memory aid - admu - 01

8/11/2019 Memory Aid - ADMU - 01

1/94

1

C R I M I N AL L A W ( B O O K 1 )REVIEWER

ATENEOCENTRALBAROPERATIONS2001

Criminal Law A branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their natureand provides for their punishment.

Limitatin! n t"# $w#r % Cn&r#!! t #na't $#nal law! (ON)1. Must be general in application.2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post factolaw.3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder.4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines.

C"ara't#ri!ti'! % Criminal Law1. #n#ral the law is binding to all persons who reside in the !hilippines2. T#rritrial the law is binding to all crimes committed within the "ational #erritor$ of

the !hilippinesException to Territorial Application% &nstances enumerated under Article 2.

3. Pr!$#'ti*# the law does not have an$ retroactive effect.

Exception to Prospective Application% when new statute is favorable to the accused.

E%%#'t % r#$#al % $#nal law t lia+ilit, % %%#n-#r

Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal.-- As to the effect of repeal of penal law to theliability of offender, qualify your answer by saying whether the repeal is absolute or total orwhether the repeal is partial or relative only.

A repeal is absolute or totalwhen the crime punished under the repealed law has beendecriminalied by the repeal. !ecause of the repeal, the act or omission which used to be acrime is no longer a crime. An example is "epublic Act #o. $%&%, which decriminaliedsubversion.

A repeal is partial or relativewhen the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be acrime inspite of the repeal. This means that the repeal merely modified the conditions affectingthe crime under the repealed law. The modification may be pre'udicial or beneficial to theoffender. (ence, the following rule)

Cn!#./#n'#! i% r#$#al % $#nal law i! ttal r a+!l/t#

*+ &f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, the same shall bedismissed, even though the accused may be a habitual delinquent.

* &f a case is alread$ decided and the accused is alread$ serving sentence b$ final'udgment,if the convict is not a habitual delin(uent, then he will be entitled to a releaseunless there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to those serving

sentence at the time of the repeal. )ut if there is no reservation, those who are nothabitual delinquents even if they are already serving their sentence will receive thebenefit of the repealing law. They are entitled to release.

&f the$ are not discharged from confinement, a petition for habeas corpus should be filedto test the legality of their continued confinement in 'ail.

&f the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delin(uent , he will continue serving thesentence in spite of the fact that the law under which he was convicted has already beenabsolutely repealed. This is so because penal laws should be given retroactiveapplication to favor only those who are not habitual delinquents.

Cn!#./#n'#! i% r#$#al % $#nal law i! $artial r r#lati*#

*+ &f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and the repealinglaw is more favorable to the accused, it shall be the one applied to him. o whether he isa habitual delinquent or not, if the case is still pending in court, the repealing law will bethe one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not applyto pending causes of action.

1


2/94

2



*2+ &f a case is alread$ decided and the accused is alread$ serving sentence b$ final'udgment,even if the repealing law is partial or relative, the crime still remains to be acrime. #hose who are not habitual delin(uents will benefit on the effect of that repeal, sothat if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that will henceforth

appl$ to them.

/nder Article , even if the offender is already convicted and serving sentence, a lawwhich is beneficial shall be applied to him unless he is a habitual delinquent inaccordance with "ule 0 of Article &.

Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied

*+ &f a penal law is impliedl$ repealed,the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revivethe original law. o the act or omission which was punished as a crime under theoriginal law will be revived and the same shall again be crimes although during theimplied repeal they may not be punishable.

* &f the repeal is express, the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law, so theact or omission will no longer be penalied.

These effects of repeal do not apply to self-repealing laws or those which have automatictermination. An example is the "ent 1ontrol 2aw which is revived by 1ongress every two years.

T"#ri#! % Criminal Law1. Cla!!i'al T"#r, Man is essentiall$ a moral creature with an absolute free will to

choose between good and evil and therefore more stress is placed upon the result ofthe felonious act than upon the criminal himself.

2. P!iti*i!t T"#r, Man is subdued occasionall$ b$ a strange and morbidphenomenon which conditions him to do wrong in spite of or contrar$ to his volition.

E'l#'ti' r Mi#- P"il!$",

This combines both positivist and classical thin3ing. 1rimes that are economic and social andnature should be dealt with in a positivist manner4 thus, the law is more compassionate. (einouscrimes should be dealt with in a classical manner4 thus, capital punishment

BASIC MAIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

'trin# % Pr R#

5henever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations 6one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender 6 that interpretation which is lenient or

favorable to the offender will be adopted.

N/ll/m 'rim#n3 n/lla $#na !in# l#

There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law countries, butnot to common law countries.

!ecause of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. #o matter howwrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not considered acrime.

A't/! nn %a'it r#/m3 ni!i m#n! !it r#a

The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony characteriedby dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute one because it isnot applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from negligence.

4tilitarian T"#r, r Prt#'ti*# T"#r,

The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society from actualand potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society,

2


3/94

3



should direct the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers, since criminal law is directedagainst acts and omissions which the society does not approve. 1onsistent with this theory, themala prohibita principle which punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, shouldnot be utilied to apply the full harshness of the special law.

S/r'#! % Criminal Law1. #he evised !enal -ode2. pecial !enal /aws Acts enacted of the !hilippine /egislature punishing offenses

or omissions.

Cn!tr/'tin % P#nal Law!1. -riminal tatutes are liberall$ construed in favor of the offender. #his means that no

person shall be brought within their terms who is not clearl$ within them, nor shouldan$ act be pronounced criminal which is not clearl$ made so b$ statute.

2. #he original text in which a penal law is approved in case of a conflict with an official

translation.3. &nterpretation b$ analog$ has no place in criminal law

MALA IN SE AN MALA PRO5IBITA

7iolations of the "evised Penal 1odeare referred to as malum in se, which literall$ means, thatthe act is inherentl$ evil or bad or per sewrongful. 0n the other hand, violations of special lawsare generall$ referred to as malum prohibitum.

"ote, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. hile intentional feloniesare alwa$s mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws arealwa$s mala prohibita. ven if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is

one which is inherentl$ wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack ofcriminal intent is a valid defense unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.

/ikewise when the special laws re(uires that the punished act be committed knowingl$ andwillfull$, criminal intent is re(uired to be proved before criminal liabilit$ ma$ arise.

hen the act penalied is not inherentl$ wrong, it is wrong onl$ because a law punishes thesame.

i!tin'tin +#tw##n 'rim#! $/ni!"#- /n-#r t"# R#*i!#- P#nal C-# an- 'rim#! $/ni!"#-/n-#r !$#'ial law!

1. As to moral trait of the offender

&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, the moral trait of the offender isconsidered. #his is wh$ liabilit$ would onl$ arise when there is dolo or culpa in thecommission of the punishable act.

&n crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered itis enough that the prohibited act was voluntaril$ done.

2. As to use of good faith as defense

&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, good faith or lack of criminal intent isa valid defense unless the crime is the result of culpa

&n crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense

3. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime

&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, the degree of accomplishment of thecrime is taken into account in punishing the offender thus, there are attempted,frustrated, and consummated stages in the commission of the crime.

3


4/94

4



&n crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime onl$ when it isconsummated there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special lawexpressl$ penalie the mere attempt or frustration of the crime.

4. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances

&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, mitigating and aggravatingcircumstances are taken into account in imposing the penalt$ since the moral trait of theoffender is considered.

&n crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are nottaken into account in imposing the penalt$.

5. As to degree of participation

&n crimes punished under the evised !enal -ode, when there is more than oneoffender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into

account in imposing the penalt$ thus, offenders are classified as principal, accompliceand accessor$.

&n crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the offenders is notconsidered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalied to the same extent.#here is no principal or accomplice or accessor$ to consider.

T#!t t -#t#rmin# i% *ilatin % !$#'ial law i! mal/m $r"i+it/m r mal/m in !#

Analye the violation) 8s it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such9 8fyou remove the law, will the act still be wrong9

8f the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word :willfully;, then malice must beproven. 5here malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.

8n violation of special law, the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. Therefore culpa is nota basis of liability, unless the special law punishes an omission.

5hen given a problem, ta3e note if the crime is a violation of the "evised Penal 1ode or aspecial law.

Art6 16 T"i! C-# !"all ta7# #%%#'t n 8an/ar, 13 19:26

Art6 26 E'#$t a! $r*i-#- in t"# tr#ati#! an- law! % $r#%#r#ntiala$$li'atin3 t"# $r*i!in! % t"i! C-# !"all +# #n%r'#- nt nl, wit"in

t"# P"ili$$in# Ar'"i$#la& in'l/-in& it! atm!$"#r#3 it! int#rir wat#r! an-Maritim# ;n#3 +/t al! /t!i-# % it!


5/94

5



1. @r#n'" R/l# uch crimes are not triable in the courts of that countr$, unlesstheir commission affects the peace and securit$ of the territor$ or the safet$ ofthe state is endangered.

2. En&li!" R/l# uch crimes are triable in that countr$, unless the$ merel$ affectthings within the vessel or the$ refer to the internal management thereof. *#his isapplicable in the !hilippines+

two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if a crime wascommitted on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are)

*+ 5hen the crime is committed in a war vesselof a foreign country, because war vesselsare part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong4

* 5hen the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts theFrench Rule, which applies only to merchant vessels, except when the crime committedaffects the national security or public order of such foreign country.

Requirements of an offense committed while on a Philippine Ship or Airship61. egistered with the !hilippine )ureau of -ustoms2. hip must be in the high seas or the airship must be in international airspace.

/nder international law rule, a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of anycountry is considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against humanity in general, such thatwherever the pirates may go, they can be prosecuted.

+. / v. !ull A crime which occurred on board of a foreign vessel, which began when the ship

was in a foreign territor$ and continued when it entered into !hilippine waters, is

considered a continuing crime. 7ence within the 'urisdiction of the local courts.

As a general rule, the "evised Penal 1ode governs only when the crime committed pertains tothe exercise of the public official=s functions, those having to do with the discharge of their dutiesin a foreign country. The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law, to be

performed by the public officer in the >oreign ervice of the Philippine government in a foreigncountry.

Exception) The "evised Penal 1ode governs if the crime was committed within the PhilippineEmbassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. This is because embassy groundsare considered an extension of sovereignty.

Paragraph 0 of Article , use the phrase :as defined in Title ?ne of !oo3 Two of this 1ode.;

This is a very important part of the exception, because Title 8 of !oo3 *crimes against nationalsecurity does not include rebellion.

Art :6 A't! an- mi!!in! $/ni!"a+l# +, law ar# %#lni#!6

Acts an overt or external act Omission failure to perform a dut$ re(uired b$ law. Example of an omission%

failure to render assistance to an$one who is in danger of d$ing or is in anuninhabited place or is wounded 8 abandonment.

Felonies8 acts and omissions punishable b$ the evised !enal -ode Crime 8 acts and omissions punishable b$ an$ law

hat re(uisites must concur before a felon$ ma$ be committed9

There must be *+ an act or omission4 * punishable by the "evised Penal 1ode4 and *%the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.

How felonies are committed%

5


6/94

:



1. +, m#an! % -#'#it (dolo) 8 #here is deceit when the act is performed withdeliberate intent.Requisites:

a. freedomb. intelligencec. intentExamples% murder, treason, and robber$.

1riminal intent is not necessary in these cases)

*+ 5hen the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, rec3less imprudence, lac3of foresight or lac3 of s3ill4

* 5hen the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malumprohibitum.

8n criminal law, intent is categoried into two)

*+ @eneral criminal intent4 and* pecific criminal intent.

@eneral criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not requireproof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent.pecific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, li3eintent to 3ill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicideparricidemurder. The prosecutionhas the burden of proving the same.

Bistinction between intent and discernment

8ntent is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. 8t is the design toresolve or determination by which a person acts.

?n the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. 8t relates to themoral significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an elementof dolo, distinct from intent.

Bistinction between intent and motive

8ntent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result 6 it is not astate of mind or a reason for committing a crime.

?n the other hand, motive implies motion. 8t is the moving power which impels one to do an act.

5hen there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. !ut acrime may be committed without motive.

8f the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. 8ntent is manifested by theinstrument used by the offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is tobe distinguished from the attempted or frustrated stage.

2. by means of fault (culpa 8 #here is fault when the wrongful act results fromimprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

a. !mprudence8 deficienc$ of action e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. 7ehit ) because it was raining 8 reckless imprudence.

b. "egligence # deficienc$ of perception failure to foresee impending danger,usuall$ involves lack of foresight

c$ Requisites:

1. ;reedom2. &ntelligence3. &mprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight4. /ack of intent

The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lac3 of precaution on the part ofthe person performing or failing to perform an act. 8f the danger impending from that situation is

:


7/94

6 Criminal lia+ilit, !"all +# in'/rr#-

16 B, an, $#r!n 'mmittin& a %#ln,3 alt"/&" t"# wrn&%/l a't

-n# +# -i%%#r#nt %rm t"at w"i'" "# int#n-#-6

Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resultingfelon$. &t must be the direct, natural, and logical conse(uence of the felonious act.

-auses which produce a different result%

a. %ista&e in identity of the victim in'uring one person who is mistaken for another*this is a complex crime under Art. 4=+ e.g., A intended to shoot ), but he insteadshot - because he *A+ mistook - for ).

8n error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. 8t was theactual victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim.

(ow does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender9

Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was intended. 8fthe crime committed is the same as that which was intended, error in personae does not affectthe criminal liability of the offender.

8n mista3e of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on adifferent victim, error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. !ut if thecrime committed was different from the crime intended, Article D will apply and the penalty forthe lesser crime will be applied. 8n a way, mista3e in identity is a mitigating circumstance where

Article D applies. 5here the crime intended is more serious than the crime committed, the errorin persona is not a mitigating circumstance

b. %ista&e in blow hitting somebod$ other than the target due to lack of skill orfortuitous instances *this is a complex crime under Art. 4=+ e.g., ) and - werewalking together. A wanted to shoot ), but he instead in'ured -.

8n aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of pooraim, that blow landed on somebody else. 8n aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as theactual victim are both at the scene of the crime.


8/94

=



aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a complex crime. This being so, the penalty for themore serious crime is imposed in the maximum period.

c. !n'urious result is greater than that intended causing in'ur$ graver than intendedor expected *this is a mitigating circumstance due to lack of intent to commit sograve a wrong under Art. 13+ e.g., A wanted to in'ure ). 7owever, ) died.

praeter intentionem is mitigating, particularly covered by paragraph % of Article +%. 8n orderhowever, that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem, there must be a notable disparitybetween the means employed and the resulting felony

&n all these instances the offender can still be held criminall$ liable, since he ismotivated b$ criminal intent.Requisites%

a. the felon$ was intentionall$ committed

b. the felon$ is the proximate cause of the wrong done

octrine of Pro)imate *ause such ade(uate and efficient cause as, in the naturalorder of events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, whichwould necessaril$ produce the event.

Requisites%a. the direct, natural, and logical causeb. produces the in'ur$ or damagec. unbroken b$ an$ sufficient intervening caused. without which the result would not have occurred

Proximate 1ause is negated by)a. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutel$ foreign from the felonious act of

the accused, which serves as a sufficient intervening cause.b. esulting in'ur$ or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.

proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of theoffended party. 8t is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party thebelief that made him ris3 himself.

"equisite for Presumption blow was cause of the death here there has been anin'ur$ inflicted sufficient to produce death followed b$ the demise of the person, thepresumption arises that the in'ur$ was the cause of the death. !rovided%

a. victim was in normal healthb. death ensued within a reasonable time

The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable. The one who caused theimmediate cause is also liable, but merely contributory or sometimes totally not liable.

26 B, an, $#r!n $#r%rmin& an a't w"i'" w/l- +# an %%#n!#a&ain!t $#r!n! r $r$#rt,3 w#r# it nt %r t"# in"#r#nt im$!!i+ilit, % it!a''m$li!"m#nt r n a''/nt % t"# #m$l,m#nt % ina-#./at# rin#%%#'t/al m#an!6

e(uisites% (IMPOSSIBLE CRIME)a. Act would have been an offense against persons or propert$b. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the -ode or of a special

penal lawc. #here was criminal intentd. Accomplishment was inherentl$ impossible or inade(uate or ineffectual means

were emplo$ed.

"otes%a. 0ffender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man

stabbing another who he knew was alread$ dead cannot be liable for animpossible crime.

=


9/94

>



b. #he law intends to punish the criminal intent.c. #here is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.

>elonies against persons% parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, ph$sical in'uries,etc.

>elonies against property)robber$, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc. 8nherent impossibility% A thought that ) was 'ust sleeping. ) was alread$ dead. A

shot ). A is liable. &f A knew that ) is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.

5hen we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, thecrime could not have materialied. 8f the crime could have materialied under a different set offacts, employing the same mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime4 it would be anattempted felony.

Employment of inadequate means% A used poison to kill ). 7owever, ) survivedbecause A used small (uantities of poison 8 frustrated murder.

8neffectual means% A aimed his gun at ). hen he fired the gun, no bullet came out

because the gun was empt$. A is liable.

5henever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossiblecrime was committed, be careful about the question as3ed. 8f the question as3ed is) :8s animpossible crime committed9;, then you 'udge that question on the basis of the facts. 8f reallythe facts constitute an impossible crime, then you suggest than an impossible crime iscommitted, then you state the reason for the inherent impossibility.

8f the question as3ed is :8s he liable for an impossible crime9;, this is a catching question.Even though the facts constitute an impossible crime, if the act done by the offender constitutessome other crimes under the "evised Penal 1ode, he will not be liable for an impossible crime.(e will be prosecuted for the crime constituted so far by the act done by him.

this idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort, 'ust to teach the offender a lessonbecause of his criminal perversity. 8f he could be taught of the same lesson by charging him withsome other crime constituted by his act, then that will be the proper way. 8f you want to play safe,you state there that although an impossible crime is constituted, yet it is a principle of criminal lawthat he will only be penalied for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some other

provision of the "evised Penal 1ode.

Art ?6 W"#n#*#r a '/rt "a! 7nwl#- % an, a't w"i'" it ma, -##m$r$#r t r#$r#!! an- w"i'" i! nt $/ni!"a+l# +, law3 it !"all r#n-#r t"#$r$#r -#'i!in an- !"all r#$rt t t"# C"i#% E#'/ti*#3 t"r/&" t"##$artm#nt % 8/!ti'#3 t"# r#a!n! w"i'" in-/'# t"# '/rt t +#li#*# t"at!ai- a't !"/l- +# ma-# !/+


10/94

1?



A %#ln, i! 'n!/mmat#- w"#n all t"# #l#m#nt! n#'#!!ar, %r it!##'/tin an- a''m$li!"m#nt ar# $r#!#nt= an- it i! %r/!trat#- w"#n t"#%%#n-#r $#r%rm! all t"# a't! % ##'/tin w"i'" w/l- $r-/'# t"# %#ln,

a! a 'n!#./#n'# +/t w"i'"3 n#*#rt"#l#!!3 - nt $r-/'# it +, r#a!n %'a/!#! in-#$#n-#nt % t"# will % t"# $#r$#tratr6

T"#r# i! an att#m$t w"#n t"# %%#n-#r 'mm#n'#! t"# 'mmi!!in % a%#ln, -ir#'tl, +, *#rt a't!3 an- -#! nt $#r%rm all t"# a't! % ##'/tinw"i'" !"/l- $r-/'# t"# %#ln, +, r#a!n % !m# 'a/!# r a''i-#ntt"#r t"an "i! wn !$ntan#/! -#!i!tan'#6

Bevelopment of a crime1. &nternal acts intent and plans usuall$ not punishable2. xternal acts

a. !reparator$ Acts acts tending toward the crimeb. Acts of xecution acts directl$ connected the crime

Stages of Commission of a Crime

Attempt +rustrated *onsummated

0vert acts of executionare started

"ot all acts of executionare present

@ue to reasons other thanthe spontaneousdesistance of the

perpetrator

All acts of execution arepresent

-rime sought to becommitted is not achieved

@ue to intervening causesindependent of the will ofthe perpetrator

All the acts of executionare present

#he result sought isachieved

tages of a 1rime does not apply in%1. 0ffenses punishable b$ pecial !enal /aws, unless the otherwise is provided for.2. ;ormal crimes *e.g., slander, adulter$, etc.+3. &mpossible -rimes4. -rimes consummated b$ mere attempt. Examples:attempt to flee to an enem$

countr$, treason, corruption of minors.5. ;elonies b$ omission:. -rimes committed b$ mere agreement. Examples: betting in sports *endings in

basketball+, corruption of public officers.

#!i!tan'# Besistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted stage.Besistance is true only in the attempted stage of the felony. 8f under the definition of the felony,the act done is already in the frustrated stage, no amount of desistance will negate criminalliability. The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but notnecessarily all criminal liability. Even though there was desistance on the part of the offender, ifthe desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a felony, that offender willstill be criminally liable for the felony brought about his act

8n deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated, there are threecriteria involved)

*+ The manner of committing the crime4

* The elements of the crime4 and

*% The nature of the crime itself.

Applications)

1?


11/94

11



a. A put poison in )s food. ) threw awa$ his food. A is liable 8 attempted murder.1

b. A stole )s car, but he returned it. A is liable 8 *consummated theft.c. A aimed his gun at ). - held As hand and prevented him from shooting ) 8

attempted murder.d. A inflicted a mortal wound on ). ) managed to survive 8 frustrated murder.e. A intended to kill ) b$ shooting him. A missed 8 attempted murder.f. A doused )s house with kerosene. )ut before he could light the match, he was

caught 8 attempted arson.g. A cause a blae, but did not burn the house of ) 8 frustrated arson.h. )s house was set on fire b$ A 8 *consummated arson.i. A tried to rape ). ) managed to escape. #here was no penetration 8 attempted

rape.'. A got hold of )s painting. A was caught before he could leave )s house 8

frustrated robbery.

The attempted stage is said to be within the sub'ective phase of execution of a felony. ?n

the sub'ective phase, it is that point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overtact until that point where he loses control of the commission of the crime already. 8f he hasreached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence, the crime hasalready passed the sub'ective phase and, therefore, it is no longer attempted. The moment theexecution of the crime has already gone to that point where the felony should follow as aconsequence, it is either already frustrated or consummated. 8f the felony does not follow as aconsequence, it is already frustrated. 8f the felony follows as a consequence, it is consummated.

although the offender may not have done the act to bring about the felony as aconsequence, if he could have continued committing those acts but he himself did not proceedbecause he believed that he had done enough to consummate the crime, upreme 1ourt saidthe sub'ective phase has passed

#?TE ?# A"?#4 The weight of the authority is that the crime of arson cannot be committed in the frustratedstage. The reason is because we can hardly determine whether the offender has performed allthe acts of execution that would result in arson, as a consequence, unless a part of the premiseshas started to burn. ?n the other hand, the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises hasblac3ened, in law, arson is consummated. This is because consummated arson does not requirethat the whole of the premises be burned. 8t is enough that any part of the premises, no matterhow small, has begun to burn.ETA>A 7. T(E>T 8n estafa, the offender receives the property4 he does not ta3e it. !ut in receiving the

property, the recipient may be committing theft, not estafa, if what was transferred to him wasonly the physical or material possession of the ob'ect. 8t can only be estafa if what was

transferred to him is not only material or physical possession but 'uridical possession as well. 5hen you are discussing estafa, do not tal3 about intent to gain. 8n the same manner thatwhen you are discussing the crime of theft, do not tal3 of damage.

Nat/r# % t"# 'rim# it!#l%

8n crimes involving the ta3ing of human life 6 parricide, homicide, and murder 6 in thedefinition of the frustrated stage, it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. /nderthe definition of the frustrated stage, to consider the offender as having performed all the acts ofexecution, the acts already done by him must produce or be capable of producing a felony as aconsequence. The general rule is that there must be a fatal in'ury inflicted, because it is only thenthat death will follow.

8f the wound is not mortal, the crime is only attempted. The reason is that the woundinflicted is not capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide, murder or homicide as a

1 The difference between murder and homicide will be discussed in Criminal Law II. These crimes

are found in Articles 248 and 249, Boo II of the !e"ised #enal Code.

2

The difference between theft and robber$ will be discussed in Criminal Law II. These crimes are

found in Title Ten, Cha%ters &ne and Three, Boo II of the !e"ised #enal Code.

11


12/94

12



consequence4 it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution whichwould produce parricide, homicide or murder as a result.

An exception to the general rule is the so-called sub'ective phase. The upreme 1ourt has

decided cases which applied the sub'ective standard that when the offender himself believed thathe had performed all the acts of execution, even though no mortal wound was inflicted, the act isalready in the frustrated stage.

The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved, the participants are punishedas principals. This notion is no longer absolute. 8n the case of People v. ierra,the upreme1ourt ruled that even though there was conspiracy, if a co-conspirator merely cooperated in thecommission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts, such that even without hiscooperation, the crime could be carried out as well, such co-conspirator should be punished asan accomplice only.

Art6 6 Li&"t %#lni#! ar# $/ni!"a+l# nl, w"#n t"#, "a*# +##n'n!/mmat#- wit" t"# #'#$tin % t"!# 'mmitt#- a&ain!t $#r!n! r

$r$#rt,6

Examples of light felonies% slight ph$sical in'uries theft alteration of boundar$ marksmalicious mischief and intriguing against honor.

&n commission of crimes against properties and persons, ever$ stage of execution ispunishable but onl$ the principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies,accessories are not.

Art6 6 Cn!$ira', an- $r$!al t 'mmit %#ln, ar# $/ni!"a+l# nl, int"# 'a!#! in w"i'" t"# law !$#'iall, $r*i-#! a $#nalt, t"#r#%r#6

A 'n!$ira', #i!t! w"#n tw r mr# $#r!n! 'm# t ana&r##m#nt 'n'#rnin& t"# 'mmi!!in % a %#ln, an- -#'i-# t 'mmit it6T"#r# i! $r$!al w"#n t"# $#r!n w" "a! -#'i-#- t 'mmit a

%#ln, $r$!#! it! ##'/tin t !m# t"#r $#r!n r $#r!n!6

1onspiracy is punishable in the following cases% treason, rebellion or insurrection,sedition, and monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.

1onspiracy to commit a crime is not to be confused with conspiracy as a means ofcommitting a crime. &n both cases there is an agreement but mere conspirac$ tocommit a crime is not punished B-!# in treason, rebellion, or sedition. ven then,if the treason is actuall$ committed, the conspirac$ will be considered as a means of

committing it and the accused will all be charged for treason and not for conspirac$to commit treason.

-onspirac$ and !roposal to -ommit a -rime

-onspirac$ !roposallements Agreement among 2 or more

persons to commit a crime

#he$ decide to commit it

A person has decided to commit a crime

7e proposes its commission to another

-rimes 1. -onspirac$ to commit sedition2. -onspirac$ to commit rebellion3. -onspirac$ to commit treason

1. !roposal to commit treason2. !roposal to commit rebellion

Mere conspirac$ in combination in restraint of trade *Art. 1=:+, and brigandage *Art.

3?:+.

Two ways for conspiracy to exist)

12


13/94

13



*+ There is an agreement.

* The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of theminds towards a common criminal goal or criminal ob'ective. 5hen several offenders act

in a synchronied, coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each otheris indicative of the meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement.

Two 3inds of conspiracy)

*+ 1onspiracy as a crime4 and* 1onspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability

5hen conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criminalliability. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly

punishes the mere conspiracy4 otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission ofthe crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion,sedition, and coup d=etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to

them are punishable.

5hen the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt actdone before the co-conspirators become criminally liable. >or as long as none of the conspiratorshas committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. !ut when one of them commits any overt act,all of them shall be held liable, unless a co-conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime orhe showed up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime

As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place,anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such

person who did not appear was the mastermind.

>or as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet.!ut when one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless a co-conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up, but he tried to prevent thecommission of the crime

As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place,anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such

person who did not appear was the mastermind.

5hen the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot be inferred or deduced because there isno overt act. All that there is the agreement. ?n the other hand, if the co-conspirator or any ofthem would execute an overt act, the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt actitself

conspiracy as a crime, must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. Every

crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. it must be established by positive andconclusive evidence, not by con'ectures or speculations.

5hen the conspiracy is 'ust a basis of incurring criminal liability, however, the same may bededuced or inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of thecrime. The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenderswhen such acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal ob'ective.

mere 3nowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without cooperation or at least,agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. There must be an intentional

participation in the crime with a view to further the common felonious ob'ective.

5hen several persons who do not 3now each other simultaneously attac3 the victim, the act

of one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of in'ury inflicted by any one of them. All will beliable for the consequences. A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not 3nown toeach other. Bo not thin3 that participants are always 3nown to each other.

1onspiracy is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information, otherwise, thecourt will not consider the same.

Proposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made hasnot yet accepted the proposal. ?nce the proposal was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal

13


14/94

14



is unilateral, one party ma3es a proposition to the other4 conspiracy is bilateral, it requires twoparties.

@&0"

Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. !ut if /nion ! accepts the proposal, there will beconspiracy to commit sedition which is a crime under the "evised Penal 1ode.

Cm$!it# 'rim#!

1omposite crimes are crimes which, in substance, consist of more than one crime but inthe eyes of the law, there is only one crime. >or example, the crimes of robbery with homicide,robbery with rape, robbery with physical in'uries.

8n case the crime committed is a composite crime, the conspirator will be liable for all theacts committed during the commission of the crime agreed upon. This is because, in the eyes ofthe law, all those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute asingle crime.

As a general rule, when there is conspiracy, the rule is that the act of one is the act of all.This principle applies only to the crime agreed upon.

The exception is if any of the co-conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. Thishappens when the crime agreed upon and the crime committed by one of the co-conspirators aredistinct crimes.

Exception to the exception) 8n acts constituting a single indivisible offense, even though theco-conspirator performed different acts bringing about the composite crime, all will be liable forsuch crime. They can only evade responsibility for any other crime outside of that agreed upon ifit is proved that the particular conspirator had tried to prevent the commission of such other act

Art6 96 ra*# %#lni#! ar# t"!# t w"i'" t"# law atta'"#! t"# 'a$ital$/ni!"m#nt r $#nalti#! w"i'" in an, % t"#ir ar# a%%li'ti*#3 in a''r-an'#wit" Arti'l# 2? % t"i! C-#6

L#!! &ra*# %#lni#! ar# t"!# w"i'" t"# law $/ni!"#! wit" $#nalti#!w"i'" in t"#ir maim/m $#ri- ar# 'rr#'tinal3 in a''r-an'# wit" t"#a+*#Dm#ntin#- arti'l#6

Li&"t %#lni#! ar# t"!# in%ra'tin! % law %r t"# 'mmi!!in %w"i'" "# $#nalt, % arresto ma!orr a %in# nt #'##-in& 200 $#!!3 r+t" i! $r*i-#-6

-apital punishment 8 death penalt$.

!enalties *imprisonment+% Crave 8 six $ears and one da$ to reclusion perpetua*life+/ess grave 8 one month and one da$ to six $ears /ight 8 arresto menor*one da$ to3? da$s+.

CLASSI@ICATION O@ @ELONIESThis question was as3ed in the bar examination) (ow do you classify felonies or how are feloniesclassified9

5hat the examiner had in mind was Articles %, & and . Bo not write the classification of feloniesunder !oo3 of the "evised Penal 1ode. That was not what the examiner had in mind becausethe question does not require the candidate to classify but also to define. Therefore, theexaminer was after the classifications under Articles %, & and .

;elonies are classified as follows%

*1+ According to the manner of their commission

/nder Article %, they are classified as, intentional felonies or those committed withdeliberate intent4 and culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence, rec3lessimprudence, lac3 of foresight or lac3 of s3ill.

* According to the stages of their execution

14


15/94

15



/nder Article &., felonies are classified as attempted felony when the offendercommences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform allthe acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or

accident other than his own spontaneous desistance4 frustrated felony when the offendercommences the commission of a felony as a consequence but which would produce thefelony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason ofcauses independent of the perpetrator4 and, consummated felony when all the elementsnecessary for its execution are present.

*3+ According to their gravity

/nder Article , felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches thecapital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive4 less gravefelonies or those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum periodwas correccional4 and light felonies or those infractions of law for the commission ofwhich the penalty is arresto menor.

5hy is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave, less grave or light9

To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not, and to determine the prescriptionof the crime and the prescription of the penalty. 8n other words, these are felonies classifiedaccording to their gravity, stages and the penalty attached to them. Ta3e note that when the"evised Penal 1ode spea3s of grave and less grave felonies, the definition ma3es a referencespecifically to Article 0 of the "evised Penal 1ode. Bo not omit the phrase :8n accordance with

Article 0; because there is also a classification of penalties under Article & that was notapplied.

8f the penalty is fine and exactly PFF.FF, it is only considered a light felony under Article .

8f the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the fine of PFF.FF isconsidered a correctional penalty under Article &.

8f the penalty is exactly PFF.FF, apply Article &. 8t is considered as correctional penalty and itprescribes in +F years. 8f the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years, he can bemade to suffer the fine.

This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question ofprescription of crimes.

8n the case of light felonies, crimes prescribe in two months. 8f the crime is correctional, itprescribes in ten years, except arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years.

Art6 106 O%%#n!#! w"i'" ar# r in t"# %/t/r# ma, +# $/ni!"a+l# /n-#r!$#'ial law! ar# nt !/+


16/94

1:



S4PPLETOR APPLICATION O@ T5E REVISE PENAL COE

8n Article +F, there is a reservation :provision of the "evised Penal 1ode may be appliedsuppletorily to special laws;. Gou will only apply the provisions of the "evised Penal 1ode as a

supplement to the special law, or simply correlate the violated special law, if needed to avoid anin'ustice. 8f no 'ustice would result, do not give suppletorily application of the "evised Penal1ode to that of special law.

>or example, a special law punishes a certain act as a crime. The special law is silent as to thecivil liability of one who violates the same. (ere is a person who violated the special law and hewas prosecuted. (is violation caused damage or in'ury to a private party. Cay the court

pronounce that he is civilly liable to the offended party, considering that the special law is silenton this point9 Ges, because Article +FF of the "evised Penal 1ode may be given suppletoryapplication to prevent an in'ustice from being done to the offended party. Article +FF states thatevery person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. That article shall be appliedsuppletory to avoid an in'ustice that would be caused to the private offended party, if he wouldnot be indemnified for the damages or in'uries sustained by him.

8n People v. Rodri"ue#,it was held that theuse of arms is an element of rebellion, so a rebelcannot be further prosecuted for possession of firearms. A violation of a special law can neverabsorb a crime punishable under the "evised Penal 1ode, because violations of the "evisedPenal 1ode are more serious than a violation of a special law. !ut a crime in the "evised Penal1ode can absorb a crime punishable by a special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crime inthe "evised Penal 1ode.

8n the crime of sedition, the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. (ence, twoprosecutions can be had) *+ sedition4 and * illegal possession of firearms.

!ut do not thin3 that when a crime is punished outside of the "evised Penal 1ode, it is already aspecial law. >or example, the crime of cattle-rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification

of the crime theft of large cattle. o Presidential Becree #o. 0%%, punishing cattle-rustling, is nota special law. 8t can absorb the crime of murder. 8f in the course of cattle rustling, murder wascommitted, the offender cannot be prosecuted for murder. Curder would be a qualifyingcircumstance in the crime of qualified cattle rustling. This was the ruling in People v. $artinada.

The amendments of Presidential Becree #o. &D0 *The Bangerous Brugs Act of +$ by"epublic Act #o. $&0, which adopted the scale of penalties in the "evised Penal 1ode, meansthat mitigating and aggravating circumstances can now be considered in imposing penalties.Presidential Becree #o. &D0 does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the"evised Penal 1ode. The stages of the commission of felonies will also apply since suppletoryapplication is now allowed.

Cir'/m!tan'#! a%%#'tin& 'riminal lia+ilit,

There are fi"e circumstances affectin' criminal liabilit$(

*1+ Dustif$ing circumstances

*2+ xempting circumstances

*3+ Mitigating circumstances

*4+ Aggravating circumstances and

*5+ Alternative circumstances.

#here are two others which are found elsewhere in the provisions of the evised !enal -ode%

*1+ Absolutor$ cause and*2+ xtenuating circumstances.

8n 'ustifying and exempting circumstances, there is no criminal liability. 5hen an accused invo3esthem, he in effect admits the commission of a crime but tries to avoid the liability thereof. Theburden is upon him to establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to 'ustify or

1:


17/94

1



Abandonment by the husband does not 'ustify the act of the woman. 8t only extenuates orreduces criminal liability. 5hen the effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is anextenuating circumstance.

A 3leptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation of stealing things which appeal to hisdesire. This is not exempting. ?ne who is a 3leptomaniac and who would steal ob'ects of hisdesire is criminally liable. !ut he would be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstanceanalogous to paragraph of Article +%, that of suffering from an illness which diminishes theexercise of his will power without, however, depriving him of the consciousness of his act. othis is an extenuating circumstance. The effect is to mitigate the criminal liability.

i!tin'tin! +#tw##n


20/94

2?



-. lements%16 4nlaw%/l A&&r#!!in8 is a ph$sical act manifesting danger to life or limb it

is either actual or imminent.a. ActualEreal aggression 8 eal aggression presupposes an act positivel$

strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor, which is not merel$threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material attack. #here must bereal danger to life a personal safet$.

b. &mminent unlawful aggression 8 it is an attack that is impending or on thepoint of happening. &t must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, normust it be merel$ imaginar$. #he intimidating attitude must be offensiveand positivel$ strong.

c. here there is an agreement to fight, there is no unlawful aggression.ach of the protagonists is at once assailant and assaulted, and neithercan invoke the right of self8defense, because aggression which is anincident in the fight is bound to arise from one or the other of thecombatants. xception% here the attack is made in violation of theconditions agreed upon, there ma$ be unlawful aggression.

d. Fnlawful aggression in self8defense, to be 'ustif$ing, must exist at thetime the defense is made. &t ma$ no longer exist if the aggressor runsawa$ after the attack or he has manifested a refusal to continue fighting.&f the person attacked allowed some time to elapse after he suffered thein'ur$ before hitting back, his act of hitting back would not constitute self8defense, but revenge.

A light push on the head with the hand is not unlawful aggression, but aslap on the face is, because his dignit$ is in danger.

A police officer exceeding his authorit$ ma$ become an unlawfulaggressor.

#he nature, character, location, and extent of the wound ma$ belie claimof self8defense.

26 R#a!na+l# n#'#!!it, % t"# m#an! #m$l,#- t $r#*#nt r r#$#l it=1. e(uisites%

Means were used to prevent or repel Means must be necessar$ and there is no other wa$ to prevent or

repel it Means must be reasonable depending on the circumstances, but

generall$ proportionate to the force of the aggressor.b. #he rule here is to stand $our ground when in the right which ma$

invoked when the defender is unlawfull$ assaulted and the aggressor is

armed with a weapon.c. #he rule is more liberal when the accused is a peace officer who, unlike a

private person, cannot run awa$.d. #he reasonable necessit$ of the means emplo$ed to put up the defense.

#he gauge of reasonable necessit$ is the instinct of self8preservation,i.e. a person did not use his rational mind to pick a means of defensebut acted out of self8preservation, using the nearest or onl$ meansavailable to defend himself, even if such means be disproportionatel$advantageous as compared with the means of violence emplo$ed b$the aggressor.

easonableness of the means depends on the nature and the (ualit$of the weapon used, ph$sical condition, character, sie and other

circumstances.

2?


21/94

21



:6 La'7 % !/%%i'i#nt $r*'atin n t"# $art % t"# $#r!n -#%#n-in&"im!#l%6

a. hen no provocation at all was given to the aggressor b$ the persondefending himself.

b. hen even if provocation was given b$ the person defending himself,such was not sufficient to cause violent aggression on the part of theattacker, i.e. the amount of provocation was not sufficient to stir theaggressor into the acts which led the accused to defend himself.

c. hen even if the provocation were sufficient, it was not given b$ theperson defending himself.

d. hen even if provocation was given b$ the person defending himself, theattack was not proximate or immediate to the act of provocation.

e. ufficient means proportionate to the damage caused b$ the act, andade(uate to stir one to its commission.

@. Ginds of elf8@efense1. elf8defense of chastit$ 8 to be entitled to complete self8defense of chastit$,

there must be an attempt to rape, mere imminence thereof will suffice.2. @efense of propert$ 8 an attack on the propert$ must be coupled with an

attack on the person of the owner, or of one entrusted with the care of suchpropert$.

3. elf8defense in libel 8 ph$sical assault ma$ be 'ustified when the libel is aimedat a persons good name, and while the libel is in progress, one libel deservesanother.

H)urden of proof 8 on the accused *sufficient, clear and convincing evidencemust rel$ on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of theprosecution+

#%#n!# % R#lati*#A. lements%

1. unlawful aggression2. reasonable necessit$ of the means emplo$ed to prevent or repel the attack3. in case provocation was given b$ the person attacked, that the person

making the defense had no part in such provocation. ). elatives entitled to the defense%

1. spouse2. ascendants3. descendants

4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters5. relatives b$ affinit$ in the same degree:. relatives b$ consanguinit$ within the 4th civil degree.

#he third element need not take place. #he relative defended ma$ even be theoriginal aggressor. All that is re(uired to 'ustif$ the act of the relative defendingis that he takes no part in such provocation.

Ceneral opinion is to the effect that all relatives mentioned must be legitimate,except in cases of brothers and sisters who, b$ relatives b$ nature, ma$ beillegitimate.

#he unlawful aggression ma$ depend on the honest belief of the person makingthe defense.

#%#n!# % StranrA. lements

1. unlawful aggression2. reasonable necessit$ of the means emplo$ed to prevent or repel the attack3. the person defending be not induced b$ revenge, resentment or other evil

motive.). A relative not included in defense of relative is included in defense of stranger.

21


22/94

22



-. )e not induced b$ evil motive means that even an enem$ of the aggressor whocomes to the defense of a stranger ma$ invoke this 'ustif$ing circumstances solong as he is not induced b$ a motive that is evil.

Stat# % N#'#!!it,A. Art. ++, Par. a provides)An, $#r!n w"3 in r-#r t a*i- an #*il r in


23/94

23



EEMPTIN CIRC4MSTANCES

xempting circumstances *non8imputabilit$+ are those ground for exemption from

punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime of an$ of theconditions which make the act voluntar$, or negligent.

)asis% #he exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence ofintelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the partof the accused.

A person who acts FF# MA/&- *without intelligence, freedom of action orintent+ or FF# "C/&C"- *without intelligence, freedom of action or fault+is "0# -&M&"A//I /&A)/ or is BM!# ;0M !F"&7M"#.

#here is a crime committed but no criminal liabilit$ arises from it because of thecomplete absence of an$ of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntarinessof the act.

)urden of proof% An$ of the circumstances is a matter of defense and must be proved

b$ the defendant to the satisfaction of the court.

Art6 126 CIRC4MSTANCES W5IC5 EEMPT @ROM CRIMINAL LIABILIT6 T"#%llwin& ar# ##m$t %rm 'riminal lia+ilit,16 An im+#'il# r in!an# $#r!n3 /nl#!! t"# latt#r "a! a't#- -/rin& a l/'i-int#r*al6

hen the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law definesas a felon$ *delito+, the court shall order his confinement on one of the hospital oras$lums established for persons thus afflicted. 7e shall not be permitted to leavewithout first obtaining the permission of the same court.

e(uisites%a. 0ffender is an imbecileb. 0ffender was insane at the time of the commission of the crime

&M)-&/I 0 &"A"Ia. )asis% complete absence of intelligence, and element of voluntariness.b. @efinition % An imbecile is one who while advanced in age has a mental

development comparable to that of children between 2 and < $ears of age. Aninsane is one who acts with complete deprivation of intelligenceEreason orwithout the least discernment or with total deprivation of freedom of the will.

An imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liabilit$. #he insane is not so exemptif it can be shown that he acted during a lucid interval. &n the latter, loss ofconsciousness of ones acts and not merel$ abnormalit$ of mental faculties will

(ualif$ ones acts as those of an insane. !rocedure% court is to order the confinement of such persons in the hospitals or

as$lums established. uch persons will not be permitted to leave without permissionfrom the court. #he court, on the other hand, has no power to order such permissionwithout first obtaining the opinion of the @07 that such persons ma$ be releasedwithout danger.

!resumption is alwa$s in favor of sanit$. #he defense has the burden to prove thatthe accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. ;or theascertainment such mental condition of the accused, it is permissible to receiveevidence of the condition of his mind during a reasonable period both before andafter that time. -ircumstantial evidence which is clear and convincing will suffice.

An examination of the outward acts will help reveal the thoughts, motives and

emotions of a person and if such acts conform to those of people of sound mind. &nsanit$ at the time of the commission of the crime and not that at the time of the trial

will exempt one from criminal liabilit$. &n case of insanit$ at the time of the trial, therewill be a suspension of the trial until the mental capacit$ of the accused is restored toafford him a fair trial.

vidence of insanit$ must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or tothe ver$ moment of its execution. ithout such evidence, the accused is presumedto be sane when he committed the crime. -ontinuance of insanit$ which is

23


24/94

24



occasional or intermittent in nature will not be presumed. &nsanit$ at another timemust be proved to exist at the time of the commission of the crime. A person is alsopresumed to have committed a crime in one of the lucid intervals. -ontinuance ofinsanit$ will onl$ be presumed in cases wherein the accused has been ad'udgedinsane or has been committed to a hospital or an as$lum for the insane.

&nstances of &nsanit$%a. @ementia praecox is covered b$ the term insanit$ because homicidal attack is

common in such form of ps$chosis. &t is characteried b$ delusions that he isbeing interfered with sexuall$, or that his propert$ is being taken, thus the personhas no control over his acts.

b. Gleptomania or presence of abnormal, persistent impulse or tendenc$ to steal, tobe considered exempting, will still have to be investigated b$ competentps$chiatrist to determine if the unlawful act is due to the irresistible impulseproduced b$ his mental defect, thus loss of will8power. &f such mental defectonl$ diminishes the exercise of his willpower and did not deprive him of theconsciousness of his acts, it is onl$ mitigating.

c. pileps$ which is a chronic nervous disease characteried b$ convulsive motionsof the muscles and loss of consciousness ma$ be covered b$ the term insanit$.7owever, it must be shown that commission of the offense is during one of thoseepileptic attacks.

e$es% ;eeblemindedness is not imbecilit$ because the offender can distinguishright from wrong. An imbecile and an insane to be exempted must not be able todistinguish right from wrong.

elova% ;eeblemindedness is imbecilit$.

-rimes committed while in a dream, b$ a somnambulist are embraced in the plea ofinsanit$. 7$pnotism, however, is a debatable issue.

-rime committed while suffering from malignant malaria is characteried b$ insanit$

at times thus such person is not criminall$ liable.

26 A $#r!n /n-#r nin# ,#ar! % a

M&"0Ia. e(uisite% 0ffender is under > $ears of age at the time of the commission of the

crime. #here is absolute criminal irresponsibilit$ in the case of a minor under >8$ears of age.

b. )asis% complete absence of intelligence.

Fnder nine $ears to be construed nine $ears or less. uch was inferred from thenext subse(uent paragraph which does not totall$ exempt those over nine $ears ofage if he acted with discernment.

!resumptions of incapabilit$ of committing a crime is absolute. Age is computed up to the time of the commission of the crime. Age can be

established b$ the testimonies of families and relatives.

enilit$ or second childhood is onl$ mitigating.

4 periods of the life of a human being%

Age -riminal esponsibilit$

> $ears and below Absolute irresponsibilit$

)etween > and 15$ears old

-onditional responsibilit$ithout discernment no liabilit$ ith @iscernment mitigated liabilit$

)etween 15 and 1=$ears old

Mitigated responsibilit$

)etween 1= and


25/94

25



:6 A $#r!n *#r nin# ,#ar! % a an- /n-#r %i%t##n3 /nl#!! "# "a! a't#- wit"-i!'#rnm#nt3 in w"i'" 'a!#3 !/'" minr !"all +# $r'##-#- a&ain!t in a''r-an'#wit" t"# $r*i!in! % arti'l# 0 % t"i! C-#6

W"#n !/'" minr i! a-6 An, $#r!n w"3 w"il# $#r%rmin& a law%/l a't wit" -/# 'ar#3 'a/!#! anin


26/94

2:



#he accused, who, while hunting saw wild chickens and fired a shot can beconsidered to be in the performance of a lawful act executed with due care andwithout intention of doing harm when such short recoiled and accidentall$ wounded

another. uch was established because the deceased was not in the direction atwhich the accused fired his gun.

#he chauffeur, who while driving on the proper side of the road at a moderate speedand with due diligence, suddenl$ and unexpectedl$ saw a man in front of his vehiclecoming from the sidewalk and crossing the street without an$ warning that he woulddo so, in effect being run over b$ the said chauffeur, was held not criminall$ liable, itbeing b$ mere accident.

?6 An, $#r!n w" a't! /n-#r t"# 'm$/l!in % an irr#!i!ti+l# %r'#6

&&)/ ;0-% )asis% complete absence of freedom, an element ofvoluntariness

lements%a. #hat the compulsion is b$ means of ph$sical forceb. #hat the ph$sical force must be irresistible.c. #hat the ph$sical force must come from a third person

;orce, to be irresistible, must produce such an effect on an individual that despite ofhis resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable ofcommitting a crime. &t compels his member to act and his mind to obe$. &t must actupon him from the outside and b$ a third person.

)aculi, who was accused but not a member of a band which murdered someAmerican school teachers and was seen and compelled b$ the leaders of the bandto bur$ the bodies, was not criminall$ liable as accessor$ for concealing the bod$ ofthe crime. )aculi acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force.

&rresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion, or obfuscation. &t mustconsist of an extraneous force coming from a third person.

6 An, $#r!n w" a't! /n-#r t"# im$/l!# % an /n'ntrlla+l# %#ar % an#./al r &r#at#r in


27/94

2 par 1 profiting ones self or assisting offenders to profit b$ the effects of

the crime

&nstigation v. ntrapment&"#&CA#&0" "#A!M"#

&nstigator practicall$ induces the would8beaccused into the commission of theoffense and himself becomes co8principal

#he wa$s and means are resorted to forthe purpose of trapping and capturing thelawbreaker in the execution of his criminalplan.

Accused will be ac(uitted "0# a bar to accuseds prosecution andconviction

Absolutor$ cause "0# an absolutor$ cause

MITIATIN CIRC4MSTANCES

@efinition #hose circumstance which reduce the penalt$ of a crime ffect educes the penalt$ of the crime but does not erase criminal liabilit$ nor

change the nature of the crime

Ginds of Mitigating -ircumstance%!rivileged Mitigating 0rdinar$ Mitigating

0ffset b$ an$aggravatingcircumstance

-annot be offset b$ an$ aggravatingcircumstance

-an be offset b$ a genericaggravating circumstance

ffect on thepenalt$

7as the effect of imposing thepenalt$ b$ 1 or 2 degrees than thatprovided b$ law

&f not offset, has the effect ofimposing the penalt$ in theminimum period

Ginds Minorit$, &ncomplete elf8defense,two or more mitigatingcircumstances without an$aggravating circumstance *has theeffect of lowering the penalt$ b$ onedegree+

#hose circumstancesenumerated in paragraph 1 to 1?of Article 13

2


28/94

2=



Arti'l# 1:616 T"!# m#ntin#- in t"# $r#'#-in& '"a$t#r3 w"#n all t"# r#./i!it#! n#'#!!ar, t


29/94

2>



Age of accused which should be determined as his age at the date of commission ofcrime, not date of trial

1arious Ages and their 2egal 3ffectsa. under > exemptive circumstanceb. over >, below 15 exemptive except if acted with discernmentc. minor delin(uent under 1= sentence ma$ be suspended *!@ :?3+d. under 1= privileged mitigating circumstancee. 1= and above full criminal responsibilit$f.


30/94

3?



4. hen it was the defendant who sought the deceased, the challenge to fightb$ the deceased is "0# sufficient provocation.

b. &t must originate from the offended part$1. h$9 /aw sa$s the provocation is Kon the part of the offended part$62. xample% #omas mother insulted !etra. !etra kills #omas because of the

insults. "o Mitigating -ircumstance because it was the mother who insultedher, not #omas.

3. !rovocation b$ the deceased in the first stage of the fight is not Mitigating-ircumstance when the accused killed him after he had fled because thedeceased from the moment he fled did not give an$ provocation for theaccused to pursue and attack him.

c. !rovocation must be immediate to the act., i.e., to the commission of the crime b$the person who is provoked1. h$9 &f there was an interval of time, the conduct of the

offended part$ could not have excited the accused to the commission of thecrime, he having had time to regain his reason and to exercise self8control.

2. #hreat should not be offensive and positivel$ strongbecause if it was, the threat to inflict real in'ur$ is an unlawful aggressionwhich ma$ give rise to self8defense and thus no longer a Mitigating-ircumstance

?6 T"at t"# a't wa! 'mmitt#- in t"# imm#-iat# *in-i'atin % a &ra*# %%#n!# tt"# n# 'mmittin& t"# %#ln, (-#lit)3 "i! !$/!#3 a!'#n-ant!3 -#!'#n-ant!3l#&itimat#3 nat/ral r a-$t#- +rt"#r r !i!t#r!3 r r#lati*#! +, a%%init, wit"in t"#!am# -#&r##6

1. e(uisites% theres a grave offense done to the one committing the felon$ etc. that the felon$ is committed in vindication of such grave offense.

2. /apse of time is allowed between the vindication and the one doing theoffense *proximate time, not 'ust immediatel$ after+

3. Example% Duan caught his wife and his friend in a compromising situation.Duan kills his friend the next da$ still considered proximate.

!0L0-A#&0" L&"@&-A#&0"Made directl$ onl$ to the personcommitting the felon$

Crave offense ma$ be also against theoffenders relatives mentioned b$ law

-ause that brought about the provocationneed not be a grave offense

0ffended part$ must have done a graveoffense to the offender or his relatives

"ecessar$ that provocation or threatimmediatel$ preceded the act. "o timeinterval

Ma$ be proximate. #ime interval allowed

More lenient in vindication because offense concerns the honor of the person. uchis more worth$ of consideration than mere spite against the one giving theprovocation or threat.

Lindication of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation cant be countedseparatel$ and independentl$

6 T"at % "a*in& a't#- /$n an im$/l!# ! $w#r%/l a! nat/rall, t "a*#$r-/'#- $a!!in r +%/!'atin

!assion and obfuscation is mitigating% when there are causes naturall$ producing ina person powerful excitement, he loses his reason and self8control. #hereb$dismissing the exercise of his will power.

!A&0" A"@ 0);F-A#&0" are Mitigating -ircumstances onl$ when the samearise from lawful sentiments *not Mitigating -ircumstance when done in the spirit ofrevenge or lawlessness+

e(uisites for !assion 0bfuscationa. #he offender acted on impulse powerful enough to produce passion or obfuscation

3?


31/94

31



b. #hat the act was committed not in the spirit of lawlessness or revengec. #he act must come from lawful sentiments

Act which gave rise to passion and obfuscation

a. #hat there be an act, both unlawful and un'ustb. #he act be sufficient to produce a condition of mindc. #hat the act was proximate to the criminal actd. #he victim must be the one who caused the passion or obfuscation

xample% Duan saw #omas hitting his *Duan+ son. Duan stabbed #omas. Duan isentitled to Mitigating -ircumstance of !0 as his actuation arose from a naturalinstinct that impels a father to rush to the rescue of his son.

#he exercise of a right or a fulfillment of a dut$ is not the proper source of !0.Example% A policeman arrested Duan as he was making a public disturbance on thestreets. Duans anger and indignation resulting from the arrest cant be consideredpassionate obfuscation because the policeman was doing a lawful act.

#he act must be sufficient to produce a condition of mind. &f the cause of the loss of

self8control was trivial and slight, the obfuscation is not mitigating.Example% Duans boss punched him for not going to work he other da$. -ause isslight.

#here could have been no Mitigating -ircumstance of !0 when more than 24hours elapsed between the alleged insult and the commission of the felon$, orseveral hours have passed between the cause of the !0 and the commission ofthe crime, or at least N hours intervened between the previous fight and subse(uentkilling of deceased b$ accused.

"ot mitigating if relationship is illegitimate

#he passion or obfuscation will be considered even if it is based onl$ on the honestbelief of the offender, even if facts turn out to prove that his beliefs were wrong.

!assion and obfuscation cannot co8exist with treacher$ since the means that the

offender has had time to ponder his course of action. !A&0" A"@ 0);F-A#&0" arising from one and the same cause should be

treated as onl$ one mitigating circumstance

Lindication of grave offense cant co8exist wE !A&0" A"@ 0);F-A#&0"

!A&0" A"@ 0);F-A#&0" &&)/ ;0-

Mitigating xempting

"o ph$sical force needed e(uires ph$sical force

;rom the offender himself Must come from a 3rd personMust come from lawful sentiments Fnlawful

!A&0" A"@ 0);F-A#&0" !0L0-A#&0"

!roduced b$ an impulse which ma$ becaused b$ provocation

-omes from in'ured part$

0ffense, which engenders perturbation ofmind, need not be immediate. &t is onl$re(uired that the influence thereof lastsuntil the crime is committed

Must immediatel$ precede the commissionof the crime

ffect is loss of reason and self8control onthe part of the offender

ame

6 T"at t"# %%#n-#r "a- *l/ntaril, !/rr#n-#r#- "im!#l% t a $#r!n in a/t"rit, r"i! ant!3 r t"at "# "a- *l/ntaril, 'n%#!!#- "i! &/ilt +#%r# t"# '/rt $rir t

t"# $r#!#ntatin % t"# #*i-#n'# %r t"# $r!#'/tin6

2 Mitigating -ircumstances present%a+ voluntaril$ surrenderedb+ voluntaril$ confessed his guilt

&f both are present, considered as 2 independent mitigating circumstances. Mitigatepenalt$ to a greater extent

31


32/94

32



e(uisites of voluntar$ surrender%a+ offender not actuall$ arrestedb+ offender surrendered to a person in authorit$ or the latters agent

c+ surrender was voluntar$ urrender must be spontaneous shows his interest to surrender unconditionall$ tothe authorities

pontaneous emphasies the idea of inner impulse, acting without externalstimulus. #he conduct of the accused, not his intention alone, after the commissionof the offense, determines the spontaneit$ of the surrender.Example% urrendered after 5 $ears, not spontaneous an$more.Example% urrendered after talking to town councilor. "ot L.. because theres anexternal stimulus

-onduct must indicate a desire to own the responsibilit$

"ot mitigating when warrant alread$ served. urrender ma$ be considered mitigatingif warrant not served or returned unserved because accused cant be located.

urrender of person re(uired. "ot 'ust of weapon. !erson in authorit$ one directl$ vested with 'urisdiction, whether as an individual or

as a member of some courtEgovernmentEcorporationEboardEcommission. )arriocaptainEchairman included.

Agent of person in authorit$ person who b$ direct provision of law, or be election,or b$ appointment b$ competent authorit$ is charged with the maintenance of publicorder and the protection and securit$ of life and propert$ and an$ person who comesto the aid of persons in authorit$.

!- does not make distinction among the various moments when surrender ma$occur.

urrender must be b$ reason of the commission of the crime for which defendant ischarged

e(uisites for plea of guilt$a+ offender spontaneousl$ confessed his guiltb+ confession of guilt was made in open court *competent court+c+ confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the

prosecution

plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun does not entitle accused tohave plea considered as Mitigating -ircumstance

plea in the #- in a case appealed from the M#- is not mitigating 8 must make pleaat the first opportunit$

plea during the preliminar$ investigation is no plea at all

even if during arraignment, accused pleaded not guilt$, he is entitled to Mitigating-ircumstance as long as withdraws his plea of not guilt$ to the charge before the

fiscal could present his evidence plea to a lesser charge is not Mitigating -ircumstance because to be voluntar$ plea

of guilt$, must be to the offense charged

plea to the offense charged in the amended info, lesser than that charged in theoriginal info, is Mitigating -ircumstance

present ules of -ourt re(uire that even if accused pleaded guilt$ to a capitaloffense, its mandator$ for court to re(uire the prosecution to prove the guilt of theaccused being likewise entitled to present evidence to prove, inter alia, Mitigating-ircumstance

6 T"at t"# %%#n-#r i! -#a% an- -/m+3 +lin- r t"#rwi!# !/%%#rin& %rm !m#$",!i'al -#%#'t wF' t"/! r#!tri't! "i! m#an! % a'tin3 -#%#n!# r 'mm/ni'atinwF "i! %#llw +#in&!6

)asis% one suffering from ph$sical defect which restricts him does not have completefreedom of action and therefore, there is diminution of that element of voluntariness.

"o distinction between educated and uneducated deaf8mute or blind persons

32


33/94

33



#he ph$sical defect of the offender should restrict his means of action, defense orcommunication with fellow beings, this has been extended to cover cripples, armlesspeople even stutterers.

#he circumstance assumes that with their ph$sical defect, the offenders do not havea complete freedom of action therefore diminishing the element of voluntariness inthe commission of a crime.

96 S/'" illn#!! % t"# %%#n-#r a! w/l- -imini!" t"# ##r'i!# % t"# willD$w#r %t"# %%#n-#r wF -#$ri*in& "im % 'n!'i/!n#!! % "i! a't!6

)asis% diminution of intelligence and intent

e(uisites%a+ illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will8powerb+ such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts

when the offender completel$ lost the exercise of will8power, it ma$ be an exempting

circumstance deceased mind, not amounting to insanit$, ma$ give place to mitigation

106 An- an, t"#r 'ir'/m!tan'# % a !imilar nat/r# an- anal&/! t t"!# a+*#Dm#ntin#-

xamples of Kan$ other circumstance6%a+ defendant who is :? $ears old with failing e$esight is similar to a case of one

over


34/94

34



)asis% #he greater perversit$ of the offense as shown b$%a+ the motivating power behind the actb+ the place where the act was committed

c+ the means and wa$s usedd+ the timee+ the personal circumstance of the offenderf+ the personal circumstance of the victim

Ginds%a+ Ceneric generall$ applicable to all crimesb+ pecific appl$ onl$ to specific crimes *ignomin$ for chastit$ crimes treacher$

for persons crimes+c+ Jualif$ing those that change the nature of the crime *evident premeditation

becomes murder+d+ &nherent necessaril$ accompanies the commission of the crime *evident

premeditation in theft, estafa+

JFA/&;I&"C ACCALA#&"C-&-FM#A"-

C"&- ACCALA#&"C-&-FM#A"-

Cives the proper and exclusive name,places the author thereof in such asituation as to deserve no other penalt$than that specificall$ prescribed b$ law

&ncrease penalt$ to the maximum, withoutexceeding limit prescribed b$ law

-ant be offset b$ Mitigating -ircumstance Ma$ be compensated b$ Mitigating-ircumstance

Must be alleged in the information. &ntegralpart of the offense

"eed not be alleged. Ma$ be proved overthe ob'ection of the defense. Jualif$ing ifnot alleged will make it generic

Aggravating -ircumstances which @0 "0# have the effect of increasing the penalt$%1+ which themselves constitute a crime specificall$ punishable b$ law or which are

included in the law defining a crime and prescribing the penalt$ thereofExample% breaking a window to get inside the house and rob it

2+ aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such degree that it must ofnecessit$ accompan$ the commission thereofExample% evident premeditation inherent in theft, robber$, estafa, adulter$ andconcubinage

Aggravating circumstances are not presumed. Must be proved as full$ as the crimeitself in order to increase the penalt$.

Art 1>6 A&&ra*atin& 'ir'/m!tan'#!6 G T"# %llwin& ar# a&&ra*atin&'ir'/m!tan'#!16 T"at a-*anta +# ta7#n +, t"# %%#n-#r % "i! $/+li' $!itin

e(uisite%a. #he offender is a public officerb. #he commission of the crime would not have been possible without the powers,

resources and influence of the office he holds.

ssential 8 !ublic officer used the influence, prestige or ascendanc$ which his officegives him as the means b$ which he realied his purpose.

;ailure in official is tantamount to abusing of office

earing of uniform is immaterial what matters is the proof that he indeed took

advantage of his position

26 T"at t"# 'rim# +# 'mmitt#- in 'nt#m$t % r wit" in!/lt t t"# $/+li'a/t"riti#!

e(uisites%a. #he offender knows that a public authorit$ is presentb. #he public authorit$ is engaged in the exercise of his functions

34


35/94

35



c. #he public authorit$ is not the victim of the crimed. #he public authorit$s presence did not prevent the criminal act

Example% Duan and !edro are (uarrelling and the municipal ma$or, upon passing b$,attempts to stop them. "otwithstanding the intervention and the presence of thema$or, Duan and !edro continue to (uarrel until Duan succeeds in killing !edro.

!erson in authorit$ public authorit$ who is directl$ vested with 'urisdiction, has thepower to govern and execute the laws

xamples of !ersons in Authorit$a. Covernor b. Ma$or c. )aranga$ captaind. -ouncilorse. Covernment agentsf. -hief of !olice

ule not applicable when committed in the presence of a mere agent.

Agent subordinate public officer charged with the maintenance of public order andprotection and securit$ of life and propert$Example% barrio vice lieutenant, barrio councilman

:6 T"at t"# a't +# 'mmitt#-(1) wit" in!/lt r in -i!r#&ar- % t"# r#!$#'t -/# t t"# %%#n-#- $art, n a''/nt

% "i! (a) ran73 (+) a (') !# r(2) t"at it +# 'mmitt#- in t"# -w#llin& % t"# %%#n-#- $art,3 i% t"# latt#r "a! nt

&i*#n $r*'atin6

circumstances *rank, age, sex+ ma$ be taken into accountonly in crimes againstpersons or honor,it cannot be invoked in crimes against propert$

ank refers to a high social position or standing b$ which to determine ones pa$and emoluments in an$ scale of comparison within a position

Age the circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in case where thevictim is of tender age as well as of old age

ex refers to the female sex, not to the male sex not applicable whena. #he offender acted wE !A&0" A"@ 0);F-A#&0"b. there exists a relation between the offender and the victim *but in cases of

divorce decrees where there is a direct bearing on their child, it is applicable+c. the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission of the crime

*x. !arricide, rape, abduction+

e(uisite of disregard to rank, age, or sexa. -rimes must be against the victims person or his honor

b. #here is deliberate intent to offend or insult the respect due to the victims rank,age, or sex

@isregard to rank, age, or sex is absorbed b$ treacher$ or abuse of strength

@welling must be a building or structure exclusivel$ used for rest and comfort*combination house and store not included+a. ma$ be temporar$ as in the case of guests in a house or bedspacersb. basis for this is the sanctit$ of privac$ the law accords to human abode

dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and the enclosure underthe house

lements of the aggravating circumstance of dwellinga. -rime occurred in the

dwelling of the victim

b. "o provocation on the part ofthe victim

e(uisites for !rovocation% A// MF# -0"-Fa. given b$ the owner of the dwellingb. sufficientc. immediate to the commission of the crime

35


36/94

3:


ATENEOCENTRALBAROPERATI

memory aid - admu - 01

Documents