CRIMINAL LAW

Book I
b
 Criminal Law immoral, they are
(Book I) mala in se, even if
punished by special
Definition of Criminal Law laws.
Criminal law is that branch or division
So, although as a An act mala prohibita is
of law which defines crimes, treats of
rule, special laws wrong because it is
their nature, and provides for their
punish acts that are prohibited by law.
punishment (Reyes, Revised Penal Code,
mala prohibita, if the Without the law
Criminal Law, Book One, 2021 ed.).
punished act is punishing the act, it
Differences Between Mala In Se and wrongful in its very cannot be considered a
Mala Prohibita nature, or wrong. Hence, the
inherently immoral, mere commission of
Mala in se Mala prohibita like the offense the act is what
An act malum in se is An act malum punished by the constitutes the offense
wrong from its very prohibitum is wrong Revised Election punished and criminal
nature as those merely because it is Code, which is a intent will be
felonies punished in prohibited by statute. special law, immaterial for reason
the Revised Penal regarding the of public policy. So,
Code (RPC). omission or failure the mere carrying of a
to include a voter’s firearm within polling
Crimes mala in se are Crimes mala prohibita name in the registry place is punishable by
those so serious in are violations of mere list of voters, such is the Revised Election
their effects on rules of convenience a wrong per se and Code irrespective of
society as to call for designed to secure a not a wrong merely whether or not the
almost unanimous more orderly because it is offender had the
condemnation of its regulation of the prohibited (People v. intention to violate the
members. affairs of society Sunico, [CA] 50 O.G. law (People v. Bayona,
(Bouvier’s Law 5880) 61 Phil. 181).
Dictionary, Rawle’s 3rd
Revision). But it is essential that
In its commission, Criminal intent is there must be intent to
intent is an element immaterial where the perpetrate the act,
and good faith is a acts are prohibited for which means it must
defense. reason of public be committed
policy, as in illegal consciously, freely,
possession of firearms and voluntarily. Good
(People v. Conosa and faith and absence of
CA, 45 O.G. 3953). criminal intent are not
The term mala in se The term mala prohibita valid defenses. It is the
refers generally to refers generally to acts commission of the act
felonies defined and made criminal by and not its character or
penalized under the special law. effect that determines
RPC. When the acts whether the law has
are inherently been violated

2
 (Gregorio, (Loney v. People, G.R. No. 152644, 10
Fundamentals of February 2006).
Criminal Law).
The determination of whether an
offense is mala in se or mala prohibita
Crimes mala in se are those "so serious
is a question of fact. The better
in their effects to society as to call for
almost unanimous condemnation of its approach to distinguish between mala
members." On the other hand, crimes in se and mala prohibita crime is the
mala prohibita are "violations of mere determination of the inherent
rules of convenience designed to secure immorality or vileness of the penalized
a more orderly regulation of the affairs act. If the punishable act or omission is
of society."
immoral in itself, then it is a crime mala
in se. On the contrary if it is not
Generally, the term mala in se pertains
to felonies defined and penalized by immoral in itself, but there is a statute
the RPC while mala prohibita refers prohibiting its commission by reason of
generally to acts made criminal by public policy, then it is mala prohibita.
special laws. In acts which are declared Recognizing the malum prohibitum
to be mala prohibita, malice or intent is characteristic of hazing, the said crime
immaterial.
shall not be entitled to the mitigating

Since RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence circumstance that there was no

Against Women and Their Children intention to commit so grave a wrong
Act of 2004 is a special law, the act of (People vs. Dungo, G.R. No. 209464, 01
deprivation of financial support is July 2015).
considered malum prohibitum.
Petitioner's argument of absence of Construction of Penal Laws
malice or intent is immaterial and the Penal laws are strictly construed
only inquiry to be made is whether or against the government and liberally in
not XXX committed the act. (XXX v. favor of the accused (U.S. v. Abad
People, G.R. No. 221370, 28 June 2021, Santos, 36 Phil. 243). The rule that penal
J. Hernando). statutes should be strictly construed
against the state may be invoked only
On petitioners’ claim that the charge where the law is ambiguous and there
for violation of Article 365 of the RPC is doubt as to its interpretation. Where
"absorbs" the charges for violation of the law is clear and unambiguous,
PD 1067, PD 984, and RA 7942, suffice there is no room for the application of
it to say that a mala in se felony (such as the rule (People v. Gatchalian, 104 Phil.
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in 664).
Damage to Property) cannot absorb
mala prohibita crimes (such as those Scope of Application and
violating PD 1067, PD 984, and RA Characteristics
7942). What makes the former a felony of Philippine Criminal Law
is criminal intent (dolo) or negligence
(culpa); what makes the latter crimes 1. Generality
are the special laws enacting them

3
This characteristic is mainly based from d. while being public officers or
Art. 14 of the New Civil Code (NCC) employees, should commit an
which provides: “Penal laws and those of offense in the exercise of their
public security and safety shall be functions; and
obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in
the Philippine territory subject to the e. should commit any of the crimes
principles of public international law and against national security and the
treaty stipulations.” law of nations (Art. 2, RPC).

The rule of the general application of 3. Prospectivity

penal laws does not apply to those This implies that a penal law cannot
cases so provided by public make an act punishable in a manner in
international law, by treaty stipulations which it was not punishable when
or by a law of preferential application. committed. As provided in Art. 366 of
Under the principle of public the RPC, crimes are punished under
international law, sovereigns or head of the laws in force at the time of their
states, ambassadors, ministers commission (Reyes, Revised Penal Code,
plenipotentiary and ministers-resident, Criminal Law, Book One, 2021 ed.).
charges d’affairs and attaches are exempt
from criminal prosecution (Gregorio, Guidelines:
Fundamentals of Criminal Law, 2008 ed.). 1. A penal law does not have a
retroactive effect;
2. Territoriality
The principle of territoriality means 2. If favorable to the accused, a penal
that as a rule, penal laws of the law may be given retroactive effect;
Philippines are enforceable only within and
its territory (Reyes, Revised Penal Code,
Criminal Law, Book One, 2021 ed.). 3. Even if favorable to the accused, a
However, the provisions of the RPC penal law cannot be given
may also be enforced outside of the retroactive effect if the accused is a
Philippine jurisdiction against those habitual delinquent or the law so
who: expressly provides (Gregorio,
Fundamentals of Criminal Law, 2008
a. should commit an offense while ed.).
on a Philippine ship or airship;
Effects of Repeal of Penal Laws
b. should forge or counterfeit any 1. If the repeal makes the penalty
coin or currency note or lighter in the new law, the new law
obligations and securities issued shall be applied, except when the
by the Philippine Government; offender is a habitual delinquent or
when the new law is made not
c. should be liable for acts applicable to pending action or
connected with the introduction existing causes of action.
into the country of the
obligations and securities 2. If the new law imposes a heavier
aforestated; penalty, the law in force at the time

4
 of the commission of the offense conditions shall be dealt with by
shall be applied. law.

3. If the new law totally repeals the 3. Bill of attainder

existing law so that the act which It is a legislative act which inflicts
was penalized under the old law is penalty without judicial trial (Gregorio,
no longer punishable, the crime is Fundamentals of Criminal Law, 2008 ed.).
obliterated (Reyes, Revised Penal It is based on Sec. 22, Article III
Code, Criminal Law, Book One, 2021 Constitution of the Republic of the
ed.). Philippines which provides that “no ex
post facto law or bill of attainder shall be
Constitutional Limitations on the enacted.”
Power of Congress to Enact Penal
Laws in the Bill of Rights 4. Ex post facto law
It law is one which:
1. Equal Protection and Due Process
No person shall be deprived of life, a. makes criminal an act done
liberty and property without due before the passage of the law
process of law, nor shall any person be and which was innocent when
denied the equal protection of the laws done and punishes such an act;
(Sec. 1, Art. III, 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines). b. aggravates a crime, or makes it
greater than it was when
2. Non-imposition of cruel and committed;
unusual punishment or excessive
fines c. changes the punishment and
Sec. 19, Art. III, 1987 Constitution of the inflicts a greater punishment
Republic of the Philippines provides that: than the law annexed to the
crime when committed;
a. Excessive fines shall not be
imposed nor cruel, degrading or d. alters the legal rules of evidence,
inhuman punishment inflicted. and authorizes conviction upon
Neither shall death penalty be less or different testimony than
imposed unless, for compelling the law required at the time of
reasons involving heinous the commission of the offense;
crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death e. assuming to regulate civil rights,
penalty imposed shall be and remedies only, in effect
reduced to reclusion perpetua. imposes penalty or deprivation
of right for something which
b. The employment of physical, when done was lawful;
psychological, or degrading
punishment against any f. deprives a person accused of a
prisoner or detainee or the use crime of some lawful protection
of substandard or inadequate to which he has become entitled
penal facilities under subhuman such as the protection of a
former conviction or acquittal,

5
 or a proclamation of amnesty Definition
(Gregorio, Fundamentals of Felonies are acts and omissions
Criminal Law, 2008 ed.). punishable by the RPC (Art. 3).

Classifications
The Principle of Dubio Pro Reo
1. As to the manner by which felonies
are committed, felonies are
Penal laws are strictly construed
classified as: (a) intentional felonies,
against the State and liberally in favor
and (b) culpable felonies. It states
of the accused.
that felonies are committed not only
by means of deceit (dolo) but also by
Criminal law is rooted in the concept
means of fault (culpa) (Art.3, RPC).
that there is no crime unless a law
specifically calls for its punishment.
Intentional Felonies Culpable Felonies
Thus, courts must not bring cases
The act or omission The act or omission
within the provision of law that are not
of the offender is of the offender is not
clearly embraced by it. The terms of the
malicious. In the malicious. The injury
statute must clearly encompass the act
language of Art. 3, caused by the
committed by an accused for the latter
to be held liable under the provision. the act is performed offender to another
Any ambiguity in the law will always with deliberate person is
be construed strictly against the state intent (with malice). “unintentional, it
and in favor of the accused. The offender, in being simply the
performing the act incident of another
The fundamental principle in applying or in incurring the act performed
and in interpreting criminal laws is to omission, has the without malice.” The
resolve all doubts in favor of the intention to cause an wrongful act results
accused. In dubio pro reo, when in injury to another. from imprudence,
doubt, rule for the accused. This is in negligence, lack of
consonance with the constitutional foresight or lack of
guarantee that the accused shall be skill (Reyes, Revised
presumed innocent unless and until his Penal Code, Criminal
guilt is established beyond reasonable
Law, Book One, 2021
doubt. It is well-settled that the scope
ed.).
of a penal statute cannot be extended
by good intention, implication, or even
Requisites: He must Requisites: He must
equity consideration. Only those
have: have:
persons, offenses, and penalties, clearly
included, beyond any reasonable a. FREEDOM a. FREEDOM
doubt, will be considered, within the while doing an while doing an
statute's operation. (Pulido v. People, act or omitting to act or omitting to
G.R. No. 220149, 27 July 2021, J. do an act; do an act;
Hernando). b. INTELLIGENC b. INTELLIGENCE
E while doing while doing the
the act or act or omitting to
omitting to do an do the act;
Felonies act;

6
 c. INTENT while c. He is his own
doing the act or IMPRUDENT, spontaneous
omitting to do NEGLIGENT OR desistance
the act (Reyes, LACKS (Art. 6, RPC).
Revised Penal FORESIGHT OR
Code, Criminal SKILL while 3. As to the degree of commission,
Law, Book One, doing the act or felonies are classified as: (a) grave
2021 ed.). omitting to do an felonies, (b) less grave felonies, and
act (Reyes, Revised (c) light felonies. (Art.9, RPC)
KEYWORD: FII Penal Code,
Criminal Law, Grave Less grave
Light Felonies
Book One, 2021 Felonies Felonies
ed.). Grave Less grave Light felonies
felonies are felonies are are those
KEYWORD: those to those which infractions of
FIINLaFS which the the law law for the
law attaches punishes commission of
2. As to the stages of commission of the capital with which the
felonies, felonies are classified as: punishment penalties penalty of
(a) consummated felonies, (b) or penalties which in arresto menor or
frustrated felonies, and (c) which in any their a fine not
attempted felonies (Art. 6, RPC). of their maximum exceeding
periods are period are PhP40,000.00,
Consummated Frustrated Attempted afflictive. correctional. or both, is
Felonies Felonies Felonies provided (Art.
When all the When the When the 9, RPC as
elements offender offender amended by RA
necessary for its performs all commences 10951).
execution and the acts of the
accomplish- execution commission Fine, when afflictive, correctional and
ment are which would of a felony light (Art. 26, RPC as amended by RA
present. produce the directly by 10951)
felony as a overt acts, a. Afflictive penalty, if fine exceeds
consequence and does not PhP1,200,000.00;
but which, perform all b. Correctional penalty, if
nevertheless, the acts of PhP1,200,000.00 but not less
do not execution than PhP40,000.00;
produce it by which c. Light penalty, if less than
PhP40,000.00.
reason of should
causes produce the
Elements of Criminal Liability
independent felony by
Art. 4 of the RPC provides for two
of the will of reason of
instances when criminal liability shall
the some cause
be incurred:
perpetrator. or accident
other than

7
1. Criminal liability for a felony is the resulting injuries (People
different from that which is v. Page, 77 SCRA 348).
intended. The REQUISITES are:
iii. Proximate cause is that,
a. That an intentional felony has which, in the natural and
been committed; and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient
b. That the wrong done to the intervening cause, produces
aggrieved party be the direct, the injury without which the
natural and logical consequence result would not have
of the felony committed. occurred.

i. There is NO intentional It is settled that anyone inflicting

felony when the act or injuries is responsible for all the
omission is not punishable consequences of his criminal act
by the RPC and when the act such as death that supervenes in
is covered by any of the consequence of the injuries. The
justifying circumstances in fact that the injured did not receive
Art. 11 of the RPC. proper medical attendance would
not affect the offender's criminal
HOWEVER, in the act of responsibility. The rule is founded
defense or fulfillment of on the practical policy of closing to
duty, one must exercise with the wrongdoer a convenient
due care, otherwise he will avenue of escape from the just
be held for culpable felony. consequences of his wrongful act.
Hence, in one case, appellant If the rule were otherwise, many
acted in the performance of criminals could avoid just
his duty. However, the accounting for their acts by merely
killing need not be necessary establishing a doubt as to the
consequence of the immediate cause of death (People v.
performance of his duty. His Acuram, G.R. No. 117954, 27 April
duty was to maintain peace 2000).
and order during the Junior
and Senior Prom but he iv. Thus, the person is still
exceeded such duty when he criminally liable although
fired his armalite without the wrongful act done be
warning. Appellant is guilty different from that which he
of homicide (People v. Belbes, intended:
G.R. No. 124670, 2000).
a) Error in personae or
ii. Any person who creates in mistake in the identity of
another person’s mind an the victim (Art. 49, RPC).
immediate sense of danger,
which causes the latter to do b) Abberatio ictus or
something resulting in the mistake in the blow (Art.
latter’s injuries is liable for 48, RPC).

8
 c) Praeter intentionem or of execution to bring the desired
injurious result is greater result without consummating the
than that intended (Art. offense, such as:
13, RPC).
a. Rape, since the gravamen of the
2. Impossible Crimes offense is carnal knowledge.
REQUISITES: Hence, no matter how slight the
a. That the act performed would penetration is, the felony is
be an offense against persons or consummated. The Court
property; declared that the crime of
b. That the act was done with evil frustrated rape is non-existent in
intent; our criminal law (People v. Orita,
c. That its accomplishment is 184 SCRA 105).
inherently impossible, or that
the means employed is either BUT, in the case of People v.
inadequate or ineffectual; and Erińa, 50 Phil. 998, the Court
d. That the act performed should ruled that, “there being no
not constitute a violation of conclusive evidence of penetration
another provision of the RPC. of the genital organ of the child, the
accused is entitled to the benefit of
There is no attempted or frustrated the doubt and can only be found
impossible crime. It is ALWAYS guilty of frustrated rape.” This
CONSUMMATED and applies only to ruling was declared however as
grave or less grave felonies. a “STRAY” decision and has not
been reiterated in the Court’s
Stages of Execution subsequent decisions. (People v.
Under Art. 6 of the RPC, there are three Orita, 184 SCRA 105).
(3) stages of execution. These are the
following: b. Indirect bribery, because it is
committed by accepting gifts
1. Consummated stage, where all the offered to the public officer by
elements necessary for its execution reason of his office. If he does
and accomplishment are present; not accept, he does not commit
the crime. If he accepts, it is
2. Frustrated stage, where the consummated;
offender has performed all the acts
of execution to produce the felony c. Impossible Crimes, because the
as a consequence but the crime does acts performed by the offender
not result due to some cause are considered as constituting a
independent of the will of the consummated offense (Reyes,
offender; Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law,
Book One, 2021 ed.).
There are crimes which do not
admit of a frustrated stage. They d. Corruption of public officers,
are those which, by the definition of because the offense requires the
a frustrated felony, the offender concurrence of the will of both
cannot possibly perform all the acts parties, such as that when the

9
 offer is accepted, the offense is Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book One,
consummated. But when the 2021 ed.).
offer is rejected, the offense is
merely attempted; Distinction between Frustrated or
Attempted Murder
e. Adultery, because the essence of
the crime is sexual congress; It is well-settled that in order to
convict an accused for the crime of
f. Physical injury, since it cannot Frustrated Murder or Homicide, as
be determined whether the the case may be, the nature of the
injury will be slight, less serious wounds sustained by the victim
or serious unless and until should be fatal. Otherwise, the
consummated; and accused can only be convicted of
Attempted Murder or Homicide
g. Theft, because the ability of the (Oliveros v. People, G.R. No.
offender to freely dispose of the 242552, 3 March 2021).
property stolen is not a
constitutive element of the crime Conspiracy and Proposal
of theft. It finds no support or
extension in Art. 308, whether as 1. Conspiracy exists when two or
a descriptive or operative more persons come to an agreement
element of theft or as the mens concerning the commission of a
rea or actus reus of the felony felony and decide to commit it (Art.
(People v. Obillo, 411 Phil. 139, 8, par. 2, RPC).
2001).
There is conspiracy when two or
Theft cannot have a frustrated more persons come to an agreement
stage. It can only be attempted concerning the commission of a
or consummated (Valenzuela v. felony and decide to commit it. In
People, et.al., G.R. No. 160188, 21 proving conspiracy, direct evidence
June 2007.) is not indispensable as its existence
may be inferred from the conduct of
3. Attempted Stage, where the the accused before, during, and
offender begins the commission of after the commission of the crime
the felony by direct overt acts but (People v. Olazo, G.R. No. 220761, 3
does not perform all the acts of October 2016).
execution which should produce
the felony as a consequence by Similar to the physical act
reason of some cause or accident constituting the crime itself, the
other than his own spontaneous elements of conspiracy must be
desistance (Gregorio, Fundamentals proven beyond reasonable doubt.
of Criminal Law, Antonio L. 2008 ed.). Settled is the rule that to establish
conspiracy evidence of actual
There is NO ATTEMPTED cooperation rather than mere
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME because the cognizance or approval of an illegal
offender has already performed the act is required (Reyes, Revised Penal
acts of execution. (Reyes, Revised

10
 Code, Criminal Law, Book One, 2021 proposes its execution to some
ed.). other person or persons (Art. 8, par.
3, RPC).
In a catena of cases decided by the
Court, it has been consistently ruled 3. As a general rule, mere conspiracy
that a mere signature or approval or proposal to commit a felony is
appearing on a document does not not punishable since they are only
meet the required quantum of proof preparatory acts. The exception is
to establish the existence of where the law specifically provides
conspiracy (Macairan v. People, a penalty therefore.
G.R. No. 215104, 18 March 2021).

The nature of the obligation of the 4. Proof of conspiracy may be direct or

co-conspirators in the commission circumstantial. So long as the
of the crime requires solidarity, and evidence presented show a
each debtor may be compelled to "common design or purpose" to
pay the entire obligation. As a co- commit the crime, all of the accused
conspirator, then, Inovero’s civil shall be held equally liable as co-
liability was similar to that of a joint principals even if one or more of
tortfeasor under the rules of the them did not participate in all the
civil law. Joint tortfeasors are those details of the execution of the crime.
who command, instigate, promote, For this reason, the fact of
encourage, advise, countenance, conspiracy "must be proven on the
cooperate in, aid or abet the same quantum of evidence as the
commission of a tort, or who felony subject of the agreement of
approve of it after it is done, if done the parties," that is, proof beyond
for their benefit. They are also reasonable doubt (Benito v. People,
referred to as those who act GR. No. 204644, 11 February 2015).
together in committing wrong or
whose acts, if independent of each 5. Conspiracy, once proven, has the
other, unite in causing a single effect of attaching liability to all of
injury (People v. Inovero, G.R. No. the accused, regardless of their
195668, 25 June 2014). degree of participation (People v.
Feliciano, Jr. G.R. No. 196735, 05 May
So long as the evidence presented 2014).
show a “common design or purpose”
to commit the crime, all of the accused 6. The DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED
shall be held equally liable as co- CONSPIRACY holds two or more
principals even if one (1) or more of persons participating in the
them did not participate in all the commission of a crime collectively
details of the execution of the crime responsible and liable as co-
(Benito v. People, G.R. No. 204644, 11 conspirators although absent any
agreement to that effect, when they
February 2015).
act in concert, demonstrating unity
of criminal intent and a common
2. Proposal exists when the person
purpose or objective. The existence
who has decided to commit a felony
of a conspiracy shall be inferred or

11
 deduced from their criminal
participation in pursuing the crime If both offenses were committed on the
and thus the act of one shall be the same date, they shall be considered as
act of all (People v. Musa, G.R. No. only one. Hence, they cannot be
137042, 17 June 2003). separately counted in order to
constitute recidivism. Also, judgments
Proof of the actual agreement to of conviction handed down on the
commit the crime need not be direct same day shall be considered as only
because conspiracy may be implied one conviction.
or inferred from their acts
indicating a common Recidivism must be taken into account
understanding among them with no matter how many years have
respect to the commission of the intervened between the first and
offense (People v. Villalba, G.R. No. second felonies. (Reyes, Revised Penal
207629, 22 October 2014). Code, Criminal Law, Book One, 2021 ed.).

There may even be conspiracy even 2. Habituality(Reiteracion)

if an offender does not know the (Art. 14, par. 10, RPC)
identities of the other offenders and
even though he is not aware of all In reiteracion, it is essential that the
the details of the plan of operation offender be previously punished that
or was not in on the scheme from he has served the sentence for an
the beginning. One needs only to offense in which the law attaches, or
knowingly contribute his efforts in provides for an equal or greater penalty
furtherance of it. One who joins a than that attached by law to the second
criminal conspiracy in effect adopts offense, or for two or more offenses in
as his own the criminal designs of which the law attaches a lighter
his co-conspirators. penalty. The two offenses are not
embraced in the title of the RPC.
Multiple Offenders Reiteracion is also called habituality.
(Differences, Rules, Effects)
Reiteracion requires that the offender
1. Recidivism shall have served out his sentence for
(Art. 14, par. 9, RPC) the prior offense. If the two offenses are
embraced in the same title of the Code,
A recidivist is one, who, at the time of irrespective of whether the law
his trial for one crime shall have been attaches a greater penalty for the first
previously convicted by final judgment offense, recidivism and not reiteracion is
of another crime embraced in the same present (Gregorio, Fundamentals of
title of the Revised Penal Code Criminal Law, 2008 ed.).
(Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law,
2008 ed.). Reiteracion Recidivism
It is necessary that It is enough that a final
A recidivist is entitled to the benefits of the offender shall judgment has been
the Indeterminate Sentence Law but is have served out his rendered in the first
disqualified from availing credit of his offense.
preventive imprisonment.

12
 sentence for the first estafa (Gregorio, Fundamentals of
offense. Criminal Law, 2008 ed.).
The previous and It requires that the
subsequent offense offenses be included in The imposition of additional penalty
must not be the same title of the for habitual delinquency is
embraced in the RPC.
constitutional because it is neither an ex
post facto law nor does its imposition
same title of the
constitute double jeopardy since it is
RPC.
not imposed for the same offense but
It is not always an It is always to be taken
for the moral depravity of the accused.
aggravating into consideration in
circumstance. fixing the penalty to be Habitual
imposed upon the Recidivism
Delinquency
accused. The crimes are It is sufficient that the
specified. accused, on the date of
3. Quasi-Recidivism his trial, shall have been
(Art. 160, RPC) previously convicted by
final judgment of
Quasi-recidivism is a special
another crime embraced
aggravating circumstance where a
in the same title.
person, after being convicted by final
judgment, shall commit a new felony
before beginning to serve such The offender is No period of time
sentence, or while serving the same. It found guilty between the former
cannot be offset by ordinary mitigating within ten (10) conviction and the last
circumstances. It does not require that years from his last conviction.
the offense for which the convict is release or last
serving and the new felony committed conviction.
be embraced in the same title of the
RPC. The accused must The second offense is for
be found guilty an offense found in the
4. Multi-Recidivism or Habitual the third time or same title of the RPC.
Delinquency oftener of the
(Art. 62, par. 5, RPC) crimes specified.

A culprit is a habitual delinquent if

An additional If not offset by a
within ten (10) years from the date of
penalty is also mitigating
his release or last conviction of the
imposed. circumstance, it serves
crime of serious or less serious physical
to increase the penalty
injuries, robbery, theft, Estafa or
only to the maximum.
falsification, he be found guilty of any
of said crimes a third time or oftener.
Complex Crimes v. Special Complex
A habitual delinquent is sometimes Crimes
called a multi-recidivist. This applies if
all the crimes are embraced in the same Special Complex
Complex Crimes
title of the Code like robbery, theft and Crimes

13
There is a complex Special complex special complex
crime when a single act crimes are those crime.
constitutes two or which are treated as
more grave or less single indivisible
grave felonies or when offenses although
an offense is a comprising more
necessary means for than one specific
committing the other. crime and with
In a complex crime, specific penalty, i.e.,
1. A COMPOSITE CRIME, also
although two or more rape with homicide, known as a special complex
crimes are actually kidnapping with crime, is composed of two or
committed, they homicide, more crimes that the law treats
constitute only one kidnapping with as a single indivisible and
crime in the eyes of the rape, robbery with unique offense for being the
law as well as in the homicide, robbery product of a single criminal
conscience of the with rape, robbery impulse. It is a specific crime
offender. The offender with arson, and with a specific penalty provided
has only one criminal arson with homicide. by law, and differs from a
intent, hence, there is compound or complex crime
only one penalty under Art. 48 of the RPC, which
imposed for the states that: When a single act
commission of a
constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies, or when an
complex crime (Reyes,
offense is a necessary means for
Revised Penal Code,
committing the other, the penalty
Criminal Law, Book One,
for the most serious crime shall be
2021 ed.).
imposed, the same to be applied in
its maximum period (People v.
When a single act Art. 48 does not Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, 11
constitutes two or apply when the law April 2012).
more grave or less especially considers
grave felonies, or when two or more crimes
an offense is a as single and 2. Distinctions of a Composite
necessary means for indivisible and Crimes and Complex Crimes
committing the other, provides a specific (People v. Villaflores, G.R. No.
the penalty for the penalty therefore. 184926, 11 April 2012).
most serious crime Robbery with
shall be imposed, the homicide is not a Composite Complex
same to be applied in complex crime but a Crimes Crimes
its maximum period single and The The combination
(Reyes, Revised Penal indivisible felony by composition of the offenses is
Code, Criminal Law, a specific provision of the not specified but
Book One, 2021 ed.). of a law (Art. 294, offenses is generalized, that
par. 1, RPC) or a fixed by law. is, grave and/or
less grave, or one
offense being the

14
 necessary means b. Reasonable necessity of the
to commit the means employed to prevent or
other. repel it;
This requires a reasonable
Penalty for Penalty is that proportionality between the
the specified corresponding to unlawful aggression and the
combination the most serious defensive response: “[t]he
of crimes is offense, to be means employed by the person
specific. imposed in the invoking self-defense
maximum period. contemplates a rational
equivalence between the means
A light felony A light felony that of attack and the defense.”
that accompanies the
accompanies commission of a c. Lack of sufficient provocation
a composite complex or on the part of the person
crime is compound crime defending himself
absorbed. may be the subject Requires the person mounting a
of a separate defense to be reasonably blameless.
information. He or she must not have
antagonized or incited the attacker
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH into launching an assault. (Velasquez
AFFECT v. People, G.R. No. 195021, 15 March
CRIMINAL LIABILITY 2017)

Justifying Circumstances
(Art. 11, RPC) NOTES:
1. Self-defense, to be successfully
Justifying circumstances are those invoked, must be proven by clear
where the act of a person is said to be and convincing evidence that
in accordance with law, so that such excludes any vestige of criminal
person is deemed not to have aggression on the part of the person
transgressed the law and is free from invoking it (People v. Bosito, G.R. No.
both criminal and civil liability (Reyes, 209346, 12 January 2015).
Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book One,
2021 ed.). 2. By invoking self-defense, the
burden is placed on the accused to
A. Self-Defense prove its elements clearly and
REQUISITES: convincingly. While all three
elements must concur, self-defense
a. Unlawful aggression; relies first and foremost on proof of
Without unlawful aggression, unlawful aggression on the part of
self-defense will not have a leg the victim. If no unlawful
to stand on and this justifying aggression is proved, no self-
circumstance cannot and will defense may be successfully
not be appreciated, even if the pleaded. (People v. Montalvo, G.R.
other elements are present. No. 220749, 20 January 2021, J.
Hernando).

15
 of the justifying circumstance of
3. It must be remembered that the self-defense. Without it, there can
measure of rational necessity is to be be no self-defense, whether
found in the situation as it appeared to complete or incomplete, that can
petitioner at the time when the blow validly be invoked. There is an
was struck. The law does not require unlawful aggression on the part of
that he should mete out his blows in the victim when he puts in actual or
such a manner that upon a calm and imminent danger the life, limb, or
deliberate review of the incident, it right of the person invoking self-
will not appear that he exceeded the defense. There must be actual
precise limits of what was physical force or actual use of a
absolutely necessary to put his weapon. It is present only when the
antagonist hors de combat, or that one attacked faces real and
he struck one blow more than was immediate threat to one’s life
absolutely necessary to save his (People v. De Los Santos, G.R. No.
own life; or that he failed to hold his 207818, 23 July 2014).
hand so as to avoid inflicting a fatal
wound where a less severe stroke 7. It is a statutory and doctrinal
might have served the purpose. requirement that for justifying
Under such conditions, an accused circumstance of self-defense, the
cannot be expected to reflect coolly nor presence of unlawful aggression is a
wait after each blow to determine the condition sine qua non (People v.
effects thereof (Cano v. People, G.R. No. Sazon, 18 September 1990). There can
155258, 2003). be no self-defense unless the victim
committed unlawful aggression
4. When the accused’s defense is self- against the person who resorted to
defense he thereby admits being the self-defense (People v. Casas, G.R.
author of the death of the victim, 212565, 25 February 2015).
that it becomes incumbent upon
him to prove the justifying 8. There is unlawful aggression when
circumstance to the satisfaction of the peril to one’s life, limb or right
the court. (People v. Del Castillo, G.R. is either actual or imminent. There
No. 169084, 18 January 2012) must be actual or physical force or
actual use of weapon (People v.
5. It is also notable that unlawful Crisostomo, G.R. No. L-38180, 23
aggression is the condition sine October 1981).
qua non for the justifying
circumstances of self-defense and 9. A slap on the face is unlawful
defense of a relative. There can be aggression. The act of slapping
no self-defense unless the victim another constituted the use of force
committed unlawful aggression qualifying an unlawful aggression.
against the person who resorted to It is a physical assault coupled with
self-defense (People v. Mediado, G.R. a willfull disregard, nay, defiance,
No. 169871 2, February 2011). of an individual’s personality. It
may, therefore, be frequently
6. Unlawful aggression on the part of regarded as placing in real danger a
the victim is the primordial element person’s dignity, rights and safety

16
 (People v.Sabio, G.R. No. L-23734, 27 angry countenance, or
April 1967). like aiming to throw a
pot.
10. When one agrees to engage in a
fight, he cannot plead self-defense RA 9262
because there is no unlawful Anti-Violence Against Women and
aggression to speak of (Rugas v. their Children Act of 2004
People, G.R. No. 147789, 14 January
2004). The law on violence against women
and their children is broad in scope but
11. Foot-kick greeting is not unlawful specifies two limiting qualifications for
aggression (Reyes, Revised Penal any act or series of acts to be considered
Code, Criminal Law, Book One, 2021 as a crime of violence against women
ed.). through physical harm, namely:
1.) it is committed against a
12. Unlawful aggression is of two kinds woman or her child and the woman is
(People v. Nugas, G.R. No. 172606, 23 the offender’s wife, former wife, or
November 2011): with whom he has or had sexual or
dating relationship or with whom he
Actual or Material Imminent Unlawful has a common child; and
Unlawful Aggression 2) it results in or is likely to
Aggression result in physical harm or suffering
An attack with An attack that is (Dabalos v. Regional Trial Court, Branch
physical force or impending or at the 59, Angeles City, G.R. No. 193960, 07
with a weapon, an point of happening; it January 2013).
offensive act that must not consist in a
VAWC may likewise be committed
positively mere threatening
“against a woman with whom the
determines the attitude, nor must it be
person has or had a sexual or dating
intent of the merely imaginary, but relationship.” Clearly, the use of the
aggressor to cause must be offensive and gender-neutral word “person” who
the injury. positively strong (like has or had a sexual or dating
aiming a revolver at relationship with the woman
another with intent to encompasses even lesbian
shoot or opening a relationships (Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No.
knife and making a 179267, 25 June 25 2013).
motion as if to attack).
Imminent unlawful Definition of Terms
aggression must not be 1. "Battery" refers to an act of
inflicting physical harm upon the
a mere threatening
woman or her child resulting to the
attitude of the victim,
physical and psychological or
such as pressing his
emotional distress (Sec. 3).
right hand to his hip
where a revolver was
"Battered woman syndrome" refers
holstered, to a scientifically-defined pattern of
accompanied by an psychological and behavioral

17
 symptoms found in women living the dominant male; the tendency to
in battering relationships as a result accept responsibility for the
of cumulative abuse. batterer’s actions; and false hopes
that the relationship will improve.
2. Battered woman syndrome as a
defense. Victim-survivors who are 3. More graphically, the battered
found by the courts to be suffering woman syndrome is characterized
from battered woman syndrome do by the so-called “cycle of violence,”
not incur any criminal and civil which has three phases:
liability notwithstanding the a. the tension-building phase;
absence of any of the elements for b. the acute battering incident; and
justifying circumstances of self- c. the tranquil, loving (or, at least,
defense under the RPC (Sec. 26). nonviolent) phase.

3. In the determination of the state of During the tension-building phase,

mind of the woman who was minor battering occurs -- it could be
suffering from battered woman verbal or slight physical abuse or
syndrome at the time of the another form of hostile behavior.
commission of the crime, the courts The woman usually tries to pacify
shall be assisted by expert the batterer through a show of kind,
psychiatrists/ psychologists. nurturing behavior; or by simply
staying out of his way. What
The Battered Woman Syndrome actually happens is that she allows
1. A battered woman has been defined herself to be abused in ways that, to
as a woman “who is repeatedly her, are comparatively minor. All
subjected to any forceful physical or she wants is to prevent the
psychological behavior by a man in escalation of the violence exhibited
order to coerce her to do something by the batterer. This wish, however,
he wants her to do without concern proves to be double-edged, because
for her rights. Battered women her “placatory” and passive
include wives or women in any behavior legitimizes his belief that
form of intimate relationship with he has the right to abuse her in the
men. Furthermore, in order to be first place.
classified as a battered woman, the
couple must go through the However, the techniques adopted
battering cycle at least twice. Any by the woman in her effort to
woman may find herself in an placate him are not usually
abusive relationship with a man successful, and the verbal and/or
once. If it occurs a second time, and physical abuse worsens. Each
she remains in the situation, she is partner senses the imminent loss of
defined as a battered woman.” control and the growing tension
and despair. Exhausted from the
2. Battered women exhibit common persistent stress, the battered
personality traits, such as low self- woman soon withdraws
esteem, traditional beliefs about the emotionally. But the more she
home, the family and the female sex becomes emotionally unavailable,
role; emotional dependence upon the more the batterer becomes

18
 angry, oppressive and abusive. to make up for it, begging for her
Often, at some unpredictable point, forgiveness and promising never to
the violence “spirals out of control” beat her again. On the other hand,
and leads to an acute battering the battered woman also tries to
incident. convince herself that the battery
will never happen again; that her
The acute battering incident is said to partner will change for the better;
be characterized by brutality, and that this “good, gentle and
destructiveness and, sometimes, caring man” is the real person
death. The battered woman deems whom she loves.
this incident as unpredictable, yet
also inevitable. During this phase, A battered woman usually believes
she has no control; only the batterer that she is the sole anchor of the
may put an end to the violence. Its emotional stability of the batterer.
nature can be as unpredictable as Sensing his isolation and despair,
the time of its explosion, and so are she feels responsible for his well-
his reasons for ending it. The being. The truth, though, is that the
battered woman usually realizes chances of his reforming, or seeking
that she cannot reason with him, or receiving professional help, are
and that resistance would only very slim, especially if she remains
exacerbate her condition. with him. Generally, only after she
leaves him does he seek
At this stage, she has a sense of professional help as a way of
detachment from the attack and the getting her back. Yet, it is in this
terrible pain, although she may phase of remorseful reconciliation
later clearly remember every detail. that she is most thoroughly
Her apparent passivity in the face of tormented psychologically (People
acute violence may be rationalized v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15
thus: the batterer is almost always January 15, 2004).
much stronger physically, and she
knows from her past painful ➢ Republic Act (RA) No. 9262
experience that it is futile to fight recognizes that wives, former
back. Acute battering incidents are wives, co-parents, and sweethearts
often very savage and out of may be raped by their husbands,
control, such that innocent former husbands, co-parents, or
bystanders or interveners are likely sweethearts by stating that
to get hurt. committing acts of rape against
these persons are considered
The final phase of the cycle of violence against women. … Sexual
violence begins when the acute
congress with a person who
battering incident ends. During this
expressed her resistance by words
tranquil period, the couple
or deeds constitutes force either
experience profound relief. On the
physically or psychologically
one hand, the batterer may show a
through threat or intimidation
tender and nurturing behavior
towards his partner. He knows that (People v. Quintos, G.R. No. 199402,
he has been viciously cruel and tries 12 November 2014).

19
 b. Reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or
B. Defense of Relatives repel it; and
REQUISITES: c. The person defending be not
induced by revenge,
a. Unlawful aggression; resentment, or other evil motive
b. Reasonable necessity of the (Santiago Paera v. People, G.R. No.
means employed to prevent or 181626, 30 May 2011).
repel it; and
c. In case the provocation was NOTES:
given by the person attacked, 1. The RPC requires that the defense
the one making a defense had no of a stranger be actuated by a
part therein (People v. Agacer, disinterested or generous motive,
et.al., G.R. No. 177751, 14 when it puts down “revenge,
December 2011). resentment, or other evil motive” as
illegitimate (Reyes, Revised Penal Code,
NOTES: Criminal Law, Book One, 2021 ed.).
1. Relatives that can be defended:
a. Spouse; 2. Furnishing a weapon to one in
b. Ascendants; serious danger of being throttled is
c. Descendants; defense of stranger (US v.
d. Legitimate, natural or adopted Subingsubing, 31 Phil 376).
brothers and sisters, or relatives
by affinity in the same degree; 3. To properly invoke the justifying
and circumstance of defense of a
e. Relatives by consanguinity stranger, it must be shown that
within the fourth civil degree. there was unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim, that the
2. With regard to the third requisite, means employed to repel the victim
although the provocation were reasonably necessary, and that
prejudices the person who gave it, the accused was not induced by
its effects do not reach the defender revenge, resentment, or other evil
who took no part therein, because motive. The state of mind of the
the latter was prompted by some accused during the alleged act of
noble or generous sentiment in self-defense or defense of a stranger
protecting and saving a relative must be considered in determining
(Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, whether a person’s means of
Book One, 2021 ed.). repelling an aggressor were
reasonable (Mariano v. People, G.R.
3. The fact that the relative defended No. 224102, 26 July 2017)
gave provocation is immaterial.

C. Defense of Stranger D. Avoidance of Greater Evil or

REQUISITES: Injury
REQUISITES:
a. Unlawful aggression;

20
 a. That the evil sought to be NOTES:
avoided actually exists; 1. Although an officer in making an
b. That the injury feared be greater arrest is justified in using force as is
than that done to avoid it; reasonably necessary to secure and
c. That there be no other practical detain an offender, overcome his
and less harmful means of resistance, prevent his escape,
preventing it (Art. 11 par.4, recapture him if he escapes, and
RPC). protect himself from bodily harm,
yet he is never justified in using
NOTES: unnecessary force or in treating him
1. Although as a rule, there is no civil with wanton violence, or in
liability in justifying circumstances, resorting to dangerous means when
it is only in par. 4 of Art. 11 where the arrest could be effected
there is civil liability, but the civil otherwise (Reyes, Revised Penal Code,
liability is borne by the persons Criminal Law, Book One, 2021 ed.).
benefited (Reyes, Revised Penal Code,
Criminal Law, Book One, 2021 ed.). 2. In a case, the Court ruled that the
appellant was not in the
2. The persons for whose benefit the performance of his duties at the
harm has been prevented shall be time of the shooting for the reason
civilly liable in proportion to the that the girls he was attempting to
benefit which they may have arrest were not committing any act
received (Art. 101, RPC). of prostitution in his presence
(People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, 24
3. When the accused was not avoiding January 2011).
any evil, he cannot invoke the
justifying circumstance of 3. With regard to the lawful exercise
avoidance of a greater evil or injury. of right, under Art. 429 of the NCC,
(Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, the owner or lawful possessor of a
Book One, 2021 ed.). thing has the right to exclude any
person from the enjoyment and
E. Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful disposal thereof. For this purpose,
Exercise of Right or Office he may use such force as may be
REQUISITES: reasonably necessary to repel or
prevent an actual or threatened
a. That the accused acted in the unlawful physical invasion or
performance of a duty or in the usurpation of his property.
lawful exercise of a right or
office; 4. In the lawful exercise of a right as a
b. That the injury caused or the justifying circumstance, it is not
offense committed be the necessary that there be unlawful
necessary consequence of the aggression against the person
due performance of duty or the charged with the protection of the
lawful exercise of such right or property. Otherwise, it shall be
office (People v. Oanis, 69 SCRA considered a defense of right to
172, January 30, 1976) property under par.1 of Art.11

21
 (Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, 4. The acquittal of the accused does
Book One, 2021 ed.). not automatically preclude a
judgment against him on the civil
F. Obedience to an Order Issued for aspect of the case. The extinction of
Some Lawful Purpose the penal action does not carry with
REQUISITES: it the extinction of the civil liability
where: (a) the acquittal is based on
a. Than an order has been issued reasonable doubt as only
by a superior; preponderance of evidence is
b. That such order must be for required; (b) the court declares that
some lawful purpose; the liability of the accused is only
c. That the means used by the civil; and (c) the civil liability of the
subordinate to carry out said accused does not arise from or is not
order is lawful. based upon the crime of which the
accused is acquitted.
NOTES:
The subordinate is not liable for However, the civil action based on
carrying out an illegal order of his delict may be deemed extinguished
superior, if he is not aware of the if there is a finding on the final
illegality of the order and he is not judgment in the criminal action that
negligent (People v. Beronilla, 96 Phil the act or omission from which the
566). civil liability may arise did not exist
or where the accused did not
Exempting Circumstances commit the acts or omission
(Art. 12, RPC) imputed to him. (Horca v. People,
G.R. No. 224316, 10 November 2021,
1. Exempting circumstances are those J. Hernando).
grounds for exception from
punishment because there is A. Imbecile or Insane Person,
wanting in the agent of the crime UNLESS Acted During Lucid
any of the conditions which make Interval
the act voluntary or negligent (Reyes,
Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law, Book Imbecility Insanity
One, 2021 ed.).
Exempt in all cases Not exempted from
from criminal criminal liability if it
2. The exemption from punishment is
liability. can be shown that he
based on the complete absence of
acted during lucid
intelligence, freedom of action, or
interval.
intent, or on the absence of
negligence on the part of the An imbecile, within Insanity exists when
accused. the meaning of Art. there is a complete
12 RPC, is one who deprivation of
3. Generally, exemption from criminal is deprived intelligence in
liability does not include exemption completely of reason committing the act, i.e.
from civil liability, except for acts or discernment and the accused is
committed under paragraphs 4 and freedom of the will deprived of reason, he
7 of Art. 12 of RPC (Art. 101, RPC). at the time of acts without the least

22
 committing the discernment, because include exemption from civil
crime (People v. there is a complete liability, which shall be enforced in
Ambal, 100 SCRA absence of the power accordance with existing laws (Sec.
325, October 17, to discern, or that there 6).
1980). is a total deprivation of
freedom of will (People Juvenile Justice and Welfare System
v. Puno, 105 SCRA 151, This refers to a system dealing with
June 29, 1981).
children at risk and children in conflict
with the law, which provides child-
appropriate proceedings, including
B. A Person 15 years of Age or Under.
programs and services for prevention,
diversion, rehabilitation, re-integration
C. A Person over 15 years of Age and
and aftercare to ensure their normal
Under 18 years, Unless Acted with
growth and development.
Discernment.

Determination of Age
RA 9344
The age of a child may be determined
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
from the child's birth certificate,
2006
baptismal certificate or any other
pertinent documents. In the absence of
Definition
these documents, age may be based on
“Child in Conflict with the Law” -
information from the child
refers to a child who is alleged as,
himself/herself, testimonies of other
accused of, or adjudged as, having
persons, the physical appearance of the
committed an offense under Philippine
child and other relevant evidence. In
laws (Sec. 4[e]).
case of doubt as to the age of the child,
it shall be resolved in his/her favor (Sec.
Minimum Age of Criminal
7).
Responsibility; Exemption from
Criminal Liability
D. Any Person, while Performing Act
with Due Care, Causes an Injury
1. A child fifteen (15) years of age or
by Mere Accident without Fault or
under at the time of the commission
Intention of Causing it.
of the offense shall be exempt from
ELEMENTS:
criminal liability. However, the
child shall be subjected to an
a. A person is performing a lawful
intervention program.
act;
b. With due care;
2. A child above fifteen (15) years but
c. He causes an injury to another
below eighteen (18) years of age
by mere accident;
shall likewise be exempt from
d. Without fault or intention of
criminal liability and be subjected
causing it.
to an intervention program, unless
he/she has acted with discernment.
NOTES:
The exempting circumstance in par. 4
3. The exemption from criminal
Art. 12 is based on lack of negligence
liability herein established does not
and intent. Under the circumstances, a

23
person does not commit either an succumbed to it (U.S. v. Elicanal,
intentional felony or a culpable felony 35 Phil 209).
(Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Criminal Law,
Book One, 2021 ed.). REQUISITES:
a. Existence of uncontrollable fear;
E. Any Person who Acts Under the b. The fear must be real and
Compulsion of an Irresistible imminent; and
Force. c. The fear of an injury is greater
ELEMENTS: than or at least equal to that
committed (People v. Petenia, 143
a. That the compulsion is by SCRA 361, August 12, 1986).
means of physical force;
b. That the physical force must be Irresistible Force Uncontrollable Fear
irresistible; In irresistible force In uncontrollable
c. That the physical force must (par. 5) the offender fear (par. 6), the
come from a third person. uses violence or offender employs
physical force to intimidation or
NOTES:
compel another threat in compelling
1. The irresistible force can never
person to commit a another to commit a
consist in an impulse, or passion, or
crime. crime.
obfuscation. It must consist of an
extraneous force coming from a
third person (Reyes, Revised Penal NOTE:
Code, Criminal Law, Book One, 2021 ed.). The exempting circumstance in par. 6
Art. 12 is based on the complete
2. A person who acts under the absence of freedom – actus me invito
compulsion of an irresistible force, factus non est meus actus (“An act done
like one who acts under the impulse by me against my will is not my act”).
of uncontrollable fear of equal or
greater injury, is exempt from G. Any Person who Fails to Perform
criminal liability because he does an Act Required by Law, When
not act with freed (People v. Loreno, Prevented by Some Lawful or
130 SCRA 311, 09 July 1984). Insuperable Cause.
ELEMENTS:
F. Any Person who Acts Under the
Impulse of an Uncontrollable Fear a. That the act is required by law to
of an Equal or Greater Injury. be done;
ELEMENTS: b. That a person fails to perform
such act; and
a. That the threat which causes the c. That his failure to perform such
fear is of an evil greater than or act was due to some lawful or
at least equal to, that which he is insuperable cause.
required to commit;
NOTE:
b. That it promises an evil of such The circumstance in par. 7 Art. 12
gravity and imminence that the exempts the accused from criminal
ordinary man would have liability (and civil liability, Art. 101

24
RPC), because he acts without intent, In instigation, the Entrapment is no bar
the third condition of voluntariness in accused must be to the prosecution and
intentional felonies (Reyes, Revised Penal acquitted. conviction of the
Code, Criminal Law, Book One. 2021 ed.). lawbreaker (People v.
Yutuc, 188 SCRA 1, July
Absolutory Causes 26, 1990).
Those where the act committed is a
crime but for reasons of public policy
Instigation is the means by which the
and sentiment there is no penalty
accused is lured into the commission of
imposed, e.g. justifying and exempting
the offense charged in order to
circumstances.
prosecute him. On the other hand,
entrapment is the employment of such
Other absolutory causes:
ways and means for the purpose of
a. Art. 6 , the spontaneous
trapping or capturing a lawbreaker.
desistance of the person who
Thus, in instigation, officers of the law
commenced the commission of a
or their agents incite, induce, instigate
felony before he could perform
or lure an accused into committing an
all acts of execution;
offense which he or she would
otherwise not commit and has no
b. Art. 20, accessories who are
intention of committing. But in
exempt from criminal liability;
entrapment, the criminal intent or
design to commit the offense charged
c. Art.124 last paragraph;
originates in the mind of the accused,
and law enforcement officials merely
d. Art. 247 pars 1 and 2, death or
facilitate the apprehension of the
physical injuries inflicted under
criminal by employing ruses and
exceptional circumstances;
schemes; thus, the accused cannot
justify his or her conduct. In
e. Art. 280 par. 3;
instigation, where law enforcers act as
co-principals, the accused will have to
f. Art. 332, persons exempt from
be acquitted. But entrapment cannot
criminal liability;
bar prosecution and conviction. As has
been said, instigation is a “trap for the
g. Art. 344 par.4;
unwary innocent,” while entrapment is
a “trap for the unwary criminal” (People
h. Instigation.
v. Bartolome, G.R. No. 191726, 6 February
2013).
Instigation Entrapment
The instigator In entrapment, ways
There is entrapment when law officers
induces the and means are
employ ruses and schemes to ensure
would-be accused resorted to for the the apprehension of the criminal while
into the purpose of trapping in the actual commission of the crime.
commission of the and capturing the There is instigation when the accused is
offense and lawbreaker in the induced to commit the crime. The
himself becomes a execution of his difference in the nature of the two lies
co-principal. criminal plan. in the origin of the criminal intent. In

25
entrapment, the mens rea originates 1. Pursuant to Art. 69 of the RPC,
from the mind of the criminal. The idea the privileged mitigating
and the resolve to commit the crime circumstance of incomplete self-
comes from him. In instigation, the law defense reduces the penalty by
officer conceives the commission of the one or two degrees than that
crime and suggests to the accused who prescribed by law. For this
adopts the idea and carries it into purpose, the accused must
execution (People v. Casio, G.R. No. prove the existence of the
211465, 03 December 2014). majority of the elements for self-
defense, but unlawful
aggression, being an
Mitigating Circumstances indispensable element, must be
(Art. 13, RPC) present. Either or both of the
other requisites may be absent,
1. Mitigating circumstances are those namely: reasonable necessity of
which, if present in the commission the means employed to prevent
of the crime do not entirely free the or repel it, or the lack of
actor from criminal liability, but sufficient provocation on the
serve only to reduce the penalty. part of the person defending
himself (People v. Dulin, G.R. No.
2. Mitigating circumstances are based 171284, 29 June 2015).
on the diminution of either freedom
of action, intelligence, or intent, or 2. In order that voluntary
on the lesser perversity of the surrender is appreciated as a
offender (Reyes, Revised Penal Code, mitigating circumstance, the
Criminal Law, Book One, 2021 ed.). following requisites must
concur: (a) the accused has not
3. Classes: been actually arrested; (b) the
Ordinary Privileged accused surrenders himself to a
Mitigating Mitigating person in authority or the
Those susceptible of Those that cannot be latter’s agent; and (c) surrender
being offset by any offset by is voluntary. The third requisite
aggravating aggravating requires the surrender to be
circumstance. circumstance. spontaneous, indicating the
If not offset by an Produces the effect intent of the accused to
aggravating of imposing upon unconditionally submit himself
to the authorities, either because
circumstance, the offender the
he acknowledges his guilt or he
produces only the penalty lower by
wishes to save them the trouble
effect of applying one or two degrees
and expenses necessary for his
penalty provided by than that provided
search and capture (People v. Del
law for the crime in by law for the crime.
Castillo, G.R. No. 169084, 18
its minimum period,
January 2012).
in case of divisible
penalty. 3. Voluntary surrender, as a
mitigating circumstance, requires
NOTES: an element of spontaneity. The

26
 accused’s act of surrendering to the perpetrator might recover his
authorities must have been normal equanimity.
impelled by the acknowledgment
of guilt or a desire to “save the The provocation and the
authorities the trouble and expense commission of the crime should not
that may be incurred for his [or her] be so far apart that a reasonable
search and capture.” Based on the length of time has passed during
evidence on record, there is no which the accused would have
showing that petitioner’s act of calmed down and be able to reflect
submitting his person to the on the consequences of his or her
authorities was motivated by an actions.
acknowledgement of his guilt
(Bacerra v. People, G.R. No. 204544, Revenge; This court has ruled that
03 July 2017). acts done in the spirit of revenge
cannot be considered acts done
4. The Sandiganbayan appreciated with passion and obfuscation
the mitigating circumstance of (People v. Oloverio, G.R. No. 211159,
old age in favor of the petitioner 18 March 2015).
by virtue of his being already
over 70 years old. The 6. For intoxication to be appreciated
Sandiganbayan thereby erred. as a mitigating circumstance, the
The mitigating circumstance of intoxication of the accused must
old age under Art. 13 (2) of the neither be “habitual [n]or
RPC applied only when the
subsequent to the plan to commit
offender was over 70 years at the
[a] felony.” (Bacerra v. People, G.R.
time of the commission of the
No. 204544, 03 July 2017)
offense. The petitioner, being
only 63 years old when he
committed the offenses charged, Aggravating Circumstances
was not entitled to such (Art. 14, RPC)
mitigating circumstance (Reyes
v. People, G.R. Nos. 177105-06, 04 1. Aggravating circumstances are
August 2010). those which, if attendant in the
commission of the crime, serve to
5. To be able to successfully plead the increase the penalty without,
mitigating circumstance of passion however, exceeding the maximum
of the penalty provided by law for
and obfuscation, the accused must
the offense.
be able to prove the following
elements: 1. that there be an act,
2. The basis for this circumstance is
both unlawful and sufficient to
the greater perversity of the
produce such condition of mind;
offender manifested in the
and 2. that said act which produced commission of the felony as shown
the obfuscation was not far by: (1) the motivating power itself;
removed from the commission of (2) the place of commission; (3) the
the crime by a considerable length means and ways employed; (4) the
of time, during which the
27
 time; or (5) the personal The effect of a The effect of
circumstance of the offender, or of generic aggravating qualifying
the offended party. circumstance, not aggravating
offset by any circumstance is not
3. Pursuant to the 2000 Revised Rules mitigating only to give the crime
of Criminal Procedure, every circumstance, is to its proper and
Complaint or Information must increase the penalty exclusive name but
state not only the qualifying but which should be also to place the
also the aggravating circumstances.
imposed upon the author thereof in
This rule may be given retroactive
accused to the such situation as to
effect in the light of the well-
maximum period, deserve no other
established rule that statutes
but without penalty than that
regulating the procedure of the
exceeding the limit specially prescribed
courts will be construed as
applicable to actions pending and prescribed by law. by law for said crime
undetermined at the time of their (People v. Bayot, 64 Phil
passage (People v. Antonio, GR No. 269)
144266, 27 November 2002). Susceptible of Cannot be offset by a
offsetting by a mitigating
Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances: mitigating circumstance.
circumstance.
a. Generic – Those that can
generally apply to all crimes, e.g. 1. Aggravating circumstances (a)
dwelling, nighttime, or which in themselves constitute a
recidivism. crime specially punishable by law,
or (b) which are included by the law
b. Specific – those that apply only in defining a crime and prescribing
to particular crimes, e.g. the penalty therefore shall not be
ignominy in crimes against taken into account for the purpose
chastity or cruelty and treachery of increasing the penalty (par.1,Art.
in crimes against persons. 62, RPC).

c. Qualifying – Those that change 2. Aggravating circumstances which

the nature of the crime, e.g. arise: (a) from the moral attributes
alevosia (treachery) or evident of the offender, or (b) from his
premeditation qualifies the private relations with the offended
killing of a person to murder. party, or (c) from any personal
cause, shall only serve to aggravate
d. Inherent – Those that the liability of the principals,
necessarily accompany the accomplices, and accessories as to
commission of the crime, e.g. whom such circumstances are
evident premeditation is attendant (par. 3, Art. 62, RPC).
inherent in robbery, theft, estafa,
adultery and concubinage. 3. The circumstances which consist (a)
in the material execution of the act,
Generic Qualifying or (b) in the means employed to
Aggravating Aggravating accomplish it, shall serve to
28
 aggravate the liability of those like nighttime, it allows the accused
persons only who had knowledge to remain anonymous and
of them at the time of the execution unidentifiable as he carries out his
of the act or their cooperation crimes (People v. Feliciano, Jr., G.R.
therein (par. 4, Art. 62, RPC). No. 196735, 05 May 2014).

4. In order for the qualifying 7. For evident premeditation to

circumstance of treachery to be qualify the killing of a person to the
appreciated, the following crime of murder, the following
requisites must be shown: (1) the must be established by the
employment of means, method, or prosecution “with equal certainty
manner of execution that would as the criminal act itself”: (a) the
ensure the safety of the malefactor time when the offender determined
from the defensive or retaliatory to commit the crime; (b) an act
acts of the victim, and (2) the means, manifestly indicating that the
method, or manner of execution offender clung to his determination;
was deliberately or consciously and (c) a sufficient interval of time
adopted by the offender. between the determination and the
execution of the crime to allow him
In People v. Baltazar, 407 SCRA 542 to reflect upon the consequences of
(2003), We ruled that treachery his act. It is indispensable for the
must still be appreciated even if the prosecution to establish “how and
victim was able to retaliate as a when the plan to kill was hatched or
result of his reflexes, so long as he how much time had elapsed before
did not have the opportunity to it was carried out.” (People v.
repel the initial assault. (People v. Ordona, G.R. No. 227863, 20
Moreno, G.R. No. 191759 2 March September 2017).
2020, J. Hernando).
The essence of evident
5. Since treachery qualified the crime premeditation is that the execution
to murder, the generic aggravating of the criminal act must be preceded
circumstances of abuse of superior by cool thought and reflection upon
strength, in aid of armed men and the resolution to carry out the
nighttime are absorbed by and criminal intent during a space of
necessarily included in the former. time sufficient to arrive at a calm
Unless the aggravating judgment.
circumstance of nighttime was
purposely sought and founded on When it is not shown as to how and
different factual bases, then when the plan to kill was hatched or
nighttime can be considered as a what time had elapsed before it was
separate generic aggravating carried out, evident premeditation
circumstance. (People v. Rogelio cannot be considered. "Evident
Natindim, G.R. No. 201867, 4 premeditation must be based on
November 2020, J. Hernando). external acts and must be evident,
not merely suspected, indicating
6. In criminal cases, disguise is an deliberate planning."
aggravating circumstance because,
29
 Nevertheless, despite the absence of misrepresentation, deceit,
evident premeditation, the killing intimidation, force or threats;
remains to be murder in view of the
qualifying circumstance of b. altering, destroying,
treachery. (People v. Manansala, suppressing or concealing any
G.R. No. 233104, 2 September 2020, paper, record, document, or
J. Hernando). object, with intent to impair its
verity, authenticity, legibility,
8. Aggravating circumstances should availability, or admissibility as
be proved as fully as the crime itself evidence in any investigation of
in order to increase the penalty or official proceedings in,
(People v. Barrios, 92 SCRA 189, 30 criminal cases, or to be used in
July 1979) the investigation of, or official
proceedings in criminal cases;
The special qualifying circumstance
such as the minority of the victim c. harboring or concealing, or
and relationship with the offender facilitating the escape of, any
must be alleged in the criminal person he knows, or has
complaint or information and must reasonable ground to believe or
be proved conclusively and suspect, has committed any
indubitably as the crime itself (People offense under existing penal
v. Barcela, G.R. No. 208760, 23 April laws in order to prevent his
2014). arrest prosecution and
conviction;

Persons Criminally Liable

d. publicly using a fictitious name
for the purpose of concealing a
Decree Penalizing Obstruction of
crime, evading prosecution or
Apprehension and Prosecution of
the execution of a judgment, or
Criminal Offenders (P.D. 1829)
concealing his true name and
other personal circumstances for
1. PUNISHABLE ACTS – Any person,
the same purpose or purposes;
who knowingly or willfully
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or
e. delaying the prosecution of
delays the apprehension of suspects
criminal cases by obstructing
and the investigation and
the service of process or court
prosecution of criminal cases by
orders or disturbing
committing any of the following
proceedings in the fiscal's
acts:
offices, in Tanodbayan (“now
Ombudsman”), or in the courts;
a. preventing witnesses from
testifying in any criminal
f. making, presenting or using any
proceeding or from reporting
record, document, paper or
the commission of any offense
object with knowledge of its
or the identity of any offender/s
falsity and with intent to affect
by means of bribery,
the course or outcome of the

30
 investigation of, or official higher penalty shall be imposed
proceedings in, criminal cases; (Sec. 1).

g. soliciting, accepting, or agreeing Comparison with Article 20, RPC

to accept any benefit in (Accessories Exempt from Criminal
consideration of abstaining Liability)
from, discounting, or impeding
the prosecution of a criminal 1. An accessory is exempt from
offender; criminal liability when the principal
is his:
h. threatening directly or i. Spouse;
indirectly another with the ii. Ascendant;
infliction of any wrong upon his iii. Descendant; and
person, honor or property or iv. legitimate, natural or adopted
that of any immediate member brother, sister or relative by
or members of his family in affinity within the same degree.
order to prevent such person
from appearing in the 2. HOWEVER, the accessory is not
investigation of, or official exempt from criminal liability even
proceedings in, criminal cases, if the principal is related to him, if
or imposing a condition, such accessory profited from the
whether lawful or unlawful, in effects of the crime, or assisted the
order to prevent a person from offender to profit from the effects of
appearing in the investigation of the crime because such acts are
or in official proceedings in, prompted not by affection but by a
criminal cases; detestable greed.

i. giving of false or fabricated 3. The public officer contemplated in

information to mislead or Art. 19, par. 3 is exempt by reason
prevent the law enforcement of relationship to the principal, even
agencies from apprehending the if such public officer acted with
offender or from protecting the abuse of his official functions. Ties
life or property of the victim; or of blood or relationships constitute
fabricating information from the a more powerful incentive than the
data gathered in confidence by call of duty (Reyes, Revised Penal Code,
investigating authorities for Criminal Law, Book One, 2021 ed.).
purposes of background
information and not for 4. The benefits of the exception
publication and publishing or provided in Art. 20 of the RPC do
disseminating the same to not apply to P.D. 1829.
mislead the investigator or to
the court. Penalties

If any of the acts mentioned General Principles

herein is penalized by any other 1. Penalty is the suffering that is
law with a higher penalty, the inflicted by the State for the
transgression of the law. The State

31
 has an existence of its own to orders and decrees, insofar as they
maintain, a conscience to assert, and impose the death penalty are
moral principles to be vindicated. repealed or amended accordingly
(Sec. 1).
The following are the juridical
conditions of penalty: 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the
following shall be imposed:
a. It must be productive of
suffering, without however a. the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
affecting the integrity of the when the law violated makes
human personality. use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the RPC; or
b. It must be commensurate with
the offense – different crimes b. the penalty of life
must be punished with imprisonment, when the law
different penalties. violated does not make use of
the nomenclature of the
c. It must be personal. No one penalties of the RPC (Sec. 2).
should be punished for the
crime of another. 3. Person convicted of offenses
punished with reclusion perpetua, or
d. It must be legal. It is the whose sentences will be reduced to
consequence of a judgment reclusion perpetua shall not be
according to law. eligible for parole under Act No.
4180, otherwise known as the
e. It must be certain. No one may Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
escape its effects. amended (Sec. 3).

f. It must be correctional. RA 10951

An Act Adjusting the Amount or the
g. It must be equal for all. Value of Property and Damage on
which a Penalty is Based, and the
2. The Constitution directs that Fines imposed under the RPC
excessive fines shall not be
imposed, nor cruel and unusual a. The law has adjusted the
punishment inflicted (Art. III, Sec. amount involved, value of the
19[1], 1987 Constitution). property or damage on which
the penalty is based and the fine
RA 9346 under the RPC.
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of
Death Penalty in the Philippines b. The minimum wage rate on 01
January 1932, the date of
1. The imposition of the penalty of effectivity of the RPC is PhP2.50.
death is prohibited. RA 8177 (Act However, in 2017, the year when
Designating Death by Lethal Injection) this law was enacted, the
is repealed. RA 7659 (Death Penalty minimum wage rate reached
Law), and all other laws, executive more than PhP500.00. In sum,

32
 the minimum wage in 2017 is conviction, and may be divisible
200-folds higher than in 1932. (those that have fixed duration
Hence, RA 10951 was adjusted and are divisible into three [3]
by multiplying them by 200. periods), and indivisible (those
(Campanilla, Penalty System which have no fixed duration
Under the RPC As Amended by RA like death, reclusion perpetua,
10951, 2018). perpetual absolute or special
disqualification and public
c. The law shall have retroactive censure).
effect to the extent that is
favorable to the accused or b. Accessory Penalties
person serving sentence by final Those that are deemed included
judgment (Sec. 100). in the principal penalties.

d. For cases pending before the 3. Based on the Subject Matter:

courts upon the effectivity of the a. Corporal;
law where trial has already b. Deprivation of freedom such as
started, the courts hearing such reclusion perpetuaand temporal,
cases shall not lose jurisdiction prision mayor and correccional,
over the same (Sec. 101). arresto mayor and menor;
c. Restriction of freedom like
Purposes of Imposition of Penalty destierro;
1. The purpose for said law is justice d. Deprivation of rights such as
because the State has an existence of disqualification and suspension;
its own to maintain, a conscience to and
assert and moral principles to be e. Pecuniary like fine.
vindicated. Penal justice rests
primarily on the moral rightfulness Perpetual or temporary absolute
of the punishment imposed disqualification, perpetual or
(Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal temporary special disqualification,
Law, 2008 ed.). and suspension may be principal or
accessory penalties.
2. The basis of the right to punish
violations of penal law is the police Duration and Effect
power of the State. Penalty Duration
Capital punishment
Classifications Death
1. Based on their Severity or Gravity: Afflictive Penalties
a. Capital; 20 years and 1 day –
b. Afflictive; Reclusion Perpetua
40 years
c. Correctional; and
12 years and 1 day –
d. light. Reclusion Temporal
20 years
Perpetual or
2. Based on their Nature: 6 years and 1 day –
temporary Absolute
a. Principal Penalties 12 years
Those expressly imposed by the Disqualification
court in the judgment of

33
 Perpetual or if prosecuted for light
6 years and 1 day –
temporary Special felony.
12 years
Disqualification When the No subsidiary
6 years and 1 day – penalty imposed imprisonment.
Prision mayor
12 years is higher than
Correctional Penalties prision
6 months and 1 day correctional.
Prision correccional
– 6 years If the penalty Subsidiary penalty shall
1 month and 1 day – imposed is not consist in the same
Arresto mayor
6 months to be executed deprivation as those of
6 months and 1 day by confinement, the principal penalty,
Suspension
– 6 years but of fixed under the same rules as
6 months and 1 day duration. numbers 1, 2 and 3
Destierro
– 6 years above.
Light Penalties
Arresto Menor 1 day to 30 days The effects of the penalties of perpetual
Public censure or temporary absolute
Penalties Common disqualification are:
a. deprivation of the public offices and
to the Three Preceding Classes
employments which the offender
Fine
may have held, even if conferred by
Bond to keep peace
popular election;

As to Subsidiary Penalties, the Rules b. deprivation of the right to vote in

are: any election for any popular elective
office or to be elected to such office;
Penalty Subsidiary
Imposed Penalty c. disqualification for the offices or
If the penalty Subsidiary public employments and for the
imposed is imprisonment is not to exercise of any of the rights
prision exceed one third (1/3) of mentioned; and
correccional or the term of the sentence,
arresto and fine. and in no case to d. loss of all rights to retirement pay or
continue for more than other pension for any office formerly
one year. Fraction or held (Art. 30, RPC).
part of a day is not
counted. Perpetual absolute disqualification is
When the Subsidiary effective during the lifetime of the
penalty imposed imprisonment is not to
convict and even after the service of the
sentence. Temporary absolute
is fine only. exceed six (6) months if
disqualification lasts during the term of
the culprit is prosecuted
the sentence, and is removed after the
for grave or less grave
service of the same.
felony; and not to
exceed fifteen (15) days
EXCEPTIONS:

34
a. Deprivation of the public office or Indeterminate Sentence Law
employment, and (ISLAW)
b. Loss of all rights to retirement pay or
other pension for any office formerly Application on the Imposed Sentence
held.
1. A sentence with a minimum term
The effects of the penalties of perpetual and a maximum term which, the
or temporary special disqualification court is mandated to impose for the
are deprivation of the office, benefit of a guilty person who is not
employment, profession or calling disqualified therefore, when the
affected; and disqualification for maximum imprisonment exceeds
holding similar offices or employments one (1) year. It applies to both
either perpetually or during the term of violations of RPC and special penal
the sentence according tothe extent of laws.
such disqualification (Art. 31, RPC).
2. The basic purpose of ISLAW is "to
Civil Interdiction is an accessory uplift and redeem valuable human
penalty. It shall deprive the offender material, and prevent unnecessary and
during the time of his sentence: excessive deprivation of personal liberty
a. the rights of parental authority, or and economic usefulness" (People v.
guardianship either as to the Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, 17
person or property of any ward; December 2008).
b. marital authority;
c. the right to manage his property; 3. For crime punished under a special
and law, these crimes carry only one (1)
d. the right to dispose of such penalty. There are no degrees or
property by any act or any periods. Moreover, there are no
conveyance inter vivos. mitigating or aggravating
circumstances to consider in the
Pardon by the Chief Executive: imposition of the penalty. Just the
a. It can extinguish criminal same, the courts are required in
liability; imposing the penalty upon the
b. It can extend to any crime, offender to fix a minimum of the
unless otherwise provided by or ISLAW the convict should serve,
subject to conditions in the and to set the maximum as the limit
Constitution or the laws. of his sentence.
c. It cannot affect the civil liability
ex delicto of the offender. 4. Under the Indeterminate Sentence
d. It can be extended only after Law (ISL), the maximum term of
conviction by final judgment of the penalty that may be imposed on
the accused. petitioner is that which, in view of
e. It may be absolute or the attending circumstances, could
conditional. be properly imposed under the
f. It can be extended to any or all Revised Penal Code (RPC). On the
of the accused. other hand, the minimum term of
the penalty shall be within the
RA 4103, as amended range of the penalty next lower to

35
 that prescribed by the RPC for the iii. Minimum Period - If there
offense (Vitangcol v. People, G.R. No. is mitigating, no
207406, 13 January 2016) aggravating.

5. To get the maximum, the maximum iv. When both mitigating and
term shall not exceed the maximum aggravating circumstances
fixed by said law. To get the are present, the court shall
minimum, the minimum shall not reasonably off-set those of
be less than the minimum term one class against the other
prescribed by the special law. according to their relative
weight.
It must be noted that courts are
given discretion to fix a minimum v. When there are two or
of the ISLAW. Anywhere within the more mitigating
range of the penalty prescribed by circumstances and no
special law, as long as it will not be aggravating circumstances
lower than the penalty prescribed. are present, the court shall
impose the penalty next
To obtain the maximum and the lower to that prescribed by
minimum term of the law, in the period that it
indeterminate sentence under the may deem applicable,
RPC, the following must be according to the number
observed: and nature of such
circumstances.
a. Arrive at the maximum period
by determining the proper c. After arriving at the proper
degree of the penalty. In doing penalty, determine the
this, appreciate the attendant minimum term of the
modifying circumstances. indeterminate sentence by
reducing such penalty by a
b. Fix period of the maximum. degree.
Period means three (3) equal
portions of a divisible penalty. The minimum and maximum referred
The rules on graduation of to in ISLAW are not the periods. For
penalties under Art. 64 of the purposes of ISLAW we use the term
RPC should be observed. minimum to refer to the duration of the
sentence which the convict shall serve
GUIDELINES: as a minimum and when we say
i. Maximum Period – If there maximum, we refer to the maximum
is aggravating, no limit of duration that the convict may
mitigating. be held in jail.

ii. Medium Period – If there is In applying ISLAW in complex crimes,

no mitigating, no it is important to note that if there are
aggravating. mitigating circumstances, two (2) cases
are considered. These are:

36
Coverage b. There is reasonable probability
ISLAW shall NOT apply to the that such prisoner will live and
following persons: remain at liberty without
a. sentenced to death penalty or violating the law; and
life imprisonment;
c. Such release will not be
b. convicted of treason, or incompatible with the welfare of
conspiracy or proposal to society (Sec. 5).
commit treason;
2. While it is true that a convict may be
c. convicted of misprision of released from prison on parole
treason, rebellion, sedition or when he had served the minimum
espionage; period of his sentence; the
pendency of another criminal case,
d. convicted of piracy; however, is a ground for the
disqualification of such convict
e. habitual delinquents; from being released on parole
(Adonis v. Tesoro, et.al., G.R. 182855,
f. escaped from confinement, or 5 June 2013).
evaded sentence;
3. If during the period of surveillance
g. granted with conditional such paroled prisoner shall: (a)
pardon by the President, but show himself to be a law abiding
violated the terms thereof; citizen and, (b) shall not violate any
law, the Board may issue a final
h. maximum term of certification in his favor, for his final
imprisonment does not exceed 1 release and discharge (Sec. 6).
year; and,
4. When the paroled prisoner shall
i. sentenced to the penalty of violate any of the conditions of his
destierro or suspension only. parole: (a) the Board may issue an
order for his arrest, and thereafter,
BUT, a recidivist for the first time may (b) the prisoner shall serve the
be given the benefits of the ISLAW. remaining unexpired portion of the
maximum sentence for which he
Conditions of Parole was originally committed to prison.
1. The Board of Pardons and Parole (Sec. 8).
(Board of Indeterminate Sentence)
may authorize the release of a Three-Fold Rule
prisoner on parole, after he shall The three-fold rule states that the
have served the minimum penalty maximum duration of the convict’s
imposed on him, provided that: sentence shall not be more than three-
fold the length of time corresponding
a. Such prisoner is fitted by his to the most severe of the penalties
training for release; imposed upon him. No other penalty to
which he may be liable shall be
inflicted after the sum total of those

37
imposed equals the same maximum Purpose
period. In other words, the maximum 1. to promote the correction and
penalty is three times the most severe rehabilitation of an offender by
or the total of the penalties imposed, providing him with individualized
whichever is lower (Boado, Notes and treatment;
Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2018 ed.). 2. to provide an opportunity for the
reformation of a penitent offender
Execution and Service which might be less probable if he
When a convict shall become insane or were to serve a prison sentence; and
an imbecile after final sentence has 3. to prevent the commission of
been pronounced, the execution of said offenses (Sec. 2).
sentence shall be suspended only with
regard to the personal penalty, the Grant of Probation, Manner and
provisions of the second paragraph of Conditions
circumstance number 1 of Art. 12 being 1. The court may, after it shall have
observed in the corresponding cases. convicted and sentenced a
defendant and upon application at
If at any time the convict shall recover any time of said defendant, suspend
his reason, his sentence shall be the execution of said sentence and
executed, unless the penalty shall have place the defendant on probation
prescribed. for such period and upon such
terms and conditions as it may
The respective provisions of this deem best.
section shall also be observed if the
insanity or imbecility occurs while the Probation may be granted whether
convict is serving his sentence (Art. 79, the sentence imposes a term of
RPC). imprisonment or a fine only. An
application for probation shall be
PD 968, as amended filed with the trial court, with notice
Probation Law to the appellate court if an appeal
has been taken from the sentence of
Definition of Terms conviction. The filing of the
1. "Probation" is a disposition under application shall be deemed a
which a defendant, after conviction waiver of the right to appeal, or the
and sentence, is released subject to automatic withdrawal of a pending
conditions imposed by the court appeal.
and to the supervision of a
probation officer. An order granting or denying
probation shall not be appealable
2. "Probationer" means a person (Sec. 4).
placed on probation.
2. An application for probation shall
3. Probation officer" means one who be filed by the defendant with the
investigates for the court a referral trial court within the period for
for probation or supervises a perfecting an appeal. No
probationer or both. application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the

38
 defendant has perfected an appeal seventy-two (72) hours from receipt
from the judgment of conviction. of order. He also must report to the
probation officer at least once a
3. An accused must not have month.
appealed his conviction before he
can avail himself of probation. The second condition is
Jurisprudence treats appeal and discretionary or special, where
probation as mutually exclusive additional conditions are listed
remedies because the law is which the courts may additionally
unmistakable about it. The law is impose on the probationer towards
very clear and a contrary his correction rehabilitation outside
interpretation would counter its prison.
envisioned mandate. Thus, even
assuming that herein accused-
appellant is qualified to apply for Criteria for Placing an Offender on
parole, he has already availed Probation
himself of the remedy of appeal In determining whether an offender
twice, by appealing the RTC may be placed on probation, the court
judgment of conviction before the shall consider all information relative
Court of Appeals, and then to the character, antecedents,
appealing the Court of Appeals environment, mental and physical
decision affirming his conviction condition of the offender, and
before this Court, which already available institutional and
proscribes him from applying for community resources.
probation. (People v. Galuga G.R.
No. 221428, 13 February 2019, J. Disqualified Offenders
Hernando). Probation is NOT available when:

4. Filing of application for probation 1. The offender is in need of

operates as a waiver of the right to correctional treatment that can be
appeal. Accessory penalties are provided effectively by his
deemed suspended once probation commitment to an institution;
is granted. Civil liability is not
affected by the suspension of the 2. There is undue risk of committing
sentence imposed on the accused another crime;
who is granted probation; court
must hear the civil aspect. 3. Probation will depreciate the
seriousness of the offense
5. Two kinds of conditions of committed;
probation are imposed. One is
mandatory or general, which, once 4. The offender was sentenced to
violated, the probation is cancelled. serve a maximum term of
To the probationer, he must present imprisonment of more the six (6)
himself to the probation officer years;
designated to undertake his
supervision, at such place as may be 5. The offender was convicted of a
specified in the order within crime against the national security;

39
 modifying the terms and conditions
6. The offender was previously thereof shall not be appealable (Sec. 15).
convicted by final judgment of an
offense punished by imprisonment As probation is a mere discretionary
of more than six (6) months and one grant, petitioner is bound to observe
(1) day and/or a fine of more than full obedience to the terms and
P1,000.00; conditions pertaining to the probation
order or run the risk of revocation of
7. The offender had already been once this privilege. The Court's discretion to
placed on probation (Secs. 8 and 9). grant probation is to be exercised
primarily for the benefit of organized
Period of Probation society and only incidentally for the
If the convict is sentenced to a term of benefit of the accused. Having the
imprisonment of not more than one power to grant probation, it follows
year, the period of probation shall not that the trial court also has the power to
exceed two years. In all other cases, if order its revocation in a proper case
he is sentenced to more than one year, and under appropriate circumstances
said period shall not exceed six (6) (Suyan v. People, G.R. No.189644, 2 July
years. When the sentence imposes a 2014).
fine only and the offender is made to
serve subsidiary imprisonment, the Termination of Probation
period of probation shall be twice the
total number of days of subsidiary 1. After the period of probation and
imprisonment (Sec. 14). upon consideration of the report
and recommendation of the
Arrest of Probationer probation officer, the court may
At any time during probation, the court order the final discharge of the
may issue a warrant for the arrest of a probationer upon finding that he
probationer for violation of any of the has fulfilled the terms and
conditions of probation. The conditions of his probation and the
probationer, once arrested and case is deemed terminated.
detained, shall immediately be brought
before the court for a hearing, which The final discharge of the
may be informal and summary, of the probationer shall operate to restore
violation charged. The defendant may to him all civil rights lost or
be admitted to bail pending such suspended as a result of his
hearing. In such a case, the provisions conviction and to totally extinguish
regarding release on bail of persons his criminal liability as to the
charged with a crime shall be offense for which probation was
applicable to probationers arrested granted.
under this provision. If the violation is
established, the court may revoke or The probationer and the probation
continue his probation and modify the officer shall each be furnished with
conditions thereof. If revoked, the court a copy of such order (Sec. 16).
shall order the probationer to serve the
sentence originally imposed. An order 2. Probation is not coterminous with
revoking the grant of probation or its period. There must be an order

40
 issued by the court discharging the
probationer (Bala v. Martinez, 181 6. If the defendant violates the terms
SCRA 459). of the community service, the court
shall order his/her re-arrest and the
EXCEPTION: defendant shall serve the full term of
Any person convicted for drug the penalty.
trafficking or pushing under the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Modification and Extinction of
Act of 2002 cannot, regardless of the Criminal Liability
penalty imposed by the Court, avail
of the privilege granted by the The criminal and civil liability ex delicto
Probation Law or Presidential of a person convicted for murder who
Decree No. 968 as amended (Sec. 24 moved for reconsideration of his
of RA 9165). conviction and died pending
resolution, will be extinguished (People
Community Service Act v. Consorte, G.R. No. 194068, 26
(RA No. 11362) November 2014).

1. Community service is at the Upon the death of the accused pending

discretion of the court which the appeal of his conviction, the criminal
latter will specify the number of action is extinguished inasmuch as
hours to be worked and the period there is no longer a defendant to stand
within which to complete the as the accused; the civil action
service. instituted therein for the recovery of
the civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto
2. It is in lieu of service in jail and extinguished, grounded as it is on the
shall consist of any actual physical criminal action (People v. Culas, G.R. No.
activity which inculcates civic 211166, 5 June 2017).
consciousness, and is intended
towards the improvement of a RA 10192 Amending Art. 29. 94. 97-99
public work or promotion of a of the RPC
public service.
Section 1. Article 29 of Act No. 3815, as
3. It is applicable only when the amended, otherwise known as the
violation is penalized by arresto Revised Penal Code, is hereby further
menor and arresto mayor. amended to read as follows:

4. It is rendered in the place where "ART. 29. Period of preventive

the crime was committed, under imprisonment deducted from term of
such terms as the court shall imprisonment. – Offenders or accused
determine, taking into consideration who have undergone preventive
the gravity of offense and the imprisonment shall be credited in the
circumstances of the case, which service of their sentence consisting of
shall be under the supervision of a deprivation of liberty, with the full
probation officer. time during which they have
undergone preventive imprisonment if
5. It shall be availed only once. the detention prisoner agrees

41
voluntarily in writing after being the court may motu proprio order the
informed of the effects thereof and with rearrest of the accused: Provided,
the assistance of counsel to abide by the finally, That recidivists, habitual
same disciplinary rules imposed upon delinquents, escapees and persons
convicted prisoners, except in the charged with heinous crimes are
following cases: excluded from the coverage of this Act.
In case the maximum penalty to which
"1. When they are recidivists, or have the accused may be sentenced is
been convicted previously twice or lestierro, he shall be released after
more times of any crime; and thirty (30) days of preventive
imprisonment."
"2. When upon being summoned for
the execution of their sentence they Section 2. Article 94 of the same Act is
have failed to surrender voluntarily. hereby further amended to read as
follows:
"If the detention prisoner does not
agree to abide by the same disciplinary "ART. 94. Partial extinction of
rules imposed upon convicted criminal liability. – Criminal liability
prisoners, he shall do so in writing with is extinguished partially:
the assistance of a counsel and shall be
credited in the service of his sentence "1. By conditional pardon;
with four-fifths of the time during
which he has undergone preventive "2. By commutation of the sentence;
imprisonment. and

"Credit for preventive imprisonment "3. For good conduct allowances which
for the penalty of reclusion perpetua the culprit may earn while he is
shall be deducted from thirty (30) undergoing preventive imprisonment
years. or serving his sentence."

"Whenever an accused has undergone Section 3. Article 97 of the same Act is

preventive imprisonment for a period hereby further amended to read as
equal to the possible maximum follows:
imprisonment of the offense charged to
which he may be sentenced and his "ART. 97. Allowance for good
case is not yet terminated, he shall be conduct. – The good conduct of any
released immediately without offender qualified for credit for
prejudice to the continuation of the trial preventive imprisonment pursuant to
thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if Article 29 of this Code, or of any
the same is under review. Computation convicted prisoner in any penal
of preventive imprisonment for institution, rehabilitation or detention
purposes of immediate release under center or any other local jail shall entitle
this paragraph shall be the actual him to the following deductions from
period of detention with good conduct the period of his sentence:
time allowance: Provided, however,
That if the accused is absent without "1. During the first two years of
justifiable cause at any stage of the trial, imprisonment, he shall be allowed a

42
deduction of twenty days for each the issuance of a proclamation
month of good behavior during announcing the passing away of the
detention; calamity or catastrophe referred to in
said article. A deduction of two-fifths
"2. During the third to the fifth year, of the period of his sentence shall be
inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall granted in case said prisoner chose to
be allowed a reduction of twenty-three stay in the place of his confinement
days for each month of good behavior notwithstanding the existence of a
during detention; calamity or catastrophe enumerated in
Article 158 of this Code.
"3. During the following years until the
tenth year, inclusive, of his "This Article shall apply to any
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a prisoner whether undergoing
deduction of twenty-five days for each preventive imprisonment or serving
month of good behavior during sentence."
detention;
Section 5. Article 99 of the same Act is
"4. During the eleventh and successive hereby further amended to read as
years of his imprisonment, he shall be follows:"
allowed a deduction of thirty days for
each month of good behavior during "ART. 99. Who grants time
detention; and allowances. – Whenever lawfully
justified, the Director of the Bureau of
"5. At any time during the period of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of
imprisonment, he shall be allowed Jail Management and Penology and/or
another deduction of fifteen days, in the Warden of a provincial, district,
addition to numbers one to four hereof, municipal or city jail shall grant
for each month of study, teaching or allowances for good conduct. Such
mentoring service time rendered. allowances once granted shall not be
revoked."
"An appeal by the accused shall not
deprive him of entitlement to the above Disqualification in the GCTA Law
allowances for good conduct."
The following shall not be entitled to
Section 4. Article 98 of the same Act is any GCTA during preventive
hereby further amended to read as imprisonment:
follows:
a. Recidivists;
"ART. 98. Special time allowance for
loyalty. – A deduction of one fifth of b. An accused who has been convicted
the period of his sentence shall be previously twice or more times of any
granted to any prisoner who, having crime;
evaded his preventive imprisonment
or the service of his sentence under the c. An accused who, upon being
circumstances mentioned in Article 158 summoned for the execution of his
of this Code, gives himself up to the sentence has failed to surrender
authorities within 48 hours following voluntarily before a court of law;

43
 Temporal
d. Habitual Delinquents;
2. Afflictive 15 years
e. Escapees; and penalties
10 years except
f. PDL charged of Heinous Crimes 3. Correctional those punishable
penalties by arresto mayor
Murder is considered a heinous crime which shall
in so far as the GCTA Law is concerned,
prescribe in 5
and persons charged with and/or
years
convicted of such are disqualified from
Crime of Libel 1 year
availing of the benefits of the law. (Gil
Miguel v. Director of the Bureau of
Prisons, UDK-15368, 15 September Offenses of Oral
2021, J. Hernando). Defamation and 6 months
Slander by Deed

Prescription of Crimes Light Offenses 2 months

(Art. 90, RPC)
Prescription of crimes is the forfeiture FINE:
or loss of the right of the State to 1. If fine is Afflictive 15 years
prosecute the offender after the lapse of 2. If it is 10 years
a certain time. Correctional 2 months
3. If it is Light
Although the general rule is that the
defense of prescription is not available
Prescription of Penalty
unless expressly set up in the lower
(Art. 92, RPC)
court, as in that case it is presumed to
Prescription of penalty is the loss or
have been waived and cannot be taken
forfeiture of the right of the
advantage of thereafter, yet this rule is
government to execute the final
not always of absolute application in
sentence after the lapse of certain time.
criminal cases, such as that in which
It is based on the penalty imposed.
prescription of the crime is expressly
provided by law, for the State not
Prescriptive Period of Penalties
having then the right to prosecute, or
Death and Reclusion
continue prosecuting, nor to punish, or 20 years
Perpetua
continue punishing, the offense, or to
continue holding the defendant subject
to its action through the imposition of Other Afflictive 15 years
the penalty, the court must so declare Penalties
(Syhunliong v. Rivera, G. R. No. 200148,
4 June 2014). 10 years except for
Correctional the penalty of arresto
Prescriptive Period of Crimes Penalties mayor which
PENALTY: prescribes in five (5)
1. Death, Reclusion 20 years years
Perpetua/

44
 Light Penalties 1 year

Amnesty -oOo -
It is one of the prerogatives of the
President to grant to an offender
besides reprieve, commutation of
service, pardon and remittance of fines
and forfeitures. Amnesty is an act of
grace, which relieves the offender not
only from suffering the penalty but
obliterates the effects of the conviction
as if the act were not criminal. It is
usually given to political offenders
(Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised
Penal Code, 2018 ed.).

Pardon by the Chief Executive

Distinguished from Pardon by the
Offended Party

Pardon by Pardon by
the Chief the Offended
executive Party
As to the
criminal Extinguished Not
liability Extinguished

Pardon does Can be

As to the not cover waived by the
civil civil liability. offended
liability party.

Granted only Pardon

after should be
conviction given before
and may be the institution
extended to of criminal
any of the prosecution
offenders. and must be
extended to
both the
offenders.

45