsewhere in this Code. (1156a)

C2013 Crim1 Reviewer

Recommend Documents