Criminal Law Notes PDF

I. BOOK I CRIMINAL LAW distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment to In the offense of abortion under Art. 258, the Burden of Proving the Existence of Justifying...

I. BOOK I CRIMINAL LAW distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment to In the offense of abortion under Art. 258, the Burden of Proving the Existence of Justifying 4. The defense of Property rights can be invoked the application of Art. 48 of the RPC. liability of a pregnant woman will be mitigated Circumstances if there is an attack upon the property coupled if her purpose is to conceal dishonor. (Such with an attack upon the person of the owner of Complex Crime of Coup d’état with Sedition circumstance is not available to the parents of In cases where the accused interposes justifying the premises. All the elements for justification (2003 BAR) the pregnant woman). Furthermore, under Art. circumstances, this prosecutorial burden is shifted must however be present. (People v. Narvaez, 333, if the person guilty of adultery committed to the accused who himself must prove all the G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, 20 Apr. 1983); Coup d'état can be complexed with sedition the offense while being abandoned without indispensable ingredients of such defense. (People because the two crimes are essentially different justification, the penalty next lower in degree v. Roxas, G.R. No. 218396, 20 Feb. 2016) Example: If A snatches the watch of B inside a and distinctly punished under the RPC. shall be imposed. running passenger jeep, and then B punches A El incombit probotion qui decit non qui negat — He to protect the possession of his watch, and A Sedition may not be directed against the a) JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES who asserts, not he who denies, must prove. fell from the running jeep, his head hitting a government or be non-political in objective, hard pavement causing his death, B is not whereas coup d'état is always political in objective Justifying Circumstances Civil Liability in the Circumstances mentioned criminally liable for the defense of his property as it is directed against the government and led by in Art. 11 rights. There was no attack against B’s person. persons or public officer holding public office Justifying circumstances are those where the acts NOTE: What is important is not the duality of the belonging to the military or national police. Art. 48 of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so GR: Since there is no crime, necessarily, there is no attack but whether the means employed are of the Code may apply under the conditions therein that such person is deemed not to have civil liability ex delicto. reasonable to prevent the attack. provided. transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. XPN: Art. 11(4) (State of Necessity), wherein civil Reason for Justifying Self-Defense liability may be adjudged against those who 2. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING There is no civil liability, except in Art. 11(4) (State benefited from the act which caused damage to the It is impossible for the State to protect all its CRIMINAL LIABILITY of Necessity), where the civil liability is borne by property of the victim but spared their own citizens. Also, a person cannot just give up his the persons benefitted by the act. (Reyes, 2021) properties from consequent damages. The civil rights without resistance being offered. Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability liability in par. 4 is provided for in Art. 101, and is (J-E-M-A-A) They are: (Se-D-D-A-F-O) commendably in line with the rule against unjust Effects of Self-Defense enrichment. 1. Justifying circumstances; 1. Self-defense; 1. When all the elements are present – the 2. Exempting circumstances; 2. Defense of relatives; SELF-DEFENSE person defending himself is free from criminal 3. Mitigating circumstances; 3. Defense of stranger; ART. 11(1), RPC liability and civil liability. 4. Aggravating circumstances; and 4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury (or State of 5. Alternative circumstances. Necessity); Rights included in Self-Defense 2. When only a majority of the elements are 5. Fulfillment of duty or exercise of right or present – privileged mitigating circumstance, Other Circumstances Found in the RPC office; and Self-defense includes not only the defense of the provided there is unlawful aggression. Affecting Criminal liability 6. Obedience to an order of a superior. person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by Nature of Self-Defense 1. Absolutory Causes – has the effect of an Basis law. Thus, it includes: (Ho-La-Ho-P) exempting circumstance as it is predicated on The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction lack of voluntariness. The basis for these justifying circumstances is the 1. Defense of the person’s Home; is that when the accused’s defense is self-defense, lack of criminal intent, and with the maxim actus 2. Defense of rights protected by Law; he thereby admits being the author of the death of Example: Spontaneous desistance in non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (an act does not 3. The right to Honor; the victim. Thus, it becomes incumbent upon him attempted felonies make the doer guilty, unless the mind is guilty), to prove the justifying circumstance to the there is no crime and there is no criminal in the NOTE: Hence, a slap on the face is considered satisfaction of the court. (People v. Del Castillo et al., 2. Extenuating Circumstances – has the effect of situations contemplated in this article provided the as unlawful aggression since the face G.R. No. 169084, 18 Jan. 2012) mitigating the criminal liability of the offender. respective elements are all present. represents a person and his dignity. It is a serious, personal attack. (Rugas v. People, G.R. Examples: In the offense of infanticide, No. 147789, 14 Jan. 2004); and concealment of dishonor is an extenuating circumstance insofar as the pregnant woman and the maternal grandparents are concerned. 23 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S 24 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 2023 GOLDEN NOTES  I. BOOK I CRIMINAL LAW Requisites of Self-Defense (U-R-L) (1993, 1996, There must be an actual physical assault upon a imaginary, but must be offensive and Effect if there was a Mistake of Fact on the Part 2002, 2003, 2005 BAR) person, or at least a threat to inflict real injury. positively strong (like aiming a revolver at of the Accused Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, another with intent to shoot or opening a knife 1. Unlawful aggression; sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent and making a motion as if to attack) (People v. In relation to mistake of fact, the belief of the 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed danger, and not merely a threatening or Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, 23 July 2018) accused may be considered in determining the to prevent or repel it; and intimidating attitude. (Reyes, 2021) existence of unlawful aggression. 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of Even the cocking of a rifle without aiming the the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite firearm at any particular target is not sufficient Example: There is self-defense even if the or condition sine qua non for self-defense to arise. to conclude that one’s life was in imminent aggressor used a toy gun provided that the accused No Transfer of Burden of Proof when Pleading danger. (People v. Maghuyop, G.R. No. 242942, believed it to be a real gun. Self-Defense Elements of Unlawful Aggression (P-A-U) 05 Oct. 2020) Person who Employed the Unlawful Aggression The burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable 1. There must be a Physical or material attack or Kind of Threat that will Amount to Unlawful doubt is not lifted from the shoulders of the State assault; Aggression To constitute an element of self-defense, the which carries it until the end of the proceedings. It 2. The attack or assault must be Actual, or at least, unlawful aggression must come, directly or is the burden of evidence that is shifted to the imminent; and In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, indirectly, from the person who was subsequently accused to satisfactorily establish the fact of self- 3. The attack or assault must be Unlawful. (People positively showing the wrongful intent to cause attacked by the accused. (People v. Gutierrez, G.R. defense. In other words, only the onus probandi v. Mapait, G.R. No. 172606, 23 Nov. 2011) injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected, No. 31010, 26 Sept. 1929) shifts to the accused, for self-defense is an or imminent danger - not merely threatening and affirmative allegation that must be established Lawful Aggression intimidating action. It is present only when the one Q: A claims that the death of B was an accident, with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof. attacked faces real and immediate threat to one’s and his act was just for self-defense when his (People v. Del Castillo et al., G.R. No. 169084, 18 Jan. The fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right in life. (People v. Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, 14 Sept. revolver accidentally hit the victim while he 2012) a more or less violent manner is an aggression, but 2011 reiterating People v. Gabrino, G.R. No. 189981, was struggling the same with his real enemy, C. it is lawful. (Reyes, 2017) 09 Mar. 2011 and People v. Manulit, G.R. No. 192581, Is his contention correct? 1st Requisite: Unlawful Aggression 17 Nov. 2010) Example: The act of a chief police who used A: NO. In this case, A was not repelling any For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there violence by throwing stones at the accused when Test for Unlawful Aggression in Self-Defense unlawful aggression from B, thereby rendering his must be an “actual, sudden and unexpected attack, the latter was running away from him to elude plea of self-defense unwarranted. His act amounted or imminent danger thereof, not merely a arrest for a crime committed in his presence, is not The test for the presence of unlawful aggression to aberratio ictus. (Matic v. People, G.R. No. 180219, threatening or intimidating attitude” and the unlawful aggression, it appearing that the purpose under the circumstances is whether the aggression 23 Nov. 2011) accused must present proof of positively strong act of the peace officer was to capture the accused and from the victim puts in real peril the life or of real aggression. (People v. Sabella, G.R. No. place him under arrest. (People v. Gayrama, G.R. personal safety of the person defending himself. 2nd Requisite: Reasonable Necessity of the 183092, 30 May 2011; People v. Campos and Acabo, Nos. L-39270 and L-39271, 30 Oct. 1934) (People v. Mapait, G.R. No. 172606, 23 Nov. 2011) Means Employed to Prevent or Repel It G.R. No. 176061, 04 July 2011) NOTE: If a public officer exceeded his authority, he In People v. Escarlos, the Court ruled that the mere Test of Reasonableness: (PO-P-W) NOTE: Self-defense is not feasible as in case of a may become an unlawful aggressor. drawing of a knife by the victim does not constitute fight. There is no unlawful aggression when there unlawful aggression, whether actual or imminent, 1. Nature and quality of the Weapon used by the was an agreement to fight and the challenge to Two Kinds of Unlawful Aggression (2017 BAR) as the peril sought to be avoided by the accused aggressor; fight has been accepted. The parties are considered was both premature and speculative. The alleged 2. Physical condition, character, size, and other aggressors as aggression is bound to arise in the 1. Actual or Material Unlawful Aggression act of simply drawing a knife from A’s waist fell circumstances of both the offender and course of the fight. But aggression which is ahead means an attack with physical force or with a short of the threshold required by law and defender; and of a stipulated time and place is unlawful. weapon, an offensive act that positively prevailing jurisprudence. At that point, there was 3. Place and Occasion of the assault. determines the intent of the aggressor to cause yet no actual risk or peril to the life or limb of B. Nature of the Unlawful Aggression (1993, 2004 the injury; and (People v. Lorenzo Raytos, G.R. No. 225623, 07 June NOTE: Perfect equality between the weapons used BAR) 2017) by the one defending himself and that of the 2. Imminent Unlawful Aggression means an aggressor is not required. What the law requires is If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing attack that is impending or at the point of rational equivalence. to prevent or repel. The second requisite of defense happening; it must not consist in a mere will have no basis. threatening attitude, nor must it be merely 25 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S 26 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 2023 GOLDEN NOTES  I. BOOK I Doctrine of Rational Equivalence Instances when There Can be Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the Person Defending Himself The reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability 1. No provocation at all was given to the between the means of attack and defense. What the aggressor by the person defending himself; law requires is rational equivalence, in the 2. Even if provocation was given, it was not consideration of which will enter the principal sufficient; factors: the emergency, the imminent danger to 3. Even if provocation was sufficient, it was not which the person attacked is exposed, and the given by the person defending himself; instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense, and the proportionateness 4. Even if provocation was given by the person thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but defending himself, it was not proximate and rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. immediate to the act of aggression; and (Espinosa v. People, G.R. No. 181071, 15 Mar. 2010) 5. Sufficient means proportionate to the damage Factors Taken into Consideration in caused by the act, and adequate to stir one to Determining the Reasonableness of Means its commission. Employed by the Person Defending Himself Control of Blows of Person Defending Himself 1. Means were used to prevent or repel; 2. Means must be necessary and there is no other The person defending himself cannot be expected way to prevent or repel it; and to think clearly so as to control his blow. The killing 3. Means must be reasonable – depending on the of the unlawful aggressor may still be justified as circumstances, but generally proportionate to long as the mortal wounds are inflicted at a time the force of the aggressor. when the elements of complete self-defense are still present. In determining the reasonable necessity of the means employed, the courts may also look at and Q: A unlawfully attacked B with a knife. B then consider the number of wounds inflicted. A large took out his gun which caused A to run away. B, number of wounds inflicted on the victim can after treating his wounds, pursued A and shot indicate a determined effort on the part of the him. Can B invoke self-defense? accused to kill the victim and may belie the reasonableness of the means adopted to prevent or A: NO. The unlawful aggression, which has begun, repel an unlawful act of an aggressor. (People v. no longer exists. When the aggressor runs away, Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, 23 July 2018) the one making a defense has no more right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor. In order to 3rd Requisite: Sufficient Provocation justify homicide on the ground of self-defense, it is essential that the killing of the deceased by the It refers to “any unjust or improper conduct or act defendant be simultaneous with the attack made of the victim adequate enough to excite a person to by the deceased, or at least both acts succeeded commit a wrong, which is accordingly each other without appreciable interval of time. proportionate in gravity.” (Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 216642, 02 Sept. 2020) NOTE: GR: When the aggressor retreats, the aggression ceases. Sufficient provocation should not come from the person defending himself, and it must immediately XPN: Unlawful aggression still continues when precede the aggression. retreat is made to take a more advantageous position to ensure the success of the attack which has begun. 27 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW  I. BOOK I CRIMINAL LAW do without any concern for her rights. relationship of the parties. (People v. Genosa, G.R. abode. DEFENSE OF A STRANGER No. 135981, 15 Jan. 2004) ART. 11(3), RPC NOTE: To be classified as a battered woman, the DEFENSE OF RELATIVES couple must go through the battering cycle at least BWS used as a Defense (2014, 2015 BAR) ART. 11(2), RPC Requisites of Defense of Stranger (U-R-NI) twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be Requisites of Defense of Relatives (U-R-NP) 1. Unlawful aggression; time, and she remains in the situation, she is suffering from battered woman syndrome do not 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed defined as a battered woman. (People v. Genosa, incur any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding 1. Unlawful aggression; to prevent or repel it; and G.R. No. 135981, 15 Jan. 2004) the absence of any of the elements for justifying 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed 3. The person defending be Not Induced by circumstances of self- defense under the RPC. (Sec. to prevent or repel it; and revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. “Battered Woman Syndrome" (BWS) 26, R.A. No. 9262) 3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making a defense had Who are deemed Strangers It refers to a scientifically defined pattern of In layman’s terms, if an abused woman kills or No Part therein. psychological and behavioral symptoms found in inflicts physical injuries on her abusive husband or Any person not included in the enumeration of women living in battering relationships as a result live-in partner, and the trial court determines that Meaning of the Third Requisite relatives mentioned in Art. 11 (2), RPC. of cumulative abuse. (Sec. 3(c), R.A. No. 9262) she is suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome,” the court will declare her not guilty. (People v. There is still a legitimate defense even if the NOTE: The indispensable requisite for either of Battered women include wives or women in any Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, 15 Jan. 2004) relative being defended has given provocation. the justifying circumstances of self-defense and form of intimate relationship with men. (Reyes, defense of a stranger is that the victim must have 2021) The law now allows the battered woman syndrome Relatives Covered under the Justifying mounted an unlawful aggression against the as a valid defense in the crime of parricide – Circumstance accused or the stranger. (People v. Olarbe, G.R. No. NOTE: VAWC may be committed “against a woman independent of self-defense under the RPC. (Sec. 227421, 23 July 2018) with whom the person has or had a sexual or 26, R.A. No. 9262) 1. Spouse; dating relationship.” Clearly, the use of the gender- 2. Ascendants; AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR neutral word “person” who has or had a sexual or In the determination of the state of mind of the 3. Descendants; STATE OF NECESSITY dating relationship with the woman encompasses woman who was suffering from battered woman 4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and ART. 11(4), RPC even lesbian relationships. (Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. syndrome at the time of the commission of the sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same No. 179267, 25 June 2013) crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert degree (namely, ascendants-in-law, Requisites of State of Necessity (2004, 1998, psychiatrists/psychologists. (Sec. 26, R.A. No. 9262) descendants-in-law, and siblings-in-law); and 1990 BAR) (P-IG-E-D) Battery 5. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil NOTE: Only a certified psychologist or psychiatrist degree. 1. Evil sought to be avoided actually exists; It is any act of inflicting physical harm upon the can prove the existence of a Battered Woman 2. Injury feared be Greater than that done to woman or her child resulting to physical, Syndrome in a woman. NOTE: If the degree of consanguinity or affinity is avoid it; psychological, or emotional distress. (Sec. 3(b), R.A. beyond the fourth degree, it will be considered 3. There be no other Practical and less harmful No. 9262) Women Who Can Avail of BWS as a Defense defense of a stranger. means of preventing it; and 4. That the state of necessity or emergency was Cycle of Violence (2010 BAR) 1. Wife; NOTE: Death of one spouse does not terminate the not Due to the fault or negligence of the person 2. Former wife; relationship by affinity established between the claiming the defense. The battered woman syndrome is characterized by 3. A woman with whom the person has or had a surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the the so-called cycle of violence, which has 3 phases: sexual or dating relationship; and deceased. (Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales NOTE: The state of necessity must not have been (T-A-T) Vda. De Carungcong v. People, G.R. No. 181409, 11 brought about by the negligence or imprudence by NOTE: The “dating relationship” that the law Feb. 2010) the one invoking the justifying circumstances. 1. Tension-building phase; contemplates can exist even without a sexual 2. Acute battering incident; and intercourse taking place between those NOTE: Motive is relative in this kind of defense. Doctrine of Self-Help 3. Tranquil, loving (or at least non-violent) involved. phase. “The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the 4. A woman with whom he has a common child, right to exclude any person from the enjoyment NOTE: The defense should prove all three (3) or against her child whether legitimate or and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use phases of cycle of violence characterizing the illegitimate, within or without the family such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel 29 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S 30 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 2023 GOLDEN NOTES  CRIMINAL LAW OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED convicted the jail warden and Gov. Ambil guilty FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE for violating Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. ART. 11(6), RPC May the governor’s actions be justified on the Requisites of Obedience to an Order Issued for ground that he merely acted in the fulfillment Some Lawful Purpose (M-O-L) of his duty? May the actions of the jail warden be justified as he was merely following orders 1. An Order has been issued by a superior; from the governor? 2. Such order must be for some Lawful purpose; and A: NO. A governor of a province has no power to 3. Means used by the subordinate to carry out order the transfer of a detention prisoner. Nor can said order is lawful. the provincial jail warden follow such an unlawful order. Thus, neither of them can invoke the NOTE: Both the person who gave the order and the justifying circumstance of lawful exercise of office person who executed it must be acting within the or obedience to a lawful order. (Ambil v. limitations prescribed by law. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 175457, 06 July 2011) The application of the law is not limited to orders b) EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES made by public officers to inferior public officials. Thus, a driver of an escaping prisoner who did not Exempting Circumstances (Non-Imputability) know that his employer is leaving the prison compound, as he used to drive for him to go to his These are grounds for exemption from punishment office in previous incidents in order to escape, because there is wanting in the agent of the crime cannot be held criminally liable. any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent. (Reyes, 2021) Materiality of Good Faith on the Part of the Subordinate GR: No criminal liability, but there is civil liability. If he obeyed an order in good faith, not being XPN: Under Art. 12(4) (Accident) and (7) (Lawful aware of its illegality, he is not liable. However, the or Insuperable Cause), the offender is exempted order must not be patently illegal. If the order is from both criminal and civil liability. patently illegal, this circumstance cannot be validly invoked. The Following are Exempted from Criminal Liability (2000, 1994, 1992 BAR) NOTE: Even if the order is patently illegal, the subordinate may still be able to invoke an 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the exempting circumstance: (1) having acted upon the latter has acted during a lucid interval; compulsion of an irresistible force; or (2) under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear. 2. Minority a. A child under 15 years of age; Q: Mayor Adalin was transferred from the b. A child over 15 years of age and under 18, provincial jail of Eastern Samar to the unless he has acted with discernment, in residence of Governor Ambil upon the issuance which case, such child shall be subject to of the order granting the jail warden of such appropriate proceedings in accordance actions. with R.A. No. 9344; (2000 BAR) Gov. Ambil tried to justify the transfer by 3. Any person who, while performing a lawful act stating that it was caused by the imminent with due care, causes an injury by mere threats upon Mayor Adalin. Sandiganbayan accident without the fault or intention of U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S 32 2023 GOLDEN NOTES  CRIMINAL LAW Tests for Exemption on Grounds of Insanity Riyadh a few months after. While he was in Riyadh, he suffered a stroke. According to the 1. Test of Cognition – whether the accused acted doctors, this event triggered the mental with complete deprivation of intelligence in disability since when he returned to the committing said crime. Philippines, his attitude had changed considerably. 2. Test of Volition – whether the accused acted in total deprivation of freedom of will. The prosecution claimed that during the commission of the crime, it was a lucid interval NOTE: Test of Cognition is followed in the for Rosalino because when he was being Philippines. Case law shows common reliance on treated in the mental hospital, he was shouting the test of cognition, rather than on a test relating that he killed Mrs. Sigua. Can defense of to "freedom of the will." Examination of our case insanity be appreciated? law has failed to turn up any case where this Court has exempted an accused on the sole ground that A: NO. Insanity in our law exists when there is a he was totally deprived of "freedom of the will," i.e., complete deprivation of intelligence. The without an accompanying "complete deprivation of statement of one of the witnesses that the accused intelligence." This is perhaps to be expected since a knew the nature of what he had done makes it person's volition naturally reaches out only highly doubtful that he was insane when he towards that which is presented as desirable by his committed the act charged. Generally, in criminal intelligence, whether that intelligence be diseased cases, every doubt is resolved in favor of the or healthy. accused. But in the defense of insanity, doubt as to the fact of insanity should be resolved in favor of In any case, where the accused failed to show sanity. The burden of proving the affirmative complete impairment or loss of intelligence, the allegation of insanity rests on the defense. The Court has recognized at most a mitigating, not an quantum of evidence required to overthrow the exempting, circumstance in accord with Art. 13(9) presumption of sanity is proof beyond reasonable of the RPC: "Such illness of the offender as would doubt. Insanity is a defense in a confession and diminish the exercise of the willpower of the avoidance and as such must be proved beyond offender without however depriving him of the reasonable doubt. Insanity must be clearly and consciousness of his acts.” (People v. Rafanan, G.R. satisfactorily proved in order to acquit the accused. No. L-54135, 21 Nov. 1991) In this case, Rosalino has not successfully Presumption is in Favor of Sanity discharged the burden of overcoming the presumption that he committed the crime as The defense must prove that the accused was charged freely, knowingly, and intelligently. insane at the time of the commission of the crime. (People v. Dungo, G.R. No. 89420, 31 July 1991) NOTE: Mere abnormalities of the mental facilities Appreciation of Insanity as an Exempting are not enough. Circumstance Q: Rosalino stabbed Mrs. Sigua to death in her Insanity presupposes that the accused was office. During trial, he pleaded insanity and completely deprived of reason or discernment and presented several witnesses, including doctors freedom of will at the time of the commission of the from the National Mental Hospital, who all said crime. Only when there is a complete deprivation that he was suffering from organic mental of intelligence at the time of the commission of the disorder secondary to cerebro-vascular crime should the exempting circumstance of accident or stroke. It appears that he was insanity be considered. (People v. Bulagao, G.R. No. working in Lebanon a few years back and in 184757, 05 Oct. 2011) U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S 34 2023 GOLDEN NOTES  I. BOOK I Effects of Insanity of the Accused 3. Epilepsy which is chronic nervous disease characterized by compulsive motions of the 1. At the time of the commission of the crime – muscles and loss of consciousness may be exempted from criminal liability. covered by the term “insanity.” 2. During trial – proceedings are suspended 4. The SC considered the following as included in until the mental capacity of the accused is the term “insanity”: lack of controlled restored to afford him fair trial. Accused is consciousness, such as while dreaming (People then committed to a hospital. v. Taneo, G.R. No. L-37673, 31 Mar. 1933), and somnambulism or sleepwalking. (People v. 3. After judgment or while serving sentence – Gimena, G.R. No. L-33877, 06 Feb. 1931) execution of judgment is suspended, and the accused will be committed to a hospital. The NOTE: Feeble-mindedness is not exempting period of confinement in the hospital is because the offender could distinguish right from counted for the purpose of the prescription of wrong. An imbecile or an insane cannot distinguish the penalty. right from wrong. (People v. Formigones, G.R. No. L- 3246, 29 Nov. 1950) Other Instances of Insanity Q: Verdadero repeatedly stabbed Romeo with 1. Dementia praecox (Schizophrenia) is the use of a Rambo knife causing the latter’s covered by the term insanity because death. To evade culpability, Verdadero raises homicidal attack is common in such form of insanity under Art. 12 of the RPC as a defense psychosis. It is characterized by delusions that claiming that he had suffered a relapse of his they are being interfered with sexually, or that schizophrenia at the time of the incident. The his property is being taken, thus the person psychiatrist, an expert witness, categorically has no control over their acts. (People v. claimed that Verdadero was diagnosed with Bonoan, G.R. No. L-45130, 17 Feb. 1937) schizophrenia and was suffering a relapse of his schizophrenia at the time of the stabbing NOTE: Schizophrenia is not automatically incident. The witness for the prosecution, a accompanied by loss of intelligence. (People v. long-time neighbor of Verdadero, likewise Austria G.R. Nos. 111517-19, 31 July 1996 & perceived that Verdadero was again of unsound Verdadero v. People) Complete deprivation of mind on the day of the stabbing incident, noting intelligence has been equated to “defect of the that the latter had reddish eyes and appeared understanding” such that the accused must to be drunk. Is Verdadero liable for homicide? have “no full and clear understanding of the nature and consequences of [their] acts.” A: NO. It is true that there is no direct evidence to (People v. Paña, G.R. No. 21444, 17 Nov. 2020) show Verdadero's mental state at the exact moment the crime was committed. This, however, 2. Kleptomania or presence of abnormal, is not fatal to the finding that he was insane. His persistent impulse or tendency to steal, to be insanity may still be shown by circumstances considered exempting will still have to be immediately before and after the incident. The investigated by a competent psychiatrist to psychiatrist categorically testified that Verdadero determine if the unlawful act is due to was suffering a relapse at the time of the stabbing irresistible impulse produced by his mental incident. In contrast, the psychiatrist was hesitant defect, thus loss of willpower. If such mental to opine that Verdadero might have been in a lucid defect only diminishes the exercise of his interval because of the medications taken. Thus, it willpower and did not deprive him of the is reasonable to conclude, on the basis of the consciousness of his acts, it is only mitigating. testimony of an expert witness, that Verdadero was of unsound mind at the time he stabbed Romeo. 35 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW  I. BOOK I CRIMINAL LAW also by regulations. a mere accident. (U.S. v. Tayongtong, G.R. No. 6897, Irresistible Force co-accused pointed a gun at him and forced him 15 Feb. 1912) to guard the victims. Hence, he is entitled to the 2. With Due care; It is a degree of force which is external or physical, exempting circumstance of compulsion due to 3. He causes injury to another by mere Accident; Q: A and B are both security guards. A turned which reduces the person to a mere instrument, irresistible force. Is the exempting and over to B a service firearm who held it with and the acts produced are done without and circumstance of compulsion due to irresistible 4. Without fault or intention of causing it. both hands, with the muzzle pointed at A and against his will. force present? the butt towards B. At that moment, B held NOTE: If not all the conditions necessary to exempt opposite the muzzle of the gun where the Requisites of Compulsion of Irresistible Force A: NO. A person invoking the exempting a person from liability are present, the act should trigger is, and almost slip with it while in the (P-I-T) circumstance of compulsion due to irresistible be considered as: act of gripping and then immediately the gun force admits in effect the commission of a went off and accidentally shot A. A was able to 1. Compulsion is by means of Physical force; punishable act, which must show that the 1. Reckless Imprudence, if the act is executed recover from the shot. B was then charged with 2. Physical force must be Irresistible; and irresistible force reduced him to a mere instrument without taking those precautions or measures frustrated homicide. Can B raise the defense of 3. Physical force must come from a Third person. that acted not only without will but also against his which the most common prudence would accident to mitigate his liability? will. The duress, force, fear, or intimidation must require; or Nature of Physical Force Required in Art. 12(5) be present, imminent and impending; and it must A: NO. It is axiomatic that a person who invokes be of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded 2. Simple Imprudence, if it is a mere lack of accident must prove that he acted with due care. The force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the precaution in those cases where either the This was belied by the conduct of the accused a mere instrument who acts not only without a will act is not done. threatened harm is not imminent, or the when he allegedly received the shotgun from the but against his will. The duress, force, fear, or danger is not openly visible. (Art. 365, RPC) private complainant. As he himself admitted, he intimidation must be present, imminent and It is hard to believe that a person who accidentally received the shotgun by placing his pointer finger, impending, and of such a nature as to induce a discovers kidnap victims would be held at Accident also known as the trigger finger, to squeeze the well-grounded apprehension of death or serious gunpoint by the kidnappers to guard said victims. trigger, inside the trigger guard and over the bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future (People v. Licayan, et al., G.R. No. 203961, 29 July It is something that happens outside the sway of trigger itself. Worse, he did so while the barrel of injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of 2015) our will, and although it comes about through the gun was pointed at the private complainant. such a character as to leave no opportunity to the some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR humanly foreseeable consequences. It presupposes According to him, he knew that it was not proper (People v. Loreno, G.R. No. L-54414, 09 July 1984) ART. 12(6), RPC a lack of intention to commit the wrong done. for a person to receive a firearm from another by (People v. Del Cruz, G.R. No. 187683, 11 Feb. 2010) immediately inserting a finger inside the trigger Q: Baculi, who was not a member of the band Basis of Exemption guard. Likewise, he knew that the hand-over of a which murdered some American school If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will firearm with its barrel pointed towards the giver or teachers, was in a plantation gathering The absence of freedom. be a case of negligence. any other person was not proper. That he did bananas. Upon hearing the shooting, he ran. these improper acts despite his training and However, Baculi was seen by the leaders of the Elements of Uncontrollable Fear (R-U-G) Exemption from Criminal and Civil Liability experience as a security guard undermines any band who called him and struck him with the notion that he had acted with due care during the butts of their guns. They compelled him to bury 1. Existence of an Uncontrollable fear; The infliction of the injury by mere accident does subject incident. (People v. Lanuza, G.R. No. 188562, the bodies. Is he liable as an accessory to the 2. Fear must be Real and imminent; and not give rise to a criminal or civil liability, but the 17 Aug. 2011) crime of murder? 3. Fear of an injury is Greater than or equal to person who caused the injury is duty bound to that committed. attend to the person who was injured. COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE A: NO. Baculi is not criminally liable as accessory ART. 12(5), RPC for concealing the body of the crime of murder Requisites of Uncontrollable Fear Illustration: A chauffeur, while driving his committed by the band because he acted under the automobile on the proper side of the road at a Basis of Exemption compulsion of an irresistible force. (U.S. v. 1. Threat, which causes the fear, is of an evil moderate speed and with due diligence, suddenly Caballeros, G.R. No. 1352, 29 Mar. 1905) greater than or at least equal to that which he and unexpectedly saw a man in front of his vehicle The complete absence of freedom – an element of is required to commit; and coming from the sidewalk and crossing the street voluntariness. Q: Rogelio Delos Reyes, along with Roderick without any warning that he would do so. Because Licayan and Roberto Lara, were charged with 2. It promises an evil of such gravity and it was not physically possible to avoid hitting him, the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom. In his imminence that the ordinary man would have the said chauffeur ran over the man with his car. It defense, Delos Reyes argued that he was merely succumbed to it. was held that he was not criminally liable, it being passing by at the crime scene when one of the 37 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S 38 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 2023 GOLDEN NOTES  I. BOOK I Senility and its Effect Effect if the Victim does NOT Die in Crimes against Persons Senility, or “second childhood,” is generally used to describe the state of a person of very old age with The absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony impaired or diminished mental faculties similar to to mere physical injuries. It is not considered as but not on the level of the early years of infancy. It mitigating. It is only mitigating when the victim can, at most, be only a mitigating circumstance, dies. unless the mental deterioration has become a case of senile dementia approximating insanity, in Not Applicable to Felonies by Negligence which case it may be considered as an exempting circumstance. The reason is that in felonies through negligence, the offender acts without intent. The intent in NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A intentional felonies is replaced by negligence, WRONG (PRAETER INTENTIONEM) imprudence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill in ART. 13(3), RPC culpable felonies. Hence, in felonies through negligence, there is no intent on the part of the Basis offender which may be considered as diminished. (Reyes, 2021) The basis is the diminution of intent. Applicable only to offenses resulting to physical It is necessary that there be a notable and evident injuries or material harm. Hence, it cannot be disproportion between the means employed by the appreciated in cases of defamation or slander. offender compared to that of the resulting felony. If (Reyes, 2021) the resulting felony could be expected from the means employed, the circumstance of praeter NOTE: The mitigating circumstance of lack of intentionem cannot be availed. intent to commit so grave a wrong as that actually perpetrated cannot be appreciated where the acts Factors in Order to Ascertain the Intention employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the 1. Weapon used; death of the victim. (People v. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, 2. Part of the body injured; 03 Oct. 2011) 3. Injury inflicted; and the 4. Manner it is inflicted. Q: Buenamer committed robbery inside a passenger FX by threatening to shoot the This provision addresses the intention of the passengers if they do not give their wallets and offender at the particular moment when the cellphones. Buenamer was successful in taking offender executes or commits the criminal act and the things of the passengers. Tan, one of the not during the planning stage. passengers, chased Buenamer who boarded a passenger jeepney in order to escape. GR: Praeter Intentionem is a mitigating Buenamer boxed Tan when he held on to the circumstance. handlebar of the jeepney, causing him to lose his grip and fall from the jeepney and XPNs: thereafter was ran over by the rear tire of said 1. Felonies by negligence; jeepney and died. 2. Employees of brute force; and 3. Anti-Hazing Law. Buenamer contends that he should be given the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. Is Buenamer entitled to the mitigating circumstance? 43 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW  I. BOOK I Q: Tomas’ mother insulted Petra. Petra kills IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF Tomas because of the insults. Can Petra avail of A GRAVE OFFENSE the mitigating circumstance? ART. 13(5), RPC A: NO. There is no mitigating circumstance because Basis it was the mother who insulted her, not Tomas. The liability of the accused is mitigated only insofar The diminution of the conditions of voluntariness. as it concerns the harm inflicted on the person who made the provocation, but not with regard to the NOTE: This has reference to the honor of a person. other victims who did not participate in the It concerns the good names and reputation of the provocation. (U.S. v. Malabanan, G.R. No. L-3964, 26 individual. (U.S. v. Ampar, G.R. No. L-12883, 26 Nov. Nov. 1907) 1917) Reason Why the Law Requires that Requisites of Vindication of a Grave Offense “provocation must be immediate to the act,” (G-F) (i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked) 1. A Grave offense has been done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, If there was an interval of time, the conduct of the descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted offended party could not have excited the accused brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity to the commission of the crime, he having had time within the same degree; and to regain his reason and to exercise self-control. Moreover, the law presupposes that during that 2. A Felony is committed in vindication of such interval, whatever anger or diminished self-control grave offense. may have emerged from the offender had already vanished or diminished. “Offense” Contemplated As long as the offender, at the time he committed The word offense should not be construed as the felony, was still under the influence of the equivalent to crime. It is enough that a wrongdoing outrage caused by the provocation or threat, he is was committed. acting under a diminished self-control. This is the reason why it is mitigating. However, there are two Factors to be Considered in Determining the criteria that must be taken into consideration: Gravity of the Offense 1. If there is a material lapse of time and there is 1. Social standing of the person; no finding that the effect of the threat or 2. Place; and provocation had prolonged and affected the 3. Time when the insult was made. (Reyes, 2021) offender at the time he committed the crime, then the criterion to be used is based on time Lapse of Time Allowed between the Vindication element. and the Doing of the Grave Offense 2. However, if there is that time element and at The word “immediate” in Art. 13(5) of the RPC is the same time, there is a finding that at the not an accurate translation of the Spanish text time the offender committed the crime, he is which uses the term “proxima.” A lapse of time is still suffering from outrage of the threat or allowed between the grave offense and the actual provocation done to him, then, he will still get vindication. (People v. Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. 30 Sept. 2003) 45 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW  CRIMINAL LAW VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND whereabouts. VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT ART. 13(7), RPC GR: There was no voluntary surrender if the warrant of arrest showed that the defendant was, Basis in fact, arrested. The lesser perversity of the offender. The offender XPN: If after committing the crime, the offender is willing to accept the consequences of the wrong did not flee and instead waited for the law he has done which, thereby, saves the government enforcers to arrive, and then they surrendered the the effort, time, and expenses to be incurred in weapon they used in killing the victim, voluntary searching for them. surrender is mitigating. However, if after committing the crime, the offender did not flee and Two (2) Mitigating Circumstances Under Article instead they went with the responding law 13(7) enforcers meekly, voluntary surrender is not applicable. (Reyes, 2021) 1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or their agents; and “Spontaneous” 2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the It emphasizes the idea of inner impulse acting prosecution. without external stimulus. The conduct of the accused, not their intention alone, after the NOTE: When both are present, they should have commission of the offense determines the the effect of two independent mitigating spontaneity of the surrender. circumstances. Lack of Resistance does Not Necessarily Equate Requisites of Voluntary Surrender (No-Su-Vo) to Voluntary Surrender 1. Offender had Not been actually arrested; There was no showing of spontaneity on the part of 2. He Surrendered himself to a person in accused-appellant as it was not he who asked for authority or to the latter’s agent; and the police to go to their house. Neither was there 3. The surrender was Voluntary. proof that he acknowledged his guilt when apprehended by the police authorities. While it When Surrender is Considered as Voluntary appears that he did not resist when the police officers brought him to the police station for Surrender is considered voluntary when it is questioning, such lack of resistance does not spontaneous, demonstrating intent to submit necessarily equate to his voluntary surrender. The himself unconditionally to the person in authority voluntariness of one's surrender should denote a or his agent, either: positive act and not a mere compliant or submissive behavior in the presence of authorities. 1. Because they acknowledge their guilt; or (People v. Sabalberino, G.R. No. 241088, 03 June 2. Because they wish to save them the trouble 2019) and expense necessarily included for their search and capture. Requirement that the Accused Surrender Prior to the Order of Arrest Whether a warrant of arrest had been issued against the offender is immaterial and irrelevant. The law does not require that the accused The criterion is whether or not the offender had surrender prior to the order of arrest. What gone into hiding or had the opportunity to go into matters is the spontaneous surrender of the hiding and the law enforcers do not know of their accused upon learning that a warrant of arrest had U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S 48 2023 GOLDEN NOTES  I. BOOK I CRIMINAL LAW been issued against them and that voluntary A: NO. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary Q: Upon learning that the police wanted him for Requisites of Physical Defect surrender is obedience to the order of arrest issued surrender cannot be appreciated in his favor. Art. the killing of Polistico, Jeprox decided to visit against them. (People v. Yecla, et al., G.R. No. L- 365(5) of the RPC expressly states that in the the police station to make inquiries. On his way, 1. The offender is deaf and dumb, blind, or 46612, 14 Oct. 1939) imposition of the penalties, the courts shall he met a policeman who immediately served otherwise suffering from some physical defect; exercise their sound discretion, without regard to upon him the warrant for his arrest. During the and Person in Authority the rules prescribed in Art. 64 of the RPC. trial, in the course of the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence, Jeprox withdrew his 2. Such physical defect restricts his means of One who is directly vested with jurisdiction, The rationale of the law, according to People v. plea of not guilty. action, defense, or communication with their whether as an individual or as a member of some Medroso, Jr., can be found in the fact that in quasi- fellow beings. court or governmental corporation, board, or offenses penalized under Art. 365, the carelessness, Can he invoke the mitigating circumstances of commission. imprudence or negligence which characterizes the voluntary surrender and plea of guilty? (1992 NOTE: The physical defect of the offender must wrongful act may vary from one situation to BAR) have a relation to the offense committed. Agent of a Person in Authority another, in nature, extent, and resulting consequences, and in order that there may be a fair A: NO. Jeprox is not entitled to the mitigating Q: Suppose X is deaf and dumb, and he has been A person who, by direct provision of law, or by and just application of the penalty, the courts must circumstance of voluntary surrender as his going slandered, he cannot talk so what he did was he election, or by appointment by competent have ample discretion in its imposition, without to the police station is only for the purpose of got a piece of wood and struck the fellow on the authority, is charged with the maintenance of being bound by what We may call the verification of the news that he is wanted by the head. X was charged with physical injuries. Is X public order and the protection and security of life mathematical formula provided for in Art. 64 of the authorities. In order to be mitigating, surrender entitled to a mitigating circumstance by reason and property and any person who comes to the aid RPC. (Mariano v. People, G.R. No. 178145, 07 July must be spontaneous and that he acknowledges his of his physical defect? of persons in authority. 2014) guilt. Neither is his plea of guilty a mitigating circumstance because it was a qualified plea. A: YES. The Supreme Court held that being a deaf Q: If the accused escapes from the scene of the Requisites of Voluntary Confession of Guilt Besides, Art. 13(7) of the RPC provides that and dumb is mitigating because the only way to crime in order to seek advice from a lawyer, (1999 BAR) (S-O-P) confession of guilt must be done before the vindicate himself is to use his force because he and the latter ordered them to surrender prosecution had started to present evidence. cannot strike back by words. voluntarily to the authorities, which the 1. The offender Spontaneously confessed their accused followed by surrendering himself to guilt; NOTE: Where in the original information the NOTE: The law says that the offender is deaf and the municipal mayor, will their surrender be 2. It was made in Open court (that is, before the accused pleaded not guilty but he pleaded guilty to dumb, meaning not only deaf but also dumb, or considered mitigating? competent court that is to try the case); and the amended information, it is considered as a that they are blind, meaning in both eyes, but even 3. It was made Prior to the presentation of voluntary plea of guilty and considered a if they are only deaf and not dumb, or dumb but A: YES. They fled to the scene of a crime not to evidence for the prosecution. mitigating circumstance. (People v. Ortiz, G.R. No. L- not deaf, or blind only in eye, they are still entitled escape but to seek legal advice. 19585, 29 Nov. 1965) to a mitigating circumstance under this article as NOTE: Qualified plea/plea of guilty to lesser long as their physical defects restrict their means Q: Y, while alighting from his vehicle, was hit by offense than that charged is not mitigating. For PHYSICAL DEFECT of action, defense, or communication with their X with his car. This caused Y to be thrown four voluntary confession to be appreciated, the ART. 13(8), RPC fellowmen. meters away from his jeepney. Afterwards, X confession must not only be made unconditionally proceeded to the police camp to surrender and (i.e., not subject to any condition) but the accused Basis NOTE: The law does not distinguish between report the incident. X was charged with must admit the offense charged. educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind Frustrated Murder and was subsequently The diminution of the element of voluntariness. persons. The Code considers them as being on convicted in the RTC of Frustrated Homicide. Plea of Guilty Not Applicable to All Crimes equal footing. (Reyes, 2021) Upon appeal to the CA, the crime was modified Physical Defect to Reckless Imprudence resulting in Serious A plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER Physical Injuries. X contends that the CA should felonies and in crimes punished by special penal A person's physical condition, such as being deaf ART. 13(9), RPC have appreciated voluntary surrender as a laws, unless otherwise provided therein (e.g., Anti- and dumb, blind, armless, cripple, or stutterer, mitigating circumstance in his favor. Is X’s Plunder Act [R.A. No. 7080]), or if the special penal whereby their means of action, defense, or Basis contention correct? law adopts the same nomenclature of penalties as communication with others are restricted or that of the RPC, in which case, Art. 10 of the RPC limited. The physical defect that a person may have Diminution of intelligence and intent. shall apply (e.g., Comprehensive Firearms and must have a relation to the commission of the Ammunition Regulation Act [R.A. No. 10591]). crime. 49 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S 50 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 2023 GOLDEN NOTES  I. BOOK I CRIMINAL LAW Requisites of Illness (Di-No) 5. Voluntary restitution of property, similar to Significance of this Paragraph 5. Personal circumstances of the offender or the voluntary surrender. (Nizurtado v. offended party. (Reyes, 2021) 1. Illness of the offender must Diminish the Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 107383, 07 Dec. 1994) The significance is that even though a particular exercise of will power; and circumstance does not fall under any of the Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances (1999 2. Such illness should Not deprive the offender of 6. Outraged feeling of the owner of animal taken enumerated circumstances in Art. 13, the court is BAR) consciousness of their acts. for ransom is analogous to vindication of grave authorized to consider in favor of the accused “any offense. (People v. Monaga, G.R. No. L-38528, 19 other circumstance of a similar nature and 1. Generic – those that can generally apply to If the illness not only diminishes the exercise of the Nov. 1982) analogous to those mentioned.” almost all crimes. offender’s will power but deprives them of the consciousness of their acts, it becomes an 7. Esprit de corps is similar to passion and In Jarillo v. People (G.R. No. 164435, 29 Sept. 2009), Examples: exempting circumstance to be classified as insanity obfuscation. the SC ruled that an abandoned wife, who a. Taking advantage of public position; or imbecility. remained and was found guilty of Bigamy, is b. Contempt or insult to public authorities; NOTE: Esprit de corps refers to the common entitled to a mitigating circumstance “for c. Dwelling; See page 33 for discussion on imbecility and spirit existing in the members of a group and humanitarian purposes” since her marriage with d. Abuse of confidence or obvious insanity as an exempting circumstance inspiring enthusiasm, devotion, and strong the complainant was later on declared void ab ungratefulness; regard for the honor of the group. (Meriam- initio on account of the latter’s psychological e. Palace of Chief Executive and places of NOTE: A polio victim, in their younger days of Webster Dictionary) incapacity, by reason of which, the wife was commission of offenses; limping while they walk, cannot claim mitigating 8. Wartime state of confusion resulting in illegal subjected to manipulative abuse. f. Nighttime, uninhabited place, or band; circumstance in the crime of oral defamation. possession of firearm after the liberation g. Recidivism; (People v. Quemuel, G.R. No. L-77, 15 Feb. 1946), Circumstances which are Neither Exempting h. Reiteracion; SIMILAR AND ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES as being similar to lack of intent to commit so nor Mitigating: (M-E-A-P) i. Craft, fraud, or disguise; ART. 13(10), RPC grave a wrong. j. Unlawful entry; 1. Mistake in the blow or aberratio ictus; k. Breaking wall; and Examples of Similar and Analogous 9. Testifying for the prosecution without being 2. Entrapment; l. Aid of minor or by means of motor Circumstances discharged from the information (People v. 3. Accused is over 18 years of age; and vehicle. Narvasca, et al., G.R. No. L-28107, 15 Mar. 4. Performance of righteous action. 1. The act of the offender of leading the law 1977), as being like a plea of guilty. 2. Specific – those that apply only to enforcers to the place where they buried the d) AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES particular crimes. instrument of the crime has been considered 10. Acting out of embarrassment and fear caused as equivalent to voluntary surrender. by the victim because of gambling debts of the Aggravating Circumstances Examples: accused (People v. Ong, et al., G.R. No. L-34497, a. Cruelty in crimes against persons only; 2. Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out 30 Jan. 1975), as akin to passion or obfuscation. Those which, if attendant in the commission of the (Art. 14, RPC) of extreme poverty is considered as analogous crime: to incomplete state of necessity (People v. 11. Retaliating for having been assaulted during a b. Treachery in crimes against persons only; Macbul, G.R. No. 48976, 11 Oct. 1943), unless public dance where the accused was well 1. Serve to increase the penalty without, (Art. 14, RPC) they became impoverished because of their known and respected (People v. Libria, G.R. No. however, exceeding the maximum of the own way of living his life, e.g., he had so many L-6585, 16 July 1954), as similar to vindication. penalty provided by law for the offense; or c. The victim is the offender’s parents, vices. 2. Change the nature of the crime. ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers, 12. When the petitioner submits extrajudicial or persons in authority, in less serious 3. Defendant who is 60 years old with failing confession through the handwritten letter Basis physical injures; (Art. 265(3), RPC) eyesight is similar to a case of a person over 70 coupled with her act of surrendering the years of age. (People v. Reantillo and Ruiz, C.A. redeemed pawn tickets and thereafter going to They are based on the greater perversity of the d. Unlicensed firearms in robbery in band; G.R. No. 301, 27 July 1938) the police station (Frontreras v. People, G.R. No. offender manifested in the commission of the (Art. 296, RPC) 190583, 07 Dec. 2015), as an analogous felony as shown by the: 4. Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion circumstance of voluntary surrender. e. Abuse of authority or confidential and obfuscation. (People v. Libria, G.R. No. L- 1. Motivating power itself; relations by guardians or curators in 6585, 16 July 1954) 2. Place of commission; seduction, rape, acts of lasciviousness, 3. Means and ways employed; white slavery and corruption of minors; 4. Time; and (Art. 346, RPC) and 51 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S 52 U N IV E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 2023 GOLDEN NOTES  CRIMINAL LAW Circumstances which Aggravate Criminal Aggravating Circumstances which do NOT have Liability the Effect of Increasing the Penalty 1. Taking advantage of public position; 1. Those circumstances which, in themselves, 2. Contempt or insult to public authorities; constitute a crime especially punishable by law; 3. Disregard of rank, age, sex, or dwelling of the (Art. 62(1), RPC) offended party; (1996, 2009 BAR) 4. Abuse of confidence and Obvious 2. Those circumstances included by the law in ungratefulness; defining a crime and prescribing penalty; (Art. 5. Palace and places of commission of offense; 62(1), RPC) and 6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, or by a band; (1994, 1997, 2009 BAR) 3. Those circumstances inherent in the crime to 7. On occasion of Calamity or misfortune; such a degree that it must of necessity 8. Aid of armed men, or persons to insure or accompany the commission thereof. (Art. 62(2), afford impunity; RPC) 9. Recidivist; (1993, 2009, 2014 BAR) 10. Reiteracion, Habitual delinquency, or Quasi- Aggravating Circumstances which are Personal recidivism; to the Offenders- 11. Price, reward, or promise; 12. By means of Inundation, fire, poison, explosion, Aggravating circumstances which arise from: stranding of a vessel or intentional damage (Mor-P-Pe) thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the 1. The Moral attributes of the offender; use of any other artifice involving great waste 2. His Private relations with the offended party; or ruin.; and 13. Evident premeditation; (1991, 2009 BAR) 3. Any other Personal cause. 14. Craft, fraud or disguise; (1995 BAR) 15. Abuse of superior strength or means to Appreciation of Personal Aggravating weaken the defense; Circumstances 16. Treachery; 17. Ignominy; It shall only serve to aggravate the liability of those 18. Unlawful entry; persons as to whom such circumstances are 19. Breaking of the wall, roof, floor, or door; attendant. (Art. 62(3), RPC) 20. Aid of persons under 15 years old or by means of motor vehicle or other similar means; and Appreciation of an Aggr