Crim 1 - Muyot - CrimFinalReviewer

Chua, Manalo, Martinez, Moreto, Gozun, Peralta, Salindo, Santos, Sarita, Siazon, Tuason

Criminal law 1 Reviewer:

I.

Penologic ojectives: Law as a means of social control What are the objectives of penal laws?

1. Retribution a. penalty corresponds in severity to injured party b. The state is the one exacting retribution instead of the family of the victim taking the law into their own hands. c. The criminal aspect remains with the state while the civil aspect remains with the family. 2. Prevention a. deprivation of liberty so as not to commit any future acts b. additional penalty given to a repeat offender so as to prevent him from committing a crime again 3. Deterrence a. scaring others from committing crimes b. The success not only lies in severity but also in certainty and celerity (how fast justice will be meted out) 4. Rehabilitation a. an alternative for the offender to change his ways b. one example is parole, another is probation 5. Restorative Justice a. a theory in a threefold structure that addresses the needs of the victim, the offender, and the community. b. For the victim, the need is to restore him in his original state, hence reparation c. For the offender, the pursuit of a straight and narrow path and the restoration to his home community through means of diversion, not prosecution d. For the community, safety is paramount.


II.

General Principles of Criminal Law:

A.

Generality: Who are covered by Philippine Penal Laws?

Art. 14. Penal laws and those of public security and safety are obligatory for: 1. those who live in Philippine territory 2. Those who sojourn in Philippine territory Article 2, RPC- Article 2. Application of its provisions. – the rpc provisions are not only applicable 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; A. Muyot says: A Philippine ship is not determined by the nationality of its captain but rather by the country of its registration

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 number; 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 Title One of Book Two of this Code.

Who are exempted from their coverage? RA 75- AN ACT TO PENALIZE ACTS WHICH WOULD IMPAIR THE PROPER OBSERVANCE BY THE REPUBLIC AND INHABITANTS OF THE PHILIPPINES OF THE IMMUNITIES, RIGHT, AND PRIVILEGES OF DULY ACCREDITED FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR AGENTS IN THE PHILIPPINES Foreign officials immune from RPC Coverage:


a. the person of any ambassador (given diplomatic status of by our Country) b. public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received as such by the President A. Muyot says: a. consuls are not exempted because they are not included in the law and are usually Filipinos b. deputy heads of state are not immune c. an ambassador can be arrested if he waives his diplomatic immunity

RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement: a. 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. 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. Offenses relating to security mean: (1) treason; (2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national defense. c. 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.

R.A. 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 Offenses committed by military men


Section 1. Members of the Armed forces of the Philippines and other persons subject to military law, including members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised Penal Code, other special penal laws, or local government ordinances, regardless, of whether or not civilians are co-accused, victims, or offended parties which may be natural or juridical persons, shall be tried by the proper civil court, except when the offense, as determined before arraignment by the civil court, is service-connected, in which case the offense shall be tried by court-martial: Provided, That the President of the Philippines may, in the interest of justice, order or direct at any time before arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts.


B.

Territoriality

What is considered Philippine territory for the purpose of applying Philippine penal laws? RPC, Art. 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 Article 1 of the1987 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 dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. A. Muyot says: The exact measurements of Philippine territory are in the baselines, which btw overlaps with that of China’s, Vietnam’s and Malaysia’s. due to the Spratlys controversy.

May Philippine laws be applied outside Philippine territory? remember the 5 exemptions to territorial application under Article 2 of the RPC.

Cases: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs. Bull Facts: H.N. Bull was master of steamship Standard, which transported 677 cattle and carabaos on 2 Dec 1909 without proper means of securing them or bedding, thus, a number were cruelly torn (ropes were tied on nose rings), bruised, and killed. Ship route: Formosa-Phils. Issue: WON Phil. laws apply, as there is no information regarding where this occurred. Held: Yes; this was ongoing as the ship entered the Phil. territory, therefore, Phil. laws apply. A. Muyot says: Killing carabaos violated public interest, which was the need of more carabos in the Philippines.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs. Wong Cheng Facts: Wong Cheng smoked opium while aboard merchant vessel Changsa, anchored in Manila Bay within 2.5 miles from shore.


Issue: WON Philippines has jurisdiction over Merchant ships in its territory? Held: Yes; under the English Rule, the court had jurisdiction over offenses against public order committed within its territorial waters. So Court had jurisdiction.Since this was the case, smoking opium within Philippine territory allows substance to produce pernicious effects, which is against public order and public interest because the Chinese might come up to the ship and smoke opium with him. It is also an act of defiance of authority. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs. Look Chaw Facts: Mrs. Jacks and Milliron found sacks of contraband substance opium on steamship Errol on 18 August 1910 in, around 11-12 am. 3 sacks were found containing 49, 80 packs, (4) packs each; total = 129 packs to be sold, 4 for personal consumption. The 129 were supposedly going to be sold in Mexico and Vera Cruz. Issue: Was Look Chaw accountable? Held: Yes; only because the cargo was brought down by his act of selling to a secret service agent while in the port. If he didn’t sell, then he wouldn’t be liable since the place where the cargo was to be dropped wasn’t in the Philippines. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs. Ah Sing Facts: Ah Sing as onboard steamer Shun Chang which docked on Cebu from Saigon on 25 April 1917. He had bought 8 cans of opium there, which were found on the ship, hidden in the ashes below the boiler of ship engine. No evidence regarding intent to import was brought to court. Issue: Is he guilty of importing when intent was not so proven? Held: Yes, without reasonable doubt; it‘s illogical that he would transport from Saigon-ManilaSaigon for pleasure, considering that the huge quantity meant that it wasn’t only for him. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs. Lol-lo and Saraw Facts: 2 Dutch boats left Matuta, Indonesia on 30 June 1920, headed for Peta. First boat had 1 person aboard and the second had 11 men, women and children. After a few days, at 7pm, the second boat arrived between the isles of Buang and Bukid and was stopped by 6 vintas with 24 men, all armed. They asked for food, took cargo, hurt men, and raped women. Then, 2 women were taken, the rest were put back on boat made to sink. Lol-lo raped one of the women on the way to Maruro, where both women escaped. Issue: Was Lollo’s crime within the jurisdiction of a Philippine court? Held: Yes piracy is a crime against all mankind, therefore it was in the jurisdiction of any court.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C.

Prospectivity For which acts may a person be punished?

Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.

May Philippine penal laws be applied retroactively? 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.


III. Felonies under RPC (For the purpose of this discussion, only felonies will be handled)

Felony

Act 1A

Punishable Dolo 3A b y R P C 2

Omission

Culpa 3B 1 B

Fig. 1 A. Muyot’s chart of what a felony is

For what act may a person be penalized? Art 3, RPC- Definition of Felony. A felony is an act or omission punishable by the RPC committed with Dolo or Culpa - Sir Muyot’s simplified definition Note that intent and negligence are the closest words to dolo or culpa, but not the exact meaning!

What are the elements of a felony? (Note: check the chart!)

a. Act- bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external

world but should constitute a felony as defined in the parameters of the RPC. Thoughts not included! b. Omission- failure to perform a positive duty one is bound to do! c. Punishable by the RPC only, not special laws

What is dolo and culpa?


Dolo  intent to do harm  requisites for an act or omission done with dolo: freedom, intelligence, and intent Culpa  lack of foresight  requisites for an act or omission done with culpa: freedom, intelligence, imprudence (no standard of care)

What is malum in se and malum prohibitum? a. malum in se- crimes that are inherently evil from an ethical perspective ex. rape

a. malum prohibitum- the law prohibits such acts for the sake of convenience and social regulation ex. Illegal possession of firearms

What is the difference between intent and felony? a. Intent- means used to effect a wanted result ex. Stabbing a person- intent can be proven from the act itself

b. Motive- moving power which impels one to do action for a definites result ex. Jealousy- motive can be proven by circumstantial evidence such as testimony

Cases: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------U.S. v Ah Chong Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in mess hall at Fort McKinley and stayed there at Bldg. 27. One night, he woke up to the sound of someone trying to force his way into the room. There was no way to know who it was as it was dark and the room only had 1 door and 1 window, and vines covered the window; all he could do was ask who it was. He asked twice, and then, when no response came, he threatened the attacker that if he continued, he would be killed. He took a knife which he kept under his pillow because of the robberies occurring recently, and when he was hit on the knee by a chair he uses to keep the door closed, he attacked and killed the man who turned out to be his roommate, Pascal Gualberto. He called for help immediately but it was too late. Issue: Is he liable for the crime?


Held: No; it was a mistake of facts. The act would have been lawful if the facts had been as he believed them to be. (Ignorantia facti excusat) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs. Oanis and Galanta Facts: Under instructions to seize Balagtas (escaped convict), the two policemen went to a house where they suspected Balagtas to be hiding. Upon finding a sleeping man inside, they shot him. He turned out to be Tecson, an innocent man. Issue: Are they liable? Held: Yes; unlike in Ah Chong, facts did not show that they tried to ascertain that they had the right man. As they did not exercise due precaution in ascertaining the identity of the target, they were guilty of murder. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IV. Art. 4. Criminal Liability RPC. Art 4. 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 on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Par. 1: Criminal liability for a felony different from that intended to be committed Requisites: 1. That an intentional felony has been committed. No intentional felony: -When the act or omission is not punishable by RPC; or -When the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances in Art. 11 of RPC. 2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony c ommitted. Proximate Cause – that cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury without which the result would not have occurred. -trigger that sets in motion a chain of events that will lead to a resulting harm The relation of cause and effect must be shown: a. Unlawful act is the efficient cause b. Accelerating cause c. Proximate cause Three Categories when the result of the wrongful act done be different from that which is intended: 1. Error In Personae – mistake in the identity of the victim (Article 49 – penalty for lesser crime in its maximum period) 2. Abberatio ictus – mistake in the blow (Article 48 on complex crimes – penalty for graver offense in its maximum period); although he intended the harm to another, the blow injured other person 3. Praeter intentionem – injurious result is greater than that intended (Article 13 – mitigating circumstance) When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted: 1. That the victim at that time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health 2. That the death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted 3. That death may be ensued with a reasonable time Felony committed is NOT the proximate cause of the resulting injury when: 1. There is an active force between the felony committed and the resulting injury, such active force is distinct from the felony committed. 2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim, i.e. fault or carelessness of the victim to increase criminal liability of the assailant.


Cases: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Iligan Facts: Defendant hacked a man with a bolo. Man did not die from the wound caused by the bolo attack. He was run over by a passing vehicle immediately after he was hacked by the defendant. Held: The defendant hacking the man is an intentional act. While the said act is not the direct cause of the death of the man, it was the proximate cause. The sequence of events – from the assault to the running over by the vehicle – is one unbroken chain of events. Having triggered such events, the defendant cannot escape liability. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Mananquil Facts: Out of anger, the wife poured gasoline on her husband, and set him on fire. The husband did not immediately die from the burns he sustained. He was brought to the hospital, where he contracted pneumonia which caused his death a few days after the burning incident. Held: Wife is held liable. The pneumonia which ultimately caused the death of the husband is a complication of the burns he sustained from the wife. Although pneumonia is the immediate cause of death, it could not have resulted if the victim did not suffer from second degree burns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs Brobst Facts: The defendant punched a man after the man did not obey the defendant's command to go away. The man immediately went to his sister's house located about 200 yards away and about 100 feet up the side of a hill. He died as he reached the door of the house. Held: The defendant is held liable. Although it is not totally impossible that there is an intervening cause of the death during the time that the deceased walked towards the house, there is no evidence of any intervening cause. The doubt which must be decided in favor of the accused person in a criminal trial is a reasonable doubt, and not a mere whimsical and fanciful doubt, based upon imagined but wholly improbable possibilities, unsupported by evidence. There can be no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable man that death was in fact brought about by the blow inflicted

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


V.

Impossible Crime

Par. 2: Impossible crime focuses on intent; limited to crimes under RPC REQUISITES: 1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property 2. That the act was done with evil intent 3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual  Inadequate- means is insufficient (e.g. small quantity of poison)  Ineffectual means employed did not nproduce the result expected (e.g. pressed the trigger of the gun knowing that it is empty)  Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment: a. Legal impossibility – where the intended acts, even if completed would not amount to a crime. E.g. Stealing a property that turnmed out to be owned by the stealer b. Physical impossibility- when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. E.g. when one tries to murder a corpse. 4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision in the RPC. Felonies against persons are: 1. Parricide (Art. 246) 2. Murder (248) 3. Homicide (249) 4. Infanticide (255) 5. Abortion (256,257,258,259) 6. Duel (260,261) 7. Physical Injuries (262,263,264,265,266) 8. Rape (266-A) Felonies against property are: 1. Robbery (Arts. 294,297,298,299,300,302,303) 2. Brigandage (306,307) 3. Theft (308,310,311) 4. Culpable Insolvency (314) 5. Swindling and Other deceits, Estafa (315-318) 6. Chattel Mortgage (319) 7. Arson and Other Crimes involving destruction (320-326) 8. Usurpation (312,313) 9. Malicious Mischief (327-331) Purpose of punishing impossible crimes: - to suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies - the penalty is not for the crime itself but for the person’s criminal tendencies


Notes: ·Felony against persons or property should not be actually committed, for otherwise, he would be liable for that felony. There would be no impossible crime to speak of. ·There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. It is always consummated. ·It applies only to grave or less grave felonies. ·Penalty: Arresto Mayor (Art 59)

Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Balmores Facts: Petitioner tore off a portion of a genuine ⅛ unit PCS ticket, removing the real number. Then he wrote in ink on the bottom of the left side the winning number. He presented the ticket to the office to exchange it for money, fraudulently pretending that the ticket was genuine. The fake was discovered. Held: Attempted estafa through falsification of a security, affirmed. While there was deceit, no damage had been made. As long as it hadn’t been cashed, no harm could be done by falsifying a lottery ticket. Also, the petitioner’s illiteracy does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction, and it appeared that he had waived the right to counsel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Intod vs CA Facts: Petitioner fires at the room of a person he wants to kill. The said person, however, is not present in the room at the time of the incident. Held: Petitioner is guilty of an impossible crime. It falls under Art 4 par 2 of the RPC. Impossibility under the said provision is either legal impossibility or factual impossibility. The case at bar falls under factual impossibility. Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. It is physically impossible for the crime to be committed, given that the intended target is not present. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Domasian Facts: One of the defendants in this case tricks a boy to go with him. After being chased by a suspicious tricycle driver and some barangay tanods, the boy was able to escape from the defendant, and he was able to return to his parents who were already looking for him. Shortly thereafter, the parents receive a ransom letter demanding money for the return of the child. Tests show that the letter was from the other defendant in this case. Defendants submit that no crime of kidnapping happened, given that the boy escaped before he was even physically detained. Held: Crime was already committed. The crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention may consist not only in placing a person in an enclosure, but also in detaining him in any manner of his liberty. Although the boy was not confined in an enclosure, he was deprived of his liberty when he was restrained from going home and was dragged by the defendant. Even


before the ransom note was received, the crime of kidnapping had already been committed. The act cannot be considered an impossible crime because there was no inherent improbability of its accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or ineffective means

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Stages of Commission of Felonies Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an 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. Stages of execution: -graduation of penalties on the basis of stages of commission and participation 1. Consummated felony- when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present Act+ Result; Act = A1 + A2 + A3 +A4 2. Frustrated felony Elements: a. The offender performs all the acts of execution b. All the acts performed would produce hte felony as a consequence c. But the felony is not produced. d. By the reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator Act + (- result) 3. Attempted Felony Elements: a. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; b. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;


c. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause or accident other than the offender’s own spontaneous desistance Act = A1 + A2 + A3 - A4 Overt acts- some physical activity or deed, indicating intention to commit a particular crime -more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course will logically ripen into a concrete offense Felony is deemed commenced by overt acts when the following are present: - That there be external acts; - Such external acts have a direct connection with the crime intended to be committed · ·

Internal Acts- Such as mere ideas in the mind of the person; Not punishable External Acts cover preparatory acts and acts of execution

Two stages in the development of a crime: Attempted Stage- marks the commencement of the subjective phase Subjective Phase - that the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he has still control over his acts, including their natural course. If between those two points the offender is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is an attempt. - If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is frustrated. Frustrated Stage- the end of subjective phase and the start of objective phase Objective Phase - is the result of the acts of the execution, that is, the accomplishment of the crime. - If the subjective and objective phases are present, there is a consummated felony. - The spontaneous desistance of the accused is exculpatory only (a) if made during the attempted stage, and (b) provided that the acts already committed do not constitute an offense Factors in determining stage of execution of felony: 1. Nature of the offense 2. Elements constituting the felony 3. Manner of committing the felony

Case: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs Eduave Facts:


The defendant suddenly attacked a girl with a bolo, causing her serious wounds. He thought that he had killed the girl, and threw her into the bushes. He gave himself up and declared that he had killed the girl. The girl, however, turned out to be still alive. Held: Crime committed is frustrated murder and not attempted murder. A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence, but which, nevertheless, do not produce is by reason of causess independent of the will of the perpetrator. An attempted felony, on the other hand, happens when the offender commences the commission of the felony directly by oevrt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which constitute the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his voluntary desistance. In this case, the defendant has already performed all of the acts which should have resulted in the consummated crime and voluntarily desisted from further acts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stages of Execution in Rape · ·

·

The crime of rape is consummated by mere penetration of the male organ no matter how slight In attempted rape, there is the intent to have carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse. Example: when the accused mounted on the body of the victim There is no frustrated rape, only a frustrated rapist =))))

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Orita Facts: The defendant forced the victim to have sex with him inside the room of the victim. The defendant, however, was not able to fully penetrate the victim. The victim was able to escape, and she was able to run to the nearby municipal building. After the incident, a physician examined the victim and found abrasions on her vulva, but noted that the hymen is still intact. Held: Defendant should not be given the sentence of frustrated rape. There is no such thing as frustrated rape. In the crime of rape, a perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ is sufficient. Thus, in this case, the act of rape was already consummated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Campuhan Facts:


A mother finds the accused in the bedroom of her children. The pants and panties of her 4 year old child were already removed, while the shorts of the accused was already down to his knees. A physical examination of the child after the incident shows no evident sign of extra-genital physical injury; her hymen was still intact. Held: Accused is guilty of attempted rape. It was not proven that even a slight penetration had occurred. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Baleros vs People Facts: Petitioner forcefully covered the face of Martina Albano with cloth soaked in dizzying chemical, then lay on top of her with the intention of having carnal knowledge of her, but was unable to perform all acts of execution by some reason beyond his spontaneous desistance. Held: Malice, compulsion or restraint need not be alleged in an Information for unjust vexation. Unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason that the term is broad enough to include any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person. Albano was disturbed, if not distressed, when she cried while relating to her classmates the perceived sexual attack, and filed a case for attempted rape. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Stages of Execution in Robbery/ Theft 1. Both crimes are committed by the taking if the personal property of another and with intent to gain 2. The difference is that in robbery, there is the use of force or violence 3. So long as the act is done, the crime is consummated 4. In robbery with use of force upon things, since the offender must enter the building to commit the crime, he must be able to carry out of the building of the thing taken to consummate the crime 5. In robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, the crime id consummated the moment the offender gets hold of the thing taken and/or is in a position to dispose of it freely ·

It does not matter how long the property was in the possession of the accused

·

Ability to dispose is not a requirement

·

What is important is WON there was unlawful taking

·

No frustrated Theft/ Robbery

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs Adiao Facts: The defendant, a customs inspector, stole a belt from the baggage of a japanese. He hid the belt in his desk where it was found by other customs employees. Held: The defendant is guilty of theft. There is no frustrated theft. The theft was already consummated at the moment the owner was robbed of his possession of the item. The fact that accused was not able to take the belt out of the customs house is not decisive. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Valenzuela vs People Facts: Defendants were sighted outside a supermarket. Petitioner was wearing a Receiving Dispatching Unit ID and hauling a cart full of cases of Tide. Said cases were unloaded in the parking lot, then he returned inside the supermarket and came back with more cases. His co-accused hailed a taxi and they loaded it with the cases. A security guard stopped the taxi and asked for a receipt; upon receiving none, the defendants fled. The guard fired a warning shot and the defendants were apprehended. Held: Theft was consummated in this case, as the detergent was in their possession even for a short period of time, and possession of the stolen goods completes the act of unlawful taking. There is no such thing as frustrated theft.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Lamahang Facts: The defendant was caught making an opening on the wall of a store. He had only succeeded in breaking one board and unfastening another when he was caught. At that time, the owner was sleeping inside with another person. Held: The defendant is not guilty of attempted robbery as the trial court ruled. There is not doubt that in this case, the defendant intended to enter the store by means of violence. However, his intention on what he will do once he enters the store is never shown. Without sufficient evidence, the court cannot just assume that once the accused enters the store, he will commit robbery. He is therefore guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Salvilla Facts: The accused (4 of them) entered the New Iloilo Lumber Yard and demanded money from the owner, Severino. After he gave them the money, his wallet and watch were also taken, and he, his two daughters and an employee were detained as hostages in the office. Later, police and military authorities surrounded the premises, and negotiations began. The employee was released first, and negotiations continued but the accused refused to surrender. The police and military authorities decided to launch an offensive and assaulted the place, injuring two of the accused and Severino’s daughters. Held: The money demanded from Severino, his wallet and watch, and the money received through negotiations all came within the dominion and control of the accused. The fact that there was no opportunity to dispose of the same is unimportant. The unlawful taking was completed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stages of Execution in Murder/ Homicide 1. With intent to kill, but no mortal wound is inflicted—attempted 2. With intent to kill, and mortal wound is inflicted but victim does not die— frustrated 3. With intent to kill and victim dies—consummated ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Sy Pio Facts:


Man shoots three people. Two of them die, while one was able to hide. Though the person who was able to hide was hit by a bullet on his shoulder, he was not chased by the defendant to where he was hiding. What's in question in this case is regarding the shooting of the person who was able to hide, whether the act committed against him is attempted or frustrated. Held: Defendant is guilty of attempted murder, and not frustrated murder. While the intent to kill is proved, the wound inflicted was not necessarily fatal, because it did not touch any of the vital organs of the body. The defendant was able to see the person he shot run away from him. The defendant knew that he had not performed all the necessary acts of execution necessary to kill his victim. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Ravelo Facts: The accused persons captured two men and tortured them. They kill one of the men they captured, and they warned the other person that they will kill him. The person who was not yet killed somehow managed to escape. For the person who was able to escaped, the accused were found by the trial court guilty of frustrated murder. Held: The trial court erred in ruling that the accused are guilty of frustrated murder. Although the accused told the person that he will be killed, such is not sufficient proof of intent to kill. For there to be frustrated murder, the offender must perform all the acts of execution that woulkd produce the felony as a consequence, but the felony is not thereby produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Intent must be shown not only by a statement by the aggressor of the purpose to kill, but also by the execution of all acts and the use of means necessary to deliver the fatal blow while the victim is not placed in a position to defend himself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Kalalo Facts: Marcelo Kalalo and Isabela Holgado had a litigation over a parcel of land, and the former’s complaints were dismissed. He had cultivated the land from 1931-1932 but Isabela reaped everything when harvest time came. One day, Isabela and her brother Arcadio decided to order the land plowed. Marcelo, as well as his brothers Felipe and Juan, his brother-in-law Gregorio Ramos and Alejandro Garcia, came armed with bolos. They ordered the people plowing the land to stop, but later, Marcelino Panaligan, cousin of the Holgados, ordered the work to be continued. Marcelo slashed Arcadio, while Felipe, Juan and Gregorio slashed Marcelino at a remark from the mother of the Kalalos. Arcadio and Marcelino died instantly. Marcelo took Marcelino’s revolver and fired at Hilarion Holgado, who was fleeing. Held: Two homicides and one attempted homicide affirmed. If Marcelino had started the fight with a shot from his revolver, Marcelo should have attacked him first, and the only time he


approached Marcelino was when the latter had already been killed, and Marcelo relieved him of his weapon. None of the appellants received any bullet wounds, and they needed no provocation in order to carry out their intent when they came to the land armed with bolos. Three of the appellants attacked Marcelino (the one armed with a gun) at the same time that Marcelo attacked Arcadio, in conformity with their common intent. Marcelo’s claim of self-defense is untenable because if Marcelino, an expert shot, would have wounded him or the other appellants. Marcelo was also bent on killing Hilario, having fired four shots while the latter fled, although Marcelo failed to hit Hilario. The appellants’ motive of getting rid of those plowing the land which they believed belonged to Marcelo is clear. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Art. 11. Justifying Circumstances RPC. Art. 11. Justifying Circumstances -- The following do not incur any criminal liability (1) Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; First. Unlawful aggression. Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

(2) Any one 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. (3) Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, 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. (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; Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

(5) Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. (6) Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. Concepts: - Imputability is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner; the act committed was freely and consciously done; implies that a deed may be imputed to a person - Responsibility is the obligation of suffering the consequences of crime; obligation of taking the penal and civil consequences of the crime; implies that the person must take the consequences of the deed - Guilt is an element of responsibility - Justifying Circumstances → an act of a person is said to be in accordance with law; → there is no transgression of the law (non -existence of crime); → no criminal and civil liability (except in Par.4, where civil liability is borne by persons benefited by the act)


I. Self-defense What is unlawful aggression? When is it deemed to have ceased? When are the means employed deemed excessive? (1) Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; First. Unlawful aggression. Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. General Rules: - Burden of proof is on the defending-accused - Self-defense includes not only the defense of the persons or body of the one assaulted but also that of his rights (protected by law) -- right to property, right to honor - Note: Rape no longer considered a crime against chastity, reclassified as a crime against persons -destigmatization of rape, doctrinal implication that victims of rape are not “dishonored” - Defense of Property in order to be a justifying circumstance must be accompanied by an attack on the person entrusted with said property →If a person charged with protection of property and there is unlawful aggression, defense of property applies. (1) Mere disturbance of possession: force may be used as long as disturbance continues (2) Invasion consisting of real dispossession: force to regain possession can be used only immediately after the dispossession. If property is immovable, there must be no delay in the use of force to recover it, otherwise the delay will be a bar to one’s right to use force (lawful possessor must go to authorities to recover properties) - Defense of home may obtain in the case of violent entry or robbery with overt acts of aggression (as opposed to fear or desire to escape upon apprehension) because certainly the accused must be prepared not only to steal but also to kill under the circumstances - Basis: It’s impossible for the State to always prevent unlawful aggression upon its citizens; man has a natural instinct to protect or repel his person or rights from impending danger (impulse of selfpreservation) → Classicist: lawful defense is grounded on impossibility on part of the State to avoid a present unjust aggression and protect a person unlawfully attacked → Positivist: lawful defense as an exercise fo a right, an act of social justice done to repel aggression

a. First Requisite: Unlawful aggression on the part of the person injured or killed by the accused. - Unlawful aggression → Requisites: - assault or threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind; - threat must be offensive and positively strong, demonstrative of wrongful intent to cause harm;


- must come directly or indirectly from the person attacked by defending-accused → No unlawful aggression when: - oral threats - threatening posture - mere belief of impending attack - retaliation1 - when there is agreement to fight 2

- Peril to one’s life: actual or imminent danger of death (deadly weapon aimed at vital body part) - Peril to one’s limb or right: imminent danger of bodily harm (physical injuries) - Note: slap on the face is unlawful aggression -- physical assault combined with willful disregard of an individual’s personality - Not unlawful if done in a fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right (e.g. peace officers); unless such is exceeded - E.g. NCC 249: the lawful owner of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment or disposal thereof, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent actual or threated unlawful invasion of his property. - Physical fact (e.g. nature, location, or extent of wound, old people) may determine whether or not self-defense obtains; also: if accused declines to give a statement when surrendering - Belief of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of unlawful aggression (as in US v. Ah Chong)

b. Second Requisite: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it Reasonable Necessity of means - already presupposes unlawful aggression - There is a necessity for the course of action taken by the person making a defense, and the means used -- both must be reasonable, according to obtaining circumstances (e.g. place and occasion of the assault) - Perfect equality not needed. Person defending himself not expected to control his blow, as long as requisites of complete self-defense are present: person can’t be expected to think clearly - Reasonable necessity of means employed to be liberally construed in favor of law-abiding citizens Test of reasonableness -

must be exercised with due care3 nature and quality of weapon used by victima-aggressor and defending-accused physical condition character size place and occasion of assault

1

Retaliation is not self-defense because aggression begun by the injured party already ceased to exist. When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists (unless retreat was to take a more advantageous position) 2

in this case, both are at once assailant and assaulted, neither can invoke self-defense, unless aggression was done unexpectedly (ahead of stipulated time and place) 3

In repelling or preventing unlawful aggression, the one defending must aim at his assailant, and not indiscriminately force his deadly weapon


- When peace officer: duty requires him to overcome his opponent


c. Third Requisite: Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself Test of Lack of Sufficient Provocation - The one defending himself must not have given cause for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by provoking the victim aggressor4 - determined by proportionality to act of aggression and adequacy to stir aggressor to its commission Cases when third requisite is present: (1) When no provocation at all was given (2) when insufficient provocation was given (3) when sufficient provocation was not inflicted by defending-accused (4) when sufficient provocation inflicted by defending-accused was not proximate and immediate to act of aggression

Cases (Self-defense) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Boholst-Caballero (1974) Facts: Cunigunda and Francisco, a married couple, have a history of conflict due to Francisco’s gambling and drinking. There were also instances of Francisco’s abuse & maltreatment towards Cunigunda. Francsico eventually abandoned the family. While Cunigunda was on her way home from caroling one night, Francisco grabbed her and accused her of being a prostitute. He threatened to kill her, held her by her hair, and slapped her until she bled, then pushed her to the ground. He knelt over her and proceeded to choke her. Cunigunda used her right hand to grab Francisco’s knife from the left side of his waist and stabbed him in his left side, just above the thigh. She surrendered herself to the police the next day. Francisco died 2 days later due to the stab wound. Held: SC held that the location of Francisco’s wound supported her testimony -- stab wound was sustained where the knife was drawn. SC also found no motive attributable to Cunigunda, and considered her conduct after the occurrence as indicative of her blamelessness - voluntarily surrendered herself. The requisities of self-defense were present: (1) unlawful aggression: Francisco’s assault constituted imminent danger of death or injury; (2) reasonable necessity of means employed: while being choked, she had no other recourse but to take the knife and stab him; (3) lack of sufficient provocation: Cunigunda had only been caroling that night. Cunigunda was acquitted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Alconga (1947) Facts: Alconga cheated in a game of blackjack with Barion. Barion threatened to serve Alconga “breakfast” because of this. 2 days later, Barion attacked Alconga in his place of work with a sharp bamboo stick. Barion was of stronger build. Alconga, a guard, was armed with a gun and bolo. 4

refers to person defending himself


First stage: none of Barion’s blows made contact, and Alconga ended up shooting Barion, who then pulled out a knife. Eventually, Barion ran away. Second stage: Alconga pursued Barion and killed him with the bolo. Held: SC held that during the first stage, Alconga had been acting in self-defense. During the second stage, the aggression to Alconga ceased when Barion ran away. Alconga presented no evidence to substantiate his alleged belief that Barion had run away to fetch another weapon. Alconga is guilty of homicide. Dissenting (Paras & Perfecto): Witness testimony showed that Alconga never pursued Barion, so that the fight was continuous and uninterrupted. The wound he inflicted during the “first stage” was already fatal. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------U.S. v. Mack (1907) Facts: Mack (U.S. soldier) was order by Indic (municipal policeman) to return to his quarters. Mack refused, and words were exchanged. Indic, incensed, took out his bolo and brandished it in a threatening manner while approaching Mack. Mack then drew his gun and shot Indic (1) in the left breast and (2) in the back of the head. TC ruled it incomplete self-defense given lack of proof showing reasonable necessity of means employed -- Mack could have just dodged Indic’s bolo or shot him in a less vital body part, Indic had been drunk, revolver clearly trumped bolo, and Mack was of stronger build. Held: SC held that all requisites of self-defense were present. There was no reasonable ground for believing the Mack could have escaped safely (they were in an alleyway), bolos are formidable weapons especially if reinforced by bearer’s inebriation. Mack could not have been expected to take deliberate and careful aim of a less vital part of Indic’s body given the fact that it was nighttime, and there was little distance between him and the advancing Indic. Also, the shots were fired in rapid succession -- Mack did not have time to determine whether or not Indic’s aggression had ceased. Mack was acquitted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Sumicad (1932) Facts: Cubol (stronger build, mean reputation & a criminal record) refused to pay Sumicad for services rendered -- insults were exchanged and Cubol ended up punching Sumicad, who attempted to back away, but was eventaully cornered. Sumicad then hit Cubol’s right should with his bolo. Held: The SC held that at this point, Cubol should have taken heed and desisted, but he tried to wrest the bolo away from Sumicad instead. Sumicad could not have given up the bolo because such would be tantamount to suicide, so he hacked at Cubol twice more,


which led to the latter’s death. The SC held that the quarrel which resulted in Cubol’s death was of his own making (lack of sufficient provocation on Sumicad’s part and unlawful aggression on Cubol’s), and that Sumicad was justified in using the bolo as he had been cornered and that was the only means available to him (reasonable necessity of means). Sumicad acquitted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Genosa (2004) Facts: Marivic, pregnant, went looking for her husband Ben, as she was afraid he was gambling his salary away. They have a long history of conflict and abuse. She eventually found him back home. Ben provoked her, she tried to ignore him, and he ended up cutting their TV wire and scaring their kids. Ben attempted to attack her, but she got away. he then left. She packed his clothes. When he saw this upon returning, he dragged her out of the bedroom in a chokehold to a drawer containing a gun. The drawer was locked, so Ben reached for the blade he kept in his wallet. Marivic smashed him with a lead pipe and got away. Later, while he was sleeping, she got a gun and shot him dead. Held: The SC held that this was not self-defense, but Marivic incurred mitigated criminal liability given the extenuating circumstance of passion & obfuscation resulting from the the violent aggression inflicted by Ben prior to the killing, and her psychological paralysis resulting from the cyclical nature & severity of Ben’s abuse. The SC held that there was no proof of the 3 phases of Battered Woman Syndrome (see box below) as regular or frequent occurrences. Evidence of BWS must be in context of self-defense; in this case, the unlawful aggression of Ben ceased when she escaped and he went to sleep. There was no imminent or actual threat against her when she shot him. Marivic was convicted of parricide. Dissenting (Ynares-Santiago) Defense was able to establish the occurrence of the tension-building & tranquil phases on more than 1 occasion (witness testimonies). Ponencia required Marivic to prove Ben’s state of mind (impossible!). All 3 phases made Marivic believe that a forthcoming attack would kill her (corroborated by her medical history). Imminent unlawful aggression affects psyche of battered woman, keeps her in constant fear for her life. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Battered Woman Syndrome - Refers to women who are repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights. - includes wives or any women in any form of intimate relationship with men. The couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. - Battered women exhibit: low self-esteem, traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the female sex role; emotional dependence on the dominant male; - the tendency to accept responsibility for the batterer’s actions; and false hopes that the relationship will improve. The cycle of violence:


● Tension-building phase: minor battering (verbal or slight physical abuse or general hostile behavior or general hostile behavior); woman tries to placate the man and allows herself to be abused. ● Acute battering incident: woman withdraws emotionally, and violence escalates; incident is characterized by brutality and sometimes death ● Tranquil phase: man becomes tender and nurturing, begs for woman’s forgiveness; woman convinces herself that he means it. - The cyclical nature of violence inflicted on battered woman immobilizes her to act decisively in her own interests—she feels trapped with no means of escape, possibly resulting in post-traumatic stress disorder.

Sec. 26, RA No. 9262 (Anti-violence Against Women Children Act): BWS as a defense. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from BWS do not incur any criminal & civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC. In the determination of the state of mind of the women suffering from BWS at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists or psychologists. ● Intended to remedy the limitation of Genosa ● Badly phrased: doesn’t specify or qualify elements of justifying circumstance of selfdefense ● Self-defense hinged on reasonable of present circumstances: BWS framework is characterized by psychological disorder; no reasonable belief, would afford blanket absolution (law doesn’t distinguish)

Cases (Defense of Honor) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Luague (1935) Facts: Natividad was staying at home while her husband was in a neighbor’s house when Paulino came in and attempted to rape her. Natividad retreated into the kitchen, but Paulino followed. He drew a knife and threatened her. As he started to grope her, he dropped the knife to the floor. Natividad took the knife and stabbed him in the abdomen. Paulino pulled away from her and escaped by jumping through a window. Natividad surrendered herself. Held: Citing Viada, SC held that right to honor is prized by man’s patrimony. Attempted rape was sufficient unlawful aggression to put a woman in a state of self-defense. There was imminent danger and no help had been forthcoming. Also, Natividad had no previous criminal record or proven violent reputation. The defensive measure used by her was circumstantial and reasonable. Natividad was acquitted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Dela Cruz (1935) Facts:


Remedios was with her friends, walking in single fine with her at the end on the way home from a wake. They were followed by Francisico and his friend. Francisco suddenly threw his arms around her from behind, groped her, and tried to throw her down. She tried to cry out, but no one heard, so she drew a knife (she had it in her pocket because she was a fruit seller) and stabbed him under his right breast. She went back to the wake and confessed to the killing Held: There was no evidence of ill will between Remedios and Francisco. She had only stabbed him once and desisted in other acts of violence. Remedios was an illiterate barrio girl and not capable of fabrication. Given the facts as she perceived them (Francisco too strong, it was dark, no help was forthcoming), her actions were justified. Remedios acquitted -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Jaurigue (1946) Facts: Amado was a denied suitor of Avelina. There were 5 aggregate instances that eventually built up into a climax. 1) He stole her hadnkerchief; 2) He accosted her as she was feeding a dog; 3) He snuck into her bedroom at night to touch her forehead; 4) He spread rumors and boasted that they will elope together. While in church, Amado sat down beside her and put his hand on her right thigh. Avelina pulled out her fan knife with her right hand intending to injure his offending hand, but Amado seized her right hand. She transferred the knife to her left hand and stabbed Amado in the neck. Amado died and Avelina surrendered herself. Held: Given the circumstances (brightly lit church with lots of people including officials), there was no immediate or imminent possibility of Avelina getting raped. The means she employed in defensed of her honor was excessive. She was convicted of homicide. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cases (Defense of Property) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Apolinar (1938) Facts: Apolinar was watching over his land when he noticed a man (Petras) carrying a bundle. Believing that he was a thief, Apolinar called to him, but he was ignored. Apolinar then fired in the air with his shotgun, and then at Petras, who still managed to flee. Held: SC held that while Petras was stealing from Apolinar, the latter was not justified in killing Petras. The right to property is not of such importance as right to life. Defense of property can only be invoked as a justifying cirucmstance when it is coupled with an attack on one’s person. Apolinar convicted of homicide.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US v. Bumanglag (1909) Facts: Bumanglag noticed 40 bundles of rice were missing from his granary. He found them in an enclosed field, and decided to stake the place out to identify the culpreit. At night, Ribis came to take the rice. Bumanglag and his 3 companions then assaulted him with sticks and stabbing weapons. Ribis died instantly. Held: Evidence showed that Ribis had a bolo, but it remained unsheathed. Defense of property can only be invoked when combined with unlawful aggression on one’s person. Dissenting (Moreland): If there is a well-grounded belief that a person is in imminent danger of death or bodily harm, and attempt to defend himself by means which appear reasonably necessary is justifiable -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Narvaez (1983) Facts: Narvaez discovered that Fleischer and Rubia were attempting to fence of his property, which would have resulted in the disruption of his livelihood and home. Narvaez tried to talkt ot hem first, but they ignored him, so he got his gun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the jeep, and Narvaez shot him to prevent him from getting his gun. Held: SC determined that the incident was preceded by a drawn-out land dispute bet. Narvaez and Fleischer, which gave Narvaez a reasonable belief that he might be awarded the land in question. There was aggression against Narvaez’s property rights, and a lack of sufficient provocation on his part. The means he employed, however, were not reasonable or proportionate to the aggression. Narvaez was convicted of 2 counts of homicide. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cases (Defense of Reputation) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Chua Hiong (1954) Facts: Gocheco and his family lost in a civil case filed against them by Chua. In retaliation, Gocheco initiated a persecution campaign against Chua , assailing his Filipino citizenship and reputation, by writing letters to officials and causing the publication of a defamatory article in a newspaper. Chua then wrote his own article, attacking Gocheco and exposing his true motives.


Held: SC held that any attempt to attack Chua’s citizenship should be met with defense, as such was the basis of his livelihood. Unlawful aggression in libel is continuing as the information may be reproduced indefinitely. Chua’s self-defense was justified: libelous remarks made assailed Gocheco’s credibility and demonstrated his motives. Chua acquitted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Pelayo (1966) Facts: Pelayo indirectly accused Gov. Almendras of extorting money from gambling operators: (1) he told a colleague within hearing distance of others, and (2) he gave a privileged speech at the city councile about the issue without naming names. Held: SC held that Pelayo did not make any statements in self-defense (given Almendras’ alleged previous defamatory remarks against Pelayo) as his statements were neither done directly nor publicly. Also, they were independent of Almendras’s alleged remarks about him. For self-defense to obtain, statements should be made to clarify or repair the effects of the defamatory remarks. They must be necessary for his explanation or defense. Pelayo is convicted of light oral defamation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Defense of Relative (2) Any one 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. General Rules - Relatives by affinity: relatives because of marriage; in-laws; death of spouse terminates relationship by affinity, unless the marriage bore children still living - Relatives by consanguinity: by blood, 4th civil degree are first cousins - Basis: Founded upon a humanitarian sentiment, but also the impulse of blood Requisites: (First 2 are the same as those of self-defense) (1) Unlawful aggression (2) Reasonable necessity of means employed (3) The one making the defense had no part in the provocation → applies to the situation where relative gave the provocation → accused (who defended relative) cannot have been motivated by revenge or resentment

Case (Defense of Relative) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


U.S. v. Esmedia (1910) Facts: Santiago was working in a rice field upon orders from his father, Ciriaco. Gregorio appeared and started a quarrel, based on a subsistiing land dispute between their 2 families. Gregorio drew a dagger and stabbed Santiago in the back; Santiago retaliated with his bolo. On seeing their father being attacked by Santiago, Ponciano and Mena attacked and killed Santiago, Ciriaco approached, and they killed him too. Held: The SC held that Ponciano and Mena were justified in killing Santiago as this was done in defense of their father. They were not justified in killing Ciriaco as he had presented no threat against them (old and unarmed)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Defense of Stranger (3) Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, 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. General Rules - Basis: What one may do in his defense, another may do for him. The ordinary man would not stand idly by and see his companion killed without attempting to save his life. Requisites: (First 2 are the same as those of self-defense) (1) Unlawful aggression (2) Reasonable necessity of means employed (3) The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive → does not apply if defense of the stranger prompted by grudge → giving weapon to someone in serious danger of being attacked is defense of stranger

IV. Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury (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; Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. General Rules - covers injury to persons and damage to property - civil liability is borne by the persons benefited - the greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or the imprudence of the actor - evil must not be a result from a violation of law by the actor


- NOTE: stopping someone armed from defending a relative being beaten to death does not constitute avoidance of a greater evil where such was done to ensure the death of the relative without risk to his assailants Requisites (1) evil to be avoided actually exists;

5

(2) The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it6 (3) There be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it

Cases (Avoidance of a Greater Evil) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Norma Hernandez (1959) Facts: Norma was charged with serious slander by deed for leaving her fiance, after extensive wedding preparations were made and guests had arrived. Held: The SC held that she had done so without malice (essential requisites of slander), and she was well within her rights to avoid the greater evil of a loveless marriage, as marriage should be predicated on the parties’ full & free consent. Norma had no other means available to her, as her parents had been dead-set on the marriage. Norma acquitted.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Regina v. Dudley (1884) Facts: Dudley, Stephens, Brooks, and Parker were cast away in open sea and took shelter in a lifeboat. After nearly 20 days, Dudley and Stephens decided to eat Parker, as was the weakest and the youngest among the gorup. Dudley slit the boy’s throat, and they all fed upon him. They were all rescued 4 days later. Held: The court held that necessity contemplated in survival cannibalism is not provided for by law, not necessity according to law. In the same vein: the extreme necessity of hunger would not justify larceny, what more murder? An absolute divorce of law from morality would be of fatal consequence. Self-preservation may be a duty, but this is trumped by the duty to sacrifice one’s own life. There is no absolute necessity to preserve one’s own life. Guilty of murder.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ty v. People (2004) Facts: Vicky issued bouncing checks to the hospital for the payment of hospitalization of her mother and sister. Held: 5

cannot be merely expected or anticipated; NOTE: Abortion to save the mother’s life may be held excusable 6

instinct of self-preservation will always make one feel that his own safety is of greater importance than another


SC held that there was no necessity of avoidance of a greater evil: evil sought to be was merely speculative, she had other options (jewelry and other forms of scurity), and the greater injury should not have been brought about by her negligence or imprudence. There was also no uncontrollable fear on her part: fear invoked was not so imminent as to deprive her of all volition and to make her a mere instrument without will.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office General Rules - Even though unlawful aggression already ceased to exist and even if the public officer is an aggressor, such aggession is lawful - Lawful exercise of right: If a person charged with protection of property and there is unlawful aggression, defense of property applies (repeated from defense of property) (1) Mere disturbance of possession: force may be used as long as disturbance continues (2) Invasion consisting of real dispossession: force to regain possession can be used only immediately after the dispossession. If property is immovable, there must be no delay in the use of force to recover it, otherwise the delay will be a bar to one’s right to use force (lawful possessor must go to authorities to recover properties) - Lawful exercise of office: e.g. executioners, surgeons Requisites (1) Accused acted in the performance of a duty in the lawful exercise of a right or office → duty of peace officers to arrest violators of the law; duty extends to prevention of crimes about to be consummated → presumption that official duty has been regularly performed,unless there is evidence to the contrary

(2) Injury cause or the offense committed be the necessary conseuqnce of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office → officer never justified in using unnecessary force, wanton violence, or dangerous means when arrest could be effected otherwise → officer cannot exceed duty or been negligent in the exercise of such duty

Cases (Fulfillment of Duty) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Delima (1922) Facts: The policeman Deliman attempted to apprehend the escaped convict Napilion, who was armed with a bamboo lance. Napilon resisted, and Delima fired a warning shot. Napilon tried to escape, and Delima ended up shooting him dead. Held: SC held that the killing had been done in the performance of a duty; Napilon was under the obligation to surrender and had no right to evade serving his sentence. Napilon’s assault on Delima prompted the latter to resort to extreme means. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


People v. Belbes (2000) Facts: Belbes, tasked with watching over a high school prom, was told of a disturbance happening outside. Armed with an armalite, he found a drunk student breaking a bamboo fence while vomiting. Belbes shot him dead. Held: SC held that the 1st requisite of fulfillment of duty was present, but the 2nd was not: Belbes exceeded his duty, which was to maintain peace and order. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose (6) Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. Requisites: (1) The order has been issued by a superior → both person who gives the order and the person who executes it must be acting within the limitations prescribed by law

(2) Such order must be for some lawful purpose → otherwise, the obeying subordinate is criminally liable → subordinate not liable if he has no knowledge of illegality of order (no criminal intent) & if he his not negligent

(3) That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful

Case (Lawful order of superior) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Beronilla (1955) Facts: Beronilla, a military mayor, received an order from Lt. Col. Arnold to convene a jury of bolomen and prosecute Borjal for treason. The jury found Borjal guilty and his execution was carried out. Beronilla, however, did not know that Arnold’s superior ordered a stay on Borjal’s execution as he considered it illegal. Held: SC held that Beronilla had exercised due care in carrying out Arnold’s initial orders, and that he had done so in good faith. No criminal intent was established. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Art. 12. Exempting Circumstances


RPC. Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability — the following are 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 in 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. 2. A person under nine years of age. 3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80. 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. 5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force. 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. 7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause. - In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises. Due to complete absence of any of the condition which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arises.

A. Insanity (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 in 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.

Imbecile

Insane

- exempt in all cases from criminal liability

- not exempt if proven that he acted during a lucid interval(acts with intelligence

- mental development of between 2-7 yrs. Old - deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime

- complete deprivation of intelligence - acts without the least discernment - total deprivation of freedom of will *mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough especially if offender has not lost consciousness of his acts

Procedure when an imbecile/insane person commits a felony: → Court orders forced confinement in a hospital or asylum - Person cannot leave without obtaining permission of the court - Court will only give permission after obtaining opinion of the Director of Health that person may be released without danger - Presumption is always in favor of sanity and burden of proof of insanity is with the defense Evidence necessary to show insanity: 1. Total lack of motive 2. Condition of person’s mind before and after the commission of the crime → If insanity is occasional and intermittent, presumption of its continuance does not arise → If person is shown to have lucid intervals, it will be presumed that the act was committed during one. - Circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing, will suffice. - If a person becomes insane at the time of the trial, he is still liable criminally but the trial will be suspended until the mental capacity of the accused is restored. - It must be proven to have existed before and during the commission of the crime Sicknesses covered by insanity: Dementia praecox Schizophrenia Kleptomania (No case like this yet in the Phils.) Epilepsy Sicknesses covered by lack of intelligence: Somnambulism (sleepwalking) Malignant Malaria

Cases (insanity) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Bonoan Facts: Bonan was charged with the murder of Guison. Bonoan stabbed the latter when he refused to pay the P50 debt he owed the former. Bonoans arraignment and subsequent trial were delayed a few times because the accused was mentally deranged and at the time confined in the Psychopathic Hospital. The accused had also been confined in the insane


department of the San Lazaro hospital for Dementia Praecox in 1922 and in 1926. He was exempted from criminal liability Held: Dementia praecox is covered by the term insanity. When a person is suffering from DP, homicidal attack is common because of delusions, also due to these delusions, he is incapable of comprehending and appreciating norms. During the period of excitement, such person has no control over his actions. History of the patient was looked at and it has been proven that the accused has been suffering from insomnia 4 days before the commission of the crime. *Among all the cases assigned for insanity, this is the only one which admits it as an exempting circumstance. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Ambal Facts: Felicula, wife of Ambal, was found almost dead with 7 incised wounds in different parts of her body. Ambal surrendered to a policeman confessing that he killed his wife. Right before the incident, a fight arose after she failed to buy him medicine for his influenza. According to Ambal he knew that his wife was already dead but didn’t know that he was the one who caused her death. He alleges that he was not in full possession of his normal mental faculties during the incident. Held: Presumption is always in favor of sanity; burden of proof is on the one invoking the exempting circumstance of insanity. It was held that there must be no intelligence at the time the crime was committed and that mere abnormality of his mental capacity does not exempt him from criminal liability. The fact that he surrendered meant that he knew that what he did was wrong

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Puno Facts: Puno entered a bedroom in the house of Aling Kikay, he slapped her and struck her several times on the head with a hammer until she was dead. Two witnesses were present who testified that Puno’s eyes were red, and his look was baleful and menacing. He threatened the 2 and told them not to go to the police. One of the witnesses still notified the police about the incident. Puno was surrendered to the police by his father and was brought to the National Mental Hospital. He testified that he did not remember having killed Aling Kikay and invoked insanity as a defense. There were testimonies of his weird behavior prior to the incident. All experts called on by the defense testified that he acted with discernment. Held: He was not legally insane when he committed the crime. When insanity is alleged, the clear and positive evidence must refer to the time preceding the act or the very moment of its execution. There must be complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act.In this case, it was held that mere abnormality of mental faculties will not exclude one form criminal liability.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Dungo


Facts: Dungo went to Sigua’s office, after a brief talk, he drew the knife concealed inside the envelope he was carrying and stabbed Sigua several times. Prior to the incident, husband of victim testified that Dungo inquired from him why the victim was requiring so many documents from him. The wife of the accused also noticed that the accused appears to be in deep thought always, maltreated their children and would inform her that his feet and head were on fire, when in fact they were not. After the incident, his wife asked him why he did it, he replied by saying that if he had not done it he would have died because of cancer. Dungo has a history of being psychotic or insane and reportedly was during and after the crime. Held: Again, complete deprivation of intelligence is needed to be proved for insanity to be appreciated as a defense. The court held that perverted condition of the mental faculties is manifested in language or conduct from which we can determine whether one is insane or not. It was also held that presumption is always in favor of sanity and in case the accused fails to prove insanity clearly and satisfactorily before the defendant can be acquitted which in this case he failed to do.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Yam-id Facts: 2 children passed by Yam-id’s house who greeted them. After which Yam-id drew a long bolo and ran after the 2. He was able to stab one on the left portion of his back whom he held by the hair and hacked on the nape. As the kid fell to the ground he further stabbed him then he knelt beside the body and sucked the blood from his neck. When the kid’s father asked the accused where the kid was, he replied “I will kill all of you” and immediately hacked the father. Accused invoking schizophrenia as a defense Held: He failed to prove that he was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. There was no medical certificate to prove his claim. Aside from that, no evidence was presented that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. The nonmedical opinion of the attorney from PAO does not suffice to prove insanity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Belonio Facts: Tamayo was buying cigarettes when Randy tried to force his way in front of the store and bumped Ramy, to whom he gave a long hard look. The accused again came over and asked Ramy for a cigarette lighter and conversed with him. The accused left again but after a few minutes he returned. Without warning the accused hit him with a dagger which was concealed in his hand, and hit Ramy on his right chest. Randy invoked insanity, provided evidence by way of the expert assessment of his doctor who certified that accused is suffering from schizophrenia based on interviews after the incident. Held: Evidence was insufficient. Belonio after the commission escaped and went into hiding. This proved that he knew that what he did was wrong thus capable of distinguishing right from (discernment). The testimony of the doctor only looked at the actions after the commission and not those before and during the crime.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


People v. Taneo (somnambulism) Facts: Taneo suddenly got up while sleeping, left the room with a bolo in hand and upon meeting his wife, who was trying to stop hi, wounded here in the abdomen. He also attacked guests and also tried to attack his father before wounding himself. On the day of the crime, accused went to bed early afternoon. He dreamt that collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while Abadila held his feet. He got up since it seemed that his enemies were inviting him to come down, so he armed himself with a bolo. At the door, he met his wife who seemed to say to him that she was wounded. As his enemies seemed to multiply around him, he attacked everybody that came his way. Held: He was found to have acted while in a dream, acts weren’t voluntary. Lack of motive was considered. Doctor stated that defendant acted while in a dream, under the influence of a hallucination and was not in his right mind during the incident. He was sent to the government insane asylum and will not be released until the director finds that his liberty would no longer constitute a menace. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Minority (2) A person under 9 years of age - minor is exempt from criminal liability just by proving his age - Based on complete absence of intelligence - Modified by RA 9344. Raised the age of responsibility from 9 to 15.

(3) A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80. - Children above 15 but below 18 who acted without discernment are exempt from criminal liability - there is always a presumption that the minor acted without discernment and so the burden of proof of proving that the minor acted with discernment is on the prosecution Periods of Criminal Liability: - Age of absolute irresponsibility: 9 yrs old and below - Age of conditional responsibility: between 9 and 15 - Age of full responsibility: 18 to 70 - Age of senility: over 70 Discernment: - mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong - such capacity determined by taking consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case


Discernment and Intent distinguished:

Intent

Discernment - Mental process within a person

- Same

- relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to the said act

- relates to the desired act of the person

How Discernment is shown: 1. By manner of committing the crime → circumstances in the case will be considered 2. By conduct of offender → Appearance, attitude, comportment and behavior of minor before, during and after the trial (People v. Doquena) Determination of age: - Child in conflict with the law shall enjoy presumption of minority - May be proven through: birth certificate; baptismal certificate; or any other pertinent documents. - In the absence of such, testimonies of other persons, physical appearance, and other relevant evidence may be considered. → Contests regarding age are filed in a summary proceeding for the determination of age before the Family Court RA 9344 sections 6-7,58: - age of absolute irresponsibility from 9-15 - Sec. 6: child 15 or under at the time of commission shall be exempt from criminal liability but shall be subject to an intervention program

Cases (Minority) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Doquena Facts: Accused intercepted the volleyball while Ragojos and Rarang were playing. He threw the ball to Ragojos who was hit in the stomach. Ragojos chased after him and later was able to catch Doquena, he slapped him on the nape, and punched him in the face. Ragojos went back to resume playing when he was confronted by Doquena who was hiding a knife he got from his cousin. Doquena stabbed the unaware Ragojos in the ches, thereby killing hi,. The accused was one of the brightest in his school and captain of the cadet corps. Held: Accused acted with discernment and is criminally liable. He used a weapon which showed that he acted with discernment. The facts of the case proved that he acted with discernment before (accused was an achiever), during (treachery; concealment of weapon) and after (trial) the crime. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Navarro Facts: Navarro: 13y, 11m & 3days old at that time was asked by his sister to look after her sidewalk store. She was approached by Mendoza and Santos who asked how much a tin of Hershey’s Cocoa was. She sait it was P1.20, the 2 bought it. Immediately after, they arrested Navarro for violation of the Anti-Profiteering Law since the ceiling price for the can was only P1.10. the two were in fact agents of the Price enforcement division of the PRISCO. Luisa was sentenced to be committed to the care of the Philippine training school for girls in Mandaluyong to be confined there until she reaches the age of majority. Held:


The mentioned provision is a special law; RPC not applicable, but the RPC can supplement the special law if there’s no provision on punishment therefore, she should be exempted based on her age. Absurdity results if the child is not exempt for a crime such as this imposed by a special law but be exempt if she committed a crime of homicide under the RPC. Navarro did not act with discernment; the concept of ceiling price was too complicated for a child her age. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jose v. People Facts: Jose and Zarraga were charged with violation of RA6425 or the Dangerous Drugs act. Jose was 13 yrs. Old at the time of the commission of the crime. The court only considered his minority as a mitigating circumstance. Held: Burden of proof that the child acted with discernment was on the prosecution. In this case, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove this their only proof was that the kid was inside the car and handed the bag of shabu.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Llave v. people Facts: Llave pulled debbielyn behind a pile of hollow blocks which was in front of the vacant house. She resisted but to no avail. He went on top of her and forced himself into Debbielyn. She felt pain and cried. At the time there were people on the street near the vacant house. The vendor who lives next to the vacant house hears cries and saw the two. He shouted at the kid who fled the scene. The accused was found at his grandmother’s house. It turns out that Llave is an outstanding student. He denied having raped her and provided an alibi. Held: On whether he acted with discernment, his acts during the crime shows that he in fact knew that what he was doing was wrong: He dragged the girl to a vacant house where the passerby would not be able to discover his actions. He fled the scene; He fled the scene right after being caught; he remained hidden in his grandmother’s house; and that he was an outstanding student.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Accident How is accident distinguished from imprudence or negligence? (4) Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. Requisites: 1. A person is performing a lawful act; 2. With due care; 3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident; 4. without fault or intention of causing it. Accident, defined: - Something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bound of humanly foreseeable consequences. - There must be no intention to commit the wrong done - an accidental result flowing out of a legal act. Accident

Imprudence/Negligence


-unforeseeable consequence of a lawful act

-foreseeable consequence which occurred due to lack of skill or care of the person.

- Basis of this exempting circumstance is the lack of negligence and intent. The person does not commit either an intentional felony or a culpable felony. -ATM: applies only to very few circumstances.

Cases (accident) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People v. Bindoy Facts: Bindoy and Pacas were fighting for the the bolo of Bindoy after a conflict arose between the 2 and Pacas’ wife. This caught the attention of Emigdio Omamdam. Bindoy was able to wrench away the bolo away but with such force that it reached Omamdam’s chest who was behind him. Held: No evidence to prove that he deliberately and intentionally killed Omamdam. There wasn’t even any evidence to show that Bindoy knew that Omamdam was behind him. The two were nephew and uncle and had no ill feelings towards each other. He was trying to get back his bolo which was perfectly lawful.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US v. Tanedo Facts: The accused went to hunt for wild chickens. The deceased suggested a good place for hunting. Upon seeing one, he shot one but simultaneously heard someone cry out in pain. Upon seeing the victim injured, he went back and asked one of his workers to help him hide the body inside a well. Only one shot was fired but he was able to kill a chicken and a man. Held: Only one shot was fired but was able to hit 2 things. No evidence of negligence on the part of the accused, nor is it disputed that the accused was engaged in a legal act, nor is there evidence that the accused intended to kill the deceased. The only thing suspicious is his denial and the act of concealment of the body.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pomoy v. People Facts: Pomoy directed Balboa to come out of detention for tactical interrogation. Petitioner at that time had a .45 caliber pistol tucked in its holster. As he was holding the doorknob with his right hand to open the door, the victim allegedly approached him and tried to grab his gun. They grappled to gain possession of the gun, after it was removed from the holster it fired, killing Balboa Held: Pomoy held to be acting with due care. All his actions even up to the point of wrestling for the possession of the gun were all considered lawful performance of his duty. There


were witnesses to prove his story. He had no intent to harm the victim and when the gun went off, he was not in control of the gun. / *Prof. Muyot and Mr. Ruaro disagreed with the decision. A case of ‘salvage’

D. Irresistible Force/ Uncontrollable Fear (5) Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force. Elements: 1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force; 2. That the physical force must be irresistible; 3. That the physical force must come from a third person. - It must produce such an effect on the individual that in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument. - The force used must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. → If the person himself is armed, no irresistible force (goes against the presumption that he had no opportunity for escape or self-defense). - Irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion, or obfuscation. Again, it must come from a third person. - The one liable is the one who forced the agent. - Basis: complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness

(6) Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. Elements: 1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which he is required to commit; 2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it. Requisites before it could be invoked: a. Existence of an uncontrollable fear; b. The fear must be real and imminent; and c. The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed. -Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb. Not speculative, fanciful or remote fear. - Threat of future injury is not enough - Compulsion must leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. Distinguished from Irresistible force: Irresistible force - the offender uses violence or physical force to compel another person to commit a crime Basis: Complete absence of freedom

Uncontrollable fear - the offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to commit a crime


→ Actus me invite factus non est meus actus(an act done by me against my will is not my act)

Case (Irresistible force) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US v. Caballeros Facts: Four American school teachers were murdered and buried. Baculi and Caballeros were convicted as accessories to the crime of assassination or murder, having buried the victims to conceal the crime. They alleged that they were coerced. One of them was hit with the butts of the guns of their guns while another accused confessed by the promise that nothing would be done to them. Held: The evidence does not justify the sentence. The Penal code exempts from liability any person who performs the act by reason of irresistible force. Also, confessions that do not appear to have been made freely and voluntarily, without force, intimidation or promise of pardon cannot be accepted as proof during a trial. Finally, the fact that the defendants did not report the perpetration of the crime to authorities is not punished by the Penal Code

Case(Uncontrollable fear)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US v. Exaltacion Facts: Exaltacion and Tanchinco were charged with rebellion. They alleged that they were captured by armed bandits and were compelled to sign the contracts under the threat of death Held: The two were acquitted. Evidence against them was not sufficient to prove guilt. The fact that they signed the documents under compulsion while in captivity relieved them from all criminal liability. Conduct of the accused corroborative of their innocence and that the guilt of the defendants was not established beyond reasonable doubt. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Insuperable Cause (7) Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause. Elements: 1. That an act is required by law to be done; 2. That a person fails to perform such act; 3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable case. Basis: Lack of intent. In all the exempting circumstances, intent is wanting in the agent of the crime - Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence → Lack of intelligence: par. 1, 2 and 3. → Lack of freedom of action: par. 5 and 6 → par. 4: specifically stated that the actor causes an injury by mere accident without intention of causing it → par. 7: basis of which is that the agents acts without intent.


Cases (Insuperable Cause) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US v. Vincentillo Facts: Vincentillo was being accused of illegal and arbitrary detention for keeping the witness for 2 days. SC found him not guilty and acquitted him of the crimes charged. Held: Isidro arrested him in the exercise of his duty as municipal president who had all the usual powers of a police officer for the making of arrests without warrant. It must be noted that the offense charged against the complainant was made in the presence of Isidro. The 3 day delay in bringing him to the proper judicial authority for the investigation and trial of the charge on which he was arrested is acceptable since at the time of the arrest, neither the local justice of the peace nor his auxiliary were in the municipality. To reach the justice of the peace of either of the two adjoining municipalities, one had to take a long journey by boat. Further delays were due to a lost written complaint and local conditions which are both reasonable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Bandian Facts: Bandian was supposed to be doing number 2 but instead she gave birth, a neighbor found her and brought her to her house. The baby was found on the path near the thicket where she was found. The doctor claimed that she gave birth in her house and just threw the baby outside her house. Held: It was held that she was not aware of her childbirth, or if she was, it did not occur to her or she was unable, due to her debility or dizziness, which cause may be considered lawful or insuperable to constitute the 7th exempting circumstance. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Absolutory Causes Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstances: Justifying Circumstances

Exempting Circumstances

-Tthe person does not commit any crime in the eyes of the law

- There is a crime but no criminal.

- Nothing unlawful in the act as well as in the intention of the actor. The act is just and lawful.

- The act is not justified, but the actor is not criminally liable. There is civil liability except in pars. 4 and 7.

Definition: - Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed


-Justifying and Exempting circumstances are examples of Absolutory causes.

Other absolutory causes: - Art. 6: spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced the commission of a felony before he could perform all the acts of execution -Art. 20: Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. Exception: those who were able to profit from assisting the offenders -Art. 124 - Art. 247: husband killing his wife whom he caught having sex with another man. Penalty is destierro. -Art. 280 par.3: related to trespass to dwelling. Provisions not applicable if the person entered the dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm. - Art. 332: only civil liability shall result from the commission of theft, swindling or malicious mischief if committed by the ff: spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity of the same degree; widowed spouse with respect to the peroperty which belonged to the deceased spouse before it was passed into the possession of another; brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sister-in-law, if living together. - Art 334, par.4: abuser marrying the abused in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape.

G. Instigation - a condemned practice that warrants the acquittal of the accused. - A public officer or a private detective induces an innocent person to commit a crime and would arrest him upon or after the commission of the crime by the latter. - It must be made by public officers or private detectives. If it is made by a private individual, both he and the criminal are criminally liable. (principle by induction and principal by direct participation). - the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests it to the accused who adopts it and carry it into execution. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US v. Phelps Facts: Phelps was instigated by Smith, an employee of the BIR, into procuring opium and providing for a venue in which to smoke the opium. He was the first to introduce the idea of smoking opium by directly asking it from Phelps. Immediately upon Phelps commission of the crime under Smith’s inducement, Smith reported Phelps and had him arrested. Phelps had himself examined immediately and it was found that he himself did not smoke. Held: Phelps was induced by Smith into making arrangements for the 2 of them to smoke opium. Smith not only suggested the commission of the crime bit also expressed his desire to commit the offense in paying the amount required for the arrangements. Such acts done by employees of gov’t in encouraging or inducing persons to commit a crime in order to prosecute them should not be encouraged by the courts. Phelps cannot be held guilty of the crime -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Entrapment - this is not an absolutory cause which means that the accused is still criminally liable


- entrapment is done when ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan. - this is no bar to prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker. - the idea and the resolve to commit the crime come from the accused

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Lua Chu Facts: Uy Se Tieng, was the consignee of the Shipments of Opium coming from Hong Kong, who represented agents of the real owners of shipments of opium containing 3,252 tins. He collaborated with Samson and Natividad of the Customs by paying them an amount of P6k for the opium to be released safely from customs When the Opium arrived in Cebu. Samson informed the constabulary represented by Captain Buencosejo &the provincial Fiscal and requested a stenographer to take down the conversations between Samson & Uy. Cpatain Buencosejo and a stenographer named Jumapao hid themselves behind the curtains in the house of Samson to witness the conversation. The following morning Uy Se Tieng and companion, Uy Ay presented papers to Samson. Captain Buencosejo showed up and &caught them in the act & arrested the 2 Chinese. He was held liable for the acts by the SC Held: Even though Juan Samson Smoothed the way for the introduction of the prohibited drugs, the accused have already planned and actually ordered the opium without the consent or participation of Juan Samson. Samson did not help the accused to successfully implement their plan rather Samson merely assured the seizure of the imported drug and the arrest of the smugglers. He only set up a trap to catch a criminal. Mere deception of the detective will not shield defendant if the offense was committed by him free from the influence or the instigation of the detective

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. ART. 13 Mitigating Circumstances IN GENERAL: Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but only serve to reduce the penalty. Mitigating circumstances are based on the diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence,or intent or the lesser perversity of the offender. There can be multiple mitigating circumstances, but all internal acts are taken together (e.g. passion and obfuscation, lack of intent, etc.), as opposed to the external acts (e.g. voluntary surrender) Passion and obfuscation and vindication of a grave offense cannot be counted separately and independently.


CLASSES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. Ordinary mitigating 2. Privileged mitigating a. Art. 68 Penalties for those under 18 years b. Art. 69 Penalties when crime is not wholly excusable c. Art. 64 Rules for penalties which contain 3 periods Distinctions: Ordinary

Privileged

Can be offset by aggravating

Cannot be offset

If not offset, lowers penalty to its minimum period, in case of divisible penalty

lowers the penalty by one or two degrees

Mitigating circumstances The following are mitigating circumstances:

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant. Circumstances of justification or exemption which may give place to mitigating because not all requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability are present (for nos. 1-6, refer to requisites in Art. 11. For nos. 7-9, refer to Art. 12): 1. Self‐defense 2. Defense of relatives 3. Defense of stranger 4. State of necessity 5. Performance of duty 6. Obedience to order of superior 7. Minority over 9 and under 15 years of age 8. Causing injury by mere accident 9. Uncontrollable fear For numbers 1, 2, and 3, this paragraph only applies when unlawful aggression is present, but the other two requisites are not. If two out of three requisites are present, it becomes a privileged mitigating circumstance.

2. That the offender is under 18 years of age or over 70. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80, paragraph 2. - Repealed by RA 9344. A child above 15 years old but below 18 shall be exempt from criminal liability unless it was proven that he/she acted with discernment. If he/she acted


with discernment, such child shall undergo diversion programs provided in Chapter 2 of RA9344. “Diversion” is an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of a child on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without resulting to formal court proceedings. “Diversion program” refers to the program that the child is required to undergo after he/she is found guilty. Conferencing, Mediation and Conciliation A child in conflict with the law may undergo conferencing, mediation, or conciliation outside the criminal justice system or prior to his entry into the said system. A contract of diversion may be entered into during these processes.

3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. -There must be notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences. - Lack of intent must be clearly seen from external acts - Applies only to “effects worse than intended” and not to mistakes of blow or identity - Not applicable when offender employed brute force -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs. Ural Facts: Ural, a policeman, boxed an inmate inside the detention cell. He poured liquid on him and set him on fire. Held: Crime is murder because of the use of fire. Mitigating circumstance “that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed” because Ural only wanted to maltreat the inmate for being a nuisance, not kill him. Blows were not aimed towards vital parts of the body. Aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position. The two circumstances offset each other so penalty is medium reclusion perpetua. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. Provocation must be: (1) Sufficient – adequate enough to excite a person to commit the wrong and must be accordingly proportionate to its gravity. Depends on: a. The act constituting the provocation b. Social standing of person provoked c. Time and place provocation took place (2) Originate from the offended party, (3) Immediate to the act- if there was an interval of time, the conduct could not have excited the accused to the commission of the crime, since he had time to regain his reason and exercise self-control. Threat should not have been offensive and positively strong (no unlawful aggression), because then it could be self-defense.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs. Leonor Facts: Dr. Tarlengco, a dentist, was preparing her dental instruments when Leonor entered, demanded money and stabbed her. He stole her money and her watch and ran away. Held: He was convicted with both robbery and homicide. No mitigating circumstance. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong does not mitigate in homicide cases where the accused used a deadly weapon in inflicting mortal wounds on vital organs of the victim. The provocation sufficient to mitigate an offense must be proportionate to the gravity of the retaliatory act. A push and “bad words” do not justify retaliation with a knife. No passion or obfuscation. To be blinded by passion or obfuscation is to lose self-control, not consciousness. There need to be causes naturally tending to produce such powerful excitement as to deprive the accused of reason and self-control. The events leading to the stabbing precluded any natural tendency to produce a powerful excitement in Leonor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v CA and Tangan Facts: Traffic conflict. Firecrackers were thrown, so Generoso Miranda swerved to avoid them and accidentally cut Tangan. Tangan started to cut Generoso. At the U-turn, Tangan got his gun out, a struggle happened, and Generoso was shot and he died on the way to the hospital. Held: Shooting was not accidental because of the distance of the gun. Based on the exit and entry point, Generoso and Tangan were facing each other. No incomplete self- defense because there was no unlawful aggression, and no lack of sufficient provocation on person defending himself. In this case, it was actually Tangan who cut off Tangan several times on purpose and was thus the one making the provocation. No passion and obfuscation because there was no unexpected occurrence which produced such a condition of mind. There was no act producing such condition not far removed from commission of crime by considerable length of time. He had already passed Generoso's car after it swerved. He was the one already blocking Generoso's path. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. Requisites: 1. Grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.


2. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense. A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense

Provocation

Vindication

Made directly on the person committing the felony

May be committed against the relatives mentioned

Cause brought about need not be a grave offense

Offended party must have done a grave offense to offender or his relatives

Necessary that the provocation immediately precede the act

Vindication may be "proximate", which admits of an interval of time

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Ampar Facts: During a fiesta, an old man 70 years of age asked the deceased, Patobo, for some roast pig. In the presence of many guests, the deceased insulted the old man, saying: "There is no more. Come here and I will make roast pig of you." A little later, while the deceased was squatting down, the old man came up behind him and struck him on the head with an ax. Held: Murder with the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. While it may be mere trifle to an average person, it evidently was a serious matter to an old man, to be made the butt of a joke in the presence of so many guests. In this case, the age of the accused and the public place were considered. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs. Pajares Facts: Pajares attacked some members of the gang that mauled and hurt his brother. He hit them with a baseball bat on the back of the head as they were walking in front of a store. Held: Murder with no mitigating offense. Also guilty of frustrated homicide of another guy. The mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense cannot be appreciated in appellant’s favor. While it may be true that appellant’s brother was mauled by the companions of the deceased as shown in the entry in the Police Blotter, there was a lapse of about 10 hours between that incident and the killing. Such interval of time was more than sufficient to enable appellant to recover his serenity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: The original Spanish text uses the word “proxima” which only requires that the crime be done in the influence thereof, even if it not be so immediate time-wise.


6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. Requirements: 1. The accused acted upon an impulse 2. Impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion of obfuscation Rule: Passion or obfuscation may constitute a mitigating circumstance only when it arose from lawful sentiments. No mitigating circumstance when the act is committed in a spirit of lawlessness or revenge. Requisites 1. That there an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind 2. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.

Passion or Obfuscation

Provocation

From impulse which may be caused by provocation

From injured party

Need not be immediate, but influence must last until moment that crime is committed

Must immediately precede commission of crime

In both, there is an effect of loss of reason and self-control of offender.

Passion or Obfuscation

Irresistible Force

Mitigating

Exempting

Cannot give rise to an irresistible force

Requires physical force

In the offender himself

From 3rd person

Must arise from lawful sentiments

Unlawful

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs. Hicks Facts: Accused and deceased were living together for about 5 years as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. Deceased separated from accused and lived with another man. Accused deliberately, and after due reflection, resolved to kill the woman, with a clean and well-prepared weapon. The accused killed the deceased.


Held: The accused acted with obfuscation because of jealousy, but the mitigating circumstance cannot be considered in his favor because the causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are such which originate from legitimate feelings, and not those which arise from vicious, unworthy, immoral passions. Accused and deceased were merely living together and were not married, his feelings of jealousy were not legitimate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs. De la Cruz Facts: The accused killed his common-law wife upon discovering her having sex with a mutual acquaintance with theirs. Held: In the present case, the impulse upon which the appellant acted and which naturally produced passion and obfuscation was the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him and his discovery of her in the arms of another man, which as stated by the SC of spain was a “sufficient impulse” to produce the passion and obfuscation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 evidence for the prosecution. 2 mitigating circumstances: 1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents (before State would have to expend any resources for his arrest) 2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution Requisites of voluntary surrender: 1. That offender had not been actually arrested 2. That offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent (to someone with jurisdiction over his person) 3. That the surrender was voluntary (e.g. not threatened by police) Requisites of plea of guilty 1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt 2. That the confession of guilt was made in open court; before competent court to try the case 3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to presentation of evidence for prosecution Voluntary surrender is not simply “non-flight” from authorities. Conduct after commission of crime must indicate a desire on the part of the accused to own the responsibility of the crime.


8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings. --‐Physical defect is such as being armless, cripple, or a stuterrer, whereby his means to act, defend himself or communicate with his fellow beings are limited. --‐This considers that one suffering from such physical defects, does not have complete freedom of action, and therefore there is a diminution of that element of voluntariness.

9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts. Requisites: 1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power 2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts (must not amount to insanity, which is an exempting circumstance) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Javier Facts: Accused Javier had been married for 41 yearsand they had 10 kids. One day, one of their daughters who was living near their house heard her mother shout “Your father is going to kill me.” She went to the house alongside two of her siblings. When they entered their parents’ house, they found the lifeless body of their mother and his father wounded in the abdomen. Javier confessed that he killed his wife and thereafter allegedly stabbed himself. Javier admitted killing his wife but he told the court that he killed his wife because he could not sleep for almost a month and that he was insane at the time of the incident. Held: No mitigating circumstance because no medical evidence was presented by the accused to validate the defense of insanity. No clear and convincing evidence was shown that the appellant was suffering from an illness which diminished his exercise of will-power at the time of the killing. It is also clear that appellant was aware of the acts he committed since he remembers the vital circumstances surrounding the incident itself -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those abovementioned. --‐Authorizes the court to consider in favour of the accused “any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous those mentioned” in paragraphs 1 to 9. Examples: Analogous circumstance

Similar to...


Over 60 years old with failing eyesight

Someone over 70 yrs.

Outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom

Vindication of a grave offense

Outraged feeling of creditor

Passion and obfuscation

Impulse of jealous feeling

Passion and obfuscation

Manifestations of Battered Woman Syndrome

Illness that diminishes exercise of will-power

Voluntary restitution of stolen property

Voluntary surrender

Extreme poverty or necessity

Incomplete justification based on state of necessity (Art. 11, par. 4)

Extreme poverty or necessity may mitigate a crime against property (theft), but not a crime of violence such as murder. It is not mitigating when accused had impoverished himself and lost his occupation by committing crimes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Canta vs. People Facts: Gabriel’s cow was under the care of Agapay when the cow was lost. They went looking for it and were informed that the missing cow was at the house of Canta’s Father. On their way there, they were met by Canta, who told them that he would just call on them when the next day so they could talk directly with his father, but he never did. Gabriel reported the incident. Both father and son were called to an investigation. Canta claims that he indeed took the cow but claimed that it was his cow that has gone missing, was informed that the cow as under Agapay’s care, so he went there with the mother cow to see if she would suckle, and it did. He took the baby cow with him. He also claims that he has a certificate of ownership but this certificate was issued by the janitor and was antedated. Held: Mitigating circumstance of an analogous circumstance should be appreciated because turnover of cow is analogous to a voluntary surrender Art. 13 (7) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

X.

ART. 14: Aggravating Circumstances

- Aggravating circumstances are those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense


- The basis of applying aggravating circumstances is that they show the greater perversity of the offender

- 5 kinds: 1.) Generic –> Those that can generally apply to all crimes, such as dwelling, nighttime, and recidivism. Increases penalty, can be offset by mitigating circumstances 2.) Specific –> Those that apply only to particular crimes. Ignominy applies to crimes against chastity. Cruelty and treachery applies to crimes against persons. 3.) Qualifying –> Those that change the nature of the crime. Once used to qualify a crime, it cannot be used to further aggravate the already qualified crime. Ex: Treachery qualifies the killing of a person to murder, that being so, treachery cannot be made to aggravate the murder. But if evident premeditation qualifies murder, and treachery is present, treachery works as a generic aggravating circumstance for the murder. 4.) Inherent –> Those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime. Being an element of the crime itself, such circumstance will not be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Ex: Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, theft, adultery, estafa, adultery, and concubinage. 5.) Special –> Not offset by any mitigating circumstance. Will always make penalty be applied in its maximum period. Ex: Art 14 par 1, taking advantage of public position, will make penalty be applied in its maximum period, as provided in Art 62 par 1(a). (Sa commentary ni Reyes, wala sa kinds of aggravating circumstance ang special aggravating circumstance; si Sir Muyot lang nagsabi nun. Sa classification naman ni Sir Muyot, walang specific aggravating circumstance. So let’s go with Sir Muyot’s classification, when it comes to application naman yung specific aggavating circumstance naman works like a generic aggravating circumstance, except that it can only be appreciated in certain types of crimes. As for qualifying and inherent aggravating circumstances, see Art 62 par 1 and par 2 as to why they are applied the way they are applied) -

Generic aggravating circumstance increase penalty imposed. It can be offset my mitigating circumstances

-

A qualifying aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information, otherwise is only a generic mitigating circumstance. A generic aggravating circumstance, however, even if not alleged in the information, may be proven during the trial over the objection of the defense and may be appreciated in imposing the sentence.

-

Aggravating circumstances which arise: a) from the moral attributes of the offender, or b) from his private relations with the offended party, or c) from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. They are personal.

-

The circumstances which consist 1) in the material execution of the act, or 2) in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.

-

Pursuant to the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, aggravating circumstances must be alleged along with the qualifying circumstances

-

Although the aggravating circumstances in question cannot be appreciate for the purpose of fixing a heavier penalty in this case, they should, however, be considered as the bases for the award of exemplary damages, conformably to current jurisprudence


Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. aggravating circumstances:

-

The

following

are

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. -

Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the personal circumstance of the offender and also by the means used to secure the commission of the crime. Applies only when the person committing the crime is a public officer who takes advantage of his public position For this to apply, the public officer must use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by which he realizes his purpose. Should answer the question “Did the accused abuse his office in order to commit the crime?” When a public officer commits a common crime independent of his official functions and does acts that are not connected with the duties of his office, he should not be punished as a private individual without this aggravating circumstance There must be proof that the accused took advantage of his public position. The commission of a crime while in uniform does not automatically make this circumstance apply. But, this would still apply if the accused used his public office to facilitate the crime, even if the accused was not wearing uniform at that time. This cannot be taken taken into consideration in offenses where it is an integral element of the crime, such as in crimes if malversation (Art. 217), and in falsification of document by a public officer (Art. 171) SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS: RPC 62 (1) and 266-B (7)

2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities. - Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his lack of respect for the public authorities. - Requisites: - The public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions - He who is engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the person against whom the crime is committed. - The offender knows him to be a public authority - The presence of the public authority has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act. - A public authority, also called a person in authority, is a public office who has the power to govern and execute the laws. (But if crime is done in the presence of a public authority, this will circumstance applies – see People vs Rodil) - This does not apply if the attack is directed against the public authority. Such would be the offense of direct assault under Art. 148. - The lack of knowledge on the part of the offender that a public authority is present indicates lack of intention to insult the public authority. - more expansive than the definition of persons in authority under 152 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People vs Rodil (1981) Facts: Masala, lieutenant and soldier of the Philippine Constabulary, found Rodil, a member of the Anti-‐ Smuggling Unit, to be carrying a weapon with no license. After confiscation of the gun, Masala asked Rodil to sign a receipt but he refused and instead drew a dagger and stabbed Masala in the presence of other soldiers of the PC, including the town’s chief of police. Chief was the one who wrested dagger from the accused. Held:

Aggravating Circumstance: Insult to public authority. SC decision recognizes that precedent dictates that police chief is not a person of authority, merely an agent. But they rule that if in the past, public school teachers and health officers have been considered authorities, then so should the chief of


police. Accused had knowledge of the chief of police’s presence and this had not prevented him from committing the crime. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation. - If all four circumstances are present, they have the weight of one aggravating circumstance only - Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the personal circumstances of the offended party and the place of the commission of the crime - May be taken into account only in crimes against persons or honor. Not taken into account in crimes against property because the value of a property is not more valuable by the mere fact that it is owned by person of a different age, rank, or sex. - There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime, the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or age of the offended party. - DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE - RANK - There must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the offended party - Rank refers to a social position or standing. - Cannot be appreciated as aggravating when there is no proof of the specific fact that the accused disregarded the respect due to the offended party - AGE - Applies in cases where the victim is of tender age as well as of old age. - Cannot be considered aggravating in the absence of evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of the victim - Absorbed by treachery (Not in book, but I remember Sir Muyot saying this) - SEX -Refers to the female sex - Not aggravating in the absence of evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim of showed manifest disrespect to her womanhood - Cannot exist when there is passion or obfuscation, because the accused could not have been conscious that his act was done with disrespect to the offended party. - Cannot be appreciated in crimes where this is inherent (parricide, rape, abduction, seduction) - absorbed in treachery Must be a CONSCIOUS DISREGARD of the fact that the victim is a woman - DWELLING - Dwelling must be a building or structure, exclusively used for rest and comfort - Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of the commission of the crime. The law accords the sanctity of privacy to human abode; it must be respected. - To be considered as aggravating, the offended party must not have given provocation. Provocation means that 1.) it is given by the offended party, 2.) it is sufficient, and 3.) it is immediate to the commission of the crime - The fact that the owner of the house did not give provocation must be shown by the evidence of the prosecution, as it cannot be assumed -It is not necessary that the accused entered the dwelling; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house. - Aggravating even if killing took place outside of dwelling provided that the commission of the crime began in the the dwelling - Not applicable when both offender and offended party are occupants of the same house - When robbery is committed by the use of force upon things, dwelling is not aggravating because it is inherent. - In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is inherent. - Can be considered even if the offended party are guests or the dwelling is merely temporary.


- Aggravating in adultery if committed inside the home, except if the paramour also lives there. - Not absorbed by treachery - PLACE WHERE YOU CAN DEMAND EXCLUSIVITY (so if accused is also living in the same place, no expectation of privacy or exclusivity) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People vs Daniel (1978) Facts: Complainant was a high school student living in a boarding house. The accused followed her from school until she reached her boarding house. She was about to close the door but the accused dashed in o and closed the door behind him. He pulled out a dagger, threatened the complainant and raped her. The following morning, she told her father. Doctor who examined her found that laceration of hymen was recent. Held:

Aggravating circumstance of dwelling. Although Margarita was merely renting a bedspace in a boarding house, her room constituted for all intents and purposes a "dwelling." It is not necessary, under the law that the victim owns the place where he lives or dwells. If he is a lessee, a boarder, or a bed-‐spacer, the place is his home, the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect and uphold. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness. - Two aggravating circumstances contained in this paragraph - Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the means and ways employed. - ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE - Requisites: - The offended party trusted the offender - The offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party - The abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime - The confidence between the offender and the offended party must be immediate and personal - Inherent in some felonies such as malversation (Art 217), qualified theft (Art 310), estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Art 315), and qualified seduction (Art 337) - not considered if the confidence flows from authority (in which case abuse of authority will be appreciated instead) – IF THE LAW PRESUMES CONFIDENCE in the context of the crime (eg paricide) - OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS - Present in the following situations: - accused killed father-in-law in whose house he lived and who partially supported him - accused was living in the house of the victim who employed him as an overseer and in charge of the carpentry work, and had free access to the house of the victim - visitor commits robbery or theft in the house of the host - The mere fact, however, that the accused and the offended party live in the same house is not in itself enough to hold that there was present abuse of confidence where the house was not the property of the offended party.

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. - Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of the commission of the crime, which must be respected --- CONTEXT IS DISRESPECT - Par 5 distinguished from Par 2: Par 5

Par 2


Public Authorities are in the performance of their duties

Public Authorities are in the performance of their duties

Public authority must be in their office

Public authority are performing their duties outside of the office

Public authority may be the offended party

Public authority should not be the offended party

- If crime is committed in the palace of the Chief executive, or in a place of worship, it is aggravating regardless of whether official or religious functions are being held (but for religious worship, must be used as such regularly) - The Chief Executing need not be in Malacanang Palace; his presence alone on any place where the crime is committed is already aggravating - But as regard the place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, there must be some performance of public functions. - Cemeteries are not considered as a places of worship - The offender must have intention to commit the crime when he entered the place.

6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or in an uninhabited place, or 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. - Based on the time and place of the commission of the crime and the means and ways employed - Three circumstances can be considered as separate from each other if their element are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently

- Nighttime, uninhabited place, or band is aggravating: - When it facilitated the commission of the crime - When it is especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity - When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity - NIGHTTIME - Nighttime by and of itself is not an aggravating circumstance. To be aggravating, the prosecution must show that the accused purposely sought to commit the crime at nighttime in order to facilitate the achievement of his objectives, prevent discovery or evade capture. - The information must allege that nighttime was sought for or taken advantage of by the accused or that it facilitated the commission of the crime. The bare statement that the crime was committed in the darkness of the night fails to satisfy the criterion. - Even if not specially sought, if it facilitated the commission of the crime and the accused took advantage thereof to commit it, may be considered as an aggravating circumstance - The commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime - The offense must actually be committed in the darkness of the night - Not aggravating when the place of the crime is illuminated. But will still be aggravating even if the offender used a source of light, such as a flashlight - absorbed in treachery - UNINHABITED PLACE - despoblado – not populated A place where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from town, or where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other. --- prevents other people from knowing that the crime is being committed - Should be determine not by the distance of the nearest house from the scene of the crime, but whether or not in the place of the commission of the offense there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help


- The offenders must choose the place as an aid either 1) as an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal designs, or 2) to insure concealment of the offense. - BAND - Must be more than 3 armed men (armed: equipped with means to inflict violence) - All of them must have taken direct part in the execution of the act constituting the crime - Considered in crimes against persons and property. Also taken into account in treason and illegal detention. Not applicable to crimes against chastity. - Absorbs the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, and the use of firearms. - Band is inherent in brigandage - special circumstance in robbery (296) – penalty imposed in the maximum -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People vs Bermas (1999) Facts: While aboard a fishing boat, bursts of gunfire from a high-‐powered rifle shattered the air, causing the death of Catalino Bellen, Teodoro Cas and Arturo Abion and serious gunshot wounds to Antonio and Renato Abion and 2 others. Appellants, who fired shots from a nearby boat, were indicted for multiple murders with multiple frustrated murder. Held:

The court held that the mere fact that the offense was committed at night does not suffice to sustain finding of nocturnity. In the case at bar, other than the time of the occurrence of the felony, nothing else suggests that it was consciously resorted to by accused- ‐appellants to facilitate the commission of the crime or that it was availed of for the purpose of impunity. In fact there were also 2 gas lamps that lit area that the offended individuals were able to recognize Bermas. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune.

- The basis of this aggravating circumstance has reference to the time of the commission of the crime. The reason is found in the debased form of criminality met in one who, in the midst of a great calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them - The offender must have taken advantage of the CONFUSION

8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity. - Based on the means and ways of committing the crime - Requisites: - Armed persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly. - The accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed - Exceptions: - When both the attacking party and the attacked party were equally armed - When the accused as well as those who cooperated with him acted under the same plan and for the same purpose - Distinguished from Par. 6: A band requires that more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense. Aid of armed men is present even if one of the offenders merely relied on their aid, for actual aid is not necessary. (armed men may have been directly or indirectly involved in the commission of the crime) - Aid of armed men is absorbed in employment of a band)

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. - Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his inclination to crimes - Requisites: - The offender is on trial for an offense - The offender was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime - Both the first and second offense are embraced in the same title of the code - The offender is convicted of the new offense - What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of the commission of the crime. “at the time of his trial” includes everything that is done in the course of the trial, from arraignment until after the sentence is announced by the judge in open court. - No recidivism if the subsequent conviction is for an offense committed before the offense involved in the prior conviction - Must be taken into account no matter how many years have intervened between the first and second felonies. - Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist, but amnesty extinguishes the penalty and it effects

10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. - Based on the greater perversity of the offender as shown by inclination to crimes - Requisites: - That the accused is on trial for an offense - That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new offense - That he is convicted of the new offense - What is considered is the penalty attached to the offense, not the penalty actually imposed - This circumstance is called reiteracion, or habituality - Distinguished from par 9: Par 9

Par 10

It is enough that a final judgement has been Offender shall have served out his sentence rendered in the first offense Offenses must be in the same title of the Code

Offenses need not be embraced in the same title

Always to be taken into consideration in fixing Not always aggravating circumstance the penalty to be imposed upon the accused - FOUR FORMS OF REPETITION - Recidivism (Art 14, Par 9) - Reiteracion or habituality (Art 14, Par 10) - Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency (Art 62, Par 5) – When a person, within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes for serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener - Quasi-recidivism (Art 160) – 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. - The first two are generic aggravating circumstances. The third is an extraordinary aggravating circumstance. The fourth is a special aggravating circumstance


11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise. - Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the motivating power itself - 2 or more offenders: the person giving the reward, and the person accepting the reward - Can be applied to both the person offering the reward and the person accepting the reward - The evidence must show that the accused used price, reward, or promise for the purpose of inducing another to perform the deed.

12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin. - Basis has reference to means and ways employed - Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish a criminal purpose, any of the circumstances in paragraph 12 cannot be considered to increase the penalty or to change the nature of the offense. - When another aggravating circumstance already qualified the crime, any of these aggravating circumstances shall be considered as generic aggravating circumstance. ex: murder qualified by evident premeditation, aggravated by any of these circumstances (note that murder can be qualified both by evident premeditation and any of these means) - The means must be used to accomplish the crime; the crime must not be just incidental to the means used. - Thus, even if a person is killed because of arson, the perpetrator of the arson cannot be held liable for murder (killing qualified by the use of fire), if he did not intend to kill the person, the death was merely incidental to the crime of arson. (although there is not crime of murder, the provisions on arson provide heavier penalties if arson resulted in the death of persons) - Distinguished from Par 7: Under Par 12, the crime is committed by means of any of such acts involving great waste or ruin. Under Par 7, the crime is committed on the occasion of a calamity or misfortune

13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation. - The basis has reference to the ways of committing the crime, because evident premeditation implies a deliberate planning of the act before executing it. - The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool though and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment - Premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected - Requisites: - The time when the offender determined to commit the crime - An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination - A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will - Premeditation must be based upon external acts and not presumed from mere lapse of time. Mere threats without the second element does not show evident premeditation. The existence of ill-feeling or grudge alone is not proof of evident premeditation. - Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation. Where conspiracy is directly established, with proof of the attendant deliberation and selection if the method, time and means of executing the crime, the existence if evident premeditation can be taken for granted. - Evident premeditation and price or reward can co-exist - Not aggravating when victim is different from that intended. But, it is not necessary that there is a particular person that will be offended. See the case of Manalinde where this aggravating circumstance was applied because even though there was no specific person to be targeted, there is the evident premeditation to kill any random person. - Evident premeditation, while inherent in robbery, may be aggravating in robbery with homicide if the premeditation included the killing of the victim. But where the killing during robbery is only an incident, this aggravating circumstance should be disregarded. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


US vs Manalinde (1909) Facts: Manalinde entered Cotabato and attacked a Spaniard, Juan Igual, who was seated in the doorway of a store, then attacked a chinaman, named Choa, who was passing by at that time. Choa died. When Manalinde was arrested he confessed that Datu Mapuck asked him to kill 2 persons in Cotabato to avenge against a lieutenant and sergeant. Mapuck also told him that if he would not be caught, the former would give the latter a pretty woman because Manalinde was recently widowed. In order to carry out his intentions, he travelled for a day and a night and carried with him a kris wrapped in banana leaves. Held:

The court also found that upon accepting the order, he deliberately considered and carefully and thoughtfully meditated over the nature and consequences of the acts (travel, covering weapon). The fact that the victim was not predetermined does not affect nor alter the nature of the crime. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed. - Basis has reference to the means employed in the commission of the crime - This circumstance is characterized by the intellectual or mental rather than the physical means to which the criminal resorts to carry out his design. - CRAFT - Involves the use of intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused - Must be resorted to by the accused to aid in the execution of his criminal design. It must have been employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime. - Craft is not attendant where the unlawful scheme could have been carried out just the same even without the pretense - Where craft is an element of the offense, it cannot be appreciated independently for the purpose of aggravation - FRAUD - Insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner which would enable the offender to carry out his design. - Distinction between Craft and Fraud: - When there is direct inducement by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present; otherwise, the act of the accused done in order not to arouse the suspicion of the victim constitutes craft. - (based on that, fraud is a subset of craft. I do remember Sir saying that court rarely distinguishes between the two) - DISGUISE - Resorting to any device to conceal identity - It contemplates a superficial but somehow effective dissembling to avoid identification - The purpose of the offender must be to conceal his identity - Illegally wearing a Constabulary uniform was regarded to be using disguise. - The use of an assumed name in the publication of a libel also constitutes disguise

15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense. - To take advantage of superior strength means to use purposely excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. - When the attack was made on the victim alternately, there is no abuse of superior strength. - Inherent in the crime of parricide where the husband kills the wife. - There must be evidence that the accused were physically stronger and that they abused such superiority.


- This circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. It is considered wherever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor. - Abuse of superior strength is present when the offender uses a powerful weapon which is out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party. - Absorbed by treachery - Distinction between Par 6 (band): Par 6 Committed by more than 3 armed persons, Collective regardless of comparable strengths victims

Par 15 strength

to

overpower

weaker

Aggravating circumstance is with regard to Aggravating circumstance is with regard to number relative physical might - Abuse of superiority absorbs band. Treachery absorbs both. - Means to weaken the defense includes: throwing a cloak over someone's head during a struggle, throwing dirt on the opponent's eyes, intoxicating the victim - Means to weaken the defense is absorbs in treachery

16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. - Basis has reference to the means and ways employed in the commission of the crime - Treachery means that the offended party was not given the opportunity to make defense. It is present when the attack is sudden, unexpected, without warning, and without giving the victim an opportunity to defend himself or repel the aggression

- Rules: - Applicable only to crimes against persons - Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment of crime. Ex: Frustrated murder qualified by treachery - The mode of attack must be consciously adopted - Treachery may not be simple deduced from presumption as it is necessary that the existence of this qualifying or aggravating circumstance should be proven as a fully as the crime itself in order to aggravate the liability or penalty incurred by the culprit - Treachery must be appreciated in the killing of a child even if the manner of attack is not shown. It exists in the commission of the crime when an adult person illegally attacks a child of tender years. The weakness of the child due his to his tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused. - The mere facts that the attack was sudden and unexpected does not show treachery, unless there is evidence that such form of attack was purposely adopted by the accused. There must be evidence that the accused reflected on the means, methods and forms of killing the victim - That the mode of attack was consciously adopted may be inferred from the circumstances. Ex: wounds of the victim, time and place of attack, strength or weapon used by the offender, etc.


Where the meeting between the accused and the victim was casual and the attack was done impulsively, there is no treachery even if the attack was sudden and unexpected and while the victim was running away with his back towards the accused.

- Requisites: - That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself - That the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him - There is no treachery when the victim was already defending himself when he was attacked by the accused - Treachery does not connote the element of surprise alone, but exists when the offender employs means which tend directly and specially to insure the execution of the offense, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended part might take. - It does not always follow that because the attack is sudden and unexpected it is tainted with treachery. Indeed, it could have been done on impulse, as a reaction to an actual or imagined provocation offered by the victim - There is not treachery where the attack is preceded by a warning, but calling the attention of the victim is not necessarily a warning. - There is no treachery where the shooting is preceded by a heated discussion. The offended party was on his guard due to the discussion; the offended party was not caught by surprise. - Even if the attack came from the front, there is treachery when the position of the victim is in such a way that he was not able to defend himself. Ex: victim has his hands raised, victim was tied, victim was held by other persons - The mere fact that the attack was inflicted when the victim had his back turned will not in itself constitute treachery. It must appear that such mode of attack was consciously adopted and the question of risk to the offender must be taken into account. - Treachery is not incompatible with lack of intent to kill. The offender could have employed treachery to only cause physical injuries, but instead caused the death of the victim (praeter intentionem). Treachery can also be considered where the victim was not the person intended to be killed (error in personae or aberratio ictus).

- Summary of Rules: - When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be present in the beginning of the assault - When the assault was not continuous, in that there was an interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was present at the moment the fatal blow was given - Treachery cannot be ruled against the principal by inducement if it is not shown that he instructed the principal by direct participation to use treacherous means; it will only be appreciated against the principal by inducement - Treachery should be considered against all persons participating or cooperating in the perpetration of the crime, except whn there is no conspiracy among them.


- Treachery, evident premeditation and use of superior strength are, by their nature, inherent in the offense of treason

- Treachery absorbs: - abuse of superior strength - employing means to weaken the defense - band - nighttime (exception in some cases where the accused used nighttime to commit the crime, and tied the victim before killing him. the court ruled there was both the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and treachery since the treachery rests upon and independent factual basis - the tying up of the victim.) - aid of armed men - craft - disregard of age and sex (but dwelling is not included) - Treachery cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation. for while in the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, the offender loses his reason and self-control, in the the aggravating circumstance of treachery the mode of attack must be consciously adopted. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US vs Sangalang (1974) Facts: Deceased was shot by 5 armed men while he was on top of a coconut tree gathering tuba. Wife was witness to incident. Held:

Treachery exists -‐ accused employed deliberate surprise on the attack that ensured the killing. Victim was atop a tree so no place to escape or hide. Treachery absorbs band. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. - Basis had reference to the means employed - Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime - Applicable to crimes against chastity, less serious physical injuries, light or grave coercion, and murder - The means employed or the circumstances brought about must tend to make the effects of the crime more humiliating or to put the offended party to shame. It is required that the offense be committed in a manner that tends to make its effects more humiliating, adding moral suffering to the victim. - Ignominy does not apply when the victim is already dead, and acts such as dismemberment of body parts are done against the victim's body. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People vs Torrefiel (1947) Facts: December 17, 1942, 5:00 p.m. Torrefiel and Ormeo, members of USSAFE passed by Eady’s residence to ask for khakis. His wife Ceferina Cordero scolded Torrefiel and Ormeo because all their belongings had already been looted by the USSAFE. The couple was charged with being fifth columnists and was taken blindfolded to the USSAFE headquarters. Torrefiel had taken the wrong way so he went back to a guardhouse and left Eady there, who then escaped. Torrefiel finds Ormeo with Cordero. Ormeo leaves to find Eady.


As Cordero was about to urinate, Torrefiel pushed her and carried her to a log and laid her on it. Torrefiel began to unbutton his pants and wound cogon leaves around his genitals then raped her. Held:

Ignominy is present. Cogon grass increased pain and added moral disgrace to crime. In ruling ignominy, shame is more focused on rather than pain. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People vs Alfanta (1999) Facts: At around midnight, while Nita Fernandez was asleep in the residence of a friend, Rolando Alfanta suddenly entered and threatened her with a bolo to follow him. She was forced to climb a fence and instructed to go to a vacant house. There she was told to undress. He then molested her. She was instructed to lie down and he then inserted his penis into to her vagina. After that, she was told to lie face down and he inserted his penis to her anus. After inserting his penis, he instructed her to turn around face up, he inserted his fingers in and out of her vagina and anus. Then after all these acts, he told her to lie beside him as he was going to take a rest. Noticing that Alfanta was already sleeping, she suddenly took the bolo and hacked him several times. Held:

The means employed added ignominy to crime of rape by adding disgrace to the injury. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose. - Basis has reference to the means and ways employed to commit the crime - One who acts, not respecting, the walls erected by men to guard their property and provide for their personal safety, shows a greater perversity, a greater audacity; hence, the law punishes hum with more severity - Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and not for escape - Inherent in robbery with force upon things, and in trespass to dwelling - Dwelling and unlawful entry can be taken separately

19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken. - Basis has reference to means and ways employed to commit the crime - The breaking must be utilized as a means to the commission of the crime. - The circumstance is aggravating only in those cases where the offender resorted to any of said means to enter. If the broken part of the building was used in order to get out of the place, is is not an aggravating circumstance.

20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age, or by means of motor vehicle, airship, or other similar means. - Basis has reference to means and ways employed to commit the crime - Two different circumstances are grouped in this paragraph: - With aid of persons under 15 –> the law wants to repress the practice resorted to by criminals to avail themselves of minors taking advantage of their irresponsibility


- By means of motor vehicles –> the law intends to counteract the great facilities found by modern criminals in said means to commit crime and free and abscond once the same is committed - The use of motor vehicles is aggravating where the accused used the motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in carrying away the effects thereof, and in facilitating their escape - Not aggravating if the motor vehicle was used ONLY in facilitating the escape. To be considered, the use of motor vehicle must be to facilitate the commission of the crime - Where the use of the motor vehicle was merely incidental and not purposefully sought to facilitate the commission of the crime, the circumstance in not aggravating - “other similar means” should be understood as referring to motorized vehicles or other efficient means of transportation similar to an automobile or airplane. Thus, aggravating if a motorcycle was used, but not aggravating if a bicycle was used. - This paragraph was amended by RA 5438, which was approved September 9, 1968. This paragraph now reads: “That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means.”

21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission. - The basis has reference to ways employed in committing the crime - There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act. - To be aggravating, is is essential that the wrong done was intended to prolong the suffering of the victim - Requisites: - The injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong - The other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender - No cruelty if wrong was done after the victim is dead. Ex: dismembering the body of the dead victim. - It cannot be presumed; for it to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, there must be positive proof that the wounds found on the body of the victim were inflicted while he was still alive in order to unnecessarily prolong the physical suffering. - Distinguished from ignominy: Ignominy involves moral suffering; cruelty refers to physical suffering

XI. Alternative Circumstances Art. 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 in 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 circumstances 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.


Alternative Circumstances-- 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. Relationship - If offended party is: spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender (brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law). → step-parents and adopted parents included by analogy.

Mitigating

Aggravating

Other

- If crimes against property (robbery, usurpation, fraudulent insolvency, arson, trespass to dwelling, etc.) - Crimes against persons: if relative of lower degree

- Crimes against persons: if relative of higher degree or same level (brother, brother-inlaw, half-brother, adopted brother). → If serious physical injury or murder-- aggravating notwithstanding the crime was committed on relative of lower degree - Crimes against chastity - Rape (266-B)

- Only civil liability shall result from theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed by relatives living together with the offended party. - If relationship is element of offense, relationship is neither aggravating nor mitigating. (medium penalty). - Other circumstances: mitigating if accused kills relative who commits adultery with wife of accused, or when the accused commits serious physical injuries in the desire to render service to another relative.

Intoxication Mitigating

Aggravating

- not habitual - not subsequent to plan to commit a felony

- habitual - intentional (If accused drank liquor fully knowing its effects in order to stimulate the commitment of the crime or as a means to suffocate remorse)

- Basis: liquor impairs exercise of will power - Presumption is always that intoxication is habitual - Non-habitual intoxication, lack of instruction and obfuscation are not to be taken separately (considered only as one mitigating circumstance) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Camano Facts:


- After drinking liquor Camano hacked and stabbed Pascua to death while he was walking alone. Afterwards he hacked Buenaflor to death while he was leaning on the fence of his house in a kneeling position. - Three years before the incident,, Pascua had refused Camano’s request to tow his fishing boat using Buenaflor’s motor boat. - Thereafter, Camano was embittered by the incident. During drinking sessions with Pascua, he was on artificially friendly terms. On the other hand, he openly detested Buenaflor. - After killing the two, Camano surrendered himself to the police. - Witness says the Camano used to get drunk every now and then and that he would declare his plans against Pascua whenever he was inebriated. Held: - The alternative circumstance of intoxication should be taken as mitigating since there was no evidence of evident premeditation of the offense. - Intoxication is always presumed as accidental unless otherwise proven. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Degree of Instruction and Education - Aggravating: High degree of instruction → Only aggravating if accused took advantage of high degree of education in committing the crime → Ex.: Aggravating when doctor uses undetectable poison to kill patient. Not aggravating when doctor assaults patient. - Mitigating: Low degree of instruction → Not mitigating in crimes against property, chastity, treason, murder - What is important is to determine lack of intelligence. Mere illiteracy is not enough.

XII. Persons Criminally Liable for Felonies Persons who are criminally liable when there is one or multiple offenders What is the effect of participation on the penalty that may be imposed? 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. - Accessories are not liable for light felonies. - For principals and accomplice, light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated. But when committed agaisnt persons or property, they are punishable even when attempted or frustrated. - In every crime there is an active subject (criminal) and a passive subject (victim).


→ Only natural persons can be active subjects. → Juridical persons can be passive subjects.

XIII.

Principals

Art. 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it; 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. - In short: Principals by Direct Participation, Principals by Induction, and Principals by Indispensable Cooperation - A single individual committing a crime is always a principal. Principals by Direct Participation - the ones who personally execute the act - Two requisites: 1. Participated in criminal resolution → two or more persons are said to have participated in the criminal resolution when they are in conspiracy at the time of the commission of the crime. → CONSPIRACY- exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. → Act of one is the act of all. - Therefore if one conspirator stands guard while the other co-conspirators rob a house, the guard is also liable for robbery. → There is no need to show evident premeditation as proof of conspiracy is determined by the courts through the overt, interlocking acts of the accused. → Conspirator who spontaneously desisted is not criminally liable → No conspiracy through negligence except when punishable by a special law ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Dela Cerna Facts: - Sulpicio Dela Cerna and 15 other people conspired to kill Rafael because of a land dispute. - Rafael, his brother and his son were carrying sacks of corn up a hill - When they reached Sulpicio’s house and were able to put down the sacks, Sulpicio fire and hit Rafael from inside his house. - Rafael was brought to his house, - Later, Sulpicio and the others stoned Rafael’s house and thrust their bolos through the bamboo flooring. - Casiano was killed by Sulpicio after the former had gotten the carbine from Serapio. Held: - Serapio is not liable for Casiano’s murder since he agreed only to kill Rafael. Serapio didn’t give the carbine to Sulpicio knowing or intending for it to be used to kill Casiano. -The conspirators are liable for the killing of Rafael. 2. Carried out plan, personally took part in execution by acts which directly tended to the same end. → Must be at the scene of the crime except when serving as a guard → When second requisite is lacking, there is only conspiracy and no crime except if conspiracy for treason, rebellion, or sedition.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------U.S. v. Diris (1913) Facts: - Tomas conspired to steal from his uncle along with Anselmo and Eustaquio. - Eustaquio engaged Tomas’s aunt in conversation while the other two stole money from the safety box upstairs. Held: - Eustaquio is a principal by direct participation even though he did not personally do the stealing. He and the other two were in conspiracy to steal the money from the safety box. A person who does not personally do the offense but did an act to ensure its execution is a principal by direct execution. In this case, Eustaquio, by distracting the aunt, did an act that ensured the execution of the theft, therefore he is a principal by direct participation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Principals by Induction - Two Ways of Becoming Principals by Induction: 1. By directly forcing another to commit a crime a. By irresistible force b. By causing uncontrollable fear 2. By directly inducing another to commit a crime a. By giving price, or offering reward or promise b. By acts of command, advice or through influence - The one who made the command must have an ascendancy or influence - The words used must be so powerful as to amount to physical or moral coercion - The executor of the crime has no personal reason to commit the crime - must precede the act induced - Requisites: 1. Inducement made with intention - A thoughtless expression or act without any intention or expectation that it would produce the result, is not an inducement to commit a crime. 2. Inducement is the determining cause of the commission of the crime - Without such inducement, the crime would not have been committed - Acquittal of principal by direct participation leads to acquittal of principal by inducement except when the former’s acquittal is because of lack of criminal intent or malice. ( When executor was forced to commit the act due to irresistible force) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Ong Chiat Lay Facts: - Ong Ban Hua, Kua Sing, and Ong Chiat Lay burned down a building. - While the other two were acquitted for lack of evidence, Ong Chiat Lay was convicted of arson by the lower court for inducing the former to burn the building. Held: - One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission of a crime without first being shown that the crime was actually committed by another. Although there were grave suspicions against Ong Chiat Lay, it falls short of proving his guilt. Acquitted. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


U,S, v. Indanan Facts: - Indanan was accused of committing murder by inducement of Sariol. - He was the headman of Parang who was the province’s governor. -When witnesses were asked about Indanan, they said that because he was the headman of Parang, there was a danger that the executors would be killed by the governor’s soldiers. - Note: Indanan wasn’t really relaying the governor’s orders. Held: - Indanan’s words were equal to a command. He had the intention to produce the results and the words were also the determining cause of the crime committed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Kiichi Omine Facts: Defendants Autor, Ladion, and Cortesano were working under Omine, the overseer and manager of the hemp plantation owned by Pulido. Omine asked Pulido permission to open a new road through the plantation. He thought that he had been authorized but Pulido in fact, did not. As Pulido was returning home from the cockpit, he saw the hemp plants that were trampled by the construction of the new road. Angered, Pulido went to the four defendants’ house. While Omine was talking with Pulido, Autor attempted to intervene. While Ladio and Cortesano held Pulido, and while Autor approached him, Omine shouted “pegale y matale.” (hit him and kill him!) Pulido died by a strike on the breast with a bolo. Omine was accused of being a principal by induction for uttering those words. Held; Omine had no authority over Autor because the latter was still being paid by Pulido. Omine’s utterances were not the determining cause of Autor’s murder of Pulido. Autor himself had personal reasons for committing the crime. Inducement should be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and that such inducement be the determining cause of the crime. Furthermore, the utterance must be made before the commission of the crime and must have been so influential that without it the crime would not have been committed. Muyot: Yung sinigaw ni Omine parang yung mga sinisigaw ng mga usisero kapag may away. Pointers for determining if the accused is a principal by induction: 1. Intention 2. Relationship 3. Determining cause (causal connection between command and crime committed) 4. When uttered (Should be before the crime was committed) 5. Were there any personal reasons for the person committing the act to do so? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XIV.Accomplices Article 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.


They are those who might concur with the design, but are NOT part of the conspiracy - When there is no conspiracy between or among the defendants but they were animated by one and the same purpose to accomplish the criminal objective, those who cooperated by previous or simultaneous acts but cannot be held liable as principals are accomplices. Requisites: 1. That there be a community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose 2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and 3. That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as an accomplice. How an accomplice acquires knowledge: When the principal informs him of the criminal purpose When he saw the criminal acts of the principal concurrence with the criminal purpose may make one a principal – if before the actual commission of the crime both AGREED and DECIDED to commit the crime, he is now not merely an accomplice but a co-conspirator. Cooperation of an Accomplice: It is only necessary, but NOT indispensable. (different from principal by conspiracy, where nature of the cooperation becomes immaterial) Examples: by previous acts – lending a pistol, knowing the murderer’s criminal intent, by simultaneous acts – held the hands of the victim and took away his weapon, while his co-defendant was attacking him, given that he cooperated without any previous agreement or understanding with his co-defendant (People vs. Escarro); 3 persons who detained the offended woman were the principals, but those who held their companion to prevent the latter from rendering help to the victim, were accomplices, there being no conspiracy among them (People vs. Crisostomo)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v Nierra (Pepsi vs Coke) (1980) Facts: Accused were: Felicisimo Doblen, Vicente Rojas, the spouses Paciano Nierra and Gaudencia Nierra, and Gaspar Misa. Paciano is the brother in law of the deceased Juliana Nierra. The two were competitors in the business of launch transportation and sale of softdrinks. Paciano conceived the idea of killing Juliana. On July 4, 1969, Felicisimo Doblen, cousin in law of Paciano, introduced Gaspar Misa, a convicted murderer, to Paciano. Misa agreed in killing Juliana for the sum of P3000. The arrangement was done in front of Gaudencia Nierra and confirmed by her as well. Doblen delivered the gun with the bullets to Misa. Misa contacted his friend Vicente Rojas to be the lookout during the killing. During the interrogation of the City Police Dept, Misa signed a confession admitting the killing and implicating the other accused. He did this because the Nierra spouses did not pay him full. Held: Misa and Paciano – co-conspirators – evidence: note from Misa telling Paciano that he will do his best for Paciano to be free as long as he gives him the sum of P600. Nierras – co-principals by inducement. By acting as lookouts during the perpetration of the killing, they become co-principals by cooperation as well. Doblen and Rojas – their activities had shown that they had community of design with the NIerra spouses and Misa in the assassination of Juliana. Doblen introduced Misa and


delivered the murder weapon, while Rojas acted as a lookout and received P50. Guilty as ACCOMPLICES. It is true, strictly speaking, that as co-conspirators they should be punished as co-principals. HOWEVER, since their participation was not absolutely indispenseable to the commission of the murder, the rule that the court should favor the milder form of liability may be applied to them. In some exceptional situations, having community of design with the principal does not prevent a malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice, IF his role in the perpetraton of the homicide or murder was, relatively speaking, of a minor character. Killing – murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by in consideration of a price or reward. Nierras – relationship is another aggravating circumstance Misa – his recidivism offset his plea of guilty Gaudencia Nierra – lack of ten votes from the court, her penalty will be commuted to Reclusion perpetua

Sir: Doblen should have been held liable as principal; made things happen BUT court may exercise discretion just so a lighter penalty may be imposed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Doble (1982) Facts: Late in the night of June 13, 1966, 10 men, almost all heavily armed w/ pistols, carbines and thompsons, left the shores of Manila in a motor banca & proceeded to Navotas,Rizal to rob the beach-bank Prudential Bank & Trust Co Once docked in Navotas and taking advantage of the darkness of the night, 8 men disembarked from the banca and proceeded to their mission. Once inside, they started firing at the bank’s ceiling, walls & door of the vault. The 8 men then returned to the waiting motor banca w/ about P10.5K & sped away. As a result of the shooting, many people got killed & injured. Held: First, as to appellant Simeon, evidence shows that the malefactors met in his house to discuss the plan to rob the bank. This circumstance alone doesn’t conclude his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The facts do not show that he performed any act tending to the perpetration of the robbery, nor that he took a direct part therein or induced other persons to commit, or that he cooperated in its consummation by some act w/o w/c it would not have been committed. At most, his act amounted to joining in a conspiracy w/c is not punishable. Simeon then was NOT a principal both by agreement and encouragement for his nonparticipation in the commission of the crime. Nor was it clearly proven that he had received any part/fruits of the looted money as to make him an accessory. (He also had a foot injury. He would just be a liability to the band if he joined them.) EXPRESSLY REJECTED PARTICIPATION = NOT PRINCIPAL. DID NOT AMOUNT TO COMMUNITY OF DESIGN: NOTHING MORE TO INDICATE COMMUNITY OF DESIGN AFTER THEY MET, USE OF HIS HOUSE NOT SUFFICIENT For Romaquin & Doble, the malefactors who waited in the banca. The extra-judicial statements of the appellants are convincing to show that their liability is less than that of a co-principal by conspiracy or by actual participation. Cresencio’s consenting to look for a


banca does not necessarily make him a co-conspirator. Joe Intsik had enough men with all arms to perpetrate the crime. Also, Cresencio was not given part of the loot. Nor was Romaquin considered a principle malefactor as there was a gun pointed at him by Cresencio to prevent him from fleeing away from the scene, evident to show that he never joined in the criminal purpose and that his acts were not voluntary. The sum given to Romaquin (P441, 41 he gave to Cresencio, clearly not what should represent his share if he were a full fledged confederate) could very well represent only the rental of his banca. They are held as accomplices of the robbery in band and not of murder. (Accdg to Sir Muyot, they were not held equally liable because death penalty would be too cruel for all of them) CRESENCIO NOT PART OF CRIMINAL RESOLUTION, PARTICIPATION WAS ONLY AFTER, BUT THIS SHOWED COMMUNITY OF DESIGN SO LIABLE AS ACCOMPLICE. ROMAQUIN: CRIMINAL RESOLUTION WAS ALREADY COMPLETE BUT STILL ACCOMPLICE BECAUSE OF SIMULTANEOUS ACTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Doctolero (1991) Facts: On the evening of Nov. 8, 1970, Marcial Sagun, his wife Maria were on their way home coming from the field.They met the accused Ludovico Doctolero who, without warning and without cause or reason, held the left shoulder of Marcial Sagun with his left hand and struck Marcial Sagun with a bolo. The latter evaded that blow and wrestled with Ludovico for possession of the bolo of the latter. Lolita de Guzman-Oviedo became frightened when Ludovico Doctolero and Marcial Sagun were wrestling for the possession of the bolo of the former, so she ran away in the direction of the house in Sitio Binday. Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy (sister of Marcial Sagun) testified that while she was cleaning palay in the yard of her uncle, the deceased Marcelo Doctolero, she saw the accused, Ludovico. Conrado and Virgilio (all surnamed Doctolero) throw stones at the house of Marcial Sagun. While throwing stones, Ludovico allegedly shouted for the man in the house to come out. Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy went towards the house of Marcial Sagun and saw the three accused, Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio, coming down from the house going towards her. She told them: "Why can't you be patient and forget?" But she was asked not to interfere. At about that time, Marcelo Doctolero, half-brother of Antonio Doctolero, and uncle of the three accused was going towards the house of Marcial Sagun, when he met the three accused, Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio. Marcelo Doctolero told them why they can't be patient and forget, but the three accused replied "Vulva of your mother, we will also kill you." Then they struck Marcelo Doctolero several times with their bolos. And when their father Antonio Doctolero arrived, he also struck Marcelo Doctolero with a bolo on the head. Marcelo Doctolero fell and then all the accused ran away. Held: TC correctly found that Conrado Doctolero participated as an accomplice in the commission of the crimes charged. His defense was an alibi but was not corroborated even by he other appellants. While the testimony of a co-conspirator or an accomplice is admissible, such testimony comes from a polluted source and must be scrutinized with great caution as it is subject to travel suspicion. This uncorroborated denial of his participation cannot overthrow the positive and categorical testimony of the principal witnesses of the prosecution, and between the positive declarations of the prosecution Witness and the negative statements of the While Maria Sagun may have a grudge against the accused Ludovico Doctolero by reason of that previous incident at the crossing yet, no reason or motive is shown why Maria Sagun should also implicate Conrado and Virgilio Doctolero in the


commission of the crime. For the Virgilio and Conrado, it is impossible they did not know or were not aware when their brother was brutally killing Lolita and Epifania and wounding the child inside especially when their brother was hacking them several times. It is obvious that they knew but did nothing to stop their brother. The two were ready to lend assistance. There is no question that their presence upstairs in the house of Marcial gave their brother the encouragement and reliance to proceed. 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. Even if it was done on a sudden thought or impulse by the principal - 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 - that where the accomplices therein consented to help in the commission of forcible abduction, they were responsible for the resulting homicide even if the purpose of the principal to commit homicide was unknown to the accomplices. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XV. Accessories Art. 19 Accessories-- Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners: 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery. 3. 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. - Accessories must have knowledge of the commission of the crime and having that knowledge, took part subsequent to it. - Accessory is not part of the criminal resolution. - Crime committed by principal must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. - If the principal is not liable, then accessory cannot also be liable. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. Must receive the property from the principal with the latter’s consent When brigands take the property knowing that it was stolen, they are principals. - MODIFIED BY THE ANTI-FENCING LAW (now separate liability) By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery 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 Mayor who refuses to prosecute offender is an accessory Silence of a witness to a crime does not make him an accessory since it is an act of omission Conviction of accessory is still possible when principal was acquitted due to exempting circumstances For 2 and 3: LAW ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (SEPARATE LIABILITY) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Talingdan Facts: Bernardo Bagabag was murdered by Talingdan (a policeman who was having an illicit affair with Teresa), Tobias, Bides and Teresa herself. Teresa was the alleged wife of Bernardo but since a marriage certificate could not be presented, she could not be charged with parricide. Teresa only cooperated after Bernardo was killed, telling her daughter not to squeal and not telling the authorities of what her daughter knew. Held: Teresa was held guilty as an accessory. She had knowledge of the murder but cooperated only after the fact. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. -

Basis: blood ties and the desire to preserve the cleanliness of one’s name compels one to conceal the crimes. Only relatives up to the second degree are exempted, therefore nephew or niece not included (weird) Even if not all principals are related to the accessory, he is still exempted. Profiteering is not exempted since it is driven by greed and not affection.

P.D. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law of 1979) - "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft - Person who receives stolen item is liable for fencing unless he proves that he could not have known that the item was stolen. Otherwise, he is presumed to have knowledge that the item was stolen. - If juridical person, then manager of the company is liable.


- Person accused of fencing is not an accessory. - A thief may also be accused of fencing without danger of double jeopardy. - Stores that sell secondhand items must secure a permit from the chief of constabulary/director general of the police in the town or city where such store is located.

- Penalties. Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder indicated: 1. The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed. 2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12,000 pesos. 3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos. 4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos. 5. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos. 6. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.

P.D. 1829 - The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing the following acts:


1. preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats; 2. altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases; 3. harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction; 4. publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes; 5. delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts; 6. making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases; 7. soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender; 8. threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases; 9. giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for


purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to the court.

- Even if the accused is a relative, he is still held liable for committing the acts listed with the intent of obstructing the process of justice under P.D. 1829.

XVI. ARTICLE 48: COMPLEX CRIMES

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PEOPLE vs. TOLING FACTS: · Antonio Toling and Jose Toling (both the accused) are twins, both married, illiterate farmers and natives of Barrio Nenita Samar. · They decided to go to Manila to see their children. Leonora, Antonio’s daughter, gave her father P50. Antonio's grandson, gave him P30. Antonio placed the eighty pesos in the right pocket of his pants. · To go back to home, they boarded the night Bicol express train at about five o'clock in the afternoon. The train left at six o'clock that evening. The twins were in coach No. 9. · After a while, Antonio stood up and stabbed the man sitting directly in front of him with scissors. Jose stabbed the sleeping old woman sitting in front of him with a knife. · The twins ran amuck and started stabbing the people in the coach. They were finally stopped when Constabulary soldiers aboard the train heard about the incident. At that time, Constabulary Sergeant Vicente Rayel was not on duty and was simply taking his wife child to Quezon. He was at the dining car when the incident happened. Constabulary Sargeant Vicente Aldea was in the dining car as well. · The dead amounted to twelve. Eight suffered from stab wounds while others died after they jumped off the train, apparently trying to escape the violence. Seven were injured, though one of them was reported to have died as well. ISSUE: Whether or not the twins are guilty of a compound crime. HELD: No. They were held liable as co-principals for eight (8) separate murders and one attempted murder.


CLASS DISCUSSION: The defense argued that the twins should be charged of a compound crime, pursuant to the doctrine in Lawas. In the said case, a number of Moros killed many people. The Moros were held guilty of a complex crime since it was uncertain who killed whom. Similarly, as the twins argued, it was also uncertain as to who between them killed each of the eight people. Court ruled that the twins should be held liable for eight separate murders. Since there was a conspiracy, the question as to who stabbed whom is immaterial. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PEOPLE v. VALDEZ FACTS: · 6 friends (William and Sandra Montano, Tibule, Ramon and Jean Marie Garcia, and Acosta) were on a tricycle. · After making a turn along the barangay road leading to the Sitio of their destination, they met Valdez and his companions who were armed with guns (caliber .30 carbines). The tricycle's headlights flashed on their faces and without warning they pointed their guns and fired at the 6 friends. Thereafter, uttering the words, "nataydanmapantayon" (They are already dead. Let us go.) · 4 people died while the other 2 (William Montano and Randy Tibule) survived. · Valdez was charged for the complex crime of Multiple Murder with Double Frustrated Murder (with aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of superior power, and treachery) + crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions. ISSUES: Whether or not Valdez should be held liable for a compound crime. HELD: NO. The case doesn't fall under the definition of a complex crime. Valdez should be convicted of four counts of murder and two counts of frustrated murder.

●

ACT BEING REFERRED TO IS THE ACTUAL INFLICTION OF MORTAL WOUNDS, NOT THE PULLING OF THE TRIGGER. The four crimes of murder resulted not from a single act, but from several individual and distinct acts:

-

there was more than one gunman involved act of each gunman is distinct from that of the other several empty bullet shells were recovered in the crime scene Considering the relative position of the victims (some were sitting outside and some were inside the sidecar), it would be impossible for them to all be killed with a single bullet. :. it cannot be said that there is but a single act of firing a single firearm.

· ·

Each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to the complex crime of multiple murder. On illegal possession: RA 8294, which says that if homicide/murder committed with use of unlicensed firearm, it should be taken as an aggravating circumstance, took effect after the crime took place, but Art. 22 states that in cases where the new law will be advantageous to the accused, the law may be given retroactive application: there's no need to file a separate conviction for illegal possession.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NAPOLIS v COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: Nicanor Napolis and some other men, armed with a Grease Gun, pistols and revolvers, entered the dwelling of the spouses Iganacio & Casimira Penaflor by boring a hole under the sidewall of the ground floor of the house. Nicanor assaulted and hit Ignacio with the gun causing him to fall on the ground and rendering him unconscious, he tied Igancio's hands and feet and then left him. Then the accused approached Casimira, threatened her at gun point and demanded money. He tied the hands of Mrs. Penaflor and her two sons. Nicanor searched and ransacked the place and carried away cash and articles belonging to the said spouses. ISSUE: Whether or not Napolis and his band is guilty of robbery in an inhabited house. (or robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons) HELD: Napolis and band is guilty of a complex crime --- robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons [Art 294] and with force upon things [Art 299(a)]. Where the elements of both provisions (Arts 299 (a) & 294 (5)) are present, the crime will be considered complex. In such case, the penalty for the most serious offense shall be imposed in its maximum period, which is reclusion temporal in its maximum period. Otherwise, there will exist an absurd situation where the concurrence of a graver offence results in the reduction of the penalty. * The court created a third kind of robbery and justified such creation by the use of complex crime -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PEOPLE V. SALVILLA FACTS: ● 4 defendants, armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade, entered the New Iloilo Lumber Yard and declared a hold-up. Inside the establishment were Rodita Habiero (employee), Severino Choco (owner), Mary Choco (daughter of owner) and Mimie Choco (15-year-old daughter of owner). ● Salvilla, one of the accused, demanded P100,000 from the owner. Severino placed P20,000 (P5,000 according to appellant) in a paper bag and handed it to Salvilla. Severino asked them to leave but they did not. Salvilla et. al. instead kept Severino et. al. in the office as hostages. Simplicio also took Severino’s wallet and wristwatch. ● Police began negotiations with the robbers in the afternoon. They were asked to surrender but they refused. OIC Mayor Caram participated in the negotiations. Salvilla agreed to receive P50,000 (instead of P100,000) and to release Rodita to be accompanied by Mary Choco. ● Mayor Caram handed the P50,000 to Rodita, who gave it to one of the accused. Rodita was released but Mary was made to go back to the office. ● Ultimatums were given but the robbers did not budge. Finally, police decided to launch an offensive and assault the place, resulting in injuries to Mary and Mimie Choco and to Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares. Mary had to have her right leg amputated.


ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants are guilty of a complex crime. HELD: Yes. Defendants are held liable for a complex crime (robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention). The crime charged was actually TWICE COMPLEXED. First -- complexing with serious physical injuries. Second --complexing with serious illegal detention. · Detention was such a necessary means as it was selected by appellant and his co-accused to facilitate and carry out more effectively their evil design to stage a robbery. Detention was availed of as a means of insuring the consummation of the robbery. · After receiving the P20,000, Salvilla et. al. still refused to leave. The victims were then taken as hostages and an additional P100,000 was asked for their release. The detention was not because they were trapped, but was deliberately employed as a means of extortion for an additional amount. The detention was not merely incidental to the robbery but a necessary means employed to facilitate it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENRILE vs. SALAZAR FACTS: In February 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 103, He was charged together with Mr. & Mrs. Panlilio, and Honasan for the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder which allegedly occurred during their failed coup attempt. Enrile later filed for the habeas corpus alleging that: a.) the crime being charged against him is nonexistent. b.) that he was charged with a criminal offense in information for which no complaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation was conducted, hence was denied due process; c.) denied his right to bail; d.) arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the judge who issued it first having personally determined the existence of probable cause. ISSUE: Whether Enrile has committed complex crimes (delito compleio) arising from an offense being a necessary means for committing another, which is referred to in the second clause of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code? HELD: Enrile is guilty only of SIMPLE REBELLION. (2nd option) 3 Options:


1.) COMPLEX CRIME OF REBELLION WITH MURDER AND MULTIPLE FRUSTRATED MURDER - abandon Hernandez and adopt government’s proposition that rebellion cannot absorb more serious crimes; and that under Article 48 of the RPC, rebellion may properly be complexed with common offenses. 2.) SIMPLE REBELLION – maintain Hernandez as applying to make rebellion absorb all other offenses committed in its course. 3.) REBELLION ABSORBS ONLY NECESSARY MEANS - hold Hernandez applicable only to offenses committed as a necessary means for the commission of rebellion. Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. — The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by RISING PUBLICLY AND TAKING ARMS against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968). According to Article 134, rebellion is committed by “rising publicly” and “taking arms.” Thus, rebellion necessarily involves and absorbs all other offenses committed in its course, whether or not necessary to its commission or in furtherance thereof. The Court, in this case, AFFIRMED and EXPANDED the Hernandez doctrine.

XVII. Continued Crimes PEOPLE V. DE LEON Facts De Leon entered the yard of Vicente Magat’s house and w/o violence or intimidation against persons nor force upon things, took, with intent to gain, two game roosters. One belonging to magat the other belonging to Ignacio Nicolas. The trial court found the accused guilty of one crime of theft holding that the theft of the two roosters constituted but one crime + the fact that he is a habitual criminal, sentenced him to 3 years, 6 mos and one day presidio correccional and to pay the costs. De Leon appealed to the SC and alleges that the trial court erred in (1)holding that the guilt was proven by his own admission, (2) in not giving him benefit of reasonable doubt, and (3) in sentencing instead of acquitting him. Attorney general also raised a question; he urges that the penalty for two crimes of theft be imposed upon the acused for each of the stolen roosters. Held: De Leon guilty of committing just one crime. Theft is an offense against property. The act of taking two roosters, in response to the unity of thought in the criminal purpose on one occasion, is not susceptible of being modified by the accidental circumstance that the roosters belonged to 2 different persons. There is no series of acts here for the accomplishment of different purposes, but only of one


which was consummated, and which determines the existence of only one crime. Knowledge of who owns the thing stolen is not an element of the crime of theft. It is consummated once the thing stolen belongs to another and is taken with intent to gain. Knowledge of who owns the thing does not affect the criminal liability but only the restitution or indemnification of damages (civil). Unity of the intention to take a thing belonging to another on one occasion and in the same place constitutes the commission of only one crime of theft. The fact that the things taken belong to different persons does not produce a multiplicity of crimes, which must be punished separately.De Leon sentenced to suffer the penalty of 6 years and three months presidio mayor, with the accessories of the law and to pay the costs. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


XVIII. LIST OF COMMON CRIMES CRIME Direct Assault

ELEMENTS

PENALTY

1. Without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation for the attainment of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition 2. Without public uprising by attacking, employing force, or seriously intimidating or seriously resisting any person in authority or his agents while engaged in the performance of official duties - both 1 and 2 are committed with a weapon, or when the offender is a public officer or employee, or when the offender lays lands upon a person in authority

prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos

If none of the circumstances (weapon/public officer/lays hands) are present

prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed

Parricide

Any person who shall kill his: - father, mother, or child (whether legitimate or illegitimate) - ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse

reclusion perpetua to death

Murder

- Treachery, superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or insure impunity; - Consideration of a price or promise; - inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, by means of motor vehicles, or any other means

reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death


involving great waste and ruin; - On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity; - With evident premeditation; - With cruelty, by augmenting the suffering of the victim Homicide

- accused killed without any justifying circumstance - the accused had the intention to kill - killing not attended by qualifying circumstances of murder, parricide or infanticide

reclusion temporal

Infanticide

any person who shall kill any child less than 3 days of age.

reclusion perpetua to death.

committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor

prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods

committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them

prision mayor

Serious physical injuries

Any person who wound, beat or assault another - if the injured person became insane, imbecile, impotent or blind

Prision mayor

- if the person injured lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or lost the use of any such member

prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods

the person injured became deformed, or lost any other part of his body, or lost the use thereof, or became ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he as habitually engaged for more than 90 days

prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods


Less serious physical injuries

Slight physical injuries and maltreatment

Rape

physical injuries inflicted caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than 30 days.

arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period

inflict upon another physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall require medical assistance for the same period

penalty of arresto mayor

inflicted with the manifest intent to kill or offend the injured person, or under circumstances adding ignominy to the offense

arresto mayor, a fine not exceeding 500 pesos

Any less serious physical injuries inflicted upon the offender's parents, ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers, or persons of rank, or persons in authority

prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods

physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period.

arresto menor

physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical assistance.

arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 20 pesos and censure

offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury.

arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos

By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following: - Through force, threat, or intimidation - When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious - By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of

- Under paragraph one: reclusion perpetua to death. - Use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons: RP to death. - Victim becomes insane: RP to death - Attempted rape, and a homicide: RP to death


authority - When the offended party is under 12 years old or is demented, even though non of the circumstances above be present

- Rape with homicide: death - The death penalty if committed with any of aggravating/qualifying circumstances: 1. Victim under 18; offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim 2. Victim under custody of police or military authorities; 3. Full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity 4. Victim engaged in legitimate religious vocation and is personally known to be such by the offender 5. Victim is a child below 7 6. Offender afflicted with AIDS or any STD; transmitted to victim 7. Committed by any member of the AFP, PNP or any law enforcement agency; offender took advantage of his position 8. Offender knew of the pregnancy of the victim 9. Offender knew of the disability/disorder/handicap of the offended party

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.

- Under paragraph 2: prison mayor. - With the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons: prision mayor to reclusion temporal. - Victim becomes insane: reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. - Homicide is committed: reclusion perpetua.


- Rape committed with any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances: Reclusion temporal Kidnapping and serious illegal detention

Slight illegal detention

- offender is a private individual - kidnap or detain another - act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal - any of the following circumstances is present: a. kidnapping lasts for more than 3 days b. committed simulating public authority c. any serious physical injuries are inflicted on the person, or threats to kill him are made d. person kidnapped is a minor, female, or a public officer

Reclusion perpetua to death

Kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim, even if none of the circumstances above were present in the commission of the offense

death

victim is killed as a consequence of the detention, or is raped, or subjected to torture

death

- offender is a private individual - kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty - act of kidnapping or detention is illegal - not attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in serious illegal detention

Reclusion temporal

If offender voluntarily releases the victim within 3 days without having attained the purpose intended and before the institution of criminal

Prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 700 pesos


proceedings against him Qualified trespass to dwelling

- offender is a private person - enters the dwelling of another - entrance is against the latter’s will

Arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1000 pesos

If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation

Prision ocrreccional in its medium and maxium periods and a fine not exceeding 1000 pesos

Other forms of trespass

- offender enters the closed premises or the fenced estate of another - entrance is made when place is uninhabited - prohibition to enter is manifest - no permission from owner/caretaker

Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both

Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons

on the occasion of the robbery (taking of personal property belonging to another with intent to gain), the crime of homicide shall have been committed; or when the robbery was accompanied by rape, mutilation or arson


any of the physical injuries resulting in insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness is inflicted

Reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua

Any of the physical injuries resulting in loss of the use of speech or power to hear or smell, loss of an eye, hand, foot, arm or leg or loss of the use of any such member

Reclusion temporal

- Violence or intimidation employed was carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime - or, when offender inflicts upon any person not responsible for commission of robbery any

Prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period


physical injury resulting to the person becoming deformed or ill Robbery by the use of force upon things

- offender entered a) an inhabited place, b) public building, or c) edifice devoted to religious worship - entrance was effected by any of the ff: a. through an opening not intended for entrance or egress b. breaking any wall, roof, floor, door or window c. using false keys, picklocks or similar tools d. using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority - once inside the building, the offender took personal property belonging to another

Reclusion temporal

Brigandage

- at least four armed persons - they formed a band of robbers - the purpose is any of the ff: a. commit robbery in the highway b. kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion c. attain by means of force and violence any other purpose

Prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period - if they are unlicensed firearms: maximum period

Theft

- there be taking of personal property - said property belongs to another - taking be done with intent to gain - taking be done without consent of the owner - taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things

- value of thing stolen is 12000-22000 pesos: prision mayor - value of thing stolen more than 22000 pesos: prision mayor or reclusion temporal - value of thing stolen is 6000-12000 pesos: prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods - 200-6000 pesos: prision correccional in its minimum and maximum periods - 50-200 pesos: arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period


5-50 pesos: arresto mayor maximum period - less than 5 pesos: arresto mayor in its minimum period - theft is also committed when: a. person who found lost property does not deliver it to local authorities or its owner b. person who maliciously damaged the property of another makes use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him c. person who enters an enclosed estate or field where trespass is forbidden; hunt or fish or gather products without consent of owner Arson

Imposed upon any person who shall burn: - 1 or more buildings, from one act of burning - any public or private building where people usually gather for a definite purpose - train, ship, vessel, airplane, means of transportation - buildings devoted to service of public utilities - burning a building to conceal or destroy evidence of another violation of law


Adultery

- woman is married - she had sex with a man not her husband - as regards the man with whom she had sex, he must know her to be married

Prision correccional in its medium and maxium periods

Concubinage

3 ways of committing concubinage: - keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling - having sex under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife

Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods


- cohabiting with her in another place Acts of lasciviousness

- offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness - act of lasciviousness is committed against a person of either sex - done under any of the ff circumstances: a. by using force or intimidation b. when the offended party is deprived of reason c. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority when the offended party is under 12 or is demented

Prision correccional


XVIII. QUICK STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE TO DETERMINATION OF PENALTY: 1. a. b. c.

Felony Committed (use list above) Complex crimes – penalty of the most serious crime in its maximum Impossible crime – arresto mayor or fine Crime different from intended – always take the lower penalty but take it in its maximum (ex. Crime committed is higher penalty from what was intended, take the penalty for the crime which was intended but in its maximum period.) – if crime committed constitutes an attempt or frustration of another crime, and law prescribes a higher penalty, use the penalty imposed for attempt or frustrated crime in the maximum period.

2. a. b. c.

Stage of execution Consummated Frustrated – 1 degree lower Attempted – 2 degrees lower

3. a. b. c.

Participation Principal Accomplice – 1 degree lower Accessory – 2 degrees lower

Consummated

Frustrated

Attempted

Principal

0

1

2

Accomplice

1

2

3

Accessory

2

3

4

* Exceptions – do not apply if the law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplice or accessories.


– accomplices punished as principals when ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers, any person who abuses authority/confidential relationship, shall cooperate as accomplice in crimes of rape, acts of lasciviousness, seduction, corruption of minors. (Art. 346) Also those who gave place for commission of slight illegal detention. (Art. 268) 4. Presence of aggravating/mitigating circumstances GENERAL RULE: If the circumstance constitute crimes or are included as definition of a crime, they are not considered as mitigating/aggravating. (ex. Evident premeditation in murder). If more than 1 circumstance, one shall be absorbed to be a inherent circumstance of the crime, while the other shall be aggravating/mitigating. a.

Special aggravating circumstances (maximum regardless of mitigating) – took advantage of public position – organized/syndicate crime group – habitual delinquency b. Indivisible Penalties (Reclusion Perpetua) – does not take into account mitigating/aggravating c. 2 Indivisible Penalties – neither aggravating or mitigating, lower penalty – one aggravating no mitigating, greater penalty – one mitigating no aggravating, lower penalty – both mitigating and aggravating, offset one another in accordance to number and importance d. Penalty with 3 periods (minimum, medium, maximum) – neither aggravating or mitigating, medium period – one aggravating no mitigating, maximum period – one mitigating no aggravating, minimum penalty – both mitigating and aggravating, offset one another in accordance to number and importance – 2 or more mitigating, no aggravating, penalty next lower – court cannot impose greater penalty (only impose maximum period) *Court shall determine extent of penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the greater or lesser extent or evil produced. 5. Indeterminate Sentence Law (IDS) GENERAL RULE: shall apply to penalties from Reclusion Temporal to Prision Correccional. (The rule is not applicable for reclusion perpetua and penalties under 1 year.) Maximum period – that fixed by law Minimum period – range of penalty next lower to that prescribed


PENALTIES and PERIODS: PENALTY

Duration

Minimum Period

Medium Period

Maximum Period

Reclusion Perpetua

20 years 1 day to 40 years

N/A

N/A

N/A

Reclusion Temporal


12 years 1 day to 14 years 8 months

14 years 8 months 1 day to 17 years 4 months

17 years 4 months 1 day to 20 years




6 months 1 day to 2 years 4 months



1 to 2 months

2 months 1 day to 4 months


1 to 10 days

11 to 20 days

21 to 30 days

*(range: 2 years 8 months) Prision Mayor

6 years 1 day to 12 years *(range: 2 years)

Prision Correccional

6 months 1 day to 6 years *(range: 1 year 10 months)

Arresto Mayor

1 month 1 day to 6 months *(range: 2 months except minimum)

Arresto Menor

1 to 30 days *(range: 10 days)


PERIODS and SUB-PERIODS: PENALTY

DURATION

RANGE

MINIMUM

MEDIUM

MAXIMUM

RT Maximu m


10 months 20 days

17 years 4 months 1 day to 18 years 2 months 20 days

18 years 2 months 21 days to 19 years 1 month 10 days

19 years 1 month 11 days to 20 years

RT Medium


10 months 20 days


15 years 6 months 21 days to 16 years 5 months 10 days

16 years 5 months 11 days to 17 years 4 months

RT Minimu m


10 months 20 days

12 years 1 day to 12 years 10 months 20 days



PM Maximu m


8 months




PM Medium


8 months




PM Minimu m


8 months




PC Maximu m


7 months 10 days



5 years 4 months 21 days to 6 years


PC Medium


7 months 10 days




PC Minimu m

6 months 1 day to 2 years 4 months

7 months 10 days

6 months 1 day to 1 year 1 month 10 days

1 year 1 month 11 days to 1 year 8 months 20 days

1 year 8 months 21 days to 2 years 4 months

AM Maximu m


20 days

4 months 1 day to 4 months 20 days

4 months 21 days to 5 months 10 days

5 months 11 days to 6 months

AM Medium


20 days

2 months 1 day to 2 months 20 days

2 months 21 days to 3 months 10 days

3 months 11 days to 4 months

AM Minimu m

1 to 2 months

10 days

1 month to 1 month 10 days

1 month 11 days to 1 month 20 days

1 month 21 days to 2 months


XIX. PROBATION LAW ● ●

●

granted upon application of offender after conviction and sentencing but before he begins to serve sentence and perfection of an appeal. Expiration of the probation period does not automatically terminate it; a judicial declaration is needed based on the report and recommendation of the probation officer. Without these, the probation is yet to be terminated. (Bala v. Martinez) Period:

Imprisonment

Probation

1 year and below

Not more than 2 years

More than 1 year

Not more than 6 months

Fine with subsidiary imprisonment

Twice the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment

Application for Probation: 1. Application should be made during the reglementary period for filing an appeal a. Application is a waiver of the right to appeal b. Judgment on the application is not appealable 2. Conditions: a. Report within 72 hours from the receipt of orders and report to him at least once a month. (Mandatory) a. Undergo medical and psychological or psychiatric treatment, work, allow the probation officer to visit his house, etc. b. If probationer fails to comply with the conditions or if he commits another offense, then he shall serve his prison sentence. 2. Who are disqualified: a. RA 9165, convicted for drug trafficking and pushing b. Convicted with a maximum of more than 6 years imprisonment c. Convicted of subversion or any crime against national security or public order d. Previously convicted of a crime with sentence of 1 month and 1 day/ or fine of not more than P200 e. One on probation/have been on probation before 3. When probation is denied: a. Offender needs correctional treatment/committed to an institution b. Undue risk that the offender would commit another crime c. When probation will depreciate the seriousness of the crime committed.


XX. Extinction of Criminal Liability ●

Arise after the commission of the offense

Total ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Partial Death of convict Service of sentence Amnesty Absolute pardon Prescription of crime Prescription of penalty Marriage of offender rape, seduction)

● ● ●

Conditional pardon Commutation Allowances for good conduct

(ie

TOTAL EXTINCTION · Death: If offender dies before the final judgment, both civil and criminal liabilities are extinguished, but if he dies after final judgment has been rendered, only criminal liability is extinguished. When the case is pending appeal and offender dies, both liabilities are extinguished except when the civil liability arises from a source other than a delict (ex. Contracts, quasi-contract, quasi-delicts) in such case it survives the death of the offender. Recovery of damages may be done by filing a civil case against the estate or administrator of the estate of the offender · Amnesty: It is an act of sovereign power granting a general pardon for a past offense. It extinguishes the penalties and all its effects. · Absolute Pardon: Act of grace exempting an individual from punishment for a crime committed. It is in the nature of a deed whereby delivery is a requisite, such that until accepted by the grantee, it can still be cancelled. · Prescription of Crime: Crimes punishable by:

Prescription period:

Reclusion perpetua – reclusion 20 years temporal Other afflictive penalties

15 years

Correctional penalties

10 years

Arresto Mayor

5 years

Libel and similar cases

1 year

Oral Defamation, Slander

6 months

Light offenses (Arresto menor 2 months or a fine of 200 and below) o The periods are also applicable to cases where the punishment include only fines.


·

o If fine is imposed as an alternative penalty to imprisonment and is greater in degree, the basis for application of prescription is the fine. o If the last day of prescription falls on a Sunday or holiday, the information can no longer be filed because the crime has prescribed. o Prescription can be brought as a defense in court proceedings and can be a basis for acquittal but it does not necessarily divest the courts of jurisdiction. o Period runs from the day the offense is discovered, interrupted by the filing of complaint, re-starts when the case is terminated without the accused being convicted. Prescription of Penalties o Same as for crimes o Penalties prescribe when the judgment has become final but the convict fled to escape penalty. It runs from the day the convict evades sentence. o Start when the culprit evades service of sentence. o The period is interrupted when the convict surrenders, is capture, goes to a foreign country where we have no extradition treaty with, commits another crime before expiration of the period of prescription, acceptance of conditional pardon.

PARTIAL EXTINCTION · Conditional Pardon: a contract between the state and the offender that the state shall free the offender upon compliance with certain conditions. The condition is usually that the offender shall not commit another crime ever. The duration of the condition is limited to the period of sentence such that if an offender under conditional pardon commits another crime after the expiration of his prison sentence, he cannot be held liable for violation of the conditional pardon. · Commutation of sentence: Decreasing the length of imprisonment or the amount of fine. · Allowance for good conduct: Deduction of the term of imprisonment is made for good behavior. A person who is on conditional pardon is not eligible for allowance because he is not really serving his penalty.

· ·

# of years in prison

Deductions for good allowance

First 2 years

5 days/month

3-5 years

8 days/month

Upto the 10th year

10 days/month

11th year onwards

15 days/month

Parole: The sentence is suspended after the convict has served the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty without granting pardon Special time allowance for loyalty: a prisoner who evades serving his sentence due to calamity/catastrophe and gives himself up within 48 hrs following the proclamation of the president that the calamity has passed would entitle such offender a deduction of 1/5th of his original prison sentence.


XXI. Civil Liability Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. - Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Art. 1157 CC: Obligations arise from 1. Law (Art 31-34 of the Civil Code) Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: (1) Freedom of religion; (2) Freedom of speech; (3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication; (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention; (5) Freedom of suffrage; (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law; (7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use; (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws; (9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same; (11) The privacy of communication and correspondence; (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law; (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances; (14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form; (15) The right of the accused against excessive bail; (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf; (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness; (18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and (19) Freedom of access to the courts. In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall


proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.

2.

Contracts

3.

Quasi-contracts

Art. 2142 CC. Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation of quasicontract to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another. (n) Solutio Indebiti – Art 2144-2153 CC Negotiorum Gestio – Art 2154-2163 CC

4.

Acts or omissions punished by law/ Crimes – RPC Art 100

5.

Quasi-delicts - Art 2176 – 2194 CC

Art. 2176 CC. 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) Applies whether the act is intentional, negligent, or malicious Art. 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) You can’t recover twice

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedures Rule 111 – Prosecution of Civil Action – covers crime and quasi-delicts 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.

Article 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 damage has 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. Article 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 of 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. Article 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. Why would people want to reserve the right of filing a separate case for civil liability? 1. Differences in Proof: Proof beyond reasonable doubt in crimes and only a preponderance of evidence in a civil case 2. Crime: state prosecutor, they will just settle for the bare minimum 3. If separate, you must pay a separate filing fee and it is based on the award that you asked for (you cannot be awarded more than you ask for) 4. Purely criminal case – no role for private lawyer, only when you prosecute it together with the criminal case that your lawyer will be allowed, but under the supervision of the private prosecutor 5. Note: Reservation must be done at the earliest opportunity

Article 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. Article 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.


Article 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. Article 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. Article 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or indemnification for consequential damages and action 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. Article 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. Article 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 subsidiarily 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. Different from Principal Liability in a Civil Case (original action) – action can be directly instituted against them Can’t be stopped with a pending criminal case against the employee or owner of the establishment Art. 2180 CC. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers

acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.


The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)

Article 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. Damages – measured in money 1. Actual – what you actually had to spend, proven by evidence 2. Moral – emotional injury, ex: what you need to spend for you to forget – besmirched reputation, sleepless nights, etc 3. Temperate – to temper the amount of the award, less than the actual (especially if the actual was too much) 4. Nominal – token amount, to recognize that a right has been violated 5. Liquidated – provided by the contract 6. Exemplary – to set as an example

Article 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 other obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law. Article 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 CC. 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) Civil Liability will prescribe: Law and contract – 10 years Quasi-contracts and oral contracts – 6 years Quasi-delicts – 4 years Moral damages for rape/killing – P75,000 minimum


Computation: Loss of Earning Capacity (n is age) = life expectancy x net income = 2/3 (80-n) x (annual gross income-expenses) Example: Victim: Keith Tuason :P Age: 22 = 2/3(80-22) x [(30,000*13mos)]-[0.5(30,000*13mos)] =2/3 (58) x 195,000 =7,540,000.00 to be indemnified to her heirs =P

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Carpio vs Doroja and Ramirez (1989) Facts: Edwin Ramirez, while driving a passenger Fuso Jitney owned and operated by Eduardo Toribio, bumped Dionisio Carpio, a pedestrian crossing the street, as a consequence of which the latter suffered from a fractured left clavicle as reflected in the medico-legal certificate and sustained injuries which required medical attention for 3 months. He was convicted for Reckless Imprudence resulting to Less Physical Serious Injuries, which ordered him to indemnify Carpio the amount of P45.00 for the ½ can of tomatoes he lost, P200.00 paid to the hospital, P1,500.00 as attorney’s fees, and to pay the cost of the suit. Appellant prayed for increase of moral damages to P10,000, but CA only granted P5,000.00. Writ of execution was granted but was unsatisfied due to the insolvency of Ramirez. Complainant moved for a subsidiary writ of execution against the subsidiary liability of the owneroperator, which was denied because the nature of the accident falls under culpa-aquiliana and not culpa-contractual. Issue: Whether or not the subsidiary liability of the owner-operator may be enforced in the same criminal proceeding against the driver where the award was given, or in a separate civil action. Held: Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall 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. Respondent contends that the case of Pajarito v. Seneris cannot be applied to the present case, the former being an action involving culpa-contractual, while the latter being one of culpa-aquiliana. Such a declaration is erroneous. The subsidiary liability in Art. 103 should be distinguished from the primary liability of employers, which is quasi-delictual in character as provided in Art. 2180 of the New Civil Code. Under Art. 103, the liability emanated from a delict. On the other hand, the liability under Art. 2180 is founded on culpa-aquiliana. The present case is neither an action for culpa-contractual nor for culpa-aquiliana. This is basically an action to enforce the civil liability arising from crime under Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code. In no case can this be regarded as a civil action for the primary liability of the employer under Art. 2180 of the New Civil Code, i.e., action for culpa-aquiliana. In order that an employer may be held subsidiarily liable for the employee's civil liability in the criminal action, it should be shown (1) that the employer, etc. is engaged in any kind of industry, (2) that the employee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties and (3) that he is insolvent The subsidiary liability of the employer, however, arises only after conviction of the employee in the criminal action. With all these requisites present, the employer becomes ipso facto subsidiarily liable upon the employee's conviction and upon proof of the latter's insolvency. Owner-operator has not been deprived of his day in court, because the case is not one wherein the operator is sued for a primary liability under the Civil Code but one in which the subsidiary civil liability incident to and dependent upon his employee's criminal negligence


is sought to be enforced. Considering the subsidiary liability imposed upon the employer by law, he is in substance and in effect a party to the criminal case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Heirs of Raymundo Castro vs Bustos (1969) * really long cos there are a lot of pointers

Facts: Apolonio Bustos was charged with the crime of murder for the killing of Raymundo Castro, whose heirs are now petitioners. TC found him guilty only of homicide and crediting him with 2 mitigating circumstances, namely passion and obfuscation and voluntary surrender. His sentence included for him to indemnify the petitioners P6000 without prejudice to whatever he is entitled from GSIS for his 26 yrs of service as a public school teacher · Petitioners prayed for modification of damages to P50,764.00 as indemnity and actual, moral, temperate and exemplary damages, and for respondent be convicted of murder · CA rendered judgment=damages amounting to P6000 as awarded by RTC plus P13,380.00 to compensate for the loss of earning of the decedent at the annual salary of P2,676.00 · Upon MR: with the presence of 2 mitigating circumstances, court eliminated award of damages (6k and 13k) Held: Court will restate the law regarding the items of damages that are recoverable in cases of death caused by a crime, whether the claim therefor is made in the criminal proceedings or in a separate civil action…even if it were claimed otherwise, the indemnity and damages would be the same, for generally the items of damages are same in both proceedings, EXCEPT wrt to the attorney’s fees and expenses in litigation which can be awarded only when a separate civil action is instituted (based on Art 2208 Civil Code) · Decision in the case, failed to comply with constitutional requirement – to state both the facts and the law on which they are based – here, no factual basis was stated for the award of indemnity and damages – which made the impression that the award was fully the discretion of the Court · The court easily yielded to the argument that simply because it had credited the respondent with two mitigating circumstances, it was already justified in eliminating the items of damages already adverted to, presumably having in mind said Art. 2204 which provides that: In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. · The general rule in the Civil Code is that: In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. (Art. 2202) When, however, the crime committed involves death, there is Art. 2206 which provides thus: The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death; (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by law of


testate or intestate succession may demand support from the person causing the death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court; (3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. · Amount of P3000, already increased in other cases to P6000, and may be adjudicated even without proof of pecuniary loss · Exemplary damages may also be imposed as a part of this civil liability when the crime has been committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, such damages being "separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party," (Art. 2230). Exemplary damages cannot however be recovered as a matter of right; the court will decide whether or not they should be given. (Art. 2233) · In any event, save as expressly provided in connection with the indemnity for the sole fact of death (1st par., Art. 2206) and in cases wherein exemplary damages are awarded precisely because of the attendance of aggravating circumstances, (Art. 2230) "... damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances," (Art. 2204) but "the party suffering the loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omisson in question." · When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to the following items of damages: 1. As indemnity for the death of the victim of the offense — P12,000.00, without the need of any evidence or proof of damages, and even though there may have been mitigating circumstances attending the commission of the offense. 2. As indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the deceased —amt to be fixed by court depending on actual income at the time of death and his probable life expectancy, awarded as a matter of duty, except if he had no earning capacity. If obliged to give support, the recipient who is not an heir may demand support from the accused for not more than 5 yrs, exact duration to be fixed by the court 3. As moral damages for mental anguish, — an amount to be fixed by the court. This may be recovered even by the illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased. 4. As exemplary damages, when the crime is attended by one or more aggravating circumstances, — an amount to be fixed in the discretion of the court, the same to be considered separate from fines. 5. As attorney's fees and expresses of litigation, — the actual amount thereof, (but only when a separate civil action to recover civil liability has been filed or when exemplary damages are awarded). 6. Interests in the proper cases. 7. It must be emphasized that the indemnities for loss of earning capacity of the deceased and for moral damages are recoverable separately from and in addition to the fixed sum of P12,000.00 corresponding to the indemnity for the sole fact of death, and that these damages may, however, be respectively increased or lessened according to the mitigating or aggravating circumstances, except items 1 and 4 above, for obvious reasons. · Once the heirs of the deceased claimed moral damages and are able to prove they are entitled thereto, it becomes the duty of the court to make the award · Compensatory damages – may be considered in the prayer for “actual damages” and for other “just and equitable reliefs” · Award for moral damages and loss of earning capacity in the case does not afford sufficient basis because the decision did not state the law on which it was based. Legally the court can just return the case to that court for the supply of the constitutional omissions.


· Court emphasizes: When there is no such separate civil action and the claim for civil indemnity is joined with the criminal case, no record on appeal, whether printed, typewritten or mimeographed, is necessary, except perhaps when formal pleading raising complicated questions are filed in connection therewith, and still, this would be purely optional on the appellant because anyway the whole original record of the case is elevated in appeals in criminal cases. · CA amended decision affirmed. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People vs. Cordova (1994)

Facts: Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof on June 19, 1991. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died on February 4, 1992 at the National Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hepatic encephalopathy secondary to hipato carcinoma gastric malingering. Consequently, the Supreme Court in its Resolution of May 20, 1992 dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. Issue: Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil liability? Held: In pursuing recovery of civil liability arising from crime, the final determination of the criminal liability is a condition precedent to the prosecution of the civil action, such that when the criminal action is extinguished by the demise of accused-appellant pending appeal thereof, said civil action cannot survive. The claim for civil liability springs out of and is dependent upon facts which, if true, would constitute a crime. Such civil liability is an inevitable consequence of the criminal liability and is to be declared and enforced in the criminal proceeding. This is to be distinguished from that which is contemplated under Article 30 of the Civil Code which refers to the institution of a separate civil action that does not draw its life from a criminal proceeding. The Sendaydiego resolution of July 8, 1977, however, failed to take note of this fundamental distinction when it allowed the survival of the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto by treating the same as a separate civil action referred to under Article 30. Surely, it will take more than just a summary judicial pronouncement to authorize the conversion of said civil action to an independent one such as that contemplated under Article 30. Summary: 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore." 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: a) Law b) Contracts c) Quasi-contracts d) . . . e) Quasi-delicts 3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.


4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. · Applying this set of rules to the case at bench, Court held that the death of appellant Bayotas extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the act complained of, i.e., rape. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed without qualification. Appeal of the late Rogelio Bayotas dismissed.

Crim 1 - Muyot - CrimFinalReviewer

Recommend Documents