CRIMINAL LAW1

FROM THE LECTURES OF ATTY. RENE RIZZA B. MAMBURAM

1-VIADA
A.Y. 2022-2023

TRANSCRIBED BY:
April Kaye Kabingue | Christine Louise Lacanaria | Samantha Magpale
Francis Cedrick Mariano|Psalms Oñas | Joice Dimple Paden
Danica Malle Peña |Kryle Zen Dace Tautho | John Michael Satur

UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION/DISTRIBUTION IS PROHIBITED

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

• Revised Penal Code

• Other Special Penal Laws
CRIMINAL LAW 1: Introduction Suppose A is charged of committing murder because there’s a
qualifying circumstance. How do we file a case against A for
murder?
DEFINE LAW:
The procedure of filing a case is found in another branch of law
- as the science of moral laws based on the rationale
Procedural Law specifically under Criminal Procedure.
nature of man which governs his free activity for the
realization of his individual and social ends and which by
Suppose A is already charged with killing B, what will be the
its nature is demandable and reciprocal (definition by
procedure for A to be tried in court? Suppose A gets convicted,
Sanchez Roman).
what’s the process, how will A be penalized? How will the penalty
be imposed?
- a rule of conduct, just, obligatory, promulgated by
legitimate authority, and of common observance and
That is all part of Criminal Procedure.
benefit.
Article 1. Time When Act Takes Effect. — This Code shall take
Note: there is a conclusive presumption under the Civil Code that
effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-
everyone knows the law.
two.
CRIMINAL LAW
- is defined as that branch or division which defines crimes, The date of effectivity of the RPC is January 1, 1932, and was
treats of their nature and provides for their punishment. approved on December 8, 1930.

Criminal Law Penal Law Discussion:

is defined as that branch or Act of the Legislature that
division which defines crimes, prohibits certain acts and Prior to the enactment of the RPC, we have an Old Penal Code
treats of their nature and established for its violations. which is a modified version of the Spanish Penal Code, took effect
provides for their punishment. July 18, 1887 and was enforced up to December 31, 1931.

A committee was formed to craft the RPC and that code committee
Penal law and criminal law are the same as both defines crimes, was created by virtue of Administrative Order No. 94 of the
treats of their nature, and provide for their punishment. Department of Justice which admin order directed the revision of
the Old Penal Code.

SOURCES OF CRIMINAL/PENAL LAWS The committee for the revision of the Old Penal Code was
composed of Justice Anacleto Diaz as chair, Quintin Paredes,
1. Revised Penal Code (primary source)– composed of two
Guillermo Guevara, Alex Reyes and Mariano H. De Joya as
books:
members.
a. Book I – covers Articles 1-113
b. Book II – covers Articles 114 – 367
Q. What were the laws prior to the Old Penal Code, Criminal law
2. Other sources:
before Spanish arrival?
a. Special Penal Laws – enacted after the
enactment of the RPC
A. It is said that there were customary laws or written laws which
b. Decisions of the Supreme Court of the
were the source of Criminal Laws.
Philippines and Spain – case law or
jurisprudence. (Article 8 of the Civil Code)
During the Spanish regime, the Spanish Penal Code of 1870 was the
c. Penal Ordinances passed by Local Legislative
source of Criminal Laws.
Bodies (City Council, Municipal Council).
WHAT IS CRIME?
Substantive Law Criminal Procedure
The main focus of studying This relates to procedural law
CRIME- is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law
Criminal law. It is the main which refers to the method
forbidding or commanding it. (I Bouviers’ Law Dictionary )
source of substantive rights of prescribed by law for the
persons. apprehension and
Refers to the definition of prosecution of persons Basis: ❖ Adherence to the principle NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA
crimes. accused of criminal offense POENA SINE LEGE (THERE IS NO CRIME WHEN THERE IS N LAW
and for their punishment in PUNISHING IT.)
case of conviction.
Discussion:

Example: A killed B, B gets killed. The question is: what’s the crime Theft, rape, murder, robbery are considered crime because there
committed by A? The answer is found in Substantive law. is a law punishing it because it is punishable under the RPC. Thus,
no matter how bad or immoral the act is, it cannot be considered
What is substantive law in criminal law? a crime if there is no law punishing it.

1 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

WHAT IS COMMON LAW CRIME? -- presupposes that man knows how to distinguish right and wrong;
- refer to body of principles which suggest rules of action --emphasis: act committed, not on the doer
which do not rest their authority upon any express and - mostly provision of the RPC adhered to classical theory
positive declaration of the will of congress.
- Offenses punishable under the common law (e.g. 2.) Positivist- man is subdued occasionally by a stranger and morbid
customary acts which are either written or unwritten). phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong inspite of or
contrary to his volition;
Note: In the Philippines, common-law crimes are not recognized
since we are adhering to the Principle of NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA --emphasis: the actor rather than on the act
POENA SINE LEGE.
However, in imposing penalties for crimes, the courts must bear in
WHO ENACTS PENAL LAWS? mind that Philippine penal law is based on the Spanish penal code
and has adopted features of the positivist theory of criminal law.
SECTION 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress The positivist theory states that the basis for criminal liability is the
of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of sum total of the social and economic phenomena to which the
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the offense is expressed. The adoption of the aspects of the theory is
provision on initiative and referendum. (Sec.. 1, Article VI of the exemplified by the indeterminate sentence law, Article 4,
1987 Constitution). paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (impossible crime), Article
68 and Articles 11 to 14, not to mention Article 63 of the Revised
BASIS OF CONGRESS IN ENACTMENT OF LAWS: POLICE Penal Code (penalties for heinous and quasi-heinous crimes) (De
POWER Joya vs Jailwarden).

One of the inherent power of the state; power to regulate 3.) Eccletic or Mixed- combination of the positivist and classical
freedoms and property rights of individuals for the protection of theories wherein crimes that have economic and social causes
public safety, health and moral or the promotion of public should be dealt with modicum of compassion;
convenience and general prosperity.
4.) Utilitarian- also known as the Protective theory; the primary
Note: Criminalization of wrongful act is legislative in purpose of punishment is the protection of society from actual and
potential wrongdoers;
character subject to some limitations.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PENAL LAWS:
LIMITATIONS ON PENAL ENACTMENT
1. Generality
a.) Article III Section 22 which provides: “No ex post facto
2. Territoriality
law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.”
3. Prospective
‘ex post facto law’- a law the punishes an act which was not
1.GENERALITY
punishable at the time it was committed;
Philippine Criminal Laws are binding on all persons who live or
‘bill of attainder’- a legislative act that inflicts punishment
sojourn in the Philippines.
without judicial trial.
Basis:
b.) Article III Section 19 which provides: “ No law that
i. Article 14, NCC- “Penal laws and those of public security
provides for cruel and unusual punishment shall be
and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in
passed.
Note: it is considered cruel or inhuman if it involves torture or the Philippines territory subject to the principles of public
international law and treaty stipulations.”)
lingering death, it also implies something inhuman and barbarous
in the conscience of man.
ii. Article 2 of the RPC

Discussion:
c.) Article III Section 14(1)- Due process of law- “No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law”. – simply means basic fairness an Supposed A who is an American Citizen has the right to bear
adequate justice; a law that hears before it condemns, Firearms under the American Law then he arrives in the Philippines
proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after and was caught unlicensed firearm because under the Philippine
trial. Law, there is a law prohibiting the carrying of unlicensed firearm.
A then invokes his right vested under the American Constitution.
THEORIES UNDERLYING THE RPC :
Q: Can A be held criminally liable under the Philippine Law?
1.) Classical/Traditional- Man is essentially a moral creature with
A: Yes. Because under the Principle of Generality, Penal laws and
an absolute free will to choose between good and evil and
those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who
therefore more stress is placed upon the result of the felonious act
live or sojourn in the Philippine subject to the principles of public
than upon the criminal himself.
international law and treaty stipulations.

2 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Example, A killed B. Both of them are Filipinos. Can A be prosecuted A: No. Foreign warships are considered extensions of the sending
in the Philippines? Answer is YES. State. So, they cannot be prosecuted even if the crime was
committed here.
Supposed A, a foreign national visiting the Philippines, committed
a crime of murder in the Philippines and killed B (Filipino). can A be Q: In cases where persons commit crimes in the embassies or
prosecuted in the Philippines? consulates stationed in the Philippines. Suppose a crime was
A: Yes. Base on Article 14 of the Civil Code committed by persons while they were inside the embassy or
consulate office. Can they be prosecuted in the Philippines?

EXCEPTIONS TO GENERALITY A: No. Because these embassies or consular offices are considered
extensions of the sending State. This is the principle under public
1. Public International Law international law.
2. Treaty Stipulations
3. Laws of Preferential Applications 2.) Treaty stipulation
1.) International Law – body of legal rules that governs the - Treaties are entered into agreements by States for a certain
relations between states and international persons. purpose or to achieve a common goal.
Doctrine of incorporation—Section 2. Article II of the 1987 - Pacta sunt servanda – international agreements must be
Constitution which provides: “The Philippines X X X adopts the performed in good faith.
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law
of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, - Ex. Visiting Forces Agreement – implement of the US-RP
freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.” Mutual Defense Treaty allowing US military to visit the Philippines.

Example: diplomatic immunity – diplomat treated as an extension Discussion:

of the sending state under the extraterritoriality principle.
Q: Are we obliged to abide by the provisions of the treaty that we
Note: in Schneckenburger v. Moran (G.R. No. 44896, July 31, execute or sign into?
1936), a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of
an ambassador or minister but is subject to the laws and A: Yes. Pacta sunt servanda’ – international agreements must be
regulations of the country to which he is accredited. performed in good faith.

Ex. Philippines enters into a treaty with another foreign country. In

A consul is not exempt from criminal prosecution for violations of
that treaty, they have an agreement in which if these particular
the laws of the country where he resides.
individuals commit a crime, they are exempt from the application
of criminal law. Suppose those persons do commit a crime while
Persons exempt by virtue of the principles of Public International
Law : inside the Philippine territory?
a..) sovereigns and other chief of state; A: No. The treaty states that they are exempted. Also, the
b.) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, ministers resident and provisions of that treaty must be respected.
charges d’ affaires.

Discussion: 3.) Laws of Preferential Application

- A law exempting certain persons from the application of penal
Philippines is obliged to follow the International based on Section laws. This can be an exemption to the generality characteristic.
2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution a.k.a Doctrine of Incorporation.
i. RA No. 75 – prohibits the arrest and imprisonment
Example: US President came to the Philippines and while in the of foreign ambassador or public minister or his
Philippines, he killed someone. Can he be criminally liable? domestic or domestic servant;

Answer: No. By virtue of Public international Law, sovereigns and ii. Articles of War (CA No. 408) – members of the AFP
other chief of state are immune from any suit and the basis is the are under the jurisdiction of courts-martial for
long-standing customary rule that all states are sovereign equals service connected offenses defined only in Art. 54 to
and cannot assert jurisdiction over another. 70, 72 t 92, 95 to 97.

RA No, 75 - a local statute which implements diplomatic iii. 1987 Constitution, section 11 second sentence of
immunity. article 6: No member of Congress shall be
questioned nor be held in any other place for any
ARE MEMBERS OF MILITARY TROOPS EXEMPT? speech or debate in Congress or any committee
Answer: Only in some instances. thereof. This is parliamentary immunity from libel
suits for members of Congress.
Q: Suppose a US warship was docked in the Philippines waters. A
crime was committed while inside the warship. Can the offender in
that crime be prosecuted here in the Philippines?

3 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

iii. Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines - the treaties and laws of preferential application) Note: 5 exceptions
bigamy shall not apply to a person married under to the exception (Art. 2, RPC).
Muslim Laws.
Discussion: Territoriality Principle
Bigamy: A person marries another subsequently even with a
prior subsisting marriage. Examples of Extensions of Philippine Territory

Q: If a Muslim male marries for the second time a round, can he be Foreign Warships
persecuted?
A: If he’s not Muslim, then yes. But if he is a Muslim, then the code Q. Suppose A is inside the foreign warship sailing in Philippine
of Muslim personal laws will apply to him. Then he is exempted territory, A commits a crime against B who’s also inside the
from the application of penal law on bigamy. foreign warship. Can Philippine courts take cognizance of the
crimes committed on board the said foreign warship?
iv. Case law or jurisprudence which exempts a person
from the application of penal laws: Presidential A. NO. Foreign warships are considered as extensions of the
Immunity, the chief executive is exempt or enjoys sending state. So even if the crimes committed on board said vessel
immunity from suit during his tenure or incumbency. or warships, while the said warships are inside the Philippine
However, there is no provision of law that supports territory or within the Philippine Territory, the Philippine courts
this. cannot take jurisdiction.

POST-DISCUSSIONS: Instances of Extra-territorial application of Philippine Laws

Q: Can sovereigns or chiefs of state be considered diplomatic Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the exceptions of
agents? the territoriality principle.
A: They are not considered diplomatic agents because they are the
heads of state. They are different from diplomatic agents. But both If the crimes are committed outside of the Philippine territory and
of them under principles of international law enjoy immunity when the crimes pertain to those listed in Article 2 of the RPC, the crimes
they visit other countries. When you say sovereign, queen of may be prosecuted.
England, kings. Head of States, countries without sovereign are
called heads of state like President or Chief Executive ARTICLE 2. Application of its provisions. – Except as provided in
Q: Suppose a diplomat commits a crime here in the Philippines. the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions
Because he is immune from suit, what’s the remedy? of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine
A: He will be sent back to his state or country. Depending on their Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and
laws, he will be prosecuted there. maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those
Q: The killer of Jennifer Laude was acquitted. Which exemption who:
does that case belong? 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship
A: It does not belong to the exemptions because that case followed or airship
the general rule. The American citizen committed a crime while
inside the Philippine territory so he was charged in court here in the 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note
Philippines. Just because you’re a foreign citizen does not mean you of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
are immune from prosecution of crimes committed in the issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
Philippines.
There is a treaty that if certain acts are done by an American soldier, 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
it is possible that they might be immune from criminal prosecution. introduction into these islands of the obligations and
However, murder is not one of those crimes. I think its RP US securities mentioned in the presiding number;
Mutual Defense Treaty and there are offshoot agreements like
visiting forces agreement and other agreements. But basically, the 4. While being public officers or employees, should
case of Jennifer Laude, the generality character applied. commit an offense in the exercise of their functions;
Q: Regarding the consuls, are they exempted under the generality or
under the Consular Relations Treaty?
A: If ask now, you can cite the case of Schneckenburger vs. Moran 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national
although it’s a 1936 case. In 1967, there was a convention on security and the law of nations, defined in Title One
consular relations in which one provision states that consuls are of Book Two of this Code.
exempted only for those acts committed in relation to his or her
consular office.
Q: Are we part of that convention? 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
A: Yes
Q. When is a ship considered a Philippine ship or airship?
2.TERRITORIALITY
A. When the same are registered under the laws of the Republic
Criminal laws shall be enforced within the territory of the of the Philippines.
Philippines.
Exceptions: Article 2, RPC (as provided in

4 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Note: The RPC was enacted sometime in the 1930s, the airplane US v. Ah Sing
or aircraft are referred to as “airships.” This term is not used 36 Phil 978
nowadays.
Facts: A Chinese national bought 8 cans of opium in Saigon and
Rules on jurisdiction if a crime is committed onboard a foreign brought them on board a foreign vessel which was anchored in a
merchant vessel travelling or anchored in the Philippines waters Cebu port.

Q: Suppose A, a French national while onboard a French ship Issue: WON the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime
docked in Davao Port killed B (an Argentinian national). Can A committed on board the foreign vessel.
be prosecuted in Davao?
A: Yes, because of the territoriality characteristic of our Held: YES. The accused can be charged and convicted of illegal
Criminal law. Penal laws are territorial in nature. importation of opium in the Philippines. The Supreme Court in this
case held that the accused can be charged and convicted of illegal
People v. Wong Cheng importation of opium. Because the crime was committed while the
49 Phil 729 offender was within Philippine territory.

Facts: Appellee is being accused of having illegally smoked US vs Look Chaw

opium while on board a merchant vessel of English nationality.
Vessel was anchored in Manila Bay. Facts: Accused was charged with illegal possession and sale of
opium while on board a ship of English Nationality and the vessel
Issue: WON Philippine Courts have the jurisdiction over the is in transit but was docked on Philippine port.
crime committed aboard a merchant vessel anchored in
Philippine waters Held: Although the mere possession of a thing of prohibited use
in these islands aboard a foreign vessel in transit in any of their
Held: YES, based on the English rule. The English Rule is based ports, does not as a general rule constitute a crime, on account
on the territorial principle and followed in the United States. of such vessel being considered as an extension of its own
Crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel are nationality. The same rule does not apply when the article whose
generally triable in the courts of the country within whose use is prohibited within the Philippine Islands, which in the case
territory they were committed; and it is adhered to in the of Look Chaw is a can of opium is landed from the vessel upon
Philippines the Philippine soil. The court said that is considered an open
violation of the laws of the land and the offender can be held
Between the French Rule or the English Rule, it is the latter liable in the absence of an agreement under an international
that obtains in this jurisdiction treaty.

Note: This case was decided during the American regime. To Discussion:
smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though aboard
a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the public So, we reconcile the rulings of Ah Sing and Look Chaw, if the
order here established, because it causes such drug to vessel is in transit (passing through), possession of opium does
produce its pernicious effects within our territory. not have a pernicious effect in our country, the Philippines
would have no jurisdiction on the crime committed. But, if the
vessel is anchored in any part of the Philippines, possession of
Discussion: French Rule vs English Rule opium is equivalent to importation, which already produces
pernicious effect in our country. Hence, the Philippines would
French rule English rule now have jurisdiction.
Crimes committed aboard a Crime shall be tried under the
foreign merchant vessel law of the place where the Q: Between the French rule or the English rule, which of rule
should not be prosecuted in crime was committed. If the does the Philippines adhere to?
the courts of the country crime is committed in the A: In the Wong Cheng case, the Supreme Court made a
within whose territorial Philippine territory, Philippine pronouncement of these two rules. It is the English rule that we
jurisdiction they were courts have jurisdiction over follow. The reason is that, at that time, the Philippines is under
committed. the crime. (Territoriality) American rule and that US follows the English rule. If we look
(Extraterritoriality) at Article 2 of the RPC, the English rule is more in keeping of
consistent with the territoriality characteristic of our penal
XPN: XPN: laws.
1. If the crime affects the 1. The crime is minor.
peace, security, and safety of 2. If it affects only the internal Q: Suppose A, a Filipino national, while on board a French ship
the territory where the crime management of the vessel docked in American port killed B, a Filipino national. Who has
was committed (Territoriality) (Extraterritoriality) the jurisdiction to prosecute the crime of homicide or murder?

Jurisdiction: The country A: Philippine Courts have no jurisdiction. It is because of the

Jurisdiction: The country
where the vessel is located. territoriality principle of our penal laws. Crime was not
where the vessel was
committed in any part of the Philippine territory; therefore, the
registered or nationality of
Philippines have no jurisdiction applying the English Rule and
the vessel.
Territoriality Principle.
5 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Examples of crimes against national security and the law

Note: Under an annotation in the book of Judge Campanilla, in nations are treason and piracy
his opinion on the ruling in the case of Wong Cheng, he stated
that it is not controlling anymore because of the following Note: If these crimes are committed outside the Philippine
reasons: territory the offenders can be held liable here in the Philippines
(1) The Philippines is no longer a territory of the U.S.
(2) The Philippines, which is a signatory to the UN Discussion:
Convention on Law of the Seas has the obligation to
follow the flag state union under the convention. Q: Are the circumstances mentioned in Article 2 an exclusive list
of circumstances regarding the exceptions to the Territoriality
Article 27. of the UNCLOS—Criminal jurisdiction of the characteristic? What are the instances of other applications of the
coastal state should not be exercised onboard a foreign Philippine Criminal Laws?
ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any
person or to conduct any investigation in connection with A.
any crime committed onboard the ship during its passage. 1. Section 49 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 provides for the
extra-territorial application;
Q: What rule does the first sentence of paragraph one 2. The Crime of Piracy;
refers to? Is it the English Rule or the French Rule? 3. Section 19 of RA 10168 (The Law Punishing Financing of
Terrorism, also provides for the extra-territorial application;
A: This refers to the French Rule—flag state rule. 4. Section 17 of RA 9851 also provides for the extra-territorial
application;
Q: Is there an exception? 5. RA 10364 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act) has a specific section
A: Article 27 (1) states that there are exceptions which where it provides for the extra-territorial application;
are: 6. RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act), Section 21 provides for
(a) If the consequences of the crime extend to the the extraterritorial application;
coastal state. 7. (7) RA 10173 (Data Privacy Act) has a section which provides for
(b) If the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of a territorial application.
country or the good order of the territorial sea.
(c) If the assistance of the local authorities has been TOPIC: Crime of Piracy
requested by the master of the ship or by a
diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag In People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19, Philippine courts have jurisdiction on
State; or the piracy case. Piracy is a villainy not against any particular state
(d) If such measures are necessary for the but against all mankind. It should be tried and punished in the
suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or sufficient tribunal of any country where the offender may be found
psychotropic substances. or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy, unlike all
other crimes, has no territorial limits.
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the TOPIC: Transitory Crimes
Government of the Philippine Islands;
In AAA vs. BBB, G.R. No. 212448, January 11, 2018, Philippine
Note: We do not use that term “Philippine Islands” now. We Courts have jurisdiction over psychological violence under R.A.
use Philippines or Republic of the Philippines. 9262 because what the law punishes is the Violence Against
Women and their Children, not the marital infidelity per se.
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in In this case, it was alleged that the husband committed marital
the presiding number; infidelity. He failed to give financial support to the wife. It was
alleged that the acts of infidelity was committed in Singapore.
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an While he worked there, he did not give financial support to the
offense in the exercise of their functions; or wife. The wife filed a complaint for violation of RA 9262 against the
husband which case was filed before the court in Pasig where the
Example: A public officer stationed in one of the offices in wife resided.
another country commits a crime there, and that the crime
committed was in the exercise of his or her public function. Q: Can Philippine courts take cognizance of the case considering
that the marital infidelity and the failure to give financial support
Even if the crime is committed outside of the Philippine were perpetrated the husband while husband was outside the
territory, the person committing the crime can still be Philippine territory?
prosecuted here in the Philippines. The Philippine courts may
have jurisdiction over the crime committed. A: YES. Philippine courts can take cognizance of case because these
psychological and emotional violence was experienced by the
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and woman while she was in the Philippines. Although acts were
the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this committed in Singapore, but the woman suffered emotional and
Code. psychological violence while she was here in the Philippines.

6 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Acts of violence against women and their children may manifest Discussion:
transitory or continuing crimes; meaning that some acts material
and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in Define Felonies (Delitos)
one municipality or territory, while some occur in another. In such
cases, the court wherein the any of the crime’s essential and Felonies – are acts or omission punishable by the Revised Penal
material acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try the Code which can be committed by means of deceit (dolo) or fault
case; it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of (culpa).
the same excludes the other. Thus, a person charged with a
continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any Q. When is there deceit or dolo?
municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed. A. There is deceit or dolo when the act is performed with
deliberate intent.
3.PROSPECTIVITY
Q. When is there culpa?
Penal laws are considered prospective. It should apply A. There is culpa when the wrongful act results from
prospectively and not retroactively. imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
(Article 3 RPC)
GR: Lex Prospicit Non Respicit: Laws look forward never backward
Note: The word deceit is not an accurate translation of the latin
XPN: There can be retroactive application if the law is more word dolo. Some of the commentators say that the true translation
favorable to the accused as provided in Article 22 of RPC. of dolo is malice and not deceit.

XPN to XPN: Refer back to the general rule. Elements of a felony:

1. If the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions 1. Voluntary act or omission
or causes of action; or the law itself states that retroactive 2. The voluntary act or omission is punishable by the
application is not allowed even if it is favorable to the accused. Revised Penal Code
3. The act is performed, or omission incurred by means of
2. Where the offender is a habitual delinquent under Art. 62 of deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa).
the RPC (Art. 22 of the RPC).
“Habitual Delinquent” – if within a period of 10 years from Define Act
the date of his last release or last conviction of the crimes Act – is a determination of will producing an effect in the sensible
of physical injuries , robbery theft, estafa, he is found guilty world. Also defined as any bodily movement tending to produce
of any of the same crimes a third time or oftener. some effect in the external world.

When we say act as used in Article 3, it must refer to an external

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS act. An act which has some effect in the external world.
Example: An act of shooting someone.
Rules in Construction of Penal Laws:
a. In case of doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the accused; Q: For example, you are imagining how you will kill another
person. That is an act of imagining or thinking how you will kill a
person. Is this an act contemplated in Article 3?
b. If there is a conflict between the English text and Spanish text,
the Spanish text is controlling because most of the provisions A: No. An act must be external. In so far as the RPC is concerned,
of the RPC were copied from the Spanish Penal Code. there is no law which says that imagining in your mind or plotting
to kill another a person is a crime. Following the principle of
“Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege”, there is no crime when
In Dubio Pro Reo: In case of doubt, rule in favor of the accused. All there is no law punishing the act.
doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused.
Define Omission
Rule of Lenity. Provides that when the court is faced with two Omission – inaction or failure to perform what the law requires.
possible interpretations of penal statute, one that is prejudicial to
the accused, and another one that is favorable to him, the rule calls Not only is an act punishable by the RPC but also omissions.
for the adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient to the However, only those omissions defined and punishable under the
accused. Revised Penal Code are considered as felonies.

Article 3. Definition. — Acts and omissions punishable by law Omissions punished under the RPC:
are felonies (delitos). a. misprision of treason or failure to report to the
authorities any conspiracy against the Rep (Art.
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but 116);
also by means of fault (culpa). b. delay in the delivery of detained persons to the authorities
(Art. 125);
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; c. delay in the release of prisoners (Art. 128);
and there is fault when the wrongful act results from d. failure of the public officers to resist a rebellion (Art. 137);
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. e. failure to prosecute a violator of law (Art.208);
f. failure of collecting officers to issue receipts (Art. 213);
g. failure of accountable officer to
render accounts (Art. 218 & 219);
7 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

h. failure of public officer to make delivery of public Example: A killed B by using a knife. A stab B and B died as a result.
funds (Art. 221); Q: What is the intent of A?
i. evasion of sentence by a prisoner through A: The intent is to kill B.
j. negligence of the officer charged with his custody Q: Why it is the intent?
A: Because it is presumed that B died as a result of the stab wound
(Art. 224);
using the knife.
k. abandonment of persons in danger and abandonment of
one’s victim (Art. 275) Q: What is the motive?
A: the motive is the reason why the person commits the crime. It
Distinctions: may be because of anger, jealousy, hate and revenge.
FELONY CRIME Offenses Infractions General rule: Motive is not an element of a crime. There is no
Acts or Acts or Acts or Acts or need to prove it.
omissions omissions omissions omission
punished by punishable by punishable by punishable
RPC any law special penal by an Mala in se v. Mala prohibita
laws ordinance
Ex: Homicide, Mala in se/Malum in se – act is inherently and essentially evil that
murder, rape,
infanticide, is immoral in its nature and injurious in its consequences, without
bigamy any regard to the fact of it being noticed or punished by law of the
state. In other words, when you talk of crimes mala in se, these are
crimes wherein the acts are inherently evil, immoral, and injurious.
HOW FELONIES ARE COMMITTED: (1) DECEIT OR DOLO Ex: Murder, Homicide, Rape, Theft
Essential elements of Dolo or Malice:
➢ Freedom ACTUS REUS (acts performed) + MENS REA (criminal intent) =
➢ Intelligence: capacity of a person to differentiate from CRIME MALA IN SE
right and wrong
➢ Intent: is the use of particular means to effect a desired Mala Prohibita – an act which is not inherently immoral but
result or design or a determination to do a certain thing
o When A kills B using a knife and B died, what is the becomes so because its commission is expressly forbidden by
intent? positive law. The internal act is intent to violate the law. The
▪ A wants to kill B external act is the prohibited act by law.
▪ We can determine the intent by looking at the Ex: Illegal Possession of Firearms
acts done or performed by the performed in
order to determine intent
▪ In a case where A commits murder or Q: Why is Illegal Possession of Firearms considered a mala
homicide, the intent to kill is presumed, prohibita?
when the victim dies as the result of the stab
wound or gunshot wound A: Possession of firearms, per se, is not inherently wrong. We have
law enforcement officers and private individuals who carry or
FORMULA FOR INTENTIONAL FELONY/CRIME possess firearms. Illegal possession is a mala prohibita because the
ACTUS REUS (acts performed) + MENS REA (criminal intent) = law says that you will be liable for illegal possession of firearms if
INTENTIONAL FELONY/ CRIME you do not possess the necessary license or permit to carry a
firearm. The act of possessing becomes illegal if the requisite
Kinds of Intent permits or licenses are not secured before possessing the firearm.
General intent Specific intent
Presumed Not presumed Distinctions of Mala prohibita And Mala in se
Deliberate unlawful act gives Existence of it must be proved MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
rise to a presumption of by the State just as any other
malice by intent essential element Acts are considered wrong per Acts are considered not
Ex: acts of lasciviousness se or inherently evil or inherently wrong or evil
(element of lewd design) immoral
These are crimes so serious in Acts are punished because
Distinguish Intent from Motive their effect to society as to call these are violations of mere
Intent Motive for unanimous condemnation rules of convenience designed
Purpose to use a particular The cause or reason of its members to secure a more orderly
means to effect a certain which impels a person regulation of the affairs of
result society
to commit an act for a
definite result; a state To produce a crime mala in se, Criminal intent is immaterial
of mind it needs criminal intent or
mens rea
Essential element of a Generally, not an essential Defense of good faith/Lack of Defense of good faith/Lack of
felony element of any crime; proof criminal intent: It can be criminal intent: It cannot be
of motive is important in raised as a defense raised as a defense
Procedural law
(Circumstantial
evidence)

8 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Padilla vs. Dizon Issue: Though hazing is punished by a special penal law, is the
158 SCRA 127 crime Mala in se or Mala prohibita?

Judge Dizon was dismissed from the service for Gross Ignorance Held: The court said that there is a common misconception that
of the Law. He promulgated a decision acquitting Lo Chi Fai for Mala in se may only refer to punish by the RPC such that if it is
violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960 – Smuggling of foreign not the RPC it is considered Mala prohibita because it is punish by
currency out of the country. Ground for Acquittal: Lo Chi Fai had special penal laws. However, this is not the accurate distinction
no intention or mens rea to violate the law. between Mala in se and Mala prohibita.

Held: Proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) is not The court in this case held that the better approach to distinguish
essential in offense punished by special laws, which are mala Mala in se and Mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the
prohibita inherent immorality or vileness of penalize act. So, if the
punishable act or omission is immoral in itself, then it is a crime
Mala in se. On the contrary, if it is not immoral in itself but there
Garcia vs. Court of Appeals is a statute prohibiting its commission by reason of public policy
March 14, 2006 then it is Mala prohibita.

Facts: On May 11, 1995, within the canvassing period of 1995 Note: Here, the court stated that hazing is a crime considered as
senatorial elections, Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., was informed that Mala prohibita. The distinction of Mala in se and Mala prohibita
Arsenia Garcia, along with her co-conspirators, willfully and depends on the determination of the inherent immorality or
unlawfully decreased the number of votes of the candidate from vileness of the penalized act.
6,998 to 1,921 votes.

All the accused were acquitted due to lack of evidence except for Intent to commit a crime v. Intent to perpetuate the act
Arsenia who was found guilty of the crime defined under Republic
Act 6646, Section 27 (b) for decreasing the votes of Senator Q: What is intent to commit a crime? How is it different to intent
Pimentel in the total of 5,034 and in relation to BP Blg, 881. to perpetrate the act?
A: In intent to commit a crime, it is an element of a crime itself.It
Issue: Whether or not a violation of Section 27 (b) of R.A. No. refers to the criminal intent of an offender and this intent is not
6646 is classified under mala in se. YES necessary in offences punish by special penal laws. However, intent
perpetrate the act is necessary in offences punish by special laws
Held: The acts prohibited in Section 27 (b) are considered mala in because this refers to the crime itself. This intent to perpetrate the
se. Intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes act is present in a crime Mala prohibita.
received by a candidate is inherently immoral since it is done with
malice and intent to injure another. The intent to commit a crime which is present in mala in se is
replaced by intent to perpetuate the act in mala prohibita.
Discussion
You have probably seen some comments by other commentators HOW FELONIES ARE COMMITTED: FAULT OR CULPA
or authors in Criminal Law that one of the distinctions between
mala in se and mala prohibita is that mala in se are offenses which Essential elements of fault or culpa.
are punishable by the Revised Penal Code while mala prohibita are
offenses punished by special penal laws. Is that an accurate 1.) Intelligence;
distinction between these two? 2.) Freedom of action;
3.) Negligence - deficiency of perception, lack of foresight;
Dungo vs. People failure to foresee what a reasonable person ought to
July 1, 2015 foresee; or

Facts: On January 14, 2006, at Villa Novaliches, Brgy. Pansol, Imprudence – deficiency of action; lack of skill. Test:
Calamba City, Laguna, the Alpha Phi Omega Fraternity in The failure to do what any ordinary person would have
conspiracy with more or less twenty other members and officers ordinarily done.
conducted initiation rite. MARLON VILLANUEVA y MEJILLA, a
neophyte was subjected to physical harm. After the initiation Classification of Felonies in Article 3 of RPC
rites, accused Sibal inquired about Villanueva's condition, but he Intentional felony Culpable felony
was ignored by Castillo. He then called co-accused Dungo for There is malice No malice
help. After Dungo arrived at the resort, they hailed a tricycle and
Deliberate intent The injury caused is not
brought Villanueva to JP Rizal Hospital. There, he gave a false
intentional being the result
name to the security guard as he heard that Dungo had done the
of an act performed without
same.
Intent
Accused has the intention Injury results from
RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime of violating Section
to cause or inflict injury to imprudence, negligence, lack
4 of the Anti-Hazing Law and sentenced them to suffer the
another of foresight or lack of skill
penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Ignorance or Mistake of Fact (Ignorancia factiI excusat)

9 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

2nd Requisite as an Element of Mistake of Fact

There is no criminal intent. If a person invokes the defense of
mistake of fact and prove all the elements of it, he cannot be held (2) The intention of the actor in performing the act should be
liable even if there is a criminal act or omission. Remember for lawful.
you to produce a crime, there must be a marriage between
criminal act or omission and criminal intent in order to produce a Q: What was the intention of the actor when he stabbed the
crime. victim? Was it just to kill him in discriminate killing?

Requisites: A: NO—the intention of the actor was to defend himself from

a. The act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the attack or the assault which was an actual aggression already
the accused believed them to be; on his person.
b. The intention of the act in performing the act should be
lawful; 3rd Requisite as an Element of Mistake of Fact
c. The mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused. (3) The mistake must be without fault or careless on the part
of the accused.
U.S. v. Ah Chong
15 Phil 499
This element was demonstrated when the accused ask twice for
the identity of the victim. The third time he asked he gave out a
Facts: Ah Chong attacked a person who he believed was a
warning saying, “If you try to enter, I will kill you,” and yet the
robber. He seized a kitchen knife and struck the intruder, fatally
person on the other door did not answer.
wounding him. That person turned out to be his roommate all
along. He was charged with Homicide for the killing of the
There is no fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
roommate.
Hence, the Supreme Court ruled that the accused is NOT held
Q: What defense was invoked by Ah Chong?
liable for the crime because he was able to prove ALL the
elements of Mistake of Fact.
A: The defense was that Ah Chong made a mistake of fact
because Ah Chong believed that the person was an intruder and PEOPLE v. OANIS
he also asked twice as to the identity of the person, but he
received no answer. HELD: In this case, the court held that the accused Oanis, was
still held liable for the result even though the result was
Q: What are the elements or requisites for one to successfully different from that which he intended.
invoke ignorance or “Mistake of Fact”? • Oanis is liable for the result since he committed a
felony.
1st Requisite as an Element of Mistake of Fact • He cannot invoke “Mistake of Fact” in his defense.
• The maxim “ignorantia facti excusat” applies only
(1) The act done would have been lawful has the facts been, when the mistake is committed without fault or
as the accused believed them to be. carelessness.
Clearly in the case at bar, there was fault or recklessness.
Q: Is this requisite present in this case? • The accused did not ask nor make any efforts to
assure the identity of the person.
A: YES – The facts believed by Ah Chong in this case that are
relevant to this element are: YAPYUCO v. SANDIGANG BAYAN

(a) He thought that the roommate was an intruder or Facts: Petitioners rationalized their election to aim their fire
robber. directly at the jeepney claiming that it failed to heed the first
(b) There were reports of robbery incidents in their area round of warning shots as well as the signal for it to stop, instead
days before this incident occurred. it tried to flee.
(c) He believed that what he did was a form of self- • The jeepney was loaded with passengers.
defense. • The jeepney was flagged down but the driver did not
stop.
When Ah Chong asked for the identity of the person, he even • The vehicle was signaled to stop but the driver did
warned that if the person did not answer, Ah Chong will kill him not do so.
and yet the alleged intruder still did not answer. When the door • The accused fired at the jeepney, killing, and injuring
hit Ah Chong he believed that it was the intruder attacking or the passengers.
assaulting him. Part of his right to self-preservation, he stabbed • Petitioners admitted that they just came from a party
the victim. and were drunk.
• The accused invoked “Mistake of Fact”.
However, the true situation or fact here is that it was just
actually a simple act of his roommate pushing the door because Held: Supreme Court stated that a proper invocation of the
his roommate wanted to enter the room. defense “Mistake of Fact” requires the following elements:
(1) That the mistake must be honest and reasonable.

10 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

(2) It must be a matter of fact. Define efficient intervening cause.

(3) It negates the culpability required to commit the Efficient intervening cause is something absolutely and totally
crime and the existence of the mental state which the unexpected which intervened, and which breaks the relation
statute prescribes with respect to an element of the between the original and felonious act and the result.
offense.

. DISCUSSION: Article 3 (Mistake of Fact)

Distinguish Mistake of Fact from Ignorance of the law (Ignorantia Elements of Mistake of Fact
juris non-excusat)
1. The act done would have been lawful had the facts been
Article 3 of the New Civil Code states that “Ignorance of the law as the accused believed them to be;
excuses no one from compliance therewith”. 2. The intention of the accused in performing the act should
be lawful;
Q: If one commits a crime and the offender says that he is not 3. The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the
aware of the law. Can the offender invoke ignorance of the law? part of the accused.

A: NO—the offender will still be held liable despite his alleged These requisites were illustrated in the case of US v. Ah Chong.
ignorance of the law.
In the case of People v. Oanis, the accused here mistook another
However, in Ignorance or Mistake of Fact, if all the requisites are person to be his intended victim, the victim before he was shot was
properly proved then the offender may not be held liable found lying or sleeping. Without making any verifications, the
accused shot at the victim, mistaking him for another person.
Article 4 – Criminal Liability
Criminal Liability shall be incurred: Was the accused found liable in People v. Oanis?
1. By any person who committing a felony (delito), although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he The Supreme Court held that YES. While the accused ignorance or
intended. mistake of fact as a defense, the Supreme Court said that it cannot
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense apply because the mistake was made with fault or carelessness on
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent the part of the accused. Before shooting the victim, he did not first
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the verify the identity of the person who was sleeping. He just shot the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. victim whom he thought was the one he was pursuing but turned
out to be another person.

Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan
Discussion
G.R. Nos. 120744-46 June 25, 2012
Q: Who shall incur criminal liability?
Facts: The accused-petitioners were members of the Integrated
A: (1) A person who commits a felony, although the wrongful act National Police (INP) stationed at the Sindalan Substation in San
done be different from that which he intended. Fernando, barangay captains of Quebiawan and De, Carmen
members of the Civil Home Defense Force (CHDF) or civilian
(2) by any person performing an act which would be an offense volunteer officers in Barangays Quebiawan, Del Carmen and
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent Telebastagan. They allegedly received information concerning a
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the reported presence of armed NPA members in Quebiawan. It was
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. so unfortunate that the Tamaraw jeepney conveying the victims
would make an inevitable turn to which the accused all await.
Example: Supposed A punched B in the face. As a result of the Believing that the victims were the armed NPA members, the
punching, B fell on the ground, hit his head on the pavement. As a accused opened fire to the passengers of the said Tamaraw.
result, B died. Such shooting incident on April 5, 1988, in Barangay Quebiawan,
Q: Is A going to be held criminally held liable for the death of B? San Fernando, Pampanga caused the death of Leodevince Licup
(Licup) and injured Noel Villanueva (Villanueva). The accused
A: Yes. Article 4 (1) provides that person who commits a felony,
were all charged with murder, multiple attempted murder and
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
frustrated murder. Upon conviction, Yapyuco disputed that he
intended, is criminally liable. In addition, A cannot raise the
cannot be exonerated since he responded to the scene in
defense that it was not his intention to kill B. He who is the
fulfillment of his duty as a member of the police force and he
cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused (El que es invoked mistake of fact as caused by his co-accused in the belief
causa de la causa es causa del mal causado). that the victims are members of the NPA.

Issue: Whether the principle of Mistake of Fact is applicable in

Define proximate cause. the instant case.
Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continues
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces Ruling: In the context of criminal law, a "mistake of fact" is a
the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. misapprehension of a fact which, if true, would have justified
the act or omission which is the subject of the prosecution.
11 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Generally, a reasonable mistake of fact is a defense to a charge A: No. No matter how good your motive is if there’s a crime
of crime where it negates the intent component of the crime. It committed, the person can be held criminally liable.
may be a defense even if the offense charged requires proof of
only general intent. The inquiry is into the mistaken belief of the Article 4. Criminal Liability
defendant, and it does not look at all to the belief or state of
mind of any other person. Article 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be
incurred:
A proper invocation of this defense requires (a) that the 1.By any person committing a felony (delito) although the
mistake be honest and reasonable; (b) that it be a matter of wrongful act done be different from that which he
fact; and (c) that it negate the culpability required to commit intended.
the crime or the existence of the mental state which the 2.By any person performing an act which would be an offense
statute prescribes with respect to an element of the offense. against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the
Q: What is the difference between ignorance or mistake of fact and employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
ignorance of the law (Article 4, New Civil Code)? DISCUSSION
First Paragraph: Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
A: We cannot invoke ignorance of the law as a defense in committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
committing certain acts punishable by law as there is a conclusive different from that which he intended.
presumption that all of us know the law.

The difference of mistake of fact from ignorance of law is that in US v. Valdez

mistake or ignorance of fact, if we can prove all the elements, it will 41 Phil 497
not make the person liable criminally. But ignorance of law will not
excuse a person from any criminal liability. Facts: The deceased is a member of the crew of a vessel.
Accused is in charge of the crew members engaged in the
Distinguish intent from motive. loading of cargo in the vessel.

Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. The work raising the anchor seems to have proceeded too slowly
to satisfy the accused, and he accordingly began to abuse the
Motive on the other hand is the moving power which impels one men with offensive epithets. Upon this Venancio Gargantel
to act for a definite result. Motive refers to a state of mind of an remonstrated, saying that it would be better, and they would
individual. Another difference between this two is that intent is an work better, if he would not insult them. The accused took this
essential element of felony. remonstrance as a display of insubordination; and rising in rage
he moved towards Venancio, with a big knife in hand,
Example: A shot B, B died as a result of a gunshot wound. A shot threatening to stab him. At the instant when the accused had
B because A was mad at B because B was the ex-boyfriend of attained to within a few feet of Venancio, the latter, evidently
A’s girlfriend. So, the shooting was because of anger, jealousy, believing himself in great and immediate peril, threw himself
and hatred towards B. What is the intent there of A when he into the water and disappeared beneath its surface to be seen
shot at B? no more.

A: A’s intent is to kill B because B died. That is the intent of A to

kill B because of the use of a gun which would cause a fatal Issue: Whether or not the accused can be held liable for the
wound. death of the victim. YES

Q: What is the motive of A in shooting B? Ruling: As to the criminal responsibility of the accused for the
death thus occasioned the likewise can be no doubt; for it is
A: The motive of A in killing B is hatred, jealousy, and anger. obvious that the deceased, in throwing himself in the river,
acted solely in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation and
Motive, on the other hand, is generally not an essential element of was in no sense legally responsible for his own death. As to him
any crime. We say generally because there are exceptions. One of it was but the exercise of a choice between two evils, and any
these exceptions are crimes where motive is an element. reasonable person under the same circumstances might have
done the same. As was once said by a British court, "If a man
Example: Acts of lasciviousness – The commission of the act must creates in another man's mind an immediate sense of dander
be done using lewd designs. which causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing he
injures himself, the person who creates such a state of mind is
Also, motive needs to be proved: responsible for the injuries which result."
1. If the identity of a person accused of a crime is in dispute
2. If the evidence is merely circumstantial
3. In ascertaining the truth in two antagonistic theories or Doctrine of Proximate Cause
versions of the killing or a crime.
In the case of US v. Valdez, the Court applied the doctrine of
Q: Is good motive a ground to exempt one from criminal liability? proximate cause.

12 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Proximate Cause is that cause which the natural and 2. the resulting act is likewise a felony; and
continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening 3. the unintended albeit graver wrong was primarily caused
cause results in a particular felony who without which the by the actor's wrongful acts.
felony would not have resulted. The rationale of this doctrine is
that “he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil If a person commits a felony or a delito, you will be held liable
caused”. for the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the act
committed.
In addition, the Court found Valdez liable even though it was not
his intention to kill the victim. In the Valdez case, Valdez made a
People v. Almonte
threatening stance and as a result thereof, the victim jumped.
56 Phil 54
Although the body of the victim was not found, they assumed that
the victim died because he did not know how to swim, and his body
was not found to be alive. The Court said, the wrong done here is Facts: On the morning of October 1, 1930, the accused visited
considered the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the Felix Te Sue, her former paramour, and on entering the house,
felony committed. found him with Miguela. When Te Sue saw her, he approached
and told her to go away at once because her new paramour
might get jealous and do her harm. The accused insisted upon
The same doctrine was applied to the case People vs. Toleng. In
remaining, and on being pushed by Te Sue and Miguela, feeling
this case, the Toleng twins went amok while they were passengers
that she was being unjustly treated, took hold of a small
riding a train. When they went amok, some of the passengers
penknife she carried and stabbed the man in the abdomen.
jumped from the train, some of the passengers were injured, and
Horrified, perhaps, at her deed, she fled to the street, leaving
the Court adopted its ruling in US v. Valdez that if a person commits
the blade sticking in her victim's abdomen, and, taking the first
a felony or delito, he will be liable for the direct, natural, and logical
bus that chanced to pass, finally went home. The injured man
consequence of the felony committed.
was at once taken to the provincial hospital where he was given
first aid treatment, and Doctor Ortega performed a slight
People vs. Ortega operation upon him, cleaning and sewing up his wound. It was
276 SCRA 166 not serious, according to the doctor, and might be healed in a
week; but on the sixth day the patient succumbed to
Facts: In 1992, Benjamin Ortega, Jr., Manuel Garcia and a certain complications which we shall treat of later on.
John Doe was charged with murder for the killing of Andre Man
Masangkay. As narrated by a witness, the victim answered the Doctor Eduardo Ortega, in charge of the Sorsogon Provincial
call of nature and went to the back portion of the house where Hospital, a physician of admitted ability and skill, speaking of the
they were having a drinking spree. patient's physical condition when he entered the hospital.

That accused Benjamin Ortega, Jr. followed him and later they Felix Te Sue had made an unnecessary movement. Those
[referring to the participants in the drinking session] heard the movements were the following: The patient began by moving
victim Andre Mar shouted, "Don't, help me!" (Huwag, tulungan from side to side; then he would sit up at night, and perhaps
ninyo ako!) That he and Ariel Caranto ran towards the back jump out of bed, and begin walking about; when asked why he
portion of the house and [they] saw accused Benjamin Ortega, did that, contrary to medical instructions, he explained that he
Jr., on top of Andre Mar Masangkay who was lying down in a could not lie down because the bed was to warm, and that he
canal with his face up and stabbing the latter with a long-bladed was not used to lying to bed. Those movements brought on the
weapon. secondary internal hemorrhage resulting to his death.

That Romeo Ortega went to the place of the stabbing and Almonte’s Contention: The defense contends that Doctor
together with Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia lifted Ortega’s testimony, the determining cause of Te Sue's death was
Andre Mar Masangkay from the canal and brought Andre Mar not the wound inflicted by the accused, but his own carelessness
to the well and dropped the latter inside the well. That Romeo in moving about against the doctor's orders, which produced the
Ortega, Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia then dropped internal hemorrhage.
stones measuring 11 to 12 inches high, 2 feet in length and 11
to 12 inches in weight to the body of Andre Mar Masangkay Issue: Whether the effect of the acts of Felix Te Sue affected the
inside the well. The death of the victim indicated that his cause criminal liability of the accused. NO.
of death was asphyxiation cause by drowning.

Ruling: When "one who performs a criminal act should be held

Issue: Whether the accused may be held liable for the death of
to liability for the act and for all of its consequences, although
the victim. YES
both were inflicted upon a person other than the one whom the
felon intended to injure."
Ruling: A person who commits a felony is liable for the direct,
natural, and logical consequences of his wrongful act even
The real cause of death in this case was not the bodily
where the resulting crime is more serious than that intended. movements referred to, but the congestion of the internal veins
produced beforehand by the force of the blow which caused the
The essential requisites for the application of Article 4 (1) are: wound and the nervous condition of the deceased.
1. the intended act is felonious;
13 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

with a friend, decided to have a drinking session and later

What really impelled the patient to violate the doctor's orders, moved to Punta.
by sitting up in bed and pacing about the room, was not, as the
defense insinuates, a desire to aggravate the criminal liability of On their way to Punta, they saw Chy. The petitioner suddenly
the accused, but simply his nervous condition, which was noted assaulted Chy and struck him on the lower part of his head with
from the moment he entered the provincial hospital. It was not a bottle. When Chy found a way to escape, he rushed to his
the warmth of the bed or his not being used to it that made the home and phoned his wife and told her to call the police. When
patient act as he did, but the pathological state created by the they arrived, they found Chy unconscious and later pronounced
illness brought on by the wound from which he was suffering. dead on arrival at the hospital. The petitioner was found guilty
We are convinced that under normal conditions, if the patient beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. The petitioner
had not been ill, he would not have violated the doctor's orders, contended that he should only be charged with slight physical
knowing, as he did, that the slightest movement might occasion injuries as his assault on Chy was not he cause of his death.
a complication or internal hemorrhage capable of causing death.
ISSUE: WON Garcia is liable for Manuel Chy’s death.

RULING: YES. It can be reasonably inferred from the foregoing

statements that the emotional strain from the beating
People v. Ulep aggravated Chy’s delicate constitution and led to his death. The
G.R. No. L-36858 inevitable conclusion then surfaces that the myocardial
infarction suffered by the victim was the direct, natural and
Facts: Asuncion Pablo Ulep died as a result of physical injuries logical consequence of the felony that petitioner had intended
inflicted upon her on that very day by her husband, accused to commit.
Macario Ulep. He admitted that he caused the death of his wife
by elbowing her because his wife was then drunk and was The essential requisites for the application of this Article 4 of
uttering indecent words. Ulep narrated that this elbowing and the RPC are:
attack took place at their home at 5:30 in the afternoon. She (a) the intended act is felonious;
vomited and then went to bed. The accused then left for the (b) the resulting act is likewise a felony; and
fields and returned at around 9:00 in the evening and found his (c) the unintended albeit graver wrong was primarily caused
wife dead on her bed. He reported this death to their barrio by the actor’s wrongful acts.
captain.
The fact that Chy was previously afflicted with a heart ailment
does not alter petitioner’s liability for his death. A person
The appellant alleges that the gradual weakening of the heart
committing a felony is responsible for all the natural and logical
due to a long-standing illness of the body system caused the
consequences resulting from it although the unlawful act
cardiac arrest which claimed the life of Asuncion Pablo.
performed is different from the one he intended.

Issue: Whether the accused can be held liable for the death of Note: Here the blow given to the victim hastened or accelerated
his wife. YES. or contributed to the death of the victim.

Ruling: Even if the victim is suffering from an internal ailment,

liver or heart disease, or tuberculosis, if the blow delivered by
the accused — DISCUSSION
(a) is the efficient cause of death; or
(b) accelerated his death; or Example: A punch B in the face, B fell on the ground and as a result
(c) is the proximate cause of death; thereof B died.
Then, there is criminal liability. Q: Can A be held liable for the death of B?
Again, we elucidated that even though a blow with the fist or a A: Yes, because the act is direct natural and logical consequence
kick does not cause any external wound, it may easily produce that result to the death of B.
inflammation of the spleen and peritonitis and cause death, and
even though the victim may have been previously affected by Q: What kind of act should be performed by the offender for him
some internal malady, yet if the blow with the fist or foot to be held liable for the direct, natural and logical consequence of
accelerated death, he who caused such acceleration is a felonious act?
responsible for the death as the result of an injury willfully and
unlawfully inflicted. A: The act must be a felony or a delito. The act of punching is an act
of felony; this act is punished under RPC on inflicting physical
injuries. Inflicting a personal injury to another person is a felony or
Alvarado vs. People
a delito. So, if one commits a felony or delito he will be liable for the
direct natural and logical consequences of his felonious act.
FACTS: Amado Garcia and Fidel Foz Jr., had a drinking spree in
the morning of September 1999 that lasted the until the evening Q: A goes to you and claimed that it is not his intention to kill B but
of that day. Because of the blaring noise of the videoke machine only to injure him. He contends further that if his intention is to kill
that the two were enjoying, Manuel Chy, told the group to quiet B, he would have used a knife to kill him. What will you tell A?
down. Two days after, the met again on a wedding and again,
Chy told the two to stop singing. On the next day, the two, now
14 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

A: If one commits a felony or a delito, and inflicting physical injury DISCUSSION : ARTICLE 4 PARAGRAPH 1
is also a delito, the person will be liable for the direct natural and
logical consequence of his act. Doctrine of Proximate Cause
Exception to the Doctrine of Proximate Cause
Proximate cause – is that cause which in the natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause
1) Efficient intervening cause – something absolutely and totally
results in a particular felony who without which the felony would
unexpected which intervened, and which breaks the relation of
not have resulted.
cause and effect between the original felonious act and the
result.
The rationale of this doctrine is this principle “he who is the cause
of the cause is a cause of evil caused.” So, if one commits a felony,
If there is an efficient intervening cause which intervene
one is liable for the direct, natural, and logical consequences of that
between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and this
felonious act.
cause is an active force that is distinct of the act or a fact
absolutely foreign from the felonious act, the accused cannot
US VS. CALIXTO VALDEZ
be held liable.
G.R No. L-16486 | 22 March 1921,
41 Phil 497
2) Negligence, fault or bad faith of the victim – In People vs
Almonte, the court seems to suggest that if the victim is
Facts: Sometime in November 1919, a small boat was sent out to
negligent or at fault, or in bad faith because he wanted to
raise the anchor. The crew of this boat consisted of the accused,
increase the criminal liability of the accused, then, these
Calixto Valdez and six others among who was the deceased,
situations are considered exceptions to the doctrine of
Venancio Gargantel. During their work, the accused began to abuse
proximate cause. The resulting injury is not anymore due to the
the men with offensive words. Gargantel complained, saying that it
act of the accused, but it is due to the negligence, fault, or
would be better if he would not insult them. The accused took this
intentional act of the victim.
as a display of insubordination, thus, he moved towards Gargantel,
with a big knife in hand, threatening to stab him. At the instant
Urbano vs. IAC when the accused had attained to within a few feet of Gargantel,
the latter, evidently believing himself in great and immediate peril,
Facts: On October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano was on threw himself into the water and disappeared beneath its surface
his way to his ricefield. He found the place where he stored palay to be seen no more.
flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal. Urbano
went to the elevated portion to see what happened, and there As alleged in the information, it said Gargantel had died by
he saw Marcelino Javier and Emilio Efre cutting grass. Javier drowning, as a consequence of having thrown himself into the
admitted that he was the one who opened the canal. A quarrel water and upon seeing himself threatened and attacked by the
ensued, and Urbano hit Javier on the right palm with his bolo, accused. The Judgment rendered against the accused. Having been
and again on the leg with the back of the bolo. On October 27, convicted as the author of the homicide, the accused alleged on
1980, Urbano and Javier had an amicable settlement. Urbano appeal that he was only guilty of the offense of inflicting serious
paid P700 for the medical expenses of Javier. On November 14, physical injuries, or at most of frustrated homicide.
1980, Urbano was rushed to the hospital where he had lockjaw
and convulsions. The doctor found the condition to be caused ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is liable for the death of
by tetanus toxin which infected the healing wound in his palm. Venancio Gargantel.
He died the following day. Urbano was charged with homicide
and was found guilty both by the trial court and on appeal by HELD: As the persistence of the aggression of the accused
the Court of Appeals. Urbano filed a motion for new trial based compelled his adversary, in order to escape the attack, to leap into
on the affidavit of the Barangay Captain who stated that he saw the river, an act which the accused forcibly compelled the injured
the deceased catching fish in the shallow irrigation canals on person to do after having inflicted, among others, a mortal wound
November 5. The motion was denied; hence, this petition. upon him and as the aggressor by said attack manifested a
Issue: Whether the wound inflicted by Urbano to Javier was the determined resolution to cause the death of the deceased, by
proximate cause of the latter’s death. NO depriving him of all possible help and putting him in the very serious
situation narrated in the decision appealed from, the trial court, in
qualifying the act prosecuted as consummated homicide, did not
Held: Where medical findings lead to a distinct possibility that
commit any error of law, as the death of the injured person was due
the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient
to the act of the accused.”
intervening cause later or between the times the deceased was
wounded to the time of his death, the accused must be
The accused must, therefore, be considered the responsible author
acquitted of the crime of homicide.
of the death of Venancio Gargantel, and he was properly convicted
of the offense of homicide.

15 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

People v Ortega
276 SCRA 166
PEOPLE VS ALVARADO
Facts: In 1992, Benjamin Ortega, Jr., Manuel Garcia and a certain
John Doe were charged with murder for the killing Andre Man Facts: Accused without any reason boxed the victim and hit the
Masangkay. As narrated by a witness, the victim answered the victim with a bottle. The victim died but the cause of death was
call of nature and went to the back portion of the house where myocardial infarction.
they were having a drinking spree. Accused Ortega followed him
and later they heard the victim shouting for help and when they Issue: WON the accused is criminally liable.
ran towards the scene he saw the accused on top of the victim
and stabbing the latter with along bladed weapon. Thereafter, Held: Court held the accused is still liable for the death of victim
Ortega and Garcia brought the victim to a well and dropped him because all the three requisites in Article 4 Paragraph 1 were present:
and placed stones into the well. The trial court found the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The accused appealed averring 1. Intended act was felonious
that the trial court erred in holding them criminally liable because 2. Resulting act was likewise felonious
at the time the victim was dropped into the well, he was still alive. 3. The unintended albeit graver wrong was primarily caused
by the actor’s wrongful act
Issue: Whether or not the accused may be held criminally liable
for the death of the victim which is not attributable to the stab The petitioner was committing a felony when he boxed the victim
wounds but due to drowning? and hit him with a bottle. Also, the fact that the victim here was
previously afflicted with heart ailment will not alter the criminal
Held: A person who commits a felony is criminally liable for the liability of the accused. The court cited the its ruling US vs. Rodriguez:
direct natural and logical consequences of his wrongful act even
where the resulting crime is more serious than that intended. If the death of the victim is hastened because of the blow, even
if the victim is already suffering from a pre-existing medical
The essential requisites for this criminal liability to attach are as condition, the accused would still be held criminally liable,
follows: applying Article 4 par 1.
1. the intended act is felonious;
2. the resulting act is likewise a felony;
3. The unintended graven wrong was primarily caused by EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
the actor’s wrongful acts.
1. Efficient intervening cause or remote cause (Urbano v. IAC,
People v. Villacorta)
People vs Ulep
Efficient intervening cause- something absolutely and totally
Facts: Husband inflicted physical injuries on the wife and unexpected which intervened, and which breaks the relation of
thereafter, the wife died due to a heart attack. Now, the accused cause and effect between the original felonious act and the
alleged a year before the victim died, the victim already had a pre- result.
existing medical condition. When he and the wife went to have
their palay milled, their cart loaded with sacks of rice turned Note: If there is active force that intervened between the felony
upside down and pinned his wife on her breast. committed and the resulting injury and the active force is a
distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of
Because of the pain in her chest, she was brought to an albularyo the accused, the accused will not be held criminally liable.
or a “kwak” doctor to get treated. In essence, the husband
claimed that the wife already had a condition prior to her death.
Husband was trying to raise a defense that the wife did not die 2. If the victim has a desire to aggravate the criminal liability of
because of the physical injuries inflicted upon the husband but the accused (People v. Almonte)
because of her pre-existing condition from the cart pinning her
down. In Almonte, the accused is still liable although the victim kept
on moving about because he was nervous and anxious as a
Issue: WON the husband is criminally liable? YES result of the wounds he sustained. However, if the situation is
that the victim deliberately or intentionally moves against the
Ruling: The court stated that even if the victim is suffering from doctor’s order because he wanted to aggravate the criminal
an internal ailment or suffering from a pre-existing medical liability of the accused, then this situation would be an
condition, such as liver, heart disease, tuberculosis. If the blow exception under the doctrine of proximate cause.
delivered by the accused is:
1. the efficient cause of death; or If the result of the injury is because of an intentional act of the
2. accelerated of victim’s death or proximate cause of the victim so that there would be an increase in the criminal liability
death of the accused, then that can be considered as an exception in
the doctrine of proximate cause.
Then there is criminal liability.
Q: How would the court know that the victim acted
intentionally because he wants to increase the criminal
liability?

16 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

A: You need to prove it by providing pieces of evidence, and the date of when victim was rushed to the hospital exhibiting symptoms
person who should move forward to prove the same is the of a severe tetanus infection.
accused. The accused has burden of proof.
SC held if the victim acquired severe tetanus infection from the
Note: We can determine if intentional act committed is a felony stabbing, then the symptoms would have appeared a lot sooner than
or delito by referring to the felonies enumerated in Book 2 of 22 days later and the court adopted its ruling in the Urbano case.
the Revised Penal Code. Where they said that “severe tetanus infection has a short incubation
period less than 14 days, so if the tetanus infection set in because of
the stab wound sustained from the accused, it would have shown
URBANO VS. IAC
symptoms less than 14 days, because that is the incubation period of
a tetanus infection.
Facts: Victim was stabbed and suffered injury on his palm. Then, the
victim was brought to the hospital and got his wound treated. After,
In this case the symptoms for severe tetanus infection showed up 22
the accused and victim settled their dispute, where the accused paid
days after.
for the victim’s medical expenses.

However, several days after the incident, the victim was rushed to
the hospital because he had locked jaw and convulsions which were PEOPLE VS ABARCA
manifestations of a tetanus infection. Eventually, victim died
Facts: Accused shot his wife’s paramour because the wife was
Charged for the death of the victim, the accused, Urbano, alleged having an illicit relationship with another man. In fact, he saw
that days after the victim was treated at the hospital due to the them having sexual intercourse and as a result thereof he
wounds he sustained in his palm, he was seen catching fish in the confronted them. During the confrontation, the accused killed the
irrigation canals. paramour and injured two bystanders.

Urbano alleged that the tetanus infection was probably sustained Accused raised the defense that he is not liable because he was in
from the acts of the victim, using his injured hands, in catching fish at a fleet of passion when he killed his wife’s paramour. Accused
the dirty canals. Urbano then claimed that the tetanus infection was invoked Article 247 of RPC, where it provides.
not due to the stab wound he inflicted days before the victim died.
Article 247. – Death or Physical Injuries under Exceptional
Issue: WON the wound inflicted by Urbano to the victim was the Circumstances. -- Any legally married person who, having
proximate cause of the latter’s death. surprised his spouse in the act of thereafter, or shall inflict
upon them any serious injury, shall suffer the penalty of
Ruling: SC held that Urbano is not liable and there is likelihood that destierro (banishment)."
the medical findings lead to a distinct possibility that the infection of
the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or "If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other
between the time of Javier was wounded to time of his death. kind, he shall be exempt from punishment."
Infection was distinct and foreign to the rime.
"These rules shall be applicable, under the same
SC further added there is likelihood that the wound was but the circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters
remote cause and its subsequent infection is the failure to take under eighteen years of age, and their seducers, while the
necessary precautions. daughters are living with their parents."

A prior and remote cause cannot be made as a basis of an action if "Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution
such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to
give rise to the occasion by which injury was made possible if there the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the
intervened between such prior or remote cause or injury a distinct, benefits of this Article.
successive, unrelated efficient cause of the injury, even though such
injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. Issue: WON Abarca be held liable for the injuries sustained by the
bystanders or the spouses Amparado who sustained injuries as a
result of the gunshots.
PEOPLE VS VILLACORTA
Ruling: YES, the accused is held criminally liable for the spouses
Amparado’s injuries, not for an intentional felony, but for a
Facts: Victim was stabbed by the accused and was rushed to the
culpable felony due to simple negligence.
hospital and then was admitted Jan 23, 2002. Days after or 22 days
to be exact, the victim was again brought to the hospital for
In this case, the court seems to suggest that the felony be
symptoms of a severe tetanus infection. Later victim died
committed in Article 4 (1) should be an intentional felony.
Issue: WON the injury inflicted by the accused the proximate cause
Furthermore, the court ruled the accused is not liable for the killing
of the death of the victim.
of the paramour because all the requisites under Article 247 of the
RPC are present. Therefore, if one commits an act and the act is
Ruling: Accused is not liable, there is reasonable doubt to set aside
defined in Art 247, that act is not considered felonious. Therefore,
the conviction of the accused for murder. Court here noted that they
if his act is not felonious, he will not be held liable for the direct,
had already been an interval of 22 days between date of stabbing and
natural, and logical consequences of the felonious act.
17 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

The victim, Gundran, left the house of petitioner Yadao, between

Article 247 states that when any legally married person who is 4:00 to 5:00 p.m., and proceeded to the house of Carmelita Limon
surprised by the spouse having or committing sexual intercourse who was the sister of one of his friends. The victim complained of
and if the offended spouse kills the paramour and the spouse, then pain on his breast/stomach area, the area where he claimed to
he or she will not be criminally liable. Accused can invoke 247 have been hit by petitioner Yadao.
because of the following:
a. He saw his wife and paramour having sexual intercourse Two days later, or on 3 October 1988, Teofilo Gundran, the father
b. Immediately thereafter finding out the affair, he kills the of the victim was informed by his granddaughter that his son, the
wife’s paramour victim, was having difficulty breathing. Teofilo Gundran then
proceeded to where the victim was. When he got to the house,
Teofilo Gundran saw the victim sitting on an "arinola" gasping for
People v. Bindoy breath. He then held the victim's two hands until the latter
56 Phil 15 expired.

Facts: A disturbance arose in a tuba wineshop started by some of Issue: Whether or not Yadao is criminally liable for the death of the
the tuba drinkers. There was Faustino Pacas (alias Agaton), and his victim. NO.
wife called Tibay. One Donato Bindoy, who was also there, offered
some tuba to Pacas' wife; and as she refused to drink having Ruling: The principle has been dinned into the ears of the bench
already done so, Bindoy threatened to injure her if she did not and the bar that in this jurisdiction, accusation is not synonymous
accept. There ensued an interchange of words between Tibay and with guilt. The proof against him must survive the test of reason;
Bindoy, and Pacas stepped in to defend his wife, attempting to the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment.
take away from Bindoy the bolo he carried. This occasioned a If the evidence is susceptible to two interpretations, one
disturbance which attracted the attention of Emigdio Omamdam, consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
who, with his family, lived near the market. Emigdio left his house consistent with his guilt, the accused must be acquitted.
to see what was happening, while Bindoy and Pacas were
struggling for the bolo. In the course of this struggle, Bindoy From the foregoing, the inevitable conclusion is that the guilt of
succeeded in disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo petitioner Yadao has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
from the latter's hand towards the left behind the accused, with The facts of the case, the autopsy reports, as well as the testimony
such violence that the point of the bolo reached Emigdio of Dr. Llavore do not definitely establish that the assault was the
Omamdam's chest, who was then behind Bindoy. proximate cause of the death of the victim. Even assuming for the
sake of argument that the blow inflicted on the head of the victim
Issue: Whether or not Bindoy is criminally liable for the death of resulted in an edematous condition of the brain, petitioner Yadao
the victim. NO. would still not be held liable for the death as the prosecution failed
to present proof that said act was the efficient and proximate
Ruling: There is no evidence that Emigdio took part in the fight cause of the victim's demise. An acquittal based on reasonable
between Bindoy and Pacas. Neither is there any indication that the doubt will prosper even though the accused's innocence may be
accused was aware of Emigdio Omamdam's presence in the place, doubted. It is better to free a guilty man than to unjustly keep in
for, according to the testimony of the witnesses, the latter passed prison one whose guilt has not been proved by the required
behind the combatants when he left his house to satisfy his quantum of evidence. For only when there is proof beyond any
curiosity. There was no disagreement or ill feeling between Bindoy shadow of doubt that those responsible should be made
and Omamdam, on the contrary, it appears they were nephew and answerable.
uncle, respectively, and were on good terms with each other.
Bindoy did not try to wound Pacas, and instead of wounding him,
he hit Omamdam. Bindoy was only defending his possession of the DISCUSSION
bolo, which Pacas was trying to wrench away from him, and his In the case of Yadao vs People, what the Court applied is the
conduct was perfectly lawful. equipoise rule (dubio pro reo principle) – provides that where the
evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional
Yadao v. People presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused.
G.R. No. 150917, September 27, 2006
People v. Acuram
Facts: At around 3:45 p.m. of the said day, while petitioner Yadao G.R. No. 117954, April 27, 2000
was sitting on one end of a bench, the victim, who happened to be
lying down on the other end of the same bench, suddenly stood Facts: Rolando Manabat, Oscar Manabat, Bartolome Nabe, and
up. Because no one else was sitting in the middle, said bench tilted Peterson Valendres, after the day's work, proceeded to the market
due to the weight of petitioner Yadao, thus, causing him to fall to to buy fish. Since no fish was available at that time, they decided
the ground. Upon seeing him fall to the ground, the victim went to head for home instead. They went to the national highway and
over to petitioner Yadao and began boxing him on the stomach. waited for a ride there. They flagged down an approaching
Petitioner Yadao's wife tried to pacify her nephew but this merely passenger jeepney which, however, swerved dangerously towards
enraged the latter who then got a can opener and tried to stab them. At this juncture, Rolando Manabat shouted at the jeep
petitioner Yadao with it. The latter deflected said attempt and "Pesteng yawa-a kamo, Manligis man kamo" (You devils, why did
delivered a slap on the face of the victim in order to "knock some you try to run over us?). A passenger inside the jeepney shouted
sense" into him. back "Noano man diay, isog mo?" (Why? Are you brave?).
Immediately thereafter, two gunshots rang out in the air,
accompanied by sparks coming from the front right side of the
18 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

jeepney. Then Rolando shouted, "Agay. I was shot." The vehicle did
not stop but instead speeded towards the direction of Cagayan de Application of the transferred intent rule- the actual victim turns
Oro City. Wounded on the right knee, Rolando was brought by his out to be different from the intended victim.
companions to the Cagayan de Oro Medical Center. Later on, they
were informed that Rolando needed blood transfusion. In the mistake of identity, there are at least two people involved in
the commission of the crime – (1) the offender, and (2) the victim
The doctor found the victim's blood pressure to be just forty over who turned out to be different from the intended victim.
zero (40/0) and the victim's right leg was heavily bandaged. He
decided to operate on the victim when the latter's blood pressure PEOPLE VS. GONA
stabilized. At about 5:00 A.M. the following day, the victim
underwent surgery. Unfortunately, the victim died at around 11:00 Facts: Mansaca Gona was charged of crime of homicide for
A.M. Dr. Naypa later testified that the cause of Rolando's death assaulting Mansaca Mapundol causing the victim a mortal wound
was "secondary to huddle respiratory syndrome secondary to on the left side of the neck which evetually result to death. Prior
blood loss, secondary to gunshot wounds", or briefly, massive loss to the incident, Mansaca Gona had a fight with Mansaca Dunca in
of blood due to gunshot wound. a celebration where both of them are intoxicated of alcoholic
drinks. Mansaca Mapundol were also present in that said
Issue: Whether or not Acuram is liable for the death of the victim celebration. Mansaca Dunca left the celebration followed by
due to the lack of prompt and proper medical attention given. YES. Mansaca Mapundol. Dependant, Mansaca Gona went home also
with an intent to assault Mansaca Dunca, but in the darkness of
Ruling: In his attempt to exculpate himself, appellant blames the evening and intoxicated state, he mistook Mapundol for Dunca
death of the victim on the lack of prompt and proper medical and inflicted wound using a bolo and consequently the victim died.
attention given. He insists that the delay in giving proper medical The counsel of the dependant content, given that Gona has no
attendance to the victim constitutes an efficient intervening cause intention of killing Mapundol, the dependant should be guilty of
which exempts him from criminal responsibility. This assertion is homicide through negligence and not the graver crime of
disingenuous, to say the least. Appellant never introduced proof intentional homicide.
to support his allegation that the attending doctors in this case
Issue: W/N the defendant’s contention is meritorious
were negligent in treating the victim. On the contrary, Dr. Ismael
Naypa, Jr., testified that the attending doctor at the Cagayan de Ruling: No. The contention of the defendant cannot be granted
Oro Medical Center tried his best in treating the victim by applying with merit based on Art. 4 paragraph 1 states that, Criminal liability
bandage on the injured leg to prevent hemorrhage. He added that shall be incurred, by any person committing a felony although the
the victim was immediately given blood transfusion at the wrongful act be done be different from what he intended to be.
Northern Mindanao Regional Hospital when the doctor found out The said contention as well is contrary to the previous decision of
that the victim had a very low blood pressure. Thereafter, the the court in the case of US v Mendieta, where the court
victim's blood pressure stabilized. Then, the doctor operated the emphasized that a mistake of killing one man instead of another,
victim as the main blood vessel of the victim's right leg was cut, when it is proved that he acted with maliciously and willfully,
thereby causing massive loss of blood. The surgery was finished in cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility, therefore even if
three hours. Unfortunately, the victim died hours later. Mansaca Gona mistakenly killed Mapundol instead of Dunca, he is
still guilty of intentional homicide, whereby appealed sentence is
We cannot hold the attending doctors liable for the death of the affirmed with the costs against the defendant.
victim. The perceived delay in giving medical treatment to the
victim does not break at all the causal connection between the
wrongful act of the appellant and the injuries sustained by the
victim. It does not constitute an efficient intervening cause. The DISCUSSION
proximate cause of the death of the deceased is the shooting by Q: Can the offender be considered exempt from any liability on the
the appellant. It is settled that anyone inflicting injuries is ground that there was a mistake in the identity?
responsible for all the consequences of his criminal act such as
death that supervenes in consequence of the injuries. The fact that A: The Supreme Court held in Gona that a mistake on the identity
the injured did not receive proper medical attendance would not of the victim will not alter the criminal liability of the accused. When
affect appellant's criminal responsibility. The rule is founded on a person commits a felony or delito, that person is liable for the
the practical policy of closing to the wrongdoer a convenient direct natural and logical consequence of the felonious act.
avenue of escape from the just consequences of his wrongful act.
If the rule were otherwise, many criminals could avoid just
2. MISTAKE IN THE BLOW (ABERRATIO ICTUS)
accounting for their acts by merely establishing a doubt as to the
immediate cause of death.
This is characterized by aiming at one but hitting the other due to
CAUSES THAT PRODUCE A DIFFERENT RESULT imprecision in the blow.

1. MISTAKE IN THE IDENTITY OF THE VICTIM (ERROR IN Requisites:

PERSONAE) a. offender committed intentional felony;
Requisites: b. the consequent victim against whom the felony was
a. offender committed an intentional felony; directed is different from that intended due to mistake
b. The consequent victim against whom the felony was of blow.
directed is different from that intended due to In the mistake of blow, three (3) persons are involved – the offender
mistake of identity. the intended victim and the actual victim; the act may result in two
19 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

or more felonies; but considering that a single act was performed, the crime had the bullet hit Juana Buralo was present in this case
the accused is liable for a COMPLEX CRIME. because the offended party Perfecta Buralo and Juana were going
upstairs with their backs towards the accused when he fired his
People vs. Mabug-at revolver. The crime now before us is frustrated murder, the
accused having intended to kill and performed all the acts of
Facts: The accused and Juana Buralo was sweethearts. Juana had execution, which would have produced the crime of murder but
been jealous of the accused on account of the latter having which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes
frequently visited the house of another girl. The accused invited independent of his will. (Art. 3, Penal Code.
Juana to take a walk on the afternoon of August 9, 1925. Juana
refused him, later sending him a note of excuse. On the third day,
the accused went to the threshold of Cirilo Banyan's house where
Juana Buralo had gone to take part in some devotion. There the DISCUSSION
accused, revolver in hand, requested Francisco Abellon to ask
Juana to come downstairs and as Abellon refused to do so, the
accused said: "If you do not want to go upstairs, I will get Juana Mistake in the blow there must be 3 persons involved.
and if anyone tries to defend her I will kill him."
The accused waited until Juana and her niece Perfecta Buralo came Example: A aimed the gun towards B, so A’s intended victim is B.
downstairs, when they went in the direction of their house. The now because of the faulty aim, A shot C while just sitting near B.
accused, who was seen by the two, followed them without saying Q: What is the liability of A? Will A be held liable for the death of C?
a word. The houses being adjacent. As the two girls were going
upstairs, the accused, while standing at the foot of the stairway, A: The answer is A still be held liable, the fact that the person killed
fired a shot from his revolver which wounded Perfecta Buralo, the is not the intended person will not alter his criminal liability.
bullet passing through a part of her neck, and coming out through
the left eye, which was completely destroyed. Due to proper Q: What is the crime committed? How many crimes are
medical attention, Perfecta Buralo did not die and is one of the committed?
witnesses who testified at the trial of this case.
A: So, there are two crimes that are committed. In our eyes, there
The defense, without abandoning its allegation that the accused is
should be two crimes:
not responsible for the crime, contends that the crime proven is
not frustrated murder but the discharge of a firearm, with injuries, (1) Against B. Because of the overt act of A in aiming the gun to
it not having been proven that it was the accused's intention to kill. B, there is an attempted felony with respect to B.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty with frustrated (2) Against C. It is also another crime because C was the one
murder? who was actually shot.

Ruling: Yes. The relations existing between the accused and Juana However, in the eyes of the law, there is only one crime if there is
Buralo, his disappointment at her not accepting his invitation to a mistake in the blow. This kind of crime is called a complex crime;
take a walk, the fact that the accused, revolver in hand, went to defined and punished in Article 48 of the RPC. (Homicide with
look for Juana Buralo at the house where the devotion was being attempted homicide = Complex Crime)
held, later following her to her house, and especially having aimed
at her person--the head--are facts which, in our opinion, permit of 3. THE INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED
no other conclusion than that, in firing the shot, it was the (PRAETER INTENTIONEM)
accused's intention to kill.
Requisites:
In the decision of this court in the case of United States vs.
. offender committed an intentional felony;
Montenegro (15 Phil., 1), it was held: We do not doubt that there
a. the wrong act done, which is graver than that intended,
may be cases wherein the discharge of a firearm at another is not
is the direct, natural and logical consequence of the
in itself sufficient to sustain a finding of the intention to kill, and
felony committed by the offender.
there are many cases in the books wherein the attendant
circumstances conclusively establish that on discharging a firearm
Example: A punched B. As a result of the punching, B fell down and
at another the actor was not in fact animated by the intent to kill.
hit his head on the ground. Thereafter, B died.
But, in seeking to ascertain the intention with which a specific act
is committed, it is always proper and necessary to look not merely
Q: Is A liable to the death of B though A’s original intention is just
to the act itself but to all the attendant circumstances so far as they
to punch B?
are developed by the evidence; and where, as in the case at bar, a
A: Yes, applying Article 4 paragraph 1, A is liable for the direct
revolver is twice discharged point-blank at the body of another,
natural and logical consequence of his felonious act.
and the shots directed at the most vital parts of the body, it needs
but little additional evidence to establish the intent to kill beyond
Note: Praeter intentionem is considered a mitigating
a reasonable doubt. The fact that a person received the shot which
circumstance.
was intended for another, does not alter his criminal liability. (Art.
1, par. 3, Penal Code.) the fact is that treachery was proven and
must be taken into consideration in this case, because the accused
DISCUSSION: IMPOSSIBLE CRIME (ARTICLE 4, PARA. 2)
fired at Perfecta Buralo, employing means which tended to insure
the execution of the crime without running any risk himself from
anyone who might attempt to defend the said offended party. The Concept of an Impossible Crime
treachery which, according to the evidence, would have attended
20 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Article 4, paragraph 2 of the RPC. By any person performing an ● Swindling

act which would be an offense against persons or property, were ● Malicious Mischief
it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. (2) The act was done with evil intent.

This particular provision in the RPC follows the Positivist

Example: A saw B lying on a coffin. A, stabbed B knowing that B is
Theory. Under this theory, criminal liability is based on the
already dead.
dangerous state of the criminal.
Question: Can A be held liable for an impossible crime?
Q: What’s the basis for punishing an impossible crime?
Answer: NO—there can be no criminal intent there because you
A: The Mens Rea or the evil intent of the offender that is the sole
cannot kill a person twice or thrice. The person cannot commit an
basis for punishing the person who commits an impossible crime.
impossible crime here because there is no criminal or evil intent.
Q: Why do we punish persons who commit an impossible crime?
In another situation: It would have been different if A did not know
that B is dead, and still stabbed the corpse without knowing that it
A: To repress criminal tendencies because according to the
was already lifeless. In this situation, A can be held liable for an
Positivist Theory, the offender is a potential criminal. Objectively,
impossible crime because all the other requisites are present.
the offender does not commit a felony but subjectively, the
offender is a criminal. Under the Positivist Theory, the society must
(3) The act is not accomplished because of inherent
be protected from a socially dangerous person.
impossibility or because the means employed is inadequate or
ineffectual.
Cases applying paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
INTOD v. CA
A. The act is not performed, or the offense is not produced because
Facts: The accused planned to kill the victim, so they went to the
the commission of the felony is inherently impossible of
house of the victim and fired shots. The victim did not die because
accomplishment.
he was not in the house at the time of the incident.
Two kinds of impossibility:
Issue: Was the crime committed by the accused an impossible
crime?
(1) Legal Impossibility
Held: YES, the crime committed is an impossible crime.
Example: Killing or raping a dead person—the intended acts,
Elements or requisites of an Impossible Crime: even if completed, would not amount to a crime.
1. The acts performed would be an offense against persons
or property. (Title 8 and 10 of the RPC) (2) Factual/ Physical Impossibility
2. That the act was done with evil intent.
3. That the accomplishment was inherently impossible, or Example 1: A person who puts his hand into the bag of another
the means employed was either inadequate or thinking that the wallet is inside the bag. It turned out that the
ineffectual. bag did not contain the wallet of that person.
4. The offender in performing an act is not violating
another provision of the law or the Revised Penal Code. Note: The person failed to steal the wallet because there was a
physical impossibility.

Same with the case of Intod v. CA, he was not able to kill the
DISCUSSION: REQUISITES OF AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME person because the person was not in the house at the time of
the incident.
(1) The act performed would be an offense against persons and Example 2: A stole the ballpen of B but when A saw the pen, he
property. saw the engraved letters of his name and realized that it
belonged to him.
Crimes against persons under Title 8 of the Revised Penal Code:
Section 1. Note: One cannot steal a property which is legally owned by
● Parricide himself. Hence, in the Example 2 above, there was a physical
● Murder impossibility.
● Homicide
Section 2. B. The act is not performed, or the offense is not produced because
● Infanticide the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.
● Abortion
Section 3. Example: A wants to kill B—he got a substance thinking that
● Duel substance is poisonous and put it in the beverage of B. B did not
die because it turned out that the substance was not poison but
Crimes against persons under Title 10 of the Revised Penal Code: rather a salt or sugar. It is an ineffectual case.
● Theft
21 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

In another situation: If the person did not die because he is PEOPLE v. DOMASIAN
immune of the poison, then that is an inadequate case.
Facts: There was a child kidnapped by two persons. When the child
(4) The offender in performing an act, should not be violating was kidnapped, the kidnappers (interrupted). Even before the
another provision of the law. ransom money received by the accused, the child was released
already. The child was detained for five hours.
For a person to be liable for an impossible crime, the act done
should not fall under any specific provision of the Revised Penal Issue: Is the accused liable for an impossible crime? NO.
Code.
Ruling: The Court ruled that the accused are not liable for an
In the case of Intod v. CA, the Supreme Court held that the accused impossible crime. They are liable for kidnapping with serious illegal
was liable for an impossible crime. But there were separate detention. The act cannot be considered an impossible crime,
opinions contending that the accused in the case should not be because there was no inherent improbability of its
liable for impossible crimes. This is because when the accused fired accomplishment or employment of inadequate or ineffectual
shots at the house, the accused were actually violating another means. The delivery of the ransom money after the rescue of the
provision in the Revised Penal Code which is Mischievous victim did not extinguish his offense which was already
Mischief—causing damage to the property or the house. consummated when accused Domasian deprived the victim of his
liberty.
However, the ruling of the Supreme Court shall be followed.
Note: Also, the crime in this case cannot be considered an
PEOPLE v. BALMORES impossible crime because it failed to satisfy another requisite
Facts: The accused falsified a sweepstakes ticket. However, it was which is the act performed must be against persons or property.
obvious that the ticket was falsified. Kidnapping is a considered a crime against personal security.

Issue: WON the accused is liable for an impossible crime. People vs. Enoja
December 17, 1999
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the accused is not liable for
an impossible crime because falsification is not considered a Facts: We have here two accused charged by the death of the
crime against persons or property. victim. The first accused fatally wounded the victim. While the
second accused argued that he is not liable for the death of the
victim since when he fired another shot at the victim, the victim
JACINTO v. PEOPLE was already dead.
Facts: An accused together with two others, were charged with
qualified theft. Issue: Is the crime committed by the second accused an impossible
● There was this customer who obtained his purchases to crime? NO.
Mega Foam through a check worth P10,000.
● The check should be deposited on the account of Mega Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the crime committed by the
Foam however it was deposited to the account of the second accused in the case cannot be considered an impossible
accused who is a relative of the three. crime. The shots fired by the other accused resulted into the death
of the victim; hence, the subsequent shot constitutes an
● The worker/collector collected the check for Mega
impossible crime of killing an already dead person is considered
Foam.
speculative. There is no proof, at that time the victim was shot at
● The check bounced but even before the issuer of the
by the second accused, the victim already died. The defense here
check Baby Aquino went already to Mega Foam to pay
of the impossible crime was not appreciated.
P10,000.
● The check that was deposited to the account of the
accused rather than Mega Foam bounced back.
Q: What is the penalty of an impossible crime?
A: Aresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 - 500 (Legal Basis: Article
Issue: Can the accused be held liable for qualified theft? NO.
59 of RPC).
Held: The Supreme Court held that the accused cannot be held
Note: In impossible crimes, it is not the person that is being
liable for qualified theft, but they will be liable for an impossible
punished, but the criminal intent of the perpetrator/offender.
crime.

The thing unlawfully taken by the accused which was a check

Article 5: Duty of the court in connection with acts which should
turned out to be worthless because the check was dishonored and
be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases
Mega Foam had received the cash from the issuer, Baby to replace
of excessive penalties.
the value of the said dishonored check.
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem
It was due to the extraneous circumstance that the check being
proper to repress and which are not punishable by law, it shall
unfunded and unknown to the accused at that time, that
render the proper decision and shall report to the chief of
prevented the crime of qualified theft being produced.
executive, through the department of justice, the reasons which
induce the court to believe that said act should be made the
subject of penal legislation.
22 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

knife every day, saying that it is the knife that he will use to kill B.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, Then, C asked A about why A keeps on sharpening the knife. A tells
through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be C that he is doing it to kill B.
deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the
sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code Q: Has A already committed a crime ?
would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking A: There is no law punishing for imagining a crime.
into consideration the degree of malice and injury caused by the
offense. Mental processes or internal acts or those which exist in the mind
of the person are not punishable by law.
DISCUSSION
Q: Suppose there is a law punishing it, will it be considered a
crime?
Q: What do you think is the proper decision of the Court applying
Article 5, paragraph 1? A: There is no law which can be crafted to punish a preparatory act
because a person cannot read the mind of another. Even if there is
A: Pertaining to the Article 5 (1), the decision of the court must be a law for that, it is impossible to read other people’s mind.
for acquittal of the accused, because there was no law that
punishes for a no crime (null crimen, null poena sine lege). It must You can be very evil in your mind but the law will not make you
be reported to the Chief Executive, through the DOJ, which induces liable. Example, in your mind you are imagining how you will rape a
the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of girl. It is a mental process or internal act that cannot be punished
penal legislation. because there is no law punishing it and even if there is a law, it is
difficult to read the mind of another.
Article 5 (2) says that if someone feels that the crime is
disproportionate to the penalty, he can submit to the President, External acts
through the DOJ, a statement saying that the weight of the penalty When you talk about external or physical acts, it can be preparatory
is heavier and disproportionate. But he shall render the proper acts or acts of execution.
decision, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the
injury caused by the offense. A. Preparatory acts

Note: If the law says it is the penalty, then the court should apply it Example 1: A wanted to kill B and bought a knife and sharpened it.
regardless of whether it thinks he is unwise or immoral, etc. This is a preparatory act to the commission of murder or homicide.

Q: Is that preparatory act already punishable?

ARTICLE 6: Consummated, Frustrated, and Attempted Felonies
A: You need to think if there is a law punishing it. Even if it is a
preparatory act to the commission of the crime, that person will not
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and
be held liable if there is no law punishing it.
attempted, are punishable.
Q: Is the buying of a knife a punishable act?
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present. It is frustrated when A: No.
the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do Q: Is the act of buying poison to kill someone a preparatory act
not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the which is punishable?
perpetrator. A: No, there is no law punishing the act of buying poison.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the Example 2: Supposed A tells B that he wants to rob the house of C.
commission of the felony directly by overt acts, and does not A bought picklocks.
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
by reason of some cause or accident other than his own Q: Has A already committed a crime there?
spontaneous desistance. A: It is considered a preparatory act. The mere possession of the
picklocks is punishable under the law.
Classification of felonies as to stages of execution
Q: What law punishes the possession of pit locks?
1. Consummated Felonies
2. Frustrated Felonies A: The Revised Penal Code
3. Attempted Felonies
Preparatory acts are not considered punishable except if there is a
law punishing it.
DISCUSSION:
There are exceptions like the possession of pitlocks. The act of
Internal acts possessing pitlocks is preparatory to the commission of theft or
robbery. Since there is a law punishing the possession of pitlocks
EXAMPLE: A wants to kill B. In his mind, he imagined already how under Title X, Book II of the RPC, then that preparatory act is
to kill B with a knife. He was imagining scenarios on how to execute punished because there is a law punishing it.
the crime. A goes to the store to buy a knife. He is sharpening the
B. Acts of Execution
23 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

In attempted, frustrated, consummated, these acts are punishable DISCUSSION

because you have Article 6 which states that these acts, if done are
considered felonies. The accused was caught in the act of making an opening with an
iron on the wall of a store. Probably he did that because he wanted
Define Attempted Felony to enter the store or rob the store.
There is an attempt when an offender commences a commission of The SC held that Lamahang was not liable for attempted robbery.
a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of But he was liable for trespass to dwelling. The SC held that what he
execution which constitute the felony by reason of some cause or did was an indeterminate crime.
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Q: What is an indeterminate crime?
Elements
A: One where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is
1. There must be an overt act not certain; its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous.
2. The external act must have a direct connection with
the crime intended to be committed by the Q: When Lamahang was making an opening with the iron bar on
offender. the wall, does it have a direct connection to the crime which he
wants to commit? So if he makes a hole in the store, does it mean
People vs. Lamahang that he will commit robbery?
(91 Phil 703)
The SC held that the overt act was not that clear because making
an opening in the store might also mean that the person wanted to
FACTS: At early dawn on March 2, 1935, policeman Jose enter the house or to rape or to kill the occupant. So Lamahang’s
Tomambing was patrolling and caught the accused in the act of acts were not clear as to the relation of the overt act to the crime
making an opening with an iron on the wall of a store of cheap
intended to be committed.
goods. At that time, owner Tan Yu was sleeping inside with another
Chinese man. The accused succeeded in breaking one board and in Remember, in the attempted felony, there must be an overt act and
unfastening another from the wall when the policeman showed the external acts must have a direct connection with the crime
up, who instantly arrested him and placed him under custody. intended to be committed by the offender.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lamahang is guilty of attempted robbery?
People vs. Pancho
RULING: NO. The court erred in declaring him guilty of attempted (November 27, 2003)
robbery.
FACTS: Appellant Manolita Pancho was found guilty beyond
(1) In case of robbery, in order for an act to be considered an reasonable doubt of rape and attempted rape of his step-
attempt to this, it must show that the offender clearly intended daughter, Michelle dela Torre, 11 years of age. August 1, 1994
to take possession for the purpose of gain, of some personal around 6:00 in the morning, Pancho forcibly dragged and raped his
property belonging to another. In the instant case, it may only be 10-year old (at that time) step-daughter. After the crime, he
inferred as a logical conclusion that his evident intention was to threatened to kill her if she disclosed to anyone what happened.
enter by means of force said store against the will of its owner. More than a year after the incident, in December 1995, Michelle
That his final objective, once he succeeded in entering the store, got scared with the sight of the accused that she managed to hit
was to rob, to cause physical injury to the inmates, or to commit him hard. But when she tried to escape, the accused dragged her
any other offense, there is nothing in the record to justify a by her feet. At that instance, her uncle arrived, thus interrupting
concrete finding. the bestial desire. Physical examination showed: hymen was intact
and its orifice is small(2.0 cms in diameter) as to preclude complete
(2) Viada (Vol 1, p. 47): the overt acts leading to the commission penetration of male organ.
of the offense, are NOT punished except when they are aimed
directly to its execution, and therefore must have an ISSUE: Whether or not the accussed is liable for the crime of
intermediate and necessary relation to the offense. attempted rape.

(3) Supreme Court of Spain in its decision of March 21, 1892:that RULING: No.
in order to declare that such and such overt acts constitute an
attempted offense it is necessary that the objective be known Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code,
and established. rape is attempted when the offender commences the commission
of rape directly by overt acts, but does not perform all the acts of
Against the accused must be taken into consideration the execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of
aggravating circumstances of nighttime and former convictions, — some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
in as much as the record shows that several final judgments for desistance.
robbery and theft have been rendered against him — and in his
favor, the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction. The In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that appellant started
breaking of the wall should not be taken into consideration as an to rape the victim and had commenced the performance of acts of
aggravating circumstance inasmuch as this is the very fact which in carnal knowledge. He did not force her to lie down or remove her
this case constitutes the offense of attempted trespass to garment. In short, there was no showing that he did commence at
dwelling. all the performance of any act indicative of an intent or attempt to
rape the victim. What he did was to "drag" her and hold her feet.

24 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

At this juncture, we can not safely conclude that he was attempting Rivera vs. People
to rape her. (January 25, 2006)

In People vs. Campuhan, we held that the thin line that separates FACTS: As Ruben Rodil went to a nearby store to buy food, Edgardo
attempted rape from consummated rape is the entrance of the Rivera mocked him for being jobless and dependent on his wife for
male organ into the labial threshold of the female genitalia. In that support. Ruben resented the rebuke and thereafter, a heated
case, the accused was caught by the mother of the victim kneeling exchange of words ensued. In the following day, when Ruben and
on top of her. The victim testified that the accused’s organ merely his three year old daughter went to the store to buy food, Edgardo
touched but did not penetrate her vagina. We held that he could together with his brother Esmeraldo and Ismael Rivera emerged
not be convicted of statutory rape but only attempted from their house and ganged up on him. Esmeraldo and Ismael
rape.1âwphi1 mauled Ruben with fist blows. And as he fell to the ground,
Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block on the parietal
In the instant case, appellant was merely holding complainant’s
area. The Rivera brothers fled when policemen came. The doctor
feet when her Tito Onio arrived at the alleged locus criminis. Thus,
declared that the wounds were slight and superficial, though the
it would be stretching to the extreme our credulity if we were to
victim could have been killed had the police not promptly
conclude that mere holding of the feet is attempted rape.
intervened.

ISSUES: Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in

DISCUSSION modifying the crime from frustrated to attempted murder.

This is another example of an indeterminate crime. RULING: Yes. The Court of Appeals was correct since based on Art.
6 of the RPC, there is an attempt when the offender commences
Accused dragged the victim and held her feet. Because of that, the the commission of the felony directly by overt acts and does not
victim complained that the accused committed attempted rape perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
because there were already many incidents. One incident which by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
became the basis of the attempted rape charge was when the spontaneous desistance.
accused dragged the victim and held her feet.
In the case at bar, petitioners, who acted in concert, commenced
The SC held, if you look at the act, it is considered as an the felony of murder by mauling the victim and hitting him three
indeterminate crime. If the victim was dragged and her feet were times with a hollow block; they narrowly missed hitting the middle
tied up, does it mean that the victim was about to be raped by the portion of his head. If Edgardo had done so, Ruben would surely
offender? So it is not clear, hence it is an indeterminate crime. have died.

Q: In the indeterminate crime, in the case of Lamahang. What if the

accused admitted that his intention was to rob the shop. Would his
DISCUSSION
charge be changed?

A: If the accused will admit that, he could probably be held liable. This case provided the definition of an overt or external act.
However, we cannot see the purpose of admitting unless he
The SC said that it is necessary, however, that the attempt must
wanted to plead guilty and admit to the commission of the crime.
have a causal relation to the intended crime. In the words of Viada,
the overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to
the offense.
Define Overt/External Act
Q: Can you give an example where the overt or external act which
Some physical activity or deed indicating the intention to commit a has a direct connection to the crime intended to be committed?
particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which
will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense if carried A: For example, A wants to rape B. A undressed B, took off her
out to its complete termination. underwear. A mounted on the victim. But before the penis could
penetrate her vagina, the victim escaped.
Requisites:
a. That there be external acts; Q: What is the crime committed there?
b. Such external acts have direct connection with the crime
A: The crime committed is attempted rape. The overt acts done
intended to be committed.
included taking off the underwear, mounting on the victim. When
he mounted the victim, the accused did not have his underwear.
The intention there is to commit rape. But the crime was not
consummated because of some cause or accident other than his
spontaneous desistance of the offender.

25 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Discussion: Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted Issue: WON the accused is guilty for attempted robbery.
felonies.
Ruling: It is our opinion that the attempt to commit an offense
Mental processes or internal acts which are those that exists in the which the Penal Code punishes is that which has a logical
mind of the person is not punishable by law. No law can punish relation to a particular, concrete offense; that, which is the
internal acts, mental processes are not punishable. beginning of the execution of the offense by overt acts of the
perpetrator, leading directly to its realization and
For external or physical acts which may refer to outward consummation. The attempt to commit an indeterminate
manifestations of a person’s internal acts. offense, inasmuch as its nature in relation to its objective is
ambiguous, is not a juridical fact from the standpoint of the
GR: These external or physical acts are not punishable. Penal Code.

XPN: These acts are punishable if the Revised Penal Code or if the Note: Indeterminate crime is one where the purpose of the
law penalizes the act. offender in performing the act is uncertain meaning its nature
and relation to its objective is ambiguous.
For example: A buys poison who wants to use it to kill B. That act of
buying the poison is an outward manifestation of the person’s DISCUSSION
internal act of wanting to kill B. Is that act punishable?
Take Note: In attempted felony, the offender commences the
You have to know if there’s a law that punishes that preparatory commission of the felony directly by overt acts.
act because if there’s no law punishing it. No matter how immoral,
illogical, or senseless, the act is not punishable. In this case, the SC held that the accused is not liable for attempted
robbery but liable for attempted trespass to dwelling.
A good example of a preparatory act that is punishable by law is
possessing picklocks. There is a crime punishable in the Revised People vs. Pancho
Penal Code called “possession of picklocks.” So if you are found in (November 27, 2003)
possession of picklocks, there’s already a crime because the law
says so. Generally, that act is a preparatory act of robbery or theft. Facts: Appellant Manolita Pancho was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of rape and attempted rape of his step-
All the other acts of execution whether its attempted, frustrated, daughter, Michelle dela Torre, 11 years of age. August 1, 1994
consummated are already punishable. around 6:00 in the morning, Pancho forcibly dragged andraped
his 10-year old (at that time) step-daughter. After the crime he
ATTEMPTED FELONY threatened to kill her if she disclosed to anyone what happened.
More than a year after the incident, in December 1995, Michelle
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission got scared with the sight of the accused that she managed to hit
of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts him hard. But when she tried to escape, the accused dragged
of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some her by her feet. At that instance, her uncle arrived, thus
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. interrupting the bestial desire. Physical examination showed:
hymen was intact and its orifice is small(2.0 cms in diameter) as
Elements of attempted felony: to preclude complete penetration of male organ.

1. The offender commences the commission of the felony Issue: Whether or not the accused is liable for the crime of
directly by overt acts; attempted rape.

Note: There are certain overt acts that when done, you’re not so Ruling: No. Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the Revised
sure whether it is an act which has a direct connection with the Penal Code, rape is attempted when the offender commences
crime. (People v. Lamahang) the commission of rape directly by overt acts, but does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
People VS. Lamahang; crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than
G.R. No. L-43530 August 3, 1935 his own spontaneous desistance.

Facts: At early dawn on March 2, 1935, policeman Jose In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that appellant
Tomambing, who was patrolling his beat on Delgado and C.R. started to rape the victim and had commenced the performance
Fuentes streets of the City of Iloilo, caught the accused Arelio of acts of carnal knowledge. He did not force her to lie down or
Lamahang (an habitual delinquent) in the act of making an remove her garment. In short, there was no showing that he did
opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap goods commence at all the performance of any act indicative of an
located in Fuentes street. At that time the owner of the store, intent or attempt to rape the victim. What he did was to "drag"
Tan Yu, was sleeping inside with another Chinaman. The accused her and hold her feet. At this juncture, we can not safely
had only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening conclude that he was attempting to rape her.
another from the wall, when the policeman showed up, who
instantly arrested him and placed him under custody. The Court In People vs. Campuhan, we held that the thin line that
of First Instance of Iloilo, finding the accused guilty of attempted separates attempted rape from consummated rape is the
robbery. entrance of the male organ into the labial threshold of the
female genitalia. In that case, the accused was caught by the
26 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

mother of the victim kneeling on top of her. The victim testified In the present case, the prosecution mustered the requisite
that the accused’s organ merely touched but did not penetrate quantum of evidence to prove the intent of petitioners to kill
her vagina. We held that he could not be convicted of statutory Ruben. Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled the victim with fist
rape but only attempted rape. blows. Even as Ruben fell to the ground, unable to defend
himself against the sudden and sustained assault of petitioners,
In the instant case, appellant was merely holding complainant’s Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block. Edgardo tried
feet when her Tito Onio arrived at the alleged locus criminis. to hit Ruben on the head, missed, but still managed to hit the
Thus, it would be stretching to the extreme our credulity if we victim only in the parietal area, resulting in a lacerated wound
were to conclude that mere holding of the feet is attempted and cerebral contusions.
rape.
That the head wounds sustained by the victim were merely
superficial and could not have produced his death does not
negate petitioners’ criminal liability for attempted murder. Even
DISCUSSION if Edgardo did not hit the victim squarely on the head,
petitioners are still criminally liable for attempted murder.
The accused dragged the victim and held her feet. For that
particular act, accused was charged with attempted rape. The Court of Appeals was correct since based on Art. 6 of the
RPC, there is an attempt when the offender commences the
Q: Is the accused liable for attempted rape? commission of the felony directly by overt acts and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
A: The SC held no. Because when the accused dragged the victim felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
and held her feet, it cannot be safely concluded that he was spontaneous desistance.
attempting to rape her.

OVERT ACTS DISCUSSION

Just take note in an attempted felony, the offender commences the This case defined what an overt or external act is.
commission of a felony directly by an overt acts.
Supreme Court Ruling in Rivera v People: The act done need not
Overt acts – a physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to constitute the last proximate one for completion. It is necessary,
commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or however, that the attempt must have a causal relation to the
preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following intended crime. In the words of Viada, the overt acts must have an
its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles immediate and necessary relation to the offense
nor by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and
necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. The essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows:
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony
Remember: In order for there to be an attempted felony, directly by overt acts;
remember always the two requisites: a) there be an external or 2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which
overt acts, b) such external or overt acts must have direct should produce the felony;
connection to the crime intended to be committed. 2. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance;
Rivera vs. People 3. The non-performance of all the acts of execution was due
(January 25, 2006) to cause or accident other than his spontaneous
desistance.
Facts: As Ruben Rodil went to a nearby store to buy food,
Edgardo Rivera mocked him for being jobless and dependent on
his wife for support. Ruben resented the rebuke and thereafter, FRUSTRATED FELONY
a heated exchange of words ensued. In the following day, when
Ruben and his three year old daughter went to the store to buy Offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce
food, Edgardo together with his brother Esmeraldo and Ismael the felony as a consequence BUT which nevertheless do not
Rivera emerged from their house and ganged up on him. produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
Esmeraldo and Ismael mauled Ruben with fist blows. And as he perpetrator
fell to the ground, Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow
block on the parietal area. The Rivera brothers fled when While the offender has performed all the acts of execution the
policemen came. The doctor declared that the wounds were crime is not considered consummated because of reasons or
slight and superficial, though the victim could have been killed causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
had the police not promptly intervened.
Attempted Felony Frustrated Felony
Issue: WON the Court of Appeals was correct in modifying the The offender commences the Offender performs all the acts
crime from frustrated to attempted murder. commission of the felony of execution which would
directly by overt acts but does produce the felony as a
Ruling: Yes. not perform all the acts of consequence
execution.

27 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Offender has not yet passed Offender has passed It has been suggested that the child was of such tender age that
the subjective phase. subjective phase and reached penetration was impossible; that the crime of rape
the objective phase consequently was impossible of consummation; and that,
therefore, the offense committed should be treated only as
abusos deshonestos.
Subjective Phase: Portion of the execution of the crime starting
from the point where the offender begins the overt acts to pursue Issue: Whether or not the crime of rape was consummated. NO
the crime up to the point where the offender has not yet performed
all the acts of execution Ruling: It is probably true that a complete penetration was
impossible, but such penetration is not essential to the
If the offender is still in the subjective phase of a felony, the crime commission of the crime; it is sufficient if there is a penetration
committed is merely an attempted felony. of the labia. In the case of Kenny vs. State where the offended
party was a child of the age of 3 years and 8 months the
Objective Phase: Portion or phase when the subjective phase is testimony of several physicians was to the effect that her labia
already done. It is that point where the offender performs all the of the privates of a child of that age can be entered by a man's
acts of execution. Thus, the intended felony will be produced as a male organ to the hymen and the defendant was found guilty of
matter of consequence. the consummated crime rape.

CONSUMMATED FELONY There being no conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital

organ of the offended party, the defendant is entitled to the
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its benefit of the doubt and can only be found guilty of frustrated
execution and accomplishment are present. rape, but in view of the fact that he was living in the house of
the parents of the child as their guest, the aggravating
Example: A stabbed B. B died as a consequence of the injury. circumstance of abuse of confidence existed and the penalty
must therefore be imposed in its maximum degree.
Q: What crime is committed by A?
DISCUSSION
A: It’s a consummated felony. All the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present. In this case, the child was almost 4 years old. Not really almost
impossible but it was noted that because the child was of tender
Q: What are these acts? age, her vagina was not that developed unlike that of a woman.
Hence, the court held that the crime committed is frustrated rape.
A: Stabbing, inflicting a mortal wound on the victim, the victim
dies as a result of the injury. People v. Orita
ATTEMPTED FRUSTRATED CONSIMMATED G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990
FELONY FELONY FELONY
Not all acts of All acts of All acts of Facts: Complainant Cristina S. Abayan was a 19-year old
execution are execution are execution are freshman student at the St. Joseph's College at Borongan,
present or present present Eastern Samar. Appellant was a Philippine Constabulary (PC)
performed soldier. In the early morning of March 20, 1983, complainant
Results sought is Results sought is arrived at her boarding house. Her classmates had just brought
NOT achieved achieved her home from a party. Shortly after her classmates had left, she
knocked at the door of her boarding house. All of a sudden,
somebody held her and poked a knife to her neck. She then
People vs. Eriña recognized appellant who was a frequent visitor of another
(50 Phil 998) boarder.
Facts: The victim of the crime was a child of 3 years and 11
months old, and the evidence is conclusive that the defendant She pleaded with him to release her, but he ordered her to go
endeavored to have carnal intercourse with her, but there may upstairs with him. Since the door which led to the first floor was
be some doubt whether he succeeded in penetrating the vagina locked from the inside, appellant forced complainant to use the
before being disturbed by the timely intervention of the mother back door leading to the second floor. When they reached the
and the sister of the child. second floor, he commanded her to look for a room. With the
Batangas knife still poked to her neck, they entered
The physician who examined the genital organ of the child a few complainant's room.
hours after the commission of the crime found a slight
inflammation of the exterior parts of the organ, indicating that Upon entering the room, appellant pushed complainant who hit
an effort had been made to enter the vagina, but in testifying her head on the wall. With one hand holding the knife, appellant
before the court he expressed doubts as to whether the entry undressed himself. He then ordered complainant to take off her
had been effected. The mother of the child testified that she clothes. Scared, she took off her T-shirt. Then he pulled off her
found its genital organ covered with a sticky substance, but that bra, pants, and panty. He ordered her to lie down on the floor
cannot be considered conclusive evidence of penetration. and then mounted her. He made her hold his penis and insert it
in her vagina. She followed his order as he continued to poke
the knife to her. At said position, however, appellant could not

28 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

fully penetrate her. Only a portion of his penis entered her as

she kept on moving. A: The accused is liable for consummated rape.

Appellant then lay down on his back and commanded her to Rape is deemed consummated when all the acts of execution and
mount him. In this position, only a small part again of his penis accomplishment of the crime of rape are present.
was inserted into her vagina. At this stage, appellant had both
his hands flat on the floor. Complainant thought of escaping. She Q: When are all acts of execution executed?
dashed out to the next room and locked herself in. Appellant
pursued her and climbed the partition. She fled to another room A: The court here held, if the penis penetrates into the vagina, the
and jumped out through a window. crime of rape is consummated.

Still naked, she darted to the municipal building, which was No matter how slight the penetration is, even if there is no full
about eighteen meters in front of the boarding house and penetration of the penis into vagina, the crime committed is
knocked on the door. When there was no answer, she ran consummated rape.
around the building and knocked on the back door. When the
policemen who were inside the building opened the door, they Q: How did the court resolve the comparison of this case with
found complainant naked sitting on the stairs crying. Pat. the case of People vs Eriña?
Donceras, the first policeman to see her, took off his jacket and
wrapped it around her. When they discovered what happened, A: So in People versus Orita you learned that the Supreme Court
Pat. Donceras and two other policemen rushed to the boarding said that its ruling in People vs. Eriña was considered to be a stray
house. They heard a sound at the second floor and saw ruling. Its considered stray because after the Eriña, ruling there was
somebody running away. Due to darkness, they failed to no other case decided by the supreme court that is similar on the
apprehend appellant. facts which followed the doctrine or the ruling in the Eriña case.

RTC ruled that accused is guilty of the crime of frustrated rape. So remember in rape slight penetration of the penis into the vagina
consummates the crime of rape. In fact there are also Supreme
Issue: Whether or not the frustrated stage applies to the crime Court decided cases where the court said that even if the hymen
of rape. did not rupture or even if the victim is still a virgin as long as there
is proof that the penis penetrated the vagina then that's
Ruling: Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the consummated a rape. So the ruling in Eriña is considered a stray
offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he actually attains ruling.
his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential
elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more People vs. Orande
is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the (November 12, 2003)
last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is
consummated. Facts: Accused- appellant, Arnulfo Orande was the common law
husband of Jessica Castro’s mother Girlie. Appellant, a pedicab
We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of driver, started living with Girlie and her three children sometime
rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the in 1993 in a two-storey house in Paco, Manila owned by Girlie’s
female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia mother. Jessica alleged that she was raped by Arnulfo four times
or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or between January 1994 and November 1996.
laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction.
Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the Sometime in March 1997, a teacher of Jessica, Mrs. Adoracion
female organ because not all acts of execution was performed. Mojica, noticed the unusual treatment of Jessica by appellant.
The offender merely commenced the commission of a felony When confronted by Mrs. Mojica, Jessica admitted that
directly by overt acts. Taking into account the nature, elements appellant had raped her several times. Mrs. Mojica called up
and manner of execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence Jessica’s aunt, Mrs. Antonina de la Cruz, and narrated to her
on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage what Jessica had confessed. Mrs. De la Cruz then accompanied
in rape can ever be committed. Jessica to the police station to file a complaint and to the
Philippine General Hospital (PGH), Child Protection Unit, to be
People v. Eriña – a stray ruling examined.
We found the offender guilty of frustrated rape there being no
conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the Complainant charged appellant with raping her four times
offended party. However, it appears that this is a "stray" between January 1994 and November 1996. Incidentally, prior
decision inasmuch as it has not been reiterated in Our to the filing of the aforementioned cases, Jessica also filed a
subsequent decisions. criminal case against her mother, Girlie de la Cruz Castro, and
the appellant for child abuse.
DISCUSSION On his arraignment on September 5, 1997, appellant pleaded
not guilty. He denied raping Jessica and advanced alibis.
It is clear in the facts that only a portion of the penis penetrated
the vagina. It was slight penetration of the penis to the vagina. RTC Manila convicted appellant for two counts of simple rape,
one count of statutory rape and one count of frustrated rape,
Q: What’s the criminal liability of the accused, attempted, and sentencing him to suffer three counts of reclusion perpetua
frustrated or consummated? for the simple and statutory rapes, and an indeterminate
29 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

penalty of 8 years to 14 years and 8 months of imprisonment for In this case, the Supreme Court expressly state that where it said
the frustrated rape. that there is no such crime as frustrated rape and again the court
reiterated its ruling that for the consummation of rape, perfect
The accused, through this appeal, is questioning the lower penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ
court’s decision. He claims that the RTC Manila erred in by the male organ is sufficient even if there's no rupture of the
convicting him of frustrated rape despite the fact that under hymen or laceration of the vagina. Thus, only the penetration of the
prevailing circumstance, there is no such crime. Penis into vagina need to be prove.

Issue: WON the lower court erred in convicting accused of Q: Can there be a crime as attempted rape?
frustrated rape.
A: In Orande, the Supreme Court said that yes. Its possible for there
Ruling: Yes. In the crime of rape, from the moment the offender to be a crime as attempted rape. And when we said attempted
has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his rape; when the offender commences the commission of rape by
purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements overt acts but the accused does not perform all the acts of
of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to execution that’s the definition of attempted felony.
be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act
necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is EX: A wants to rape B. So he took of the clothes of B. He took of
consummated. In a long line of cases, We have set the uniform her underwear and mounted on the victim. As if in his position, his
rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is penis about to penetrate but there is no proof of the penetration.
not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male
organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, Q: Why do you say that it is attempted rape?
without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is
sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted A: Because the overt acts such as taking of the clothes of the victim,
if there is no penetration of the female organ because not all mounting on her. Those have a direct connection with the crime
acts of execution was performed. The offender merely which is intended to be committed. What's a crime intended to be
commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. committed? Rape. But in attempted rape of course there must be
Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of no penetration otherwise it is consummated even if the
execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, penetration is light.
it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever
be committed. THEFT.
When is theft considered consummated?
The victim testified that she felt pain and her vagina bled,
indisputable indications of slight penetration or, at the very Valenzuela vs. People
least, that the penis indeed touched the labia and not merely (June 21, 2007)
stroked the external surface thereof. Thus, the appellant should
be found guilty of (consummated) rape and not merely Facts: While a security guard was manning his post the open
frustrated or attempted rape. parking area of a supermarket, he saw the accused, Aristotel
Valenzuela, hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, and unloaded them where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was
Branch 18, in Criminal Case Nos. 97-159 184 to 87 is AFFIRMED waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the supermarket, and
with the following MODIFICATIONS: later emerged with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter,
1. In Criminal Case No. 97-159 184, appellant is convicted of Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started loading the boxes of
simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and detergent inside. As the taxi was about to leave the security
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. guard asked Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandise. The
2. In Criminal Case No. 97-159 185, appellant is convicted of accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were subsequently
statutory rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted both
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft.
3. In Criminal Case No. 97-159186, appellant is convicted of Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that
statutory rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. able to freely dispose of the articles stolen. The CA affirmed the
4. In Criminal Case No. 97-159187, appellant is convicted of trial court’s decision, thus the Petition for Review was filed
simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and before the Supreme Court.
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
For each count of rape, appellant is ordered to pay complainant Issue: Whether or not petitioner Valenzuela is guilty of
Jessica Castro P50,000 as moral damages, P50,000 as civil frustrated theft.
indemnity and P25,000 as exemplary damages, or a total of
P500,000. Costs against appellant. Ruling: No. Article 6 of the RPC 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 – (1) that there be taking
DISCUSSION of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another;
(3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking
be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the

30 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or the employees of Ororama Mega Center who prevented them
intimidating of persons or force upon things. The court held that from further carrying away the items.
theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property
by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the Canceran claimed that an earlier Information for theft was
offender is able or unable to freely dispose the property stolen already filed on October 9, 2002 which was eventually
since he has already committed all the acts of execution and the dismissed. In January 2003, a second Information was filed for
deprivation from the owner has already ensued from such acts. the same offense over the same incident and became the
Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be subject of the present case.
attempted or consummated.
The RTC found Canceran guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of consummated Theft in line with the ruling of the Court
DISCUSSION in Valenzuela v. People8 that under Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), there is no crime of “Frustrated Theft.”
The Valenzuela case involve an accused who took a detergent cases Aggrieved, Canceran filed an appeal where he raised the issue
of detergent from a supermarket. The accused loaded it into a push of double jeopardy for the first time. The CA held that there
cart and then while he was loading the detergent to the vehicle, he could be no double jeopardy because he never entered a valid
was accosted by the security officers of the supermarket. Of course plea and so the first jeopardy never attached.11 The CA affirmed
when he was asked where is his receipt, he was not able to show with modification the September 20, 2007 judgment of the RTC.
any receipt for the purchases. Advertisements
Q: In Valenzuela case what’s the liability of the accused? Is it Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of
attempted theft, frustrated theft or consummated theft? consummated theft.
A: The Supreme Court here held that the crime committed here is Ruling: Yes. The crime committed in this case was consummated
consummated theft. Why consummated? All the acts necessary for theft because from the time the accused gained possession of
the execution and accomplishment of the crime are present. the thing, even if he had no opportunity yet to dispose of the
thing or has no full control over the thing yet, the accused is
Q: Now in Valenzuela the court said that when we say all the acts liable for consummated theft.
necessary for execution and accomplishment what do we look into?
DISCUSSION
A: So look for the elements of the crime, if all the elements present,
then you have a consummated felony.
This has the same ruling with the case of Valenzuela.
Q: So what are the elements requisites in theft?
HOMICIDE AND MURDER
A: There is unlawful taking, with intend to gain and taking is without Both crimes involve killing of another person. This has a
the permission of the owner or consent to the owner or possessor consummated stage.
of the thing, the taking is without violence against or intimidation
of persons or use of force upon things. Illustration: A kills/shoots B and B dies as a result of the injury. All
acts necessary for the execution and accomplishment of the crime
In Valenzuela the court held that unlawful taking or of either homicide or murder is already present.
apoderamiento, is deemed complete from the moment the
offender gains possession of the thing even if he has no opportunity Q: Does homicide or murder admit from frustrated or attempted
to dispose the thing. So the opportunity to dispose of the thing or stages?
the items stolen that is not an element of the crime. As long as the
accused took the item or the property. The taking is unlawful, that A: Yes, in both stages.
is considered already complete. The crime is consummated theft.
People vs. Labiaga
Now in Valenzuela the court said, since unlawful taking is deemed (July 15, 2013)
complete from the moment the offender gains possession to a
thing. There can be no frustrated theft but there can be attempted FACTS: Sometime in December of 2003 in Iloilo, accused Regie
theft. Labiaga, Alias Balatong Barcenas and Cristy Demapanag
conspired, confederated and helped one another, with an
Canceran vs. People unlicensed fire gun, willfully and unlawfully shot Judy Conde in
(July 1, 2015) different parts of her breast which caused her death thereafter.
The same individuals also conspired to kill Gregorio Condea,
Facts: In an Information, Jovito Canceran was accused of father of Judy and later succeeded.
frustrated theft for allegedly stealing 14 cartons of Pond’s White Labiaga said that the shooting of Conde was an act of self-
Beauty Cream valued at P28,627.20, belonging to Ororama defense Conde challenged him to a gunfight. RTC ruled out his
Mega Center. Having performed all the acts of execution which defense.
would produce the crime of theft as a consequence but, RTC convicted Labiaga of murder and frustrated murder. CA
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of some cause affirmed the decision with modifications as to civil indemnities.
independent of accused’s will, that is, they were discovered by

31 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

ISSUE: WON Labiaga is guilty of frustrated murder.

 Attempted Murder/Homicide—there is a
RULING: NO. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines the proof that the wound sustain is not a fatal or
stages in the commission of felonies: mortal wound.
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.—
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and  Frustrated Murder/Homicide—if there is
attempted, are punishable etc. proof that the wound sustained is fatal or
mortal. But because of timely medical
In Serrano v. People, we distinguished a frustrated felony from intervention, the victim survived.
an attempted felony in this manner:
1.) In a frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts Question: Why would it be considered Frustrated?
of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence;
whereas in an attempted felony, the offender merely Answer: Because all the acts of execution were
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts performed.
and does not perform all the acts of execution. o Intent to kill. He shoots at B.
2.) In a frustrated felony, the reason for the non- o Hit on a vital organ and sustained a
accomplishment of the crime is some cause independent of the fatal/mortal wound.
will of the perpetrator; on the other hand, in an attempted
felony, the reason for the non-fulfillment of the crime is a cause All acts of execution were performed but because of the
or accident other than the offender’s own spontaneous timely medical intervention, the crime of Murder was
desistance. not produced.

In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the

wound would have been fatal were it not for timely medical In the crime of Murder/Homicide, the stages are complete. There
intervention. If the evidence fails to convince the court that the exists Consummated, Frustrated and Attempted.
wound sustained would have caused the victim’s death without
timely medical attention, the accused should be convicted of ARSON
attempted murder and not frustrated murder.
Q: Does Arson admit Attempted or Frustrated stage?
In the instant case, it does not appear that the wound sustained
by Gregorio Conde was mortal. This was admitted by Dr. Edwin A: In Arson, it is consummated even if only a small portion of the
Figura, who examined Gregorio after the shooting incident. building or property is burned.

Since Gregorio’s gunshot wound was not mortal, we hold that o Some authors say that there can be a Frustrated Arson.
appellant should be convicted of attempted murder and not
frustrated murder. Illustration: X used flammable materials and lit a match. Before he
threw the match to burn the material or building, the police arrived.

DISCUSSION In this situation, some authors would say that this is a Frustrated
Stage.
Q: How do we determine whether a felony is a frustrated
homicide/murder or attempted homicide/murder? Q: Does arson also admit of an attempted stage?

Illustration: A shot B with the use of a gun. B was hit on the A: Some authors would say yes. There can be attempted arson.
shoulder and was brought to the hospital. B was attended to by
physicians and eventually healed. In arson, there are three stages.

Q: What is the crime committed by A?

Slander or defamation or libel
A: The crime committed by A is in an Attempted stage because the
victim was hit on a part that was not fatal. Once the defamatory words are uttered and all the other elements
are present. It is consummated slander or defamation.
Q: What if the wound was fatal? What will be the crime?
Q: Does slander admit of attempted or frustrated stages? Because
A: If the wound is fatal and yet the victim lives, the crime is in a once you uttered the words, it is already consummated.
Frustrated stage.
A: There can be no attempted or frustrated stages.
PEOPLE v. LABIAGA
Formal v. Material Crimes
How do we determine whether a felony is a frustrated
homicide/murder or attempted homicide/murder? FORMAL CRIMES: consummated in one instant, or by performance
of a single act of execution
The Supreme Court distinguished:
Examples:
32 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

1. Felony by omission A: YES. A who has decided to commit murder against C proposes its
2. Slander execution to B.
3. False testimony in court
4. Possession of picklocks EXAMPLE: Supposed B says ‘YES’ and will agree to help kill C.

MATERIAL CRIMES: not consummated at one instant or by a single Q: What do you call that?
act of execution.
A: Conspiracy. A and B agree to commit the felony.
Examples: homicide/murder; rape
Q: Can a person who proposes to kill another person to another
ARTICLE 7 liable already for a crime, and supposed both of them (A and B)
agree to conspire in killing C, are they already committing a crime?
ARTICLE 7. When Light Felonies are Punishable. — Light
felonies are punishable only when they have been A: NO. Only conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony which are
consummated, with the exception of those committed against punishable under the law are considered crimes.
person or property.
Q: Is there a crime as to person who proposes to commit a crime
Q: What are light felonies? or murder or conspiracy to commit a murder?

A: Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of A: NO. There is no such crimes. There is no law that punishes for it.
which the penalty of arrest menor or a fine of not exceeding
40,000.00 pesos or both is provided (Paragraph 3, Article 9). The Conspiracies which are considered crimes/and or punishable:

Q: When are light felonies punishable? • Conspiracy to commit treason

• Conspiracy to commit coup d’ état, rebellion or
A: Light felonies are punishable only when consummated. insurrection
• Conspiracy to commit sedition
XPN: Light felonies against persons and against properties. • Monopolies and combinations in restraint trade
• Machinations in public auctions
ARTICLE 8 • Abused against chastity
• Brigandage (Art. 306)
ARTICLE 8: CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY
Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Felony. — Conspiracy and NOTE: Treason, rebellion or sedition should not be actually
proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in committed.
which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
Mere conspiracy, mere agreement of persons who agreed to a
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an commission of the crime will already be liable.
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. In the Philippines, there are two levels of conspiracy.

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit Conspiracy As the Crime Conspiracy As a Manner of
a felony proposes its execution to some other person or Incurring Criminal Liability
persons.
Law specifically provides for a Conspiracy is not a separate
penalty. Examples: conspiracy offense; act of one is the act of
Article 8 starts with the sentence, conspiracy and proposal to to commit treason, rebellion, all; absorbed by the crime
commit felony are punishable only in cases which the law specially coup d’etat, or sedition actually committed. Example:
provides penalty therefor. conspiracy to commit if the conspirators actually
espionage (CA 616), committed treason or
Only those conspiracies or proposals to commit a felony which are conspiracy to commit arson rebellion conspiracy shall not
punishable by law are considered crimes. That’s the essence of the (PD 1613), conspiracy to bribe be considered as a separate
first paragraph of Article 8. voters (OEC), conspiracy to offense but a manner of
commit terrorism (RA No. incurring criminal liability -
Q: When is there a proposal? 9372), conspiracy in the sale, conspiracy may be express or
A: There is a when the person who has decided to commit a felony administration, delivery, implied
proposes its execution to some other person or persons. distribution and
transportation of dangerous
EXAMPLE: A tells B that A wants to kill C. I want to hire you as a drugs (RA 9165)
gunman.

Q: Is that a proposal?

33 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

the act of all. It is not indispensable that a co-conspirator should

Example: A proposed to B, “let’s kill C”. B replied, “What will I do?”. take a direct part in every act and should know the part which
A explained, “I will be the one who will tie up C. You will stab C”. the others have to perform. Conspiracy is the common design to
Then B agreed. Both of them did exactly what they planned. commit a felony; it is not participation in all the details of the
execution of the crime. All those who in one way or another help
Q: What is the crime committed by A and B? and cooperate in the consummation of a felony previously
planned are co-principals.45 Hence, all of the six accused are
A: The crime they committed is murder or homicide depending on guilty of the slaughter of Carriego, Barbosa and Santos Cruz -
the presence of a qualifying circumstance. each is guilty of three separate and distinct crimes of murder.

Q: How will the law view the conspiracy there because there is no
such crime as conspiracy to commit murder. DISCUSSION
Q: How does one prove of conspiracy?
A: This time, conspiracy will be viewed as a manner of incurring
criminal liability. If you can prove conspiracy, the act of one is A: For it to be appreciated in court, it must be alleged in the
considered the act of all. charge sheet or information. The information is alleged that A and
B conspired, confederated, help one another to kill C.
Q: Can A go to you and tell you, “Why should I be liable for murder
when I was just the one who tied. I did not deliver the fatal blow to Q: What is the quantum of proof required to prove conspiracy?
the victim”. What should be your answer?
A: Same quantum of proof required in criminal cases which is
A: If there is a conspiracy, the act of one is considered the act of all. proof beyond reasonable doubt.
This is the second level of conspiracy. Conspiracy as a manner of
incurring criminal liability.
KINDS OF CONSPIRACY
Note: There is no crime in the proposal to commit murder and
conspiracy to commit murder.
a. Express – proven by direct evidence
b. Implied – proven by circumstantial evidence; holds 2 or more
People vs. Amadeo Peralta, et.al.
persons participating in the commission of a crime collectively
October 29, 1968
liable as conspirators although absent any agreement to that
effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal
Facts: It was at about 7:00 a.m. on February 16, 1958, while the
intent and a common purpose or objective.
inmates of the penitentiary were preparing to attend Sunday
mass, that a fight between two rival members of the "Sigue-
Most of the conspiracies we know of are implied conspiracies. It
Sigue" and "OXO" gangs occurred in the plaza where the
seldom happens when the conspirators will admit that they
prisoners were assembled, causing a big commotion. The fight
conspired to kill someone.
was, however, quelled, and those involved were led away for
investigation, while the rest of the prisoners were ordered to
Q: When is there implied conspiracy?
return to their respective quarters. Hardly had conditions
returned to normal when a riot broke out in Bldg. 1, a known lair
A: There is no express agreement between the two persons who
of the "Sigue-Sigue". The inmates thereof tried to invade Bldg.
conspired with each other. But their acts are concerted,
4, where many members and sympathizers of the "OXO" gang
coordinated, synchronized, or complemented each other’s act in a
were confined. The timely arrival of the guards forced the
way indicating that they are pursuing a common criminal objective.
invading inmates to retreat and return to Bldg. 1. Moments
later, another riot erupted in Bldg. 4, as the inmates of brigade
When they executed the act, we cannot see that they planned and
4-A destroyed the lock of their door and then rampaged from
agreed to the commission of murder. But you could see that their
one brigade to another. The invading prisoners from 4-A, mostly
acts are coordinated.
"OXO" members and sympathizers, clubbed and stabbed to
death Jose Carriego, an inmate of 4-B. Afterwards, they forcibly
Example: A immediately tied the victim’s hands. B slapped the
opened the door of 4-C and killed two more inmates, namely,
victim and stabbed him. One could say that there is conspiracy
Eugenio Barbosa and Santos Cruz.
there because their acts are coordinated, synchronized,
complemented each other in a way indicating that they are
The three victims sustained injuries which swiftly resulted in
pursuing a common criminal objective.
their death - before they could be brought to the hospital.
Fernan Jr. et.al. vs. People
Issue: Whether or not there is conspiracy
August 24, 2007
Ruling: YES. The evidence on record proves beyond
Facts: COA Regional Director solicited for the authentication
peradventure that the accused acted in concert from the
and report on the sub-allotment advises issued to highway
moment they bolted their common brigade, up until the time
engineering districts in Cebu particularly Cebu City, Cebu 1 st,
they killed their last victim, Santos Cruz. While it is true that
Cebu 2nd and Mandaue City Highway Engineering Districts.
Parumog, Larita and Luna did not participate in the actual killing
Apparently, the two sets of Letters of Advice of Allotments
of Carriego, nonetheless, as co-conspirators they are equally
(LAA’s) were received by the districts. One set consists of regular
guilty and collectively liable for in conspiracy the act of one is
34 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

LAA’s in authenticated and normally processed manner while

the other set consists of fake LAA’s all of these were approved DISCUSSION
for the Finance Officer by Chief Accountant Rolando Mangubat. This has been asked in the Bar Exams.
Mangubat, however, had no authority to approve them because
he had already been detailed to the MPH Central Office. It was Q: What are these two structures of multiple conspiracies?
found out that the practice of using fake LAA’s had been going
on for years. A: The first one is the wheel or circle conspiracy. There is a hub and
Four of the accused hatched an ingenious plan to siphon off spokes. There is a single person or group which is the “hub” dealing
large sums of money from the government coffers using fake individually with two or more persons or groups which are called
LAA’s vouchers and other documents to conceal the traces. The the “spokes”.
anti-graft court has found the case has merit and that Fernan Jr.
and Expedito Torrevilas along with the other accused guilty as Another kind of structure is the chain conspiracy. This is usually
co-principals in the crime of Estafa through falsification of Public demonstrated in the distribution of dangerous drugs or
Documents as defined and penalized in Articles 318 and 171, in contraband. In dangerous drugs, you have a manufacturer and
relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal code, and there being passes it to the dealer or wholesaler who will sell to the retailer
no modifying circumstances in attendance, sentenced each of and the retailer will sell it to the consumer. This is usually
them to imprisonment and payment of the penalties. demonstrated in the distribution of narcotics or other contraband.

Issue: Whether or not the honourable Sandiganbayan erred in Discussion: Conspiracy

convicting petitioners as co-conspirators despite the
prosecution’s failure to specifically prove beyond reasonable General rule – only those conspiracies punished under the law are
doubt the facts and circumstances that would implicate them as considered as crimes. Conspiracy as the crime itself.
co-conspirators and justify their conviction.
If there is no law punishing the conspiracy, but in the commission
of the crime there are conspirators. So all of the conspirators are
Ruling: No equally liable as if they have committed or done the fatal blow or
The Sandigan Bayan has accurately ruled on conviction of the the act itself. This is because if conspiracy is not a separate offense
petitioners as co-conspirators in spite of the prosecution’s but conspiracy is a mode or a manner of incurring criminal liability,
failure to prove such. The court explained why direct proof of the act of one is considered the act of all.
prior agreement is not necessary: “Secrecy and concealment
are essential features of a successful conspiracy. It may be Conspiracy is proved the same way that a criminal case is proved.
inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and The quantum of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted Inasmuch as a conspiracy is to be proven by direct proof, it doesn’t
with a common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied mean that if it’s not proven by direct proof, you cannot anymore
if it is proved that two or more persons aimed their acts toward establish conspiracy because there is another kind of conspiracy
the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a known as implied conspiracy where conspiracy may be proven by
part so that their combined acts, though apparently circumstantial evidence.
independent of each other, were in fact, connected and
cooperative, which indicates closeness of personal association People v Peralta
and concurrence of sentiment. To hold an accused guilty as a co- G.R. No. L-19069 October 29, 1968
principal by reason of conspiracy, he must have shown to have
performed a concerted act to the furtherance of the common Facts: A fight between two rival members of the "Sigue-Sigue"
design and purpose. and "OXO" gangs occurred in the plaza where the prisoners
were assembled preparing for Mass, causing a big commotion.
Note: In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, we categorized two (2) The fight was, however, quelled, and those involved were led
structures of multiple conspiracies, namely: (1) the so-called away for investigation, while the rest of the prisoners were
"wheel" or "circle" conspiracy, in which there is a single person ordered to return to their respective quarters. Subsequently a
or group (the "hub") dealing individually with two or more other riot broke out in Bldg. 1, a known lair of the "Sigue-Sigue." The
persons or groups (the "spokes"); and (2) the "chain" conspiracy, inmates thereof tried to invade Bldg. 4, where many members
usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other and sympathizers of the "OXO" gang were confined. The timely
contraband, in which there is successive communication and arrival of the guards forced the invading inmates to retreat and
cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business return to Bldg. 1. Moments later, another riot erupted in Bldg.
operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then 4, as the inmates of brigade 4-A destroyed the lock of their door
wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and consumer. and then rampaged from one brigade to another. The invading
prisoners from 4-A, mostly "OXO" members and sympathizers,
We find that the conspiracy in the instant cases resembles the clubbed and stabbed to death Jose Carriego, an inmate of 4-B.
"wheel" conspiracy. The 36 disparate persons who constituted Afterwards, they forcibly opened the door of 4-C (with help from
the massive conspiracy to defraud the government were the alleged co-principals) and killed two more inmates, namely,
controlled by a single hub, namely: Rolando Mangubat (Chief Eugenio Barbosa and Santos Cruz.
Accountant), Delia Preagido (Accountant III), Jose Sayson
(Budget Examiner), and Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), who controlled Issue: WON there is a conspiracy in committing the crime.
the separate "spokes" of the conspiracy. Petitioners were
among the many spokes of the wheel. Ruling: A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
35 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

to commit it.9 Generally, conspiracy is not a crime except when confederating and mutually helping with several others whose
the law specifically provides a penalty therefor as in treason,10 true names and real identities have not as yet been ascertained,
rebellion11 and sedition. Once an express or implied conspiracy did then and there, willfully unlawfully and feloniously entered
is proved, all of the conspirators are liable as co-principals the compound of Rebecca Saycon located at No. 99 Tandang
regardless of the extent and character of their respective active Sora Avenue, this City, with intent to kill and with the use of
participation in the commission of the crime or crimes bladed weapons stabbed FELIPE CLIMACO, a security guard on
perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in his body several times and JOEY RODRIGUEZ, a house boy
contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all. The thereat on his chest, respectively, thus inflicting upon FELIPE
foregoing rule is anchored on the sound principle that "when CLIMACO serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and
two or more persons unite to accomplish a criminal object, immediate cause of his death and injuries to JOEY RODRIGUEZ
whether through the physical volition of one, or all, proceeding and thereafter said accused with intent to gain, by means of
severally or collectively, each individual whose evil will actively such violence and intimidation against persons, did then and
contributes to the wrong-doing is in law responsible for the there, wilfully, and unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and
whole, the same as though performed by himself alone."16 carry away the service firearm of FELIPE CLIMACO, 1.38 caliber
Although it is axiomatic that no one is liable for acts other than revolver with Serial No. 31897 with six (6) rounds of
his own, "when two or more persons agree or conspire to ammunitions of still undetermined value, belonging to Triad
commit a crime, each is responsible for all the acts of the others, Security & Allied Services, Incorporated, to the damage and
done in furtherance of the agreement or conspiracy. prejudice of the heirs of Felipe Climaco, Joey Rodriguez of the
injuries sustained [sic] and Triad Security & Allied Services,
Incorporated.
DISCUSSION
Issue: WON there is conspiracy in this case.
While conspiracy to commit a crime must be established by positive
evidence or direct proof, however it’s not required in order to prove Ruling: YES. It is true that none of the witnesses for the
conspiracy. Because as we all know, conspiracy is planned in prosecution testified having seen accused-appellant stab Felipe
secrecy. So most cases, the conspirators will not tell other people Climaco, a point on which the defense harps. There was
that they are conspiring to commit a crime. Thus, in implied conspiracy in this case, however, as shown by the concerted
conspiracy competent circumstantial evidence will suffice to manner in which accused-appellant and his companions
establish conspiracy. entered the Saycon compound and later withdrew from it and
the way they attacked the security guard and the houseboy.
So in implied conspiracy, the offenders act in concert during the Regardless of the part of accused-appellant in the stabbing of
commission of the crime for liability to attach. So the indicator is of the guard and the wounding of the houseboy, he is liable
course when the acts are concerted, coordinated or the offenders because of the rule in conspiracy that the act of one is the act
cooperated with each other with the one end or one goal and that of all.
is commit the crime.
Why is this not a syndicated crime?
Distinctions Syndicated Crime Conspiracy
Group … The idea of a group of persons, at least two in number, which
Definition A group of two or Exists when two or is organized for the purpose of committing crimes for gain. In
more persons more persons the case at bar, while the evidence shows that accused-
collaborating, come to an appellant and his companions planned to rob the Saycons, there
confederating or agreement to is no evidence that they were organized for the purpose of
mutually aiding commit a crime committing crimes for gain. There was a conspiracy to commit
one another for and decide to robbery but not a syndicated or organized crime group.
the purpose of commit a crime.
gain in the DISCUSSION
commission of any
crime. (Article 62 The court here held that the group of the accused was not
RPC) considered a syndicated crime group because there was no
showing that they were organized for the purpose of committing
Purpose Purpose of gain No specific crimes for gain. While there was a conspiracy to commit robbery
purpose but it was not considered as a syndicated or organized crime group.
Nature Organized group Does not require
that it be
composed or it be
IMPUTABILITY DOCTRINE
an organized group
Imputability Doctrine – the act of an offender is imputable to his
co-conspirator although they are not similarly situated in relation
People v. Alberca to the object of the crime.
G.R. No. L-19069 October 29, 1968

Facts: "That on or about the 11th day of April 1994, in Quezon

City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring,

36 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,

ARTICLE 9 Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and
be voted for, the profession or calling.
Article 9. Grave Felonies, Less Grave Felonies and Light Civil interdiction,
Felonies. Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and
Grave Felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital proceeds of the offense,
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are Payment of costs.
afflictive, in accordance with article 25 of this Code.
Q. The punishment for simple rape is reclusion perpetua, what kind
Less Grave Felonies are those which the law punishes with of a felony is a simple rape? Can it be considered a grave felony?
penalties which in their maximum period are correctional.
A. Rape is considered a grave felony because its punishment is
Light Felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of under afflictive penalties.
which a penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
P40,000 or both, is provided. Q. How do you know if a felony is grave, less grave or light?

A. Under Article 9, it says you look at the penalty. Because if the

Article 25. Penalties which may be imposed. - The penalties penalty is a capital punishment or afflictive penalties, then felony is
which may be imposed according to this Code, and their considered a grave felony. Rape is punishable with reclusion
different classes, are those included in the following: perpetua. Refer to Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code. Reclusion
perpetua is considered an afflictive penalty. Therefore, rape is
considered a grave felony.
Scale
ARTICLE 9. Classification of felonies according to their gravity:
Principal Penalties 1. Grave felonies;
2. Less grave felonies;
Capital punishment: 3. Light felonies.

Death. GRAVE FELONIES – are those to which the law attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive
in accordance with Article 25 of the RPC
Afflictive penalties:
Afflictive penalties under Art. 25:
a. Reclusion perpetua
Reclusion perpetua, b. Reclusion temporal
Reclusion temporal,
c. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
Perpetual or temporary absolute
d. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special
e. Prision mayor
disqualification,
➢ Suppose the penalty is Prision correccional to prision
Prision mayor.
mayor = Felony is a grave felony

Correctional penalties: Note: Felony punishable by prision correctional to prision mayor is

a grave felony, because Prision Mayor is the higher of the two
Prision correccional, penalties prescribed and is an afflictive penalty.
Arresto mayor,
Suspension, LESS GRAVE FELONIES – are those which the law punishes with
Destierro. penalties which in their maximum period are correctional
Correctional penalties under Article 25:
Light penalties: a. Prision correccional
b. arresto mayor
Arresto menor, c. suspension
Public censure. d. destierro

➢ Suppose penalty is Prision correctional = Felony is a less

Penalties common to the three preceding classes:
grave felony

Fine, and LIGHT FELONIES – are those infractions of law for the commission
Bond to keep the peace. of which a penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
P40,000 or both is provided (Amended by RA 10951).
Accessory Penalties
➢ Suppose penalty is a fine of P10,000 = Light Felony
37 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

➢ Suppose penalty is arresto menor to arresto mayor = Less Q: Can we apply the principle of conspiracy as found in Article 8 of
grave felony the RPC to a violation of special penal law?

If the penalty has a component of correctional penalty, it is A: SC in Go-Tan vs Tan held yes. RA 9262 expressly provides for the
automatic that it is a less grave felony even if it has the component
of a light felony. Q: In VAW-C, who can be the offender?
A: So the offender in VAW-C is the husband, ex-husband, spouse or
Q: What is the capital punishment under Article 25 of the RPC? any person who has/had sexual or dating relationship with the
A: There is only one which is death penalty. victim, woman.

Classifications of felonies under the RPC The parents in law stated that they cannot be impleaded as parties
➢ Under Article 3 or respondents in the VAW-C case simply because they are not
1. felonies by act among those persons included in that law who can be considered
2. felonies by omission as offenders.

➢ According to the manner of commission (Art 3) Q: What was the basis of Mrs. Go-Tan in impleading the parents in
1. Intentional felonies law?
2. Culpable felonies
A: According to Mrs. Go-Tan, the husband was in conspiracy with
➢ According to the stages of execution (Art 6) the parents in law. So the three of them conspired with one another
1. Attempted felony to cause acts of violence on the person of the private complainant.
2. Frustrated felony
3. Consummated felony
➢ Based on the gravity of the felony (Art 9) Q: Can we apply the principle of conspiracy as found in Article 8 of
1. Grave felonies the RPC to a violation of a special penal law?
2. Less grave felonies
3. Light felonies A: In Go-Tan v. Tan, yes. Because Republic Act No. 9262 expressly
provides for the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code.

ARTICLE 10 Q: Why do we say that the law expressly provides so?

A: Because there is Section 47 which states that, the Revised Penal
Code and other applicable laws shall have suppletory application.
ARTICLE 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. -
Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under
Here the Court said that the principle of conspiracy under Article 8
special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code
of the Revised Penal Code may be suppletory to Republic Act No.
shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
9262 because of the expressed provision of Section 47 that the
specially provide the contrary.
Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to said law. Thus, the
general provisions of the Revised Penal Code which, by their nature,
GO-TAN VS TAN
are necessarily applicable may be applied supplementary.
G.R. 168852 SEPTEMBER 30, 2008
So, this is what you call the Imputability Doctrine. Remember, the
Facts: Offender in VAWC is only husband ex-husband, spouse or
parents in law are not those offenders listed in Republic Act No.
any person who has or had sexual or dating relationship with
9262, but why were they included in the case? It is because of
victim. Parents in law raised the defense that they cannot be
conspiracy. Even if they are not related to the victim because they
included as the parties or respondents in the VAWC case
are not the possible offender contemplated by law in VAWC, but
because they are not among the persons enumerated in the
because of the principle of conspiracy, the act of an offender is
VAWC law to be charged. According to Go-tan the husband was
imputable to his co-conspirator although they are not similarly
in conspiracy with the parents-in law . The 3 offenders conspired
situated in relation to the object of the crime.
with each other to cause or commit acts of violence on Go-tan
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN FELONIES PUNISHED BY THE REVISED
Issue: Can the parents-in-law be impleaded in a VAWC
PENAL CODE AND FELONIES PUNISHED BY SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
complaint considering that the law did not included parent-in-
law in the list as possible offenders
Felonies punished by the RPC Felonies punished by Special
Penal Laws
Ruling: Based on Article 10, the general rule is that the RPC
Good faith may be raised as a Generally, good faith is not a
provisions are only applicable to violations of the RPC and
defense defense
cannot be applied to violation of special penal laws. RA 9262 is
For penalties, they may have Only punishes consummated
a special penal law.
stages: offenses
(1) Consummated,
(2) Frustrated, or
(3) Attempted
DISCUSSION
May also have accessories, Only the principals are
accomplices, and principals criminally liable

38 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Modifying circumstances are Modifying circumstances are ARTICLE 11: JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
considered not considered
Justifying circumstance – these are circumstances where a person
CHAPTER II or the offender is said to be justified in committing the act; if the
act is justified, in the eyes of the law, there is no crime committed.

GR: There is no criminal and civil liability because there is no source.

DISCUSSION
XPN: Civil liability can be borne despite the fact that the act is
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY: justified and there is no crime committed. Please see Article 11,
1. Justifying Circumstances (Article 11) Paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Exempting Circumstances (Article 12)
3. Mitigating Circumstances (Article 13) The civil liability is going to be born by the persons benefitted of the
4. Aggravating Circumstances (Article 14) act.
5. Alternative Circumstances (Article 15) Article 11. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not
incur any criminal liability:
Q: What happens when a person commits a crime? A killed B. A
committed the crime of homicide when he killed B. When a person 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
commits a crime, who can complain against A? provided that the following circumstances concur;

A: The heirs of B can file a complaint. First. Unlawful aggression.

When one commits a crime, that person or the offender may be Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
liable for two things: prevent or repel it.
1. Criminal Liability
2. Civil Liability Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
That’s why in criminal cases are entitled People of the Philippines
vs. X because the real complainant in a criminal case is not the 2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his
victim or the heirs, but the people of the Philippines or the State. spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or
When one commits a crime, the crime is directed not only against adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the
a particular person but against all the people or against the State. same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree, provided that the first and second requisites
Q: How about the heirs of the victim? Can they still file for a case prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present,
against the accused? Suppose there are expenses incurred (e.g., and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given by
bringing the victim to the hospital, funeral expenses, etc.), who the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part
shall be held liable for those? therein.

A: Yes. The expenses form part of what we call Civil Liability. 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a
stranger, provided that the first and second requisites
Q: Why is a person going to be held civilly liable after committing a mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are present
crime? and that the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive.
A: Legal Basis is Article 1157 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
or the sources of obligations. 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does
not act which causes damage to another, provided that the
SOURCES OF CIVIL OBLIGATIONS: following requisites are present;
1. Law
2. Contracts First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
3. Quasi-Contracts
4. Delicts Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
5. Quasi-Delicts avoid it;

Crimes are a source of civil obligation. When a person is criminally Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful
liable, he is also civilly liable. means of preventing it.

Revised Penal Code. Article 100. Civil liability of a 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the
person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally lawful exercise of a right or office.
liable for a felony is also civilly liable
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a
superior for some lawful purpose.

39 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

cases, it is our natural instinct to always defend our self; to self-

preserve. You don't need to wait for actual physical assault for it to
REQUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE be considered an unlawful aggression because it may be an
1. Unlawful aggression. imminent unlawful aggression or at the point of happening.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it. People vs. Gabrino
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person (March 9, 2011)
defending himself. FACTS: On December 30, 1993 in the Municipality of La Paz,
Province of Leyte, Philippines, the accused with intent to kill,
Paragraph of Article 11 introduces you to self-defense. with treachery and evident premeditation, did, then willfully,
Q: Why is self-defense a justifying circumstance? unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and wound one
A: This proceeds from necessity. JOSEPH BALANO with the use of bladed weapon locally known
as pisaw, which said accused had purposely provided himself,
For Classicist, there is a need for self defense to be considered a causing and inflicting upon JOSEPH BALANO wounds on his body
justifying circumstance because there is an impossibility on the part which caused his death shortly thereafter. According to the
of the State to avoid present unjust aggression. The number of the records, Arraignment was conducted on July 7, 2003.The
police officers is insufficient to look after us individually. Justyfying accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charge. A mandatory
circumstance is necessary because it is impossible for the state to pre-trial conference was done on October 1, 2003, thereafter,
guard each and every one of us from any aggression. trial ensued. A prosecution’s and defense version of facts was
presented during the trial.
For the Positivist, lawful defense is an exercise of a right. Its an act
of social justice done to repel the act of the aggressor. If somebody Issue: WON an incomplete self-defense may be made as a
physically assaults you and if you were to choose who will survive justifying circumstance.
the attack. Will it be you or the aggressor? It’s a natura instinct for
people to self-preserve. Ruling: Treachery was committed by accused-appellant. Evident
premeditation was not established as an aggravating
Pp. v. Boholst: The justification for self-defense is "That which circumstance. Incomplete self-defense cannot be made as a
anyone should do for the safety of his own person is to be adjudged justifying circumstance, because the element of unlawful
as having been done justly in his own favor." aggression is absent. Therefore, the accused is liable for
damages and interest.
Now why do I say that you need to memorize? Because for the
other two justifying circumstances, defense of relative and defense
of stranger; the first and second requisite are the same.
DISCUSSION

UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION In the Gabrino case, unlawful aggression was defined there as an
actual physical assault or at least a threat to inflict real imminent
Q: What are the two kinds of unlawful aggression? injury upon a person. Now in case of threat it must be offensive and
strong positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It
A: There are two kinds actual and imminent. presupposes actual sudden unexpected or imminent danger not
nearly threatened and intimidating action and it is present only
Q: What do we mean by unlawful aggression? when one attack faces real and immediate threat to one's life.

A: Unlawful aggression is actually a condition precedent, condition In the Gabrino case what was noted here was that the victim was
sine qua non to invoke self defense or incomplete self defense. alleged to be approaching the accused that he wanted to stab the
accused using an ice peak.
Article 13 of the RPC mitigating circumstance there is what we call
incomplete self-defense. From the term incomplete, there are Q: Is that considered an unlawful aggression?
three requisites only two are proved, either first or second requisite
or the first or third requisite. So in order for incomplete self- A: In this case the court said that the mere fact the victim was
defense to be invoke as a mitigating circumstance, the alleged to be approaching accused with an ice peak does not
indispensable requisite is the first requisite. And what is that constitute a real and imminent threat to one's life sufficient to
requisite? Unlawful aggression. This is equivalent to assault or at create an unlawful aggression. Mere perception of an intending
least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind. attack is not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression. So here
the court said that it is not attempting to strike. He was just
Example of Actual Unlawful Aggression. A stabbed B. B got his approaching the accused holding an ice peak. The court said that
knife and stabbed also A in defense of this person. There is already there is no unlawful aggression. It would have been different if
an actual physical assault on the person defending himself. when he approach the accused, he is in a stabbing stance or about
to stab using the ice peak and probably if he said that “I will kill you”
Example of Imminent Unlawful Aggression. A tried to stabbed B so while adapting a stabbing stance.
imminent at the point of happening, will B wait that he will be stab
by A before he can defend himself from the attack? So there is no
requirement for you to wait. In those kind of situation in most

40 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

People vs. Rubiso appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
(March 18, 2003) crime of murder.

Facts: On November 6, 1992, According to the accused, while he

was welding a tiller Serafin Hubines, Jr. passed by and kicked it. DISCUSSION
When he confronted appellant, the latter asked, "Why, do you
want to fight?" Then Hubines boxed appellant on his chest. He The appellant here insisted that when the victim pulled out his gun,
fell down on a sitting position. At that point, Hubines pulled his both grappled for its possession. They fell and then burst of gun fire
gun. Appellant immediately stood up and held Hubines’ hands. were heard. Rubiso said he must have killed the victim and he did
They grappled for its possession and both fell on the ground. so because he was defending himself.
Then the gun exploded. According to appellant, he was not sure
who "caused" the shot. He noticed that many people Q: So in the Rubiso case what did the act the victim do prior to him
approached them. Appellant lied down on his stomach and being shot?
covered his ears. That was the time he heard three or more
shots. He stood up and saw Hubines lying on the ground full of A: It was noted that the victim was found to be thrusting his hand
blood. He walked a few steps and met PO3 Danilo Opong. into his pocket as if he was about to pull out something either a gun
Appellant told the latter that he was only defending himself. or a knife. That is his position before he was shot by the accused.
Patrolman Opong then arrested him and brought him to the
Pavia Police Station for investigation. Meanwhile, Romeo Zuspa, Q:So when one person inserts his hand to his pocket as if drawing
a worker in the compound, took the firearm and gave it to a weapon is that considered an unlawful aggression?
Patrolman Opong who, in turn, "surrendered" it to his station.
A: You've learned in this case that the mere thrusting on one's hand
Issue: Whether or not the lower court erred in finding that into his pocket as if for the purpose of drawing a weapon is not
accused failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the unlawful aggression.
elements of self-defense despite the fact that the accused
proved the three elements of self-defense. A threat even if made with the weapon or the belief of that person
was about to attack is not sufficient. It is necessary that there would
be external act showing commencement of actual and material
Ruling: No. To successfully claim self-defense, the accused must unlawful aggression. Also in this case, self-defense here was
prove the existence of the following: (1) unlawful aggression on rejected. Apart from the fact there was no unlawful aggression, the
the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means court also noted here that there were six wounds inflicted on the
employed by the person being attacked to prevent or repel it; victim. Four wounds at the center of the chest, one wound on the
and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person chest and another one on the neck. So the court said that this is not
defending himself. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua a case of self-defense because there were six wounds inflicted on
non for the justifying circumstance of self- defense. It the victim. If truly the accused injured the victim out of self-
contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or defense, probably one wound or two wounds would be sufficient
imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or for the purpose of self-defense which is just to prevent or repeal
intimidating attitude. The person defending himself must have the aggression.
been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of
weapon. SPO2 Nacnac vs. People
(March 21, 2012)
Appellant insists that when the victim pulled out his gun, both
grappled for its possession. They fell and there were bursts of Facts: On February 20, 203, Petitioner, the victim and a number
gunfire. He must have killed the victim but he was only of other police officers were on duty. Petitioner, being the
defending himself. Assuming that Hubines had a gun and pulled highest ranking officer during the shift, was designated the
it, however, records show that he did not manifest any officer-of-the-day. In the evening, the victim, together with then
aggressive act which may have imperiled the life and limb of SPO1 Basilio, took the patrol tricycle from the station grounds.
herein appellant. It is axiomatic that the mere thrusting of one’s When petitioner saw this, he stopped the victim and his
hand into his pocket as if for the purpose of drawing a weapon colleague from using the tricycle. The victim told petitioner that
is not unlawful aggression. Even the cocking of a rifle without he (the victim) needed it to go to Laoag City to settle a previous
aiming the firearm at any particular target is not sufficient to disagreement with a security of a local bar. Petitioner still
conclude that one’s life was in imminent danger. Hence, a refused. He told the victim that he is needed at the station and,
threat, even if made with a weapon, or the belief that a person at any rate, he should stay at the station because he was drunk.
was about to be attacked, is not sufficient. It is necessary that This was not received well by the victim. He told petitioner in
the intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of aggression or by Ilocano: "Iyot ni inam kapi" (Coitus of your mother, cousin!). The
some external acts showing the commencement of actual and victim alighted from the tricycle. SPO1 Basilio did the same,
material unlawful aggression. Another factor which militates went inside the office, and left the accused-appellant and the
against appellant’s claim of self-defense is the nature and victim alone. The victim took a few steps and drew his .45 caliber
number of wounds suffered by the victim. Further, the location gun which was tucked in a holster on the right side of his chest.
and presence of gunshot wounds on the body of the victim Petitioner then fired his armalite upward as a warning shot.
eloquently refute appellant’s allegation of self-defense. It is an Undaunted, the victim still drew his gun. Petitioner then shot
oft repeated rule that the presence of a large number of the victim on the head, which caused the latter’s instantaneous
wounds, their location and their seriousness would negate self- death. The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime
defense. Instead, they indicate a determined effort to kill. The charged and held that the claim of self-defense by the accused
41 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

was unavailing due to the absence of unlawful aggression on the draw a weapon that's not an unlawful aggression. But in Nacnac v.
part of the victim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed People, the Supreme Court said that, yes. This time it's an unlawful
the findings of the trial court and held that the essential and aggression. Why? What's so special about the Nacnac case?
primary element of unlawful aggression was lacking.
So the court said that in the Nacnac case, the victim here was a
Issue: Whether or not the justifying circumstances of the police officer and a police officer is trained to shoot quickly and
petitioner’s acts constitute as valid self- defense. accurately. In fact, police officers are trained to shoot quickly get a
gun and accurately shoot somebody.
Ruling: Yes. Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code provides the
requisites for a valid self-defense claim. Unlawful aggression is So given this factual backdrop Supreme Court said that there is
an indispensable element of self-defense. "Without unlawful reasonable basis to presume that the accused in did felt that his life
aggression, self- defense will not have a leg to stand on and this is actually threatened. So facing an armed police officer, a trained
justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even police officer trained to shoot quickly and accurately, the court said
if the other elements are present." Ordinarily, there is a that there is that threat, imminent threat already on his life.
difference between the act of drawing one’s gun and the act of
pointing one’s gun at a target. The former cannot be said to be Therefore the court said the accused was able to prove that there
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful was an unlawful aggression, imminent unlawful aggression on this
aggression requires an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or person. Also it was noted here that because he is entitled to self-
imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or defense was apart of course from that discussion on unlawful
intimidating attitude x x x. The victim here was a trained police aggression. The Supreme Court noted that there was only one
officer. He was inebriated and had disobeyed a lawful order in wound however it is a headshot, and second after he shot the
order to settle a score with someone using a police vehicle. A victim what did the accused do? He immediately surrendered
warning shot fired by a fellow police officer, his superior, was himself to the authorities. Which in several cases decided that in
left unheeded as he reached for his own firearm and pointed it the Supreme Court is an indicator. One of the factors or indicator
at petitioner. Petitioner was, therefore, justified in defending that it is a self-defense.
himself from an inebriated and disobedient colleague. Even if
we were to disbelieve the claim that the victim pointed his So remember if you are face with the set of facts so examine if the
firearm at petitioner, there would still be a finding of unlawful facts are more or less similar to the Rubiso case, then you follow
aggression on the part of the victim. Hence, it now becomes the ruling of the court in that case. But if it’s a trained police officer
reasonably certain that in this specific case, it would have been who thrusted his hand on his pocket as if to draw a weapon and the
fatal for the petitioner to have waited for the victim to point his enemy is also a police officer, the court said you adapt the ruling in
gun before the petitioner fires back. The petitioner was Nacnac v. People.
therefore acquitted of homicide on reasonable doubt.
OTHER IMPORTANT CONCEPTS IN UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION:
DISCUSSION
o The aggression must be offensive and criminal.
There is an altercation, the accused and the victim. The victim was
inebriated. Then the victim draw his gun and then the accused shot Illustration: A pushed B and then B got his knife and stabbed A.
the victim on the head which cause the death and then the accused
later surrender to the police station. Q: Can B be entitled to self-defense?

Q: What's the defense of the accused? A: NO—B cannot invoke self-defense because the act of pushing
did not satisfy the three requisites for self-defense to prosper.
A: He invoked self-defense.
Q: Is there unlawful aggression there?
Remember in the Rubiso case, the Supreme Court stated that mere
thrusting of the hand into the pocket as if to draw a weapon is not Answer: No
an unlawful aggression.
Question: But do you consider pushing as an offensive act?
Q: In this case, according to the court was there unlawful
aggression when the victim thrust his hand into his pocket as if to Answer: Yes, the act is offensive.
draw a weapon? Since it appears that it is similar to the facts of the
Rubiso case. Before the accused shot the victim thrusting his hand The act may be considered offensive but sometimes it cannot be
in his pocket as if to draw something, a weapon probably a knife or considered as an unlawful aggression. For it to fall under lawful
a gun. aggression, there must be actual or threatened assault which
endangers the life and limb of a person.
A: Yes
Unlawful Aggression
Q: What's the difference now between the Nacnac case and the
Rubiso case? Similar situation but different ruling? In order for an act to fall under Unlawful Aggression, there must
be an actual or threatened assault that endangers the life and
A: Remember most of the facts on the unlawful aggression is the limb of a person.
same. In Rubiso, Supreme Court said that there's no unlawful
aggression if the person just put his hands on his pocket as if to
42 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Example: Inside a bar, when a person looks at you in an offensive 2ND REQUISITE: REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE
way and then the other person took the offense and in return MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT.
stabs the one who gave the look.
Prevent and repel. What must be prevented and what must be
Q: Is there unlawful aggression? repelled?

A: While the act is considered offensive, it’s not criminal or an Q: What kind of aggression must be prevented?
unlawful aggression.
A: It is the imminent unlawful aggression.
 In unlawful aggression, the aggression must continue.
Q: What kind of aggression must be repelled?
Illustration: A stabbed B. After stabbing B, A ran away. B took a
knife and ran after A and stabbed A. A: Actual unlawful aggression.

Q: Can we invoke self-defense? 2nd Element:

A: NO—the unlawful aggression of A stopped after he ran away Example: A stab B. B was injured and when A was about to stab
from B. B cannot claim that he is in self-defense because the again B, B got his gun and shot at A. So, A died as a result.
unlawful aggression stopped.
Q: Can B invoke self-defense?
If B took a knife and ran after and stabbed A, that is already a form
of retaliation or revenge which cannot counteract the unlawful A: (1) There was an unlawful aggression, an actual aggression (B
aggression. was stabbed. When B was about to be stabbed, he got his gun and
shot at A which led to A’s death). (2) Reasonable necessity of the
 Aggression must be non-mutual. means employed to prevent or repel the aggression (B used gun to
repel the knife of A) - doctrine of rational equivalence. There is no
Illustration: A and B had an altercation and then A will tell B to standard to repel an aggression especially in emergency situation
have A fist fight, and B agreed. Now they had a fist fight and B when your life is at risk. If A punches B does not mean B needs to
obtained greater injuries and complained that he just did that punch A as well.
(went into a fight) through self-defense.
DOCTRINE OF RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE
Q: Can self-defense be invoked in a mutual fight?

A: NO—in self-defense, the aggression here must be rather non

mutual, it must not be an incident to a fight. Espinosa vs. People
(March 15, 2010)
Q: How do you prove self-defense? FACTS:

A: The burden of proving self-defense lies on the one who invokes Facts: Merto (private complainant) sustained two (2) bone
it. fractures, one in his left leg and another in his left wrist following
o The accused or the defendant has the burden of proving the blow acquired from Espinosa. Prior to this, Metro, bearing a
self-defense. grudge against Espinosa went to the house of the latter and
o In invoking self-defense, there is already an admission shouted violent threats, challenging Espinosa to face him
that the offender killed or wounded the other person. outside.
o The accused must prove it by clear and convincing
evidence as a quantum of proof required. In response due to the fear of his family’s safety, Espinosa went
out of his house to reason with and pacify Merto. However, as
OTHER FACTORS NEGATING SELF-DEFENSE: soon as he drew near the private complainant, the latter hurled
a stone at the petitioner. The petitioner was able to duck just in
o The number, nature, and location of the wounds. time to avoid getting hit and instinctively retaliated by hitting
the left leg of the private complainant with a bolo scabbard. The
Illustration: The victim suffered 10 gunshot wounds. The accused private complainant fell to the ground. Petitioner then
invoked self-defense. continuously mauled the private complainant with a bolo
scabbard, until the latter’s cousin, Rodolfo Muya, restrained
It is possible in this situation that it is not self-defense. him.

SPO2 Nacnac v. People: There is only one wound inflicted but it Argument: Espinosa invokes the doctrine of rational
was located on the head. equivalence, as delineated in the case of delineated in People v.
Gutual, to wit:
o If there is failure to report or to surrender to authorities.
o When the accused is not injured. (Claiming that one has It is settled that reasonable necessity of the means employed
been attacked and injured first without any proof of does not imply material commensurability between the means
injuries). of attack and defense. What the law requires is rational
equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter the

43 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which Petitioner claimed that he, together with his children, went to
the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than the the workplace of his wife, Darlene Dela Cruz to fetch her. The
reason, that moves or impels the defense, and the petitioner underwent regular security check-up/procedures
proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm before entering the building and upon reaching the 25th floor of
done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. the said building. Said check-ups found no firearm in his
possession.
Issue: Whether under the set of facts given in this case,
complete self-defense may be appreciated in favor of the However, as Darlene was not at her table, the petitioner
petitioner. approached a certain man and asked the latter as to the
whereabouts of his wife after introducing himself as Darlene’s
Ruling: The very application of the doctrine of rational husband. The petitioner was asked why he was looking for
equivalence, invoked by the petitioner, militates against his Darlene in which he replied that he was asked to fetch her. The
claim. The doctrine of rational equivalence presupposes the response given by Jeffrey shocked and appalled the petitioner:
consideration not only of the nature and quality of the weapons “Ayaw na nga ng asawa mo sayo sinusundo mo pa!“
used by the defender and the assailant—but of the totality of
circumstances surrounding the defense vis-à-vis, the unlawful Petitioner tried to inquire who he was but Jeffrey suddenly
aggression. cursed the petitioner. Jeffrey suddenly picked up something in
his chair which happened to be a gun and pointed the same at
Significantly, a perusal of the facts shows that after petitioner the petitioner’s face followed by a clicking sound. The gun,
was successful in taking down private complainant Merto—the however, did not fire.
former continued to hack the latter, who was, by then, already
neutralized by the blow. This fact was clearly established by the Seeing the imminent danger to his life, the petitioner grappled
testimony of Rodolfo Muya, who recounted having seen the with Jeffrey for the possession of the gun. The former was able
petitioner continuously hacking the private complainant with to wrest away the gun and tried to flee to avoid any further
the bolo scabbard, even as the latter lay almost motionless upon confrontation. Jeffrey immediately blocked the petitioner’s path
the muddy ground. Clearly, this "continuous hacking" by the and shouted, “Guard! Guard!” Jeffrey took hold of a fire
petitioner constitutes force beyond what is reasonably required extinguisher, aimed, and was about to smash the same on
to repel the private complainant’s attack—and is therefore petitioner’s head. Acting instinctively, the petitioner parried the
unjustified. attack while still holding the gun. The gun accidentally fired and
the single bullet discharged hit the forehead of Jeffrey, which
caused the latter to fall on the floor and die.

DISCUSSION ISSUE: Whether or not the elements of self-defense exist to

exculpate petitioner from the criminal liability of murder.
The Doctrine of Rational Equivalence presupposes consideration
not only in the nature of the quality of the weapons used by the RULING: Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of
defender and the assailant but the totality of the circumstances self-defense. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or
surrounding the defense vis-a-vis the unlawful aggression. imminent danger — not merely threatening and intimidating
action. There is aggression, only when the one attacked faces a
The Court said that significantly the facts would show that the real and immediate threat to his life. The peril sought to be
accused was successful in taking down the private complainant, the avoided must be imminent and actual, not merely speculative.
latter, the petitioner continued to hack who was then the private In the case at bar, other than petitioner’s testimony, the defense
already neutralized by the blow. The continuing hacking by the did not adduce evidence to show that Jeffrey condescendingly
petitioner constitutes force beyond what is reasonably required to responded to petitioner’s questions or initiated the
repel the private complainant’s attack and is therefore unjustified. confrontation before the shooting incident; that Jeffrey pulled a
gun from his chair and tried to shoot petitioner but failed — an
Dela Cruz vs. People assault which may have caused petitioner to fear for his life.
(November 19, 2014)
Even assuming that the gun originated from Jeffrey and an
Facts: Dela Cruz, the petitioner went to the work station of the altercation transpired and danger may have in fact existed, the
deceased victim, Jeffrey Wernher L. Gonzales, who was seated imminence of that danger had already ceased the moment
fronting his computer with his back towards the aisle. As the petitioner disarmed Jeffrey by wresting the gun from the latter.
petitioner approached Jeffrey from the back, he was already After the petitioner had successfully seized it, there was no
holding a gun pointed at the back of Jeffrey’s head. A short longer any unlawful aggression to speak of that would have
struggle for the possession of the gun ensued thereafter. necessitated the need to kill Jeffrey.
Petitioner won the struggle and then pointed the gun at Jeffrey’s
face, pulled the trigger four (4) times, the fourth shot finally When an unlawful aggression that has begun no longer exists,
discharging the bullet that hit Jeffrey in the forehead, eventually the one who resorts to self-defense has no right to kill or even
killing him. Finally, after shooting Jeffrey, the petitioner fled the wound the former aggressor.
office.

The defense recounted a different version of the facts.

DISCUSSION

44 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Same Doctrine of Rational Equivalence applied. The lower court

acquitted Tangan of illegal possession of firearm, but convicted
The Court said that the means employed by the person invoking him of homicide. The privileged mitigating circumstance of
self-defense contemplates a rational equivalence between the incomplete self-defense and the ordinary mitigating
means of attack and defense. The Court noted that the victim circumstances of sufficient provocation on the part of the
punched the accused and he was trying to get something from his offended party and of passion and obfuscation were
waist. The accused stabbed the victim with his hunting knife. The appreciated in his favor. CA affirmed judgment of trial court.
stab wound injured a vital part of the victim’s body. The Court here
stated that there was NO RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE between the Issue: WON there is sufficient provocation in this case.
means of attack and the defense.
Ruling: No.
This case cited the case of Pp. v. Obordo. Th victim was holding the The third requisite of lack of sufficient provocation on the part
fire extinguisher and was using it to assault the accused. The of the person defending himself is not supported by evidence.
accused then was holding a gun and shot the victim. So the court By repeatedly blocking the path of the Mirandas for almost five
held that the discharge or the use of the gun was unnecessary and times, Tangan was in effect the one who provoked the former.
disproportionate to repel the alleged aggression with the use of a The repeated blowing of horns, assuming it was done by
fire extinguisher. Generoso, may be irritating to an impatient driver but it
certainly could not be considered as creating so powerful an
3RD REQUISITE: LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION inducement as to incite provocation for the other party to act
ON THE PART OF THE PERSON DEFENDING HIMSELF violently.

Sufficient provocation as a requisite of incomplete self-

defense is different from sufficient provocation as a mitigating
Tangan vs. CA circumstance. As an element of self-defense, it pertains to its
(January 15, 2002) absence on the part of the person defending himself; while as a
mitigating circumstance, it pertains to its presence on the
Victim is Generoso Miranda, 29 yo optometrist. Accused is Nav part of the offended party.
y Captain EladioTangan.Both were driving along Roxas Boulevar DISCUSSION
d and they had several encounters on theroad that caused
anger to both parties. Gereroso The Court noted that there was no unlawful aggression on the part
pulled over and got off his car, so did Tangan where they excha of the deceased. What actually happened here was just a heated
nged expletives: Putang ina mo, bakit mo ginigitgit ang sasakyan exchanged of words between the accused and the victim. Heated
ko?" Generoso and Tangan then exchanged expletives. Tangan exchange of words does not constitute as an unlawful aggression.
pointed his hand to Generoso and the latter slappedit, saying, The Court further noted that the provocation was not sufficient to
"Huwag mo akong dinuduro! Sino ka ba, ano ba excite a person to commit a wrongful act. The victim here nearly
ang pinagmamalakimo?" Tangan countered, "Ikaw, ano ang shouted bad words and slapped the petitioner’s hand when the
gusto mo?" With this, Tangan went to hiscar and got his .38 petitioner was pointing at the victim. Hence, the court ruled that it
caliber handgun on the front seat. was not sufficient provocation.

Prosecution claims that accused pointed the gun to Generoso a NOTE: When we say sufficient provocation, it must be
nd shot Miranda at a distance of about a meter. The shot hit the proportionate to the gravity.
stomach of Generoso Miranda causing the latter to fall and
while still conscious, Generoso Miranda told Manuel Miranda,
his uncle also riding his car, to get the gun. Manuel Miranda Stand Ground When in the Right Principle
grappled for the possession of the gun and during
their grappling, Rosalia Cruz intervened and took hold of the gun This applies when the person is unlawfully assaulted and if the
and after Rosalia Cruz has taken hold of the gun, a man wearing aggressor is armed with the weapon, the assailed may face his
a red T-shirt took the gun from her. The man in T-shirt was aggressor and is not required to take refuge in flight.
chased by Manuel Miranda who was able to get the gun where
the man in red T-shirt placed it. This is now the rule that we follow provided that the requisites of
self defense are present
The defense, however, claims that after the gun was taken by t
he accused from inside his car, the Mirandas started to grapple Retreat to the Wall Doctrine
for possession of the gun and during the grappling, and while
the two Mirandas were trying to wrest away the gun from the This is an old principle and is the opposite of Stand Ground When
accused, they fell down at the back of the car of the accused. in the Right Principle. If you are faced with an unlawful aggression,
According to the accused, he lost the possession of the gun after the duty is to retreat as far as we can.
falling at the back of his car and as soon as they hit the ground,
the gun fell, and it exploded hitting Generoso Miranda. So he EXAMPLE:
now claims self defense as a justifying circumstance.
When a person is running after you to kill you, and in the case that
Tangan was then charged with homicide with the use of a licen he caught you, you have left no choice but to face the aggressor
sed firearm, and hewas separately charged with illegal and make a self-defense.
possession of unlicensed firearm.
45 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Q: What if the requisites of self-defense are not present?

People vs. Narvaez
A: The accused is entitled to incomplete self-defense. HOWEVER, (April 20, 1983)
the first requisite which is unlawful aggression is indispensable. Normal Facts:
Facts: Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder for the
death of David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia. . On Aug. 22, 1968,
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY RIGHT Narvaez was taking a nap in the afternoon when he heard
sounds of construction and found a fence being made. Fleischer
and Rubia were constructing a fence that would prevent
EXAMPLE: Supposed A saw B, a robber, entered his house. A saw Narvaez from getting into his house and rice mill. Defendant
the robber was picking some of his personal properties. A got a gun addressed the group and asked them to stop and talk things
and shot the robber caused the death of the latter. over. Fleischer responded with, "No, gadamit, proceed, go
ahead." Narvaez lost his equilibrium and shot Fleischer. Rubia
Q: Can A invoke self-defense (of property rights)? ran towards the jeep where a gun was available but Narvaez
shot him before reaching such. . It is said that the incident is
OLD RULE intertwined with the long drawn out legal battle between
Fleischer and Co., Inc. and the land settlers of Cotobato among
A: NO. Applying the Apolinar Doctrine, there was NO ATTACK on his whom was Narvaez. At the time of the shooting, the civil case
person. A was not attacked by the robber. You can only invoke self- between the parties was still pending for annulment where the
defense in relation to defense of property when the attack to the settlers wanted granting of property to Fleischer to be annulled.
property right is coupled with the attack to the person or the owner At the time of the shooting, Narvaez had leased his property
of the property. from Fleischer to avoid conflict. On June 25, Narvaez received a
letter terminating the contract because he has not paid rent for
NOTE: The basis of defense of property right is based on the six months to the company. He was given 6 months to remove
Principle of Self-Help under Article 429 of CC. Under this principle, his house, ricemill, bodega, and water pitcher pumps. The
the defender may employ a reasonable or necessary means to shooting happened barely 2 months after the letter. • Narvaez
prevent or repel unlawful aggression against his property right claimed that he acted in defense of his person and property but
pursuant to the rule on self-defense in relation to the Principle of the CFI of Cotabato ruled that he was guilty of murder. He was
Self-Help. originally sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the
heirs, and to pay for moral damages.
If one assaults your property right, under the Principle of Self-Help,
that is considered an assault already on the person or the owner or Issue: WON the lower court erred in convicting Narvaez of
possessor of the right. murder despite the fact the he acted in defense of his person
and rights.
People vs. Apolinar
(CA 38, OG 2870) Ruling: YES. Narvaez admitted having shot the two deceased but
did so in defense of his person and of his property however, he
FACTS: On or about 6:19 PM on November 20, 1991 at Brgy M. cannot be exempted from criminal liability because the
Pandeno, Municipality of Siniloan, Laguna, accused PO3 argument of the justifying circumstance of self-defense is
Apolinar E. Dando conveniently armed with a deadly weapon applicable only if the 3 requisites are present (unlawful
(cal .45) with intent to kill, with treachery and evident aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to
premeditation did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part
feloniously attack, assault, and shoot several times one Cesar of the person defending himself). Although there was unlawful
Castro y Valmonte with the said weapon thereby inflicting upon aggression on the part of the victims towards Narvaez's property
him gunshot wounds on the vital parts of his body which directly rights and lack (or absence even) of provocation since appellant
caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of the surviving was resting, it was not a reasonable necessity for him to kill the
heirs of the victims. two. Since not all requisites were present, defendant is credited
with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-
ISSUE: WON There is self-defense. defense. Also, there was no direct evidence of planning or
preparing to kill. The crime committed was homicide and the
RULING: NO. The right to property is not of suchimportance as penalty for such is reclusion temporal but due to mitigating
right to life, and defense of property can be invoked as a circumstances of voluntary surrender and obfuscation and
justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on incomplete self-defense, penalty was lowered to arresto mayor.
the person of one Appellant has been under detention for almost 14 years thus his
Entrusted with said property. immediate release was ordered by the Court.

DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION The accused was taking a rest. When he heard that the walls of his
Defense of Property is of not such importance as such right to life house are being chiseled, he went to the source of the sound and
when the defense of property can be invoked as a justifying asked the laborers why they did that (destroying the walls). The
circumstance only when it is coupled with attack on the person of laborer did not mind him and continued chiseling as he was just
the one entrusted with the said property. acting upon the instruction of his employer. In this case, there was
46 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

a property dispute between accused and Davis. Because of what he her honor.
saw, the accused got his gun and shot the two, Davis and Rubia.
Ruling: No. Conviction of defendant is sustained and cannot be
Q: The question in this case is can accuse invoke self-defense? declared completely exempt from criminal liability. To be
entitled to a complete self defense of honor, there must be an
A: In this case, the court said that there is an unlawful aggression. attempt to rape. To provide for a justifying circumstance of self-
The requisite of unlawful aggression was present. Based on the defense, there must be a) Unlawful aggression, b) Reasonable
facts, there seems to be no attack in the person of Narvaez. There necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, c) Lack
is an attack on his property rights but there is no physical attack on of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
his person. Nonetheless, the court said that there is unlawful himself. Attempt to rape is an unlawful aggression. However,
aggression. However, the accused cannot invoke self-defense under the circumstances of the offense, there was no possibility
because the second requisite is lacking. of the defendant to be raped as they were inside the chapel
lighted with electric lights and contained several people.
Q: What is that second requisite? Thrusting at the base of Capino’s neck as her means to repel
aggression is not reasonable but is instead, excessive.
A: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
the aggression.

The rule now is that the attack on property right need not be DISCUSSION
coupled with an attack on the person or the owner of property in
order for there to be unlawful aggression. There was this guy who liked Jaurigue up to the point that he would
stalk her. She wasn’t her type. The guy expressed his intentions
DEFENSE OF CHASTITY toward her but she did not like him. One time, when Jaurigue went
inside the chapel, she was armed with a knife. As she entered the
People vs. Jaurigue chapel, the accused followed her. The victim put his hand on the
February 21, 1946 right thigh of Jaurigue. The accused got offended by that act and
she felt that she was about to be sexually assaulted by the victim.
Facts: Avelina Jaurigue and Nicolas Jaurigue, her father, were So she got the knife and stabbed the man which stabbed his neck
prosecuted for the crime of murder for which Nicolas was that lead to his death.
acquitted while Avelina was found guilty of homicide. She
appealed to the Court of Appeals for Southern Luzon on June 10, The point in this case was that the act of Jaurigue maybe considered
1944 to completely absolve her of all criminal responsibility for as a defense of chastity. This is still a part of self-defense.
having acted in defense of her honor, to find in her favour
additional mitigating circumstances. BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
At about 8:00 PM of September 20, 1942, Amado Capina, Section 26 of R.A. 9262 – Victim-survivors who are found by the
deceased victim, went to the chapel of Seventh Day Adventists courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur
to attend religious services and sat at the front bench facing the any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any
altar. Avelina Jaurigue entered the chapel shortly after the of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under
arrival of her father for the same purpose and sat on the bench the RPC.
next to the last one nearest the door. Upon seeing Avelina,
Amado went and sat by Avelina’s right side from his seat on the Definition: refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological
other side of the chapel, and without saying a word, placed his and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering
hand on the upper part of her right thigh. Avelina Jaurigue, relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
therafter, pulled out with her right hand the fan knife which she
had in a pocket of her dress with the intention of punishing “Dating Relationship” – refers to a situation wherein the parties live
Amado’s offending hand. Amado seized her right hand but she as husband and wife without the benefit or marriage or are
quickly grabbed the knife on her left hand and stabbed Amado romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during
once at the base of the left side of the neck inflicting upon him the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary
a wound about 4 ½ inches deep, which is mortal. Nicolas saw socialization between two individuals in a business or social context
Capina bleeding and staggering towards the altar, and upon is not a dating relationship.
seeing his daughter approached her and asked her the reason
for her action to which Avelina replied, “Father, I could not People vs. Genosa
endure anymore”. January 15, 2004

Amado Capina died a few minutes after. Barrio lieutenant, Facts: From the versions of both the prosecution and the
Casimiro Lozada was there and Avelina surrendered herself. defense, the following facts are extracted:
Lozada advised the Jaurigues to go home immediately for fear
of retaliation of Capina’s relatives. Appellant was married to the victim Ben Genosa. In their first
year of marriage, Marivic and Ben lived happily but soon
Issue: WON the defendant should be completely absolved of all thereafter, the couple would quarrel often and their fights
criminal responsibility because she is justified in having acted in would become violent. Ben, a habitual drinker, became cruel to
the legitimate defense of Marivic; he would provoke her, slap her, pin her down on the

47 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

bed or beat her. These incidents happened several times and evidence of actual physical assault at the time of the killing is not
Marivic would often run home to her parents. She had tried to required. Incidents of domestic battery usually have a
leave her husband at least five times, but Ben would always predictable pattern. To require the battered person to await an
follow her and they would reconcile. obvious, deadly attack before she can defend her life "would
amount to sentencing her to 'murder by installment.'" Still,
On the night of the killing, appellant, who was then eight impending danger (based on the conduct of the victim in
months pregnant, and the victim quarreled. The latter beat previous battering episodes) prior to the defendant's use of
her, however, she was able to run to another room. Allegedly deadly force must be shown. Threatening behavior or
there was no provocation on her part when she got home that communication can satisfy the required imminence of danger.
night, and it was her husband who began the provocation. Considering such circumstances and the existence of BWS, self-
Frightened that her husband would hurt her and wanting to defense may be appreciated.
make sure she would deliver her baby safely, appellant
admitted having killed the victim, who was then sleeping at the We reiterate the principle that aggression, if not continuous,
time, with the use of a gun. She was convicted of the crime of does not warrant self-defense. In the absence of such
parricide. Experts opined that Marivic fits the profile of a aggression, there can be no self-defense -- complete or
battered woman syndrome and at the time she killed her incomplete -- on the part of the victim. Thus, Marivic's killing of
husband, her mental condition was that she was re- Ben was not completely justified under the circumstances.
experiencing the trauma, together with the imprint of all the
abuses that she had experienced in the past.
Had Ben still been awaiting Marivic when she came out of their
Issue: WON appellant can invoke the Battered Woman children's bedroom -- and based on past violent incidents, there
Syndrome (BWS) as self-defense. was a great probability that he would still have pursued her and
inflicted graver harm -- then, the imminence of the real threat
Ruling: No. upon her life would not have ceased yet. Where the brutalized
In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a relationship person is already suffering from BWS, further
does not in itself establish the legal right of the woman to kill
her abusive partner. Evidence must still be considered in the
context of self-defense.
DISCUSSION
From the expert opinions discussed, the Court reckons further
that crucial to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the In People v. Genosa, the defense of BWS was first introduced. But
battered woman at the time of the offense -- she must have this case was decided by the Supreme Court prior to the enactment
actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and honestly of RA 9262.
believed in the need to kill him in order to save her life.
There is this woman who was alleged to be physically battered by
Settled in our jurisprudence, however, is the rule that the one his husband. There were several instances where she was physically
who resorts to self-defense must face a real threat on one's life; assaulted by husband. She was emotionally battered. At one point,
and the peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, maybe she was fed up with her husband. Even while she was
not merely imaginary. Thus, the Revised Penal Code provides pregnant, she was still physically assaulted by the husband. When
the following requisites and effect of self-defense: she saw her husband sleeping, she killed him. She was charged with
parricide. She invoked self-defense and defense of unborn child.
"Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. -- The following do not incur She said that at the time of the physical assault, she was pregnant
any criminal liability: with her child.
"1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided
that the following circumstances concur; When the lower court found her guilty of parricide, she filed an
First. Unlawful aggression; appeal in the Supreme Court and added another defense.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; Q: What is that additional defense?
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself." A: Her affliction of Battered Woman Syndrome. But the Supreme
Court still found her liable for parricide. She was not entitled to self-
Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self- defense because there was no unlawful aggression. She killed her
defense. It presupposes actual, sudden and unexpected attack - husband while her husband was asleep. In regard to her second
- or an imminent danger thereof -- on the life or safety of a defense, the Supreme Court ruled that in as much as Genosa is
person. In the present case, however, according to the indeed pitiful, even if she was pregnant when she was assaulted,
testimony of Marivic herself, there was a sufficient time interval there is no law which says that defense of unborn child is a justifying
between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal attack or exempting circumstance.
upon him. She had already been able to withdraw from his
violent behavior and escape to their children's bedroom. During While she alleges that she is afflicted with BWS, the Supreme Court
that time, he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. The said that BWS was not proven. Nonetheless, this woman is suffering
reality or even the imminence of the danger he posed had ended from some sort of psychological paralysis which was used as a
altogether. He was no longer in a position that presented an mitigating circumstance.
actual threat on her life or safety.

48 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Q: If she was able to prove that she suffered with BWS and the savage and out of control, such that innocent bystanders
Genosa case happened now, will she incur liability? or intervenors are likely to get hurt.

A: No. Based on Section 26 of RA 9262. Victim-survivors, women 3. Tranquil Period” During this tranquil period, the couple
found sick with BWS will not incur criminal and civil liability experience profound relief. On the one hand, the
regardless if she invoked self defense and its requisites are absent. batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior
towards his partner. He knows that he has been viciously
cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her
forgiveness and promising never to beat her again. On
CYCLES OF VIOLENCE IN BWS the other hand, the battered woman also tries to
convince herself that the battery will never happen again;
Also, the court discussed the three stages in the cycle of violence. that her partner will change for the better; and that this
This was asked in the Bar Exam. "good, gentle and caring man" is the real person whom
she loves.
Q: What is the cycle of violence?
It’s just a cycle, the husband arriving at home and have
A: The answer cannot be found in the RPC and RA 9262 but in the an argument with his wife. Then the husband physically
case of Pp. v. Genosa. assaults the wife. After the assault, the abuser will try to
win her partner so that they could get back together.
There are three stages in the cycle of violence. Then you have the tranquil phase. After which, they
would have another argument so it’s a cycle.
1. Tension-building Phase: Minor battering occurs -- it
could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form Q: How many times must a woman undergo that cycle?
of hostile behavior. The woman usually tries to pacify the
batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or A: According to the Supreme Court, she must undergo at least two
by simply staying out of his way. What actually happens cycles but in RA 9262, the law did not state that there should be at
is that she allows herself to be abused in ways that, to least two incidents or two cycles of violence that the woman will
her, are comparatively minor. All she wants is to prevent experience in order for her to be considered a battered woman.
the escalation of the violence exhibited by the batterer. Even a single isolated incident of abuse can even make the
This wish, however, proves to be double-edged, because offender liable.
her "placatory" and passive behavior legitimizes his belief
that he has the right to abuse her in the first place. In cases of VAWC, the woman can also invoke self-defense.

However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her People vs. Boholst
effort to placate him are not usually successful, and the (November 25, 1974)
verbal and/or physical abuse worsens. Each partner
senses the imminent loss of control and the growing Facts: Accused Cunigunda Boholst was met on the way by her
tension and despair. Exhausted from the persistent husband Francisco Caballero immediately after caroling.
stress, the battered woman soon withdraws emotionally. Accused was manhandled by Francisco and when she was
But the more she becomes emotionally unavailable, the struggling to get loose from her husband she happened to take
more the batterer becomes angry, oppressive and hold of a knife that was placed under the belt of her husband.
abusive. Often, at some unpredictable point, the violence Accused was able to thrust said knife to her husband’s body
"spirals out of control" and leads to an acute battering hitting the left back portion just below the waist of her husband.
incident. Francisco died but the SC acquitted Cunigunda because she
acted in the legitimate defense of her person. All the elements
2. Acute-battering Incident: Is said to be characterized by of self-defense are present.
brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The
battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, Issue: Did Cunigunda stab her husband in the legitimate defense
yet also inevitable. During this phase, she has no control; of her person?
only the batterer may put an end to the violence. Its
nature can be as unpredictable as the time of its Ruling: Yes.
explosion, and so are his reasons for ending it. The All the elements of self-defense are present.
battered woman usually realizes that she cannot reason
with him, and that resistance would only exacerbate her Unlawful aggression – Meeting his wife unexpectedly at past
condition. midnight on the road, Francisco reacted angrily, and suspecting
that she was out for some bad purpose he held her by the collar
At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the of her dress and said: "Where have you been prostituting? You
attack and the terrible pain, although she may later are a son of a bitch." This was followed by a slapping on the face
clearly remember every detail. Her apparent passivity in until Cunigunda's nose bled, pulling of her hair, pushing her
the face of acute violence may be rationalized thus: the down to the ground, and strangling her.
batterer is almost always much stronger physically, and
she knows from her past painful experience that it is futile Reasonable necessity for the means employed – Cunigunda was
to fight back. Acute battering incidents are often very being strangled and choked by a furious aggressor and rendered
almost unconscious by the strong pressure on her throat. She
49 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

had no other recourse but to get hold of any weapon within her Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. -
reach to save herself from impending death. Reasonable the following are exempt from criminal liability:
necessity of the means employed in self-defense does not
depend upon the harm done but rests upon the imminent 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has
danger of such injury (U.S. vs. Paras, 1907, 9 Phil. 367). The fact acted during a lucid interval.
that there was no visible injury caused on the body of the
accused which necessitated medical attention is no ground for When the imbecile or an insane person has committed
discrediting self-defense; what is vital is that there was an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the
imminent peril to the accused’s life caused by the unlawful court shall order his confinement in one of the
aggression of her husband. The knife tucked in her husband's hospitals or asylums established for persons thus
belt afforded the accused the only reasonable means with which afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave
she could free and save herself from being strangled and choked without first obtaining the permission of the same
to death. court.

It should be borne in mind that in emergencies of this kind 2. A person under nine years of age.
human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but
in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation; and when it is 3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen,
apparent, as in this case, that a person has reasonably acted unless he has acted with discernment, in which case,
upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction the act such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance
and to hold the actor irresponsible in law for the consequences with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.
(People vs. Lara, 1925, 48 Phil. 153). Necessitas Non habet
legem. Necessity knows no law. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall
defending himself - Provocation is sufficient when it is commit him to the care and custody of his family who
proportionate to the aggression, that is, adequate enough to shall be charged with his surveillance and education
impel one to attack the person claiming self-defense. otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some
Cunigunda did not give sufficient provocation to warrant the institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80.
aggression or attack on her person by her husband. While it was
understandable for Francisco to be angry at his wife for finding 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with
her on the road in the middle of the night, however, he was not due care, causes an injury by mere accident without
justified in inflicting bodily punishment with an intent to kill by fault or intention of causing it.
choking his wife's throat. All that the accused did was to provoke
an imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of her husband, 5. Any person who act under the compulsion of
which is not a sufficient provocation under the law of self- irresistible force.
defense.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
DISCUSSION
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by
She killed the husband when he was in the act of choking her. The law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable
Supreme Court ruled that all the requisites of self-defense were cause.
present in this case.
Q. What happens if the accused or the offender proves an
exempting circumstance? What is the effect of an exempting
circumstance to the accused criminal as well as civil liability? How
are exempting circumstances different from justifying
circumstances?

Exempting circumstances – there is a crime committed, but there

will be no criminal liability. Since there is a crime committed, you
all know that a crime is a source of civil obligation or civil liability.
Hence if the accused proves an exempting circumstance, in the eyes
of the law, there’s a crime committed but he will not incur any
criminal liability. However, since there’s a crime committed, there
will be civil liability.

As a general rule, if there’s an exempting circumstance there is civil

liability however there are two instances where there is no civil
liability: Paragraph 4 and paragraph 7.

50 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Q. How are exempting circumstances different from justifying

circumstances? A. The courts use 2 tests stated in the case of Pp vs. Formigones,
(87 Phil 658)
Justifying circumstances Exempting Circumstances
When the accused proves it, If proved by the offender, he a. Test of cognition: there should be a determination
the act is considered justified, will be exempt from any whether there was a “complete deprivation of
in the eyes of the law there is criminal liability but will still intelligence in committing the criminal act”
no crime committed hence incur criminal liability except
there will be criminal liability in Paragraphs 4 and 7. b. Test of volition: determination is made whether there
as well as civil liability. was a “total deprivation of freedom of the will”.
Determination on whether or not the accused or offender
Exception: Paragraph 4 lost or have no control over his or her acts
(avoidance of greater evil or
injury) *Supreme court uses and relies on the Test of cognition (Pp vs.
Opuran)
What are these exempting circumstances?

Paragraph 1, Article 12. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the Elements of insanity
latter has acted during a lucid interval.
a. Offender must be insane when at the time of the
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which commission of the crime;
the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for b. And that he has not acted during a lucid interval
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave
without first obtaining the permission of the same court. Non compos mentis: An adjective referring to someone who is
insane or not mentally competent to conduct one’s affair.

A. INSANITY

Paragraph 1 of Article 12 takes about imbeciles or insane persons People vs. Domingo,
as actors exempt in criminal liability. 580 SCRA 436, March 2, 2009

Imbecility Insanity Facts: The Court of Appeals found appellant Jesus Domingo
Feeblemindedness, or a Evinced by a deranged and guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, attempted murder,
mental condition approaching perverted condition of the frustrated murder, and frustrated homicide.
that of one who is insane. mental faculties which is in On or about the 29th day of March 2000, complainant and her
Analogous to childishness and language and conduct. When children were sleeping inside their house when Domingo when
dotage. a person is insane, he has no she was awakened when the accused entered their kitchen
full and clear understanding of armed with a screwdriver and a kitchen knife. He stabbed the
the nature and consequences complainant and her children. Raquel Indon, complainant,
of his act. pleaded the appellant to spare her daughter but teh appellant
answered “Ngayon pa, nagawa ko na”. Two of her children died.
Two elements of insanity: Five years passed, the defense counsel said that nine days prior
1. The offender is insane; the commission of the crime, appellant suffered sleeplessness,
2. The offender has not acted on a lucid interval. lack of appetite, and nervousness. Occasionally, a voice would
tell him to kill. Appellant averred that when he regained his
Lucid interval – considered to be a phase which may last a few memory, one week had already passed since the incidents, and
seconds, minutes, hours or more. This is a phase of the life of an he was already detained. They submitted a psychiatric
insane person not insane. evaluation, and psychological examination as evidence that
appellant suffered from Schizophrenia, a mental disorder
Q.When does a person considered as sane? characterized by the presence of delusions and or
hallucinations, disorganized speech and behavior, poor impulse
The person must be insane at the time of the commission of the control and low frustration tolerance. The doctor could not find
crime in order to invoke exempting circumstance. out when the appellant started to suffer this illness, but the
symptoms of Schizophrenia which were manifested by the
Q:Who has the burden of proving insanity? patient indicated that he suffered from the illness six months
A: The accused. The one who alleges it has the burden of proving it. before the Center examined the appellant. The counsel of the
appellant raised the defense of insanity of the appellant.
*There is a presumption in civil law that all of us are sane. NOTE:
THIS IS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION. ISSUE: WON the appellant is exempt from criminal liability on
the ground of insanity
Q: How to Courts determine insanity?
RULING: No, the defense of insanity is unmeritorious. Insanity
exempts the accused only when the finding of mental disorder
51 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

refers to appellant’s state of mind immediately before or at the FACTS: Fernando Madarang was charged with parricide for
very moment of the commission of the crime. This was not the killing his wife Lillia Madarang. He refused to enter a plea during
case in the issue at bar, what was presented was proof of arraignment, and so was entered as “not guilty” in accordance
appellant’s mental disorder that existed five years after the to the rules of court. Counsel for the accused manifested that
incident, but not at the time the crimes were committed. The his client had been observed exhibiting abnormal behavior.
RTC also considered it crucial that appellant had the presence of Court decided to transfer accused to the National Center for
mind to respond to Raquel Indon’s pleas that her daughters be Mental Health, after refusal to answer any question. Initial
spared by saying, “Ngayon pa, nagawa ko na.” examination at NCMH revealed Fernando as suffering from
Even assuming that nine days prior the crime the appellant was schizophrenia. He was detained and medicated at the hospital.
hearing voices ordering him to kill people, while suggestive of an He was discharged after 2 years, and recommitted at the
abnormal mental condition, cannot be equated with a total provincial jail after being found fit to face charges. At the trial, it
deprivation of will or an absence of the power to discern. Mere was established that the accused was legally married to the
abnormality of mental faculties will not exclude imputability. victim, and their union resulted in 7 children. He worked as a
The law presumes every man to be of sound mind. Otherwise seaman for 16 years, and thereafter started a hardware store
stated, the law presumes that all acts are voluntary, and that it business. His venture failed, and he lost his entire fortune to
is improper to presume that acts are done unconsciously. Thus, cockfighting. Fernando, his wife, and the children, were forced
a person accused of a crime who pleads the exempting to move in with his mother-in-law ( Avelina Mirador), because
circumstance of insanity has the burden of proving beyond he could no longer support his family. Lillia was also heavily
reasonable doubt that he or she was insane immediately before pregnant with their 8th child, and was about to give birth. On
or at the moment the crime was committed. Sept. 3, 1993, Fernando and Lillia had because of jealousy. He
was accusing her of infidelity, and in the heat of the fight,
stabbed her in front of the children. The children were heard
Discussion: shouting and crying, and were brought out of the house by
Avelina Mirador’s nephew. She mentions seeing the accused
Court rejected Domingo’s insanity plea. One of the observations emerge from the house, with a bolo. She declares no
made by the court to conclude that defendant was in the right mind observation of anything peculiar about accused before the
when he committed the crime was his statement to Racquel (who event, nor does she know of any reason why he killed Lillia,
was the mother of the daughters killed) . because she never saw the two engage in any argument while
living with her. Accused declares no recollection of any relevant
When Racquel asked him to spare the lives of her daughters, events. He was sentenced with penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Domingo replied “Ngayon pa, nagawa ko na” Accused appealed, insisting his criminal act was involuntary.

Court interpreted this as a positive sign that accused was very much
aware of what he was doing and he’s reasoning faculties where not In the Philippines, courts have established a more stringent
impaired criterion for insanity to be exempting, as it is required that there
must be complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the
➢ Person who alleges insanity then he or she has the act or that is the accused is deprived of reason (Test of
burden of proving it, because the accused is presumed to cognition) or acted with the least discernment because there is
be sane at the time of the commission of the crime complete absence of the power to discern or the total
deprivation of the will (Test of Volition). Mere abnormality of
DEFINITION OF INSANITY (PEOPLE VS DOMINGO) the mental faculties will not excuse imputability.

• Insanity exists when there is complete deprivation of

intelligence while committing the act

• Accused is deprived with reason, he acts without the least People vs. Ambal
discernment because he has a complete absence of 100 SCRA 325
power to discern.
Facts: In the morning of January 20, 1977, the barangay captain
• Insanity is existing where there is total deprivation of the found under some flowering plants near the house of Honorato
will. An insane person has no full and clear understanding Ambal located in Barrio Balbagon, Mambajao, Camiguin,
of the nature and consequences of his or her acts Felicula Vicente-Ambal, 48, mortally wounded. She asked for
drinking water and medical assistance. She sustained seven
incised wounds in different parts of her body. She was placed in
Q: Do courts consider the defense of “Nawala ako sa sarili ko, or an improvised hammock and brought to the hospital where she
nangitom ako panaw-aw, or I lost control over my acts” died forty minutes after arrival thereat.

A: Courts make use of the 2 tests. The test of volition and cognition. On that same morning, Honorato Ambal, husband of Felicula,
after entrusting his child to a neighbor, went to the house of the
barangay captain and informed the latter's spouse that he
(Honorato) had killed his wife Feling. After making that oral
People vs. Madarang (May 12, 2000) confession, Ambal took a pedicab, went to the municipal hall
and surrendered to a policeman, also confessing to the latter
that he had liquidated his wife.
52 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Issue: Whether or not the “schizophrenic reaction” was a form

After the prosecution had presented its evidence, the accused's of insanity and which would have exempted the accused from
counsel de oficio manifested that the defense of Ambal was any criminal liability
insanity.
Ruling: NO. Insanity was not proven. Prior confinement at a
Ruling: In the instant case, the alleged insanity of Ambal was not mental institution does not, by itself, constitute proof of
substantiated by any sufficient evidence. The presumption of insanity at the time of the commission of the crime. The
sanity was not overthrown. He was not completely bereft of evidence of the accused does not show that he was completely
reason or discernment and freedom of will when he mortally deprived of intelligence or consciousness of his acts when he
wounded his wife. He was not suffering from any mental disease committed the crime.
or defect. The fact that immediately after the incident he
thought of surrendering to the law-enforcing authorities is
incontestable proof that he knew that what he had done was People v. Mirana
wrong and that he was going to be punished for it. G.R. No. 219113, April 25, 2018

DISCUSSION Facts: That on or about the 17th day of June 2008 at around
Irresistible Impulse Test – which means that "assuming 6:30 o'clock in the morning, Mirana, while armed with a bolo,
defendant's knowledge of the nature and quality of his act and his with intent to kill and with abuse of superior strength, did then
knowledge that the act is wrong, if, by reason of disease of the and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault,
mind, defendant has been deprived of or lost the power of his will stab and hack one Dominga Agnas Vda. De Globo, a seventy-
which would enable him to prevent himself from doing the act, three year old woman, on the different parts of her body,
then he cannot be found guilty." The commission of the crime is resulting [in] her death to the prejudice of her heirs.
excused even if the accused knew what he was doing was wrong
provided that as a result of mental disease he lacked the power to The accused was diagnosed with Schizophrenia. There are
resist the impulse to commit the act. witnesses in this case. The mother of the accused noticed that
her son started exhibiting odd behavior after the latter's nose
What are covered by the term “insanity”? was bitten by a cousin. Accused-appellant would smile without
1. Schizophrenia anyone in front of him; he would call a chicken late at night; and
2. Dementia would keep on saying to himself that the victim was a witch.
After the incident, she observed that the accused-appellant just
There are also cases where the Court held that Schizophrenia is a sat inside their house, staring blankly. A few nights before the
form of insanity which may exempt the actor from liability. There incident, Mercy Delfino (Mercy), accused-appellant's sister,
are also cases decided by the Supreme Court that “schizophrenic noticed that her brother kept smiling and could not sleep, and
reaction” is not a form of insanity. kept on saying that the victim was a witch. He even claimed that
he saw the witch in their own backyard.
SCHRIZOPHENIC REACTION
Issue: Whether or not the accused suffered insanity which
would exempt him from criminal liability.

People v. Pantoja Ruling: No. In this case, there was no evidence supporting that
G.R. No. 223114, November 29, 2017 the accused is suffering from complete deprivation of
intelligence or consciousness of his acts.
Facts: That on or about the 22nd day of July 2010, Pantoja with The Court has held that "the prevalent meaning of the word
intent to kill, armed with a bladed weapon (kitchen knife), a 'crazy' is not synonymous with the legal terms 'insane,' 'non
deadly weapon, did then there willfully, unlawfully, compos mentis,' 'unsound mind,' 'idiot,' or 'lunatic.' The
treacherously, and feloniously, attack, assault and repeatedly popular conception of the word 'crazy' is being used to describe
stab one [AAA], who was 6 years of age at the time of the a person or an act unnatural or out of the ordinary. A man may
commission of the offense, which is an act also considered to behave in a crazy manner, but it does not necessarily and
be cruelty against children, hitting the latter on the different conclusively prove that he is legally so."
parts of his body; thereby inflicting upon him fatal injuries
which caused his death; to the damage and prejudice of the
heirs of the victim. Discussion:

Cederina testified that the accused-appellant was admitted to Q: How about Kleptomaniac? Is it a form of insanity?
the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) on 8 July 2010. A: As of the moment, there is no jurisprudence yet that would
Prior to that, he had already exhibited signs of mental illness support that it is a form of insanity.
which started manifesting after he was mauled by several
persons in an altercation when he was twenty-one (21) years Q. What about committing a crime on an epileptic fit?
old. There, the attending physician diagnosed him with There is an old case decided by the Supreme Court, People vs.
schizophrenia. Mancao, G.R. No. L-26361, January 20, 1927, where the accused
committed an offense while on an epileptic fit. The Court here
found that the accused was suffering from insanity by applying the
two tests.

53 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

SOMNAMBULISM/SLEEPWALKING Committing a crime while sleep walking or while under

somnambulism was considered a form of insanity because again
applying either of the two test. Test of cognition or test of volition.
PEOPLE VS TANEO 58 Phil 604
WHILE SUFFERING FROM MALIGNANT MALARIA
FACTS: Potenciano Tadeo lived with his wife in his parent’s
house. In January 1932, a fiesta was being celebrated, and
visitors were entertained in the house including Fred Tanner and People vs. Lacena
Luis Malinao. Early that afternoon, Potenciano Taneo, went to
sleep and while sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the room bolo Facts: At about 3 o’clock in the morning of August 16, 1938,
in hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, he Mariano Dante woke up startled because his wife, the appellant
wounded her in the abdomen. Taneo attacked Tanner and defendant, who was sick with a high fever, while saying “patay
Malinao and tried to attack his father after which he wounded ka ngayon”, stabbed him in the abdomen with a pair of scissors
himself. Potenciano’s wife who was then seven months & Mariano eventually died due to acute peritonitis which was
pregnant, died five days later as a result of her wound, and also triggered by the inflicted wound
the foetus which was asphyxiated in the mother’s womb. Taneo
was charged with parricide. From this sentence, the defendant It was alleged that on the day of the incident, the accused was
appealed. It appears from the evidence that the day before the suffering from high fever the appellant was then delirious and
commission of the crime the defendant had a quarrel over a rushing to any of those who lived with her in the house an
glass of “tuba” with Enrique Collantes and Valentin Abadilla. On examination of her blood was conducted, which was verified on
the day of the commission of the crime, it was noted that the October 1, 1938,and it was found out that she was suffering
defendant was sad and weak, and early in the afternoon he had from Plasmodium falciparum or malignant malaria&
severe stomachache. The defendant states that when he fell
asleep, he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a issue: Whether or not the accused is criminally liable for the
bolo while Abadilla held his feet, by reason of which he got up; crime committed while she is suffering from high fever due to
and as it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to malignant malaria.
come down, he armed himself with a bolo and left the room. At
the door, he met his wife who seemed to say to him that she Ruling: the supreme court ruled that the accused is not
was wounded. Then he fancied seeing his wife really wounded criminally liable for the acts committed while she is suffering
and in desperation wounded himself. As his enemies seemed to from high fever due to malignant malaria for the same
multiply around him, he attacked everybody that came his way. presupposes lack of intelligence and is embraced within the plea
The evidence shows that the defendant not only did not have of insanity & According to the supreme court, malignant malaria
any trouble with his wife, but that he loved her dearly. Neither is a disease that causes disturbance in the nervous system,
did he have any dispute with Tanner and Malinao, or have any causing complications including acute melancholia and insanity
motive for assaulting them. at times

ISSUE: Whether or not Taneo is criminally liable.

Discussion:
RULING: No. The Court concluded that the defendant acted
while in a dream. His acts were not voluntary in the sense of The SC also considered that it is so applying the test of cognition.
entailing criminal liability. The Court took the special
circumstances of the case, in which the victim was the B. MINORITY
defendant’s own wife whom he dearly loved, and taking into
consideration the fact that the defendant tried to attack also his NOTE: Note: do not anymore memorize it or study it because these
father, in whose house and under whose protection he lived, 2 paragraph in article 12 had been repealed by RA no. 106, RA 9344
besides attacking Tanner and Malinao, his guests, whom he as amended by RA no. 10630.
himself invited as may be inferred from the evidence presented,
the Court found not only a lack of motive for the defendant to Republic act number 9344 or the Juvenile Justice Welfare Act of
voluntarily commit the acts complained of, but also motives for 2006 as amended by Republic Act 10630 Acts strengthening the
not committing said acts. Doctor Serafica, an expert witness in Juvenile Justice System of the Philippines in relation to Juvenile of
this case, is also of the same opinion. The doctor stated that the Rule on juvenile in conflict with the law or supreme court
considering the circumstances of the case, the defendant acted Administrative Matter no. 02-10-18-SC.
while in a dream, under the influence of a hallucination and not
in his right mind. The Court found that the defendant is not
criminally liable for the offense with which he is charged, and it Republic act number 9344 or the Juvenile Justice Welfare Act
is ordered that he be confined in the Government insane of 2006 as amended by Republic Act 10630
asylum, whence he shall not be released until the director
thereof finds that his liberty would no longer constitute a
menace.
TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF PRINCIPLE OF RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE JUSTICE
in which Principle adhered by RA 9344
Discussion:
when a person commits a or as amended by RA 10630.
crime, he will be

54 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

apprehended, he will be put in Restorative from that word

jail, he will face trial if found restorative to restore. Discussion:
convicted, he will be in jail o Being abused by any person through sexual, physical,
forever because he did a Thus, if if a person commits a psychological, mental, economic, or any other means
crime, he committed a crime crime he should not be put in and the parents or guardian refuse, are unwilling, or
and therefore he deserve to jail. unable to provide protection for the child.
stay in jail. o Being exploited including sexually or economically.
Putting a person in jail is a o Being out of school.
measure of last resort. o Being a street child.
o Being a member of a gang.
If possible there is an o Living in a community with a high level of criminality or
intervention measures or drug abuse.
diversion measures to be o Living in situations of armed conflict.
given to the offender in order
for him to be rehabilitated. RIGHTS OF CICL

If rehabilitated he can go back Rights of the CICL under Section 5 of RA9344:

to the community to become a
responsible or useful member (a) The right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel,
of the society. inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(b) The right not to be imposed a sentence of capital

punishment or life imprisonment, without the possibility
of release.

(c) The right not to be deprived, unlawfully or arbitrarily, of

Discussion: his/her liberty; detention or imprisonment being a
disposition of last resort, and which shall be for the
Under this law it considers the ages 9 to 15 as formative years and shortest appropriate period of time.
gives these minors a chance to right their wrong through diversion
and intervention measures. (d) The right to be treated with humanity and respect, for the
inherent dignity of the person, and in a manner which
DEFINITION OF TERMS: takes into account the needs of a person of his/her age.
In particular, a child deprived of liberty shall be separated
• Child in Conflict with the Law or CICL - as those who are from adult offenders at all times. No child shall be
alleged as, accused of, or a judge having committed an detained together with adult offenders. He/she shall be
offense under Philippine laws. conveyed separately to or from court. He/she shall await
hearing of his/her own case in a separate correspondence
Discussion: and visits, save in exceptional circumstances.

So if a person, a child is charge in court what do we call him a (e) The right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate
criminal or a juvenile delinquent or a youthful offender? So under assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of
this law the proper term to be used is child in conflict with the law the deprivation of his/her liberty before a court or other
or CICL. competent, independent, and impartial authority and to
a prompt decision on such action.
With the law, the Supreme Court provided definition for the term
CICL. (f) The right to bail and recognizance, in appropriate cases.

CICL is a person who, at the time of the commission of the offense (g) The right to testify as a witness in his/her own behalf
is below 18 years old but not less than 15 years and one day. under the rule on examination of a child witness.

Question: What term was used previously? (h) The right to have his/her privacy respected fully at all
stages of the proceedings.
o Under PD 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Act)—the term
used under this law is youthful offender. (i) The right to diversion if he/she is qualified and voluntarily
avails of the same.
o Under Article 80 of the RPC, the term used is juvenile
delinquent. (j) The right to be imposed a judgement in proportion to the
gravity of the offense where his/her best interest, the
o Under RA 9344, the proper term should be CICL. rights of the victim and the needs of society are all taken
into consideration by the court, under the principle of
• Child at Risk (CAR)—refers to children vulnerable to and restorative justice.
at the risk of committing criminal offenses because of
personal, family, and social circumstances.
55 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

(k) The right to have restrictions on his/her personal liberty (2) 15 years and 1 day or above but below and acted without
limited to the minimum, and where discretion is given by discernment.
law to the judge to determine whether to impose fine or
imprisonment, the imposition of fine being preferred as 15 years of age under RA 10630 refers on the day of his/her
the more appropriate penalty. FIFTHEEN YEAR ANNIVERSARY of his/her birthday.

(l) In general, the right to automatic suspension of sentence. Minority is considered exempting at the commission of the crime
he is 15 years old or under. No condition as to the first circumstance
(m) The right to probation as an alternative to imprisonment, because the law says so. The law has a conclusive presumption of
if qualified under Probation Law. the lack of intelligence from the part of the children.

(n) The right to be free from liability for perjury,

concealment, or misrepresentation. It was clarified in RA 10630 , OVER 15 Years old refers to 15 years
and 1 day old but below 18 years old.
(o) Other rights as provided for under existing laws, rules,
and regulations. However, there is a determination whether or not the child has
acted with discernment.
RA 9344 in relation to paragraphs 2 and 3 of
SUMMARY:
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code
AGE EFFECT PROGRAM
(RA 9344) Section 6: Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. –A 15 years or under EXEMPTING Intervention Program
child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the under Sec. 20 RA No.
commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. 9344 as amended
However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program 15 years and 1 day Intervention Program
pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. or above but
below and acted EXEMPTING
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of without
age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected discernment
to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with
15 years and 1 day PRIVILIGED Appropriate
discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the
or above but MITIGATING proceedings under RA
appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
below 18 and No. 9344
acted with
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not
discernment
include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
accordance with existing laws.
DOLI INCAPAX
Discussion:
This is the presumption that a child is incapable of a crime. In the
Philippines, the Doli Incapax is the age of 15 years or under.
Illustration: Suppose a 13-year-old child kills a 10-year-old child.
Can minority be considered an exempting circumstance? Section 7- The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the
presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child
Answer: YES—It is because under She section 6. Of RA 9344, it is in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18)
stated that a child 15 years under during the commission of the
years old or older. The age of a child may be determined from the
crime, is exempted.
child’s birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent
documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based
Illustration: Supposed the child turns 15 today and he kills another
on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other
person. Is minority there considered an exempting circumstance?
persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant
evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be
Answer: YES—the accused is still exempted from the criminal case
resolved in his/her favor.
because it is also stated here in Section 6 p (2) that the child is above
15 years but below 18 years shall likewise be exempted of criminal
Section 5 of AM No. 02-1-18-SC, November 24, 2009
liability and be subjected to an intervention program.
1) The best evidence to prove the age of a child is an original
or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth;
Illustration: Supposed the child is 17 years old and kills another
2) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar
person. Is minority there considered exempting? authentic documents such as baptismal certificates and school
records or any pertinent document that shows the date of birth of
Answer: YES—because the child is still below 18 years old. the child;
3) In the absence of the documents under paragraphs 1 and
Q: When is minority considered an exempting circumstance? 2 of this section due to loss, destruction or unavailability, the
testimony of the child, the testimony of a member of the family
A: At the commission of the crime is:
related to the child by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to
(1) 15 years or under;
testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date
of birth of the child pursuant to Sec.40, Rule 130 of the Rules on
56 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Evidence, the testimonies of the other persons, the physical testimonies of other persons, birth attendants or the physical
appearance of the child and other relevant evidence, shall suffice. appearance of the child.

Section 6. Any person alleging the age of the child in conflict with Take note: In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be
the law has the burden of proving the age of such child. resolved in his/her favor.

If the age of the child is contested prior to the filing of the Q. Who has the burden of proving the age?
information in court, a case for determination of age under A. He who alleges the age has the burden proving it.
summary proceeding may be filed before a court which shall render
its decision within 24 hours from receipt of the appropriate Under RA 9344, the age of criminal responsibility was raised from 9
pleadings of all the parties (n). to 15. Suppose at the time of the enactment, there are pending
cases involving children who committed the crime while they are
In all cases involving a child, the court shall make a categorical 15 years old. The law would be given retroactive application.
finding as to the age of the child.
The controlling age is the age of the CICL (child in conflict with the
law) at the time of the commission at the crime. So even if the
POST DISCUSSION: offender is not a minor at the time of the enactment and his case is
pending, the law may be given retroactive effect.
Q: There are some books which mentioned the behavior of the
accused when they are captured. In People of the Philippines v.
Manansala, it stated “Indeed when Avelino surrendered to the VALCESAR ESTIOCA y MACAMAY vs. PEOPLE
policemen and he declined to give any statement which in the OF THE PHILIPPINES
natural course of things he would have done of he had acted merely G.R. No. 173876 June 27, 2008
to defend himself. A protestation of innocence or justification is the
logical and spontaneous reaction of a man who finds himself in such Facts:
an inculpatory predicament as that in which the policemen came The RTC convicted petitioner, Marksale Bacus, Kevin Boniao and
upon the appellants, with Avelino still clutching the death weapon Emiliano Handoc of robbery under Article 299. The trial court
and his victim dying before him”. If you are captured and you don’t imposed on petitioner, Bacus and Handoc an indeterminate
speak because you want the guidance of your counsel, will that be penalty ranging from six years and one day of prision mayor as
used against you if self-defense is the justifying circumstances? minimum, to fourteen years, eight months and one day of
A: It really depends on the facts of each case. We cannot say that if reclusion temporal as maximum. Since Boniao was a minor (14
you will not release any statements to the police, it will be years old) when he participated in the heist, he was sentenced
automatic that there will be no self-defense. Although the right to to a lower prison term of six months of arresto mayor as
remain silent is recognized. But usually, if you are faced with that minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional
kind of situation and your defense is self-defense, the natural thing as maximum. They were also ordered to pay P15,000.00 as civil
to do is to really say something that this is self-defense. Unless, if liability.
the accused is a lawyer, then he would have to think carefully as to
what he will say. But in the normal course of things, when you are Nonetheless, the sentence meted out to Boniao was suspended
faced with that situation and you killed someone because of self- and his commitment to the Department of Social Welfare and
defense, the natural and common thing to do is to say something. Development (DSWD) was ordered pursuant to Presidential
Then again, we need to look at the entirety of the facts. Decree No. 603. Petitioner, Bacus, Boniao and Handoc filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Decision arguing that
RECAP : Minority as exempting circumstance. there was no conspiracy among them and that the penalty
imposed was erroneous. On 17 August 2004, the RTC issued an
Q. When is minority considered an exempting circumstance? Order partially granting the motion. The trial court lowered the
penalty imposed on them but affirmed its earlier finding of
A. Minority is considered an exempting circumstance if at the time conspiracy and conviction. It also ordered the DSWD to release
of the commission of the crime, the child is 15 years or under, that’s and turn over Boniao to his parents. Unsatisfied, petitioner
the first. Second instance is when the child s above 15, when we say appealed the RTC Decision and Order before the Court of
above 15, meaning 15 and 1 day old, but below 18 and the child Appeals. Bacus, Boniao and Handoc did not appeal their
acted without discernment. conviction anymore. On 30 June 2006, the Court of Appeals
promulgated its Decision affirming with modification the RTC
There are 2 only instances when minority is considered exempting, Decision and Order accused KEVIN BONIAO is hereby
but if the child is above 15, but below 18 and acted with ACQUITTED of the crime charged pursuant to Section 6 of R.A.
discernment minority will no longer be considered as an exempting No. 9344, without prejudice to his civil liability.
circumstance but instead treated as a privilege mitigating
circumstance. Issue:
W/N RA 9344 can apply retroactively to Boniao’s case?
Q. How is age determined?
Ruling:
A. age is established through a presentation of documents, birth
certificate, or any other pertinent document such as school records. YES. Although the crime was committed on 28 July 2001 and
or incase these documents are not available, age can be Republic Act No. 9344 took effect only on 20 May 2006, the said
determined from the information of the child himself/herself, law should be given retroactive effect in favor of Boniao who
57 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

was not shown to be a habitual criminal.39 This is based on irresponsibility being raised from 9 to 15 years old. Said law took
Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. However, as Boniao’s civil effect on May 20, 2006. At the time of the promulgation of
liability is not extinguished pursuant to the second paragraph of judgment, the accused already reached the age of majority. The
Section 6, Republic Act No. 9344, Boniao should be held jointly Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) claimed that petitioner is
liable with petitioner, Bacus, and Handoc for the payment of civil not exempt from criminal liability because he is not anymore a
liability in the amount of P15,000.00 representing the stolen child as defined by R.A. No. 9344. The OSG further claimed that
items. the retroactive effect of said law is applicable only if the child-
accused is still below 18 years old.

Issue/s:
ROBERT SIERRA y CANEDA vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Whether or not the accused was able to proof that he is
G.R. No. 182941 | July 3, 2009 criminally exempt by virtue of minority.
Whether or not the petitioner is exempt in the crime alleged by
Facts reason of minority.
Petitioner was 15 years old when he raped a minor. He was
convicted of rape and was imposed a penalty of imprisonment Ruling:
of reclusion perpetua and a fine. He elevated the case to CA and
during the pendence of the case, RA 9344 took effect. CA Yes, in this case, the plain meaning of R.A. No. 9344's
affirmed the conviction and denied the defense of minority unambiguous language, coupled with clear lawmakers' intent, is
since the age was not established by presenting the birth most favorable to herein petitioner. No other interpretation is
certificate but only alleged in the testimonial of the petitioner justified, for the simple language of the new law itself
and his mother. According to them the burden of proof of age is demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the CICL.
upon the prosecution.
It bears stressing that the petitioner was only 13 years old at the
Issue/s: time of the commission of the alleged rape. This was duly proven
Who has the burden of proof in establishing the age of the by the certificate of live birth, by petitioner's own testimony,
accused? and by the testimony of his mother. Furthermore, petitioner’s
Whether the law be given retroactive application. age was never assailed in any of the proceedings before the RTC
and the CA. Indubitably, petitioner, at the time of the
Ruling: commission of the crime, was below 15 years of age. Under R.A.
The duty to establish the age of the accused is not on the No. 9344, he is exempted from criminal liability.
prosecution but on the accused. Age can be established by birth
certificate. Sec. 7 provides that in the absence of such Yes, the petitioner is exempt from criminal liability. For one who
document, age may be based from the information of the child, acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumstances, although
testimonies of other persons, physical appearance and other he commits a crime, by the complete absence of any of the
relevant evidence. Also in case of doubt, minority should be in conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act,
favour of the child. In the case at bar, minority was established no criminal liability arises. Hence, while there is a crime
by the testimonies of the petitioner and his mother. This was not committed, no criminal liability attaches. By virtue of the
objected by the prosecution and did not even presented Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344), the age of
contrary evidence. Thus, minority is established. criminal irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years old.
The law should be given retroactive application since this favors Petitioner was only 13 years old at the time of the commission
the accused as provided for in the Revised Penal Code - penal of the alleged rape. The first paragraph of Section 6 of R.A. No.
laws favouring the accused should be given retroactive effect. 9344 clearly provides that, a child fifteen (15) years of age or
Hence the accused is considered a minor with an age of not under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be
above 15 years old. The case is dismissed and the petitioner is exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be
referred to the appropriate local social welfare. subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of
this Act. The Court gives retroactive application insofar as it
favors the persons guilty of a felony. While the law exempts the
petitioner from criminal liability, however, he is not exempt
from civil liability. For this reason, petitioner and/or his parents
are liable to pay AAA civil indemnity

JOEMAR ORTEGA vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 151085 , August 20, 2008

Facts:
At the time of commission of rape, the accused was only 13
years old, while the victim AAA was 6, both minors. It was PEOPLE VS ROXAS
alleged that petitioner raped her three times on three different G.R. No. 200793, June 4, 2014
occasions in 1996. The lower courts convicted him of rape with
criminal and civil liability imposed. The case was pending when Facts:
Republic Act 9344 (R.A. No. 9344) or the Juvenile Justice and Accused-appellant Roxas was charged of five counts of rape
Welfare Act of 2006, was enacted amending the age of criminal against AAA, a minor who was 9 years old at the time of the first
58 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

rape and 10 years old at the time of the succeeding four rapes. Q. What do we mean by discernment?
The trial court and the Court of Appeals found him guilty as
charged hence this instant appeal. A. Remember Section 6 of R.A.9344 as amended, we have to make
AAA testified that the appellant who was her uncle raped her in a determination on discernment because if the child is above 15, 15
five different occasions. The fist one was committed when she and 1 day old, but below 18 and acted without discernment,
was only 9 years old and the subsequent rapes were committed minority is exempting, but acted with discernment, minority would
on the months of March, May, July and August of the year 1998. be considered as privileged mitigating circumstance.
On those five instances, the appellant employed the same
method of blindfolding AAA and turning her around three times, Q. What is the definition of discernment?
after which, he would lay her down in bed and have carnal
knowledge with her. She tried to push him and raise her shorts A. Discernment is defined as a mental capacity to understand the
and panty, but she did not succeed because he poked a pointed victims between right and wrong. if R.A. 9344 as amended
instrument on her neck. She did not report the incident because discernment is define as the capacity of the child at the time of
she was threatened by the accused-appellant not to tell commission of the offense to understand the differences between
anybody or else he would cut her tongue and kill her and her right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act.
mother.
Accused-appellant Roxas points out that under Republic Act No. Under R.A. 9344, it’s not enough that the child knows right or
9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, minors wrong, he must also know the consequences if he chooses wrong
fifteen (15) years old and below are exempt from criminal over right.
responsibility. He claims that since he has a mental age of nine
years old, he should also be "exempt from criminal liability Under the rules on juveniles in conflict with the law. The Supreme
although his chronological age at the time of the commission of Court has different definition of discernment. Discernment is the
the crime was already eighteen years old.” mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences
of his unlawful act.
Issue: whether or not tha accused-appellant Roxas exempt from
the crime charged? Take Note: Discernment is important, if the child is above 15 but
below 18, if discernment is not alleged in the information, that
Ruling: means that the child acted without discernment and therefore
Accused-appellant Roxas is NOT exempt from criminal liability. minority will be considered there exempting circumstance.
In the matter of assigning criminal responsibility, Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 9344 is explicit in providing that:
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — A child Q. How do we determine discernment?
fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission
of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However,
the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant PEOPLE VS. ALCABAO CA,
to Section 20 of this Act. 44 OG 5006
A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of
the fifteenth anniversary of his/her birth date. FACTS: A child, 11 years of age, with a sling shot hit the right eye
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of of the offended party causing serious injuries, and after hitting
age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be him, still uttered bad remarks. This showed that the accused
subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted realized the nature of his wrongful act and he, therefore, acted
with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to with discernment.
the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused acted with discernment
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does upon committing the crime.
not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be
enforced in accordance with existing laws. HELD: Yes. It was held that discernment was present in a case
where the accused, shot with a slingshot the right eye of the
In determining age for purposes of exemption from criminal offended party, and the accused even remarked “Putangina mo,
liability, Section 6 clearly refers to the age as determined by mabuti matikman mo,” which shows the accused realized the
the anniversary of one’s birth date, and not the mental age as nature and illegality of his wrongful act.
argued by accused-appellant Roxas. When the law is clear and
free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for The Court of Appeals ruled that the remark coming from a minor
construction or interpretation. Only when the law is ambiguous 'putang ina mo' is a clear indication of the minor's perverted
or of doubtful meaning may the court interpret or construe its character. Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code
true intent. provides that a person over nine years of age and under fifteen
is exempt from criminal liability, unless he acted with
discernment. The basic reason behind the exempting
circumstance is complete absence of intelligence, freedom of
action of the offender which is an essential element of a felony
either by dolus or by culpa. Intelligence is the power necessary
to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit
Discernment from an illicit act.

59 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

On the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to ➢ In the commission of the crime, he acted as a leader
understand the difference between right and wrong. However, and not as a follower
Article 12 Paragraph 2 & 3 of Revised Penal Code has been ➢ Accused acted as the leader or the commander of the
amended by Sec. 6 of RA 9344. It states that a child fifteen (15) raiding party and the extent of his participation would
years of age or under at the time of the commission of the show that he had discernment.
offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. A child above
fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall Other factors considered by the Court in determining if there
likewise be exempt from criminal liability unless he/she acted was discernment
with discernment. Discernment is the capacity of the child at the ➢ Facts and circumstances by the records of each case
time of the commission of the offense to understand the
differences between right and wrong and the consequences of
the wrongful act which can be shown by the (a) conduct of the
offender; (b) manner of committing the crime (c) the extent of
participation.
Raymund Madali vs. People,
August 4, 200982941, July 3, 2009)
People vs. Cortezano & Cortezano
(G.R. No. 123140, September 23, 2003) FACTS: Minor child together with his cohorts warned and
threatened to kill the witness not to reveal their hideous act to
FACTS: 2 accused minor children who raped the victim who was the victim
their niece. Prior to raping the victim, during the rape, and after
the raping, it was observed that: ISSUE: WON there was discernment
➢ They wetted the victim’s vagina
o The act of wetting the vagina shows that RULING: Yes, the accused knew that killing was a condemnable
they had the knowledge that the act they act and should be kept in secrecy. The facts and circumstances
were doing would help in penetrating the of the case would show that the accused acted with discernment
vagina easily
➢ One of them acted as look out while the other was Discernment defined: Mental capacity of a minor to fully
raping the victim appreciate the consequences of his unlawful acts
o It shows that they know what they were
doing to the niece was wrong, because
somebody acted as a lookout, to probably
alert the other when somebody comes People vs. Hermie Jacinto
along (March 16, 2011)
➢ They threatened to kill the victim if she divulged to her ➢ Discernment defined
parents what they were doing to her o Discernment is a mental capacity of a minor
➢ They forced another child, a child named Boyet to to fully grasp the consequences of his act,
rape her as well known and determined by taking into
➢ They laughed as Boyet was raping the victim account the facts and circumstances
➢ They ordered the 2 siblings of their niece to look at
presented by the records each case
their sister naked after they raped her
➢ Minor acted with discernment because the court took
ISSUE: WON there was discernment.
into account the following facts
RULING: Yes, there was discernment and was shown through o accused chose an isolated and dark place to
the manner of committing the crime. They know what they did perpetrate the crime (in order to avoid
was wrong (threatening to kill her if she would divulge their acts detection of the crime he was committing
and provided a lookout) . These acts were indications that the against the victim)
minor children acted with discernment and this was shown o Accused boxed the victim to weaken her
through the manner of committing the crime defense

➢ Based on the facts accused with discernment because

he had that mental capacity to fully understand the
People vs. Capistrano consequences of his unlawful action
(GR No. L-4549, October 22, 1952)

➢ Discernment was shown by the extent of participation

of the accused.
➢ The minor child together with Japanese soldiers, People vs. Deliola (GR No. 200157)
raided a house and took inmates to the Japanese ➢ Accused raped the victim
garrison. Instead of the child being just a follower, the ➢ Circumstances taken into account by the court that
child acted as the leader of the Japanese soldiers determined he acted with discernment
o Victim was a helpless minor

60 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

o Accused secured the consummation of the o while doing the act he threatened to assault
offense with the use of a weapon and kick her if the victim would shout for
o He satisfied his lust by penetrating the help
victim from behind o and for the other rape incident, he even
o Accused threatened the victim not to report threatened to kill the victim if she told
what happened anybody about what happened
➢ Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of o During the testimony of the accused minor
the case, the court was convinced that the accused he was bale to say he knew that committing
clearly knew what he did was wrong rape was wrong because he even got mad
when his playmates or friends joked and
confronted him about raping the victim.

His reaction showed that he knew that the

Jose vs. People (January 13, 2005) act of raping is a wrongful act.

FACTS: Minor together with another accused of legal age were ➢ SC ruled discernment was shown because his crime
apprehended and charged for violating RA 6425 for selling was gruesome and the minor was cunning and shrewd
shabu. Petitioner was 13 years old at this time of the
commission of the crime Factors considered by the Court in determining if there was
discernment
ISSUE : WON there was discernment ➢ Through OR during the trial
o Instances where the accused minor would
RULING: No, there was no discernment because the only testify in court as part of the elements of the
evidence presented by the prosecution at the time of the
defense
apprehension or buy bust operation, accused was with his
cousin (which is the other accused) when the poser buyer
inquired from them. The only thing reflected in the facts of the
case was that the accused was just with his cousin and they were
both inside the car when the poser buyer inquired from the US vs. Maralit (January 25, 1917)
cousin if they have shabu.
➢ SC found there was discernment because he appeared
When the cousin said that they had shabu he just instructed the
in court and testified. During the question and answer
minor to take out the packet containing the shabu
the court will know if he is with sufficient intelligence
or judgement to know if the act committed was wrong
There seems to be no showing that the accused knew what was
inside the packet and co accused asked him to bring it or give it or not
to the poser buyer.
➢ SC held that during the trial it was able to determine
➢ Accused minor was found to not to have acted with that the child was with discernment because of his
discernment by relying on the facts and circumstances appearance and demeanor when he testified during
of the case the trial and it showed that he had sufficient
➢ Facts that led court to decide that minor was not intelligence and judgement to know that the act
acting with discernment committed was wrong and was likely to produce death
Other factors considered by the Court in determining if there
was discernment
Gruesome nature of the crime and the minor’s cunning and
shrewdness.
Llave v. People
G.R. No. 166040, April 26, 2006

Remiendo vs. People (October 9, 2009) Facts: NEIL LLAVE Y FLORES, aka NIEL F. LLAVE, a minor over
nine (9) years of age and under fifteen (15) but acting with
➢ Discernment defined discernment, by means of force threat and intimidation, did
o Capacity of child to distinguish between then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously have carnal
right and wrong and knowing fully well the knowledge of the complainant, DEBBIELYN SANTOS y
consequences of his act QUITALES, a minor, seven (7) years of age, against her will and
➢ Accused was very cunning and shrewd because consent.
o before he raped the victim he waited for the
The trial court declared that based on the evidence of the
victim to be left alone at her house before
prosecution that petitioner pushed the victim towards the
he came in
vacant house and sexually abused her, petitioner acted with
discernment. It also considered petitioner’s declaration that he
had been a consistent honor student.

61 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Also, under the law, if the child is above twelve (12) up to fifteen
Issue: Whether or not Llave acted with discernment. YES. (15) years of age and has committed heinous crimes, such as
Parricide, Murder, Kidnapping, and the like, the child shall be
Ruling: Professor Ambrocio Padilla, in his annotation of deemed a neglected child under Presidential Decree No. 603 as
Criminal Law (p. 375, 1998 Ed.), writes that "discernment is amended and shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility or
more than the mere understanding between right and wrong. youth care facility.
Rather, it means the mental capacity of a minor between 9 and
15 years of age to fully appreciate the consequences of his Suppose the child is a 2nd time offender, aged twelve (12) to fifteen
unlawful act" (People v. Navarro, [CA] [51 O.G. 4062]). Hence, (15), but constantly commits crime. The law says that, if the child is
in judging whether a minor accused acted with discernment, his above twelve (12) but below fifteen (15) and commits an offense
mental capacity to understand the difference between right for the second time or oftener, the child will also be considered as
and wrong, which may be known and should be determined by a neglected child under Presidential Decree No. 603 as amended
considering all the circumstances disclosed by the record of the and shall undergo intensive intervention program supervised by the
case, his appearance, his attitude and his behavior and conduct, local social welfare and development officer.
not only before and during the commission of the act, but also
after and even during the trial should be taken into If the child is taken advantage of or the child is being used for the
consideration (People v. Doquena, supra). purpose of committing a crime, the law says that will be considered
as a special aggravating circumstance – the law will impose the
During the trial, petitioner submitted documentary evidence to penalty at its maximum period regardless of the presence of the
show that he was a consistent honor student and has, in fact, mitigating circumstances.
garnered several academic awards. This allegation further
bolstered that he acted with discernment, with full knowledge
and intelligence. The fact that petitioner was a recipient of
several academic awards and was an honor student further
reinforces the finding that he was possessed of intelligence well
beyond his years and thus was able to distinguish, better than
other minors of his age could, which conduct is right and which
is morally reprehensible. Hence, although appellant was still a
minor of twelve years of age, he possessed intelligence far
beyond his age. It cannot then be denied that he had the mental
capacity to understand the difference between right and
wrong.

In this case, petitioner was fully aware of the nature and

illegality of his wrongful act. He should not, therefore, be
exempted from criminal liability. The prosecution has
sufficiently proved that petitioner acted with discernment.

DISCUSSION:

If you want to know what is the procedure if the child commits a

crime and he is apprehended, the law says that if the child taken is
below fifteen (15) years of age – in which we know that a child
fifteen (15) years old below is exempted; the authority which has
initial contact with the child in consultation with the local social
welfare and development officer has the duty to immediately
release the child to the custody of his or her parents, guardian, or,
in the absence thereof, the child’s nearest relative.

After the release, it is not just by releasing the child and all is said
and done. The laws says that the child shall be subjected to a
community-based intervention program supervised by the local
social welfare and development officer. Unless the best interest of
the child requires him/her to be referred to a youth care facility.

If the child is abandoned, dependent, neglected, or abused, the

best interest of the child requires he/she be placed in a youth care
facility fifteen (15) years of age but not under twelve (12) years of
age, we also have a procedure on how we go about it. The parents
or guardians must execute a written authorization that they are
allowing the child to be referred to a youth care facility.

62 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN CRIMES In section 57-A, defines status offenses, in 57-A as amendment
brought about republic act number 10630, section 57-A states that
There are certain crimes wherein the child eighteen (18) years old ordinances enacted by local governments concerning juvenile
and below will be exempted, regardless if they acted with or status offenses shall be for the protection of children. So if you look
without discernment. at section 57-A does our law juvenile justice system law created
1. Prostitution (Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code) enactment of juvenile status offense. If you look at 57-A it is not
2. Mendicancy (Presidential Decree No. 1563) stated that it is prohibited to enact laws but concerning juvenile
3. Sniffing of Rugby (Presidential Decree No. 1619) status offenses it even says ordinances enacted by local
governments concerning juvenile status offenses shall be for the
Even if they are exempted from the above-stated crimes, they shall protection of children.
undergo appropriate counseling and treatment.
Q: what is the requirement under section 57 in case there are local
STATUS OFFENSE ordinances concerning juvenile status offenses?
Republic Act No. 10630
A: the requirement is that there shall be no penalty impose on
SEC. 57. Status Offenses. – Any conduct not considered an children for the said violations.
offense or not penalized if committed by an adult shall not be
considered an offense and shall not be punished if committed
by a child. SAMAHAN NG MGA PROGRESIBONG KABATAAN (SPARK) VS
QUEZON CITY
Examples of Status Offense: G.R. No. 225442, August 8, 2017
1. Curfew violation for minors
2. Truancy Facts: Following the campaign of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte
to implement a nationwide curfew for minors, several local
Q: So what is this status offense? governments in Metro Manila started to strictly implement their
curfew ordinances on minors through police operations which
A: A status offense is an offense which punishes an act committed were publicly known as part of "Oplan Rody." Petitioners,
by a child but if committed by an adult it's not punished. Status spearheaded by the Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan
offense is an offense punished by the law or ordinance committed (SPARK)- an association of young adults and minors that aims to
by a child but if not committed by a child is not punished. forward a free and just society, in particular the protection of
the rights and welfare of the youth and minors - filed this
Ex: curfew violation for minors so there's ordinance enacted by the present petition, arguing that the Curfew Ordinances are
local government setting a curfew for minors such that if the minors unconstitutional because they: (a) result in arbitrary and
does violates it there is penalty that's an example of status offense discriminatory enforcement, and thus, fall under the void for
or smoking done by minors but if smoking by adults in allowed vagueness doctrine; (b) suffer from overbreadth by proscribing
places not punished but if smoking committed by minors even in or impairing legitimate activities of minors during curfew hours;
allowed places the minor will be punish; that's an example of status (c) deprive minors of the right to liberty and the right to travel
offense. without substantive due process; and (d) deprive parents of
their natural and primary right in rearing the youth without
Now our local governments or our law-making policies are substantive due process. In addition, petitioners assert that the
prohibited from enacting status offenses. Manila Ordinance contravenes RA 9344, as amended by RA
10630. Furthermore, petitioners claim that the Manila
SEC. 57-A. Violations of Local Ordinances. – Ordinances enacted by Ordinance, particularly Section 4 thereof, contravenes Section
local governments concerning juvenile status offenses such as, but 57A of RA 9344, as amended, given that the cited curfew
not limited to, curfew violations, truancy, parental disobedience, provision imposes on minors the penalties of imprisonment,
anti-smoking and anti-drinking laws, as well as light offenses and reprimand, and admonition. They contend that the imposition
misdemeanors against public order or safety such as, but not of penalties contravenes RA 9344's express command that no
limited to, disorderly conduct, public scandal, harassment, penalty shall be imposed on minors for curfew violations. Lastly,
drunkenness, public intoxication, criminal nuisance, vandalism, petitioners submit that there is no compelling State interest to
gambling, mendicancy, littering, public urination, and trespassing, impose curfews contrary to the parents' prerogative to impose
shall be for the protection of children. No penalty shall be imposed them in the exercise of their natural and primary right in the
on children for said violations, and they shall instead be brought to rearing of the youth, and that even if a compelling interest
their residence or to any barangay official at the barangay hall to exists, less restrictive means are available to achieve the same.
be released to the custody of their parents. Appropriate In this regard, they suggest massive street lighting programs,
intervention programs shall be provided for in such ordinances. The installation of CCTVs (closed-circuit televisions) in public streets,
child shall also be recorded as a ‘child at risk’ and not as a ‘child in and regular visible patrols by law enforcers as other viable
conflict with the law’. The ordinance shall also provide for means of protecting children and preventing crimes at night.
intervention programs, such as counseling, attendance in group They further opine that the government can impose more
activities for children, and for the parents, attendance in parenting reasonable sanctions, i.e., mandatory parental counseling and
education seminars.” education seminars informing the parents of the reasons behind
the curfew, and that imprisonment is too harsh a penalty for
DISCUSSION: parents who allowed their children to be out during curfew
hours.

63 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

Issue: Whether or not the said ordinance is violative of Sec. 57- of Manila on the minor. Reprimand is generally defined as "a
A of RA 9344 as amended which prohibit the imposition of severe or formal reproof."167 The Black's Law Dictionary
penalties on minors for status offenses such as curfew defines it as "a mild form of lawyer discipline that does not
violations. restrict the lawyer's ability to practice law";168 while the
Philippine Law Dictionary defines it as a "public and formal
Ruling: censure or severe reproof, administered to a person in fault by
his superior officer or body to which he belongs. It is more than
Yes. SEC. 57. Status Offenses. - Any conduct not considered an just a warning or admonition."169 In other words, reprimand is
offense or not penalized if committed by an adult shall not be a formal and public pronouncement made to denounce the
considered an offense and shall not be punished if committed error or violation committed, to sharply criticize and rebuke the
by a child. erring individual, and to sternly warn the erring individual
including the public against repeating or committing the same,
SEC. 57-A. Violations of Local Ordinances. - Ordinances enacted and thus, may unwittingly subject the erring individual or
by local governments concerning juvenile status offenses such violator to unwarranted censure or sharp disapproval from
as but not limited to, curfew violations, truancy, parental others. In fact, the RRACCS and our jurisprudence explicitly
disobedience, anti-smoking and anti-drinking laws, as well as indicate that reprimand is a penalty,170 hence, prohibited by
light offenses and misdemeanors against public order or safety Section 57-A of RA 9344, as amended.
such as, but not limited to, disorderly conduct, public scandal,
harassment, drunkenness, public intoxication, criminal Fines and/or imprisonment, on the other hand, undeniably
nuisance, vandalism, gambling, mendicancy, littering, public constitute penalties - as provided in our various criminal and
urination, and trespassing, shall be for the protection of administrative laws and jurisprudence - that Section 57-A of RA
children. No penalty shall be imposed on children for said 9344, as amended, evidently prohibits.
violations, and they shall instead be brought to their residence
or to any barangay official at the barangay hall to be released to As worded, the prohibition in Section 57-A is clear, categorical,
the custody of their parents. Appropriate intervention programs and unambiguous. It states that "[n]o penalty shall be imposed
shall be provided for in such ordinances. The child shall also be on children for x x x violations [of] juvenile status offenses]."
recorded as a "child at risk" and not as a "child in conflict with Thus, for imposing the sanctions of reprimand, fine, and/or
the law." The ordinance shall also provide for intervention imprisonment on minors for curfew violations, portions of
programs, such as counseling, attendance in group activities for Section 4 of the Manila Ordinance directly and irreconcilably
children, and for the parents, attendance in parenting education conflict with the clear language of Section 57-A of RA 9344, as
seminars. (Emphases and underscoring supplied.) amended, and hence, invalid. On the other hand, the
impositions of community service programs and admonition on
To clarify, these provisions do not prohibit the enactment of the minors are allowed as they do not constitute penalties.
regulations that curtail the conduct of minors, when the similar
conduct of adults are not considered as an offense or penalized
(i.e., status offenses). Instead, what they prohibit is the Samahan ng mga progresibong Kabataan vs. Quezon City
imposition of penalties on minors for violations of these
regulations. Consequently, the enactment of curfew ordinances In consolidated case involving petitions filed separately by different
on minors, without penalizing them for violations thereof, is not petitioners against 3 local governments. These 3 local governments
violative of Section 57-A. implemented curfew ordinances. What local governments where
impleaded here are the city of Navotas, city of Manila and Quezon
The provisions of RA 9344, as amended, should not be read to City. These 3 local governments have ordinances concerning
mean that all the actions of the minor in violation of the juvenile status offenses. What status offense? Curfew ordinance for
regulations are without legal consequences. Section 57-A minors. So petitioners here filed a petition report to question the
thereof empowers local governments to adopt appropriate validity or constitutionality of these curfew ordinances because
intervention programs, such as community-based programs161 they argued that number 1 these ordinances violates section 57 and
recognized under Section 54162 of the same law. 57 A of RA 9344 as amended. Now one of the question raised in. So
in case of violation what is the penalty? For section 4 it's
In this regard, requiring the minor to perform community admonition. That is the effect if the minor violates. And for first
service is a valid form of intervention program that a local offense what is the penalty? Reprimand and admonition. Second
government (such as Navotas City in this case) could offense? Reprimand, admonition and warning. Third and
appropriately adopt in an ordinance to promote the welfare of subsequent offenses what's the penalty? Imprisonment of 1 day to
minors. For one, the community service programs provide 10 days or a fine or both at the discussion report. So that is assailed
minors an alternative mode of rehabilitation as they promote on Manila ordinance.
accountability for their delinquent acts without the moral and
social stigma caused by jail detention. Now one of the question raised here is that can local government
enact ordinances involving juvenile status offenses and can local
In the same light, these programs help inculcate discipline and government? Can these ordinances punish minors in case of
compliance with the law and legal orders. More importantly, transgression? In this case the court said these provisions of section
they give them the opportunity to become productive members 57-A of RA 9344 as amended do not prohibit the enactment of
of society and thereby promote their integration to and regulations that pertain the conduct of minors when similar
solidarity with their community. conduct of adults are not considered as an offense. It’s very clear
A different conclusion, however, is reached with regard to that the Supreme Court said that the law does not prohibit the local
reprimand and fines and/or imprisonment imposed by the City governments from enacting laws on juvenile status offense.
64 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

What is prohibited though is when the ordinances impose penalties There is no effect because there is a presumption of regularity ans
on minors for violations of these regulations. But Supreme Court presumption that these laws are valid and constitutional unless the
said if the enactment of this curfew ordinances do not entail courts declared it to be invalid and unconstitutional.
punishment or penalty, there is no penalty to minors in case they
transgressed then there are not violative in section 57-A. So that is (RA 934) Section 20 defines who parents are: biological parents,
what the court said in this cases. adoptive parents, or individuals who have custody of the child.

They examine the ordinance again if what ordinances that imposed Clarification: In terms of the penalty of a child age 15 to 18 however
penalty in case of violation. So before that the court also define committed a crime with discernment. So if the case has been
what penalty is. Penalty is defined as punishment imposed in a decided already and the child is still on that range of age already,
wrongdoer. It's usually in form of imprisonment or fine. does that mean that he/she will serve the penalty after 18 years
Punishment is defined as a sanction such as fine, penalty, old.
confinement or loss of property right or privilege assessed against
a person who has violated the law. Answer: NO.
So here if you look at Manila ordinance sanctions and penalties for
violation. Though the penalties stated here or effect in case of Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code: Any person who,
violation be considered as penalties or punishment. So let's go first while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by
to admonition. Is admonition a form of penalty? Because if it is the mere accident without fault or intention causing it.
form of penalty then it must not be impose because these provision
is now going to be violative. Paragraph 4 is simply known as an exempting circumstance of an
Q: Admonition is a penalty? accident.
Supreme Court said that admonition is a formal way of giving
warning and expressing disapproval on the minor’s misdemeanors. Question: Why is accident considered an exempting circumstance?
It’s a gentle or friendly or counsel of warning against for over sight.
Now is admonition a penalty? Is it a penalty? So the Supreme Court Answer: The basis is complete absence of intent and intelligence on
said in this case that the admonition is not a penalty. the part of the accused.
Now what about disciplinary measures such as for example in
ordinance provided that in case of violations the minor will render Accident—is something that happens outside his way or will and
community service or community base programs. So the nect although it comes about through some act of our will, it lies beyond
question is that a form of penalty because again if it's a penalty it the vows of humanely foreseeable consequences.
should not be impose under section 57 and 57 A. So disciplinary
measures such as community programs and admonition are not What are the elements on an Accident?
penalties Supreme Court Stated in this case. They are not punitive
in nature and are generally less intrusive on the rights and conduct PEOPLE v. AYAYA
of the minor.
The accused (Ayaya) jabbed and hit her drunk husband (victm)
Now what about the penalty of reprimand? Is that a form of in the eye with an umbrella to prevent her son from being
penalty? What about imprisonment and payment of fine is that a crushed by the door.
penalty? So in this case the court said that if the penalty is
reprimand fines or imprisonment. This time Supreme Court said The drunk victim tried to lock himself alone in their house a d
that those are considered penalties. What do you mean by prevented both the accused and her son from entering. The
reprimand? Reprimand is a severe or formal reproof. Kung sa bisaya latter tried to force open the door but was prevented by the
pa kasaba but it's a formal kind of kasaba. So it's a penalty according victim. Somehow managing to open the door but was
to Supreme Court. All the more the fines or imprisonment. prevented by the victim. Somehow managing to open a small
Therefore provisions in case of violation, if curfew ordinance in gap wide enough for the son to poke his head, the victim
Manila city ordinance; the penalty reprimand fine or imprisonment shoved the door back, to prevent her son’s head from being
are violative to section 57 and 57 A or RA 9344 as amended. crushed by the closing door, the accused jabbed and hit the
victim when she saw a chance hitting the victim in the eyelid
This sums up the ruling of the court in this case with respect to 57 and wounding the same. The victim died four days after.
and 57 (a) of RA9344.
Question: What was the defense raised by the wife in this case?
Question: If the Supreme Court said that a particular ordinance or
law is violative of Section 57 and 57 (a) then what will be the effect? Answer: The defense raised by the wife was that it was an
accident.
Note: Once laws are enacted, there is a presumption of regularity
in the passage of the law. In fact, all laws, so long as the court have Elements of Accidents
yet issued an order stating that a specific law is invalid or
unconstitutional, the presumption is that it is valid. (a) A person is performing a lawful act with due care.
(b) The resulting injury was caused by mere accident.
Answer: The effect is that you have already paid and there hadn’t (c) On the part of the accused, there was no fault or no
been any ruling from the Supreme Court saying that the law is intent to cause the injury.
invalid then that is when we apply the expression that says, “charge
to experience”. Question: Were all the elements or requisites of accident
present in this case?
65 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

care; (3) it was done because of accident; (4) there

Answer: YES. was no fault or intention of causing it. Here, the Court
said the accused had no intention to kill the child,
Question: How were the elements demonstrated in this case of abandoned and exposed the child to death. Also, the
People v. Ayaya? Court said that the accused was suffering from
extreme debility.
First, a person is performing a lawful act. Did the mother
perform a lawful act when he used the umbrella to poke the
face of the husband.
People v. Castillo [G.R. No. 172695, June 29, 2007]
The Supreme Court in this case said yes, it was a lawful act. In
fact the mother did that out of defense of his son or self- - The husband hit the wife through the sling with a dart
defense even. from a rubber sling, his wife hitting her at the neck and
causing her instantaneous death.
“With due care”—In this case, did the accused perform the act
with due care? - The defense raised by the accused was that he was
practicing with a sling and a dart when the victim was
The court said yes—what she did was just to poke the umbrella hit which led to the instantaneous death. It was an
into the face of the husband as not to crush the head of the son accident.
through the opening of the door. The court said there is no
proof that there is no due care. - HELD: The Court held that the use of deadly sling and
dart cannot be considered performing a lawful act.
Second element, he or she caused an injury to another by mere The mere possession of sling and arrow is punishable
accident. under the law.

Third element, the act was done without any fault or intention
causing the accident.
People v. Latosa [June 23, 2010]
Here the court said that the only intention was to save the son.
There was no intention causing harm or injury to the husband. - The husband died in the hands of the wife. The
accused wife here was charged with parricide from
All the requisites are present in the case of People v. Ayaya. killing the husband.

US v. Tanedo (15 Phil 196) - The accused wife raised the defense of accident that
she shot accidentally the husband.
- The deceased went the accused to hunt wild chickens
at the forest. While hunting, the accused shot the - HELD: The Court said that in order to prove accident
chicken but the bullet ricocheted and hit the as an exempting circumstance, there has to be a clear
deceased and convincing evidence. The following essential
requisites for the exempting circumstance of accident
- HELD: The accused was charged with the liability on to wit: (1) She was performing a lawful act; (2) With
the death of victim, The accused raised ACCIDENT as due care; (3) She caused the injury to her husband by
a defense. The court said that all the requisites are mere accident; (4) Without fault or intention of
present. (1) Hunting of the chicken in the forest is a causing it.
lawful act; (2) the hunting of accused was did with
due care as there was no evidence that the accused
pointed it to the deceased; (3) it was an accident that - The Court said that by no stretch of imagination could
happened outside of the accused’s will; (4) there was the pointing of the gun towards her husband’s head
no fault or intention of causing it. and pulling the trigger be considered as performing a
lawful act with due care.

- Appellant’s version that she "accidentally shot" her

People V. Bandian [G.R. No. 45186 September 30, 1936] husband is not credible. Appellant’s manner of
carrying the caliber .45 pistol negates her claim of
- The mother was suffering from a fever. She went to "due care" in the performance of an act. The location
the thicket to respond to the call to the nature. While of the wound sustained by the victim shows that the
doing so, she gave birth to a child. The mother said she shooting was not merely accidental. The victim was
was not aware that she had already gave birth. So the lying down and the fact that the gun was found near
child was left in the thicket and died hours later. The his left hand was not directly disputed by her. It was
accused invoked accident as an exempting contrary to human nature that a newly awakened
circumstance. military man would suddenly ask his wife for his
firearm, and even patiently wait for her return to the
- HELD: According to the Court, all the requisites are house, when the said firearm was just inside the
present in the case. (1) It was a lawful act; (2) with due
66 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO
 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

cabinet which, according to appellant, was just about unlawful • The accused
two meters away from his bed. aggression of does not
another by using commit
- Thus, the accident in this case as an exempting a reasonable intentional or
circumstance cannot be appreciated. means. culpable felony
• In self-defense
has freedom of
action
People v. Fallorina [GR No. 137347, March 4, 2004] Basis: Necessity Basis: Absence of
intelligence and freedom
- The accused invoked both accident and negligence as of action
defenses.
Paragraph 5: One who acts under the compulsion of irresistible
- HELD: The Court said the accident and negligence are force
intrinsically contradictory, one cannot exist with the
other. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

DISCUSSION Basis: Actus me invite factus non est meus acyus (an act done by
me against my will is not my act).
Remember in the accident, the act must be lawful and
performed with due care and without fault or intention of
causing it. In negligence, there is fault. Therefore, accident and D. Irresistible Force
negligence cannot be invoked both as defenses because they
are intrinsically contradictory.
Basis: Actus me invite factus non est meus acyus. This means “An
act done by me against my will is not my act”.
ELEMENTS:
1. Somebody used force compelling the accused to commit
Toledo v. People [September 124, 2004]
a crime
2. The force used to compel the accused to commit a crime,
- The accused raised both accident and self-defense at
the same time. must be irresistible

- HELD: The Court said that accident and self-defense Irresistible force is a kind of force which produces an effect upon
are intrinsically antithetical. There is no such defense individual that in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere
as accident and self-defense in the realm of criminal instrument.
law.
People vs. Licayan
July 29, 2015

Facts: In an On August 15, 2001 Decision, the Supreme Court

(SC) affirmed the RTC Decision convicting Roderick Licayan and
Roberto Lara of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom of Joseph
DISCUSSION: Tomas Co and Linda Manaysay, and sentencing them to the
penalty of death. A Writ of Execution was issued ordering the
In self-defense, one practically admits to the commission of the execution of Licayan and Lara on January 30, 2004 at 3:00 p.m.
crime. In accident, you did a lawful act with due care but Before the date of Licayan and Lara's scheduled execution, two
something happened in sway of your will which cannot be of their co-accused in the original Information were arrested.
reasonably foreseen when there is no fault or intention of Pedro Mabansag, a double arm amputee and suspected
causing it. mastermind of the kidnapping, and Rogelio Delos Reyes.

Q: Why self-defense and cannot be invoked at the same time? The Public Attorney's Office (PAO) filed with the Supreme Court
an Urgent Motion to Reopen the Case which the SC granted on
Self-Defense Accident the condition that insofar as the accused Lara and Licayan are
• Justifying • Exempting concerned, the evidence already taken shall stand, although
Circumstance Circumstance additional evidence may be introduced to be taken and
• Implies • There is considered.
necessary complete
deliberate absence of The prosecution evidence showed that the victim Joseph Tomas
positive overt intelligence, Co owns a restaurant called Goodies Pares Mami House with
acts of the freedom of branches in Valenzuela, Cubao, and Sampaloc. Co's regular
accused to action on the routine was for him and Linda Manaysay, the restaurant's
prevent and part of the cashier and accounting officer, to make the rounds of the three
repel an accused

67 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

branches for inspection and collection of left-over food and cash The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present,
sales. imminent and impending; and it must be of such a nature as to
induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily
On August 9, 1998, while Co was at the Sampaloc branch, harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not
supervising the loading of left-over food into the back of his enough. A speculative, fanciful or remote fear, even fear of
Tamaraw FX service vehicle, three men approached him from future injury, is insufficient.4
behind. The men were armed with two caliber .45 pistols and a
.38 revolver. None of the men wore any mask. Co told the men
that if they wanted money, they could get it from the store. They
refused. One of the men's guns went off. When Manaysay heard
the shot, she came out. Co and Manaysay were amde to board
the Tamaraw and their hands were tied and their eyes taped,
and that they were made to wear caps over their heads. They
were brought inside a room of a house and the masking tape was
removed from their eyes. Accused Lara was left to guard them
inside the room. spar.

On August 11, 1998, at around 4:30 p.m., Licayan who was

guarding them at that time fell asleep and Co and Manaysay
somehow managed to escape without being noticed by the look-
out outside their room. Complainants took refuge in a house
from which Co was able to call the Marikina Police Headquarters.

Lara and Licayan were thereafter identified by Co and Manaysay

in a line-up. Benjamin Co, complainant Joseph Tomas Co's
brother, also testified that he was twice called in his office by
unidentified persons who demanded P10 million for the release DISCUSSION
of complainants.
For the accused to invoke irresistible force, he must show that the
irresistible force reduced him to a mere instrument that acted not
In 2005, Mabansag died while detained at the Marikina City Jail. only without will but also against his will. The compulsion must be
The trial against Licayan, Lara and Delos Reyes proceeded. In of such character as to leave the accused no opportunity defend
2009, the RTC of Marikina City rendered its Decision finding himself.
Licayan, Lara and Delos Reyes guilty of the crime of Kidnapping
for Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code and
sentenced them each to reclusion perpetua. E. Uncontrollable Fear
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Example: A tells B I will kill your mother if you will not kill C. Because
Licayan, Lara and Delos Reyes in toto. In the appeal now before of the threat, B killed C.
the Supreme Court, accused Delos Reyes reiterates his defense Elements
that the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear was 1. Existence of uncontrollable fear of an injury
present in his case while accused-appellants Licayan and Lara The fear must have deprived him of the freedom not to
seek to overturn their conviction on the basis of the newly commit the crime and there is no opportunity to escape or
discovered evidence presented during their retrial. resist.
2. The fear of an injury must be real and imminent
Issue: Whether or not Delos Reyes can invoke self-defense on Example: A threated to kill B at gun point unless the latter’s
the ground of irresistible force. husband C will kill D.

Ruling: No. Delos Reyes claims exemption from criminal liability People vs. Moreno
under Article 12, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, because April 7, 1949
he allegedly acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force,
specifically the fact that a co-accused, who is still at-large up to Facts: On November 23, 1944, a group of Miguel Moreno’s
this date, pointed a gun at him. soldiers of the semi-military organization known as Kaigun
Jeutay went to the house of Paciano de los Santos, and took
In People v. Dansal, this Court held that a person invoking the with them two single young daughters of said Paciano, and on
exempting circumstance of compulsion due to irresistible force the next day, when Paciano went to San Ramon Penal Colony,
admits in effect the commission of a punishable act, and must he was confined in a cell by order of Moreno
therefore prove the exempting circumstance by clear and On the night of December 1, 1944, Moreno gathered all the
convincing evidence. Specifically: He must show that the prison officials and employees of San Ramon Penal Colony in
irresistible force reduced him to a mere instrument that acted a meeting in the house of P.D. Dellosa then Assistant
not only without will but also against his will. The compulsion Superintendent of the institution, and in that gathering the
must be of such character as . to leave the accused no accused arrogantly announced that he was not afraid to cut
opportunity to defend himself or to escape. the head of anybody, ordered all those present to witness the

68 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

execution of Paciano de los Santos the following day, and 1st Issue: WON Cornista is entitled to the privileged
instructed Gregorio Magalit, a prisoner employee of said mitigating circumstance of minority.
institution to prepare the grave for said Paciano and issue a RULING: Yes. the appellate court established that Cornista, by
formal memorandum to that effect. his act of grappling for possession of an armalite w bacolor
And in the morning of December 2, 1944, Paciano de los and hitting the latters head acted with discernment that is he
Santos was taken to a place known as Fishery Division of the was able to distinguish right and wrong and know fully well
colony with both hands tied at the back, and there Moreno the consequences of his acts. thus, he may be excused from
ordered the victim Paciano to kneel down with the head bent criminal liability.
forward by the side of the grave already prepared for him by 2nd Issue: WON Cornista may be exempt from his criminal
order of the accused, and in that position, Moreno, with a liability because of uncontrollable fear.
Japanese sabre held in the handle by his both hands, hacked Ruling: NO.
the head of Paciano de los Santos, and immediately kicked the In this case, appellants had ample opportunity to escape. In
prostrate body of the victim into the grave. the first place, Leal was already armed when Fieldad
Moreno admitted to the killing of Paciano de los Santos, citing voluntarily followed him to the place where the Tamaraw
that he only acted upon the orders of the Japanese jeep was parked. The vehicle stopped three times: to board
authorities, particularly by Major Sasaki. Delim; to board Chan; and when they stopped to transfer
Issue: WON Miguel Moreno is exempt from criminal liability, vehicles. In addition, according to appellants’ testimonies,
citing the fact that he acted under the orders of an irresistible only Leal was armed. The following discussion of the Court
force. ofAppeals is quoted with approval:
Ruling: NO. Assuming that such an order was really given by x x x. Considering, however, that there were five of them who
Major Sasaki, it could not exempt the defendant from criminal boarded the Tamaraw jeep, they could have easily
liability under subsection 6 of article 12, of the Revised Penal overpowered Leal, who was then alone, had they wanted to.
Code. Thus, there could not have been any appreciable imminent
Nor was there any threat of such a serious character and danger to their lives. In fact, they had every opportunity to
imminence as to create in the mind of the defendant an escape individually. Bynot availing of this chance to escape,
uncontrollable fear that an equal or greater evil or injury accused-appellants’ allegation of fear or duress becomes
would be inflicted upon him if he did not comply with the untenable.
alleged order to kill the deceased. The only part of the To be believed, testimony must not only proceed from the
defendant's testimony relating to a sort of a threat is the mouth of a credible witness; it must be credible in itself such
following: "As they insisted and I informed them that I could as the common experience and observation of mankind can
not do it, then Captain Susuki told me: You have to comply approve as probable under the circumstance. The
with the order, he had to come along with them, is not such a circumstances under which appellants participated in the
threat as contemplated by said provision of the Revised Penal commission of the carnapping would not justify in any way
Code; especially, taking into consideration that the defendant their claim that they acted under an uncontrollable fear of
himself declared that the captain told him "that they could being killed by their fellow carnapper. Rather, the
not be present (at the execution of the deceased) because circumstances establish the fact that appellants, in their flight
they had to return that same day to Zamboanga." (P. 49, from jail, consciously concurred with the other malefactors to
t.s.n.) take the Tamaraw jeep without the consent of its owner.

DISCUSSION DISCUSSION
In this case, it stated “Because it is plain that there was no This case stated that “A person invoking uncontrollable fear must
compulsion of an irresistible force that compelled the defendant to show that the compulsion was such that it reduced him to a mere
kill the victim against his will; nor was there any threat of such a instrument acting not only without will but against his will as well. It
serious character and imminence as to create in the mind of the is necessary that the compulsion be of such a character as to leave
defendant an uncontrollable fear that an equal or greater evil or no opportunity to escape or self-defense in equal combat.”
injury would be inflicted upon him if he did not comply with the When the Tamaraw jeep was parked, they had the great
alleged order to kill the deceased”. opportunity to escape but they did. Hence the court ruled the
The threat here is vague, “You have to comply otherwise you have absence of uncontrollable fear. What they did is the intentional and
to come along with us”. It did not say that, “You have to come along deliberate killing of the victim.
with us because we will kill you or your mother”. The court said that
uncontrollable fear cannot be appreciated in this case. DISTINCTION OF UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR AND IRRESISTIBLE
FORCE WITH RESPECT TO THE SOURCE OF COMPULSION
People vs. Fieldad
October 1, 2014 UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

Facts: The appellants Fieldad, Cornista and Pimentel were

charged with the murder of two BJMP jail guards within the As to the SOURCE of COMPULSION
detention compounds of their confinement as well as theft of
the car they used as a getaway vehicle to facilitate their
escape from prison. The accused gave an alibi that they were It is fear It is force
somewhere else from the nipa hut where the guards were
killed; that they didn’t conspire with treachery and that they
were only inspired with fear to steal and drive the car.

69 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO

 CRIMINAL LAW 1
From the Lectures of Atty. Rene Rizza Bernardo-Mamburam
1-Viada A.Y. 2022-2023

The offender was compelled to The offender was compelled to

commit a crime through the commit a crime through threat
use of physical force or intimidation INSTIGATION ENTRAPMENT

F. Lawful or Insuperable Cause Committed when law Ways and means are resorted
enforcers lure an accused into to for the purpose of trapping
committing the offense in and capturing lawbreakers in
Any person who fails to perform an act required by law when order to prosecute him the execution of their criminal
prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause is exempt from plan
criminal liability.
Example: For Christians, there is the Sacrament of Confession. They Instigators become co- Sanctioned by law as a
go to the priest and confess. Priests have a vow of secrecy, they principals themselves (Intent legitimate method of
cannot divulge whatever they got from the confession from the to commit the crime originated apprehending criminal
confessant. Suppose the confessant told the priest that they are from them) elements
planning to conspire against the government or planning to
Absolutory cause will lead to Not an absolutory cause; not a
conspire to commit treason against the government. There is a
accused’s acquittal bar to accused’s prosecution
crime in the RPC as misprision of treason. This is committed when
and conviction
a person fails to report to the authorities any plan or any
information of conspiracy against the government.
Suppose the priest will not tell the authorities because of the vow *END OF FIRST EXAM*
of secrecy and be charged of misprision of treason. The priest can
raise the defense of paragraph 7 of Article 12. Prevented by lawful “The way to get started is to quit talking and begin
or insuperable cause
doing.”
– Walt Disney
G. Absolutory Cause

Instigation is an absolutory cause. If this is proved by the accused,

he will not incur any criminal liability.

Example of Instigation: Police officer was looking for someone to

apprehend to report it to the authorities. A tells B to look for shabu
and B says, I cannot get that for you because that is prohibited. But
A insists and says “Its okay, just look for it and give it to me so that
I can sell it”. B sensing that A is a police officer though to himself
that he was ordered by a police officer and got one pack of shabu.
B then gave it to A. A then arrested B. Hence, B can raise the
defense of instigation.
Elements
1. Law enforcement officers or the agents performed acts
of persuasion, trickery, or fraud to induce the accused to
commit a crime to prosecute him
2. The criminal design originates in the minds of the
government officials rather than that of the innocent
defendant
3. There are no private complainant involved

Entrapment is commonly employed by police officer as an effective

way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a
crime.
Example of Entrapment: Buy-bust operation. Police officer knows
that this particular person is engaged in selling shabu. They planned
an operation wherein they will catch be in the act of selling shabu.
A acted as a poseur buyer of shabu. He went to B and told him to
buy a sachet of shabu. B then gave the sachet to A. Then A gave the
money to B and arrested him.
In that example, there is entrapment because the original intent to
commit the crime came from the accused and not on the law
enforcement officer. There is just that means done by the police
officer to catch the offender while in the act of committing a crime.

70 | KABINGUE|LACANARIA|MAGPALE|MARIANO |ONAS|PADEN| PENA|SATUR|TAUTHO