MSU (IIT) BAR OPERATIONS 2014 CRIMINAL LAW

KEY DOCTRINES AND JURISPRUDENCE

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
EX POST FACTO RULE
The prohibition on ex post facto law applies solely to penal
laws.
Basis: Art!"# 21 $% RPC
It cannot prohibit the retroactivity of procedural laws such as
one that prescribes rules of procedure by which courts
applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice.
Basis: Art!"# 22 $% RPC (IRRETROSPECTI&ITY
RULE)
PRINCIPLE OF 'ENERALITY
Penal law is binding on all persons who reside or sojourn in the
Philippines whether citien or not.
Basis: Art!"# 14 $% NCC( Art!"# III(1) $% 1)*+
C$,-tt.t$,
PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY
The law is applicable to all crimes committed within the limits
of Philippine territory.
Basis: Art!"# 2 $% RPC
PRINCIPLE OF PROSPECTI&ITY/PROSPECTI&ITY RULE
The law should have only prospective application! except if it
is in favorable to the o"ender.
Basis: Art!"# 21 0,1 22 $% RPC( Art!"# III(22) $%
1)*+ C$,-tt.t$,2 Art!"# 4 $% NCC
#octrinal application:
It applies to:
administrative rulings and circulars
judicial decisions
Basis: Art!"# * $% NCC
Legis interpretatio legis uim obtinet
3In the construction and application
of criminal laws! where it is necessary that
the punishability of an act be reasonably
foreseen for guidance of society.
Lex pospicit non respicit
$The law looks forward not
backward.
In case of doubt between the mala prohibita doctrine and
the prospectivity rule in the adjudication of cases! the latter
should prevail because all doubts must be resolved pro reo.
E4UIPOISE RULE
%hen the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are
e&ually balanced! the scale should be tilted in favor of the
accused because of the presumption of innocence.
In !ubio pro reo5 %hen moral certainty as to culpability
hangs in the balance! ac&uittal on reasonable doubt inevitably
becomes a matter of right.
FINALITY OF AC4UITTAL RULE
The 'tate with all its resources and power should not be
allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for
an alleged o"ense! thereby subjecting him to embarrassment!
expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing
state of anxiety and insecurity! as well as enhancing the
possibility that even though innocent! he may be found guilty.
MSU (IIT) BAR OPERATIONS 2014 CRIMINAL LAW
KEY DOCTRINES AND JURISPRUDENCE
T"E RE#ISED PENAL C$DE
(A!t N$5 6*17 0- A8#,1#1)
%$$& $NE
'#,#r0" 9r$:-$,- r#;0r1,; t<# 10t# $% #,%$r!#8#,t
0,1 099"!0t$, $% t<# 9r$:-$,- $% t<- C$1#2 0,1
r#;0r1,; t<# $=#,-#-2 t<# 9#r-$,- "0>"# 0,1 t<#
9#,0"t#-
Art!"# 25 A99"!0t$, $% t- Pr$:-$,-
PAR IN PAREM NON ?ABET IMPERIUM
(n e&ual has no power over an e&ual.
PRINCIPLE OF INTRA3TERRITORIALITY
The )P* applies within the Philippines archipelago!
including its atmosphere! interior waters and maritime
one.
PRINCIPLE OF EXTRATERRITORIALITY
The )P* may be given application even to those crimes
committed outside the Philippine territorial jurisdiction.
Art!"# 65 D#@,t$,-
A>1.""0 :5 P#$9"#2 '5R5 N$5 17012)2 A9r" A2 2007
(An unlawful act was done with unlawful intent.)
D#"82 '5R5 N$5 142++62 J0,.0rB 2*2 2006
(When the victim dies, intent to kill is conclusively presumed from
the act of killing which is clearly unlawful. But where the victim
survives, intent to kill becomes a specifc criminal intent which
cannot be presumed but must be proved.)
ACTUS NON FACIT REUM2 NISI MENS SIT REA
The act cannot be criminal unless the mind is criminal.
This doctrine applies only to dolo.
L"08$-$ :5 SB2 '5R5 N$5 L3A640* C A402A2 A.;.-t +2 1)*7
(A felony reuires criminal intent.)
P#$9"# :5 P.,$2 '5R5 N$5 )+4+12 F#>r.0rB 1+2 1))6
(Where motive is relevant! the act may give rise to variant crimes.)
P#$9"# :5 M0!$B2 '5R5 N$-5 )AA4)3702 J."B 12 1))+
(Where the identity of the assailant is in dispute, motive becomes
relevant, and when motive is supported with su"cient evidence for a
conclusion of guilt, a conviction is sustainable.)
P#$9"# :5 A;"10B2 '5R5 N$5 140+)42 O!t$>#r 1A2 2001
(#nce malice is proved, recklessness disappears.)
F0!t-D The accused &uarreled with his wife over her working as
laundrywoman and his drinking habits. The son! )ichard! interfered and
for that reason! the father got his shotgun and shot his son. The son died.
+ather interposed the defense that he was cleaning his gun at the time
and he accidentally s&ueeed the trigger and the gun ,red. Because of
the freak accident! his son was hit while he was about to go upstairs.
I--.#D %hetner or not the facts point to accident! reckless imprudence or
parricide.
R.",;D The father is convicted of parricide. -o accident in the case
because from the declaration of his wife and son! he purposely shot his
son. #uring the ,ght where the son tried to pacify him! he actually went
to the room to retrieve the gun. (n accident is an occurrence that
.happens outside the sway of our will! and although it comes about
through some act of our will! lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable conse&uences. .It connotes the absence of criminal intent.
The act of cocking the gun and aiming it in front of his son shows the
intent to ,re.
P#$9"# :5 C$r1$:02 '5R5 N$-5 *66+63+42 J."B 72 1))6
($iscernment is relevant to intelligence, not to intent.)
E$-0 :5 CA2 '5R5 N$5 107A412 M0r!< 102 1))4
(%n the absence of evidence to prove insanity, the legal presumption of
one&s sanity stands.)
Art!"# 45 Cr8,0" L0>"tB
P#$9"# :5 P,t$2 '5R5 N$5 6)71)2 N$:#8>#r 212 1))1
(#f the same gravity or severity, the penalty is not mitigated.)
P#$9"# :5 F"$r#-2 272 SCRA 61
('raeter intentionem does not apply to culpa( )intentionem* denotes
intent.)
P#$9"# :5 A!.r082 '5R5 N$5 11+)742 A9r" 2+2 2000
(+he perceived delay in giving medical treatment does not constitute
e"cient intervening cause since the victim&s death is still due to the
in,uries in-icted by the o.ender.)
P#$9"# :5 M0tB0$,;2 '5R5 N$5 14020A2 J.,# 212 2001
(+o hold a person liable for the death of another, the evidence must
establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused&s criminal act was
the pro/imate cause of such death.)
Art!"# 75 D.tB $% t<# !$.rt , !$,,#!t$, Ft< 0!t- F<!< -<$."1
># r#9r#--#1 >.t F<!< 0r# ,$t !$:#r#1 >B t<# "0F2 0,1 , !0-#-
$% #G!#--:# 9#,0"t#-
NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA POENA SINE LE'E
There is no crime when there is no law that de,nes and
punishes it.
P#$9"# :5 '",$2 '5R5 N$5 1+6+)62 D#!#8>#r 42 200+
(%t is the duty of the court, whenever it has knowledge of any act which it
may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, to report
to the 0hief 1/ecutive, through the $epartment of 2ustice, the reasons
which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the
sub,ect of legislation.)
&""$r#,t# C0-#
(+he court can likewise recommend to the 0hief 1/ecutive to e/ercise his
authority to grant e/ecutive clemency in the view of the harshness of the
law.)
Art!"# A5 C$,-.880t#12 %r.-tr0t#12 0,1 0tt#89t#1 %#"$,#-
P#$9"# :5 P0r#H02 '5R5 N$5 **0462 D#!#8>#r )2 1))A
(When the cause of the non3performance of all acts necessary for the
commission of the o.ense is other than the o.ender&s spontaneous
desistance, the felony is attempted.)
P#$9"# :5 M,;8,;
(Without proof of penetration, the crime committed may still
constitute attempted rape or consummated acts of lasciviousness.)
P#$9"# :5 D#"0 Cr.I2 '5R5 N$5 120)**2 A.;.-t 112 1))+
(%n the attempted phase, the overt act must be an e/ternal one which
has a direct connection with the felony.)
&0".#,I.#"0 :5 P#$9"#2 '5R5 N$5 1A01**2 J.,# 212 200+
(By the defnition of Article 456, theft can only be attempted or
consummated. %ts element is complete from the moment o.ender
gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to
dispose it.)
FACTSD %hile a security guard was manning his post at the open parking
area of a supermarket! he saw the accused! (ristotel /alenuela! hauling a
push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded them where his
co$accused! 0ovy *alderon! was waiting. /alenuela then returned inside
the supermarket! and later emerged with more cartons of detergent.
Thereafter! /alenuela hailed a taxi and started loading the cartons inside.
(s the taxi was about to leave! the security guard asked /alenuela for
the receipt of the merchandie. The accused reacted by 1eeing on foot!
but were subse&uently apprehended at the scene. The trial court
convicted both /alenuela and *alderon of the crime of consummated
theft. /alenuela appealed before the *ourt of (ppeals! arguing that he
should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely
dispose of the articles stolen. The *ourt of (ppeals a2rmed the trial
court3s decision! thus the Petition for )eview was ,led before the 'upreme
*ourt.
ISSUED %hether or not the crime of theft has a frustrated stage.
?ELDD -o. (rticle 4 of the )evised Penal *ode provides that a felony is
consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft! the following elements
should be present: 567 that there be taking of personal property8 597 that
said property belongs to another8 5:7 that the taking be done with intent
to gain8 5;7 that the taking be done without the consent of the owner8 and
5<7 that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things. The *ourt held that theft is
produced when there is deprivation of personal property by one with
intent to gain. Thus! it is immaterial that the o"ender is able or unable to
freely dispose the property stolen since he has already committed all the
acts of execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued
from such acts. Therefore! theft cannot have a frustrated stage! and can
only be attempted or consummated.
P#$9"# :5 B0!$2 '5R5 N$5 12)A+A2 J.,# 262 1)))
(A mere attempt to commit a felony is subsumed in the full e/ecution
thereof. +o attempt is to commence the commission of a crime by
overt acts.)
Art!"# +5 W<#, ";<t %#"$,#- 0r# 9.,-<0>"#
DEMINIMIS NON CURAT LEX
The law does not concern itself with tri1es.
Art!"# *5 C$,-9r0!B 0,1 9r$9$-0" t$ !$88t %#"$,B
P#$9"# :5 T"$-2 '5R5 N$5 16*6*72 J0,.0rB 1A2 2001
(When the proposal is accepted, it becomes conspiracy. +he
essence of conspiracy is community of criminal intent.)
B0<"101 :5 P#$9"#2 '5R5 N$5 1*71)72 M0r!< 1+2 2010
(7ere presence of an accused at the discussion of a conspiracy,
even approval of it, without any active participation in the
conspiracy, is not enough for conviction.)
P#$9"# :5 Br0;0#-2 '5R5 N$5 A267)2 N$:#8>#r 142 1))1
(7ere knowledge, acuiescence to or approval of the act without
cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to
constitute one party to a conspiracy absent the intentional
participation in the act with a view to the furtherance of the
common design and purpose.)
S.>0B!$ :5 SB2 '5R5 N$5 L3A701+2 A.;.-t 222 1))A
(%mplied conspiracy is one that is deduced from the mode and
manner in which the o.ense was committed.)
P0;0"0-0,2 '5R5 N$-5 161)2A C 16*))1
(8ecrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful
conspiracy. 0onspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the
accused before, during and after the commission of the crime,
showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design.)
P#$9"# :5 C0r00,;2 '5R5 N$5 14*42432+2 D#!#8>#r 112 2006
(0onspiracy comes to life at the very instant the plotters agree
e/pressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith to
pursue it actually.)
P#$9"# :5 M0r0,$,2 '5R5 N$5 )0A+23+62 J."B 1*2 1))1
(+he degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime
is immaterial in conspiracy.)
P#$9"# :5 T;.80,2 '5R5 N$-5 1607023062 M0B 242 2001
(As long as the acuittal of a co3conspirator does not remove the
basis of a change of conspiracy, other conspirators may be found
guilty of o.ense.)
P#$9"# :5 C0>""0,2 '5R5 N$5161*0*2 F#>r.0rB A2 2002
(A conspirator may be liable di.erently if there is present a
circumstance personal to him.)
B.-t""$ :5 P#$9"#2 '5R5 N$5 1A0+1*2 M0B 122 2010
(9or conspiracy to e/ist, there must be a conscious design to
commit o.ense.)
ARIAS DOCTRINE
(ll heads of o2ces have to rely to reasonable extent on
their subordinates and on the good faith of those who
prepare bids! purchase supplies! or enter into negotiations.
(ny executive head of even small government agencies can
attest to the volume of papers that must be signed.
P#$9"# :5 D#-$B2 '5R5 N$5 12++742 A.;.-t 1A2 1)))
(%n the absence of previous conspiracy, unity of criminal purpose and
intention immediately before the commission of the crime, or community
of criminal design, the criminal responsibility arising from di.erent acts
directed against one and the same person is individual and not collective,
and each of the participants is liable only for the act committed by him.)
Art!"# 105 O=#,-#- ,$t -.>H#!t t$ t<# 9r$:-$,- $% t<- C$1#
L8 :-5 CA2 '5R5 N$5 1006112 M0B 1*2 1))6
($olo is not reuired in crimes punished by a special statute because
it is the act alone, irrespective of the motives which constitute the
o.ense.)
P#$9"# :5 A>0B2 '5R5 N$5 1+++722 F#>r.0rB 242 200)
(A felony cannot be comple/ with an o.ense penali:ed by a special
law.)
P#$9"# :5 D# P0I2 '5R5 1042++
(%n entrapment, it is necessary that a buy3bust operation occurred(
otherwise it will be considered in case of doubt an instigation which is
an absolutory cause.)
P#$9"# :5 M0t#$2 '5R5 N$5 1+)4+*2 J."B 2*2 200*
('olice o"cers involved in a buy3bust operation are presumed to
have performed their duties regularly. But this presumption can be
overturned if clear and convincing evidence is presented.)
Art!"# 115 J.-t%B,; !r!.8-t0,!#-
P#$9"# :5 L$9#I2 '5R5 N$5 1++6022 A9r" 1A2 200)
(;nlawful aggression must be such as to put in real peril the life or
personal safety of the person defending himself or of others being
defended and not an imagine threat.)
P#$9"# :5 ArI0"02 '5R5 N$5 160+0*2 O!t$>#r 222 1)))
(+he presence of large number of wounds in-icted on the victim and
the severity thereof disapprove self3defense( they belie the claim of
incomplete defense and indicate not the desire to defend but a
determined e.ort to kill and belies the reasonableness of the means
adopted to prevent or repel an unlawful act of an aggression.)
P#$9"# :5 '.t.0"2 '5R5 N$5 1172662 F#>r.0rB 222 1))A
(+he proportionateness of self3defense does not depend upon the
harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such in,ury.)
JSTAND 'ROUND W?EN IN T?E RI'?TK
(pplies when aggressor is armed with weapon and is
especially more liberal if the person attacked is peace
o2cer in the performance of his duty.
This superseded the PRINCIPLE OF JRETREAT TO T?E
WALLK which makes it a duty of a person assailed to retreat
as far as he can before he meets the assault with force.
P#$9"# :5 N0r:0#I2 '5R5 N$-5 L3664AA3A+2 A9r" 202 1)*6
(%n defense of property, killing is not ,ustifed. +here must be, in addition,
the necessity to save another life.)
DOCTRINE OF JSELF3?ELPK
0usti,es the act of owner or lawful possessor of a thing
to use force necessary to protect his proprietary or
possessory rights. =e must however exercise this right
at the very moment that he is being deprived of his
property. %hen possession has already been lost! he
must resort to judicial process in reclaiming his
property8 otherwise! he could be liable for coercion.
T0>.#,0 :5 SB2 '5R5 N$-5 1067013062 F#>r.0rB 1+2 1))+
(1ven if the order of the superior is illegal, if it appears to be legal, and
the subordinate is not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable.)
Art!"# 125 Cr!.8-t0,!#- F<!< #G#89t %r$8 !r8,0" "0>"tB
P#$9"# :5 D0,0$2 '5R5 N$5 )A*622 N$:#8>#r 1)2 1))2
(7ere abnormality of the mental faculties will not e/clude imputability.)
LR#01 R5A5 )644 , r#"0t$, t$ 8,$rtB
Ort#;0 :5 P#$9"#2 '5R5 N$5 1710*72 A.;.-t 202 200*
(What is controlling with respect to the e/emption from criminal
liability is not he age at the timeof the promulgation of ,udgment but his
age at the time of the commission of the o.ense.)
LR#01 P#$9"# :5 A;"10B , Art!"# 6 (0!!1#,t)
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR C?ANCE
>ne who has a full control of the situation has the
last clear chance of avoiding the accident.
Art!"# 165 Mt;0t,; !r!.8-t0,!#-
P#$9"# :5 P0;0"2 +) SCRA 7+0
('rovocation is immediate if no interval of time elapsed between the
provocation and the commission of the crime.)
P#$9"# :5 P01""02 '5R5 N$5 +770*2 J.,# 102 1))4
(When an o.ended party -ees from his aggressor, the latter has no
reason to pursue and attack him.)
P#$9"# :5 I;,0-2 '5R5 N$5 1407143172 S#9t#8>#r 602 2006
(+he beneft of immediate vindication of a grave o.ense cannot be
considered in favor of the accused when he had su"cient time to
recover his serenity.)
P#$9"# :5 CA2 '5R5 N$5 106A162 F#>r.0rB 262 2001
(+he acts of the accused were done in the spirit of revenge and
lawlessness, for which no mitigating circumstances of passion or
obfuscation can arise.)
T0r0B02 '5R5 N$5 1677712 O!t$>#r 2+2 2000
(Added a fourth reuisite of voluntary surrender that there is no
pending warrant of arrest or information fled.)
F0!t-D (ccused$appelants (mpie Taraya! 0onar ?strada and (rly *antuba!
all are relatives! were charged for the crime of murder &uali,ed by
treachery for the death of 'alvador )eyes. 'alvador )eyes was killed on
the night of 'eptember 9;! 6@@<. Prosecution witnesses Aariano (dillo!
#avid (ngeles and Bregorio )eyes testi,ed against the accused
appellants. Their statements were countered by (rmando Bilara! #omingo
#ecena! 'P>9 ?mmanuel Aartine and the accused appellants
themselves. Prosecution witness Aariano testi,ed that he saw the three
accused approach 'alvador the night 'alvador was killed. Prosecution
witness #avid (ngles swore to have seen the actual killing and positively
identi,ed the three accused. Bregorio )eyes! the victim3s father! said that
his son had an altercation with (rly. The defense countered their claims.
Barangay Tanod (rmando Bilara stated that #avid (ngeles3 brother had a
,st,ght with 0onar! implying that there might be a di"erent reason as to
#avid (ngeles3 insistence on 0onar3s involvement in the killing. #omingo
#ecena also testi,ed that on the night of the killing he saw 'alvador hit
(mpie with a pipe which (mpie luckily avoided. #omingo added that
(mpie! to defend himself hacked 'alvador and ran away. #omingo stated
that he also ran back home out of fear and only found out of 'alvador3s
death the next morning. 'P>9 ?mmanuel Aartine testi,ed that (mpie
did surrender himself at the police station on >ctiber @! 6@@C. (mpie
admitted on killing 'alvador but contended that he did so out of self$
defense and said that his cousins had nothing to do with it. 0onar and (rly
both had alibis. Trial *ourt ruled against accused appellants for murder
and appreciated the &ualifying circumstance of treachery. (ccused
appellants appealed! arguing that (mpie should not be charged with
murder since he have done so only out of self$defense plus 'alvador was
also armed with a pipe that night! which dis&uali,es treachery in the case.
They further asserted that (rly and 0onar were not co$conspirators in the
killing of 'alvador )eyes. They were implicated by #avid (ngeles! 0r
claims which were not supported by clear evidence. +urthermore! they
insisted that (mpie be allowed to avail of a mitigated sentence since he
surrendered himself at the police station at his own will.
I--.#-D 6. %hether or not 0onar and (rly were co$conspirators in the
killing of 'alvador. 9. %hether or not (mpie3s voluntary surrender made
him eligible for a mitigated sentence.
R.",;D 6. -o. ( conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.
It does not re&uire that such agreement occurred for an appreciable
period prior to the commission of the crime8 it is su2cient that at the time
of the execution thereof! all accused had the same purpose and were
united therein. The *ourt ruled that #avid (ngeles3 testimony was not
persuasive as to the participation of (rly and jonar in the crime. There had
been no certainty as to their action to show a deliberate and concerted
cooperation on their part as to likewise render them liable for the killing of
'alvador. Prosecution evidence failed to convince the court as to its
su2ciency with moral certainty that there indeed had been conspiracy
among accused$appellants. Thus! The *ourt ac&uitted 0onar and (rly. The
*ourt also ruled that! there being no positive and direct evidence to show
that the attack was sudden and unexpected! treachery as a circumstance
to &ualify the killing to murder cannot be appreciated against (API?.
There is treachery when the o"ender commits any of the crimes against
the person! employing means! methods or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution! without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the o"ended party might make.
Treachery as a &ualifying circumstance re&uires that the o"ender
deliberately employs means of execution which deprives the person
attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate. (mpie thereforecould only
be charged with homicide.
9. Des. (s to the issue of (mpie3s voluntary surrender! the court
emphasied that for one to avail of mitigating circumstance for voluntary
surrender! the following re&uisites must be present: 567 the o"ender had
not been actually arrested8 597 the o"ender surrendered himself to a
person in authority or to the latterEs agent8 5:7 the surrender was
voluntary8 and 5;7 there is no pending warrant of arrest or information
,led. %hen (mpie surrendered! a pending warrant of arrest had already
been issued. =is arrest by that time was already imminent.
D# &#r02 '5R5 N$5 1+2*622 A9r" +2 200)
(0ontrary to Tara'a Case! 0lassifed that the mere fling of
information and<or the issuance of a warrant of arrest will not
automatically make the surrender involuntary.)
F0!t-D Petitioner! )osario T. de /era! ,led a bigamy case against her
spouse Beren (. de /era and 0osephine +. 0uliano after allegedly
contracting a second marriage with the latter! which likewise has previous
knowledge that accused he is still validly married to petitioner. (ccused
Beren pleaded guilty on arraignment but prayed on a latter motion that
he be allowed to withdraw it in order to avail of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. 'aid motion was opposed by
petitioner arguing that it shouldn3t be entertained for the case is already
for promulgation and that not all the elements of voluntary surrender is
present. The )T* granted the motion and held the accused guilty of
bigamy but likewise appreciated the mitigating circumstances of
voluntary surrender and plea of guilty in the determination of the penalty
to be imposed. Petitioner moved for the partial reconsideration of the case
which was denied. In 9FF<! Beren applied for probation which was
favorably acted upon and referred to the probation o2ce of 'an 0uan.
Petitioner ,led a special civil action in the appellate court which a2rmed
the decision of the )T* and ruled that all the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender were present.
I--.#D %hether the court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction when it appreciated the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender of the accused.
R.",;D The mere ,ling of an information andGor the issuance of a warrant
of arrest will not automatically make the surrender Hinvoluntary. (s
distinguished from the earlier cases! upon learning that the court had
,nally determined the presence of probable cause and even before the
issuance and implementation of the warrant of arrest! Beren already gave
himself up! acknowledging his culpability. This was bolstered by his
eventual plea of guilt during the arraignment.
P#$9"# :5 A80;.,2 '5R5 N$-5 746443472 J0,.0rB 102 1))4
(=oluntary surrender can be appreciated even if the accused turned
themselves one week after the crime. +he fact is they voluntarily
surrendered to the police before arrest could be e.ected.)
P#$9"# :5 A!.r082 '5R5 N$5 11+)742 A9r" 2+2 2000
(+he o.ender himself should surrender. %f it was his superior who
surrender him to the custody of the court, such is not the voluntary
surrender contemplated by law.)
F0!t-D The appellant shot the victim who later died. (fter charges were
,led and his commanding o2cer was told of the incident! he was ordered
not to leave camp! where he surrendered.
I--.#D %hether the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender.
R.",;D The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent
of the accused to give himself up and submit himself unconditionally to
the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to
save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and
capture. In this case! it was appellant3s commanding o2cer who
surrendered him to the custody of the court. Being restrained by one3s
superiors to stay within the camp without submitting to the investigating
authorities concerned! is not tantamount to voluntary surrender as
contemplated by law.
P#$9"# :5 M#,1$I02 '5R5 N$5 L3*0*472 M0r!< 142 1))4
(+he accused must be acuitted if the only evidence of guilt is his
improvident plea due to the prodding of his lawyer.)
Art!"# 145 A;;r0:0t,; !r!.8-t0,!#-
P#$9"# :- '0,$2 '55R5 N$5 1646+62 F#>5 2*2 2001
(>o law provides that the e/cess rape or homicide should be aggravating
circumstance.)
P#$9"# :- F#r0,2 O!t5 1))2
(0onspiracy is neither aggravating nor ualifying but is a manner of
incurring collective criminal liability among every co3conspirators in an
eual degree such that the act of one becomes the act of all.)
R$1r;.#- 1) P<" 1702 S$H$ A1 P<"5 60+
('ublic authority covers not only persons in authority but also agents of
persons in authority and other public o"cers.)
P#$9"# :- Ur-0"2 121 SCRA 40)
(+he circumstance of se/ is not sustained solely by the fact that the
victim was a woman. %t must further appear that in the lawful taking of
her life, there was some specifc insult or disrespect shown to her
womanhood.)
P#$9"# :- D0!>0r2 '5R5 N$5 1112*A2 F#> 2000
(%t is not necessary that the accused enters the dwelling of the victim to
commit the o.ense( it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his
own house, although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate
the assault from outside the house.)
P#$9"# :- O,;2 J0,5 60 2 1)+7
(>ighttime is absorbed in treachery if it is part of the treacherous means
to insure e/ecution of crime.)
P#$9"# :- M0,0,-0"02 '5R5 N$5 **+722 J."B 62 1))2
(1vident premeditation is not inherent in robbery with homicide. %n such
an o.ense, the permediattion must relate to the killing and not to the
robbery.)
P#$9"# :- R#>08$,t0,2 '5R5 N$5 12761*2 A9r" 162 1)))
(+he essence of treachery and the une/pectedness of the attack upon the
unsuspecting and unarmed victim who does not give the slightest
provocation.)
P#$9"# :- A"0!0r2 '5R5 N$-5 A4+2732A2 J."B 2021))2
(When it is shown that the attack was not made with alevosia the number
of the assailants and simultaneity of the attack upon a defenseless person
may constitute abuse of force.)
P#$9"# :- L0,1!<$2 '5R5 N$5 11AA002 J."B 62 1))A
(+reachery may be appreciated even when the victim was warned of the
danger to his persons, for what is decisive is that the e/ecution of the
attack was made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or
retaliate.)
P#$9"# :- C$-t#"$2 '5R5 N$5 1646112 O!t5 162 1)))
(+he retaliation relevant in the appreciation of treachery must come from
the victim, not from anyone else.)
P#$9"# :- B,$,1$2 '5R5 N$5 )+22+2 O!t5 202 1))2
(>o greater outrage, insult or abuse can a person commit upon a corpse
than to severe its head.)
Art!"# 1+5 Pr,!90"-
D$!tr,# $% I89"#1 C$,-9r0!B
The voluntary and indispensable cooperation of the o"ender is a
concurrence of the criminal act to be executed. *onse&uently! he is a co$
conspirator by indispensable cooperation! although the common design or
purpose was never bottled up by previous undertaking
P#$9"# :- P0r.,;0$2 '5R5 N$5 127*122 N$:5 2*2 1))A
(Where the words uttered did not make any great dominance or
in-uences on the o.enders were already determined to commit the
o.ending acts, the utterance will not make the utterer an inducer.)
S$tt$ '5R5 N$5 10A0*63*42 M0r!< 2)2 1))A
(+he participation of the cooperator must be indispensible to the
commission of the crime. %f his participation is dispensable, that is, with or
without his participation, the o.ense will be committed, the liability is
that of an accomplice.)

P#$9"# :- T0>.-$2 '5R5 N$5 116+0*2 O!t5 2A2 1)))
(7ere presence at the crime scene or sole relationship with the other
accused does not make one a co3conspirator.)
Art!"# 1*5 A!!$89"!#-
P#$9"# :- D# &#r02 '5R5 N$5 12*)AA2 A.;5 1*2 1)))
(A lookout who was not part of the conspiracy but participated only after
such decision was reached incurs criminal liability as an accomplice.)
P#$9"# :- L0!0$2 SR5
(0onspiracy is not a reuirement as the accomplice is not a principal, but
supplies material or moral aid to the principal in an e"cacious way.)
Art!"#- *13*75
P#$9"# :- B0""0>0r#2 '5R5 N$5 10**+12 N$:5 1)2 1))A
(An a"davit of desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the
accused&s defenses, not the sole consideration that can result in
acuittal.)
Pr#-1#,t0" A1 ?$! C$88tt## $, B#<#-t L$0,- :- OMB2 '5R5N$5
1674*22 A.;5 142 2001
(+he prescription shall be interrupted or suspended when the proceedings
are instituted against the guilty person and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting ,eopardy.)
Art!"# )75 O>";0t$, ,!.rr#1 >B 0 9#r-$, ;r0,t#1 !$,1t$,0"
90r1$,
T#-$r$ :- Dr5 O% Pr-$,-2 A* P<" 174
(+he pardonee, having consented to place his liberty on conditional
pardon upon the ,udgment of the power that has granted it, cannot
invoke the aid of the courts, however erroneous the fndings may be upon
which his recommitment was ordered.)
T$rr#-
(A fnal ,udicial pronouncement as to the guilt of a pardonee is not a
reuirement for the 'resident to determine whether or not there has been
a breach of the terms of conditional pardon.)
Art!"# 10031065
P#$9"# :- T##<0,M##2 Jr5 '5R5N$-511120A30*2 O!t5 A2 1))7
(+he indemnities for loss of earning capacity and for moral damages are
recoverable separately from and in addition to the f/ed sum
corresponding to the indemnities from the sole death.)
P#$9"# :- &!t$r2 '5R5 N$5 12+)062 J."B )2 1))*
(%ndictments for rape continue unabated and the legislative response has
been in the form of higher penalties.)
P#$9"# :- M0"09$2 '5R5 N$5 1261172 A.;5 272 1)**
(+he civil indemnity which, by reason of the added repugnance of the
bestial act being committed on a pregnant woman in the presence of her
husband, is increased for each rape committed.)
P#$9"# :- C0r9$2 '5R5 N$5 162A+A2 A9r" 42 2001
(Without a special power of attorney, the counsel for the accused cannot
bind nor compromise his client&s civil liability.)
P#$9"# :- L.!<!$2 4) P<"5 A*)( P#$9"# :- N080B0,2 '5R5 N$5
10A76)2 J."B 1*2 1))7
(?ape carries with it, among others, the obligations to acknowledge the
o.spring if the character of its origin does not prevent it and to support
the same.)
F#r,0,1$ :- O!089$2 6+ SCRA 611
(+he employer&s liability for the criminal negligence of his employee is
subsidiary in nature and is limited only to civil indemnity.)

MSU (IIT) BAR OPERATIONS 2014 CRIMINAL LAW
KEY DOCTRINES AND JURISPRUDENCE
%$$& T($
CRIMES AND PENALTIES
Art!"# 1145 Tr#0-$,
A,0-t0!$ L0.r#" :-5 Er>#rt$ M-02
'5R5 N$5 L340)2 J0,.0rB 602 1)4+
(keyword title! @aurel vs. 7isa)
F0!t-D (nastacio Iaurel ,led a petition for habeas corpus and contended
that a +ilipino citien who adhered to the 0apanese occupation forces!
giving the latter aid and comfort! cannot be prosecuted for the crime of
Treason under (rticle 66; of the )evised Penal *ode! based on the
.suspended allegianceJ theory! or that the sovereignty of the legitimate
government in the Philippines and the correlative allegiance of the +ilipino
citiens thereto was suspended.
I--.#D Aay a +ilipino citien be exempt from being prosecuted for Treason
during the 0apanese occupation! on the ground that his allegiance to the
legitimate government was temporarily suspendedK
R.",;D -o. In a )esolution! the 'upreme *ourt declared that a citien or
subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance L which consists in
the obligation of ,delity and obedience L to his government or sovereign.
This absolute and permanent allegiance should not be confused with the
&uali,ed and temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the
government or sovereign wherein he resides! consisting in mere
obedience to the laws of the government or sovereign. +urthermore! the
*ourt said that this absolute and permanent allegiance is not abrogated
or severed by enemy occupation! because the sovereign de ,ure is not
transferred thereby to the occupier! as was held in the cases of 0o Aim
0ham vs. =alde: +an Aeh and $i:on (BC 'hil. DD4) and 'eralta vs. $irector
of 'risons (BC 'hil. E6C). 'ince the sovereignty itself is not suspended and
subsists during enemy occupation! the allegiance of the inhabitants to
their legitimate government or sovereign subsists! and therefore there is
no such thing as suspended allegiance.
The invaders had the powers of a de facto government. They may
change existing laws or make new ones: but only when the exigencies of
the military service demand such action! that is! when it is necessary for
the occupier to do so for the control of the country and the protection of
his army. =owever! the occupant has no power to repeal or suspend the
operation of the law of Treason! which is essential for the preservation of
the allegiance owed by the inhabitants to their legitimate government.
Branted! this absolute and permanent allegiance does not re&uire a
positive action from the citien! but only a passive attitude or forbearance
from adhering to the enemy8 but the occupant cannot compel the citien
to adhere and give aid and comfort to him. 'uch action is not demanded
by the exigencies of the military service! nor necessary for the control of
the inhabitants or the safety and control of his army. Aost importantly! to
do so would be tantamount to practically transferring temporarily to them
the allegiance of the citien. If an inhabitant of the occupied territory were
compelled illegally by the military occupant through force! threat! or
intimidation to give him aid and comfort! the former may lawfully resist
and die if necessary as a hero! or submit thereto without becoming a
traitor.
Therefore! (rticle 66; of the )evised Penal *ode was applicable to
Treason committed against the national security of the legitimate
government! because the inhabitants of the occupied territory were still
bound by their allegiance to the latter during the enemy occupation.
Art!"# 1245 Ar>tr0rB D#t#,t$,
P#$9"# :-5 F"$r#-2 #t5 0"52
'5R5 N$5 11A4**2 M0B 612 2001
(keyword title! 'eople vs. 9lores)
F0!t-D >n the night of 'eptember 9@! 6@@9! 'amson 'ayam was drinking
beer at a local store in Barangay Tabu! Ilog! -egros >ccidental. =erein
accused$appellants (aron +lores! 'ulpecio 'ilpao! and ?dgar /illeran! who
were members of the *itien (rmed +orce Beographical Mnit 5*(+BM7!
were at the same store drinking beer. 'ayam joined the accused$
appellants at their table. 'ometime later! all of them left and went
towards the direction of the C
th
Infantry Brigade #etachment
=ead&uarters. It was the last time anyone ever saw 'amson 'ayam.
'ubse&uently! a criminal complaint was instituted against herein accused$
appellants. The )egional Trial *ourt of Nabankalan! -egros >ccidental!
Branch 46! gave credence to the evidence of the prosecution! and held
the three accused$appellants responsible for 'ayam3s disappearance.
They were convicted of the crime of Nidnapping and 'erious Illegal
#etention under (rticle 94C of the )evised Penal *ode.
I--.#D #id the trial court err in convicting the defendants of Nidnapping
and 'erious Illegal #etentionK
R.",;D Des. The 'upreme *ourt! in a decision penned by 0ustice Dnares$
'antiago! held that the accused$appellants cannot be charged with or
convicted with the crime of Nidnapping and 'erious Illegal #etention
because the ,rst element of said crime is that the o"ender must be a
private individual. In the case at bar! the accused$appellants were
members of the local *(+BM at the time the alleged crime was
committed8 they were not private individuals! but public o2cers. (s such!
the 'olicitor Beneral submitted that the accused$appellants could only be
liable for the crime of (rbitrary #etention under (rticle 69; of the )evised
Penal *ode.
=owever! the 'upreme *ourt explained that as far back as the case of
;.8. vs. 0abanag (6 'hil. FG, FH), it was held that in the crime of (rbitrary
#etention! it is essential that there is actual con,nement or restriction of
the person of the o"ended party. The deprivation of liberty must be
proved! just as the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of his
liberty must also be established by indubitable proof. #etention is de,ned
as the actual con,nement of a person in an enclosure! or in any manner
detaining and depriving him of his liberty.
In the case at bar! the 'upreme *ourt found that while the prosecution
witnesses testi,ed to seeing the accused$appellants with 'amson 'ayam
walking toward the direction of the detachment head&uarters! there was
no shred of evidence that he was actually con,ned there or anywhere
else.
Iikewise! there was no proof that there was actual intent on the part of
the accused$appellants to arbitrarily deprive 'amson 'ayam of his liberty.
It is necessary that there must be a purposeful or knowing action by
accused$appellants to restrain the victim by or with force! because taking
coupled with intent completes the crime of illegal or arbitrary detention.
That 'amson 'ayam was never seen or heard from again cannot be
the basis for the trial court to render judgment convicting the accused$
appellants. The 'upreme *ourt stated that in fact! it has no bearing in this
case because it is not one of the elements of the crime of arbitrary
detention. *onse&uently! only one relevant circumstance was proved! i.e.,
that accused$appellants were the last persons seen with 'amson 'ayam.
=owever! said circumstance does not necessarily prove that they
feloniously abducted him! then arbitrarily detained him.
Art!"# 1275 D#"0B , t<# 1#":#rB $% 1#t0,#1 9#r-$,- t$ t<#
9r$9#r H.1!0" 0.t<$rt#-
J0-9#r A;>0B :-5 T<# ?$,$r0>"# D#9.tB O8>.1-80, %$r T<#
M"t0rB2 SPO4 N#8#-$ N0t:1012 Jr52 0,1 SPO2 E"#0I0r M5
S$"$8$,2
'5R5 N$5 1647062 J."B 22 1)))
(keyword title! Agbay vs. #mbudsman)
F0!t-D The petitioner was arrested and detained on 'eptember C! 6@@C at
the Iiloan Police 'tation for an alleged violation of ).(. -o. C46F. The
following day! or on 'eptember O! 6@@C! a *omplaint was ,led against him
for violation of ).(. -o. C46F before the C
th
Aunicipal *ircuit Trial *ourt
5A*T*7 of Iiloan. >n 'eptember 69! 6@@C! the C
th
A*T* of Iiloan issued an
order! denominated as .#etention #uring the Pendency of the *aseJ!
committing the petitioner to the jail warden of *ebu *ity. +ive days later!
or on 'eptember 6C! 6@@C! the said court ordered the release of the
petitioner after he posted bail. >n 'eptember 94! 6@@C! the petitioner
,led a complaint before the >2ce of the >mbudsman for delay in the
delivery of detained persons. =e contended that the *omplaint ,led
against him before the A*T* was a surplusage! and did not interrupt the
running of the period prescribed by (rticle 69< of the )evised Penal *ode!
considering that under the )ules it is the )egional Trial *ourt that has the
jurisdiction to try the case for violation of ).(. -o. C46F against him. (s
such! upon the lapse of the thirty$six hours given to the arresting o2cers
to e"ect his delivery to the proper )egional Trial *ourt! they were already
guilty of violating (rticle 69<. The petitioner further argued that when the
0udge of the A*T* issued the *ommitment >rder! he was acting contrary
to law since by then there was no basis for his continued detention.
I--.#D %hether or not the arresting o2cers and the A*T* acted contrary
to law! resulting in a failure to deliver the petitioner to the proper judicial
authority.
R.",;D -o. The 'upreme *ourt! in a decision penned by 0ustice Bonaga$
)eyes! declared that the A*T* in this case was a .proper judicial
authorityJ contemplated under (rticle 69< of the )evised Penal *ode.
(rticle 69< is intended to prevent any abuse resulting from
con,ning a person without informing him of his o"ense and without
permitting him to go on bail. Aore speci,cally! it punishes public o2cials
or employees who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall
fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the
periods prescribed by law. The continued detention of the accused
becomes illegal upon the expiration of the periods provided for by (rticle
69< without such detainee having been delivered to the corresponding
judicial authorities.
The words .judicial authorityJ as contemplated by (rticle 69< mean
.the courts of justices or judges of said courts vested with judicial power
to order the temporary detention or con,nement of a person charged with
having committed a public o"ense! that is! Pthe 'upreme *ourt and other
such inferior courts as may be established by law.3J
It is undisputed that a municipal court judge! even in the
performance of his function to conduct preliminary investigations! retains
the power to issue an order of release or commitment. +urthermore! upon
the ,ling of the complaint with the Aunicipal Trial *ourt! the intent behind
(rticle 69< is satis,ed considering that by such act! the detained person is
informed of the crime imputed against him and! upon his application with
the court! he may be released on bail.
In the case at bar! the petitioner himself acknowledged this power
of the A*T* to order his release when he applied for and was granted his
release upon posting bail. Thus! the very purpose underlying (rticle 69<
has been duly served with the ,ling of the complaint with the A*T*. The
'upreme *ourt agreed with the position of the >mbudsman that such
,ling of the complaint with the A*T* interrupted the period prescribed in
the said (rticle.
Art!"# 12+5 EG9."-$,
E0!<0r0- &""0:!#,!$2 #t5 0"5 :-5 J.-t$ L.M>0,2 #t5 0"52
'5R5 N$5 L314A6)2 M0r!< 272 1)1)
(keyword title! =illavicencio vs. @ukban)
F0!t-D Aanila *ity Aayor 0usto Iukban! for the best of intentions and to
exterminate vice! ordered that the district where the prostitution houses
operated for a number of years to be closed. The city authorities &uietly
made arrangements with the Bureau of Iabor for sending the prostitutes
to #avao as laborers. (t about midnight of >ctober 9<! the police
descended upon the houses! hustled some 6CF prostitutes into patrol
wagons! and placed them aboard the coastguard cutters 0orregidor and
>egros. The women were given no opportunity to collect their belongings!
and apparently were under the impression that they were being taken to a
police station for investigation. They had no idea that they were destined
for a life in Aindanao. They had not been asked if they wished to depart
from Aanila! and had neither directly nor indirectly given their consent to
the deportation. The two cutters! with their unwilling passengers! sailed
for #avao. Aeanwhile! the attorney for the relatives and friends of a
considerable number of the deportees presented an application for
habeas corpus to the 'upreme *ourt.
I--.#D %as Aayor Iukban3s act justi,able and lawfulK
R.",;D -o. The 'upreme *ourt! in a decision penned by 0ustice Aalcolm!
ratiocinated in this wise: .But one can search in vain for any law! order! or
regulation! which even hints at the right of the Aayor of the city of Aanila
or the chief of police of that city to force citiens of the Philippine Islands L
and these women despite their being in a sense lepers of society are
nevertheless not chattels but Philippine citiens protected by the same
constitutional guaranties as are other citiens L to change their domicile
from Aanila to another locality. >n the contrary! Philippine penal law
speci,cally punishes any public o2cer who! not being expressly
authoried by law or regulation! compels any person to change his
residence.J
Art!"# 1645 R#>#""$, / Art!"# 16A5 C$,-9r0!B 0,1 Pr$9$-0" t$
C$88t R#>#""$,
T<# P#$9"# $% t<# P<"99,#- :-5 A801$ &5 ?#r,0,1#I2 #t5 0"52
'5R5 N$5 L3A0272 M0B 602 1)A4
(keyword title! 'eople vs. Iernande:( the Iernande: $octrine)
F0!t-D )espondent (mado =ernande was a member of the *ommunist
Party of the Philippines 5PNP7. The PNP had ties to the Iukbong
7apagpalaya ng Bayan 5=AB7! or the =ukbalahaps! which was a
*ommunist paramilitary group bent on overthrowing the established
government and replacing it with a *ommunist regime. =ernande
organied and spoke in a number of public assemblies wherein he rallied
the audience to embrace *ommunism! follow in the footsteps of the
=AB3s rebel leader Iuis Taruc! and go underground or go to the hills to
participate in the armed struggle for *ommunism. =e was a prominent
public ,gure in Aanila! and even got himself elected as a *ity *ouncilor
under the banner of the -acionalista Party! which was then the opposition
political party. 'ubse&uently! the =AB launched a series of armed attacks
against government forces and civilians. =ernande was apprehended and
charged before the trial court with )ebellion and Aultiple Aurder. To prove
their case! the prosecution presented testimonial and documentary
evidence showing that at about the time of these armed attacks!
=ernande established and became the president of the *ongress of
Iabor >rganiations 5*I>7! which was a trade union division under the
PNP. The trial court also found that right before the onset of the armed
attacks! the PNP had declared a revolutionary situation8 the *ommunist
Party went underground! and decided to intensify the =AB military
operations for their political purposes. In this regard! evidence was shown
that top$ranking leaders of the PNP had communicated to =ernande!
warning him of his tendencies for careerism! and of leaning more towards
dealing with leaders of the -acionalista Party instead of following the PNP
organiational structures. =e was then made to choose between going
underground! or to ,ght legally. It was shown that =ernande did not
choose to go underground and join the armed resistance! but to ,ght
legally through propaganda and assemblies! and to continue his headship
of the *I> and his being a *ity *ouncilor. Based on all of these! it was the
contention of the prosecution that =ernande unlawfully and did then and
there willfully and feloniously help! support! promote! maintain! cause!
direct andGor command the =AB to rise publicly and take up arms against
the government! for the purpose of removing the territory of the
Philippines from the allegiance to the government and laws.
I--.#-D 567 %as =ernande guilty of )ebellionK 597 #oes membership in
the *ommunist Party of the Philippines 5PNP7 per se render =ernande or
any *ommunist guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion under (rticle 6:4
of the )evised Penal *odeK
R.",;D 567 -o. The 'upreme *ourt! in a decision penned by 0ustice
Iabrador! declared that the *ourt did not agree with the trial court in
implicating =ernande as a co$conspirator by virtue of his mere
membership to the PNP. The seditious speeches of =ernande took place
before the PNP went underground. -either the trial court nor the 'upreme
*ourt was not able to ,nd any evidence to infer the fact that =ernande
took part in the deliberations declaring the existence of a revolutionary
situation! or that he had gone underground. In fact! the evidence showed
that =ernande refused to go underground and preferred to engage in
what they considered as the legal battle for the *ommunist cause. -either
was he a member of the PNP3s ?xecutive *ommittee! or the 'ecretariat! or
of the Politburo of the *ommunist Party8 so no presumption can arise that
he had taken part in the accord or conspiracy declaring a revolution.
The 'upreme *ourt ratiocinated that the practice among top
*ommunists! as declared by the trial court! was that if they intended to
actually join the rebellion! they would go underground! which meant
leaving the city! disappearing from sight! andGor secretly joining the forces
in the ,eld. The acts of =ernande fall under the category of acts of
propaganda! but did not prove that he actually and in fact conspired with
the leaders of the *ommunist Party in the uprising or in the actual
rebellion. (nd his refusal to go underground because of his political
commitments created in the 'upreme *ourt a reasonable doubt that it
was not his *ommunistic learnings but his political ambitions that
motivated his speeches sympathiing with the =uks. +or this reason! the
*ourt held that the evidence submitted failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that he conspired in the instigation of the rebellion for which he was
held to account in the criminal case.
597 -o. The 'upreme *ourt elucidated that the advocacy of
*ommunism is not to be considered as a criminal act of conspiracy unless
transformed or converted into an advocacy of action. In the very nature of
things! mere advocacy of a theory or principle is insu2cient unless the
communist advocates action! immediate and positive! the actual
agreement to start an uprising or rebellion or an agreement forged to use
force and violence in an uprising of the working class to overthrow
constituted authority and seie the reins of government itself. Mnless
action is actually advocated or intended or contemplated! the *ommunist
is a mere theorist! and not yet an advocate of seiing the reins of
government. (s a theorist! the *ommunist is not yet actually considering
to engage in the criminal ,eld subject to punishment. >nly when the
*ommunist advocates action and actual uprising! war or otherwise! does
he become guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion.
The mere fact of =ernande3s giving and rendering speeches
favoring *ommunism would not make him guilty of conspiracy! because
there was no evidence that the hearers of his speeches then and there
agreed to rise up in arms for the purpose of obtaining the overthrow of
the democratic government.
>n the other hand! membership in the =AB implies participation in
an actual uprising or rebellion to secure! as the =uks pretend! the
liberation of the peasants and laboring class from thralldom. By
membership in the =AB! one already advocates uprising and the use of
force! and by such membership he agrees or conspires that force be used
to secure the ends of the party. 'uch membership! therefore! even if there
is nothing more! renders the member guilty of conspiracy to commit
rebellion punishable by law. (nd when a =uk member! not content with
his membership! does anything to promote the ends of the rebellion like
soliciting contributions! or acting as courier! he thereby becomes guilty of
conspiracy! unless he takes to the ,led and joins in the rebellion or
uprising! in which latter case he commits rebellion.
MSU (IIT) BAR OPERATIONS 2014 CRIMINAL LAW
KEY DOCTRINES AND JURISPRUDENCE
SPECIAL PENAL LA(S
15 P5D5 762 N A,t3Pr0!B 0,1 A,t3?;<F0B R$>>#rB
PEOPLE OF T?E P?ILIPPINES2 9"0,t=3099#""##2 :-5 RO'ER P5
TULIN2
&IR'ILIO I5 LOYOLA2 CECILIO O5 C?AN'CO2 ANDRES C5 INFANTE2
C?EON' SAN ?ION'2 0,1 JO?N DOES2 0!!.-#13099#""0,t-5
'5R5 N$5 111+0) A.;.-t 602 2001
F0!t-D AGT Tabangao! a cargo vessel owned by P->*! which was then
carrying P;F.;94A worth of kerosene! gasoline and diesel oil! was sailing
near the coast of Aindoro and was suddenly boarded by pirates! herein
accused$appellants. The pirates ordered the crew to paint over the name
AGT Tabangao the name .BalileeJ. The detained ship was brought to
'ingapore! where the vessel -avi Pride was waiting for the unloading of
the cargo. This was supervised by accused$appellant =iong. (fter
unloading! the detained vessel travelled back to the Philippines where the
ship3s complement were released. The chief engineer of the crew reported
the incident to the coast guard. (fterwards! a series of arrests were
e"ected in di"erent places. (n information charging the accused$
appellants with &uali,ed piracy or violation of the P# <:9 L Piracy in the
Philippine %aters L was ,led and later on convicted them. =ence! the
appeal. Aeanwhile! accused$appellant =iong argued! among others! that
)epublic (ct -o. C4<@ 5 in e"ect obliterated the crime committed by him!
and that the trial court erred in convicting and punishing him as an
accomplice when the acts allegedly committed by him were done or
executed outside of Philippine waters and territory! stripping the
Philippine courts of jurisdiction to hold him for trial! to convict! and
sentence.
I--.#-D %>- )epublic (ct -o. C4<@ in e"ect obliterated the crime
committed by him under P# <:9K
R.",;D -o. To summarie! (rticle 699 of the )evised Penal *ode! before
its amendment! provided that piracy must be committed on the high seas
by any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger thereof.
Mpon its amendment by )epublic (ct -o. C4<@! the coverage of the
pertinent provision was widened to include o"enses committed Hin
Philippine waters.H >n the other hand! under Presidential #ecree -o. <:9
5issued in 6@C;7! the coverage of the law on piracy embraces an' person
inclu!ing )a passenger or member o* t+e complement o* sai!
,essel in P+ilippine -aters.) =ence! passenger or not! a member of
the complement or not! any person is covered by the law.
)epublic (ct -o. C4<@ neither superseded nor amended the
provisions on piracy under Presidential #ecree -o. <:9. There is no
contradiction between the two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and
hence! there is no need to construe or interpret the law. (ll the
presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of the law! in keeping
with the intent to protect the citienry as well as neighboring states from
crimes against the law of nations. (s expressed in one of the HwhereasH
clauses of Presidential #ecree -o. <:9! piracy is Hamong the highest forms
of lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of all countries.H For
t+is reason pirac' un!er t+e Article /00 as amen!e! an! pirac'
un!er Presi!ential Decree No. 120 exist +armoniousl' as
separate la-s.
->T?':
Article /00 o* t+e Re,ise! Penal Co!e use! to pro,i!e3
Art!"# 1225 'iracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. $The penalty
of reclusion temporal shall be in1icted upon any person who! $, t<# <;<
-#0-! shall attack or seie a vessel or! not being a member of its
complement nor a passenger! shall seie the whole or part of the cargo of
said vessel! its e&uipment! or personal belongings of its complement or
passengers.
Article /00 as amen!e! b' Republic Act No. 4516 7anuar' /
/6689 rea!s3
Art!"# 1225 'iracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in
'hilippine waters. $The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be in1icted
upon any person who! $, t<# <;< -#0-2 $r , P<"99,# F0t#r-! shall
attack or seie a vessel or! >#,; 0 8#8>#r $% t- !$89"#8#,t ,$r 0
90--#,;#r! shall seie the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel! its
e&uipment! or personal belongings of its complement or passengers.
25 R5A5 )+47 N A,t3T$rt.r# A!t $% 200)
T+e Re*ouler Rule
-o person will be expelled! returned or extradited to another 'tate
where there are substantial grounds to believe that such person will be in
danger of being subjected to torture. The 'ecretary of the #epartment of
+oreign ("airs 5#+(7 and the 'ecretary of the #>0! in coordination with the
*hairperson of the *=)! will determine whether such grounds exist! taking
into account all relevant considerations including the existence in the
re&uesting 'tate of a consistent pattern of gross! 1agrant or mass
violations of human rights.
65 P5D5 1*AA 0- 08#,1#1 >B R5A5 *24) N D#!r## C$1%B,; t<#
L0F- $, I""#;0"/ U,"0F%." P$--#--$,2 M0,.%0!t.r#2 D#0",; ,2
A!O.-t$, $r D-9$-t$, $% Fr#0r8-2 A88.,t$,- $r EG9"$-:#-
PEOPLE OF T?E P?ILIPPINES2 9"0,t=3099#""##2 :-5
DANIEL 4UIJADA Y CIRCULADO2 0!!.-#13099#""0,t
'5R5 N$-5 11700*30) J."B 242 1))A
F0!t-D ( bene,t dance was held at a basketball court where accused$
appellant #aniel Quijada kept on pestering #iosdado Iroy3s sister. (fter the
dance! accused$appellant surreptitiously approached #iosdado Iroy from
behind! as witnessed by the latter3s sister! and killed him using a revolver.
The victim was rushed to the hospital but the injury sustained was fatal.
The victim subse&uently died due to cardiac arrest. The ,rearm used by
the appellant in shooting #iosdado Iroy was not licensed! the appellant
was not a duly licensed ,rearm holder as veri,ed from a consolidated list
of licensed ,rearm holders in the province! and was not authoried to
carry a ,rearm outside his residence. (ccused$appellant was convicted for
the crime of murder under the )evised Penal *ode! and for violation of
P.#. 6O44.
I--.#D %>- accused$appellant will be in double jeopardy if convicted
both for murder under the )evised Penal *ode! and for violation of P.#.
6O44K
R.",;D -o! accused$appellant can be convicted for both. The elements of
illegal possession of ,rearm in its aggravated form are di"erent from the
elements of homicide or murder! let alone the fact that these crimes are
de,ned and penalied under di"erent laws and the former is malum
prohibitum! while both the latter are mala in se. =ence! the fear that the
majorityEs construction of the subject provision would violate the
constitutional bar against double jeopardy is unfounded.
PEOPLE OF T?E P?ILIPPINES2 099#""##2 :-5 WALPAN LADJAALAM B
MI?AJIL 0"0- JWARPAN2K 099#""0,t
'5R5 N$-5 16A14)371 S#9t#8>#r 1)2 2000
F0!t-D +our Informations were ,led against appellant %alpan Iadjaalam
in the )egional Trial *ourt of Ramboanga *ity! three of which he was
found guilty! to wit: 67 maintaining a drug den in violation of 'ection 6<$(!
(rticle III! of )epublic (ct -o. 4;9< 5#angerous #rugs (ct of 6@C978 97
illegal possession of ,rearm and ammunition in violation of Presidential
#ecree -o. 6O44 as amended by )epublic (ct. -o. O9@;8 and :7 direct
assault with multiple attempted homicide.
I--.#D %hether or not such use of an unlicensed ,rearm shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
?#"1D -o. 'ection 6 of )( O9@; substantially provides that any person
who shall unlawfully possess any ,rearm or ammunition shall be
penalied! :unless no ot+er crime -as committe!;. +urthermore! if
homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed ,rearm!
such use of an unlicensed ,rearm shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. 'ince the crime committed was direct assault and not
homicide or murder! illegal possession of ,rearms cannot be deemed an
aggravating circumstance.
45 R5A5 )1A7 N T<# C$89r#<#,-:# D0,;#r$.- Dr.;- A!t $% 2002
M!<0#" P01.0 :5 P#$9"# $% t<# P<"99,#-
'5R5 N$51A*74A J."B 262200*
F0!t-D Petitioner! who was then 6C years old! was involved in selling
illegal drugs. Initially in his arraignment he pleaded not guilty but re$
entered his plea of guilty to avail the bene,ts of ,rs time o"enders.
'ubse&uently! he applied for probation but was denied. In his petition for
certiorari! the court said that probation and suspension of sentence are
di"erent and provisions in P# 4F: or )( @:;; cannot be invoked to avail
probation.
I--.#D %>- petitioner can apply for probation.
?#"1D The Probation Iaw shall not apply to those convicted of drug$
tra2cking or drug$pushing regardless of the penalty imposed by the *ourt
and regardless of the minority of the o"ender for the law does not
distinguish! and because of the intent of the law to impose a harsher
penalty on the pusher. =ad it been the intention of the legislation to
exempt from the application of 'ec.9; the drug tra2ckers and pushers
who are minors and ,rst time o"enders! the law could have easily
declared so.
PEOPLE OF T?E P?ILIPPINES2 9"0,t=3099#""##2 :5 LO ?O WIN'
0"0- PETER LO2 LIM C?EN' ?UAT 0"0- ANTONIO LIM 0,1
REYNALDO TIA B SANTIA'O2 1#%#,10,t-5 LO ?O WIN' 0"0- PETER
LO2 1#%#,10,t3099#""0,t5
'5R5 N$5 **01+ J0,.0rB 212 1))1
F0!t-D Peter Io! together with co$accused Iim *heng =uat alias (ntonio
Iim and )eynaldo Tia! were charged with a violation of the #angerous
#rugs (ct! for the transport of methamphetamine hydrochloride!
otherwise known as HshabuH. The drug was contained in tea bags inside
tin cans which were placed inside their luggage. Mpon arrival from
=ongkong! they boarded the taxis at the airport which were apprehended
by *I' operatives. Their luggage were subse&uently searched where the
tea bags were opened and found to contain shabu. >nly Io and Iim were
convicted. Tia was discharged as a state witness! who turned out to be a
Hdeep penetration agentH of the *I' in its mission to bust the drug
syndicate.
I--.#D %>- the search and seiure was legal.
R.",;D Des. That search and seiure must be supported by a valid
warrant is not an absolute rule. >ne of the exceptions thereto is a search
of a moving vehicle. The circumstances of the case clearly show that the
search in &uestion was made as regards a moving vehicle. Therefore! a
valid warrant was not necessary to e"ect the search on appellant and his
co$accused. It was ,rmly established from the factual ,ndings of the court
that the authorities had reasonable ground to believe that appellant
would attempt to bring in contraband and transport within the country.
The belief was based on intelligence reports gathered from surveillance
activities on the suspected syndicate! of which appellant was touted to be
a member. (side from this! they were also certain as to the expected date
and time of arrival of the accused from *hina via =ongkong. But such
knowledge was insu2cient to enable them to ful,ll the re&uirements for
the issuance of a search warrant. 'till and all! the important thing is that
there was probable cause to conduct the warrantless search! which must
still be present in the case.
PEOPLE OF T?E P?ILIPPINES2 9"0,t=3099#""##2 :-5 CARLOS BOCO
B ALEJO 0,1 RONALDO INOCENTES B CRUE2 0!!.-#13099#""0,t-5
'5R5 N$5 12)A+A J.,# 262 1)))
F0!t-D (ccused$appellants were convicted for attempt to sell regulated
drug without authority of law during a buy$bust operation done by s
members of the #istrict (nti$-arcotic Mnit! ?astern Police #istrict 5#(-M$
?P#7. #uring the buy$bust operation! the marked money was only shown
to the accused$appellant! and was not received by the latter.
I--.#D %>- accused$appellants can be tried and convicted of
consummated sale under 'ection 6< of the same law! which the
prosecution evidence tried to establishK
R.",;D ( person charged with attempt to sell regulated drug without
the authority of law may be convicted for consummate! sale. ( mere
attempt to commit a felony is surely subsumed in the full execution
thereof. 'ec. 96 of this act covers attempt and conspiracy. ( mere attempt
to commit a felony is surely subsumed in the full execution thereof. To
attempt is to commence the commission of a crime by overt acts. If one
has been proven to have completely carried out all the acts necessary to
commit the crime! he has certainly been proven to have executed the
initial act re&uired in an attempt.
PEOPLE OF T?E P?ILIPPINES2 9"0,t=3099#""##2 :-5 NORBERTO
DEL MONTE B 'APAY 0"0- OBET2 0!!.-#13099#""0,t
'5R5 N$5 1+))40 A9r" 262 200*
F0!t-D ( buy$bust operation was done where accused$appellant was
trapped and caught. Mpon testimonies of witnesses for the defense! it was
alleged that the police mishandled the drugs which are the subject of the
buy$bust operation! and this compromised the seied drugs.
I--.#D %>- non$compliance of 'ec. 96 of )a @64< will render the arrest
illegal or the seied drugs to be inadmissible.
R.",;D -o. -on$compliance of 'ec. 96 will not render an accused3s arrest
illegal or seied items inadmissible. %hat is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seied items
as the same would be utilied in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
75 P5D5 1A02 N A,t3'08>",; A!t
Immunit' Decree
%itnesses are granted immunity under P.#. 6C:9.
A5 R5A5 601) N A,t3'r0%t 0,1 C$rr.9t Pr0!t!#- A!t
?ILARIO JARA&ATA2 9#tt$,#r :5 T?E ?ON5 SANDI'ANBAYAN 0,1
T?E PEOPLE OF T?E P?ILIPPINES2 r#-9$,1#,t-
'5R5 N$5 L37A1+0 J0,.0rB 612 1)*4
F0!t-D The accused informed the classroom teachers of the approval of
the release of their salary di"erentials and to facilitate its payment
accused and the classroom teachers agreed that accused follow$up the
papers in Aanila with the obligation on the part of the classroom teachers
to reimburse the accused of his expenses. (ccused incurred expenses and
he divided said amount by the number of teachers! but the accused
received more than the rightful amount.
I--.#D %hether or not petitioner 0aravata violated ).(. :F6@.
R.",;D -o. There is no law which invests the petitioner with the power to
intervene in the payment of the salary di"erentials of the complainants or
anyone for that matter. +ar from exercising any power! the petitioner
plated the humble role of a supplicant whose mission was to expedite
payment of the salary di"erentials. In his o2cial capacity as assistant
principal! he is not re&uired by law to intervene in the payment of the
salary di"erentials. (ccordingly! he cannot be said to have violated the
law aforecited although he exerted e"orts to facilitate the payment of the
salary di"erentials. 'ec : 5b7 of )( :F6@ refers to a public o2cer whose
o2cial intervention is re&uired by law in a contract or transaction. 5.in his
o2cial capacity has to intervene under the lawJ7.
ARTURO A5 MEJORADA2 9#tt$,#r2 :5 T?E ?ONORABLE
SANDI'ANBAYAN 0,1
T?E PEOPLE OF T?E P?ILIPPINES2 r#-9$,1#,t-5
'5R5 N$-5 L3710A73+2J.,# 602 1)*+
F0!t-D This is a case of an engineer who has negotiated with the house
and lot owners for the construction of a road and the complainants
alleged that they were divested of a large proportion of their claims and
receiving payment in an amount even lower that the actual damage they
incurred.
I--.#D %>- petitioner is guilty of violation of ).(. :F6@.
R.",;D Des. 'ection : cited above enumerates in eleven subsections the
corrupt practices of any public o2cer declared unlawful. Its reference to
any public o2cer is without distinction or &uali,cation and it speci,es the
acts declared unlawful. The last sentence of the par 5e7 is intended to
make clear the inclusion of o2cers and employees of o2ces or
government corporation which under the ordinary concept of public
o2cers may not come within the term. It is a strained construction of the
provision to read it as applying exclusively to public o2cers charged with
the duty of granting licenses and permits or other concessions. Petitioner
,ts s&uarely with the enumerated elements.
+5 R5A5 +0*0 N A,t3P".,1#r A!t
JOSEP? EJERCITO ESTRADA2 9#tt$,#r2 :-5 SANDI'ANBAYAN
(T<r1 D:-$,) 0,1 PEOPLE OF T?E P?ILIPPINES2 r#-9$,1#,t-5
'5R5 N$5 14*7A0 N$:#8>#r 1)2 2001
F0!t-D 'ection 9 of ).(. -o. CFOF 5(n (ct #e,ning and Penaliing the
*rime of Plunder7 as amended by ).(. -o. C4<@ substantially provides
that any public o2cer who amasses! accumulates or ac&uires ill$gotten
wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts in the
aggregate amount or total value of at least ,fty million pesos
5P<F!FFF!FFF.FF7 shall be guilty of the crime of plunder. Petitioner 0oseph
?jercito ?strada! being prosecuted under the said (ct! assailed its
constitutionality! arguing inter alia! that it abolishes the element of mens
rea in crimes already punishable under The )evised Penal *ode8 and as
such! a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused to due process
and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Petitioner contended also that HpatternH is Ha very important element of
the crime of plunder8H and that 'ec. ; is Htwo pronged! 5as7 it contains a
rule of evidence and a substantive element of the crime!H such that
without it the accused cannot be convicted of plunder.
I--.#-D
6. %>- the crime of plunder as de,ned in ).(. -o. CFOF is a malum
prohibitum.
9. %>- pattern is an element of plunder.
R.",;D -o. The 'upreme *ourt held that plunder is malum in se which
re&uires proof of criminal intent. Aoreover! the legislative declaration in
).(. -o. C4<@ that plunder is a heinous o"ense implies that it is a malum
in se. The predicate crimes in the case of plunder involve acts which are
inherently immoral or inherently wrong! and are committed .willfully!
unlawfully and criminallyJ by the o"ender! alleging his guilty knowledge.
Thus! the crime of plunder is a malum in se.
Pattern is not an element of plunder. (ll the essential elements of
plunder can be culled and understood from its de,nition in 'ec. 9! in
relation to 'ec. 6! paragraph SdT! and pattern is not one of them.
*5 R5A5 )2A2 N A,t3&$"#,!# A;0,-t W$8#, 0,1 C<"1r#, A!t $%
2004
%attere! (oman S'n!rome
HBattered %oman 'yndromeH refers to a scienti,cally de,ned
pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living
in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
PEOPLE OF T?E P?ILIPPINES2 099#""## :-5 MARI&IC 'ENOSA2
099#""0,t5
'5R5 N$5 167)*1 J0,.0rB 172 2004
F0!t-D This case stemmed from the killing of Ben Benosa! by his wife
Aarivic Benosa! appellant herein. #uring their ,rst year of marriage!
Aarivic and Ben lived happily but apparently thereafter! Ben changed and
the couple would always &uarrel and sometimes their &uarrels became
violent. (ppellant testi,ed that every time her husband came home
drunk! he would provoke her and sometimes beat her. %henever beaten
by her husband! she consulted medical doctors who testi,ed during the
trial. >n the night of the killing! appellant and the victim were &uarreled
and the victim beat the appellant. =owever! appellant was able to run to
another room. (ppellant admitted having killed the victim with the use of
a gun. The information for parricide against appellant! however! alleged
that the cause of death of the victim was by beating through the use of a
lead pipe. (ppellant invoked self defense and defense of her unborn child.
(fter trial! the )egional Trial *ourt found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide with an aggravating
circumstance of treachery and imposed the penalty of death. >n
automatic review before the 'upreme *ourt! appellant ,led an M)B?-T
>A-IBM' A>TI>- praying that the =onorable *ourt allow 567 the
exhumation of Ben Benosa and the re$examination of the cause of his
death8 597 the examination of Aarivic Benosa by &uali,ed psychologists
and psychiatrists to determine her state of mind at the time she killed her
husband8 and ,nally! 5:7 the inclusion of the said experts3 reports in the
records of the case for purposes of the automatic review or! in the
alternative! a partial re$opening of the case a &uo to take the testimony of
said psychologists and psychiatrists. The 'upreme *ourt partly granted
the M)B?-T >A-IBM' A>TI>- of the appellant. It remanded the case to
the trial court for reception of expert psychological andGor psychiatric
opinion on the .battered woman syndromeJ plea. Testimonies of two
expert witnesses on the .battered woman syndromeJ! #ra. #ayan and #r.
Pajarillo! were presented and admitted by the trial court and subse&uently
submitted to the 'upreme *ourt as part of the records.
I--.#-:
6. %>- appellant herein can validly invoke the .battered woman
syndromeJ as constituting self$defense.
9. %hether or not treachery attended the killing of Ben Benosa.
R.",;D
6. The *ourt ruled in the negative as appellant failed to prove that she is
aUicted with the .battered woman syndromeJ.
( battered woman has been de,ned as a woman .who is repeatedly
subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in
order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern
for her rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of
intimate relationship with men. +urthermore! in order to be classi,ed as a
battered woman! the couple must go through the battering cycle at least
twice. (ny woman may ,nd herself in an abusive relationship with a man
once. If it occurs a second time! and she remains in the situation! she is
de,ned as a battered woman.J
Aore graphically! the battered woman syndrome is characteried by
the so$called .cycle of violence!J which has three phases: 567 the tension$
building phase8 597 the acute battering incident8 and 5:7 the tran&uil!
loving 5or! at least! nonviolent7 phase.
The *ourt! however! is not discounting the possibility of self$defense
arising from the battered woman syndrome. +irst! each of the phases of
the cycle of violence must be proven to have characteried at least two
battering episodes between the appellant and her intimate partner.
'econd! the ,nal acute battering episode preceding the killing of the
batterer must have produced in the battered person3s mind an actual fear
of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she
needed to use force in order to save her life. Third! at the time of the
killing! the batterer must have posed probable $$ not necessarily
immediate and actual $$ grave harm to the accused! based on the history
of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter. Taken altogether!
these circumstances could satisfy the re&uisites of self$defense. Mnder the
existing facts of the present case! however! not all of these elements were
duly established.
The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the .cycle of
violenceJ supposedly characteriing the relationship of Ben and Aarivic
Benosa. -o doubt there were acute battering incidents but appellant
failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in the past! she
had gone through a similar pattern. -either did appellant pro"er su2cient
evidence in regard to the third phase of the cycle.
In any event! the existence of the syndrome in a relationship does
not in itself establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive
partner. ?vidence must still be considered in the context of self$defense.
'ettled in our jurisprudence! is the rule that the one who resorts to self$
defense must face a real threat on one3s life8 and the peril sought to be
avoided must be imminent and actual! not merely imaginary. Thus! the
)evised Penal *ode provides that the following re&uisites of self$defense
must concur: 567 Mnlawful aggression8 597 )easonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it8 and 5:7 Iack of su2cient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
Mnlawful aggression is the most essential element of self$defense. It
presupposes actual! sudden and unexpected attack $$ or an imminent
danger thereof $$ on the life or safety of a person. In the present case!
however! according to the testimony of Aarivic herself! there was a
su2cient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her
fatal attack upon him. 'he had already been able to withdraw from his
violent behavior and escape to their children3s bedroom. #uring that time!
he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. The reality or even the
imminence of the danger he posed had ended altogether. =e was no
longer in a position that presented an actual threat on her life or safety.
The mitigating factors of psychological paralysis and passion and
obfuscation were! however! taken in favor of appellant. It should be
clari,ed that these two circumstances $$ psychological paralysis as well as
passion and obfuscation $$ did not arise from the same set of facts.
The ,rst circumstance arose from the cyclical nature and the
severity of the battery in1icted by the batterer$spouse upon appellant.
That is! the repeated beatings over a period of time resulted in her
psychological paralysis! which was analogous to an illness diminishing the
exercise of her will power without depriving her of consciousness of her
acts.
(s to the extenuating circumstance of having acted upon an
impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and
obfuscation! it has been held that this state of mind is present when a
crime is committed as a result of an uncontrollable burst of passion
provoked by prior unjust or improper acts or by a legitimate stimulus so
powerful as to overcome reason. To appreciate this circumstance! the
following re&uisites should concur: 567 there is an act! both unlawful and
su2cient to produce such a condition of mind8 and 597 this act is not far
removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of
time! during which the accused might recover her normal e&uanimity.
9. ->. Because of the gravity of the resulting o"ense! treachery must be
proved as conclusively as the killing itself. Besides! e&ually axiomatic is
the rule that when a killing is preceded by an argument or a &uarrel!
treachery cannot be appreciated as a &ualifying circumstance! because
the deceased may be said to have been forewarned and to have
anticipated aggression from the assailant. Aoreover! in order to
appreciate alevosia! the method of assault adopted by the aggressor must
have been consciously and deliberately chosen for the speci,c purpose of
accomplishing the unlawful act without risk from any defense that might
be put up by the party attacked.
The appellant acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have
naturally produced passion or obfuscation. The acute battering she
su"ered that fatal night in the hands of her batterer$spouse! in spite of the
fact that she was eight 5O7 months pregnant with their child! overwhelmed
her and put her in the aforesaid emotional and mental state! which
overcame her reason and impelled her to vindicate her life and that of her
unborn child.
The 'upreme *ourt a2rmed the conviction of appellant for
parricide. =owever! considering the presence of two 597 mitigating
circumstances and without any aggravating circumstance! the penalty is
reduced to six 547 years and one 567 day of prision mayor as minimum8 to
6; years O months and 6 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Inasmuch as appellant has been detained for more than the minimum
penalty hereby imposed upon her! the director of the Bureau of
*orrections may immediately )?I?('? her from custody upon due
determination that she is eligible for parole! unless she is being held for
some other lawful cause.