1 0 0 % U P L A W 1 0 0 % U P L A W 1 0 0 % U P L A W 1 0 0 % U P L A W U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8 63 CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY THERE ARE FIVE CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY: 1. Justifying circumstances; Art. 11 (6) 2. Exempting circumstances; Art. 12 (7) 3. Mitigating circumstances; Art. 13 (10) 4. Aggravating circumstances; Art. 14 (21) 5. Alternative circumstances. Art. 15 (3) THERE ARE OTHERS WHICH ARE FOUND ELSEWHERE IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE: 1. Absolutory cause; and 2. Extenuating circumstances. JUSTIFYING JUSTIFYING JUSTIFYING JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE EXEMPTING EXEMPTING EXEMPTING EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE AGGRAVATING AGGRAVATING AGGRAVATING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE NO CRIME THERE IS A CRIME THERE IS A CRIME THERE IS A CRIME THERE IS A CRIME No criminal liability No criminal liability Decreased criminal liability Increased criminal liability Increased or decreased liability No civil liability Except: state of necessity With civil liability Except: 1)accident; 2) insuperable cause With civil liability With civil liability
Transcript
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
6
3
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIM
INAL LIABILITY
THERE A
RE F
IVE C
IRCUMSTANCES A
FFECTING C
RIMINAL LIABILITY:
1.
Justify
ing c
ircum
sta
nces;
Art
. 11 (
6)
2.
Exem
pting c
ircum
sta
nces;
Art
. 12 (
7)
3.
Mitig
ating c
ircum
sta
nces;
Art
. 13 (
10)
4.
Aggra
vating c
ircum
sta
nces;
Art
. 14 (
21)
5.
Altern
ative c
ircum
sta
nces.
Art
. 15 (
3)
THERE A
RE O
THERS W
HICH A
RE F
OUND E
LSEW
HERE IN T
HE P
ROVISIONS O
F T
HE R
EVISED P
ENAL C
ODE:
1. A
bsolu
tory
cause; and
2. E
xte
nuating circum
sta
nces.
JUSTIFYING
JUSTIFYING
JUSTIFYING
JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
EXEMPTING
EXEMPTING
EXEMPTING
EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
AGGRAVATING
AGGRAVATING
AGGRAVATING
AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE
CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
NO
CR
IME
TH
ER
E I
S A
CR
IME
TH
ER
E I
S A
CR
IME
TH
ER
E I
S A
CR
IME
TH
ER
E I
S A
CR
IME
No c
rim
inal liability
No c
rim
inal liability
Decre
ased c
rim
inal liability
Incre
ased c
rim
inal liability
Incre
ased o
r decre
ased lia
bility
No c
ivil lia
bility
Except:
sta
te o
f necessity
With c
ivil lia
bility
Except:
1)a
ccid
ent;
2)
insupera
ble
cause
With c
ivil lia
bility
With c
ivil lia
bility
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
6
4
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
(ART 11)
(ART 11)
(ART 11)
(ART 11)
IMPORTANT POINTS
IMPORTANT POINTS
IMPORTANT POINTS
IMPORTANT POINTS
ILLUSTRATION
ILLUSTRATION
ILLUSTRATION
ILLUSTRATION
CASE LAW
CASE LAW
CASE LAW
CASE LAW
1. Self d
efe
nse
2. Defe
nse o
f re
latives
3. Defe
nse o
f strangers
4. Defe
nse o
f pro
perty
5. Sta
te o
f Necessity
6. Fulfillm
ent of duty
7. Obedie
nce to a
superior o
rder
Acts
of acto
r in
accordance w
ith
law,
hence h
e incurs n
o crim
inal
liability
ELEMENTS
1.
Self d
efe
nse
1.
Unla
wfu
l aggre
ssio
n
2.
Reasonable
necessity o
f m
eans
em
plo
yed to p
revent or re
pel it
3.
Lack o
f sufficie
nt pro
vocation
on p
art of defe
nder
Ø N
ever
confu
se
unla
wfu
l aggre
ssio
n
with pro
vocation.
Mere
pro
vocation is
not
enough.
It
must
be
real
and
imm
inent.
Ø S
elf-d
efe
nse inclu
des t
he d
efe
nse o
f
one’s
rig
hts
, th
at
is,
those r
ights
the
enjo
ym
ent
of w
hic
h is p
rote
cte
d b
y
law
.
Ø R
eta
liation is d
iffe
rent
from
an a
ct
of
self-d
efe
nse.
Batt
ere
d W
om
an S
yndro
me
Batt
ere
d W
om
an S
yndro
me i
s n
ow
als
o
accepte
d a
s a
valid d
efe
nse.
In P
eople
Cano v
. People
(2003)
1.
Conra
do a
nd h
is d
eceased b
roth
er
Orlando w
ere
riv
als
in t
he R
ush I
D P
hoto
busin
ess.
2.
Condra
do b
orr
ow
ed t
he p
erm
it o
f th
e O
rlando a
nd h
ad
it p
hoto
copie
d w
ithout
the latt
er’s p
erm
issio
n.
3.
The d
eceased c
onfo
nte
d C
onra
do a
nd t
ried t
o s
tab h
im
with a
fan k
nife.
4.
The latt
er
locked h
imself in t
he d
ark
room
of
his
booth
to p
rote
ct
him
self b
ut
was f
ollow
ed b
y t
he d
eceased a
nd
they e
nded u
p a
ttackin
g e
ach o
ther.
The s
cuffle
resulted
in t
he d
eath
of th
e O
rlando.
Held
: Conra
do’s
act
of
killiln
g h
is b
roth
er
was a
ttended b
y
a
justify
ing
cir
cum
sta
nce
of
self-d
efe
nse.
It
was
the
deceased
who
purp
osely
sought
and
initia
lly
att
acked
Orl
ando w
ith a
knife.
The a
ct
of
a p
ers
on a
rmed w
ith a
bla
ded w
eapon p
urs
uin
g
anoth
er
constitu
tes unla
wfu
l agre
ssio
n
because
it
sig
nifie
s th
e purs
uer’s in
tent to
com
mit an assault
with his weapon.
There
w
as also la
ck of sufficie
nt
pro
vocation
on
the
part
of
Condra
do.
His
act
of
photo
copyin
g
the
perm
it
of
his
bro
ther
without
the
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
6
5
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
Vs. Genosa,
the court
ru
led th
at
the
batt
ere
d
wom
an
syndro
me
is
chara
cte
rized
by
a
“CYCLE
OF
VIO
LEN
CE”,
w
hic
h is
m
ade up of
thre
e
phases.
1)
First
Phase:
THE
TENSION-
BUILDING P
HASE
where
m
inor
batt
ering occurs
, it could
be a verb
al
or
slight
physic
al
abuse or
anoth
er
form
of
hostile
behavio
r. The
wom
an
trie
s
to
pacify
the
batt
ere
r
thro
ugh
a
show
of
kin
d,
nurt
uri
ng
behavio
r, or
by sim
ply
sta
yin
g out
of
the
way.
But
this
pro
ves
to
be
unsuccessfu
l as
it
only
giv
es
the
batt
ere
r th
e
notion
that
he
has
the
right
to a
buse h
er.
2)
Second
Phase:
ACUTE
BATTERING INCIDENT
chara
cte
rized
by
bru
tality
,
destr
uctiveness,
and som
etim
es death
.
The
batt
ere
d
wom
an
has
no
contr
ol;
only
the b
att
ere
r can s
top t
he v
iole
nce.
The batt
ere
d w
om
an re
alizes th
at
she
cannot
reason w
ith him
and re
sis
tance
would
only
wors
en h
er
conditio
n.
3) T
hird P
hase: TRANQUIL P
ERIOD
chara
cte
rized b
y g
uilt
on t
he p
art
of
the
batt
ere
r and f
org
iveness o
n t
he p
art
of
the w
om
an.
The batt
ere
r m
ay show
a
tender
and nurt
uri
ng behavio
r to
ward
s
his
part
ner
and t
he w
om
an a
lso t
ries t
o
convin
ce
hers
elf
that
the
batt
ery
w
ill
never
happen
again
and
that
her
part
ner
will change for
the b
ett
er.
latt
ers
perm
issio
n
can
hard
ly
be
consid
ered
as
pro
vocation to
m
erit
so deadly
an assault
w
ith
a
bla
ded w
eapon.
People
vs. Dijan
Unla
wfu
l aggre
ssio
n
must
als
o
be
a
continuin
g
cir
cum
sta
nce o
r m
ust
have b
een e
xis
ting a
t th
e t
ime t
he
defe
nse is m
ade.
Once t
he u
nla
wfu
l aggre
ssio
n is f
ound t
o
have ceased,
the one m
akin
g th
e defe
nse of
a str
anger
would
likew
ise cease to
have any ju
stification fo
r killing,
or
even just
woundin
g,
the form
er
aggre
ssor.
Tole
do v
. People
(2004)
1.
Tole
do s
aw
his
nephew
, Ric
ky,
and t
he l
att
er's f
riends
about
5 m
aw
ay f
rom
his
house,
havin
g a
dri
nkin
g s
pre
e.
He
ord
ere
d
them
not
to
make
loud
nois
es,
and
they
obliged.
He t
hen w
ent
hom
e t
o s
leep.
2.
Ric
ky and his
fr
iends als
o w
ent
to sle
ep aft
er
som
e
tim
e.
They had not
laid
dow
n fo
r lo
ng w
hen he heard
sto
nes bein
g hurl
ed at
the ro
of
of
the house.
Ric
ky saw
Tole
do sto
nin
g th
eir
house and asked him
w
hy he w
as
doin
g t
he s
am
e.
3.
Tole
do d
id n
ot
answ
er
but
met
Ric
ky a
t th
e d
oors
tep o
f
his
house
and
without
warn
ing
sta
bbed
Ric
ky
on
the
abdom
en w
ith a
bolo
whic
h r
esulted t
o h
is d
eath
.
4.
Tole
do
defe
nded
him
self
by
allegin
g
that
his
bolo
accid
enta
lly h
it t
he s
tom
ach o
f th
e v
ictim
and t
hat
he w
as
able
to p
rove a
ll t
he e
ssential ele
ments
of self d
efe
nse.
Held
: The C
ourt
rule
d t
hat
it is a
n a
berr
ation f
or
Tole
do t
o
invoke th
e tw
o defe
nses at
the sam
e tim
e because th
e
said
defe
nses are
in
trin
sic
ally antith
etical. There
is
no
such defe
nse as accid
enta
l self-d
efe
nse in
th
e re
alm
of
cri
min
al la
w.
The
court
ru
led
that
Tole
do
was
not
justified
in
sta
bbin
g R
icky.
There
was n
o i
mm
inent
thre
at
in h
is l
ife
necessitating h
is a
ssault.
Record
s r
eveal th
at
there
is n
o
unla
wfu
l aggre
ssio
n,
a conditio
n sin
e qua non fo
r th
e
justify
ing cir
cum
sta
nce of
self defe
nse,
on th
e part
of
Ric
ky.
Ric
ky a
rriv
ed a
t Tole
do’s
house u
narm
ed.
With n
o
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
6
6
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
weapon to
att
ack Tole
do or
defe
nd him
self,
no sig
n of
hostility
may b
e d
educed fro
m h
im.
2.
Defe
nse O
f Rela
tives
Ele
ments
:
1.
Unla
wfu
l aggre
ssio
n
2.
Reasonable
necessity o
f m
eans
em
plo
yed to p
revent or re
pel it
3.
in case p
ers
on a
ttacked
pro
voked a
ttacker defe
nder
must have n
o p
art there
in
Rela
tives e
ntitled to d
efe
nse:
1) Spouse
2) Ascendants
3) Descendants
4) le
gitim
ate
, natu
ral or adopte
d
Bro
thers
/Siste
rs
5) Rela
tives b
y a
ffin
ity in the sam
e
degre
e
6) Rela
tives b
y consanguin
ity w
/in
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
6
7
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
the 4
th civ
il d
egre
e
3. Defe
nse O
f Strangers
Ele
ments
: Ø
Unla
wfu
l aggre
ssio
n;
Ø
Reasonable
necessity o
f th
e
means e
mplo
yed to p
revent or
repel it;
Ø
The p
ers
on d
efe
ndin
g b
e n
ot
induced b
y revenge, re
sentm
ent
or oth
er evil m
otive.
• If
the p
ers
on b
ein
g d
efe
nded is a
second cousin
, it w
ill be d
efe
nse o
f stranger.
Ø Defe
nse O
f Pro
perty
Ø
This
can o
nly
be invoked if
•
the life
and lim
b of
the pers
on
makin
g t
he d
efe
nse
•
is als
o th
e subje
ct
of
unla
wfu
l
aggre
ssio
n.
Ø
Life c
annot
be e
qual to
pro
pert
y.
Ø Sta
te Of
Necessity (Avoid
ance
Of Gre
ate
r Evil)
Ele
ments
: 1.
Evil sought to
be a
void
ed
actu
ally e
xist
2.
Inju
ry feare
d b
e g
reate
r th
an
that done to a
void
it
3.
There
is n
o o
ther pra
ctical &
less h
arm
ful m
eans o
f pre
venting it
Ø
The
evil
or
inju
ry
sought
to
be
avoid
ed m
ust
not
have b
een c
reate
d
by th
e one in
vokin
g th
e ju
stify
ing
cir
cum
sta
nces.
Ø
General
rule
: N
o
liability
in
justify
ing
cir
cum
sta
nces
because
there
is n
o c
rim
e.
Illustrations:
A
dro
ve
his
car
beyond
the
speed
lim
it
so
much
so
that
when
he
reached t
he c
urv
e,
his
vehic
le s
kid
ded
tow
ard
s a
ravin
e.
He s
werv
ed h
is c
ar
tow
ard
s
a
house,
destr
oyin
g
it
and
killing t
he o
ccupant
there
in.
A c
annot
be
justified
because
the
sta
te
of
necessity w
as bro
ught
about
by his
ow
n felo
nio
us a
ct.
A
and
B
are
ow
ners
of
adjo
inin
g
lands.
A ow
ns th
e la
nd fo
r pla
nting
cert
ain
cro
ps.
B
ow
ns
the
land
for
rais
ing c
ert
ain
goats
. C u
sed a
noth
er
land
for
a
vegeta
ble
gard
en.
There
was h
eavy r
ain
and f
loods.
Dam
was
opened.
C d
rove a
ll t
he g
oats
of
B t
o
the land o
f A.
The g
oats
rushed t
o t
he
Ty v
. People
(2004)
1.
Ty's
m
oth
er
and sis
ter
were
confined at
the M
anila
Docto
rs'
Hospital.
Ty
sig
ned
the
"Acknow
ledgm
ent
of
Responsib
ility for
Paym
ent"
in t
he C
ontr
act
of Adm
issio
n.
2.
The t
ota
l hospital bills
of
the t
wo p
atients
am
ounte
d t
o
P1,0
75,5
92.9
5.
Ty execute
d a pro
mis
sory
note
w
here
in
she a
ssum
ed p
aym
ent
of th
e o
bligation in insta
llm
ents
.
3.
To
assure
paym
ent
of
the
obligation,
she
dre
w
7
postd
ate
d
checks
again
st
Metr
obank
payable
to
th
e
hospital
whic
h w
ere
all dis
honore
d by th
e dra
wee bank
due t
o insuffic
iency o
f fu
nds.
4.
As defe
nse,
Ty cla
imed th
at
she is
sued th
e checks
because of
“an uncontr
ollable
fe
ar
of
a gre
ate
r in
jury
.”
She averr
ed th
at
she w
as fo
rced to
is
sue th
e checks to
obta
in r
ele
ase f
or
her
moth
er
who w
as b
ein
g inhum
anely
treate
d b
y t
he h
ospital. S
he a
lleged t
hat
her
moth
er
has
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
6
8
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
Ø Exception
: There
is
CIV
IL
LIA
BIL
ITY
under
this
para
gra
ph.
They shall be liable
in proportion
to the benefit which they may
have been received.
land to
be saved,
but
the la
nd of
A
was d
estr
oyed.
The a
uth
or
of
the a
ct
is C
, but
C is n
ot
civ
illy
lia
ble
because
he did
not
receiv
e benefits
. It
w
as B
who w
as benefite
d,
although he w
as
not
the a
cto
r. H
e c
annot
cla
im t
hat
it
was a
fort
uitous e
vent.
B w
ill
answ
er
only
to
th
e
exte
nt
of
the
benefit
deri
ved b
y h
im.
If C
who d
rove a
ll o
f
the
goats
is
accused
of
malicio
us
mis
chie
f, his
defe
nse w
ould
be th
at
he acte
d out
of
a sta
te of
necessity.
He w
ill not
be c
ivilly
lia
ble
.
conte
mpla
ted s
uic
ide if
she w
ould
not
be d
ischarg
ed fro
m
the h
ospital.
5.
Ty w
as f
ound g
uilty
by t
he low
er
court
s o
f 7
counts
of
vio
lation o
f BP22.
Held
:The c
ourt
susta
ined t
he f
indin
gs o
f th
e low
er
court
s.
The
evil
sought
to
be
avoid
ed
is
mere
ly
expecte
d
or
anticip
ate
d.
So t
he d
efe
nse o
f an u
ncontr
ollable
fear
of
a
gre
ate
r in
jury
” is
not
applicable
. Ty could
have ta
ken
advanta
ge of
an available
option to
avoid
com
mitting a
cri
me.
By h
er
ow
n a
dm
issio
n,
she h
ad t
he c
hoic
e t
o g
ive
jew
elr
y or
oth
er
form
s of
securi
ty in
ste
ad of
postd
ate
d
checks t
o s
ecure
her
obligation.
More
over,
fo
r th
e defe
nse of
sta
te of
necessity to
be
availin
g,
the gre
ate
r in
jury
fe
are
d should
not
have been
bro
ught
about
by t
he n
egligence o
r im
pru
dence,
more
so,
the w
illful in
action o
f th
e a
cto
r. I
n t
his
case,
the issuance
of
the bounced checks w
as bro
ught
about
by Ty's
ow
n
failure
to p
ay h
er
moth
er's h
ospital bills
.
Ø Fulfillm
ent
Of
Duty
Or Lawfu
l Exerc
ise O
f Rig
ht
Ele
ments
: 1.
Offender
acte
d in
perform
ance
of
duty
or
lawfu
l exerc
ise of
a
right/
office
2.
The
resultin
g
felo
ny
is
the
unavoid
able
consequence o
f th
e
due fu
lfillm
ent
of
the duty
or
the la
wfu
l exerc
ise of th
e right
or office.
Ø
If f
irst
conditio
n is p
resent,
Ø
but
the second is
not
because th
e
offender
acte
d w
ith c
ulp
a,
•
the o
ffender
will
be e
ntitled t
o a
pri
vileged
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce.
•
the p
enalty w
ould
be r
educed b
y
one o
r tw
o d
egre
es.
People
v. Ule
p (2000)
1.
Accused-a
ppellant
and
the
oth
er
police
offic
ers
involv
ed origin
ally set
out
to re
sto
re peace and ord
er
at
Mundog Subdiv
isio
n w
here
th
e vic
tim
w
as th
en ru
nnin
g
am
uck.
2.
The v
ictim
thre
ate
ned t
he s
afe
ty o
f th
e p
olice o
ffic
ers
despite
accused-a
ppellant's
pre
vio
us
warn
ing
shot
and
verb
al adm
onitio
n t
o t
he v
ictim
to lay d
ow
n h
is w
eapon.
3.
As a
police o
ffic
er,
it
is t
o b
e e
xpecte
d t
hat
accused-
appellant
would
sta
nd his
gro
und.
Up to
th
at
poin
t, his
decis
ion t
o r
espond w
ith a
barr
age o
f gunfire
to h
alt t
he
vic
tim
's
furt
her
advance
was
justified
under
the
cir
cum
sta
nces.
A police offic
er
is not
requir
ed to
afford
the vic
tim
th
e opport
unity to
fight
back.
Neither
is he
expecte
d –
when h
ard
pre
ssed a
nd in t
he h
eat
of
such a
n
encounte
r at
clo
se q
uart
ers
– t
o p
ause f
or
a long m
om
ent
and r
eflect
coolly a
t his
peri
l, o
r to
wait a
fter
each b
low
to
dete
rmin
e t
he e
ffects
there
of.
4.
But
he c
annot
be e
xonera
ted f
rom
overd
oin
g h
is d
uty
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
6
9
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
when h
e f
ata
lly s
hot
the v
ictim
in t
he h
ead,
even a
fter
the
latt
er
slu
mped to
th
e gro
und due to
m
ultip
le gunshot
wounds susta
ined w
hile charg
ing at
the police offic
ers
.
Sound dis
cre
tion and re
str
ain
t dic
tate
d th
at
a vete
ran
policem
an should
have ceased firing at
the vic
tim
th
e
mom
ent
he s
aw
the latt
er
fall t
o t
he g
round.
The v
ictim
at
that
poin
t no lo
nger
posed a th
rea.
Shooting him
in
th
e
head w
as o
bvio
usly
unnecessary
.
The la
w does not
clo
the police offic
ers
w
ith auth
ority
to
arb
itra
rily
judge t
he n
ecessity t
o k
ill-
it
must
be s
tressed
that
their j
udgm
ent
and d
iscre
tion a
s p
olice o
ffic
ers
in t
he
perf
orm
ance of
their duties m
ust
be exerc
ised neither
capri
cio
usly
nor
oppre
ssiv
ely
, but
within
reasonable
lim
its.
Pom
oy v
. People
(2004)
1.
Police S
rgt
Pom
oy,
went
near
the d
oor
of
the j
ail w
here
Balb
oa w
as d
eta
ined f
or
robbery
and d
irecte
d t
he latt
er
to
com
e
out,
purp
ort
edly
fo
r ta
ctical
inte
rrogation
at
the
investigation r
oom
. A
t th
at
tim
e,
petitioner
had a
gun,
a
.45 c
aliber
pis
tol, t
ucked i
n a
hols
ter
whic
h w
as hangin
g
by t
he s
ide o
f his
belt.
2.
Balb
oa tr
ied to
re
move Pom
oy’s
gun and th
e tw
o
gra
pple
d
for
possessio
n
of
the
gun.
There
aft
er,
2
gunshots
were
heard
. W
hen t
he s
ourc
e o
f th
e s
hots
was
veri
fied,
petitioner
was seen still hold
ing a .4
5 caliber
pis
tol, facin
g B
alb
oa,
who w
as lyin
g in a
pool of blo
od.
3.
Pom
oy invoked t
he d
efe
nse o
f accid
ent
for
his
defe
nse.
Held
: Pom
oy is
acquitte
d.
At
the tim
e of
the in
cid
ent,
petitioner
was a m
em
ber
of
the (P
NP)
sta
tioned at
the
Iloilo P
rovin
cia
l M
obile F
orc
e C
om
pany.
Thus,
it w
as in t
he
law
ful
perf
orm
ance of
his
duties as in
vestigating offic
er
that,
under
the instr
uctions o
f his
superi
or,
he f
etc
hed t
he
vic
tim
fro
m t
he latt
er's c
ell for
a r
outine inte
rrogation.
The p
art
icip
ation o
f petitioner,
if
any,
in t
he v
ictim
's d
eath
was lim
ited only
to
acts
com
mitte
d in
th
e cours
e of
the
law
ful perf
orm
ance o
f his
duties a
s a
n e
nfo
rcer
of th
e law
.
The r
em
oval of
the g
un f
rom
its
hols
ter,
the r
ele
ase o
f th
e
safe
ty l
ock,
and t
he f
irin
g o
f th
e t
wo s
uccessiv
e s
hots
—
all
of
whic
h
led
to
the
death
of
the
vic
tim
—
w
ere
suffic
iently dem
onstr
ate
d to
have been consequences of
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
7
0
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
cir
cum
sta
nces beyond th
e contr
ol
of
petitioner.
At
the
very
le
ast,
th
ese
factu
al
cir
cum
sta
nces
cre
ate
serious
doubt
on t
he P
om
oy’s
culp
ability.
Ø
Obedie
nce O
f Superior Ord
er
Ele
ments
: 1.
Ord
er m
ust have b
een issued b
y
a superior
2.
The ord
er is fo
r som
e la
wfu
l purpose
3.
The m
eans used to
carry
it out
must be lawfu
l
Ø A
subord
inate
is
not
liable
fo
r carr
yin
g
out
an illegal ord
er
of his
superi
or,
•
if h
e is n
ot
aw
are
of
the illegality
of th
e o
rder
and
•
he is n
ot
negligent.
Tabuena v
. Sandig
anbayan (1997)
1.
Pre
s.
Marc
os in
str
ucte
d Tabuena over
the phone to
pay dir
ectly to
th
e O
ffic
e of
the Pre
sid
ent
in cash w
hat
MIA
A o
wes
PN
CC
whic
h late
r w
as r
eitera
ted in w
riting.
2.
The M
arc
os’
mem
o in
dic
ate
d th
e am
ount
of
P55m
fo
r
part
ial paym
ent
of th
e o
bligation t
o P
NCC.
3.
In
obedie
nce
to
Marc
os’
instr
uction,
the
accused
withdre
w t
he a
mount
by m
eans o
f 3 s
epara
te issuances o
f
manager’s c
heck a
nd e
ncashm
ent
in 3
separa
te d
ate
s a
s
well.
4.
The m
oney w
ithdra
wn w
ere
pla
ced in
peerless boxes
and d
uff
le b
ags a
nd d
elivere
d t
o t
he p
rivate
secre
tary
of
Marc
os a
lso in 3
separa
te d
ays.
Accord
ing t
o t
he a
ccused,
the d
isburs
em
ent
was n
ot
in t
he n
orm
al
pro
cedure
sin
ce
there
were
no v
ouchers
support
ing it
and n
o r
eceip
t fr
om
PN
CC.
5.
Tabuena
and
Pera
lta
were
convic
ted
by
the
Sandig
anbayan o
f m
alv
ers
ation.
Held
: The a
ccused w
ere
acquitte
d.
They’re e
ntitled t
o t
he
justify
ing c
ircum
sta
nce o
f obedie
nce t
o a
n o
rder
issued b
y
a
superi
or
for
som
e
law
ful
purp
ose.
Sandig
anbayan
cla
imed
that
Marc
os’
mem
o
was
unla
wfu
l because
it
ord
ers
dis
burs
em
ent
of
P55M
w
hen th
e O
ngpin
m
em
o
reveals
that
the lia
bility is o
nly
34.5
M.
Gra
nting t
his
to b
e
true,
it w
ill
not
affect
Tabuena’s
good fa
ith as to
m
ake
him
cri
min
ally lia
ble
. Thus,
even i
f th
e o
rder
is illegal
if it
is
pate
ntly
legal
and
subord
inate
is
not
aw
are
of
its
ille
gality
, th
e
subord
inate
is
not
liable
, fo
r th
en
there
would
only
be a
mis
take o
f fa
ct
com
mitte
d in g
ood faith.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
7
1
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
EXEMPTING
EXEMPTING
EXEMPTING
EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES
CIRCUMSTANCES
CIRCUMSTANCES
CIRCUMSTANCES
IMPORTANT POINTS
IMPORTANT POINTS
IMPORTANT POINTS
IMPORTANT POINTS
ILLUSTRATION
ILLUSTRATION
ILLUSTRATION
ILLUSTRATION
CASE LAW
CASE LAW
CASE LAW
CASE LAW
1. Im
becility/
insanity
2. M
inori
ty
3. A
ccid
ent
4. C
om
puls
ion o
f
irre
sis
tible
forc
e
5. Im
puls
e o
f
uncontr
ollable
fear
6. Insupera
ble
or
law
ful
cause
Ø
The r
eason for
the e
xem
ption lie
s o
n
the involu
nta
riness o
f th
e a
ct—
• one o
r som
e o
f th
e ingredie
nts
of
volu
nta
riness s
uch a
s c
rim
inal
inte
nt,
inte
llig
ence,
or
freedom
of
action o
n t
he p
art
of th
e o
ffender is
missin
g.
• In
case it
is a
culp
able
felo
ny,
there
is a
bsence o
f fr
eedom
of action o
r
inte
llig
ence,
or
absence o
f
negligence,
impru
dence,
lack o
f
fore
sig
ht
or
lack o
f skill.
1.
Insanity
And
Im
becility
IMBECILE
one w
ho,
while advanced in
age,
has a
menta
l develo
pm
ent
com
para
ble
to t
hat
of
childre
n betw
een 2 and 7 years
of
age.
Exem
pt
in a
ll c
ases fro
m c
rim
inal liability
INSANE
there
is
a
com
ple
te
deprivation
of
inte
llig
ence
in
com
mitting
the
act
but
capable
of
havin
g l
ucid
inte
rvals
. D
uri
ng a
lucid
in
terv
al,
the
insane
acts
w
ith
inte
llig
ence
and
thus,
not
exem
pt
from
cri
min
al liability.
Ø I
nsanity is a
defe
nse in t
he n
atu
re o
f
confe
ssio
n a
nd a
void
ance a
nd m
ust
be
pro
ved b
eyond reasonable
doubt
Ø E
vid
ence o
f in
sanity m
ust
refe
r to
•
the t
ime p
recedin
g t
he a
ct
under
pro
secution o
r
•
at
the v
ery
mom
ent
of its e
xecution.
Ø
Insanity s
ubsequent
to c
om
mis
sio
n o
f
cri
me is n
ot
exem
pting
Ø
Feeble
min
dedness
is
not
imbecility
People
vs. Dungo
The i
nsanity t
hat
is e
xem
pting i
s l
imited o
nly
to m
enta
l
aberr
ation o
r dis
ease o
f th
e m
ind a
nd m
ust
com
ple
tely
impair
the inte
llig
ence o
f th
e a
ccused.
People
vs. Rafa
nan
The fo
llow
ing are
th
e tw
o te
sts
fo
r exem
ption on th
e
gro
unds o
f in
sanity:
i.
The te
st
of
cognitio
n,
or
wheth
er
the accused acte
d
with c
om
ple
te d
eprivation o
f in
tellig
ence i
n c
om
mitting
the s
aid
cri
me;
ii. T
he t
est
of
volition,
or
wheth
er
the a
ccused a
cte
d in
tota
l deprivation o
f fr
eedom
of w
ill.
Schiz
ophre
nia
(d
em
entia
pra
ecox)
can
only
be
consid
ere
d a m
itig
ating circum
sta
nce because it does
not
com
ple
tely
depri
ve t
he o
ffender
of
conscio
usness o
f
his
acts
.
People
v. Madara
ng (2000)
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
7
2
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
(People
vs.
Form
igones)
Ø C
ases c
overe
d u
nder
this
art
icle
:
•
Dem
entia p
raecox
•
Kle
pto
mania
: if f
ound b
y a
com
pete
nt
psychia
tris
t as irr
esis
tible
•
Epilepsy
•
Som
nam
bulism
: sle
ep-w
alk
ing
(People
Vs. Taneo)
•
Malignant
mala
ria:
whic
h
affects
th
e
nerv
ous s
yste
m
1.
Fern
ando a
nd h
is w
ife quarr
ele
d.
In t
he h
eat
of
the
fight,
the a
ccused s
tabbed h
is w
ife c
ausin
g h
er
death
.
2.
The a
ccused d
ecla
red t
hat
he h
ad n
o r
ecollection o
f
the s
tabbin
g incid
ent.
3.
Court
ord
ere
d t
he a
ccused’s
confinem
ent
in a
menta
l
institu
tion w
here
it
was f
ound t
hat
he w
as inflic
ted w
ith
schiz
ophre
nia
. H
e
was
subm
itte
d
to
treatm
ent
for
2
years
, aft
er
whic
h,
he faced t
he c
harg
es a
gain
st
him
.
Held
: The
accused
failed
to
pro
ve
that
he
was
com
ple
tely
deprived of
inte
llig
ence in
com
mitting th
e
act.
He d
id n
ot
show
any s
igns o
f in
sanity p
rior
to a
nd
imm
edia
tely
aft
er
the act.
H
e w
as only
dia
gnosed of
schiz
ophre
nia
m
onth
s aft
er
the in
cid
ent.
Als
o,
schiz
os
have lucid
inte
rvals
.
2. Min
ority
RA 9
344 Juvenile Justice &
Welfare
Act of 2006:
1)
15 y
rs o
ld o
r belo
w a
t th
e tim
e
of com
missio
n o
f offense:
absolu
tely
exem
pt
from
cri
min
al liability b
ut
subje
ct
to inte
rvention p
rogra
m
2)
Over 15 y
rs o
ld b
ut belo
w 1
8:
exem
pt
from
cri
min
al liability &
subje
ct
to inte
rvention p
rogra
m
• If
acte
d w
/ dis
cern
ment:
subje
ct
to
div
ers
ion p
rogra
m
3)
Belo
w 1
8 y
rs a
re e
xem
pt from
:
a)
Sta
tus o
ffense
b)
Vagra
ncy a
nd P
rostitu
tion
c)
Mendic
ancy (
PD
1563)
d)
Snuffin
g o
f Rugby (
PD
1619)
Jose v
. People
(2005)
1.
Jose,
13 y
rs o
ld w
as in a
car
with h
is c
ousin
Zarr
aga,
when th
e la
tter
inquir
ed fr
om
th
e poseur
buyer
SPO
1
Guevarr
a if
he c
ould
aff
ord
to b
uy s
habu.
2.
When G
uevarr
a r
eplied in t
he a
ffir
mative Z
arr
aga t
old
Jose to
hand over
the shabu.
Jose gave th
e pla
stic
conta
inin
g
the
shabu
to
Zarr
aga
who
handed
it
to
Guevarr
a.
3.
The t
rial court
convic
ted b
oth
Jose a
nd Z
arr
aga.
Held
: Jo
se i
s a
cquitte
d.
The p
rosecution f
ailed t
o p
rove
beyond
reasonable
doubt
that
he
acte
d
with
dis
cern
ment
rela
tive to
th
e sale
of
shabu.
Asid
e fr
om
bri
ngin
g
out
and
handin
g
over
the
pla
stic
bag
to
Zarr
aga,
Jose m
ere
ly sat
in th
e car
and had no oth
er
part
icip
ation in
th
e tr
ansaction betw
een his
cousin
and
the p
oseur
buyer.
There
is n
o e
vid
ence t
hat
Jose k
new
what
was i
nsid
e t
he p
lastic a
nd s
oft
white p
aper
befo
re
and a
t th
e t
ime h
e h
anded t
he s
am
e t
o Z
arr
aga.
3. Accid
ent
Ele
ments
: A pers
on w
ho is
drivin
g his
car
within
th
e speed lim
it,
People
v. Concepcio
n (2002)
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
7
3
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
(Dam
num
Absque
Inju
ria)
1.
A p
ers
on p
erform
ing a
lawfu
l act;
2.
With d
ue care
;
3.
He c
auses a
n inju
ry to a
noth
er by
mere
accid
ent;
4.
Without
fault
or
inte
ntion
of
causin
g it.
ACCIDENT
Ø
som
eth
ing
that
happen
outs
ide
the
sw
ay o
f our
will and a
lthough it
com
es
about
thro
ugh s
om
e a
ct
of our
will,
Ø
lies
beyond
the
bounds
of
hum
anly
fore
seeable
consequences.
Ø
Under
Art
icle
12,
para
gra
ph
4,
the
offender
is exem
pt
not
only
from
crim
inal but also fro
m civ
il lia
bility
while consid
ering th
e conditio
n of
the tr
affic
and th
e
pedestr
ians a
t th
at
tim
e,
trip
ped o
n a
sto
ne w
ith o
ne o
f
his
car
tire
s.
The s
tone f
lew
hitting a
pedestr
ian o
n t
he
head.
The p
edestr
ian s
uff
ere
d p
rofu
se b
leedin
g.
There
is
no
civ
il
liability
under
para
gra
ph
4
of
Art
icle
12.
Although t
his
is j
ust
an e
xem
pting c
ircum
sta
nce,
where
genera
lly th
ere
is
civ
il liability,
yet,
in
para
gra
ph 4 of
Art
icle
12,
there
is
no civ
il liability as w
ell as cri
min
al
liability.
The d
river
is n
ot
under
obligation t
o d
efr
ay t
he
medic
al expenses.
1.
Gala
ng
was
bro
ught
to
the
bara
ngay
hall
for
questionin
g b
y B
rgy C
apta
in C
apitli b
ecause o
f a q
uarr
el
at
pla
za.
2.
Concepcio
n a
rriv
ed a
nd f
ired h
is r
ifle
tw
ice o
r th
rice
past
the e
ars
of G
ala
ng w
ithout
inju
ring h
im.
3.
Then C
oncepcio
n t
hru
st
the b
arr
el of
the g
un a
gain
st
the abdom
en of
Gala
ng.
There
w
as an explo
sio
n and
Gala
ng w
as shot
in th
e th
igh.
At
least
3 m
ore
shots
were
fire
d,
hitting
him
in
th
e
chest.
In
his
defe
nse
Concepcio
n
cla
imed
that
the
shooting
was
only
accid
enta
l.
Held
: There
w
as
no
accid
ent.
By
Concepcio
n’s
ow
n
testim
ony,
the v
ictim
was u
narm
ed.
In c
ontr
ast,
he h
ad
an arm
alite
and a handgun.
It is
hig
hly
in
conceiv
able
that
an
unarm
ed
man
could
pose
bodily
harm
to
anoth
er
who
is
heavily
arm
ed.
Concepcio
n’s
gun
dis
charg
ed
severa
l shots
th
at
hit
vital
part
s
of
the
vic
tim
's b
ody.
As o
bserv
ed b
y t
he t
rial
court
, re
ckle
ssly
appellant
had p
ut
his
fin
ger
on t
he t
rigger
of
his
cocked
and
loaded
rifle.
In
that
sta
te,
with
the
slighte
st
movem
ent
of
his
fin
ger,
the r
ifle
would
fire r
eadily.
And
it did
not
just
once but
severa
l fire
s.
Concepcio
n is
guilty
of hom
icid
e.
4. Irresistible
Forc
e
Ele
ments
: 1.
That th
e com
pulsio
n is b
y m
eans
of physical fo
rce.
2.
That
the physical fo
rce m
ust
be
irre
sistible
.
3.
That
the
physical
force
must
com
e fro
m a
third p
ers
on
People
v. Lisin
g (1998)
1.
Manalili asked G
arc
ia to
find som
eone w
ho could
arr
est
of
Herr
era
th
e
suspect
of
the
killing
of
his
bro
ther.
2.
Garc
ia intr
oduced L
isin
g a
nd t
hey h
ad a
n a
gre
em
ent.
Lis
ing’s
surv
eilla
nce
gro
up
was
at
the
Casta
nos’
resid
ence in
th
e hope of
spott
ing H
err
era
. The gro
up
saw
a
man
and
a
wom
an
(the
vic
tim
s)
leave
the
resid
ence a
nd f
ollow
ed t
hem
and w
ere
accoste
d.
Late
r,
the b
odie
s o
f th
e 2
were
found.
3.
Low
er
court
found t
hat
sin
ce t
here
was a
n a
gre
em
ent
am
ong M
analili,
Garc
ia and Lis
ing,
they w
ere
all co-
conspir
ato
rs.
Garc
ia
cla
imed
that
he
acte
d
under
com
puls
ion o
f ir
resis
tible
forc
e.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
7
4
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
Held
: To be exem
pt
from
cri
min
al
liability,
a pers
on
invokin
g
irre
sis
tible
fo
rce
must
show
th
at
the
forc
e
exert
ed
was
such
that
it
reduced
him
to
a
mere
instr
um
ent
who a
cte
d n
ot
only
without
will
but
again
st
his
will. G
arc
ia’s
part
icip
ation f
rom
when t
he a
bduction
was h
atc
hed t
o t
he k
illing o
f th
e v
ictim
s is u
ndis
pute
d.
5. Uncontrollable
Fear
Ele
ments
: 1.
That th
e thre
at which causes the
fear is o
f an e
vil g
reate
r th
an o
r
at le
ast equal to
, th
at which he
is required to com
mit;
2.
That it prom
ises an evil of such
gra
vity and im
min
ence th
at
the
ord
inary
m
an
would
have
succum
bed to it.
Ø
A t
hre
at
of fu
ture
inju
ry is n
ot
enough.
Ø
The
com
puls
ion
must
be
of
such
a
chara
cte
r as t
o leave n
o o
pportunity
to th
e accused fo
r escape or
self-
defe
nse in e
qual com
bat.
A is forc
ed a
t gun p
oin
t to
forg
e t
he s
ignatu
re o
f B
US v
. Exaltation (1905)
1.
Exaltation and Tanchic
o w
ere
convic
ted w
/ re
bellio
n
based o
n d
ocum
ents
found in t
he h
ouse o
f Contr
era
s,
a
so-c
alled genera
l of
bandits,
conta
inin
g sig
natu
res of
defe
ndants
sw
eari
ng a
llegia
nce t
o t
he K
atipunan.
2.
Defe
ndants
aver
that
these docum
ents
w
ere
sig
ned
under
dure
ss a
nd fear
of death
.
3.
They
allege
furt
her
that
they
were
abducte
d
by
thie
ves and th
at
these m
en fo
rced th
e defe
ndants
to
sig
n t
he d
ocum
ents
Held
: The
dure
ss
under
whic
h
the
defe
ndants
acte
d
relieved th
em
fr
om
cri
min
al
liability.
Pro
secution w
as
unable
to p
rove t
he g
uilt
of
the a
ccused a
nd t
estim
onie
s
of
witnesses fo
r th
e accused fu
rther
corr
obora
ted t
heir
defe
nse.
6.
Insupera
ble
Or
Lawfu
l Causes
Ele
ments
: 1.
That an act is re
quired by la
w
to b
e d
one;
2.
That a person fa
ils to
perform
such a
ct;
3.
That
his
failure
to
perform
such a
ct was d
ue to s
om
e lawfu
l or
insupera
ble
cause
Pers
on w
as arr
este
d fo
r dir
ect
assault at
5:0
0 pm
aft
er
govern
ment
offic
es clo
se.
Art
125 RPC re
quir
es th
at
a
pers
on a
rreste
d b
e d
elivere
d t
o j
udic
ial auth
ori
ties w
ithin
pre
scri
bed num
ber
of
hours
accord
ing to
th
e gra
vity of
offense.
But
com
pla
int
may only
be file
d th
e next
day
when offic
es open.
The cir
cum
sta
nce of
tim
e of
arr
est
may b
e c
onsid
ere
d a
s a
n insupera
ble
cause.
People
v. Bandia
n (1936)
A w
om
an c
annot
be h
eld
lia
ble
for
infa
nticid
e w
hen s
he
left
her
new
born
child
in
the
bushes
without
bein
g
aw
are
that
she h
ad g
iven b
irth
at
all.
Severe
diz
zin
ess
and extr
em
e debility m
ade it physic
ally im
possib
le fo
r
Bandia
n t
o t
ake h
om
e t
he c
hild p
lus t
he a
ssert
ion t
hat
she d
idn’t k
now
that
she h
ad g
iven b
irth
.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
7
5
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
IMPORTANT POINTS
IMPORTANT POINTS
IMPORTANT POINTS
IMPORTANT POINTS
ILLUSTRATION
ILLUSTRATION
ILLUSTRATION
ILLUSTRATION
CASE LAW
CASE LAW
CASE LAW
CASE LAW
Ø
Mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nces
are
th
ose
whic
h,
if
pre
sent
in t
he c
om
mis
sio
n o
f th
e c
rim
e,
•
do not
entire
ly fr
ee th
e acto
r fr
om
crim
inal
liability,
•
but
serv
e o
nly
to r
educe t
he p
enalty.
Ø
They
are
based
on
the
dim
inution
of
either
freedom
of
action,
inte
llig
ence o
r in
tent
or
on t
he
lesser
perv
ers
ity o
f th
e o
ffender.
Ø
The c
ircum
sta
nces u
nder
Art
icle
13 a
re g
enera
lly
ord
inary
mitig
ating,
•
except
in p
ara
gra
ph 1
, w
here
it
is p
rivileged,
Art
icle
69 w
ould
apply
.
Ø
when t
he c
rim
e c
om
mitte
d is
•
punis
hable
by a
div
isib
le p
enalty,
•
two o
r m
ore
of th
is o
rdin
ary
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nces
•
if t
here
is n
o a
ggra
vating c
ircum
sta
nce a
t all
◦ shall h
ave the e
ffect of a p
rivileged
mitig
ating circum
sta
nce
Ø
Corr
ela
te
Art
icle
13
with
Art
icle
s
63
and
64.
Article
13 is m
eanin
gle
ss without
knowin
g
the ru
les of
imposin
g th
e penaltie
s under
Article
s 6
3 a
nd 6
4.
TIP:
In bar pro
ble
ms,
when you are
giv
en
indete
rmin
ate
sente
nces, th
ese a
rticle
s a
re v
ery
important.
DISTINCTIONS:
Ord
inary
MC
Pri
vileged M
C
Can
be
offset
by
any
aggra
vating
cir
cum
sta
nce
Cannot
be
offset
by
aggra
vating c
ircum
sta
nce
1) Incom
ple
te Justification A
nd
Exem
ption
2) Under 18 O
r Over 70 Y
ears
Of
Age
3) No Inte
ntion T
o C
om
mit S
o
Gra
ve A
Wro
ng
4) Sufficie
nt Pro
vocation O
r Thre
at
5) Im
media
te V
indication O
f A
Gra
ve O
ffense
6) Passio
n o
r obfu
scation
7) Volu
nta
ry surrender
8) V
olu
nta
ry p
lea o
f guilt
9) Ple
a to a
lower offense
10) P
hysical defe
ct
11) Illness
12) Analo
gous circum
sta
nces
If
not
offset
by
aggra
vating
cir
cum
sta
nce,
pro
duces
The
effect
of
imposin
g
upon
the
offender
the
penalty
low
er
by
one
or
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
7
6
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
the
effect
of
apply
ing
the p
enalty p
rovid
ed b
y
law
fo
r th
e cri
me in
its
min
period in
case of
div
isib
le p
enalty
two
degre
es
than
that
pro
vid
ed
by
law
fo
r th
e
cri
me.
1) Incom
ple
te
Justification
And E
xem
ption
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING C
IRCUMSTANCE
1. Incomplete
self-defense,
defense
of
relatives, defense of stranger
Ø
In
these
3
cla
sses
of
defe
nse,
UNLAW
FUL
AGGRESSION m
ust
alw
ays be pre
sent.
It
is
an indis
pensable
requis
ite.
Ø
Par.
1 o
f Art
. 13 is a
pplicable
only
when
•
unla
wfu
l aggre
ssio
n is p
resent
•
but
the oth
er
2 re
quis
ites are
not
pre
sent
in
any o
f th
e c
ases r
efe
rred t
o i
n c
ircum
sta
nces
num
ber
1,
2 a
nd 3
or
Art
. 11.
Exam
ple
: W
hen
the
one
makin
g
defe
nse
again
st
unla
wfu
l
aggre
ssio
n used unre
asonable
m
eans to
pre
vent
or
repel
it,
he
is
entitled
to
a
privileged
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce.
2. Incomplete
justifying
circumstance
of
avoidance of greater evil or injury
.
REQ
UIS
ITES u
nder
par.
4 o
f Art
. 11:
a.
That
the e
vil s
ought
to b
e a
void
ed a
ctu
ally e
xis
ts;
b.
That
the i
nju
ry f
eare
d b
e g
reate
r th
an t
hat
done
to a
void
it;
c.
That
there
be n
o o
ther
pra
ctical
and less h
arm
ful
means o
f pre
venting it.
Ø
Avoid
ance o
f gre
ate
r evil o
r in
jury
is a
justify
ing
cir
cum
sta
nce if
all t
he t
hre
e r
equis
ites m
entioned
in p
ar.
4 o
f Art
. 11 a
re p
resent.
Ø
But
if any of
the la
st
two re
quis
ites is
la
ckin
g,
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
7
7
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
there
is o
nly
a m
itig
ating c
ircum
sta
nce.
3. Incomplete
justifying
circumstance
of
performance of duty.
a.
That
the accused acte
d in
th
e perf
orm
ance of
a
duty
or
in t
he law
ful exerc
ise o
f a r
ight
or
offic
e;
and
b.
That
the in
jury
caused or
offense com
mitte
d be
the
necessary
consequence
of
the
due
perf
orm
ance of
such duty
or
the la
wfu
l exerc
ise
of such r
ight
or
offic
e.
INCOMPLETE E
XEMPTING C
IRCUMSTANCE
1.
Incomplete exempting circumstance of
minority over 9 and under 15 years of age.
REQ
UIS
ITES u
nder
par.
3 o
f Art
. 12:
a.
That
the offender
is over
9 and under
15 years
old
; and
b.
That
he d
oes n
ot
act
with d
iscern
ment.
Ø
If th
e m
inor
over
9 and under
15 years
of
age
acte
d w
ith dis
cern
ment,
he is
entitled only
to
a
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce,
because
not
all
the
requis
ites to
exem
pt
from
cri
min
al
liability are
pre
sent.
2.
Incomplete exempting circumstance of
accident.
REQ
UIS
ITES u
nder
par.
4 o
f Art
. 12 :
a.
A p
ers
on is p
erf
orm
ing a
law
ful act;
b.
With d
ue c
are
;
c.
He c
auses a
n inju
ry t
o a
noth
er
by m
ere
accid
ent;
and
d.
Without
fault o
r in
tention o
f causin
g it.
People
v. Oanis
The SC consid
ere
d one of
the 2 re
quis
ites as
constitu
ting th
e m
ajo
rity
. It
seem
s th
at
there
is
no ord
inary
m
itig
ating circum
sta
nce under
Art
.
13
par.
1
when
the
justify
ing
or
exem
pting
cir
cum
sta
nce h
as 2
requis
ites o
nly
.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
7
8
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
Ø
If t
he 2
nd r
equis
ite a
nd 1
st part
of t
he 4
th r
equis
ite
are
absent,
•
the
case
will
fall
under
Art
. 365
whic
h
punis
hes r
eckle
ss im
pru
dence.
Ø
If t
he 1
st re
quis
ite a
nd 2
nd p
art
of
the 4
th r
equis
ite
are
absent,
•
it w
ill be a
n inte
ntional fe
lony.
3.
Incomplete exempting circumstance of
uncontrollable fear.
REQ
UIS
ITES u
nder
par.
6 o
f Art
. 12:
a.
That
the t
hre
at
whic
h c
aused t
he f
ear
was o
f an
evil g
reate
r th
an,
or
at
least
equal
to,
that
whic
h
he w
as r
equir
ed t
o c
om
mit;
b.
That
it
pro
mis
ed
an
evil
of
such
gra
vity
and
imm
inence th
at
an ord
inary
pers
on w
ould
have
succum
bed t
o it.
Ø
If o
nly
one o
f th
ese r
equis
ites is p
resent,
there
is
only
a m
itig
ating c
ircum
sta
nce.
2. Under
18 Or
Over
70 Years
Of
Age
Ø
In low
eri
ng t
he p
enalty:
•
Based o
n a
ge o
f th
e o
ffender
at
the tim
e o
f th
e com
missio
n o
f th
e crim
e n
ot
the a
ge
when s
ente
nce is im
posed
Ø
In s
uspensio
n o
f th
e s
ente
nce:
•
Based on age of
the offender at
the tim
e
the sente
nce is to
be pro
mulg
ate
d (See
Art. 80, RPC)
Ø
Par.
2 c
onte
mpla
tes t
he ff:
1.
An o
ffender
over
9 b
ut
under
15 o
f age w
ho
acte
d w
ith d
iscern
ment.
2.
An
offender
fift
een
or
over
but
under
18
years
of age.
3.
An o
ffender
over
70 y
ears
old
Ø
LEGAL
EFFECTS
OF
VARIOUS
AGES
OF
OFFENDER:
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
7
9
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
1.
Under
9
years
of
age,
an
exem
pting
cir
cum
sta
nce.
(Art
. 12,
par.
2)
2.
Over
9
and
under
15
years
of
age,
als
o
an
exem
pting cir
cum
sta
nce,
unle
ss he acte
d w
ith
dis
cern
ment
(Art
. 12,
par.
3)
3.
Min
or
delinquent
under
18
years
of
age,
the
sente
nce m
ay be suspended.
(Art
. 192,
PD
N
o.
603 a
s a
mended b
y P
D 1
179)
4.
Under
18
years
of
age,
pri
vileged
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce (
Art
. 68)
5.
18 y
ears
or
over,
full c
rim
inal re
sponsib
ility.
3.
No Inte
ntion To Com
mit So
Gra
ve A
Wro
ng
Ø
There
must
be a
nota
ble
disproportio
n
betw
een the m
eans e
mplo
yed b
y t
he o
ffender
com
pare
d to that of th
e resultin
g felo
ny.
Ø
The inte
ntion, as a
n inte
rnal act, is judged
•
not
only
by
the
pro
port
ion
of
the
means
em
plo
yed b
y h
im t
o t
he e
vil p
roduced b
y h
is
act,
•
but
als
o b
y t
he f
act
that
the b
low
was o
r w
as
not
aim
ed a
t a v
ital part
of th
e b
ody;
•
this
in
clu
des:
the w
eapon used,
the in
jury
inflic
ted and his
att
itude of
the m
ind w
hen
the a
ccused a
ttacked t
he d
eceased.
Ø
This
cir
cum
sta
nce d
oes n
ot
apply
when t
he c
rim
e
results fro
m c
rim
inal negligence o
r culp
a.
Ø
Only
applicable
to
offense re
sultin
g in
physic
al
inju
ries or
mate
rial
harm
. It
is
not
applicable
to
defa
mation o
r sla
nder.
Ø
This
m
itig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce
is
not
applicable
when t
he o
ffender
em
plo
yed b
rute
forc
e.
Ø
Lack o
f in
tent
to c
om
mit s
o g
rave a
wro
ng i
s n
ot
appre
cia
ted
where
th
e
offense
com
mitte
d
is
chara
cte
rized b
y t
reachery
.
Ø
In cri
mes again
st
pers
ons w
ho do not
die
as a
result o
f th
e a
ssault,
the a
bsence o
f th
e inte
nt
to
kill
reduces th
e fe
lony to
m
ere
physic
al
inju
ries,
but
it
does
not
constitu
te
a
mitig
ating
People
v. Calleto
(2002)
1.
Alfre
do,
Lecpoy a
nd E
duard
o w
ere
watc
hin
g a
gam
e.
Out
of
now
here
, C
alleto
appeare
d b
ehin
d
Alfre
do
and
sta
bbed
the
latt
er
on
the
left
should
er
near
the b
ase o
f th
e n
eck w
ith a
9-i
nch
hunting k
nife.
2.
Instinctively
, Alfre
do sto
od up and m
anaged
to
walk
a
few
m
ete
rs.
When
he
fell
on
the
gro
und,
Lecpoy a
nd E
duard
o r
ushed t
o h
elp
him
but
Alfre
do d
ied s
hort
ly.
3.
Calleto
volu
nta
ry s
urr
endere
d.
He c
laim
s t
hat
his
lia
bility s
hould
be m
itig
ate
d b
y t
he f
act
that
he h
ad n
o inte
ntion t
o c
om
mit s
o g
rave a
wro
ng.
Held
: The l
ack o
f "i
nte
nt"
to c
om
mit a
wro
ng s
o
gra
ve is a
n inte
rnal sta
te.
It is w
eig
hed b
ased o
n
the w
eapon used,
the part
of
the body in
jure
d,
the i
nju
ry i
nflic
ted a
nd t
he m
anner
it i
s i
nflic
ted.
The f
act
that
the a
ccused u
sed a
9-i
nch h
unting
knife in a
ttackin
g t
he v
ictim
fro
m b
ehin
d,
without
giv
ing
him
an
opport
unity
to
defe
nd
him
self,
cle
arl
y show
s th
at
he in
tended to
do w
hat
he
actu
ally did
, and he m
ust
be held
re
sponsib
le
there
for,
w
ithout
the benefit
of
this
m
itig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
8
0
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
cir
cum
sta
nce u
nder
Art
. 13(3
).
4. Sufficie
nt Pro
vocation O
r Thre
at
PROVOCATION
:
Ø
Any u
nju
st or im
pro
per conduct or act of th
e
offended p
arty,
Ø
capable
of
excitin
g,
incitin
g,
or
irrita
ting
anyone.
Ele
ments
: 1.
That th
e p
rovocation m
ust be sufficie
nt
2.
That it m
ust origin
ate
fro
m the o
ffended
party
3.
That th
e p
rovocation m
ust be im
media
te
to th
e act, i.e., to
th
e com
missio
n of
the
crim
e b
y the p
ers
on w
ho is p
rovoked.
TIP:
The c
om
mon s
et-
up g
iven in a
bar
pro
ble
m is t
hat
of
pro
vocation g
iven b
y s
om
ebody t
o w
hom
the p
ers
on
pro
voked cannot
reta
liate
again
st;
th
us th
e pers
on
pro
voked re
taliate
d on a younger
bro
ther
or
on an
eld
er
fath
er.
Although
in
fact,
th
ere
is
suffic
ient
pro
vocation,
it is n
ot
mitig
ating b
ecause t
he o
ne w
ho
giv
es th
e pro
vocation is
not
the one again
st
whom
the c
rim
e w
as c
om
mitte
d.
You h
ave to look a
t tw
o crite
ria:
1.I
f fr
om
the e
lem
ent
of tim
e,
there
is a
a.
mate
rial
lapse of
tim
e sta
ted in
th
e pro
ble
m
and
b.
there
is
noth
ing sta
ted in
th
e pro
ble
m th
at
the effect
of
the th
reat
of
pro
vocation had
pro
longed and affecte
d th
e offender
at
the
tim
e h
e c
om
mitte
d t
he c
rim
e,
c.
then y
ou u
se t
he c
rite
rion b
ased o
n t
he t
ime
ele
ment.
2.I
f th
ere
is t
hat
tim
e e
lem
ent
and a
t th
e s
am
e t
ime,
a.
facts
are
giv
en indic
ating t
hat
at
the t
ime t
he
Rom
era
v. People
(2004)
1.
Rom
era
heard
the v
ictim
Roy c
all h
im a
nd h
is
wife,
askin
g if th
ey had beer
and a fighte
r fo
r
sale
. H
e did
not
answ
er
Roy because he knew
that
Roy w
as a
lready d
runk.
2.
As Roy w
as pers
iste
nt,
Rom
era
w
ent
dow
n
the h
ouse b
ut
as h
e o
pened t
he d
oor
Roy t
hru
st
his
bolo
at
him
w/c
he p
arr
ied
3.
Roy s
aid
he w
ould
kill
Rom
era
. Rom
era
tried
to
pre
vent
Roy
from
ente
ring
as
Roy
kept
hackin
g a
t th
e w
all.
4.
Rom
era
tried t
o w
ard
off R
oy’s
assault a
s h
e
gra
pple
d fo
r th
e bolo
and sta
bbed Roy in
th
e
sto
mach.
Wounded,
Roy b
egged f
or
forg
iveness.
Rom
era
desis
ted for
fear
he m
ight
kill Roy.
Held
: There
w
as suffic
ient
pro
vocation and th
e
cir
cum
sta
nce of
passio
n or
obfu
scation att
ended
the c
om
mis
sio
n o
f th
e o
ffense.
Thru
sting h
is b
olo
at
Rom
era
, th
reate
nin
g to
kill
him
, and hackin
g
the
bam
boo
walls
of
his
house
are
suffic
ient
pro
vocation to
enra
ge any m
an,
and obfu
scate
his
th
inkin
g,
more
so
when
his
fa
mily
are
in
danger.
Rom
era
sta
bbed Roy as a re
sult of
the
pro
vocations,
and w
hile h
e w
as in a
fit o
f ra
ge.
The court
how
ever
str
essed th
at
pro
vocation
and
passio
n
or
obfu
scation
are
not
2
separa
te m
itig
ating circum
sta
nces.
It is w
ell-
sett
led th
at
if th
ese 2 circum
sta
nces are
based
on
the
sam
e
facts
, th
ey should
be treate
d
togeth
er as one m
itig
ating c
ircum
sta
nce.
It
is cle
ar
that
both
cir
cum
sta
nces aro
se fr
om
th
e
sam
e set
of
facts
. H
ence,
they should
not
be
treate
d
as
two
separa
te
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nces.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
8
1
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
offender
com
mitte
d
the
cri
me,
he
is
still
sufferi
ng
from
outr
age
of
the
thre
at
or
pro
vocation d
one t
o h
im,
b.
then
he
will
still
get
the
benefit
of
this
mitig
ating c
ircum
sta
nce.
5.
Im
media
te
Vin
dication
Of
A
Gra
ve O
ffense
Ele
ments
: 1.
That
there
be a grave offense done to
th
e one com
mitting th
e fe
lony,
his spouse,
ascendants
, descendants
, le
gitim
ate
, natu
ral
or adopte
d b
roth
ers o
r siste
rs, or re
latives b
y
affin
ity w
ithin
the sam
e d
egre
e.
2.
That
the
felo
ny
is
com
mitte
d
in
vin
dication o
f such g
rave o
ffense. A lapse of
time is allowed betw
een th
e vin
dication and
the d
oin
g o
f th
e g
rave o
ffense.
Ø
The
vin
dic
ation
need not
be done by th
e
pers
on upon whom
th
e gra
ve offense was
com
mitte
d
Ø Basis to determ
ine the gravity of offense in
vindication
•
The
question
wheth
er
or
not
a
cert
ain
pers
onal
offense is
gra
ve m
ust
be decid
ed
by the court, havin
g in m
ind
◦ th
e s
ocia
l sta
ndin
g o
f th
e p
ers
on,
◦ th
e p
lace a
nd
◦ th
e t
ime w
hen t
he insult w
as m
ade.
Ø
Vin
dic
ation
of
a
gra
ve
offense
and
passio
n
or
obfu
scation
cannot
be
counte
d
separa
tely
and
independently.
People
v. Torp
io (2004)
1.
Duri
ng a
drinkin
g s
pre
e in a
cott
age,
Anth
ony
trie
d to
le
t D
ennis
Torp
io dri
nk gin
and as th
e
latt
er
refu
sed,
Anth
ony bath
ed D
ennis
w
ith gin
and m
aule
d h
im s
evera
l tim
es.
2.
Dennis
cra
wle
d
beneath
th
e
table
and
Anth
ony t
ried t
o s
tab h
im w
ith a
22 f
an k
nife b
ut
did
not
hit h
im.
Dennis
got
up a
nd r
an t
ow
ard
s
their
hom
e.
3.
Upon r
eachin
g h
om
e,
he g
ot
a k
nife.
He w
ent
back
to
the
cott
age.
Upon
seein
g
Dennis
,
Anth
ony
ran
tow
ard
s
the
cre
ek
but
Dennis
blo
cked h
im a
nd s
tabbed h
im.
4.
When
he
was
hit,
Anth
ony
ran
but
got
enta
ngle
d w
ith a
fis
hin
g n
et
and f
ell o
n h
is b
ack.
Dennis
th
en
mounte
d
on
him
and
continued
sta
bbin
g h
im r
esultin
g t
o t
he latt
ers
death
.
5.
Then
Dennis
le
ft
and
sle
pt
at
a
gra
ssy
meadow
near
a C
am
p.
In t
he m
orn
ing,
he w
ent
to
Estr
era
, a
police
offic
er
to
whom
he
volu
nta
rily
surr
endere
d.
Held
: The
mitig
ating
circum
sta
nce
of
havin
g
acte
d in
th
e im
media
te vin
dic
ation of
a gra
ve
offense
is
pro
perl
y
appre
cia
ted.
Dennis
w
as
hum
ilia
ted,
maule
d and alm
ost
sta
bbed by th
e
Anth
ony.
Although th
e unla
wfu
l aggre
ssio
n had
ceased
when
Dennis
sta
bbed
Anth
ony,
it
was
noneth
ele
ss a
gra
ve o
ffense f
or
whic
h t
he D
ennis
may
be
giv
en
the
benefit
of
a
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce.
How
ever,
th
e
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce
of
suffic
ient
pro
vocation c
annot
be c
onsid
ere
d a
part
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
8
2
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
from
th
e cir
cum
sta
nce of
vin
dic
ation of
a gra
ve
offense.
These t
wo c
ircum
sta
nces a
rose f
rom
one
and th
e sam
e in
cid
ent,
i.e.,
th
e att
ack on th
e
appellant
by Anth
ony,
so th
at
they should
be
consid
ere
d a
s o
nly
one m
itig
ating c
ircum
sta
nce.
6.
Passio
n o
r obfu
scation
Ele
ments
: 1.
The a
ccused a
cte
d u
pon a
n im
pulse.
2.
The im
pulse m
ust be s
o p
owerful th
at it
natu
rally pro
duce passio
n or
obfu
scation in
him
.
Ø Passion or obfuscation not applicable when:
•
The a
ct
com
mitte
d in a
spir
it o
f LAW
LESSN
ESS.
•
The a
ct
is c
om
mitte
d in a
spir
it o
f REVEN
GE.
Ø
The
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce
of
obfu
scation
ari
sin
g
from
je
alo
usy cannot
be in
voked in
fa
vor of th
e a
ccused w
hose rela
tionship
with
the w
om
an w
as illegitim
ate
. Ø
Passio
n a
nd o
bfu
scation m
ay law
fully a
rise fro
m
causes e
xisting o
nly
in the h
onest belief of
the o
ffender.
Illu
str
ations:
1.
A is
court
ing B,
a re
ceptionis
t
in a
beerh
ouse.
C d
anced w
ith B
.
A s
aw
this
and s
tabbed C
. It
was
held
th
at
jealo
usy
is
an
acknow
ledged b
asis
of passio
n.
2.
A,
a
male
cla
ssm
ate
is
escort
ing B,
a fe
male
cla
ssm
ate
.
On
the
way
out,
som
e
men
whis
tled
lustf
ully.
The
male
cla
ssm
ate
sta
bbed s
aid
men.
This
was h
eld
to b
e o
bfu
scation.
3.
When
a
man
saw
a
wom
an
bath
ing,
alm
ost
naked,
alm
ost
naked,
for
whic
h r
eason h
e r
aped
her,
such
man
cannot
cla
im
passio
n
as
a
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce.
People
v. Bate
s (2003)
1.
While E
dgar,
Sim
on,
and J
ose a
re a
long a
tra
il
leadin
g to
th
e house of
Carl
ito Bate
s,
the la
tter
suddenly
em
erg
ed
from
th
e
thic
k
banana
pla
nta
tion
surr
oundin
g
the
trail,
aim
ing
his
fire
arm
at
Jose w
ho w
as th
en w
alk
ing ahead of
his
com
panio
ns.
2.
Jose t
ried t
o w
rest
possessio
n o
f th
e f
irearm
.
While th
e 2 w
ere
gra
ppling fo
r possessio
n,
the
gun fir
ed,
hitting C
arl
ito.
3.
At
that
insta
nt,
M
arc
elo
Bate
s and his
son
Marc
elo
Bate
s,
Jr.,
bro
ther
and
nephew
of
Carl
ito,
respectively
, em
erg
ed fr
om
th
e banana
pla
nta
tion a
nd a
ttacked J
ose h
ackin
g h
im s
evera
l
tim
es.
Jose
fell
to
the
gro
und
and
rolled
but
Marc
elo
and h
is s
on k
ept
on h
ackin
g h
im.
Held
: Passio
n
and
obfu
scation
may
not
be
pro
perly a
ppre
cia
ted in f
avor
of
the a
ppellant.
To
be
consid
ere
d
as
a
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce,
passio
n
or
obfu
scation
must
ari
se
from
la
wfu
l
sentim
ents
and not
from
a spir
it of
law
lessness
or
revenge o
r fr
om
anger
and r
esentm
ent.
In t
he
pre
sent
case,
cle
arl
y,
Marc
elo
w
as
infu
riate
d
upon s
eein
g h
is b
roth
er,
Carl
ito,
shot
by J
ose.
How
ever,
a dis
tinction m
ust
be m
ade betw
een
the firs
t tim
e th
at
Marc
elo
hacked Jo
se and th
e
second tim
e th
at
the fo
rmer
hacked th
e la
tter.
When M
arc
elo
hacked J
ose r
ight
aft
er
seein
g t
he
latt
er
shoot
at
Carl
ito,
and i
f appellant
refr
ain
ed
from
doin
g a
nyth
ing e
lse f
ter
that,
he c
ould
have
validly
in
voked
the
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce
of
passio
n a
nd o
bfu
scation.
But
when,
upon s
eein
g h
is b
roth
er
Carl
ito d
ead,
Marc
elo
w
ent
back to
Jo
se,
who by th
en w
as
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
8
3
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
alr
eady
pro
str
ate
on
the
gro
und
and
hard
ly
movin
g,
hackin
g Jo
se again
w
as a cle
ar
case of
som
eone
acting
out
of
anger
in
the
spirit
of
revenge.
7.
Volu
nta
ry S
urre
nder
Ele
ments
: 1
. That th
e offender
had not been actu
ally
arreste
d.
2.
That th
e o
ffender surrendere
d h
imself to
a p
ers
on in a
uth
ority
or to the latter’s a
gent.
3.
That th
e surrender was v
olu
nta
ry.
2
Mitig
ating
Circum
sta
nces
Under
This
Para
gra
ph:
1.
Volu
nta
ry S
urr
ender
To A
Pers
on I
n A
uth
ori
ty O
r
His
Agents
;
2.
Volu
nta
ry Confe
ssio
n O
f G
uilt
Befo
re The Court
Pri
or
To
The
Pre
senta
tion
Of
Evid
ence
For
The
Pro
secution.
Ø
Wheth
er
or
not
a
warr
ant
of
arr
est
had
been
issued im
mate
rial and irr
ele
vant.
Ø
The c
rite
rion is w
heth
er
or
not
•
the o
ffender
had g
one into
hid
ing
•
and th
e la
w enfo
rcers
do not
know
of
his
where
abouts
.
Andra
da v
. People
(2005)
1.
In a re
sta
ura
nt,
Andra
da scold
ed Cpl. U
gerio
while th
e la
tter
was ta
lkin
g to
a w
om
an w
ho
passed b
y t
heir
table
.
2.
Sgt.
Sum
abong,
identify
ing him
self as a PC
non-c
om
mis
sio
ned
offic
er,
advis
ed
Andra
da
to
pay his
bill
and go hom
e as he w
as appare
ntly
dru
nk.
Andra
da left
the r
esta
ura
nt.
3.
While Sgt.
Sum
abong w
as payin
g his
bill, he
heard
Cpl. U
gerio,
seate
d about
a m
ete
r aw
ay,
moanin
g
in
pain
. Sgt.
Sum
abong
then
saw
Andra
da h
ackin
g C
pl. U
geri
o o
n t
he h
ead w
ith a
bolo
.
4.
As S
gt.
Sum
abong a
ppro
ached t
hem
Andra
da
ran
aw
ay.
He
was
eventu
ally
arr
este
d
at
a
waitin
g
shed.
Andra
da
invoked
the
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce o
f volu
nta
ry s
urr
ender.
Held
: Andra
da,
aft
er
att
ackin
g th
e vic
tim
, ra
n
aw
ay.
He
was
appre
hended
by
respondin
g
offic
ers
at
a
waitin
g
shed.
For
volu
nta
ry
surr
ender
to
be
appre
cia
ted,
the surrender
must
be
sponta
neous,
made in
such a
manner th
at
it shows th
e in
tere
st
of
the
accused to s
urre
nder unconditio
nally to the
auth
orities,
either
because h
e a
cknow
ledges h
is
guilt
or
wis
hes to
save th
em
th
e tr
ouble
and
expenses th
at
would
be necessari
ly in
curr
ed in
his
searc
h a
nd c
aptu
re.
Here
, th
e s
urr
ender
was
not
sponta
neous.
8.
Ple
a O
f Guilt
Ele
ments
: 1
. That
the
offender
sponta
neously
confe
ssed h
is g
uilt;
Ø P
lea o
f guilty
on a
ppeal is
not
mitig
ating.
People
v. Montinola
(2001)
1.
Montinola
ente
red
a ple
a of
not
guilty
but
withdre
w
the
sam
e
aft
er
the
pro
secution
pre
sente
d
3
witnesses.
When
rearr
aig
ned,
he
ple
aded "
guilty
" to
2 c
harg
es.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
8
4
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
2.
That
the confe
ssio
n of guilty
was m
ade
in open court, th
at
is, befo
re th
e com
pete
nt
court th
at is to try
the case;
Ø T
he
extr
aju
dic
ial
confe
ssio
n
made
by
the
accused is
not
volu
nta
ry confe
ssio
n because it
was m
ade o
uts
ide t
he c
ourt
.
3.
That
the confe
ssio
n of
guilt
was m
ade
prior
to th
e pre
senta
tion of evid
ence fo
r th
e
pro
secution.
Ø T
he change of
ple
a should
be m
ade at
the firs
t
opport
unity w
hen h
is a
rraig
nm
ent
was fir
st
set.
Ø A
conditio
nal ple
a o
f guilty
is n
ot
mitig
ating
Held
: The
mitig
ating
circum
sta
nce
of
ple
a
of
guilty
cannot
be cre
dited in
fa
vor
of
Montinola
sin
ce th
e change of
his ple
a from
"not
guilty
" to
"guilty
" was m
ade only
after
the
pre
senta
tion
of
som
e
evid
ence
for
the
pro
secution.
To be entitled to
such m
itig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce,
the a
ccused m
ust
have v
olu
nta
rily
confe
ssed his
guilt
befo
re th
e court
pri
or
to th
e
pre
senta
tion o
f th
e e
vid
ence for
the p
rosecution.
9.
Ple
a T
o A
Lesser Offense
Rule
116, sec. 2, ROC
At
arr
aig
nm
ent,
the a
ccused,
with t
he c
onsent
of
the
offended part
y and pro
secuto
r, m
ay be allow
ed by
the t
rial court
to p
lead g
uilty
to a
lesser
offense w
hic
h
is necessari
ly in
clu
ded in
th
e offense charg
ed.
Aft
er
arr
aig
nm
ent
but
befo
re t
rial, t
he a
ccused m
ay s
till b
e
allow
ed to
ple
ad guilty
to
said
le
sser
offense aft
er
withdra
win
g h
is p
lea o
f not
guilty
. N
o a
mendm
ent
of
the c
om
pla
int
or
info
rmation is n
ecessary
.
People
v. Dawato
n (2002)
1.
Info
rmation
for
murd
er
was
file
d
again
st
Daw
ato
n.
2.
When firs
t arr
aig
ned he ple
aded not
guilty
,
but
duri
ng t
he p
re-t
rial he o
ffere
d t
o p
lead g
uilty
to
the
lesser
offense
of
hom
icid
e
but
was
reje
cte
d b
y t
he p
rosecution.
3.
The tr
ial
court
sente
nced him
to
death
. H
e
avers
th
at
he
is
entitled
to
the
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce o
f ple
a o
f guilty
. H
eld
: W
hile t
he a
ccused o
ffere
d t
o p
lead g
uilty
to
the le
sser
offense of
hom
icid
e,
he w
as charg
ed
with m
urd
er
for
whic
h h
e h
ad a
lready e
nte
red a
ple
a o
f not
guilty
. W
e h
ave r
ule
d t
hat
an o
ffer
to
ente
r a ple
a o
f guilty
to
a le
sser
offense cannot
be
consid
ere
d
as
an
att
enuating
cir
cum
sta
nce
under
the p
rovis
ions o
f Art
. 13 o
f RPC b
ecause t
o
be volu
nta
ry th
e ple
a of
guilty
m
ust
be to
th
e
offense c
harg
ed.
Als
o,
Sec.
2,
Rule
116,
of
the Revis
ed Rule
s of
Cri
min
al
Pro
cedure
re
quires th
e consent
of
the
offended
part
y
and
the
pro
secuto
r befo
re
an
accused
may
be
allow
ed
to
ple
ad
guilty
to
a
lesser
offense n
ecessari
ly i
nclu
ded i
n t
he o
ffense
charg
ed.
The pro
secution re
jecte
d th
e offer
of
the a
ccused.
10. Physical Defe
cts
Ø
This
para
gra
ph
does
not
dis
tinguis
h
betw
een
educate
d
and
uneducate
d
deaf-
mute
or
blind
Where
th
e offender
is deaf
and
dum
b,
pers
onal
pro
pert
y
was
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
8
5
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
pers
ons.
Ø
Physic
al
defe
ct
refe
rred to
in
th
is para
gra
ph is
such as bein
g arm
less,
cri
pple
, or
a stu
ttere
r,
where
by his
m
eans to a
ct, d
efe
nd h
imself o
r
com
municate
with his fe
llow bein
gs are
lim
ited.
Ø
The p
hysic
al defe
ct
that
a p
ers
on m
ay h
ave m
ust
have a
rela
tion t
o t
he c
om
mis
sio
n o
f th
e c
rim
e.
entr
uste
d
to
him
and
he
mis
appro
pri
ate
d
the
sam
e.
The
cri
me com
mitte
d w
as esta
fa.
The
fact
that
he w
as d
eaf
and d
um
b is
not
mitig
ating s
ince t
hat
does n
ot
bear
any
rela
tion
to
the
cri
me
com
mitte
d.
If a
pers
on i
s d
eaf
and d
um
b a
nd
he h
as b
een s
landere
d,
he c
annot
talk
so w
hat
he d
id w
as h
e g
ot
a
pie
ce
of
wood
and
str
uck
the
fellow
on
the
head.
The
cri
me
com
mitte
d w
as physic
al
inju
ries.
The
Supre
me
Court
held
th
at
bein
g
a
deaf
and
dum
b
is
mitig
ating because th
e only
w
ay
is
to
use
his
fo
rce
because
he
cannot
str
ike back in
any oth
er
way.
11. Illness
Ele
ments
: 1
. That
the illn
ess of
the offender
must
dim
inish the e
xerc
ise o
f his w
ill-power.
2.T
hat
such illn
ess should
not
deprive th
e
offender of conscio
usness o
f his a
cts
.
Ø
When
the
offender
com
ple
tely
lo
st
the
exerc
ise
of
will-power,
it may be an
exempting circumstance.
Ø
It
is
said
th
at
this
para
gra
ph
refe
rs
only
to
dis
eases
of
path
olo
gic
al
sta
te
that
trouble
th
e
conscie
nce o
r w
ill.
A m
oth
er
who,
under
the
influence o
f a p
uerp
era
l fe
ver,
kille
d h
er
child t
he d
ay follow
ing
her
delivery
.
12. Analo
gous
Mitig
ating
Circum
sta
nces
The a
ct
of
the o
ffender
of
leadin
g
the
law
enfo
rcers
to
th
e
pla
ce
where
he b
uri
ed t
he instr
um
ent
of
the c
rim
e h
as b
een c
onsid
ere
d a
s
equiv
ale
nt
to v
olu
nta
ry s
urr
ender.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
8
6
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
Ste
aling
by
a
pers
on
who
is
dri
ven to
do so out
of
extr
em
e
povert
y
is
consid
ere
d
as
analo
gous to
in
com
ple
te sta
te of
necessity.
AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE
IMPORTANT P
OINTS
ILLUSTRATION
CASE LAW
1) Takin
g A
dvanta
ge o
f Public O
ffice
2) In Conte
mpt
Of
Or
With
Insult
To
Public A
uth
orities
3) W
ith Insult Or
Lack
Of
Regard
Due To
Offended
Party
By
Reason
Of
Rank,
Age O
r Sex
4) Abuse O
f Confidence
And
Obvio
us
Ungra
tefu
lness
5) Crim
e In Pala
ce Or
In Pre
sence Of
The
Chie
f Executive
6) Nig
httim
e;
Unin
habited
Pla
ce;
With A
Band
7) On
Occasio
n
Of
A
Cala
mity
8) Aid
Of
Arm
ed Men
Or Means T
o E
nsure
Im
punity
Ø
Those c
ircum
sta
nces w
hic
h raise the p
enalty for a
crim
e in its
maxim
um
peri
od pro
vid
ed by la
w applicable
to
th
at
cri
me or
change t
he n
atu
re o
f th
e c
rim
e.
Ø
The
aggra
vating
cir
cum
sta
nces m
ust
be esta
blished with
mora
l certain
ty,
with th
e sam
e degre
e of
pro
of
requir
ed to
esta
blish t
he c
rim
e its
elf.
Ø
Accord
ing to
th
e Revis
ed Rule
s of
Cri
min
al
Pro
cedure
, BOTH
generic a
nd q
ualify
ing a
ggra
vating circum
sta
nces m
ust be
alleged in o
rder
to b
e a
ppre
cia
ted.
Ø
The list in this Article is exclusive –
there
are
no a
nalo
gous
cir
cum
sta
nces.
Ø
Basis:
•
the m
otivating p
ow
er
behin
d t
he a
ct
•
the p
lace w
here
the a
ct
was c
om
mitte
d
•
the m
eans a
nd w
ays u
sed
•
the t
ime
•
the
pers
onal
cir
cum
sta
nce
of
the
offender
and/o
r of
the
vic
tim
Ø
Kin
ds:
1)
GEN
ER
IC –
Those t
hat
can g
enera
lly a
pply
to a
ll c
rim
es.
Nos.
1,
2,
3 (d
wellin
g),
4,
5,
6,
9,
10,
14,
18,
19,
and 20 except
“by
means o
f m
oto
r vehic
les”.
2)
SPEC
IFIC
– Those th
at
apply
only
to
part
icula
r crim
es.
Nos.
3
(except
dw
ellin
g),
15,
16,
17 a
nd 2
1.
3)
QU
ALIF
YIN
G –Those th
at
change th
e natu
re of
the crim
e.
Art
.
248 enum
era
tes th
e qualify
ing AC w
hic
h qualify
th
e killing of
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
8
7
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
9) Recid
ivism
10) R
eitera
tion
Or
Habituality
11) Price,
Reward
Or
Pro
mise
12) Inundation,
Fire,
Poison
13) Evid
ent
Pre
meditation
14) Cra
ft,
Fra
ud
Or
Disguise
15) Superior
Strength
Or
Means
To
Weaken D
efe
nse
16) Tre
achery
17) Ignom
iny
18) Unla
wfu
l Entry,
19) Bre
akin
g
Wall,
Flo
or, R
oof
20) W
ith A
id O
f Pers
ons
Under
15 By Moto
r
Vehicle
21) Cru
elty
22) Org
anized
Or
Syndicate
d
Crim
e
Gro
up
23) Use O
f Dru
gs
pers
on t
o m
urd
er.
4)
INH
EREN
T –
Those t
hat
must
accom
pany t
he c
om
mis
sio
n o
f th
e
cri
me a
nd is t
here
fore
not
consid
ere
d in incre
asin
g t
he p
enalty t
o
be im
posed such as evid
ent
pre
meditation in
th
eft
, ro
bbery
,
esta
fa,
adultery
and c
oncubin
age.
5)
SPEC
IAL –
Those w
hic
h a
rise u
nder
specia
l conditio
ns t
o incre
ase
the penalty of
the offense and cannot
be offset
by m
itig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nces s
uch a
s:
•
quasi-
recid
ivis
m (
Art
. 160)
•
com
ple
x c
rim
es (
Art
. 48)
•
err
or
in p
ers
onae (
Art
. 49)
•
takin
g advanta
ge of
public positio
n and m
em
bers
hip
in
an
org
aniz
ed/s
yndic
ate
d c
rim
e g
roup (
Art
. 62)
Ø
When
there
are
severa
l applicable
qualify
ing
aggra
vating
cir
cum
sta
nces,
only
one w
ill
be d
eem
ed a
s s
uch a
nd t
he o
thers
will be d
eem
ed a
s g
eneri
c.
Generic a
ggra
vating
circum
sta
nces
Qualify
ing a
ggra
vating
circum
sta
nces
The effect
of
a generi
c AC,
not
offset
by a
ny m
itig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce,
is to
in
cre
ase
the p
enalty w
hic
h s
hould
be
imposed
upon
the
accused
to t
he M
AXIM
UM
PER
IOD
.
The e
ffect
of
a q
ualify
ing A
C is n
ot
only
to
giv
e th
e cri
me its pro
per
and
exclu
siv
e
nam
e
but
als
o
to
pla
ce t
he a
uth
or
there
of
in s
uch a
situation as to
deserv
e no oth
er
penalty
than
that
specia
lly
pre
scri
bed b
y law
for
said
cri
me.
It is n
ot
an ingre
die
nt
of
the
cri
me.
It
only
affects
th
e
penalty to
be im
posed but
the c
rim
e r
em
ain
s t
he s
am
e
The
cir
cum
sta
nce
aff
ects
th
e
natu
re o
f th
e c
rim
e its
elf s
uch t
hat
the offender
shall be liable
fo
r a
more
serious
cri
me.
The
cir
cum
sta
nce
is
actu
ally
an
ingre
die
nt
of th
e c
rim
e
The
cir
cum
sta
nce
can
be
offset
by
an
ord
inary
mitig
ating c
ircum
sta
nce
Bein
g an in
gre
die
nt
of
the cri
me,
it
cannot
be
offset
by
any
mitig
ating c
ircum
sta
nce
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
8
8
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
1) Takin
g Advanta
ge of
Public O
ffice
Ø
The p
ublic o
ffic
er
must
•
use the influence,
pre
stige o
r ascendancy w
hic
h h
is o
ffic
e
giv
es h
im
•
as the m
eans b
y w
hic
h h
e r
ealizes h
is p
urp
ose.
Ø
The essence of th
e m
atter
is pre
sente
d in
th
e in
quir
y,
“did
the accused abuse his office in order to commit the
crime?”
Ø
When a
public o
ffic
er
•
com
mits
a
com
mon
crim
e
independent
of
his
offic
ial
functions a
nd
•
does a
cts
that
are
not
connecte
d w
ith t
he d
uties o
f his
offic
e,
•
he should
be punis
hed as a pri
vate
in
div
idual
without
this
AC.
Ø
Even if
defe
ndant did
not abuse h
is o
ffic
e,
•
if it is
pro
ven th
at
he has fa
iled in
his duties as such
public o
fficer,
• this circumstance would warrant the aggravation of
his penalty.
Ø
The
cir
cum
sta
nce cannot
be ta
ken
in
to
consid
era
tion
in
offenses w
here
•
takin
g
advanta
ge
of
offic
ial
positio
n
is
made
by
law
an
inte
gra
l ele
ment of th
e crim
e
•
such as in
m
alv
ers
ation (A
rt.
217)
or
fals
ific
ation of
public
docum
ents
under
Art
. 171.
Ø
Takin
g a
dvanta
ge o
f public p
ositio
n i
s a
lso inhere
nt
in t
he c
ase
of
•
accessories u
nder
Art
. 19,
par.
3 (
harb
ori
ng,
concealing o
r
assis
ting in t
he e
scape o
f th
e p
rincip
al of th
e c
rim
e)
and
•
in Title
VII
of
Book Tw
o of
the RPC (C
rim
es com
mitte
d by
public o
ffic
ers
).
People
v. Villa
mor (2002)
1)
Bro
thers
Jerr
y a
nd J
elo
rd V
ele
z
were
on t
heir w
ay h
om
e o
n b
oard
a
moto
rcycle
.
2)
Jerr
y
was
dri
vin
g.
As
they
neare
d
a
junction,
they
heard
a
speedin
g
moto
rcycle
fa
st
appro
achin
g
from
behin
d.
The
bro
thers
ig
nore
d
the
oth
er
moto
rcycle
, w
hic
h
caught
up
with
them
.
3)
As th
ey w
ere
about
to cro
ss
the
bridge
leadin
g
to
their
hom
e,
gunshots
ra
ng
out
from
behin
d
them
. They
abru
ptly
turn
ed
the
moto
rcycle
aro
und
tow
ard
s
the
dir
ection of
the gunfire
. The light
of
their
m
oto
rcycle
's headla
mp fe
ll on
their
att
ackers
aboard
th
e
second
moto
rcycle
.
4)
The assailants
fire
d at
them
a
second t
ime a
nd f
led.
Jerr
y s
aw
PO
3
Villa
mor
and M
aghilom
on b
oard
the
moto
rcycle
behin
d
them
. M
aghilom
was
dri
vin
g
the
moto
rcycle
w
hile
Villa
mor
was
hold
ing
a
short
gun
poin
ted a
t th
em
.
5)
Jerr
y
susta
ined
gunshot
wounds
but
surv
ived.
Jelo
rd,
how
ever,
die
d o
n t
he s
pot
duri
ng t
he
firs
t gunburs
t.
Held
: There
was no showin
g th
at
Villa
mor
took advanta
ge of
his
bein
g a policem
an to
shoot Jelo
rd
Vele
z or
that
he used his
"i
nfluence,
pre
stige or
ascendancy"
in killing th
e
vic
tim
. Villa
mor
could
have s
hot
Vele
z
even
without
bein
g
a
policem
an.
In
oth
er
word
s,
if t
he a
ccused c
ould
have
perp
etr
ate
d
the
crim
e
even
without
occupyin
g
his
positio
n,
there
is
no
abuse o
f public p
ositio
n.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
8
9
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
The m
ere
fa
ct
that
accused-a
ppellant
is
a
policem
an
and
used
his
govern
ment
issued .
38 c
aliber
revolv
er
to k
ill is
not
suffic
ient
to e
sta
blish t
hat
he m
isused his
public positio
n in
th
e
com
mis
sio
n o
f th
e c
rim
e.
2) In Conte
mpt
Of
Or
With
Insult
To
Public A
uth
orities
Ele
ments
: 1) That th
e p
ublic a
uth
ority
is e
ngaged in the e
xerc
ise o
f his
functions.
2) That
he who is th
us engaged in
th
e exercise of
his
functions is not
the pers
on again
st
whom
th
e crim
e is
com
mitte
d.
3) The o
ffender knows h
im to b
e a
public a
uth
ority
.
4) His
pre
sence
has
not
pre
vente
d
the
offender
from
com
mitting the crim
inal act.
Ø
Public A
uth
ori
ty /
Pers
on in A
uth
ori
ty
•
dir
ectly v
este
d w
ith j
uri
sdic
tion,
that
is,
a p
ublic o
ffic
er
who
has t
he p
ower to
govern a
nd e
xecute
the laws.
•
The c
ouncilor,
mayor,
govern
or,
bara
ngay c
apta
in,
bara
ngay
chair
man e
tc.
are
pers
ons in a
uth
ori
ty.
•
A s
chool te
acher,
tow
n m
unic
ipal health o
ffic
er,
agent
of
the
BIR
, chie
f of
police,
etc
. are
now
consid
ere
d a pers
on in
auth
ori
ty.
Ø
Par. 2
is n
ot applicable
if com
mitte
d in the p
resence o
f an
agent only
such a
s a
police o
ffic
er.
Ø
Agent
•
A s
ubord
inate
public o
ffic
er
charg
ed
•
with t
he m
ain
tenance o
f public o
rder
and
•
the p
rote
ction a
nd s
ecuri
ty o
f life
and p
ropert
y,
•
such as barr
io policem
en,
councilm
en,
and any pers
on w
ho
com
es t
o t
he a
id o
f pers
ons in a
uth
ori
ty.
Ø Knowledge that a public authority is present is essential.
Lack o
f such k
now
ledge indic
ate
s lack o
f in
tention t
o insult p
ublic
auth
ori
ty.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
9
0
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
Ø
If c
rim
e is c
om
mitte
d
•
again
st
the p
ublic a
uth
ori
ty
•
while in t
he p
erf
orm
ance o
f his
duty
,
◦ th
e o
ffender com
mits d
irect assault
◦ without th
is a
ggra
vating circum
sta
nce.
3) W
ith Insult Or
Lack
Of
Regard
Due To
Offended
Party
By
Reason
Of
Rank,
Age O
r Sex
Ø
Four circum
sta
nces a
re e
num
era
ted in this p
ara
gra
ph
,
•
whic
h c
an b
e c
onsid
ere
d s
ingly
or
togeth
er.
•
If
all
the
4
cir
cum
sta
nces
are
pre
sent,
th
ey have th
e
weig
ht of one a
ggra
vating circum
sta
nce o
nly
.
Ø
There
must
be e
vid
ence t
hat
in t
he c
om
mis
sio
n o
f th
e c
rim
e,
•
the a
ccused d
elibera
tely
inte
nded to o
ffend o
r in
sult the
sex o
r age o
f th
e o
ffended p
arty.
1) R
ANK O
F T
HE O
FFENDED P
ARTY
Ø
Desig
nation or
title used to
fix th
e re
lative positio
n of
the
offended p
arty in refe
rence to o
thers
.
Ø
There
m
ust
be a diffe
rence in
th
e socia
l conditio
n of
the
offender and the o
ffended p
arty.
2) A
GE O
F T
HE O
FFENDED P
ARTY
Ø
May r
efe
r to
old
age o
r te
nder age o
f th
e v
ictim
.
3) S
EX O
F T
HE O
FFENDED P
ARTY
Ø
This
refe
rs to the fem
ale
sex,
not
to t
he m
ale
sex.
4) D
WELLING
Ø
Buildin
g o
r str
uctu
re, exclusively used for rest and comfort.
Ø
This
is c
onsid
ere
d a
n A
C b
ecause i
n c
ert
ain
cases, th
ere
is a
n
abuse o
f confidence w
hich the o
ffended p
arty reposed in
the o
ffender by o
penin
g the d
oor to
him
.
Ø
Dw
ellin
g n
eed n
ot be o
wned b
y the o
ffended p
arty
.
• It
is
enough th
at
he used th
e pla
ce fo
r his
peace of
min
d,
rest,
com
fort
and p
rivacy.
Ø
Dw
ellin
g s
hould
not
be u
nders
tood in t
he c
oncept
of a d
om
icile.
•
A p
ers
on h
as m
ore
than o
ne d
wellin
g.
◦ So,
if a m
an has so m
any w
ives and he gave th
em
pla
ces o
f th
eir
ow
n,
each o
ne is h
is o
wn d
wellin
g.
◦ If
he
is
kille
d
there
, dw
ellin
g
will
be
aggra
vating,
pro
vid
ed t
hat
he a
lso s
tays t
here
once in a
while.
Ø
The c
rim
e o
f adultery
was c
om
mitte
d.
Husband
and
wife
quarr
ele
d.
Husband
inflic
ted physic
al
vio
lence upon a w
ife.
The w
ife left
the c
onju
gal hom
e a
nd w
ent
to th
e house of
her
sis
ter
bri
ngin
g her
pers
onal
belo
ngin
gs w
ith her.
The sis
ter
accom
modate
d
the
wife
in
her
hom
e.
The husband w
ent
to th
e house of
the
sis
ter-
in-l
aw
and tr
ied to
pers
uade th
e
wife to
re
turn
to
th
e conju
gal
hom
e but
the w
ife re
fused sin
ce she w
as m
ore
at
peace in
her
sis
ter’s hom
e th
an in
th
eir
conju
gal abode.
Due t
o t
he w
ife’s
refu
sal
the
husband
pulled
out
a
knife
and
People
vs. Ga, 156 S
CRA 7
90
Aggra
vating
only
in
crim
es
again
st
pers
ons
and
honor,
not
again
st
pro
pert
y lik
e R
obbery
with h
om
icid
e.
People
vs. Taoan, 182 S
CRA 6
01
Teachers
, pro
fessors
, superv
isors
of
public
and
duly
re
cogniz
ed
pri
vate
schools
, colleges and univ
ers
itie
s,
as
well
as
law
yers
are
pers
ons
in
auth
ori
ty f
or
purp
oses o
f dir
ect
assault
and
sim
ple
re
sis
tance,
but
not
for
purp
oses o
f aggra
vating c
ircum
sta
nces
in p
ara
gra
ph 2
, Art
icle
14.
People
vs. De Los R
eyes, 1992
D
wellin
g is a
ggra
vating in r
obbery
with
hom
icid
e
because
the
crim
e
can
be
com
mitte
d
without
the
necessari
ly
transgre
ssin
g
the
sanctity
of
the
hom
e.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
9
1
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
•
Dw
ellin
g
was
consid
ere
d
aggra
vating
on
the
part
of
the
para
mour.
•
How
ever,
if th
e para
mour
was als
o re
sid
ing in
th
e sam
e
dw
ellin
g,
it w
ill not
be a
ggra
vating.
Ø
The o
ffended p
art
y m
ust
not
giv
e p
rovocation.
Ø
It is
not necessary
that th
e a
ccused s
hould
have a
ctu
ally
ente
red t
he d
wellin
g o
f th
e v
ictim
to c
om
mit t
he o
ffense;
•
it i
s e
nough t
hat
the v
ictim
was a
ttacked insid
e h
is o
wn
house,
•
although
the
assailant
may
have
devis
ed
means
to
perp
etr
ate
the a
ssault.
Ø
Dwellin
g inclu
des d
ependencie
s,
•
the foot
of th
e s
tair
case
•
and t
he e
nclo
sure
under
the h
ouse.
sta
bbed t
he w
ife to
death
. It was h
eld
th
at
dwellin
g
was
aggravating
although it is not
owned by th
e
victim
sin
ce she is consid
ere
d a
mem
ber of th
e fam
ily w
ho o
wns the
dwellin
g a
nd that pla
ce is w
here
she
enjo
yed privacy, peace of m
ind and
com
fort.
4) Abuse O
f Confidence
And
Obvio
us
Ungra
tefu
lness
Ø
Par.
4 p
rovid
es t
wo a
ggra
vating c
ircum
sta
nces w
hic
h,
• if p
resent
in t
he s
am
e c
ase
• m
ust
be independently a
ppre
cia
ted.
1) A
BUSE O
F C
ONFIDENCE
Ele
ments
:
a.
That th
e o
ffended p
arty h
ad tru
ste
d the o
ffender.
b.
That th
e offender
abused such trust by com
mitting a
crim
e a
gain
st th
e o
ffended p
arty.
c.
That
the
abuse
of
confidence
facilitate
d
the
com
missio
n o
f th
e crim
e.
Ø
The confidence betw
een th
e offender
and th
e off
ended part
y
must
be im
media
te a
nd p
ers
onal.
Ø
It
is
inhere
nt
in
malv
ers
ation,
qualified
theft
, esta
fa
by
convers
ion o
r m
isappro
priation a
nd q
ualified s
eduction.
2. OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
In
a
case
where
th
e
offender
is
a
serv
ant,
the o
ffended p
art
y i
s o
ne o
f th
e
mem
bers
of
the
fam
ily.
The
serv
ant
pois
oned
the
child.
It
was
held
th
at
abuse o
f confidence i
s a
ggra
vating. This
is o
nly
true, however, if th
e s
erv
ant
was s
till in the s
erv
ice o
f th
e fam
ily
when he did
th
e killing.
If
he
was
dri
ven b
y t
he m
aste
r out
of
the h
ouse f
or
som
e tim
e and he cam
e back to
pois
on
the
child,
abuse
of
confidence
will
no
longer
be aggra
vating.
The re
ason is
because that confidence h
as a
lready
been te
rmin
ate
d when th
e offender
was d
riven o
ut of th
e h
ouse.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
9
2
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
Ele
ments
:
a.
That th
e o
ffended p
arty h
ad tru
ste
d the o
ffender;
b.
That th
e offender
abused such trust by com
mitting a
crim
e a
gain
st th
e o
ffended p
arty;
c.
That
the
act
be
com
mitte
d
with
obvio
us
ungra
tefu
lness.
Ø
The u
ngra
tefu
lness m
ust
be o
bvio
us– m
anifest and cle
ar.
5) Crim
e In Pala
ce Or
In Pre
sence Of
The
Chie
f Executive
Ø
If it
is t
he M
ala
cañang p
ala
ce o
r a churc
h,
•
it is a
ggra
vating,
•
regard
less of
wheth
er
Sta
te or
offic
ial
or
religio
us fu
nctions
are
bein
g h
eld
.
Ø
The P
resid
ent
need n
ot
be in t
he p
ala
ce.
•
His
pre
sence
alo
ne
in
any
pla
ce
where
th
e
cri
me
is
com
mitte
d is e
nough t
o c
onstitu
te t
he A
C.
•
It a
lso a
pplies e
ven i
f he i
s n
ot
engaged i
n t
he d
ischarg
e o
f
his
duties in t
he p
lace w
here
the c
rim
e w
as c
om
mitte
d.
Ø
Offender must have the intention to commit a crime when
he entered the place.
Ø
Cem
ete
ries a
re n
ot
pla
ces d
edic
ate
d for
religio
us w
ors
hip
.
Par. 2
Conte
mpt or in
sult to
public a
uth
orities
Par. 5
W
here
public a
uth
orities a
re
engaged in the d
ischarge o
f th
eir
duties.
Public a
uth
ori
ties a
re e
ngaged in t
he p
erf
orm
ance o
f th
eir
duties.
Public
duty
is
perf
orm
ed
in
their
offic
e
Public
duty
is
perf
orm
ed
outs
ide
of
their
offic
e
The
offended
part
y
may o
r m
ay n
ot
be t
he
public a
uth
ori
ty
The public auth
ority
should
not
be th
e
offended p
art
y
6) Nig
httim
e;
Unin
habited
Pla
ce;
With A
Band
Ø
These 3
circum
sta
nces m
ay b
e consid
ere
d separa
tely
•
when t
heir
ele
ments
are
distinctly p
erc
eiv
ed a
nd
•
can subsist in
dependently,
•
revealing a
gre
ate
r degre
e o
f perv
ers
ity.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
9
3
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
Ø
Aggravating:
•
When it fa
cilitate
d the com
missio
n o
f th
e c
rim
e;
or
•
When especia
lly sought
for
by th
e offender
to in
sure
th
e
com
mis
sio
n o
f th
e c
rim
e o
r fo
r th
e p
urp
ose o
f im
punity;
or
•
When
the
offender
took advanta
ge th
ere
of
for
the
purpose o
f im
punity.
1) N
IGHTTIME
Ø
The
com
mis
sio
n
of
the
cri
me
must
begin
and
be
accom
plished in the n
ighttim
e.
Ø
The o
ffense m
ust
be a
ctu
ally c
om
mitte
d in the d
ark
ness o
f th
e n
ight.
•
When
the
pla
ce
is
illu
min
ate
d
by
light,
nig
htt
ime
is
not
aggra
vating.
Ø
It m
ust
be s
how
n t
hat
the
•
offender delibera
tely
sought th
e cover
of dark
ness a
nd t
•
he offender
purp
osely
to
ok advanta
ge of
nig
httim
e to
facilitate
the c
om
mis
sio
n o
f th
e o
ffense.
2) U
NINHABITED P
LACE
Ø
It is d
ete
rmin
ed
•
not
by t
he d
ista
nce o
f th
e n
eare
st
house t
o t
he s
cene o
f th
e
cri
me
•
but
wheth
er
or
not
in th
e pla
ce of
the com
mis
sio
n of
the
offense, there was a reasonable possibility of the victim
receiving some help.
3) B
AND
Ø
There
should
•
at le
ast be four pers
ons.
•
All o
f th
em
should
be a
rm
ed
•
and p
rincip
als b
y d
irect particip
ation.
Ø
This
aggra
vating c
ircum
sta
nce is a
bsorb
ed in t
he c
ircum
sta
nce o
f
A is o
n b
oard
a b
anca,
not
so f
ar
aw
ay.
B
and
C
als
o
are
on
board
on
their
respective bancas.
Suddenly
, D
show
ed
up fr
om
underw
ate
r and sta
bbed B.
Is
there
an
aggra
vating
circum
sta
nce
of
unin
habited p
lace h
ere
? Y
es,
consid
eri
ng
the fa
ct
that
A and C befo
re bein
g able
to g
ive a
ssis
tance s
till h
ave t
o j
um
p i
nto
the w
ate
r and sw
im to
ward
s B and th
e
tim
e it w
ould
ta
ke th
em
to
do th
at,
th
e
chances of
B re
ceiv
ing som
e help
w
as
very
litt
le,
despite
the
fact
that
there
were
oth
er
pers
ons not
so fa
r fr
om
th
e
scene.
People
v. Berd
ida
Nig
htt
ime w
as c
onsid
ere
d s
ince i
t w
as
purp
osely
sought
and
treachery
is
furt
her
appre
cia
ted
because
the
vic
tim
’s
hands
and
arm
s
were
tied
togeth
er
befo
re he w
as beate
n up by
the a
ccused.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
9
4
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
abuse o
f superi
or
str
ength
.
Ø
This
is inhere
nt
in b
rigandage.
7) On
Occasio
n
Of
A
Cala
mity
Ø
The r
eason f
or
the e
xis
tence o
f th
is A
C i
s f
ound i
n t
he d
ebased
form
of
cri
min
ality
m
et
in one w
ho,
in th
e m
idst
of
a gre
at
cala
mity, in
ste
ad of
lendin
g aid
to
th
e afflicte
d, adds to
th
eir s
uffering b
y takin
g a
dvanta
ge o
f th
eir m
isfo
rtune to
despoil them
. Ø
The o
ffender
must
take a
dvanta
ge o
f th
e c
ala
mity o
r m
isfo
rtune.
Ø
“OR
OTH
ER
CALAM
ITY
OR
MIS
FO
RTU
NE”
–
refe
rs
to
oth
er
conditio
ns
of
dis
tress
sim
ilar
to
“conflagra
tion,
ship
wre
ck,
eart
hquake o
r epid
em
ic.”
8) Aid
Of
Arm
ed Men
Or Means T
o E
nsure
Im
punity
ELEMENTS:
1.
That
the
arm
ed
men
or
pers
ons
took
part
in
the
com
missio
n o
f th
e crim
e, directly o
r in
directly.
2.
That
the accused availed him
self of
their aid
or
relied
upon them
when the crim
e w
as com
mitte
d.
Exceptions:
1.
When b
oth
the a
ttackin
g p
arty a
nd the p
arty a
ttacked w
ere
equally a
rmed.
2.
When th
e accused as well as th
ose who coopera
ted w
ith
him
in
th
e com
mis
sio
n of
the cri
me acte
d under th
e sam
e
pla
n a
nd for th
e sam
e p
urp
ose.
3.
Casual pre
sence,
or
when t
he o
ffender
did
not
avail h
imself o
f
any
of
their
aid
nor
did
not
know
ingly
count
upon
their
assis
tance in t
he c
om
mis
sio
n o
f th
e c
rim
e.
Ø
If t
here
are
more
than 3
arm
ed m
en
, aid of arm
ed men is
absorbed in the employment of a band.
Par. 6
By a
band
Par. 8
W
ith a
id o
f arm
ed m
en
Requir
es
m
ore
th
an
thre
e
arm
ed m
ale
facto
rs
At
least
two a
rmed m
en
People
v. Licop
Aid
of
arm
ed
men
inclu
des
“arm
ed
wom
en”.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
9
5
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
Requir
es
that
more
th
an
thre
e
arm
ed
male
facto
rs
shall have acte
d to
geth
er
in
the
com
mis
sio
n
of
an
offense
This
cir
cum
sta
nce i
s p
resent
even
if
one
of
the
offenders
m
ere
ly
relied o
n t
heir
aid
, fo
r actu
al aid
is
not
necessary
Band
mem
bers
are
all
pri
ncip
als
Arm
ed m
en a
re m
ere
accom
plices
9) Recid
ivism
;
Ele
ments
: 1.
That th
e o
ffender is o
n trial fo
r an offense;
2.
That
he was pre
vio
usly
convicte
d by final
judgm
ent
of
anoth
er crim
e;
3.
That both
the first and the s
econd o
ffenses a
re e
mbra
ced
in the sam
e title
of th
e C
ode;
4.
That th
e o
ffender is convicte
d o
f th
e n
ew o
ffense.
Ø
Diffe
rent fo
rms o
f re
petition o
r habituality
of offender
1. Recid
ivism
under Article
14 (
9)—
The o
ffender
at
the t
ime o
f
his
tr
ial
for
one cri
me shall have been pre
vio
usly
convic
ted by
final
judgm
ent
of
anoth
er
em
bra
ced in
th
e sam
e title of
the
Revis
ed P
enal Code.
2. Repetition o
r re
itera
cio
n u
nder Article
14 (9)—
The o
ffender
has been pre
vio
usly
punis
hed fo
r an off
ense to
w
hic
h th
e la
w
att
aches an equal
or
even gre
ate
r penalty or
for
two or
more
cri
mes t
o w
hic
h it
att
aches a
lig
hte
r penalty.
3. Habitual
delinquency under Article
62 (5)—
The
offender
within
a peri
od of
10 years
fr
om
th
e date
of
his
re
lease or
last
convic
tion
of
the
cri
mes
of
seri
ous
or
less
serious
physic
al
inju
ries,
robo,
hurt
o,
esta
fa o
r fa
lsific
ation,
is f
ound g
uilty
of
any
of th
e s
aid
cri
mes a
thir
d t
ime o
r anoth
er.
4. Quasi-re
cid
ivism
under Article
160
—Any
pers
on
who
shall
com
mit a fe
lony aft
er
havin
g been convic
ted by final
judgm
ent
befo
re begin
nin
g to
serv
e such sente
nce or
while serv
ing such
sente
nce s
hall b
e p
unis
hed b
y t
he m
axim
um
peri
od p
rescri
bed b
y
law
for
the n
ew
felo
ny
Ø
In
recid
ivis
m,
the crim
es com
mitte
d should
be fe
lonie
s.
Recid
ivis
m c
annot
be h
ad if
the c
rim
e c
om
mitte
d is a
vio
lation o
f
In 1
980,
A c
om
mitte
d r
obbery
.
While
the
case
was
bein
g
trie
d,
he
com
mitte
d t
heft
in 1
983.
He
was
als
o
found
guilty
and
was
convic
ted o
f th
eft
als
o in 1
983.
The convic
tion becam
e final
because he
did
not
appeal anym
ore
and the trial fo
r th
e e
arlie
r crim
e w
hich w
as robbery
ended in
1984 where
he was also
convicte
d.
He als
o did
not
appeal
this
decis
ion.
Is t
he a
ccused a
recid
ivis
t? N
O.
The
subsequent
conviction
must
refe
r to
a fe
lony com
mitte
d la
ter
in
ord
er to
constitu
te re
cid
ivism
. The
reason fo
r th
is is
as th
e tim
e th
e firs
t
cri
me
was
com
mitte
d,
there
w
as
no
oth
er
cri
me o
f w
hic
h h
e w
as c
onvic
ted s
o
he c
annot
be r
egard
ed a
s a
repeate
r.
People
vs. Molina
To pro
ve re
cid
ivis
m, it is necessary
to
allege
the
sam
e
in
the
info
rmation
and
to
att
ach
there
to
cert
ifie
d
copie
s
of
the
sente
nces
rendere
d
again
st
the
accused.
Noneth
ele
ss,
the tr
ial
court
m
ay still
giv
e such AC cre
dence if th
e accused
does n
ot
obje
ct
to t
he p
resenta
tion
C
om
mis
sio
n/C
onvic
tion
1983
Com
mis
sio
n
Convic
tion
1980
1984
No R
EC
IDIV
ISM
A c
annot
be d
eem
ed a
repeate
r because w
hen
he w
as c
onvic
ted f
or
the s
econd c
rim
e,
he
was s
till c
onsid
ere
d
innocent
as t
o t
he f
irst.
T H E
F
T
T H E F T
R O B B E R Y
R O B B E R Y
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
9
6
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
a s
pecia
l la
w.
Ø
What
is c
ontr
ollin
g
•
is the tim
e o
f th
e trial,
not
the t
ime o
f th
e c
om
mis
sio
n o
f
the o
ffense.
◦ i.e. th
ere
was a
lready a
conviction e
ven d
uring the
tria
l fo
r th
e second crim
e
•
At
the t
ime o
f th
e t
rial
means f
rom
the a
rraig
nm
ent until
after sente
nce is a
nnounced b
y t
he judge in o
pen c
ourt
.
Ø
Recid
ivism
does n
ot prescribe.
No m
att
er
how
lo
ng ago th
e
offender
was c
onvic
ted, if h
e is s
ubsequently c
onvicte
d o
f a
crim
e em
bra
ced in
th
e sam
e title of
the Revised Penal
Code, it is taken into
account as a
ggra
vating in im
posin
g
the p
enalty.
Ø
Pard
on does not
era
se re
cid
ivism
, even
if
it
is
absolu
te
because it only
excuses the s
erv
ice o
f th
e p
enalty, not th
e
conviction.
Ø
If t
he o
ffender
has
•
alr
eady s
erv
ed h
is s
ente
nce a
nd
•
he w
as e
xte
nded a
n a
bsolu
te p
ard
on,
◦ th
e p
ard
on s
hall e
rase t
he c
onvic
tion inclu
din
g r
ecid
ivis
m
because t
here
is n
o m
ore
penalty
◦ so th
e pard
on shall be unders
tood as re
ferr
ing to
th
e
convic
tion o
r th
e e
ffects
of th
e c
rim
e.
10) Reitera
cio
n/
Habituality
ELEMENTS:
1.
That th
e a
ccused is o
n trial fo
r an o
ffense;
2.
That he p
revio
usly
serv
ed sente
nce for a
noth
er o
ffense to
which the law a
ttaches:
a.
an e
qual or
b.
gre
ate
r penalty, or
c.
for
2 or m
ore
crim
es to
which it attaches
lighte
r penalty th
an th
at
for
the new offense;
and
3.
That he is convicte
d o
f th
e n
ew o
ffense.
Convic
tion
C
om
mis
sio
n
E S T A F A
R O B B E R Y
SERVIC
E O
F
SEN
TEN
CE
Reitera
cio
n c
an b
e
appre
cia
ted in t
he
tria
l fo
r ro
bbery
.
1)
Robbery
carr
ies
a g
raver
penalty
2)
Sente
nce w
as
already s
erv
ed
for
Esta
fa w
hen
the r
obbery
was c
om
mitte
d
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
9
7
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
Ø
Reitera
cio
n o
r H
abituality
•
it is e
ssential th
at
the o
ffender be p
revio
usly
punished;
•
that is, he h
as serv
ed sente
nce.
Ø
Par.
10 s
peaks o
f
•
penalty a
ttached t
o t
he o
ffense,
•
not
the p
enalty a
ctu
ally im
posed
Par. 9
Recid
ivism
Par. 1
0 R
eitera
cio
n
It
is
enough
that
a
final
judgm
ent
has b
een r
endere
d i
n
the fir
st
offense.
It
is
necessary
th
at
the
offender
shall h
ave s
erv
ed o
ut
his
sente
nce
for
the
firs
t
offense.
Requir
es
that
the
offenses
be
inclu
ded in t
he s
am
e t
itle
of
the
Code
The pre
vio
us and subsequent
offenses
must
not
be
em
bra
ced in
th
e sam
e title of
the C
ode
Alw
ays
to
be
taken
into
consid
era
tion
in
fixin
g
the
penalty t
o b
e im
posed u
pon t
he
accused
Not
alw
ays
an
aggra
vating
cir
cum
sta
nce
Art. 14, Par. 9
Recid
ivism
Art. 62 p
ar. 5
Habitual
Delinquency
Tw
o c
onvic
tions a
re e
nough
At
least
thre
e convic
tions are
requir
ed
The c
rim
es a
re n
ot
specifie
d;
it
is e
nough t
hat
they m
ay b
e
em
bra
ced u
nder
the s
am
e t
itle
of th
e R
evis
ed P
enal Code
The
cri
mes
are
lim
ited
and
specifie
d
to:
a.
seri
ous
physic
al
inju
ries,
b.
Less
seri
ous
physic
al
inju
ries,
c.
robbery
, d.
theft
, e.
esta
fa or
sw
indling a
nd f.
fals
ific
ation
There
is n
o t
ime lim
it b
etw
een
the fir
st
convic
tion a
nd t
he
subsequent
convic
tion.
Recid
ivis
m is im
pre
scri
ptible
.
There
is
a
tim
e
lim
it
of
not
more
th
an 10 years
betw
een
every
convic
tion
com
pute
d
from
th
e
firs
t convic
tion
or
rele
ase
from
punis
hm
ent
there
of
to c
onvic
tion c
om
pute
d
from
th
e second convic
tion or
rele
ase th
ere
from
to
th
e th
ird
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
9
8
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
convic
tion a
nd s
o o
n
It is a
generi
c a
ggra
vating
cir
cum
sta
nce w
hic
h c
an b
e
offset
by a
n o
rdin
ary
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce.
If n
ot
offset,
it
would
only
incre
ase t
he p
enalty
pre
scri
bed b
y law
for
the c
rim
e
com
mitte
d t
o its
maxim
um
peri
od
Habitual
delinquency
is
a
specia
l aggra
vating
cir
cum
sta
nce,
hence it cannot
be
offset
by
any
mitig
ating
cir
cum
sta
nce.
Asid
e
from
th
e
penalty pre
scri
bed by la
w fo
r
the
cri
me
com
mitte
d,
an
additio
nal
penalty
shall
be
imposed
dependin
g
upon
wheth
er
it is
alr
eady th
e th
ird
convic
tion,
the f
ourt
h,
the f
ifth
and s
o o
n
Ø
Sin
ce re
itera
cio
n pro
vid
es th
at th
e a
ccused h
as d
uly
serv
ed
the
sente
nce
for
pre
vio
us
conviction
/s,
or
is
legally
consid
ere
d t
o h
ave d
one s
o,
•
quasi-re
cid
ivism
cannot
at
the sam
e tim
e constitu
te
reitera
cio
n,
hence
the
latt
er
cannot
apply
to
a
quasi-
recid
ivis
t.
Ø
If
the
sam
e set
of
facts
constitu
tes re
cid
ivism
and
reitera
cio
n,
•
the
liability
of
the
accused
should
be aggra
vate
d by
recid
ivism
which can b
e e
asily p
roven.
11) Price,
Reward
Or
Pro
mise
Ø
When t
his
AC is p
resent,
•
there
must
be 2
or
more
pri
ncip
als
,
◦ th
e o
ne w
ho g
ives o
r offers
the p
rice o
r pro
mis
e
◦ and t
he o
ne w
ho a
ccepts
it,
•
both
of w
hom
are
pri
ncip
als
–
◦ to
th
e fo
rmer,
because he dir
ectly in
duces th
e la
tter
to
com
mit t
he c
rim
e,
◦ and t
he latt
er
because h
e c
om
mits it.
Ø
When t
his
AC i
s p
resent,
it affects
not only
the p
ers
on w
ho
receiv
ed th
e price or
reward
, but
also th
e pers
on who
gave it.
Ø
If w
ithout pre
vio
us p
rom
ise it
was
•
giv
en v
olu
nta
rily
aft
er
a c
rim
e w
as c
om
mitte
d
•
as an expre
ssio
n of
his
appre
cia
tion fo
r th
e sym
path
y and
aid
show
n b
y t
he o
ther
accused,
•
it
should
not
be ta
ken in
to consid
era
tion fo
r th
e
purpose o
f in
cre
asin
g the p
enalty.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
9
9
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
Ø
The p
rice,
rew
ard
or
pro
mis
e
•
need n
ot
consis
t of or
refe
r to
mate
rial th
ings o
r
•
that
the s
am
e w
ere
actu
ally d
elivere
d,
◦ it b
ein
g sufficie
nt th
at th
e o
ffer
made b
y t
he p
rincip
al
by i
nducem
ent was a
ccepte
d b
y t
he p
rincip
al
by d
irect
part
icip
ation b
efo
re the com
missio
n o
f th
e o
ffense.
12) Inundation,
Fire,
Poison
Ø
Unle
ss u
sed by the o
ffender as a m
eans to a
ccom
plish a
crim
inal purp
ose,
•
any o
f th
e c
ircum
sta
nces in p
ara
gra
ph 1
2
•
cannot
be consid
ere
d to
in
cre
ase th
e penalty or
to change
the n
atu
re o
f th
e o
ffense.
Ø
When a
noth
er AC a
lready q
ualifies the crim
e,
•
any o
f th
ese A
C’s
shall b
e c
onsid
ere
d a
s g
eneric a
ggra
vating
cir
cum
sta
nce o
nly
.
Ø
Fir
e is n
ot
aggra
vating in t
he c
rim
e o
f ars
on.
Ø
Whenever a k
illing is d
one w
ith the u
se o
f fire
, as w
hen y
ou
kill som
eone,
you b
urn
dow
n h
is h
ouse w
hile t
he latt
er
is insid
e,
this is m
urder.
Ø
There
is n
o such crim
e a
s m
urd
er w
ith a
rson o
r ars
on w
ith
hom
icid
e. The crime is only murder.
Ø
If th
e inte
nt is to d
estroy p
roperty,
•
the c
rim
e is a
rson e
ven if
som
eone d
ies a
s a
consequence.
Ø
If th
e inte
nt is to k
ill,
•
there
is m
urd
er
even if th
e h
ouse is b
urn
ed in t
he p
rocess.
A and B w
ere
arg
uin
g about
som
eth
ing.
One
arg
um
ent
led
to
anoth
er
until
A
str
uck B
to d
eath
with a
bolo
. A d
id n
ot
know
th
at
C,
the son of
B w
as als
o in
their
house
and
who
was
peepin
g
thro
ugh th
e door
and saw
w
hat
A did
.
Afr
aid
th
at
A m
ight
kill
him
to
o,
he hid
som
ew
here
in t
he h
ouse.
A t
hen d
ragged
B’s
body and poure
d gasoline on it and
burn
ed
the
house
altogeth
er.
As
a
consequence,
C
was
burn
ed
and
eventu
ally d
ied t
oo.
As
far
as
the
killing
of
B
is
concerned,
it
is
hom
icid
e
sin
ce
it
is
note
d th
at
they w
ere
arg
uin
g.
It could
not
be m
urd
er. A
s far as the k
illing o
f C is concern
ed,
it
is
ars
on
sin
ce
he
inte
nded t
o b
urn
the h
ouse o
nly
.
13) Evid
ent
Pre
meditation
Ele
ments
:
1.
The tim
e when th
e offender
dete
rm
ined to
com
mit th
e
crim
e;
2.
An act m
anifestly in
dicating th
at th
e culp
rit has clu
ng to
his d
ete
rmin
ation; and
3.
A s
ufficie
nt la
pse o
f tim
e b
etw
een the d
ete
rm
ination a
nd
execution, to
allow h
im to reflect upon the c
onsequences
of
his act
and to
allow is conscie
nce to
overc
om
e th
e
A and B fo
ught.
A to
ld B th
at
som
eday
he w
ill kill B.
On F
riday,
A k
ille
d B
.
C and D
fo
ught
on M
onday but
sin
ce C
alr
eady s
uffere
d s
o m
any b
low
s,
he t
old
D,
“This
w
eek shall not
pass,
I w
ill
kill
you.”
On F
riday,
C k
ille
d D
.
Is th
ere
evid
ent
pre
meditation in
both
cases? N
one in b
oth
cases.
What
conditio
n i
s m
issin
g t
o b
ring a
bout
evid
ent
pre
meditation?
Evid
ence
to
People
v. Salp
igao
Evid
ent
pre
meditation is
pre
sum
ed to
exis
t w
hen
conspir
acy
is
dir
ectly
esta
blished.
When
conspir
acy
is
mere
ly im
plied,
evid
ent
pre
meditation
cannot
be pre
sum
ed,
the la
tter
must
be p
roved just
like a
ny o
ther
fact.
US v
. Manalinde
If
the
offender
pre
meditate
d
on
the
killing of
any pers
on,
it is
pro
per
to
consid
er
again
st
the
offender
the
aggra
vating
cir
cum
sta
nce
of
evid
ent
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
1
00
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
resolu
tion o
f his w
ill.
Ø
Evid
ent
pre
meditation im
plies
•
a d
elibera
te p
lannin
g o
f th
e a
ct
•
befo
re e
xecuting it.
Ø
The e
ssence o
f pre
meditation
•
an o
pport
unity t
o c
oolly a
nd s
ere
nely
th
ink a
nd d
elibera
te
◦ on t
he m
eanin
g
and
◦ consequences o
f w
hat
he p
lanned t
o d
o,
•
an inte
rval lo
ng e
nough
for
his
conscie
nce a
nd b
ett
er
ju
dgm
ent
◦ to
overc
om
e h
is e
vil d
esir
e a
nd s
chem
e.
Ø
The pre
meditation m
ust be based upon exte
rnal fa
cts
, and
must
be evid
ent,
not
mere
ly suspecte
d in
dic
ating delibera
te
pla
nnin
g
Ø
Evid
ent
pre
meditation is inhere
nt in
robbery
, adultery
, th
eft,
esta
fa, and falsification.
show
that
betw
een
Monday
and
Friday,
the offender
clu
ng to
his
dete
rmin
ation to k
ill th
e v
ictim
, acts
indic
ative
of
his
havin
g
clu
ng
to
his
dete
rmin
ation t
o k
ill B.
A a
nd B
had a
quarr
el. A
boxed B
. A t
old
B,
“I w
ill
kill
you th
is w
eek.”
A bought
fire
arm
s. On Friday, he waited fo
r B
but kille
d C
inste
ad.
Was t
here
evid
ent
pre
meditation?
There
is a
berr
atio ictu
s.
So,
qualify
.
Insofa
r as B
is c
oncern
ed, th
e c
rim
e
is attem
pte
d m
urder
because th
ere
is evid
ent
pre
meditation
. H
ow
ever,
that
murd
er
cannot
be c
onsid
ere
d f
or
C.
Insofa
r a
s C
is c
oncerned, th
e c
rim
e
is hom
icid
e because th
ere
was no
evid
ent pre
meditation.
pre
meditation,
because
whoever
is
kille
d by him
is
conte
mpla
ted in
th
e
pre
meditation.
14) Cra
ft,
Fra
ud
Or
Disguise
Ø
Involv
es in
tellectu
al
tric
kery
and cunnin
g on th
e part
of
the
accused.
Ø
It is e
mplo
yed a
s a
schem
e in t
he e
xecution o
f th
e c
rim
e.
Fra
ud
Ø
Insid
ious w
ord
s o
r m
achin
ations u
sed
•
to induce t
he v
ictim
•
to a
ct
in a
manner
•
whic
h w
ould
enable
the o
ffender
to c
arr
y o
ut
his
desig
n.
Fra
ud
Cra
ft
When
there
is
a
DIR
ECT
IND
UCEM
EN
T
by
insid
ious
word
s o
r m
achin
ations
The a
ct
of
the a
ccused d
one in
ord
er
NO
T
TO
ARO
USE
TH
E
SU
SPIC
ION
Ø
Cra
ft a
nd f
raud m
ay b
e
•
absorb
ed in
treachery
if th
ey have been delibera
tely
adopte
d as th
e m
eans,
meth
ods or
form
s
for
the
treachero
us s
trate
gy,
or
•
they m
ay c
o-e
xist in
dependently w
here
they a
re a
dopte
d
for
a d
iffe
rent
purp
ose in t
he c
om
mis
sio
n o
f th
e c
rim
e.
People
v. San P
edro
W
here
th
e accused pre
tended to
hir
e
the d
river
in o
rder
to g
et
his
vehic
le,
it
was h
eld
that
there
was c
raft
dir
ecte
d
to th
e th
eft
of
the vehic
le,
separa
te
from
th
e m
eans subsequently used to
treachero
usly
kill
the
defe
nsele
ss
dri
ver.
People
v. Masilang
There
w
as
als
o
cra
ft
where
aft
er
hitchin
g a
rid
e,
the a
ccused r
equeste
d
the dri
ver
to ta
ke th
em
to
a pla
ce to
vis
it s
om
ebody,
when i
n f
act
they h
ad
alr
eady p
lanned t
o k
ill th
e d
river.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
1
01
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
Disguise
Ø
Resort
ing t
o a
ny d
evice to conceal id
entity
.
Ø
The t
est
of dis
guis
e is
•
wheth
er
the
devic
e
or
contr
ivance
resort
ed
to
by
the
offender
•
was inte
nded t
o o
r did
make identification m
ore
difficult,
such a
s t
he u
se o
f a m
ask,
fals
e h
air
or
beard
.
Ø
But
if in
spite of
the use of
handkerc
hie
f to
cover
their
faces, th
e culp
rits
were
recognized b
y t
he v
ictim
, disguised
is not considered aggravating.
15) Superior
Strength
Or
Means
To
Weaken D
efe
nse
Superior Strength
Ø
To T
AKE A
DVAN
TAG
E o
f superi
or
str
ength
means
•
to u
se p
urp
osely
excessiv
e forc
e
•
out
of
pro
port
ion to
th
e m
eans of
defe
nse available
to
th
e
pers
on a
ttacked.
Ø
Superi
ority
may a
rise fro
m
•
aggre
ssor’s s
ex,
weapon o
r num
ber
•
as c
om
pare
d t
o t
hat
of
the v
ictim
(e.g
. accused a
ttacked a
n
unarm
ed gir
l w
ith a
knife;
3 m
en sta
bbed to
death
th
e
fem
ale
vic
tim
).
Ø
No a
dvanta
ge o
f superi
or
str
ength
when
•
one w
ho a
ttacks is o
verc
om
e w
ith p
assio
n a
nd o
bfu
scation o
r
•
when quarr
el
aro
se unexpecte
dly
and th
e fa
tal
blo
w w
as
str
uck w
hile v
ictim
and a
ccused w
ere
str
uggling.
Ø
Vs. by a
band :
•
In th
e cir
cum
sta
nce of
abuse of
superior
str
ength
, w
hat
is
taken into
account
is
◦ not
the num
ber
of
aggre
ssors nor
the fa
ct
that
they a
re a
rmed
◦ but
their relative physical might vis-à-vis the
offended party
Ø
Means E
mplo
yed t
o W
eaken D
efe
nse
•
This
cir
cum
sta
nce is a
pplicable
only
◦ to
crim
es a
gain
st persons a
nd
◦ som
etim
es
again
st
pers
on and pro
perty,
such
as
People
v. Carp
io
There
m
ust
be
evid
ence
of
noto
rious
inequality
of
forc
es
betw
een t
he o
ffender
and t
he o
ffended
part
y in
th
eir
age,
siz
e and str
ength
,
and th
at
the offender
took advanta
ge
of
such
superi
or
str
ength
in
th
e
com
mis
sio
n of
the cri
me. The m
ere
fa
ct
that
there
were
tw
o persons
who attacked th
e victim
does not
per se constitu
te a
buse o
f superior
strength
.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
1
02
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
robbery
with p
hysic
al in
juri
es o
r hom
icid
e.
Ø
The m
eans used m
ust
not
tota
lly elim
inate
possib
le
defe
nse o
f th
e v
ictim
,
• otherwise it will fall under treachery
16) Tre
achery
(ale
vio
sa)
Tre
achery
Ø
Em
plo
ym
ent
of
means,
meth
ods a
nd f
orm
in t
he c
om
mis
sio
n o
f
the c
rim
e
Ø
whic
h t
end d
irectly a
nd s
pecia
lly t
o
•
ensure
its
execution
•
without
risk to
him
self ari
sin
g fr
om
th
e defe
nse w
hic
h th
e
offended p
art
y m
ight
make.
Ø
The e
ssence o
f treachery is t
hat
•
by vir
tue of
the m
eans,
meth
od or
form
em
plo
yed by th
e
offender,
•
the o
ffended p
arty
was n
ot able
to p
ut up a
ny d
efe
nse.
•
If t
he o
ffended p
art
y w
as a
ble
to p
ut up a
defe
nse,
even
only
a t
oken o
ne, th
ere
is n
o tre
achery
.
•
Inste
ad,
som
e
oth
er
aggra
vating
cir
cum
sta
nce
may
be
pre
sent
but
it is n
o longer
treachery
.
Rule
s R
egard
ing T
reachery
1.
Applicable
only
to crim
es a
gain
st pers
ons.
2.
Means, m
eth
ods o
r fo
rm
s n
eed n
ot in
sure
accom
plishm
ent
of crim
e.
3.
The m
ode o
f attack m
ust be conscio
usly
adopte
d.
Attacks shown inte
ntion to e
lim
inate
risk:
1.
Vic
tim
asle
ep
2.
Vic
tim
half-a
wake o
r ju
st
aw
akened
3.
Vic
tim
gra
ppling o
r bein
g h
eld
.
4.
Att
acked fro
m b
ehin
d
Additio
nal ru
les:
1.
When the a
ggre
ssio
n is C
ONTINUOUS, treachery
must be
A and B have been quarr
eling fo
r som
e
tim
e.
One
day,
A
appro
ached
B
and
befr
iended him
. B accepte
d.
A pro
posed
that
to
cele
bra
te
their
re
new
ed
frie
ndship
, th
ey w
ere
goin
g to
dri
nk.
B
was h
avin
g t
oo m
uch t
o d
rink.
A w
as j
ust
waitin
g fo
r him
to
get
into
xic
ate
d and
aft
er
whic
h,
he s
tabbed B
.
A
pre
tended
to
befr
iend
B,
just
to
into
xic
ate
the latt
er.
Into
xication is the
means d
elibera
tely
em
plo
yed b
y the
offender
to weaken th
e defe
nse
of
the o
ther
part
y.
If
this was the very means
employed, the circumstance may be
treachery
and
not
abuse
of
superior
str
ength
or
means
to
weaken
the
defe
nse
People
vs. Ila
gan
Suddenness o
f th
e a
ttack d
oes n
ot
by
itself
constitu
te
treachery
in
th
e
absence of
evid
ence th
at
the m
anner
of
att
ack w
as conscio
usly
adopte
d by
the
offender
to
render
the
vic
tim
defe
nsele
ss.
People
vs. Gupo
Tre
achery
is
not
appre
cia
ted
where
quarr
el
and
heate
d
dis
cussio
n
pre
ceded a killing,
because th
e vic
tim
would
be p
ut
on g
uard
.
People
vs. Toribio
But
although
a
quarr
el
pre
ceded
a
killing
where
th
e
vic
tim
w
as
ato
p
a
coconut
tree,
treachery
w
as
consid
ere
d as th
e vic
tim
w
as not
in a
positio
n t
o d
efe
nd h
imself.
People
v. Male
jana
Tre
achery
m
ay
still
be
appre
cia
ted
even w
hen t
he v
ictim
was f
ore
warn
ed
of
danger
to
his
pers
on.
What
is
decis
ive is
th
at
the execution of
the
att
ack
made
it
impossib
le
for
the
vic
tim
to d
efe
nd h
imself o
r to
reta
liate
.
Thus,
even a fr
onta
l att
ack could
be
treachero
us w
hen unexpecte
d and on
an u
narm
ed v
ictim
who w
ould
be in n
o
positio
n t
o r
epel th
e a
ttack o
r avoid
it.
Tre
achery
cannot
co-e
xis
t w
ith p
assio
n
and o
bfu
scation.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
1
03
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
pre
sent in
the B
EGINNING o
f th
e a
ssault.
2.
When th
e assault W
AS NOT CONTINUOUS, in
th
at
there
was an in
terruption,
it is sufficie
nt
that
treachery
was
pre
sent AT T
HE M
OMENT T
HE F
ATAL B
LOW
WAS G
IVEN.
17) Ignom
iny
Ignom
iny
Ø
It is a
cir
cum
sta
nce p
ert
ain
ing t
o t
he m
ora
l ord
er,
Ø
whic
h adds disgrace to the material injury
caused by th
e
cri
me.
Ø
The m
eans e
mplo
yed o
r th
e c
ircum
sta
nces b
rought
about
must
tend to m
ake the e
ffects
of th
e crim
e
•
MO
RE H
UM
ILIA
TIN
G o
r
•
TO
PU
T T
HE O
FFEN
DED
PARTY T
O S
HAM
E.
Ø
Applicable
to c
rim
es a
gain
st
chastity
, ra
pe,
less s
erious p
hysic
al
inju
ries,
light
or
gra
ve c
oerc
ion a
nd m
urd
er.
Ø
Rapin
g a
wom
an f
rom
behin
d i
s i
gnom
inous b
ecause t
hat
is n
ot
the n
orm
al fo
rm o
f in
terc
ours
e,
it is s
om
eth
ing w
hic
h o
ffends t
he
mora
ls o
f th
e o
ffended w
om
an.
This
is h
ow
anim
als
do it.
18) Unla
wfu
l Entry,
Ø
There
is
unla
wfu
l entr
y w
hen an entrance is effecte
d by a
way n
ot in
tended for th
e p
urp
ose.
Ø
Unla
wfu
l entr
y m
ust
be a
means to e
ffect entrance a
nd n
ot
for escape.
Ø
There
is n
o u
nla
wfu
l entr
y w
hen
•
the d
oor
is b
roken a
nd t
•
here
aft
er
the a
ccused m
ade a
n e
ntr
y t
hru
the b
roken d
oor.
•
The b
reakin
g o
f th
e d
oor
is c
overe
d b
y p
ara
gra
ph 1
9.
Ø
Unla
wfu
l entr
y is
•
inhere
nt
in th
e cri
me of
trespass to
dw
ellin
g and ro
bbery
with forc
e u
pon t
hin
gs
•
but
aggra
vating in t
he c
rim
e o
f ro
bbery
with v
iole
nce a
gain
st
or
intim
idation o
f pers
ons.
19) Bre
akin
g
Wall,
Flo
or, R
oof
Ø
To b
e c
onsid
ere
d a
s a
n A
C,
•
bre
akin
g the d
oor m
ust be u
tilized
•
as a
means t
o t
he c
om
mis
sio
n o
f th
e c
rim
e.
Ø
It is o
nly
aggra
vating in c
ases w
here
•
the offender
resort
ed to
any of
said
m
eans TO E
NTER
th
e
house.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
1
04
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
•
If t
he w
all,
etc
. is
bro
ken i
n o
rder
to g
et
out
of
the p
lace,
it
is n
ot
aggra
vating
20) W
ith A
id O
f Pers
ons
Under
15;
By
Moto
r Vehicle
With the a
id o
f pers
ons u
nder 15 y
ears
of age
Ø
To r
epre
ss,
so far
as p
ossib
le,
•
the fre
quent
pra
ctice r
esort
ed t
o b
y p
rofe
ssio
nal cri
min
als
•
to a
vail t
hem
selv
es o
f m
inors
◦ ta
kin
g a
dvanta
ge o
f th
eir
responsib
ility
◦ (r
em
em
ber
that
min
ors
are
giv
en le
nie
ncy w
hen th
ey
com
mit a
cri
me)
By m
eans o
f a m
oto
r vehicle
Ø
To
counte
ract
the
great
facilitie
s
found
by
modern
crim
inals in
said
m
eans to
com
mit crim
e
and
flee
and
abscond o
nce t
he s
am
e is c
om
mitte
d.
Ø
This
cir
cum
sta
nce
is aggra
vating only
when used in
th
e
com
missio
n o
f th
e o
ffense.
•
If
moto
r vehic
les
are
used only
in
th
e escape of
the
offender, it is n
ot aggra
vating.
It m
ust
have b
een u
sed t
o
facilitate
the c
om
mis
sio
n o
f th
e c
rim
e t
o b
e a
ggra
vating.
Ø
“or other similar means”
–
the
expre
ssio
n
should
be
understo
od a
s refe
rrin
g to
•
MOTORIZED v
ehicle
s o
r
•
oth
er
effic
ient
means o
f tr
ansport
ation s
imilar
to a
uto
mobile
or
air
pla
ne.
21) C
ruelty
Ele
ments
: 1.
That th
e inju
ry caused b
e
delibera
tely
in
cre
ased by
causin
g o
ther wro
ng;
2.
That th
e o
ther wro
ng b
e u
nnecessary
for th
e e
xecution o
f th
e p
urpose o
f th
e o
ffender.
Cru
elty
Ø
For
it t
o e
xis
t, it
must
be s
how
n t
hat th
e a
ccused e
njo
yed a
nd
delighte
d in m
akin
g h
is v
ictim
suffer.
Ø
If t
he v
ictim
was a
lready d
ead w
hen the a
cts
of m
utila
tion
were
bein
g p
erform
ed,
•
this
w
ould
als
o qualify the killing to murder due to
outraging of his corpse.
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W
U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8
1
05
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CRIMINAL LAW
Ignom
iny
Cru
elty
shocks th
e m
ora
l conscie
nce of
man
physic
al
refe
rs to
th
e m
ora
l effect
of
a
cri
me
and
it
pert
ain
s
to
the
mora
l ord
er,
w
heth
er
or
not
the
vic
tim
is d
ead o
r alive
refe
rs
to
the
physic
al
sufferi
ng of
the vic
tim
so he
has t
o b
e a
live
Other Aggravating
Other Aggravating
Other Aggravating
Other Aggravating
Circumstances
Circumstances
Circumstances
Circumstances
1) Org
anized
Or
Syndicate
d
Crim
e
Gro
up
(Art. 62, RPC)
Ø
Specia
l aggra
vating c
ircum
sta
nce
Ø
The m
axim
um
penalty shall b
e im
posed
•
if t
he o
ffense w
as com
mitte
d b
y a
ny p
ers
on
•
who belo
ngs to
an organized or
syndicate
d crim
e
gro
up.
Org
anized o
r syndicate
d crim
e g
roup:
•
A g
roup o
f tw
o o
r m
ore
pers
ons
•
collabora
ting,
confe
derating or
mutu
ally
help
ing
one
anoth
er
•
for
the p
urp
ose o
f gain
in the com
missio
n o
f a crim
e.
2) U
se O
f Dru
gs
Ø
U
nder
the D
angero
us D
rugs A
ct
of 2002 (
Section 2
5),
•
notw
ithsta
ndin
g th
e pro
visio
ns of
any la
w to
th
e
contrary
,
• a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs s
![Circumstance Powerpoint![1]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/545360cfb1af9f88228b45be/circumstance-powerpoint1.jpg)
