ARTICLE 15 – Alternative Circumstances  MITIGATING: Trespass to dwelling

 Alternative Circumstances are those that must be taken into  If relationship is an element of the offense: neither M nor A,
consideration as aggravating or mitigating circumstances because it is inseparable from and inherent in the offense:
according to the nature and effects of the crime and the
other conditions attending its commission. Parricide, adultery and concubinage

 BASIS: is the nature and effects of the crime and the other  CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY: ALWAYS AGGRAVATING
conditions attending its commission. regardless of whether the offender is a relative of a higher
or lower degree of the offended party (lasciviousness)
 Relationship, intoxication and Degree of instruction and
education of the offender.  RAPE: AGGRAVATING (stepfather raped his
stepdaughter)
 RELATIONSHIP:
 REASON: Because the nature and effect of the crime
Stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter is committed (shocking to moral sense)
included by analogy similar to that of ascendant and
descendant. “It is the duty of the stepmother to bestow  RULE may be different because of the “other conditions
upon her stepdaughter a mother’s affection, care and attending the commission of the crime”
protection” hence – aggravating.
Brothers-in-law: MITIGATING in view of the conduct
Adopted parent and adopted child (A/D) pursued – Contracting ADULTEROUS relationship
Attack of insanity of the victim – purpose to pacify M
Uncle – niece relationship not covered.
INTOXICATION:
 The law is silent as to when relationship is mitigating and
when it is aggravating.  MITIGATING: If intoxication is not habitual; or is not
subsequent to the plan to commit a felony
 GENERAL RULE: Crime against property: MITIGATING
(Art. 132)  AGGRAVATING: If intoxication is habitual; or it is
intentional (when the offender drinks liquor fully knowing
Robbery its effects, to find in the liquor a stimulant to commit a crime)
Usurpation
Fraudulent insolvency  Drunkenness/intoxication: MITIGATING if accidental

 Article 332 – no criminal liability, only civil from the crime of  HABITUAL DRUNKARD: one given to intoxication by
theft, swindling or malicious mischief on relationships excessive use of intoxicating drinks (habit should be actual
mentioned if LIVING TOGETHER (relationship is and confirmed)
exempting)
 MITIGATING: (1) at the time of the commission of the
 Crime against person: AGGRAVATING criminal act, he has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks
as to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of
Offended party: relative of a higher degree than the control; and (2) such intoxication is not habitual or
offender; or subsequent) – exercise of will power is impaired
Both are relatives of the same level (killing a brother)
 IN THE STATE OF INTOXICATION: The offender’s mental
BROTHER-IN-LAW: except admitted by the appellant faculties must be affected by drunkenness.
shall not be deemed aggravating in the absence of
evidence to show that offended party is of higher  To be mitigating, the accused’s state of intoxication must be
degree in the relationship that of the offender. PROVED. Once intoxication is established by
SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE, in the absence of proof to the
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY (SPI): even if offended contrary, it is presumed to be non-habitual or unintentional.
party is a descendant of the offender: relationship is
AGGRAVATING  No degree of intoxication, but such amount must diminish
the agent’s capacity to know the injustice of his acts.
SPI: offender committed against his child whether
legitimate or not: AGGRAVATING.  HABITUAL DRUNKARD: witness testified that he saw the
defendant drunk 12 times or more/ where the defendants
LESS SPI: ordinary rule applies admitted in open court that before they committed the crime,
they drank for 3 hours and often had a drinking party.
o MITIGATING: offended party (relative of a
lower degree of the offender)  MITIGATING: the crime was not the offspring of planning
o AGGRAVATING (offended party is of a higher and deliberation but a fatal improvisation dictated by an
degree of the offender) impromptu impulse.

HOMICIDE or MURDER: AGGRAVATING – even if  AGGRAVATING: If intoxication is not habitual, but it is

the victim is a relative of lower degree (stepdaughter subsequent to the plan to commit the crime (bolster his
killed by stepmother – A but not parricide) courage to commit the crime)
 PROSECUTION: must prove that the intoxication of the  Only a NATURAL PERSON can be the offender because:
offender is habitual or intentional (absence of proof M)
RPC requires that the culprit should have acted with
 Non-habitual intoxication – lack of instruction and personal malice or negligence.
obfuscation: should not be taken SEPARATELY A juridical person cannot commit a crime in which a
malicious intent is required.
 LOW DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION or There is deprivation of liberty (SUBSIDIARY
lack of it: MITIGATING. IMPRISONMENT) for pecuniary penalties in case of
insolvency of the accused.
 HIGH DEGREE: AGGRAVATING, when the offender avails Other penalties can only be executed against
himself of his learning in committing the crime. individuals.

 LACK OF INSTRUCTION (LOI) M (Article 15 applies only  OFFICERS, not the corporation are criminally liable.
when the defendant has not received any instruction)
 Juridical persons are criminally liable under certain special
 LOI not mitigating: the accused finished in grade 2: asked laws: BP 68 (Corporation Code of the Philippines)
questions in English, answered in Tagalog
 Only officers of the corporation who participated either as
 Studied up to sixth grade: MORE THAN ENOUGH principals by direct participation or by induction or by
SCHOOLING to know what is right and wrong cooperation, or as accomplices in the commission of an act
punishable by law are liable.
 MERE ILLITERACY: not sufficient to constitute MC, there
must be also lack of intelligence: determination is left to the  Manager of partnership is liable even if there is no evidence
Trial Court of his participation in the commission of the offense.

 LOI not mitigation when the offender is a city resident who  SETTLED RULE: Since a corporation or partnership can
knows how to sign his name only act through its officers and their agents, the president
or manager can be held criminally liable for the violation of
 LOI must be proved by the DEFENSE (cannot be based on a law by the entity.
mere deduction or inference)
 DEAD (corpse) and animals cannot be passive subject:
 ORDINARY: Low degree or LOI is mitigating in all crimes
REASON: They have no rights that may be injured.
 EXCEPTIONS: crimes against property (estafa, theft, EXCEPTION: Article 353: Crime of Defamation may
robbery, arson) – not mitigating be committed if the imputation tends to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.
 NOT MITIGATING: Crimes against chastity. No one is
ignorant as not to know that the crime of rape is wrong and ARTICLE 17
in violation of the law
 Principal by participation, induction or indispensable
 TREASON: NOT MITIGATING, because love of country cooperation.
should be a natural feeling of every citizen, however
unlettered or uncultured he may be.  Requisites of Principals by Direct Participation:

 MURDER: LOE and LOI NOT MITIGATING because to kill That they participated in the criminal resolution
is forbidden by natural law which every rational being is That they carried out their plan and personally took part
endowed to know and feel. in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same
end.
 High degree of instruction: AGGRAVATING (1) lawyer, who
with abuse of his education, commits estafa; (2) medical  CONSPIRACY – exists when 2 or more persons come to an
student convicted of slander by deed. agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. There must be intentional participation
 Degree of instruction is AGGRAVATING when the offender in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the
availed himself or took advantage of it in committing the common design and purpose.
crime.
 Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act
ARTICLE 16 without cooperation or agreement to cooperate is not
enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy.
 When a crime is committed by many, without being equally
shared by all – a different degree of responsibility is  SILENCE does not make one a conspirator.
imposed upon each and every one of them.
 Conspiracy transcends companionship.
 LIGHT FELONIES (no acc.) – In its commission, the social
wrong as well as the individual prejudice is so small that  Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree,
penal sanction is deemed not necessary for accessories. expressly, or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith
decide to pursue it.
 TWO PARTIES/SUBJECT OF A CRIME: Active (the
criminal); and the passive (the injured party)
 Proof of conspiracy:
 COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY: Where the
a) Interlocking extrajudicial confessions of several offenders are criminally liable in the same manner and to
accused and the testimony (in the absence of the same extent. The penalty to be imposed must be the
collusion: corroborative and/or confirmatory same for all.
evidence).
b) Malefactors shall have acted in concert pursuant  INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY: In the absence
to the same objective. of previous conspiracy, the criminal responsibility arising
from different acts directed against one and the same
 Formal agreement or previous acquaintance among several person is individual and not collective, and each of the
persons not necessary in conspiracy. It is sufficient that their participants is liable only for the act committed by him.
minds meet understandably so as to bring about an
intelligent and deliberate agreement to commit the offense ARTICLE 18. ACCOMPLICES
charged.
 QUASI-COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY:
 Conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive Some of the offenders in the crime are principals and the
evidence. others are accomplices.

 CONSPIRACY: A person must performed an overt act in the  In case of doubt as to whether principal or accomplice: The
furtherance of the conspiracy (actively participating in the participation of the offender will be considered that of an
actual commission, or by lending moral assistance, or by accomplice rather than of a principal – in favor of the milder
exerting moral ascendancy) form of criminal liability.

 When there is no conspiracy, each of the offenders is liable  CONSPIRATORS know the criminal intention because they
only for the act performed by him. themselves have decided upon such course of action.
ACCOMLICES come to know about it after the principals
 CONSPIRACY: The act of one is the act of all. There is have reached the decision, and only then do they agree to
collective criminal responsibility. cooperate in its execution. CONSPIRATORS are the
authors of the crime, while accomplices are merely
 In multiple rape, each rapist is equally liable for the other instruments who perform acts not essential to the
rapes – because each of them cooperated in the perpetration of the offense.
commission of the rape perpetrated by the other, by acts
without it would not have been accomplished.  REQUISITES: ACCOMPLICE

 Participation in another’s criminal resolution must either That there be community of design
precede or be coetaneous with the criminal act. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by
previous or simultaneous acts
 There could be no conspiracy to commit an offense through That there be a relation between the acts done by the
negligence. principal and those attributed to the person charged
as accomplice.
PRINCIPALS by direct participation:
ARTICLE 19
a) Must be at the scene of the crime, personally
taking part in its execution.  SUSPICION – being the imagination of the existence of
b) The acts of each offender must directly tend to the something without proof, or upon very slight evidence, upon
same end. no evidence at all.
c) One serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy
is a principal by participation. P.D. 1612 “Anti-Fencing Law of 1979”

PRINCIPALS by Induction (AUTORES POR FENCING – the act of any person who, with intent to gain
INDUCCION) for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep,
acquire, conceal or dispose of or in any other manner any
a) By directly forcing another to commit a crime article which he knows to have been derived from the
 Using irresistible force proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
 Causing uncontrollable fear
PENALTIES:
b) By directly inducing another to commit a crime
 By giving price, or offering reward/promise PRISON MAYOR (vale is more than 12k but not exc. 22k
 By using words of command

Requisites for conviction via inducement: ARTICLE 20

a) The inducement be made directly with the  EXEMPTION: Based on the TIES OF BLOOD and the
intention of procuring the commission of the crime; PRESERVATION OF THE CLEANLINESS of one’s name
and
b) Such inducement be the determining cause of the
commission of the crime by the material executor
-CRIMINAL LAW DEFINITION OF TERMS 18. ATTEMPTED FELONY- when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
1. CRIMINAL LAW- is that branch or division of law which defines perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment. by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
2. CRIME- crime is defined as an act committed or omitted in
violation of public law forbidding or commanding it. 19. OVERT ACTS- an overt act is some physical activity or deed,
indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a
3. GENERAL (characteristic of criminal law) – general, in that mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete
criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in termination following its natural course, without being frustrated
Philippine territory. by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
4. TERRITORIAL (characteristic of criminal law) - in that criminal offense.
law undertakes to punish crimes committee within Philippine
territory. 20. INDETERMINATE OFFENSE- one where purpose of offender
in the performing an act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its
5. PROSPECTIVE-(characteristic of criminal law) - in that a penal objective is ambiguous.
law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was
not punishable when committed. 21. CONSPIRACY- conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
6. FRENCH RULE- such crimes are not triable in courts of that decide to commit it.
country, unless their commission affects the peace and security of
the territory or the safety of the state is endangered. 22. PROPOSAL- there is a proposal when the person who has
decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
7. ENGLISH RULE-such crimes are triable in that country, unless person or persons.
they merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the
internal management thereof. 23. IMPUTABILITY- is the quality by which an act may be ascribed
to a person as its author or owner. It implies that the act committed
8. FELONIES- felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the has been freely and consciously done and may, therefore, be put
revised penal code. down to the doer as his very own.

9. ACT- any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in 24. RESPONSIBILITY- is the obligation of suffering the
the external world. consequences of crime. It is the obligation of taking the penal and
civil consequences of the crime.
10. OMISSION- is meant inaction, the failure to perform a positive
duty which one is bound to do. 25. GUILT- guilt is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot
be made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is
11. MISTAKE OF FACT- is a misapprehension of fact on the part guilty.
of the person who caused injury to another.
26. GRAVE FELONIES- are those to which the law attaches the
12. MALA IN SE- wrongful from their nature, those so serious in capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are
their effects on society as to call for the almost unanimous afflictive.
condemnation of its members and defined and penalized by the
Revised Penal Code. 27. LESS GRAVE FELONIES- are those which the law punishes
with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional.
13. MALA PROHIBITA - wrong merely because prohibited by
statute, are violations of mere rules of convenience designed to 28. LIGHT FELONIES- are those infractions of law for the
secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society. The term commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
mala prohibita refers generally to acts made criminal by special exceeding 200 pesos, is provided.
laws.
29. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES- are those where the act of
14. INTENT- intent is the purpose to use a particular means to a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person
effect such result. is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both
criminal and civil liability.
15. MOTIVE- motive is the moving power which impels one to
action for a definite result. 30. EXEMPTING CICUMSTANCES (non-imputability) - are those
grounds for exemption from punishment because there is wanting
16. CONSUMMATED FELONY- a felony is consummated when in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act
all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment voluntary, or negligent.
are present.
31. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES- those which, if present in
17. FRUSTRATED FELONY- when the offender performs all the the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a criminal liability but only serve to reduce the penalty.
consequence but which nevertheless, do not produce it by reason
of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
32. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES- are those which, if 49. PENALTY- penalty is the suffering that is inflicted by the State
attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to increase the for the transgression of a law.
penalty without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty
provided by law for the offense. 50. COMPLEX CRIMES- when a single act constitutes two or
more grave or less, grave felonies, or when an offense is a
33. GENERIC (kind of aggravating circumstances) - those that necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the
can generally apply to all crimes. most serious crime shall be imposed.

34. SPECIFIC (kind of aggravating circumstances) - those that 51. CONTINUED CRIME- a continued crime is a single crime,
apply only to particular crime. consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal
resolution.
35. QUALIFYING (kind of aggravating circumstances) - those that
change the nature of the crime. 52. ABERRATIO ICTUS- mistake in the blow

36. INHERENT (kind of aggravating circumstances) - those that 53. ERROR IN PERSONAE-mistake in the identity of the victim
must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime.
54. PRAETER INTENTIONEM- the injurious result is greater than
37. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES- aggravating or mitigating that intended.
according to the nature and effect of the crime and other
conditions attending its commission. 55. RESTITUTION-in theft, the culprit is duty bound to return the
property stolen.
38. INSTIGATION- public officer or private detective induces an
innocent person to commit a crime and would arrest him upon or 56. REPARATION- in case of inability to return the property
after the commission of the crime by him. stolen, the culprit must pay the value of the property stolen.

39. ENTRAPMENT- a person has planned or is about to commit 57. APPEAL- a request to a higher (appellate) court for that court
crime and ways and means are resorted to by a public officer to to review and change the decision of a lower court
trap and catch the criminal; not a defense.
58. ASSAULT- a threat or use of force on another that causes that
40. ACCIDENT- any happening beyond control of persons, person to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful
consequences of which are not foreseeable. or offensive contact; the act of putting another person in
reasonable fear or apprehension of an immediate battery by
41. TREACHERY- when the offender commits any of the crime means of an act amounting to an attempt or threat to commit a
against the person , employing means, methods or forms in the battery.
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which 59. ACQUITTAL- a jury verdict that a criminal defendant is not
the offended party might make. guilty or the finding of a judge that the evidence is insufficient to
support a conviction.
42. IGNOMINY- moral suffering
60. BATTERY- the application of force to another, resulting in
43. CRUELTY- deliberate intention to prolong physical suffering harmful or offensive contact.
of the victim.
61. BRIBERY- The corrupt payment, receipt, or solicitation of a
44. HABITUAL DELINQUENCY- within 10 years from last release private favor for official action.
or last conviction of the crime of falsification, robbery, estafa, theft,
serious or less serious physical injuries, the offender is found 62. COUNTERFEITING- the forging, copying, or imitating of
guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. something (usually money) without a right to do so and with the
purpose of deceiving or defrauding.
45. RECIDIVISM- when the time of trial for one crime, shall have
been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime 63. TREASON- is a breach of allegiance to a government
embraced in the same title of the revised penal code. committed by a person who owes allegiance to it.

46. QUASI-RECIDIVISM- commits a felony after having been 64. ALLEGIANCE- is meant the obligation of fidelity and
convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such, or obedience which the individuals owe to the government under
while serving the same, shall be punished by maximum period of which they live or to their sovereign, in return for the protection
penalty prescribed by law for new felony. they receive.

47. REITARACION or HABITUALITY- accused is on trial for an 65. NEUTRALITY- a nation or power which takes no part in a
offense, he has previously serves sentence for another offense to contest of arms going on between others is referred to as neutral.
which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or 66. CORRESPONDENCE- is communication by means of letters,
more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the or it may refer to the letters which pass between those who have
new offense and that he is convicted of the new offense. friendly or business relations.

48. OFFENSE- is an act or omission that is punishable by special 67. DOCUMENT- is any written statement by which a right is
laws such as Republic Acts, Presidential Decrees, Executive established or an obligation extinguished. A document is a writing
Orders, Memorandum Circulars, Ordinances and Rules and or instrument by which a fact may be proven and affirmed.
Regulations.
68. PIRACY-it is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, 80. EXPULSION — The penalty of prison correccional shall be
without lawful authority and done with animo furandi and in the imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being
spirit and intention of universal hostility. thereunto authorized by law, shall expel any person from the
Philippine Islands or shall compel such person to change his
69. MUTINY- it is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or residence.
the raising of commotions and disturbances on board a ship
against the authority of its commander. 81. VIOLATION OF DOMICILE. — The penalty of prison
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
70. PROBABLE CAUSE- probable cause can be defined as such public officer or employee who, not being authorized by judicial
facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable discreet order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner
and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed thereof, search papers or other effects found therein without the
and that the object sought in connection with the offense are in previous consent of such owner, or having surreptitiously entered
the place sought to searched. said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, shall
refuse to do so.
71. SEARCH WARRANT- is an order in writing issued in the name
of the People of the Philippines signed by a judge and directed to 82. DWELLING- means any building or structure exclusively
a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property devoted for rest and comfort as distinguished from places devoted
described therein and bring it before the court. to business, offices, etc.

72. MISPRISION OF TREASON- every person owing allegiance 83. INHABITED HOUSE- is any shelter, ship or vessel constituting
to the government of the Philippine Islands, without being a the dwelling of one or more persons even though the inhabitants
foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy against them, thereof are temporarily.
conceals or does not disclose and make known the same, as soon
as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the mayor 84. PUBLIC BUILDING-is every building owned by the
or the fiscal of the city in which he resides. government or belonging to a private person but used or rented
by the government, although temporarily unoccupied by the same.
73. SEDITION- in its general sense, is the raising of commotions
or disturbances in the State. 85. PREMISES- premises signifies distinct and definite locality. It
may mean a room, shop, building or definite area, but in either
74. CHARIVARI-the term charivari includes a medley of case, locality is fixed.
discordant voices, a mock serenade of discordant noises made on
kettles, tins horns, etc.., designed to annoy and insult. 86. GRAVE THREATS- any person who shall threaten another
with the infliction upon the person, honor, or property of the latter
75.ESPIONAGE- Without authority therefor, enters a warship, or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime.
fort, or naval or military establishment or reservation to obtain any
information, plans, photographs, or other data of a confidential 87. UNJUST VEXATION- unjust vexation includes any human
nature relative to the defense of the Philippine Archipelago; or (2) conduct which, although not productive of some physical or
Being in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the material harm would, however, unjustly annoy or vex an innocent
articles, data, or information referred to in the preceding person.
paragraph, discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign
nation. 88. SEIZE- it means to place in the control of someone a thing or
to give him the possession thereof.
76. INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS.
— The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any 89. ROBBERY- is the taking of personal property belonging to
public officer or employee, and that of prison mayor upon any another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against, or
private individual, who, by unlawful or unauthorized acts provokes intimidation of any person, or using force upon things.
or gives occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the
Philippine Islands or exposes Filipino citizens to reprisals on their 90. FALSE KEYS- are genuine keys stolen from the owner or any
persons or property. keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock
forcibly opened by the offender.
77. VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY — The penalty of prison
correccional shall be inflicted upon anyone who, on the occasion 91. BRIGANDAGE- is a crime committed by more than three
of a war in which the Government is not involved, violates any armed persons who form a band of robbers for the purpose of
regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway or kidnapping persons for the
enforcing neutrality. purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom, or for any other purpose
to be attained by means of force and violence.
78. FLIGHT TO ENEMY’S COUNTRY. — The penalty of arresto
mayor shall be inflicted upon any person who, owing allegiance to 92. PHILIPPINE HIGHWAY- it shall refer to any road, street,
the Government, attempts to flee or go to an enemy country when passage, highway and bridges or other parts thereof, or railway or
prohibited by competent authority. railroad within the Philippines used by persons, or vehicles, or
locomotives or trains for the movement or circulation of persons
79. PIRACY IN GENERAL AND MUTINY ON THE HIGH SEAS or transportation of goods, articles, or property or both.
— The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be inflicted upon any
person who, on the high seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, 93. THEFT- theft is committed by any person who, with intent to
not being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor
seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, force upon things, shall take personal property of another without
or personal belongings of its complement or passengers. the latter’s consent.
94. FENCING- is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for 109. INFANTICIDE- the killing of any child less than three days of
himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, age, whether the killer is the parent or grandparent, any other
conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other relative of the child, or a stranger.
manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which
he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from 110. DUEL- it is a formal or regular combat previously concerted
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. between two parties in the presence of two or more seconds of
lawful age on each side, who make the selection of arms and fix
95. ENCUMBRANCE- the term incumbrancer includes every right all the other conditions of the fight.
or interest in the land which exists in favor of third persons.
111. MUTILATION- means the lopping or the clipping off of some
96. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF- malicious mischief is the willful part of the body.
damaging of another’s property for the sake of causing damage
due to hate, revenge or other evil motive. 112. DEFORMITY- is meant physical ugliness, permanent and
definite abnormality. It must be conspicuous ad visible.
97. ADULTERY- adultery is committed by any married woman
who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband 113. ARREST- A restraint on person, depriving one of his own will
and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of the law
be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.
114. PROOF- It refers to the accumulation of evidence sufficient
98. LEWD- lewd is designed as obscene, lustful, indecent, and to persuade the trial court.
lecherous. It signifies the form of immorality which has relation to
moral impurity; or that which is carried on a wanton manner. 115. QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE– the totality of evidence
presented for consideration
99. CONCUBINAGE- any husband who shall keep a mistress in
the conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under 116. QUANTUM OF PROOF – refers to the degree of proof
scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or required in order to arrive at a conclusion.
shall cohabit with her in any other place.
117. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE – the duty of a party of going
100. COHABIT- the term cohabit means to dwell together, in the forward with evidence.
manner of husband and wife, for some period of time, as 118. BURDEN OF PROOF – the duty of the affirmative to prove
distinguished from occasional, transient interviews for unlawful that which it alleges.
intercourse.
119. COLLATER MATTERS – matters other than the fact in issue
101. SEDUCTION- seduction means enticing a woman to and which are offered as a basis for inference as to the existence
unlawful sexual intercourse by promise of marriage or other or non-existence of the facts in issue.
means of persuasion without use of force.
"Dolo" implies deliberate intent. It is equivalent to malice. "Culpa"
102. ABDUCTION- is meant the taking away of a woman from her means fault, that is, there is no intent or malice. The wrongful act
house or the place where she may be for the purpose of carrying is the result of imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or lack of
her to another place with intent to marry or to corrupt her. foresight. A felony is committed by means of dolo or culpa and
must be voluntary.
103. BIGAMY- any person who shall contract a second or
subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally Crimes mala in se are those where the acts or omissions
dissolved, or before the former marriage has been legally penalized are inherently bad, evil, or wrong that they are almost
dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared universally condemned. Crimes mala prohibita are those where
presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the the acts penalized are not inherently bad, evil, or wrong but
proper proceedings. prohibited by law for public good, public welfare or interest and
whoever violates the prohibition are penalized.
104. LIBEL- is a defamation committed by means of writing,
printing, lithography, radio, phonograph, painting or theatrical or 1976 No
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means. , VII-a X and Y ran amuck on board a train and killed ten persons.
Four persons out of fear jumped out of the train while the same
105. SLANDER- slander is oral defamation, it is libel committed was running and died. Are X and Y liable for the deaths of the four
by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. The term oral persons who jumped out of the train? Reason.
defamation or slander as now understood, has been defined as
the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to Answer X and Y are also liable for the deaths of the four persons
prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or who jumped out of the train. By running amuck on board the train
means of livelihood. and killing ten persons, the acts committed by X and Y are
felonious and they are responsible for the direct, natural and
106. MISFEASANCE- is the improper performance of some act logical consequences thereof. (Art. 4, par. 1, RPC). These acts of
which might lawfully be done X and Y created fear in the minds of those four persons which
caused them to jump out of the running train which resulted in their
107. MALFEASANCE- is the performance of some act which deaths. The rule is that if a man creates in another man's mind an
ought not to be done. immediate sense of danger which cause such person to try to
escape and in so doing injures himself, the person who creates
108. NONFEASANCE-is the omission of some act which ought to such state of mind is responsible for the injuries which result.
be performed. (People vs. Toling)
Any person performing a felonious act is criminally liable for the A shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of robbery with
direct, natural and logical consequence thereof although different homicide, but B shall not incur criminal liability because he
from what he intended. desisted. B's spontaneous desistance, made before all acts of
execution are performed, is exculpatory. Conspiracy to rob and kill
Art 4; Impossible crimes 1976 No is not per se punishable. The desistance need not be actuated by
. IX-a X, a domestic servant of Y has been nurturing a grudge remorse or good motive. It is enough that the discontinuance
against him for long. One day, while Y was seated on his favorite comes from the person who has begun the commission of the
rocking chair, X suddenly fired a volley of shots towards Y. It crime but before all acts of execution are performed. A person who
turned out, however, that Y has been dead from a severe stroke has began the commission of a crime but desisted, is absolved
an hour ago. For what crime can X be held liable? Reasons. from criminal liability as a reward to one, who having set foot on
the verge of crime, heeds the call of his conscience and returns to
Answer X is liable for an impossible crime of murder. The reason the path of righteousness.
is the inherent impossibility of killing Y since he has been dead
due to a severe stroke one hour before X shot him. The acts of ARTICLE 6
execution would have been a crime against persons were it not
for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment. (Art. 4, par. X is not liable for frustrated parricide. Although he has already
12, RPC). Subjectively, X is a criminal although objectively, no performed all the acts of execution to kill his wife, because she ate
crime is committed. X cannot be liable for trespass to dwelling the food with poison which he gave her, she however did not die
because being a domestic servant, his entrance to the house of Y due to the medicine which he administered, after she became
cannot be against the will of the latter. unconscious and because his conscience bothered him. The
death of the wife, therefore, did not result due to a cause which
Liability for impossible crime arises not only when the impossibility depended upon the voluntary will of X. In a frustrated felony, the
is legal, but likewise when it is factual or physical impossibility, as offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce
in the case at bar. Elsa's absence from the house is a physical the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not
impossibility which renders the crime intended inherently produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
incapable of accomplishment. To convict the accused of perpetrator.
attempted murder would make Art. 4, par. 2 practically useless as
all circumstances which prevented the consummation of the
offense will be treated as an incident independent of the actor's X and Y had a heated altercation and then exchanged blows. X
will which is an element of attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs. pulled out a knife and stabbed Y in the abdomen. Y ran away but
CA, 215 SCRA 52) before he could reach his house was struck by lightning and died.
The Fiscal filed homicide against X. Decide.
POISON:
Answer X is not liable for homicide but for the crime constituting
No, the answer would not be the same as above. Jerry and Buddy the stabbing of Y in the abdomen. Since the injury was mortal, the
would be liable instead for less serious physical injuries for liability of X is for frustrated homicide. The death of the victim was
causing the hospitalization and medical attendance for 10 days to caused by the lightning which struck him. Altho a felony was
Jun. Their act of mixing with the food eaten by Jun the matter committed by X such was not the direct and proximate cause of
which required such medical attendance, committed with criminal the death of Y. The lightning was an efficient intervening cause
intent, renders them liable for the resulting injury. (People vs. Rockwell, 39 Mich. 503). The rational of the rule is that
the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused (People vs.
An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against Ural, 56 SCRA 138).
person or property, were if not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate ARTICLE 7
or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC),
Light felonies, according to Article 7 of the Revised Penal Code
No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-called are punishable "only when they have been consummated, with the
because the act gives rise to criminal liability. But actually, no exception of those committed against persons or property."
felony is committed. The accused is to be punished for his criminal
tendency or propensity although no crime was committed. ARTICLE 8

Yes. A, B. C and D are liable for destructive arson because of the Simultaneous firing: There is conspiracy among the accused X, Y
destruction of the room of X with the use of an explosive, the hand and Z. The fact that the three fired almost simultaneously at the
grenade. Liability for an impossible crime is to be imposed only if principal victim shows that they have acted in concert pursuant to
the act committed would not constitute any other crime under the a common criminal objective. (Define conspiracy). There is,
Revised Penal Code. Although the facts involved are parallel to therefore, a unity of action and intention (People v.San Luis, 86
the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52), where it Phil 485), To establish conspiracy, proof of previous agreement is
was ruled that the liability of the offender was for an impossible not necessary. It is enough that if at the time of the commission of
crime, no hand grenade was used in said case, which constitutes the crime, all the accused have the same purpose and were united
a more serious crime though different from what was intended. in its execution.
Mere "simultaneousness" of acts does not of itself indicate A qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of a crime when
concurrence of will nor the unity of action and purpose, which are it is specifically stated by law as included in the definition of a
the basis of the opportunity of two or more persons. They have crime, like treachery in the crime of murder.
not acted conceitedly for the realization of a common criminal
objective. Requisites of exempting circumstance of accident:

Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando 1. A person is performing a lawful act;
committed complex crime of Robbery with Rape, Conspiracy can 2. With due care;
be inferred from the manner the offenders committed the robbery 3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
but the rape was committed by Fernando at a place "distant from 4. without fault or intention of causing it
the house" where the robbery was committed, not in the presence
of the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone should answer M-16 is a high-powered gun/ illegal possession of firearms,
for the rape, rendering him liable for the special complex crime.
(People vs. Canturia) MINORITY:

The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more persons No, John is not criminally liable for killing Petra because he is only
participating in the commission of a crime collectively responsible 8 years old when he committed the killing. A minor below nine (9)
and liable as co-conspirators although absent any agreement to years old is absolutely exempt from criminal liability although not
that effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of from civil liability.
criminal intent and a common purpose or objective. The existence
of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal RPC: Minority as an accused:
participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be
deemed the act of all. (a) In the determination of is criminal liability
(b) In the determination of the degree of his culpability I
Euthanasia is not a justifying circumstance in Philippine (c) n the imposition of penalties upon him
jurisdiction.
Hilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
FULFILLMENT OF DUTY: Injury or offense committed be the The crux of the Issue is whether the fact that Hilario went home after
unavoidable or necessary consequence of the due performance the incident, but came down and met the police officers and went with
of the duty. them is considered "Voluntary surrender," The voluntariness of
surrender is tested if the same is spontaneous showing the intent of
The means employed by X in firing several shots at the thieves the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities.
was not reasonable as there was no attack upon the person of the
owner of the drugstore or of any person present therein. Nor can A surrender by an offender is considered voluntary when it is
there be defense of the person of a stranger since unlawful spontaneous, indicative of an intent to submit unconditionally to the
authorities.
aggression is absent.
ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCE:
ILLICIT RELATION: No unlawful aggression (his act was natural
and lawful as it was made by a deceived and offended husband. If I were the judge, I would hold X criminally liable. Loss of control of
The act of Dante in maintaining illicit relations with the wife of his X as a result of the administration of the valium is not an exempting
compadre was unlawful) circumstances since there is no deprivation of freedom of action nor
of intelligence. At most X would be entitled to a mitigating
Although the wrong done be different from that intended" circumstance analogous to passion or illness since there is loss of self-
contemplates the commission of a felony and the wrong done is control and reason.
the direct, natural and logical consequence thereof even though
not intended. SPECIAL LAW:

CARNAL: Una's claim that she acted in defense of honor, is not The plea of guilty cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance.
tenable because the unlawful aggression on her honor had Alleged possession of a firearm is punished by a special law. The
already ceased. Defense of honor as included in self-defense, imposition of the penalty provided in a special law rests upon the
must have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. discretion of the court. The pleas of guilty as a mitigating circumstance
under the Revised Penal Code is appreciated only in a divisible
There is no defense to speak of where the unlawful aggression no
penalty.
longer exists.
IMMEDIATE VINDICATION:
Patrolman Josue will not incur any criminal liability. He can
invoked in his favor mistake of facts due to good faith. Under the Instead, the circumstances of passion or obfuscation should be
circumstances, Patrolman Josue shot the victim in the honest considered. Benito should be charged with frustrated homicide with
belief that he was the notorious police-killer whom they were the mitigating circumstances of passion.
chasing until he entered a dimly lighted warehouse. In the
mezzanine of the warehouse, Patrolman Josue saw a man No, her claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because
crouching behind a pile of boxes holding what appeared to be a the aggression on her honor had ceased when she stabbed the
long rifle. The patrolman fired at the man when he suddenly stood aggressor (ARTICLE 11).
up and faced him. He had no opportunity to verify first the identity
of the victim before acting. He acted, therefore, without criminal Enyong is not criminally liable because he was acting in defense of
intent and had the facts turned out to be true, as Patrolman Josue property rights. Under the case of People v. Narvaez (G.R Nos. L-
believed them to be, that is, that the victim was the notorious 33466-67, April 20, 1983, 121 SCRA 389} defense of property need
police-killer, that act committed would be lawful. not necessarily be coupled with aggression against persons.
PAPUTOK: Cruelty requires deliberate prolongation of suffering of the victim. The
number of wounds in itself does not show cruelty as it is essential to
Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of attempted prove that the wounds were inflicted unnecessarily while the victim
murder with homicide because a single act caused a less grave and a was alive to prolong his physical suffering. In cruelty, the wrong done
grave felony. in the commission of the crime is deliberately augmented by causing
other wrongs not necessary in the commission of the crime.
DEFENSE: That Jonas committed the crime in a state of intoxication
thereby impairing his will power or capacity to understand the Cruelty; relationship
wrongfulness of his act. Non-intentional intoxication is a mitigating
circumstance. Cruelty, for burning the victim's face with a lighted cigarrete, thereby
deliberately augmenting the victim's suffering by acts clearly
2 YEARS: unnecessary to the rape, while the offender delighted and enjoyed
seeing the victim suffer in pain
Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in favor of the accused.
Two years is too long a time to consider the surrender as spontaneous Relationship, because the offended party is a descendant (daughter)
(People us. Ablao, 183 SCRA 658). For sure the government had of the offender and considering that the crime is one against chastity.
already incurred considerable efforts and expenses in looking for the
accused.
A generic aggravating circumstance can be offset by an ordinary
Plea of guilty can no longer be appreciated as a mitigating mitigating circumstance which is not so in qualifying circumstance.
circumstance because the prosecution had already started with the
presentation of its evidence. A qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be proved as such
unless alleged in the information whereas a generic aggravating
circumstance may be proved even though not alleged.
Jeprox is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender as his going to the police station was only for the purpose A generic aggravating circumstance increases the penalty to the
of verification of the news that he is wanted by the authorities. In order maximum hut not beyond that provided by law, whereas a qualifying
to be mitigating, surrender must be spontaneous and that he aggravating circumstance changes the nature and even the name of
acknowledges his guilt. the offense to one more serious.

Neither is plea of guilty a mitigating circumstances because it was FRAT:

qualified plea; besides, Art. 13, par. 7 provides that confession of guilt
must be done before the prosecution had started to present evidence. Pocholo should be convicted of the crime of homicide only because
_____________ the aggravating circumstances which should qualify the crime to
murder were not alleged in the Information.

If I were the Fiscal, I would allege as an aggravating circumstance that

the crime was committed with abuse of confidence. Evidently, S was FAURA INCIDENT:
taken in as a boarder by the spouses M and W because he was their
townmate. Such engendered trust and confidence in the relationship No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
of the Spouses with S. By committing adultery with W, abuse of because there is no indication that the offenders deliberately sought
confidence was availed of by S in the commission of the crime, since the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime or that
he took advantage of the favorable position in which he was placed by they took advantage of nighttime (People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA
the injured party as boarder in their house. 707). Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Padre Faura
Street is well-lighted. In a recent Supreme Court decision, stones or
Dwelling cannot be alleged as an aggravating circumstance because rocks are considered deadly weapons.
the wife and the paramour were living in the same house where they
had a right to be. C: Frustrated homicide\\

______________ Only against C. The reason is homicide for which A, B and C were
found guilty is embraced in the same title of the Code as frustrated
ART. 14 ABUSE OF STRENGTH homicide, for which C had been previously convicted. Recidivism is a
personal cause which should affect only C to whom it is attendant.
There is no abuse of superior strength since A participated in the
commission of the crime as principal and B and C as accomplices. NIGHT TIME:
This is inconsistent, since the offenders did not take advantage of their
combined strength in the commission of the crime. The crime committed is acts of lasciviousness. Stealthily kissing,
embracing and fondling the breast of complainant and raising her
dress constitute lewd or lascivious acts.
Abuse of superior strength and dwelling. There is abuse of superior
strength because the girl was defenseless since she was unarmed
and A was armed with a hunting knife, which is a deadly weapon. The
abuse of superiority of A lies in his sex and the weapon he used, from
which the woman would be unable to defend herself (U.S. u.
Consuelo, 13 Phil. 612). Dwelling is also an aggravating circumstance
because the girl was attacked in her room. The facts of the problem
do not show that she has given any provocation
PARTY: Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, is an accessory to the crime of
murder committed by Rodolfo because he assisted him to escape to
The intoxication was not habitual as A was not used to liquor. He only Manila. But he is not criminally liable because of his relationship to
became drunk during a party and so the intoxication was not Rodolfo (Article 20). He is not an accessory to the crime of homicide,
subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. It is not exempting but an because this crime is not included in treason, parricide, murder,
alternative mitigating circumstance. Since intoxication involves attempt against the life of the Chief Executive or the principal is known
loss of reason and self-control, A could not have any intention to kill to be habitually guilty of some other crime if the accessory is a private
his wife. A is liable for parricide. The mitigating circumstances of person. However, this is moot and academic because of the
intoxication and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that relationship of Jose to Rodolfo.
which resulted cannot, however, be appreciated in his favor to lower ________________
the penalty by one degree because the penalty for parricide consists
of two single and indivisible penalties which are reclusion perpetua MANOK NA PULA:
to death pursuant to Art. 15, RPC.
_________________ If I were the fiscal, I would file two separate informations against Emilio
and Andres, one for homicide with Emilio as principal and Andres as
INVITATION TO SPREE: accessory, and another for theft against both Emilio and Andres as
principals. This is so because of the following reasons:
The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered mitigating since
it was merely incidental to the commission of the crime. It may not be 1. The killing of Asiong by Emilio is homicide. It is not attended by any
considered aggravating as there is no clear indication from the facts qualifying circumstance of murder. It was a killing at the spur of the
of the case that it was habitual or intentional on the part of A. moment, in the course of a bolo fight, as an aftermath of a heated
Aggravating circumstances are not to be presumed; they should be discussion.
proved beyond reasonable doubt pursuant to Art. 15, RPC.
_________________ 2. Neither was the killing by reason of or on the occasion of a robbery.
There was no intention of either Emilio or Andres to rob Asiong either
BOAT ISOLATED ISLAND: prior to or in the course of the killing. The taking of Asiong's P600 was
only an AFTERTHOUGHT, after the killing was already perpetrated.
X is a principal by inducement. By promising to give Y P10.00 to kill There is no causal or other connection between the act of killing and
Z, which is an agreement for a consideration, the inducement was the act of taking the money-
made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the
crime. 3. Andres is liable as an accessory in the homicide case because he
had no participation either as co-principal or accomplice in the killing
Y is a principal by direct participation because he killed Z pursuant of Asiong who died solely because of the wounds inflicted on him in
to the inducement or agreement for a consideration and he, therefore, his bolo-fight with Emilio, the principal.
personally took part in the execution of the act constituting the crime.
4. With respect to the taking of the P600.00 which Emilio and Andres
W is neither a principal nor an accomplice. The facts of the problem divided between themselves, they committed the crime of theft as co-
do not show that W has any knowledge of the criminal design nor principals.
purpose of Y. _______________
____________________
ARSON:
KIDNAPPING:
Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the crime of destructive arson
X has no criminal liability. She is not a principal because she did not because they collectively caused the destruction of property by means
take part in the commission of the act, or induce another to commit, or of fire under the circumstances which exposed to danger the life or
cooperated in the commission of the offense by another act without property of others.
which it will not have been accomplished. Neither is she an accomplice
because she did not cooperate in the execution of the offense by Tata is a principal by inducement because she directly induced Yoboy
previous or simultaneous acts. She is not also an accessory because, and Yongsi, for a price or monetary consideration, to commit arson
although she harbored, or concealed or assisted in the escape of the which the latter would not have committed were it not for such reason.
principal, the crime is not treason, parricide, murder or an attempt to Yoboy and Yongsi are principals by direct participation.
take the life of the Chief Executive or the author thereof is known to _________________
be habitually guilty of same other crime (Art, 19 (3): R.P.C.)
________________ LAW STUDENT

LAND DISPUTE: Mario is a principal by inducement. By promising to give P50,000.00

to Dalmacio, which is an agreement for a consideration for the purpose
Rodolfo committed murder regarding the killing of Pedro since Pedro of avenging his brother's death the inducement was made directly with
was attacked from behind. The killing was attended by the qualifying the intention of procuring the commission of the crime. Furthermore,
circumstance of treachery. The mode of attack deprived Pedro of any the facts show that Dalmacio has no personal reason to kill Pedro
chance to defend himself or to retaliate. Rodolfo is also liable for except the inducement, which is therefore the determining cause for
homicide regarding the killing of Carling, Pedro's son as that is the the commission of the crime by Dalmacio.
result of a fight, both of them being armed with bolos.
Mario's change of mind and heart at the last minute, which did not,
Although Pedro died five days later, since the blood purchased which after all, prevent the consummation of the crime, because it was too
would have saved him did not arrive on time, Rodolfo is still liable for late, does not alter the course of his criminal liability as a co-principal
the death of Pedro as that is the direct, natural and logical result of the by inducement. Desistance from carrying out a criminal design is no
wound inflicted by him. defense if such desistance has not actually and successfully
prevented the commission of the crime.
Juan, the brother of Rodolfo, has no criminal liability. What he shouted
to Rodolfo "Kill them both, they are our enemies," when Rodolfo and
Carling were fighting, was not the only reason why Carling was killed;
and hence, he cannot be a principal by inducement.
CHIEF OF POLICE: King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single
indivisible offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. ...
B is not guilty as an accessory to the crime of murder committed by
his son whom he concealed to evade arrest and prosecution. The Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of the commission
reason is B is a relative of A and under Art. 20 of the Revised Penal of the crime and obviously to conceal the body of the crime to prevent
Code is exempt from criminal liability as an accessory except if he its discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape with
profited or assisted the offender to profit from the effects of the homicide under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev. Penal Code, but he is
commission of the crime, B, however, should be guilty of exempt from criminal liability therefor under Article 20 of the Code,
prevarication or dereliction of duty for having failed maliciously to being an adopted brother of the principal.
institute the prosecution for the punishment of A, his son, whom he
knew to have committed a crime as B is an officer of the law charged Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft
with the prosecution of offenses. committed by King, or as fence. Although he is a legitimate brother of
_____________ King, the exemption under Article 20 does not include the participation
he did, because he profited from the effects of such theft by selling the
ACCOMPLICE: jewelry knowing that the same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may be
prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (PD No.
L is not liable as an accomplice. An accomplice must be aware of the 1612) since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to
criminal design of the principal and must perform acts, whether gain, he received it from King and sold it.
previous or simultaneous, showing his approval or concurrence to said ___________
criminal design.
______________ GOVT. TYPEWRITER

GRUDGE: Rodolfo is not liable for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law as this law
refers only to the buy and sell of articles of value which are the
No. A would not be liable as a principal by inducement because the proceeds of robbery and theft, Rodolfo is liable as an accessory to the
reward he promised B is not the sole impelling reason which made B crime of malversation as he purchased the typewriter for P2, 000
to kill C. To bring about criminal liability of a co-principal, the each only although he knew it could easily be sold for P6, 000, to P10,
inducement made by the inducer must be the sole consideration which 000, Therefore he profited or assisted the principal to profit from the
caused the person induced to commit the crime and without which the effects or proceeds of the commission of the crime.
crime would not have been committed. The facts of the case indicate
that 0, the killer supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to kill
C out of a long standing grudge.
_______________

SARDINES:

Art 19. Conviction of principal before conviction of accessory

It is not necessary that the principal be first found guilty before the
accessory can be held liable provided the evidence is clear as to the
commission of the crime. What is controlling is the Spanish text of the
Revised Penal Code which provides that the principal "may be" found
guilty and not the English translation which speaks of the author being
"guilty" of treason, parricide, murder, etc.

If I were the counsel of Dimas, I would maintain that he could not be

liable as an accessory to the crime of homicide attributed to Bobot
because he had no knowledge of its commission.

Regarding the violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, he can maintain that

he bought the tins of sardines in good faith without any knowledge that
these were the proceeds of the crime of theft.

Dimas will be liable for fencing as he bought the tins of sardines

without inquiring from Aber where he got the sardines and under the
circumstances he could have known that those were the proceeds of
the crime of theft. He bought them with intent to gain as in fact he sold
them for a profit. (impliedly, he is not liable as an accessory)
______________

FENCING:

A is liable for the offense of fencing. The reason is A with intent to gain
for himself, received, possessed and kept an article or object of value
which he knew to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime
of robbery. (Presidential Decree No. 1612) Money is an article of
value.