ARTICLE 90,91,92,93 CRIMINAL LAW 1 CLJ 2

CLJ 2, CRIMINAL LAW 1

1. CRIMINAL LAW BOOK 1 Prepared by: JOHN DEL L RESPONSO, RCRIM

2. Learning Outcomes: 1. students be able to recall the different characteristics of criminal law. 2. nature and elements of felony 3. concept of dolo and culpa and; 4. plurality of crimes.

3. ACT 3815 THE REVISED PENAL CODE History of RPC 1. The old penal code took effect until december 31, 1931 2. The revised penal code was drafted and prepared by anacleto diaz as chairman, quintin paredes, guillermo guevarra, alex reyes and mariano de joya as members. 3. RPC was approved on December 8, 1930 4. RPC took effect on january 1, 1932

4. Sources of Criminal Law 1. Revised penal code ( Act No. 3815 ) and its ammendments 2. Special penal laws passed by: a. Philippine Commission b. Philippines Assembly c. Philippine Legislature d. Batasang pambansa; and the e. Congress of the Philippines

5. What is Criminal law? Is the branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishments. Crime - Is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. Felony - Is an act or omission punishable by the revised penal code

6. Offense - Is an act or omission punishable by special penal laws Infractions - Is a violation of city or municipal ordinance. Misdemeanor - is a minor infraction of laws.

7. Injuries are committed; 1. Injury committed against a person; 2. Injury committed against the state Ilustration; X hit Y. Y sustained a fatal wound but he survived. Thereafter, Y filed frustrated homicide. The prosecutor found probable cause. In the information filed by the prosecutor, the title is people of the philippines v.s X. The trial continued and found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The first penalty is imprisonment due to social injury. Aside from this, Y will be paid a civil indemnity.

8. Charateristics of Criminal law 1. Generality - Criminal law is binding all persons who live or sojourn in the philippines. 2. territoriality - Criminal law are applicable only if the crime is committed within the philippine territory. 3. Prospectivity- Criminal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. “Lex prospicit Non respicit” -The law looks forward not backward

9. Exceptions to the Generality characteristics 1. As provided by treaty or treaty stipulations a. The bases agreement entered into by and between the Republic of the philippines and USA on march 14, 1947, which expired on september 16, 1991. b. The agreement between the USA and the philippines regarding the treatment of US Armed forces visiting the philippines (RP-US Visiting Forces Accord). 2. As provided by laws of preferential application - RA 75 penalizes acts which would impair the proper observance by the republic and its inhabitants of the immunities, rights and priviledges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic representatives of the philippines. - Persons who are exempt because of certain principles of international laws: a. Sovereigns and other head of states b. Ambassadors, minister plenipotentiaries, minister residents c. charges d’ affaires

10. illustration: A, the ambassadors of malaysia to the philippines. A was summoned to malacanang. However, the driver of A was not feeling well so instead, A drove himself to malacanang. A drove the vehicle in a reckless manner. As a result. He hit and killed an innocent pedestrian.

11. illustration: Many Heads of states arrived in the philippines for the 2016 Miss Universe. Among them was President A of Mexico. He found Ms. China very attractive and invited her to a date in a hotel. afterwards, President A rape her. In this case,

12. “NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA POENA SINE LEGE” There is no crime if there’s no law punishing it. Even what has been performed was a perverted or immoral act but there is no law punishes the act, such person cannot be prosecuted in court.

13. TERRITORIALITY - Penal laws shall be applicable only within the philippine jurisdiction including its atmosphere, internal waters, etc. General rule: Crimes committed outside the philippine jurisdiction cannot be under philippine courts. Exceptions to the territorial characteristics: 1. When the offender shall commit an offense on a philippine ship or airship. 2. When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the philippines or obligations and securities issued by the philippine government. 3. When the offender should be liable for the acts connected with the introduction into the philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in number two. 4. When the offender who is a public officer or employee abroad shall commit an offense in the exercise of his functions. 5. When the offender should commit an offense against national security and the laws of nations.

14. Prospectivity - Penal laws shall be only be applied from the time of effectivity. Exceptions to the propectivity characteristics 1. When the new law is favorable to the accused. “Favorabilia Sunt Amplianda adiosa restrigenda” - Penal laws favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect. Exception to the Exception 1. When the offender is a habitual criminal 2. When the new law expressly provides it has no application or retroactive effect to pending action/ causes.

15. Effects of Repeal of a penal law: 1. If the new law is favorable to the accused in the sense that the penalty becomes lighter, then the new law shall be applied. Except when the accused is a habitual criminal. 2. But if the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the old law shall be applied, that is the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense shall be applied. “Doctrine of Pro Reo” - Penal laws should always be construed liberally in favor of the accused and strictly against the accused.

16. Lenity Rule Whenever a penal law or any provision thereof is sudceptible of 2 interpretations; one is lenient to the offender which will bring about his/her acquittal and the other is strict or against the offender which will bring about conviction; the interpretation that is lenient or favorable to the offender shall be adopted. Equipoise Rule Whenever the evidence of the prosecution is equally balanced with the evidence of the defense, the scale of justice shall be tilted towards the accused . Reason: Presumption of innocense ; the prosection has the burden of proving conviction beyond reasonable doubt. conviction must be based on the strength of the evidence of the accused.

17. illustration: Police officers recieved a tip from a credible source that a person wearing white shirt and blue shorts will arrive at bus terminal in buendia at 9 PM carrying shabu. Acting thereon, the police officers arrived at the bus station and waited. When a man weearing white shirt and blue shorts came out the bus, the police immediately frisked and searched the man. A White crystalline substance was found in his possession and identified as shabu by the crime laboratory. During trial, the defense presented two witness who were passengers of the same bus with the accused and seated beside him. The witnesses said that they did not see the police frisked and searched the accused. Furthermore, they did not see any drugs seized when they apprehended the accused. In this case, the court should rule in favor against the accused.

18. Rules on crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessel while within philippine waters: Jurisdictional rules for merchant vessels; 1. English rule - the crime is punishable in the philippines, unless the crime merely affects things within the vessel. 2. French rule - the crime is not triable in the courts of that country, unless the commission of the crime has affected the peace, safety and security of the coastal state,

19. Article 3. definition- acts and ommissions punishable by law are felonies ( delitos) Elements of felonies in general 1. An act or omission 2. Act or ommission punishable by revised penal code 3. Act is performed or omission is incurred by means of dolo or culpa Act- Is any bodily tending to produce some effects innthe external world Omission - Inaction, the failure to perform an act one is bound to do

20. Requesites of Dolo or malice (Intentional felonies) 1. Freedom 2. Intelligence 3. Intent Requesites of Culpa or Fault (Culpable Felonies) 1. Freedom 2. Intelligence 3. Imprudence, negligence, lack of skill, lack of foresight

21. Development/ Genesis of a Crime 1. Internal Act 2. External Act a. Preparatory Acts b. Acts of execution

22. Imprudence v.s Negligence 1. Imprudence involves lack of skill. Negligence involves lack of foresight 2. Imprudence involves a deficiency of action. Negligence indicates a deficiency of perception 3. Failure to make precaution is imprudence failure to use deligence is negligence

23. Crimes Mala Inse 1 . as to basis * The moral state of the offender 2. As to nature * Wrong from its very nature 3. Use of good faith as defense * Good faith is a valid defense; unless the crime is the result of culpa 4 . Intent is an element *Intent is an element 5. Degree of accomplishment of the crime * The degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender 6 . As to mitigating and aggravating circumstance * Rules on mitigating and aggravating circumstance apply. Mala Prohibita *The voluntariness of the offender * Wrong because it is prohibited by law * Good faith is not a defense * Intent is immaterial * The act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated * Rules on mitigating and aggravating does not apply unless provided for by the special penal law.

24. 7 . Degree of participation * When there is more than one offender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of crime is taken into account 8 . As to penalty * Penalty is computed on the basis of whether the offender is principal, accomplice, accessory 9 . Laws violated * Violation of the Revised penal code 1 0. As to staged of execution * attempted, frustrated, consummated 11. Ast to person criminally liable * Principal, accomplice, accessories 12. As to division of penalties * Penalties may be divided into degrees and periods * Degree of participation is generally not taken into account. All who participated in the act are punished to same extent. * The penalty imposed on the offenders are the same whether they are merely accomplice or accessories. * Violation of special penal laws ( General rule) * No such stages of execution * Generally, only the principal is liable * There is no such division of penalties

25. Theories of Criminal law 1. Classical theory - The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of penalty is retribution 2. Positivist theory - Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which contrains him from wrong doing. 3. Mixed/ Eclectic theory - A combination of both classical and positivist theories.

26. Art. 4 Criminal Liability Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against person or property. were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or inefectuacl means.

27. Error in personae - Mistake in identity of victim. The penalty is that provided for in article. 49 of RPC , that is the penalty for lesser crime in its maximum period. illustration: X intended to kill Y. One night, X shouted at the person whom he thought to be Y. An altercation ensued. In the process, X fired his gun at the person who died as a consequence. It turned out that the person whom he shot and killed was not Y but his own father Z. In this case X is liable for?

28. Aberratio Ictus - Mistake in the blow, that is when the offender intending to do an injury on a particular person but actually inflicts it on another. illustration: X, with intent to kill, Hacked Y. Y was not hit but Z, who was also behind Y, was hit Z died. X is liable for?

29. Praeter Intentionem - result done is greater than that originally intended. illustration: X boxed Y with the intention of inflicting a lump on Y. As a result of the blow, Y lost his balance and fell on the ground with his head hitting the pavement causing his death. X is liable for?

30. What is Proximate cause? - Is the cause which in the ordinary and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause produces the injury.

31. Efficient intervening cause - are those that break the relation of cause and effect. The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when: 1. there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and resulting injury; 2. the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the accused. take note: Proximate cause is not always the immediate cause. At times, it may be a remote cause.

32. illustration: Z was driving his car at TPLEX followed by Y, by X, by V and by U. When Z reached the tollgate, he stopped to pay the toll and Y, X and V stopped as well. However, U was very sleepy and did not stop his vehicle so he hit V, V hit X, X hit Y and Y hit Z. Considering the impact, the car of Z sustained serious damage. In this case ?

33. Impossible Crimes - those crime which would have been committed against persons or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on for the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. take note: The purpose of the law in punishing impossible crime is to suppress criminal propensities or tendecies.

34. Requisites of impossible crimes 1. The act performed would have been an offense against person or property. 2. The act was done with evil intent 3. Its accomplishment is inherently impossible because the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual 4. The act does not constitute another violation of the RPC.

35. Kinds of inherent Impossibility 1. Legal Impossibility 2. Physical Impossibility There is legal impossibility when all the intended acts even if committed would not have amounted to a crime. illustration: A saw his enemy B lying on a bench. He went to B and stabbed B 20 times not knowing that B had already long been dead for 3 hours due to heart attack.

36. Answer: Even if A performed all the acts amounting to murder, still murder would not arise which is a crime against persons because the victim is already dead. He is no longer a person in the eyes of criminal law. Therefore, there is an Impossible crime.

37. Physical impossibility or factual impossibility Exist when an extraneous circumstances unknown to the offender prevented the consignation of the crime. Here, there are circumstances unknown to the offender, the inadequate control of the offender which prevented the consignation of the crime. illustration: A , place his hands inside the pocket of the polo of B, intended to get the wallet of B but the pocket was empty.

38. Answer: It is an impossible crime. Exraneous circumstances unknown to the offender prevented the consignation of crime. Unkown to A, the wallet was not inside B’s Pocket. It is an impossible crime because it would have amounted to theft, a crime against person.

39. Development of a Crime 1. Subjective phase - is the portion in the commission of the act wherein the offender commences the commission of the crime after the time that he still has control over his acts. 2. Objective phase from the moment the offender loses control over his acts, it is already in the subjective phase of the commission of the crime.

40. Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted A felony is CONSUMMATED when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. It is FRUSTRATED when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an ATTEMPT when the offender commences the commission of the felony directly by over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.

41. Requisites of Attempted Felony 1. Offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts 2. He does not perform all the acts of execution 3. He is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance 4. The non performance of all the acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

42. When is a felony commenced by overt acts? a. there must be an external act; and b. the external act must have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.

43. Requisites of frustrated felony 1. offender performs all the acts of execution 2. felony is not produce 3. By reason of cause independent of the will of the perpetrator

44. Q: How to determine whether a crime is attempted, frustrated or comsummated? a. see the following 1. The elements present 2. The nature of the offense 3. The manner of the commission of the crime

45. Formal Crimes vs. Material Crimes Formal crimes - are crimes consummated in one instant. - Only one stage and that is consummated stage ex. physical injuries, slander, and adultery. Material Crimes - Have stages of execution - attempted, frustrated, consummated

46. Article 7. When light felonies are punishable - Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated with the exception of those committed against person or property. example: slight physical injuries (art. 266, RPC) Theft (Art. 309. par. 7 & 8) malicious mischief (Art. 328, par. 3, Art. 329, par. 3)

47. Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. A conspiracy exist when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decided to commit it. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

48. Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specifically provides a penalty therefore. cases where mere conpiracy is already punishable: 1. conspiracy to commit treason (art. 115) 2. conspiracy to commit rebellion or insurrection (Art. 136) 3. conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 141) 4. conspiracy to commit terrorism (RA 9372) cases where mere proposal is already punishable 1. Proposal to commit treason (Art. 115) 2. Proposal to commit coup d’ etat, rebellion, or insurrection (Art. 136)

49. “Act of one is the Act of all” illustration: V, W, X, Y and Z come to an agreement to take up arms and overthrow the government and stir public uprising. They already bought guns and other pieces of equipment. However, before they could execute their plan, they were apprehended. In this case?

50. Answer: V, W, X, Y and Z are liable for the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion. Even though they were not able to execute their plan, consipiring to overthrow the government is already a felony which makes them criminally liable.

51. Classification of felonies according to gravity Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies, and light felonies. - Grave felonies - attaches capital punishment- Afflictive - Less grave felonies - Maximum period are correctional in accordance with article 25 of this code. - Light felonies - infractions of law - arresto menor or fines not exceeding forty thousand pesos or both.

52. Article 17. Principals The following are considered as principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it; 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.

53. illustration: V, W, X, Y and Z decided to rob a bank. based on their agreement, V, W,and X will be ones to enter the bank. Y will serve as lookout. Z will serve as the driver of the vehicle. They committed the crime on the date agreed upon. In this case?

54. Answer: All of them are liable as principals by direct participation because all of them are authors of the criminal design.

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

56. illustration: A, B and C decided to rob the bank. On the agreed time and place, they were already about to go to the bank, but suddenly they realized they have no vehicle. So, they flagged down a taxi. They informed the taxi driver of their criminal design, to which the taxi driver agreed for his car to be used as a getaway vehicle. While on their way to the bank, they realized that they needed s lookout. They saw a balut vendor and asked him “ can you be our lookout? The moment you see police coming, shout baluuuut! The said vendor agreed to the said criminal design. After robbing the bank, A B C and the balut vendor boarded the taxi. In this case?

57. Answer: A, B, C are liable as principal by direct participation while as accomplices. They are accomplices since, A, B, C already agreed on the criminal design.

58. Article 19. Accessories - are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplice take part subsequent to its commission in an of the following;

59. 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. Example: X by means of deceit was able to take the diamond ring of his friend. So, X swindled his friend by means of deceit. After taking the ring, she went Y. X told “Y”, I have here diamond ring, I swindled it from my friend and I’m selling it to you for only 10k. Y sold the said ring and divided the proceeds between the two of them. In this case?

60. Answer: Y is an accessory . He assisted X, the principal of the crime of swindling, in profiting from the effects of the crime by selling the stolen diamond ring and dividing the money between X and Y.

61. 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery. Example: X and Y were fighting. Y kicked and punched X. X lost the fight and fell down. W, who saw the fight, gave X a gun and ordered to shoot Y. S, another bystander, also told X to shoot Y. X shot Y who died immediately. X went home. feeling guilty of the crime that he committed, He confessed to his father what he had done. X gave the gun that he used to his father. The father hid the gun to prevent its discovery by the police.

62. Answer: In this case, X is guilty of homicide as a principal by direct participation. X completed all the acts of execution for homicide by pulling the trigger of the gun which immediately resulted to the death of Y. W is considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation in the crime of homicide. W gave a gun to X which the latter used to shoot and kill Y. Were it not for the gun which W gave, X would not have to used said gun to kill Y thereby committing homicide. S, is not criminally liable. Even though S told X to shoot Y, he did not provide the gun to complete the acts of execution. Likewise, absence of any finding of consipiracy, or that S, participated in the criminal resolution of homicide, such words of encouragement does not make him criminally liable. The father is liable as an accessory. By concealing the gun which X , his son, used to commit the crime of homicide, he assisted X, his son by concealing the effects or the instrument of the crime of homicide in order to prevent from its discovery, However, by virtue of article 20 of RPC, the father is exempted from criminal liability because X was his son.

63. 3. (For public officials only) By harboring, concealling, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions (for private person person also) whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the chief executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. If the accessory who harbored and concealed or assisted in the escape of the principal is a private individual, the law specifies the crime committed which is PD 1829, otherwise known as obstruction of justice.

64. What is obstruction of justice? - is committed by any person who willfully and lawfully obstruct, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal case. Example: The principal committed swindling or estafa. X harbored the principal despite knowing the latter committed estafa. X cannot be considered as an accessory because estafa or swindling is not among crimes mentioned in the second part of the 3rd act. He is instead liable for obstruction of justice.

65. Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability The penalties prescribe for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, decendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brother and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with a single exemption of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.

66. Who are the accessories exempt from criminal liability? Example: A and B are sisters. They had a housemaid, X. A and B were cruel to X, for a minor mistake they would slap, box or injure her. One time, A went to work. When she arrived home, she saw the deceased body in a sack and placed it on the trunk of their car. However, someone witnessed their act who immediately called the police, reporting that he saw 2 women putting a sack in a trunk wherein 2 feet were protruding from the said sack. A and B were prosecuted and both convicted for murder.

67. ANSWER: In this case, only B is liable for homicide. When A arrived, the housemaid was already dead. A is considered as an accessory. Her act trying to place the deceased body inside the trunk of the car in order to prevent the discovery of the crime. Her act constitutes that an accessory. But she falls under article 20 since she is related to the offender.

68. What is Complex Crime? Answer: There is complex crime when a single act constitute two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. Take note: In this case the penalty for the more serious crime shall bee imposed in its maximum period- Art. 48 RPC.

69. TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIME 1. Delito Compuesto - Compound Crime - when a single act constitute two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. Example: A political rival placed a bomb on X’s car. A person died; several persons injured. A single act placing the bomb produces two or more less grave felonies. Crime is murder with multiple frustrated murder. If two persons died, the charge is double murder. If three or more persons died, the crime is multiple murder. There is no complex crime of triple murder.

70. 2. Complex Crime proper- Delito complejo - when an offense is a neccessary means of committing the other. example : Person falsifies a public document - falsification used to defraud another 3. Delito continuado - Continous crime - is present when the offender is impelled by a single criminal impulse commits a series of overt acts in about the same time and about the same place violating one and the same provision of law.

71. Example: A, B, C, and D Live in one compound. All engaged in the selling of roosters. One night, 11:30 in the evening here comes X. While they were sleeping, X took the rooster of A, then B, then of C, then of D. Q: How many crimes will you file against X? Answer: Crime committed is one charge of theft. X impelled by a single impulse committed overt acts leading to theft.

72. Circumstances affecting ones criminal liability 1. Justifying circumstances 2. Exempting Circumstances 3. Mitigating Circumstances 4. Aggravating Circumstances 5. Alternative Circumstances

73. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES - Those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with the law. As a consequence, he is freed from criminal and civil liability. Enumerate the Justifying Circumstances; 1. Self defense 2. Defense of relatives 3. Defense of strangers 4. Avoidance of greater evil 5. Fulfillment of duty 6. Obedience to an order

74. Justifying Circumstances 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; first. Unlawful Aggression. Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent it. third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

75. Two kinds of aggression; 1. Lawful aggression 2. Unlawful aggression

76. Doctrine of Self-Help (art. 11 justifying circumstances) The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonable necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.( Art. 429, civil code). Defense of property is not of such importance as the right to life and defense of property can only be invoked when it is coupled with some form of attack on the person of one entrusted with said property. The defense of property, wheather complete or incomplete, to be available in prosecutions for murder or homicide must be coupled with an attack by the one getting the property on the person defending it. (Justice Gutierrez)

77. Art. 11 Justifying Circumstances (People v. Narvaez G.R. Nos. l-33466- 67 april 20, 1983) The deceased had no right to destroy or cause damage to appellant’s house, nor to close his accessibility to the highway while he was pleading with them to stop and talk things over with him. The assault on appelant’s property, therefore, amounts to unlawful aggression as contemplated by law.

78. Unlawful aggression - is assault or at least threatened assault of a immediate and imminent kind. - an actual physical assault upon a person or at least a threat to inflict real injury. a. Actual the danger is present, that us, it is actually in existence Example: While A and B were cutting trees, they had heated argument. A suddenly slashed B with a bolo thereby wounding B’s right shoulder. A was about to deliver another blow but B was able to retrieve his bolo and hacked A’s stomach. A fell down and died a few moments later due to blood loss b. Imminent - the danger is on the point of happening. Example: A and B were enemies and in numerous occasions, B threatened A that he will kill him when their paths will cross. One night while A was coming back home, he saw B heading towards him. B had a gun and he pointed the gun at him, swiftly drew out his pistol and shot B.

79. Art. 11 Justifying Circumstances Unlawful aggression 1. There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon 2. Insulting words, no matter how objectionable, without physical force, does not constitute unlawful aggression 3. A slap on the face constitute unlawful aggression 4. retaliation is not self defense Example: While A was walking along the streets one night, B approached him from behind and punched the back of his head. B kicked him continuously until A fell down. B took A’s cellphone and wallet and ran away. On his way home, A saw B eating balot outside a store. A picked up a large stone and bashed it against B’s head. B was hospitalized for 3 months.

80. 5. The unlawful aggression must come the person who was attacked by the accused. 6. No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight 7. Mere threatening attitude is not not unlawful aggression Art. 285. other light threats. - The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding forty thousand pesos (40,000) shall be imposed upon; 1. Any person who without being included in this provision pf the next preceding article, shall threaten another with a weapon, or draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self defense. Example: A saw his mortal enemy B who was buying bread in the bakeshop. A pulled out his knife and charged towards the direction of B. B saw A so B drew his gun. When A saw the gun, he stopped and ran away. A filed a criminal case against B for Light threat under article 285.

81. 8. The belief of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of unlawful aggression. Example: A, an army veteran, was using the public toilet to urinate. B, a stranger, approached from behind, pointed a TOY gun at A’s head, and shouted “ papatayin kita!. In just two skillful moves, A successfully disarmed B and karate chopped his neck. B fell down and died. Unknown to A, there was a hidden camera as it was just a prank. Mistake of Fact “ IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT” - an honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act (Pp v. Oanis, 74 Phil 257) - The act done would have been lawful, had the facts been as the accused believed them to be.

82. Art. 11 Justifying Circumstances 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; first. Unlawful Aggression. Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent it. third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

83. Art. 11 Justifying Circumstances Reasonable Necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. 1. Necessity of the COURSE OF ACTION 2. Necessity of the MEANS USED

84. 1. Necessity of the COURSE OF ACTION Example: Someone attacked you with a knife but you were carrying a firearm and shot him Example: Someone attacked you with a knife but you blocked it, and the assailant ran away. You chased him and killed him.

85. Art. 11 Justifying Circumstances 2. Necessity of the MEANS EMPLOYED Example: Someone attacked you with a knife but you were carrying a firearm and you shot him. Example: Someone shouted at you and slapped you in the face. Feeling angry, you shot him in the head.

86. 2. Necessity of the MEANS EMPLOYED - Perfect equality between the weapons used is NOT required - Not “ Material commensurability” but only “ rational equivalence”

87. Test for reasonableness in determining whether there is self defense; 1. Nature of the weapon used by the aggressor 2. Quality of his weapon’ 3. The physical conditions of both parties 4. Place of the aggression and others

88. Self Defense Defense of relatives Defense of strangers 1. Unlawful aggression 1. Unlawful aggression 1. Unlawful aggression 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself 3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had no part therein. 3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

89. Provocation - any unjust or improper conduct on the part of the offended party capable of inciting or irritating anyone. - Action or speech held to be likely to prompt physical retaliation THINGS TO REMEMBER IN PROVOCATION 1. There must be no provocation made by one claiming the defense 2. Even if provocation was given, it must be sufficient provocation 3. Even if the provocation was sufficient, but it was not given by the person claiming self-defense then there is self-defense. 4. The provocation was not proximate and immediate to the act of aggression.

90. Art. 11 Justifying Circumstances What will happen if ONE or SOME of the requisites of self defense are NOT PRESENT? Unlawful aggression Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the persondefending himself.

91. Only unlawful aggression is present; Unlawful aggression Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the persondefending himself. take note: ORDINARY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES under art. 13

92. Art. 13 Mitigating Circumstances The following are mitigating circumstances 1. Those mention in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.

93. Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances Penalty provides 2 indivisible penalties; Example: Reclusion perpetua to death - Reclusion perpetua (read art. 63) Divisible penalty having three (3) periods. Example: Reclusion temporal - Reclusion temporal in its minimum period ( read art. 64. par. 2 art. 76)

94. 2. conditions/ requisites are present: Unlawful aggression Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself Take note: Priviledge Mitigating Circumstance under Art. 69

95. 2. conditions/ requisites are present: Unlawful aggression Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

96. Priviledge Mitigating Circumstance Example: Homicide under article. 249 Imposable penalty is Reclusion temporal - prision mayor ( 1 degree lower or - prision correctional (2 degrees lower)

97. Defense of relatives 1. unlawful aggression 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it 3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had no part therein. Example: A saw B walking with his brother C. A pulled out his knife and tried to stab B but B stepped back. A was about to stab B again but C, who was then armed, pulled out his gun and shot A who dies as the consequence. Example: A saw B walking with his brother C. B ran towards A and tried to stab him with a knife but A blocked the attack. A also pulled out his knife and tried to stab B but C intervened and shot A who died as a consequence.

98. Art. 11 Justifying Circumstances Defense of relatives -Unlawful aggression may depend upon the honest belief of the one making the defense. Example: Juan saw his enemy pedro, juan rushed towards pedro and tried to hack him with a bolo but missed. When juan tried to hack pedro again, juan lost balance and fell. Pedro pulled out his own bolo and raised it as juan was trying to get up to attack pedro once more. Bruno, juan’s brother arrived and saw pedro who was about to hacked juan. Bruno shot pedro who did not know that juan was the one who attacked first.

99. Example Leng was with her brother cardo when she saw her enemy Ivana selling BBQ. Leng approached Ivana and hurled invective at her, calling her “ igat ka, malandi.. pokpok.. maduming babae.. inagaw mo boypren ko na si manoy.” Infuriated, Ivana grabbed the knife she was using and tried to stab leng but missed, Ivana tried to stab leng again but cardo pulled out his gun and shot ivana to death. Example: Pia was with her brother javier when she her enemy miya selling BBQ. Javier appraoched miya and hurled invectives at her “ Igat ka! malandi.. pokpok.. maduming babae.. inagaw mo boypren n kapatid ko na si Romeo. Infuriated, miya grabbed the knife she was using and tried to stab pia but missed. Miya tried to stab pia again but javier pulled out his gun and shot miya to death

100. Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11) Ascendants Grandparents Parents YOU

101. Descendants YOU Children Grandchildren

102. Relatives by Consanguinity within the 4th civil degree Grandfather Father Uncle You Brother Cousin

103. Relatives by Affinity within the same degree 1. Parents- in- law 2. Sister/Brother-in-law 3. Son/Daughter-in-law

104. TABLE OF RELATIVES BY CONSAGUINITY THAT MAY BE DEFENDED Relationship Brothers/ Sisters Uncle, Aunt, niece, and nephew First Cousin Degree 2nd Degree 3rd Degree 4th Degree

105. Defense of Stranger Requisites 1. Unlawful aggression 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it 3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive

106. strangers - any person not included at the enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of art. 11 Example: While A was walking, he heard screams and ran towards the sound. A saw K trying to stab X. A resented K because they exhchange fist blows a month ago. A pulled out his knife and stabbed K to prevent him from stabbing X.

107. Example: Adelo and jane are husband and wife. Manoy is the first cousin of Jane. In one instance, Adelo saw Manoy arguing with romeo. During that argument, Romeo was about to stab Manoy. Thereafter, Adelo immediately grabbed a stone and approached Romeo. Adelo hit Romeo with a stone. Romeo sustained a fatal wound, however, he survived. Adelo was charge with frustrated homicide. Adelo argues defense of relative. In this case?

108. Answer: Adelo’s argument of defense of relative is not tenable. The law says that a person may defend the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relative by affinity within same degree. although Manoy is the first cousin of jane and thus related to adelo by affinity. adelo is not the same degree mentioned by the provision. Adelo is neither the ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister of jane.

109. State of Necessity a. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exist b. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it. c. That there be no other practical mean and less harmful means to prevent it. State of Necessity Par. 4. Any person , who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present: means INJURY to persons or DAMAGE to property

110. Example of “ Injury to Person” While A was driving carefully one night, an unlighted truck in the opposite direction swerved to his lane and was heading towards him. In a split second decision, A turned violently to the right where he ran over a bicycle rider who died.

111. Example of “ Damage to Property” Five nipa huts owned by different people were built just one meter apart from each other. The farthest nipa hut caught fire and in order to prevent the burning of the nipa huts, one of the owner pulled down and destroyed the adjoining nipa hut. In this example, the person who destroyed the nearest nipa hut to save other may be criminally liable for malicious michief under article 327 for deliberately causing damage. but, he can invoke the justifying circumstances of state of necessity and prove that his act was justified. Take note: The evil sought to be avoided must not be attributable to the person raising the justifying circumstances

112. Example of “ Injury to Persons” A was driving beyond the speed limit one night because he was in a hurry. Because of the speed. A lost control and eas headed directly towards a tree. To avoid the tree, he swerved to the left where he hit a pedestrian who died on the spot. Example of “ Damage to property” The truck carrying gasoline was parked in the gasoline station. It caught fire and started to burn. To prevent the station from being destroyed, they pushed the truck away and its momentum made it crash against the house of X which also burned as a result.

113. Article 100. Civil liability of a guilty of felony Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civily liable. Article 101 of the RPC. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. - The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivision 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules:

114. Article 101 of the RPC Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have recieved. Example: A had a barn full of cows. The neighboring property owned by B was filled with crops and vegetables. One day while X was walking, he saw the barn burnung. To save the cows, he opened the doors of the barn and all cows went to the neighbor’s land where they destroyed the crops and vegetables.

115. Fulfillment of Duty 1. That the accused acted in the performance of duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; 2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

116. Rule 113 of the Rules of Court Section 2. No violence or unecessary force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than is necessary for his detention. Under this paragraph (lawful exercise of a right), it is not necessary that there be unlawful aggression against the person charged with the protection of the property. If there is unlawful aggression against the person charged with the protection of the property, then par. 1 Art. 11 applies.

117. Example of an “ exercise of a right” A issued PDCs in favor of JG Corp., a subdivision developer. JG Corp. Failed to develop his unit within the time limit so A gave a “stop payment” order to the bank. When the check were presented for payment, the PDCs bounced. JG Corp. filed a criminal case of BP 22 againts A. Presidential Decree No. 957 Section 23. Non-forfeiture of payments. No installment payment made by a buyer in a subdivision or condominium project for the lot or unit he contracted to buy shall be forfeited in favor of the owner or developer when the buyer after due notice to the owner or developer, desists from further payment due to the failure of the owner or developer to develop the subdivision or condominium project according to the approved plans and within the time limit for complying with the same. Such buyer may, at his option, be reimbursed the total amount paid including amortization interest but excluding delinquency interest, with interest thereon at the legal rate. Example of an “Exercise of an office” Jane was sent to the emergency room. His right leg was amputated to prevent the disease from spreading elsewhere. Upon regaining consciousness after the operation, the parents of jejemon filed a criminal case if mutilation against the surgeon.

118. Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11) Obedience to a lawful order Par. 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. 1. That an order has been issued by a superior 2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose 3. That the means use by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful. Example: A was ordered by his police superior B to torture the arrested prisoner to elicit a confession and to make him feel the pain he caused to the families of his victims. Republic Act No. 9745 Anti- torture act of 2009 (sec. 3 par. a)

119. 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights 2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, asacendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degree and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree , provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstances are present, and the further, in case the revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein. 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger , provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. 1. Self Defense 2. Defense of Relatives 3. Defense of strangers

120. 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present; a. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exist b. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it. c. That there be no other practical mean and less harmful means to prevent it. 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. 4. Avoidance of greater evil 5. Fulfillment of duty 6. Obedience to order

121. Irresistible force a force which produces such an effect upon an individual that, in spite of all resistance it reduces him to a mere instrument and as such incapable of committing a crime. Uncontrollable Fear The exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear presupposes that the acused is compelled by means of threat or intimidation by a third person to commit a crime Example: Three men A, B, C, D in front of E. They told E to bury D otherwise they would also kill him. Thus, E was constrained to burry D. There was an uncontrollable fear and it is real and imminent. E saw that they shot D and they also shoot him.

122. Exempting Circumstances are those grounds for exemption from punishment because there is wanting/missing in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent. Exempting Circumstances; 1. Imbecility; insanity (unless the latter acted during a lucid interval 2. A person under 9 3. A person over 9 and under 15 unless he has acted with discernment. 4. Accident 5. Irresistible force 6. Uncontrollable fear 7. Lawful or insuperable cause

123. What is the Difference between Insanity and Imbecility? Imbecility - One who is old but has a mental development similar between the ages 2-7 years. Insanity - One which exist when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act, that is the accused is deprived of reason and acts without the least discernment.

124. Mitigating Circumstances 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify 2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of art. 80( correlate with RA 9344) 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed 4. That suffiecient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony(delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within same degree. 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation 1. Incomplete justifying circumstances exempting circumstances 2. Minority (under 18) 3. Praeter intentionem 4. Sufficient provocation or threat 5. Vindication 6. Passion or obfuscation

125. Ordinary mitigating circumstances - is one which may be offset by a generic aggravating circumstances. If an ordinary mitigating circumstances is not offset by a generic aggravating circumstances, it would reduce the imposable penalty to its minimum period. Priviledge mitigating circumstances - is one which cannot be offset by any aggravating circumstances and effect of previlege mitigating circumstances is to reduce the imposabale penalty not only to its period but by one or more degrees.

126. INCOMPLETE SELF- DEFENSE Example: X was running in a subdivision with a bolo and he was hacking all those he passed by. So, the residents called for police assistance. The police arrived headed by police officer A. They called X to put down his weapon but X instead of laying down his weapon, advanced towards the police with the bolo in his hands in a hacking position in the act of hacking the police officer. So, A immediately fired at X. He hit the hands and legs of X (Non fatal wound). X fell facing the ground. at the particular moment, A went to X, got his bolo and then fired shot at the head of X and the latter died.

127. In this case, there is no self defense because at the time A shot the head of X ,the latter was already lying on the ground. Whatever inceptive unlawful aggression he has commenced, it has ceased to exist from the time the fatal blow was inflicted on him. Therefore, there was no unlawful aggression. Since unlawful aggression is the element that wanting, there is no self defense, neither is there incomplete self defense. However, there is fulfillment of duty in this case. You must remember that there are only two elements in fufillment of duty. 1st element- that the accused acted in the due performance of his duty or in lawful exercise of his right or office. This right is present because the police officer went there since the residents asked for police assistance. They went there to maintain peace and order. The 2nd element that the injury caused is unavoidable consequence of the due performance of duty. The 2nd element is absent. The act of A in shooting the head of X is not necessary consequence of the performance of his duty. Therefore, based on the rule that if there are only 2 elements necessary to justify the act and the presence of 1 is already considered as the majority and it is considered as a previledge mitigating circumstances. Therefore, there is an incomplete fulfillment of duty which is previledged mitigating circumstance which may lower the imposable penalty by degrees not only by period.

128. NO intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed Q: How to determine the lack of grave intention to commit the offense? A. consider the following: a. the weapon used b. nature of the injury c. part of the body targeted This mitigating circumstances may be invoke only in felonies resulting in some physical harm like physical injuries, homicide etc. Example: X and Y were fighting. X boxed Y, Y boxed X, X retaliated and boxed Y again. When X boxed Y’s head, the latter’s head hit a cemented wall and so he suffered cerebral hemorrhage and thereafter caused his death. In this case, When X boxed Y, he was committing a felonious act. Thus, he is criminally liable for the resulting felony although it be different from which he intended.

129. Sufficient provocation or threat immediately preceded the act In the case of Urbano b. people (G.R. No. 182750, january 20, 2009), The victim has always been calling and teasing on the accused urbano, there was a confrontation because whenever the victim was drunk, he would defame urbano. Thus, aside frim verbal confrontation, it ensued into a fight. In the said fight, Urbano was losing because he was just a small man. However, he was about to land one lucky punch on the face of the victim and was about to fall consciousness on the ground. However, other people able to prevent him from falling on the ground. Nevertheless, he became unconscious ; in and out of the hospital and later he died.

130. The supreme court ruled that urbano is criminally liable for the death of the victim. under article 4. he was committing felonious act. Thus, he is criminally liable for the resulting felony although different from that which he intended. However, there are 2 mitigating circumstances considered to reduce the imposable penalty; sufficient provocation and that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

131. Immediate Vindication of grave offense It is not necessary that the grave offense be a punishable act, it suffices that it be any act, immoral act which causes the offender sleepless nights and moved him to vindicate himself Example: The accused husband saw a shadow of a man jumping down from the window of his house where his wife was at the time. Upon confronting his wife as to who was that man, the wife immediately begged for pardon. The husband did an offense against the wife. The husband was convicted but, in his favor. The mitigating circumstance of “ immediate provocation was considered.

132. Aggravating Circumstances - are those which if attendant in the commission of the offense, would serve to increase the penalty Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances 1 . Generic - Genrally applies to all crimes. Examples: Art. 14. Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,18,19 and 20, RPC.\ 2. Inherent - that must necessary accompany the commission of the crime. If present in the commission of the crime, it is no longer considered so as to increase the penalty since the same is considered as an element of the crime. 3. Qualifying - that which change the nature of the crime or bring about a more serious or a higher penalty. 4. Specific - applies only to certain or particular crimes. Treachery (par. 16. art. 14, RPC); It can only be considered or appreaciated in crimes against persons. 5. Special -arises under special conditions to increase the penalty for the offense in its maximum period but the same cannot increase the penalty to the next higher degree.

133. Taking advantage of public position Example: Police officer A was assigned as a traffic enforcer. A was always demanding toll in the amount of one hundred pesos from jepneey driver otherwise, he would not let them enter a certain street. One day jepneey driver B got mad at A for extorting toll on him because B had no earning on the day. He filed a case for robbery against A. The information alledge that in order to perpetrate the crime of robbery, A took advantage of his public position. (CASE: fortuna vs. people 15 december 2000 348 SCRA 270)

134. In Contempt of or with insult to public Authorities Example: The mayor was inside his office. Suddenly, he heard commotion on the ground floor. He looked out his window and he saw his 2 supporters X and Y having an argument over a parking space. The mayor went down the building and talked to both of them. He told them to shake hands and forget everything. Then, he instructed X to just follow Y to park his car since there is another parking space available. The angered X because he thought that the mayor was siding with Y. X took out his knife and stabbed the mayor. Answer: In this case,

135. Insult or disrespect of the rank, age, or sex 1. Disregard of rank 2. Disregard of age 3. disregard of sex

136. Crime committed in the dwelling of the offended party Example: Jane who lives in a nipa hut was sitting at the staircase when Christian came and forcibly dragged to another house which is 1 km. away from Jane’s house, where she was raped. In this case, the aggravating circumstance is present even if the crime was committed in another place far from the dwelling. The aggression started in the dwelling of the offended party when she was dragged from the staircase. Even if the crime was consummated in another place for as long as the aggression started in the dwelling, it is still an aggravating circumstance.

137. abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness 1. abuse of confidence example: Ariel and dianne are husband and wife living in Gingoog city for 5 years. Suddenly, here comes Jojito who was their former neighbor in gingoog. He told ariel and dianne that he is looking for work and asked them if could stay in their house while looking for work. Since Jojito was a good neighbor back then, Ariel and dianne trusted jojito and allowed him to live inside their house. One time, Ariel was out of the house. The house helper and drivers were also away, The only person left in the house was jojito and Dianne. Jojito went to the master’s bedroom and had a carnal knowledge of Dianne against the latter’s will. In this case the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidense is present in this case. Jojito was there because Ariel and dianne trusted him yet, he abused such trust and confidence , instead facilitated the commission of the crime. Therefore, the aggravating circumstances is present.

138. abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness 2. Obvious ungratefulness - Example : Kyle was selling kettles and other kitchen wares on the street under the heat of the sun. Kyle goes from one house to another. He was so thirsty already so he knocked on the gate of the house of adelo. Adelo opened the gate and kyle told adelo that he was so thirsty. Adelo being a good person, allowed kyle to enter the house and asked him to take a sit while he is getting a glass of water. When he came back, he was not only holding a glass of water but also brought a biscuits. However, Kyle suddenly brought out his knife and stabbed adelo and thereafter robbed him.

139. Palace of the president, or in his presence, or place where public authorities are engaged in duties, or place of religious worship X and Y are chefs at malacanang palace. They are outdoing each other in trying to prepare the best meal for the president. Suddenly, they had an argument. In the course thereof, X stabbed Y. Y suffered a fatal wound but he survived. X was prosecuted for frustrated homicide. In this case, the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in palace of the chief executive is not present because X works there and he lives there. It connot be said that he sought the said place in order to commit the crime or can it be said that he disrespected the said place.

140. Nightime - that period of darkness beginning at the end if dusk and ending at dawn take note: 1. not aggravating if crime commenced in daytime. 2. If the locus criminis is lighted no aggravating of nightime.

141. NIGHTIME Example: X decided to kill Y, his enemy. X knew that Y would pass by the place wherein there were no light post. X waited for Y in the said place. Upon the moment Y arrived X left his post and was about to stab Y when suddenly a tricycle passed by and the light coming from the tricycle illuminated the scene of the crime. Answer: Whenever any light has illuminated the scene of the crime, rule out nightime as an aggravating circumstance. Light coming from the tricycle, from any vehicle, nearby houses, light post or even from the moon, for as long as the scene of the crime has been illuminated, nightime is not aggravating.

142. Uninhabited Place -One where there are no houses or where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other. Example: X, Y and Z are fishermen. Around 2 am, they all went out fishing on their respective boats. They were sailling 10 meters away from each other. Suddenly, A sprung out of the water and he stabbed Z. In this case, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place is present. In the place where the crime was committed, there was very little, remote possibility for Z to recieve some help. X and Y must still swim before they could render help or assistance to Z. Before they could render help or assistance to Z, the latter is already dead. Thus, there was little ot remote possibility for the victim to be saved. The said accused A deliberately sought the place in order to facilitate the commission of the crime because he suddenly appeared from the water. Therefore, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place is present.

143. BAND -Whenever, more than three three malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. Example: V, W, X,Y and Z all armed with knives killed A. The information stated that V, W,X,Y and Z consipired with one another and as a band they committed the crime of murder against A. During the presentation of evidence, conspiracy and band as an aggravating circumstance were proven beyond reasonbale doubt. In this case, even if the court already considered consipiracy, band may still considered because conspiracy is a means of committing a crime. It means they have the same criminal liability. On the other hand, by a band is an aggravating circumstance. One does not absorb the other. Thus, both may be considered and appreciated by the court.

144. Q: When is nighttime, uninhabited place, and band aggravating? Answer: 1. When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity. 2. When specially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime 3. When it facilitated the commission of the crime.

145. On the occassion of conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake other calamity or misfortune Example: A and B fighting . A lost the fight. Suddenly, there was an earquake and all the people panicked and went outside of their house. A went out his house and saw Balso panicking, A saw and opportunity to kill B and get his revenge. A approached B and stabbed him multiple times. The killing was committed on the occassion of an earthquake such aggravating circumstance shall qualify the crime of murder.

146. Aid of armed men/ aid of persons who insure or afford impunity The aid given by the armed men may be direct or indirect participation in the commission of the crime Recidivist - one who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embracing in the same title of the revised penal code. Example: A was convicted for the crime of murder. While serving his sentence, He was granted an absolute pardon by the president. A was released from prison. After a few weeks, A was engaged in a fight and killed B. A was convicted with homicide with aggravating circumstance of recidivism. The aggravating circumstance of recidivism is present in this case. The fact that A was granted with pardon does not erase the effects of the prior conviction of murder.

147. Price, Reward or Promise This aggravating circumstance should be considered both against the person who made the offer and the person who accepted the price, reward, promise. Therefore, it is to be considered both against the principal by inducement and principal by direct participation.

148. Unundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel, derailment of locomotive or using any artifice Involving great waste and ruin The offender makes use of inundation, fire, explosion in order to commit the crime. It is a means to commit the crime. If any of these means is used in killing a person, it is not a generic aggravating circumstance; it is a qualifying circumstance under art. 248 RPC. it qualifies the killing to murder.

149. Evident Premeditation - It involves a determination to commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution and also to carry out the criminal intent which must be the result of deliberate, calculated, and reflective thoughts through a period of time sufficient to dispassionately consider and accept the consequences thereof, thus indicating greater perversity. What is the essence of evident premeditation? 1. The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.

150. Q: What are the requisites of evident premeditation? 1. The time when the offender determined to commit a crime 2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination 3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.

151. X slapped Y 2 times in front of the public. Y felt so humiliated so he told X “the next time I see you, I will kill you” Y went home and searched for his gun. He found the same and kept it under his pillow, waiting for the time to kill X. A month has lapsed and Y while walking saw X. Upon seeing X, he immediately ran to his house, went to his bedroom and took the gun under his pillow. He raised back to X and shot him. In this case, the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation is present. First, the time when the offender determined to commit the crime and that is the time when Y told X “ Next time I see you, I will kill you” . Second, an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination, Third, a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution. A month has passed that is sufficient for him to cool off to reflect upon the consequence of his acts. Therefore, evident premeditation was present in the commission of the crime.

152. Craft a circumstance characterized by trickery on cunning resorted by the accused, to carry out his design. It is the use of intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused. Example: The accused knocked at the door. He knows that only the maid was at home. He told the maid that he was a relative of the owners of the house who came from the province. He allowed to enter the house. Thereafter, He committed a crime of robbery. There was cunning or intellectual trickery resorted to by the accused for he tricked the maid to consummate the crime of robbery.

153. Fraud Insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner which would enable the offender to carry out his design. Example: The offended party was about to sleep on the upper portion of the house because the lower portion is a store. The offender called over the owner, saying that he was going to buy something. The owner went down the house and opened the store. However, upon opening the store, he was stabbed and robbery was committed. There was fraud as manifested by the insidious words or machinations resorted to by the offender.

154. Disguise It involves the deliberate effort of the accused to conceal his identity in the commission of the crime. This includes stockings, bonnet, or anything that could be used so that no one could be recognized. Use of superior strength or means employed to weaken the defense -It is intentionally employing excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the offended party. Treachery there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

155. People v. Matibag (G.R No. 206381, March 15, 2015) Example: Treachery Deceased Duhan was walking along the road when the accused matibag confronted him and asked “ano bang pinagsasabi mo?’’, Duhan replied “wala”. Matibag thereafter hit duran and pulled out a gun and shot him. In this case, the aggravating circumstance of treachery is present in this case. The essence of frontal attack does not necessarily rule out treachery. The qualifying circumstance may still be appreciated if the attack was so sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no time to prepare for his or her defense. In this case, although the attack was frontal, the sudden and unexpected manner by which it was made rendered it impossible for duran to defend himself, adding too that he was unarmed.

156. Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace to the material injury caused by the crime. It is a circumstance that tends to make the effect of the crime more humiliating, thus adding to the victim’s moral suffering. The Dog-style position adds ignominy to rape. The entry of the penis was from behind. Although this position was not novel and in fact normal in case of two consenting partners, such act adds ignominy in rape cases.

157. Unlawful Entry there is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by way not intended for the purpose. WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW BE BROKEN Example: Ino was passing by the house of Paul. Suddenly, he saw through the window, two cellphones being charged. Interested on the cellphone, he broke the window entered his hand and took the cellphones. In this case, the aggravating circumstances that as a means to the commission of the crime the window was broken is present. The crime committed is theft only and not robbery because the offender did not enter the house. In this caseof people v. jaranilla (G.R No. 28547 february 22, 1974), one essential requisite of robbery with force upon things is that the malefactor should enter the building where the object was taken is found.

158. Aid of person under 15 years of age If the crime committed make use of minors under 15 years of age, it shows the greater perversity of the offender because he knows that minors cannot be arrested. Person below 15 years of age cannot be prosecuted, it is among the exempting circumstances. Therefore, it shows greater perversity. Cruelty a circumstance whereby the offender enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually , causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of his criminal act. Example: A person was found dead with several wounds all over his body. The fact that there were 20-25 wounds cannot immediately mean that there was cruelty in the commission of the crime. It is necessary to determine, whether first, he was still alive at the time the physical pain was inflicted; Second. did the offender enjoy and delight in seeing his victim suffer gradually by the infliction of the physical pain. If there were defense wounds, cruelty cannot be appreciated.

159. Alternative Circumstances Art. 15. their concept. are those consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commision. They are the relationship, intoxication and degree of instruction and education of the offender. The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration whe the offended party is the spouse, ascendants, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sisters, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender. The Intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

160. A. 1. Relationship is considered as an alternative circumstance when the offender is related to the offended party. relationship as mitigating Relationship is considered as mitigating in crimes against property. Relationship as an absolutory cause In certain crimes against property, relationship of the offender with the offended party is exempting. Example: 1. Theft 2. Estafa or swindling ; and 3. Malicious mischief take note: under article 332 of the RPC, If the crime committed is theft, estafa, or swindling and malicious mischief, relationship exempts the offender from criminal liability.

161. In crimes against person, relationship is mitigating if in following circumstances are present: 1. The offender is of a higher degree than that of the offended party 2. The crime committed is less physical injury or slight physical injury Relationship is Aggravating if the crime committed by the offender who is of higher degree than that of the offended party is serious physical injury.

162. relationship is inherent to the crime of parricide 2. Intoxication - There is intoxication when the offender has taken such amount of liqour of sufficient quantity as to affect his mental capacity to determine the consequence of his act. Intoxication as mitigating Intoxication is considered as a mitigating circumstance if it is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. Intoxication as Aggravating Intoxication is considered as a aggravating circumstance if it is habitual nad it is done subsequent to the commission of the crime.

163. Example: A wanted to commit a crime, since he had no courage, he deliberately takes liqour as a stimulant for him to commit the crime. He was so nervous he cannot commit the crime, so he takes liqour for him to have strength to commit the crime.

164. 3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender As a rule a low degree of education or instruction is considered as a mitigating circumstances Exemption: If the crime committed is inherently evil or wrong Exemption: Killing a person, molesting a woman, taking the personal property of another. such is a wrong as to a learned man as it is to an ignorant man.

165. Example (Alternative Circumstance Art. 15) As an alternative circumstance: A high degree of education is considered as an aggravating circumstance if the offender make use of his high degree of education in facilitating the commission of the crime like for example: A lawyer commiting estafa by falsifying a deed of absolute sale. The lawyer make use of his high degree of education in order to commit the crime. In another case, Where a lawyer kill another person in the course of an argument, his high degree of education has nothing to do with the commission of the crime. Therefore, in this case, it cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

166. END ! THANK YOU