You're currently signed in as:
User
by Tristan

Criminal Law 1

Definition of Criminal Law

  1. ORLANDO L. SALVADOR v. PLACIDO L. MAPA, GR No. 135080, 2007-11-28

  2. ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE, GR No. 151258, 2012-02-01

  3. NORMA DE JOYA v. THE JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY, GR Nos. 159418-19, 2003-12-10
    Philippine penal law is based on the Spanish penal code and has adopted features of the positivist theory of criminal law.  The positivist theory states that the basis for criminal liability... is the sum total of the social and economic phenomena to which the offense is expressed.  The adoption of the aspects of the theory is exemplified by the indeterminate sentence law, Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (impossible crime), Article 68 and Articles

11 to 14, not to mention Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code (penalties for heinous and quasi-heinous crimes).  Philippine penal law looks at the convict as a member of society.  Among the important factors to be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed on... him are (1) his relationship towards his dependents, family and their relationship with him; and (2) his relationship towards society at large and the State.  The State is concerned not only in the imperative necessity of protecting the social organization against the... criminal acts of destructive individuals but also in redeeming the individual for economic usefulness and other social ends.[15] The purpose of penalties is to secure justice.  The penalties imposed must not only be retributive but must also be... reformative, to give the convict an opportunity to live a new life and rejoin society as a productive and civic-spirited member of the community.  The court has to consider not only the primary elements of punishment, namely, the moral responsibility of the convict, the... relation of the convict to the private complainant, the intention of the convict, the temptation to the act or the excuse for the crime - was it done by a rich man in the insolence of his wealth or by a poor man in the extremity of his need?  The court must also take into... account the secondary elements of punishment, namely, the reformation of the offender, the prevention of further offenses by the offender, the repression of offenses in others.[16] As Rousseau said, crimes can be thoroughly repressed only by a system of... penalties which, from the benignity they breathe, serve rather than to soften than to inflame those on whom they are imposed.[17] There is also merit in the view that punishment inflicted beyond the merit of the offense is so much punishment of... innocence.[18]

Sources of Philippine Criminal Law

1. Revised Penal Code
2. Special Penal Laws

Construction of penal laws

  1. PEOPLE v. LUZVIMINDA S. VALDEZ, GR Nos. 216007-09, 2015-12-08

  2. LITO CORPUZ v. PEOPLE, GR No. 180016, 2014-04-29

  3. DANTE BUEBOS v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 163938, March 28, 2008

  4. JAMES IENT & MAHARLIKA SCHULZE v. TULLETT PREBON (PHILIPPINES), GR No. 189158, 2017-01-11
    Forum shopping is an act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It may also involve the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[41] There is no forum shopping where the suits involve different causes of action or different reliefs.

Difference between acts Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita

  1. DANDY L. DUNGO & GREGORIO A. SIBAL v. PEOPLE, GR No. 209464, 2015-07-01
    Criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called acts mala in se; and acts which would ot be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them, called acts mala prohibita. This distinction is important with reference to the intent with... which a wrongful act is done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated? When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial.[64] When the doing of an act is prohibited by law, it is considered injurious to public welfare, and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.[65]

A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are provided by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may be mala in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder under

R.A. No. 7080, as amended.[66]

Similarly, there may be mala prohibita crimes defined in the RPC, such as technical malversation.[67]

The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or vileness of the penalized act. If the punishable act or omission is immoral in itself, then it is a crime mala in se; on the... contrary, if it is not immoral in itself, but there is a statute prohibiting its commission by reasons of public policy, then it is mala prohibita. In the final analysis, whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently... depends on all the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute.[68]

Recognizing the malum prohibitum characteristic of hazing, the law provides that any person charged with the said crime shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong.[87] Also, the framers... of the law intended that the consent of the victim shall not be a defense in hazing.

  1. DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM v. PEOPLE, GR Nos. 221849-50, 2016-04-04

  2. ABS-CBN CORPORATION v. FELIPE GOZON, GR No. 195956, 2015-03-11

CHARACTERISTICS OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW

1. Generality

Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. (Article 14, New Civil Code)

  1. WILLIAM C. REAGAN v. CIR, GR No. L-26379, 1969-12-27

  2. JEFFREY LIANG v. PEOPLE, GR No. 125865, 2000-01-28
    Fourth, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent, assuming petitioner is such, enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the... diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official functions.[5] As already mentioned above, the commission of a crime is not part of official duty

  3. LT. ARTURO PASCUA v. GEN. NARCISO ABAYA, GR NO. 164007, 2006-08-10

  4. KHOSROW MINUCHER v. CA, GR No. 142396, 2003-02-11

2. Territoriality (Article 2 of the RPC)

The provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone.

  1. US v. H. N. BULL, GR No. 5270, 1910-01-15
    Every  state has  complete  control and jurisdiction over its territorial waters.

  2. US v. LOOK CHAW , GR No. 5887, 1910-12-16

  3. PEOPLE v. WONG CHENG , GR No. 18924, 1922-10-19
    18924

But to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the public order here established, because it causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our territory. .It seriously contravenes the purpose... that our Legislature has in mind in enacting the aforesaid repressive statute.

  1. US v. AH SING, GR No. 13005, 1917-10-10
    any person unlawfully imports or brings any prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands, when the prohibited drug is found under this person's control on a vessel which has come direct from a foreign country and is... within the jurisdictional limits of the Philippine Islands.

  2. US. v. WILLIAM FOWLER ET AL., GR No. 496, 1902-12-31

Exceptions:

  1. PEOPLE v. LOL-LO, GR No. 17958, 1922-02-27
    The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits. As it is against all so may it be... punished by all. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state, "for those limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes.

  2. PEOPLE v. ROGER P. TULIN, GR No. 111709, 2001-08-30

3. Prospectivity

No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission. (Article 21, Revised Penal Code)

  1. PEOPLE v. RICKY HIJADA, GR No. 123696, 2004-03-11

  2. PEOPLE v. ALFONSO PATALIN, GR No. 125539, 1999-07-27

  3. PEOPLE v. ROMAN DERILO, GR No. 117818, 1997-04-18

  4. PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO SANTOS, GR No. 93520, 1994-12-01

Effects of repeal/amendment of penal law

  1. ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. CA, GR No. 125359, 2001-09-04

  2. PEOPLE v. GERONIMA SINDIONG DE PASTOR, GR No. 335, 1947-02-12

  3. PEOPLE v. FLORENTINO BRACAMONTE, GR No. 95939, 1996-06-17

  4. US v. EL CHINO CUNA, GR No. 4504, 1908-12-15

Article 3 of the RPC

Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).

  1. PEOPLE v. FAUSTA GONZALES, GR NO. 80762, 1990-03-19

  2. ROLLIE CALIMUTAN v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 152133, 2006-02-09

  3. ROSALINDA S. KHITRI v. PEOPLE, GR No. 210192, 2016-07-04

  4. EDUARDO P. MANUEL v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 165842, 2005-11-29
    Thus, before the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage, he or she must... institute summary proceedings for the declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee spouse,[45]... without prejudice to the effect of the reappearance of the absentee spouse.

In contrast, under the 1988 Family Code, in order that a subsequent bigamous marriage may exceptionally be considered valid, the following conditions must concur, viz.: (a) The prior spouse of the contracting party must have been absent for four... consecutive years, or two years where there is danger of death under the circumstances stated in Article 391 of the Civil Code at the time of disappearance; (b) the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead; and (c) there is, unlike the old... rule, a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the absentee for which purpose the spouse present can institute a summary proceeding in court to ask for that declaration.  The last condition is consistent and in consonance with the requirement of judicial intervention... in subsequent marriages as so provided in Article 41, in relation to Article 40, of the Family Code.

the declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose the taking of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee.

a judicial declaration that a person is presumptively dead, because he or she had been unheard... from in seven years, being a presumption juris tantum only, subject to contrary proof, cannot reach the stage of finality or become final; and that proof of actual death of the person presumed dead being unheard from in seven years, would have to be made in another... proceeding to have such particular fact finally determined.  The Court ruled that if a judicial decree declaring a person presumptively dead because he or she had not been heard from in seven years cannot become final and executory even after the lapse of the reglementary... period within which an appeal may be taken, for such presumption is still disputable and remains subject to contrary proof, then a petition for such a declaration is useless, unnecessary, superfluous and of no benefit to the petitioner.

  1. ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE, GR No. 151258, 2014-12-01

  2. PEOPLE v. ANACITO OPURAN, GR Nos. 147674-75, 2004-03-17

  3. PEOPLE v. ROMANA SILVESTRE, GR No. 35748, 1931-12-14
    Mere passive presence at the scene of another's crime, mere  silence and  failure to give the alarm, without evidence of agreement  or conspiracy, do... not constitute the cooperation required by  article 14 of the Penal  Code for complicity  in  the commission of the crime witnessed passively, or with regard to which one has kept silent

Dolo or malice

  1. ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE, GR No. 151258, 2012-02-01

  2. PEOPLE v. CORA ABELLA OJEDA, GR Nos. 104238-58, 2004-06-03

Culpa or fault

  1. JUANITO LIM v. CA, GR No. 100311, 1993-05-18

  2. PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO SARA, GR No. 34140, 1931-08-15

Culpa: crime (Art. 365) or a mode of committing a crime (Art. 3).

Motive and intent

Motive is the moving power that impels one to action for a definite result, while intent is the purpose of using a particular means to produce the result.

  1. ROSALINDA S. KHITRI v. PEOPLE, GR No. 210192, 2016-07-04

  2. PEOPLE v. MARLON DELIM, GR No. 142773, 2003-01-28

Mistake of fact

A mistake of fact is a misapprehension of a fact which, if true, would have justified the act or omission which is the subject of the prosecution.

  1. SALVADOR YAPYUCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR Nos. 120744-46, 2012-06-25

  2. US v. AH CHONG, GR No. 5272, 1910-03-19
    Since evil intent is in general an  inseparable element in every crime, any  such mistake of fact as shows  the act committed to have proceeded from  no sort  of evil  in the mind necessarily relieves the actor from  criminal liability,... provided  always there is no fault or negligence  on his part;

  • A mistake of fact will exempt a person from criminal liability so long as the alleged ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith.
  1. PEOPLE v. ANTONIO Z. OANIS, GR No. 47722, 1943-07-27

  2. EDUARDO L. BAXINELA v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 149652, 2006-03-24

Mistake of Fact vs. Mistake of Law

As a general rule, mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo; such defense negates malice or criminal intent. However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

  1. EDUARDO P. DIEGO v. JUDGE SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO, AM No. RTJ-02-1673, 2004-08-11

  2. EDUARDO P. MANUEL v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 165842, 2005-11-29
    Thus, before the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage, he or she must... institute summary proceedings for the declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee spouse,[45]... without prejudice to the effect of the reappearance of the absentee spouse.

In contrast, under the 1988 Family Code, in order that a subsequent bigamous marriage may exceptionally be considered valid, the following conditions must concur, viz.: (a) The prior spouse of the contracting party must have been absent for four... consecutive years, or two years where there is danger of death under the circumstances stated in Article 391 of the Civil Code at the time of disappearance; (b) the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead; and (c) there is, unlike the old... rule, a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the absentee for which purpose the spouse present can institute a summary proceeding in court to ask for that declaration.  The last condition is consistent and in consonance with the requirement of judicial intervention... in subsequent marriages as so provided in Article 41, in relation to Article 40, of the Family Code.

the declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose the taking of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee.

a judicial declaration that a person is presumptively dead, because he or she had been unheard... from in seven years, being a presumption juris tantum only, subject to contrary proof, cannot reach the stage of finality or become final; and that proof of actual death of the person presumed dead being unheard from in seven years, would have to be made in another... proceeding to have such particular fact finally determined.  The Court ruled that if a judicial decree declaring a person presumptively dead because he or she had not been heard from in seven years cannot become final and executory even after the lapse of the reglementary... period within which an appeal may be taken, for such presumption is still disputable and remains subject to contrary proof, then a petition for such a declaration is useless, unnecessary, superfluous and of no benefit to the petitioner.

Article 4 of the RPC (Criminal Liability)

A person committing a felony is criminally liable although the consequences of his felonious act are not intended by him.

  1. PEOPLE v. ROLLY ADRIANO, GR No. 205228, 2015-07-15

  2. PEOPLE v. FERNANDO ILIGAN, GR No. 75369, 1990-11-26

  3. PEOPLE v. LYNDON FLORES, GR No. 116524, 1996-01-18

  4. PEOPLE v. NOEL T. SALES, GR No. 177218, 2011-10-03

  5. RO O SEGURITAN v. PEOPLE, GR No. 172896, 2010-04-19

  6. FILOMENO URBANO v. IAC, GR No. 72964, 1998-01-07

  7. PEOPLE v. JULIO GUILLEN, GR No. L-1477, 1950-01-18

  8. THE PEOPLE OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. DONATO BINDOY, GR No. 34665, 1931-08-28

Mistake in the identity error in personae

  1. PEOPLE v. DANIEL PINTO, GR No. L-39519, 1991-11-21

  2. PEOPLE v. CIRILO MAGALONA, GR No. 143294, 2003-07-17
    Where such... unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence.[74]

Where malice or intention to cause injury exists, the act should be qualified by the felony it has produced.

  1. PEOPLE v. PABLO AMODIA, GR No. 173791, 2009-04-07

Mistake in the blow aberratio ictus

Aberratio ictus means mistake in the blow and is characterized by aiming at one but hitting the other due to imprecision in the blow.

  1. PEOPLE v. ROLLY ADRIANO, GR No. 205228, 2015-07-15

  2. VIRGILIO TALAMPAS v. PEOPLE, GR No. 180219, 2011-11-23
    Talampas' poor aim... amounted to aberratio ictus, or mistake in the blow, a circumstance that neither exempted him from criminal responsibility nor mitigated his criminal liability.

Injurious result is greater than that intended praeter intentionem

  1. PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO CAGOCO, GR No. 38511, 1933-10-06

  2. PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, GR No. 116736, 1997-07-24

  3. PEOPLE v. GREGORIO REYES, GR No. 42117, 1935-03-29

  4. PEOPLE v. STANLEY BUENAMER, GR No. 206227, 2016-08-31

  5. MARIA PAZ FRONTRERAS v. PEOPLE, GR No. 190583, 2015-12-07

  6. PEOPLE v. INOGENTES MOLDES, GR No. 42122, 1934-12-01

  7. PEOPLE v. JAIME TOMOTORGO, GR No. L-47941, 1985-04-30

Doctrine of Proximate cause

Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury and without which the result would not have occurred.

  1. SALUD VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BATACLAN v. MARIANO MEDINA, GR No. L-10126, 1957-10-22

  2. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RAYMUNDO, GR No. 208672, 2016-12-07

  3. RODEL URBANO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 182750, 2009-01-20

  4. SABINIANO DUMAYAG v. urPEOPLE, GR No. 172778, 2012-11-26

  5. RO O SEGURITAN v. PEOPLE, GR No. 172896, 2010-04-19

  6. PEOPLE v. ORLITO VILLACORTA, GR No. 186412, 2011-09-07

  7. FILOMENO URBANO v. IAC, GR No. 72964, 1998-01-07

Impossible Crimes

  1. SULPICIO INTOD v. CA, GR No. 103119, 1992-10-21

  2. PEOPLE v. PABLITO DOMASIAN, GR No. 95322, 1993-03-01

  3. GEMMA T. JACINTO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 162540, 2009-07-13

  4. PEOPLE v. NICASIO ENOJA, GR No. 102596, 1999-12-17

  5. FELIX CARREON v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE BRUNO R. FLORES, Adm. Case No. 111-MJ, 1975-05-30

STAGES OF EXECUTION (Article 6 of the RPC)

Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

Preparatory acts

As a rule, preparatory acts are not punishable under the Revised Penal Code for as long as they remained equivocal or of uncertain significance, because by their equivocality no one could determine with certainty what the perpetrator's intent really was.

  1. PEOPLE v. FREEDIE LIZADA, GR No. 143468-71, 2003-01-24

  2. NORBERTO CRUZ v. PEOPLE, GR No. 166441, 2014-10-08

  3. PEOPLE v. MARCELINO A. BUGARIN, 110817-22, 1997-06-13

  4. PEOPLE v. MARLON DELIM, GR No. 142773, 2003-01-28

  5. RENATO BALEROS v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 138033, 2006-02-22

Attempted Stage

  1. MARK REYNALD MARASIGAN v. REGINALD FUENTES, GR No. 201310, 2016-01-11
    direct proof of conspiracy is not imperative and that conspiracy may be inferred from acts of the perpetrators.

a perpetrator's act of holding the victim's hand while another perpetrator is striking a blow is indicative of conspiracy

  1. PEOPLE v. AURELIO LAMAHANG, GR No. 43530, 1935-08-03

  2. GARY FANTASTICO v. ELPIDIO MALICSE, GR No. 190912, 2015-01-12
    An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without being... frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. The raison d'etre for the law requiring a direct overt act is that, in a majority of cases, the conduct of the accused consisting... merely of acts of preparation has never ceased to be equivocal; and this is necessarily so, irrespective of his declared intent. It is that quality of being equivocal that must be lacking before the act becomes one which may be said to be a commencement of the commission of the... crime, or an overt act or before any fragment of the crime itself has been committed, and this is so for the reason that so long as the equivocal quality remains, no one can say with certainty what the intent of the accused is. It is necessary that the overt act should have been... the ultimate step towards the consummation of the design. It is sufficient if it was the "first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparations are made." The act done need not constitute the last proximate one for... completion. It is necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal relation to the intended crime. In the words of Viada, the overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense.

  3. PEOPLE v. FREEDIE LIZADA, GR No. 143468-71, 2003-01-24

  4. ELISEO ARANETA v. CA, GR No. L-43527, 1990-07-03

  5. RENATO BALEROS v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 138033, 2006-02-22

Frustrated Stage

  1. EDGAR ESQUEDA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 170222, 2009-06-18

  2. GIOVANI SERRANO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 175023, 2010-07-05

  3. PEOPLE v. REGIE LABIAGA, GR No. 202867, 2013-07-15

  4. RONALD IBA EZ v. PEOPLE, GR No. 190798, 2016-01-27

  5. ENGR. CARLITO PENTECOSTES v. PEOPLE, GR No. 167766, 2010-04-07

  • Homicidal intent is absent in a case where the accused shot the victim only once when there was an opportunity to do otherwise.
  1. FE ABELLA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 198400, 2013-10-07

  2. NORBERTO CRUZ v. PEOPLE, GR No. 166441, 2014-10-08

  3. PEOPLE v. DANTE DULAY, GR No. 194629, 2014-04-21

Consummated Stage

  1. ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 160188, 2007-06-21
    [T]he most fundamental notion in the crime of theft is the taking of the thing to be appropriated into the physical power of the thief, which idea is qualified by other conditions, such as that the taking must be effected animo lucrandi and without... the consent of the owner; and it will be here noted that the definition does not require that the taking should be effected against the will of the owner but merely that it should be without his consent, a distinction of no slight importance.

  2. PEOPLE v. EDGAR GUTIERREZ, GR No. 100699, 1996-07-05

  3. PEOPLE v. LORETO SONIDO, GR No. 208646, 2016-06-15

  4. PEOPLE v. SUSAN M. TAMA O, GR No. 208643, 2016-12-16

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY (Art. 8 of the RPC)

  1. PEOPLE v. TOMAS DIMACUHA, GR No. 191060, 2015-02-02

  2. PEOPLE v. DOMINGO VASQUEZ, GR No. 123939, 2004-05-28

  3. PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER ELIZALDE, GR No. 210434, 2016-12-05

  4. PEOPLE v. MARCELO ALETA ALETA, GR No. 179708, 2009-04-16

  5. DELFIN ORODIO v. CA, GR No. 57519, 1988-09-13

  6. PEOPLE v. SUPT. REYNALDO BERROYA, GR No. 122487, 1997-12-12

  7. PEOPLE v. ARMANDO DIONALDO, GR No. 207949, 2014-07-23

  8. ZENAIDA P. MAAMO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 201917, 2016-12-01

  9. PEOPLE v. LEMUEL COMPO, GR No. 112990, 2001-05-28

  10. PEOPLE v. MC HENRY SUAREZ, GR No. 224889, 2016-10-19

  11. RICHARD A. CAMBE v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN, GR Nos. 212014-15, 2016-12-06

  12. HELEN EDITH LEE TAN v. PEOPLE, GR No. 218902, 2016-10-17

  13. PEOPLE v. PABLO AMODIA, GR No. 173791, 2009-04-07

  14. PEOPLE v. EDWIN DE VERA, GR No. 128966, 1999-08-18

Offenses not subject to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Art. 10)

Legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws.

  1. SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN v. SPOUSES PERFECTO C. TAN, GR No. 168852, 2008-09-30

MULTIPLE OFFENDERS (differences, rules, effects)

i. Recidivism - Art. 14(9)

  1. PEOPLE v. RANDY BELONIO, GR No. 148695, 2004-05-27

  2. PEOPLE v. CONDE RAPISORA, GR No. 147855, 2004-05-28

  3. PEOPLE v. EUGENIO LAGARTO, GR No. 65833, 1991-05-06

  4. PEOPLE v. VS. ELEUTERIO C. COMPENDIO, GR No. 114002, 1996-07-05

  5. PEOPLE v. CANUTO BERNAL, GR No. 44988, 1936-10-31

  6. PEOPLE v. CELERINO COLOCAR, GR No. 40871, 1934-11-10

  7. PEOPLE v. JOHNNY MALINAO, GR No. 128148, 2004-02-16

  8. PEOPLE v. EDGAR DAWATON, GR No. 146247, 2002-09-17

ii. Habituality (Reiteracion) - Art. 14(10)

  1. PEOPLE v. MELCHOR REAL, GR No. 93436, 1995-03-24

  2. PEOPLE v. MAXIMO R. RACE, GR No. 93143, 1992-08-04

  3. PEOPLE v. ROGELIO VILLAPANDO, GR No. 73656, 1989-10-05

  4. PEOPLE v. ELMEDIO CAJARA, GR No. 122498, 2000-09-27

iii. Quasi-Recidivism - Art. 160

Quasi recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance which imposes the maximum of the penalty for the new offense without regard to the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances

  1. PEOPLE v. ARTURO ALICIA, GR No. L-38176, 1980-01-22

  2. PEOPLE v. BETH TEMPORADA, GR No. 173473, 2008-12-17

  3. PEOPLE v. ALBERTO GAORANA, GR Nos. 109138-39, 1998-04-27

  4. PEOPLE v. GONZALO BALDOGO, GR No. 128106-07, 2003-01-24

  5. PEOPLE v. SATURNINA SALAZAR, GR No. 98060, 1997-01-27

  6. PEOPLE v. MARLON ALBERT DE LEON, GR No. 179943, 2009-06-26

  7. PEOPLE v. RAMON LAO, GR No. 90627, 1991-11-29

  8. PEOPLE v. GENTEM KINTUAN, GR No. 74100, 1987-12-03

iv. Habitual Delinquency

  1. THE PEOPLE OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. EMILIO SANCHEZ, GR No. 37054, 1932-12-23

  2. PEOPLE v. MANUEL ABUYEN., GR No. 30664, 1929-02-02

  3. LEONARDO ALMEDA v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, GR No. L-31665, 1975-08-06

Continuing crimes

  1. PEOPLE v. MARLON ALBERT DE LEON, GR No. 179943, 2009-06-26

  2. CONSUELO E. MALLARI v. PEOPLE, GR No. 58886, 1988-12-13

  3. MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v. JUSTICE FRANCIS GARCHITORENA, GR No. 109266, 1993-12-02

  4. JOSE L. GAMBOA v. CA, GR No. L-41054, 1975-11-28

  5. SANTIAGO PAERA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 181626, 2011-05-30

COMPLEX CRIMES AND SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES

  1. PEOPLE v. BERNARDINO GAFFUD, GR No. 168050, 2008-09-19

  2. PEOPLE v. ALVIN ESUGON, GR No. 195244, 2015-06-22

  3. PEOPLE v. WENCESLAO NELMIDA, GR No. 184500, 2012-09-11

  4. PEOPLE v. EDMUNDO VILLAFLORES, GR No. 184926, 2012-04-11

i. Compound crime

  1. PEOPLE v. ROGER RINGOR UMAWID, GR No. 208719, 2014-06-09

  2. PEOPLE v. RAMIL MORES, GR No. 189846, 2013-06-26

  3. PEOPLE v. MARIO TABACO, GR Nos. 100382-100385, 1997-03-19

  4. PEOPLE v. ARTURO PUNZALAN, GR No. 199892, 2012-12-10

  5. PEOPLE v. EX-MAYOR CARLOS ESTONILO, GR No. 201565, 2014-10-13

ii. Complex crime proper

  1. GRACE DAVID v. PEOPLE, GR No. 208320, 2015-08-19

  2. MANOLITO GIL Z. ZAFRA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 176317, 2014-07-23

  3. CARLOS L. TANENGGEE v. PEOPLE, GR No. 179448, 2013-06-26

  4. IRIS KRISTINE BALOIS ALBERTO v. THE CA, GR No. 182130, 2013-06-19

  5. INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG v. PEOPLE, GR No. 181409, 2010-02-11

  6. PEOPLE v. VENANCIO ROXAS, GR No. 172604, 2010-08-17

iii. Special complex crime

  1. PEOPLE v. IRENEO JUGUETA, GR No. 202124, 2016-04-05

  2. PEOPLE v. CONRADO LAOG, GR No. 178321, 2011-10-05

  3. PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER ELIZALDE, GR No. 210434, 2016-12-05

  4. PEOPLE v. TEODULO VILLANUEVA, GR No. 187152, 2009-07-22

  5. PEOPLE v. MARY JOY CILOT, GR No. 208410, 2016-10-19

  6. PEOPLE v. JOHNNY MALINAO, GR No. 128148, 2004-02-16

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 11 of the RPC)

1. Self-defense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of strangers
4. Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury
5. Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right or Office
6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose

1. Self-defense

  1. CONRADO CANO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 155258, 2003-10-07

  2. PEOPLE v. ALFREDO DULIN, GR No. 171284, 2015-06-29

  3. ARNEL COLINARES v. PEOPLE, GR No. 182748, 2011-12-13

  4. PEOPLE v. MELANIO NUGAS, GR No. 172606, 2011-11-23

  5. PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN CASAS, GR No. 212565, 2015-02-25

  6. PEOPLE v. EDGAR CONCILLADO, GR No. 181204, 2011-11-28

  7. BENJAMIN RUSTIA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 208351, 2016-10-05

  8. RAFAEL NADYAHAN v. PEOPLE, GR No. 193134, 2016-03-02

  9. ROGELIO SOPLENTE v. PEOPLE, GR No. 152715, 2005-07-29

  10. PEOPLE v. NESTOR ROXAS, GR No. 218396, 2016-02-10

  11. EDUARDO L. BAXINELA v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 149652, 2006-03-24

  12. PEOPLE v. WILSON ROMAN, GR No. 198110, 2013-07-31

Battered woman syndrome (Read R.A. No. 9262)

  1. PEOPLE v. MARIVIC GENOSA, GR No. 135981, 2004-01-15

2. Defense of relatives

  1. PROCERFINA OLBINAR v. CA, GR No. 76235, 1991-01-21

  2. PEOPLE v. VIRGILIO CAABAY, GR Nos. 129961-62, 2003-08-25

  3. LEOPOLDO QUINTOS v. PEOPLE, GR No. 205298, 2014-09-10

  4. PEOPLE v. EDDIE AGACER, GR No. 177751, 2011-12-14

  5. PEOPLE v. MARCELO ALETA ALETA, GR No. 179708, 2009-04-16

  6. RICARDO BALUNUECO v. CA, GR No. 126968, 2003-04-09

3. Defense of strangers

  1. PAT. RUDY ALMEDA v. CA, GR No. 120853, 1997-03-13

  2. PEOPLE v. MELANIO DEL CASTILLO, GR No. 169084, 2012-01-18
    In self-defense and defense of strangers, unlawful aggression is a primordial element, a condition sine qua non. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense and defense of strangers are unavailing, because there would be nothing to... repel.[22] The character of the element of unlawful aggression has been aptly described in People v. Nugas,[23] as follows:

Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the... circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful... aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.

Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively... determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively... strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was holstered,... accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.[31] Conspiracy is either express or implied. Thus, the State does not always have to prove the actual agreement to commit the... crime in order to establish conspiracy, for it is enough to show that the accused acted in concert to achieve a common purpose. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or from the acts of the accused before, during and after the... commission of the crime indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest.[32] Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the... same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals.[33] Once a conspiracy is established, each co-conspirator is as criminally liable as the others, for the act of one is the act of all. A co-conspirator does... not have to participate in every detail of the execution; neither does he have to know the exact part performed by the co-conspirator in the execution of the criminal act.

  1. PEOPLE v. HONORATO NAVARRO, GR No. 125538, 1998-09-03

  2. ELISEO ARANETA v. CA, GR No. L-43527, 1990-07-03

  3. JOVITO CABUSLAY v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 129875, 2005-09-30

  4. RAMON C. GONZALEZ v. ATTY. ARNEL C. ALCARAZ, AC. NO. 5321, 2006-09-27

4. Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury (State of Necessity)

  1. PEOPLE v. JESUS G. RETUBADO, GR No. 124058, 2003-12-10

  2. PEOPLE v. ARTURO PUNZALAN, GR No. 199892, 2012-12-10

  3. MANILA DOCTORS HOSPITAL v. SO UN CHUA, GR NO. 150355, 2006-07-31

  4. PEOPLE v. PIO RICOHERMOSO, GR NOS. L-30527 & L-30528, 1974-03-29

  5. ANITA TAN v. STANDARD VACUUM OIL CO., GR No. L-4160, 1952-07-29

  6. VICKY C. TY v. PEOPLE, GR No. 149275, 2004-09-27

5. Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right or Office

  1. PEOPLE v. ANTONIO Z. OANIS, GR No. 47722, 1943-07-27

  2. SPO2 RUPERTO CABANLIG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR NO. 148431, 2005-08-28

  3. SALVADOR YAPYUCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR Nos. 120744-46, 2012-06-25

  4. RUPERTO A. AMBIL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR No. 175457, 2011-07-06

  5. SANTIAGO PAERA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 181626, 2011-05-30

  6. RUFINO S. MAMANGUN v. PEOPLE, GR No. 149152, 2007-02-02

  7. PEOPLE v. CARMELO CATBAGAN, GR Nos. 149430-32, 2004-02-23

  8. ELIAS VALCORZA v. PEOPLE, GR No. L-28129, 1969-10-31

6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose

  1. RUPERTO A. AMBIL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR No. 175457, 2011-07-06

  2. LUIS A. TABUENA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR No. 103501-03, 1997-02-17

  3. PEOPLE v. CALOMA TABAG, GR No. 116511, 1997-02-12

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 12 of the RPC)

1. Insanity or imbecility
2. Minority (15 years of age or under, as amended by RA 9344)
3. Performance of a lawful act with due care (Accident)
4. Compulsion of an irresistible force
5. Uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury
6. Failure to perform an act due to some lawful or insuperable cause

1. Insanity or imbecility

Insanity

  1. SOLOMON VERDADERO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 216021, 2016-03-02

  2. PEOPLE v. ROGER RINGOR UMAWID, GR No. 208719, 2014-06-09

  3. PEOPLE v. EDWIN ISLA, GR No. 199875, 2012-11-21

  4. PEOPLE v. HONORIO TIBON, GR No. 188320, 2010-06-29

  5. PEOPLE v. RANDY BELONIO, GR No. 148695, 2004-05-27

  6. PEOPLE v. ARNOLD GARCHITORENA, GR No. 175605, 2009-08-28

  7. PEOPLE v. JESUS DOMINGO, GR No. 184343, 2009-03-02

  8. PEOPLE v. REYNALDO VILLANUEVA, GR NO. 172697, 2007-09-25

  9. PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO FLORENDO, GR No. 136845, 2003-10-08

  10. PEOPLE v. ANACITO OPURAN, GR Nos. 147674-75, 2004-03-17

Imbecility

  1. PEOPLE v. ABELARDO FORMIGONES, GR No. L-3246, 1950-11-29

  2. PEOPLE v. HONORATO AMBAL, GR No. 52688, 1980-10-17

  3. PEOPLE v. CHARLIE BUTIONG, GR No. 168932, 2011-10-19

  4. PEOPLE v. JOSEPH PAMBID, GR No. 124453, 2000-03-15

  5. PEOPLE v. ALBERTO MEDINA, GR No. 113691, 1998-02-06

  6. PEOPLE v. MICHAEL NUNEZ, GR No. 112429-30, 1997-07-23

  7. PEOPLE v. LAROY BUENAFLOR, GR No. 93752, 1992-07-15

2. Minority (15 years of age or under;over 15 under 18 but w/o discernment, as amended by RA 9344)

  1. JERWIN DORADO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 216671, 2016-10-03

  2. PEOPLE v. HENRY ARPON, GR No. 183563, 2011-12-14

  3. PEOPLE v. ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA, GR No. 186227, 2011-07-20

  4. PEOPLE v. HERMIE M. JACINTO, GR No. 182239, 2011-03-16

  5. RAYMUND MADALI v. PEOPLE, GR No. 180380, 2009-08-04

  6. ROBERT SIERRA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 182941, 2009-07-03

  7. MICHAEL JOHN Z. MALTO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 164733, 2007-09-21

3. Performance of a lawful act with due care (Accident)

  1. PEOPLE v. RICARDO AGLIDAY, GR No. 140794, 2001-10-16

  2. PEOPLE v. MANUEL MACAL, GR No. 211062, 2016-01-13

  3. PEOPLE v. FEDERICO GENITA, GR No. 126171, 2004-03-11

  4. ROWENO POMOY v. PEOPLE, GR No. 150647, 2004-09-29

  5. PEOPLE v. MARCIAL MALICDEM, GR No. 184601, 2012-11-12

  6. VIRGILIO TALAMPAS v. PEOPLE, GR No. 180219, 2011-11-23
    Talampas' poor aim... amounted to aberratio ictus, or mistake in the blow, a circumstance that neither exempted him from criminal responsibility nor mitigated his criminal liability.

  7. PEOPLE v. SUSAN LATOSA, GR No. 186128, 2010-06-23

  8. PEOPLE v. ISAIAS CASTILLO, GR NO. 172695, 2007-06-29

4. Compulsion of an irresistible force

A person invoking irresistible force or uncontrollable fear must show that the force exerted was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument who acted not only without will but against his will.
Compulsion must be of such character as to leave appellant no opportunity for self-defense in equal combat or for escape.

  1. PEOPLE v. JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO, GR No. 127755, 1999-04-14

  2. PEOPLE v. EUSTAQUIO LORENO, GR No. L-54414, 1984-07-09

  3. PEOPLE v. RODERICK LICAYAN, GR No. 203961, 2015-07-29

  4. PEOPLE v. JUAN SALVATIERRA, GR No. 111124, 1996-06-20

  5. PEOPLE v. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA, GR No. 178771, 2011-06-08

  6. PEOPLE v. NELIDA DEQUINA, GR No. 177570, 2011-01-19

  7. PEOPLE v. SAMUEL ANOD, GR No. 186420, 2009-08-25

5. Uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury

Fear in order to be valid should be based on a real, imminent or reasonable fear for one's life or limb.

  1. PEOPLE v. CHARLIE FIELDAD, GR No. 196005, 2014-10-01

  2. ADINA B. MANANSALA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 215424, 2015-12-09

  3. PEOPLE v. RODERICK LICAYAN, GR No. 203961, 2015-07-29

  4. PEOPLE v. NARCISO SALDA A, GR No. 148518, 2004-04-15

  5. PEOPLE v. RENE BARON, GR No. 185209, 2010-06-28

  6. PEOPLE v. SAMUEL ANOD, GR No. 186420, 2009-08-25

  7. PEOPLE v. JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO, GR No. 127755, 1999-04-14

  8. PEOPLE v. RUDY FRONDA, GR No. 102361-62, 1993-05-14

6. Failure to perform an act due to some lawful or insuperable cause

  1. PEOPLE v. JOSEPINA BANDIAN, GR No. 45186, 1936-09-30

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 13 of the RPC)

1. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances
2. Minority (impliedly repealed by R.A. No. 9344; Read Article 68 of the RPC)
3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong (Praeter Intentionem)
4. Sufficient provocation
5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense
6. Passion or Obfuscation
7. Voluntary surrender
8. Voluntary plea of guilt
9. Deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect
10. Illness
11. Analogous circumstances

1. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances

Incomplete self-defense

  1. NOEL GUILLERMO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 153287, 2008-06-30

  2. PEOPLE v. MARIANO OANDASAN, GR No. L-29532, 1968-09-28

  3. PEOPLE v. ALLAN GABRINO, GR No. 189981, 2011-03-09

  4. ALBERTO ALMOJUELA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 183202, 2014-06-02

  5. PEOPLE v. MAMERTO NARVAEZ, GR Nos. L-33466-67, 1983-04-20

  6. BENJAMIN RUSTIA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 208351, 2016-10-05

  7. PEOPLE v. ALBERTO TABARNERO, GR No. 168169, 2010-02-24

  8. PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO BADRIAGO, GR No. 183566, 2009-05-08

Incomplete defense of a relative

  1. PEOPLE v. LUIS B. TORING, GR No. 56358, 1990-10-26

  2. PEOPLE v. EMILIO SANTOS V DELGADO, GR Nos. 99259-60, 1996-03-29

Incomplete defense of a stranger

  1. PEOPLE v. IRVING FLORES, GR No. 103801-02, 1994-10-19

  2. PEOPLE v. EDUARDO FERNANDEZ, GR Nos. L-32322-23, 1982-01-27

Incomplete defense of fulfillment of a duty

  1. EDUARDO L. BAXINELA v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 149652, 2006-03-24

2. Minority (impliedly repealed by R.A. No. 9344; Read Article 68 of the RPC)

3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong (Praeter Intentionem)

  1. MARIA PAZ FRONTRERAS v. PEOPLE, GR No. 190583, 2015-12-07

  2. GUILLERMO WACOY v. PEOPLE, GR No. 213792, 2015-06-22

  3. PEOPLE v. STANLEY BUENAMER, GR No. 206227, 2016-08-31

  4. DANDY L. DUNGO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 209464, 2015-07-01
    Criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called acts mala in se; and acts which would ot be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them, called acts mala prohibita. This distinction is important with reference to the intent with... which a wrongful act is done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated? When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial.[64] When the doing of an act is prohibited by law, it is considered injurious to public welfare, and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.[65]

A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are provided by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may be mala in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder under

R.A. No. 7080, as amended.[66]

Similarly, there may be mala prohibita crimes defined in the RPC, such as technical malversation.[67]

The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or vileness of the penalized act. If the punishable act or omission is immoral in itself, then it is a crime mala in se; on the... contrary, if it is not immoral in itself, but there is a statute prohibiting its commission by reasons of public policy, then it is mala prohibita. In the final analysis, whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently... depends on all the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute.[68]

Recognizing the malum prohibitum characteristic of hazing, the law provides that any person charged with the said crime shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong.[87] Also, the framers... of the law intended that the consent of the victim shall not be a defense in hazing.

  1. PEOPLE v. NOEL T. SALES, GR No. 177218, 2011-10-03

  2. RODEL URBANO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 182750, 2009-01-20

  3. PEOPLE v. JAY MANDY MAGLIAN, GR No. 189834, 2011-03-30

  4. RO O SEGURITAN v. PEOPLE, GR No. 172896, 2010-04-19

  5. AMADO ALVARADO GARCIA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 171951, 2009-08-28

4. Sufficient provocation

  1. FELIPE E. PEPITO v. THE CA, GR No. 119942, 1999-07-08

  2. RODEL URBANO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 182750, 2009-01-20

  3. FELIPE NAVARRO v. CA, GR No. 121087, 1999-08-26

  4. MANUEL O. ORIENTE v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 155094, 2007-01-30

  5. PEOPLE v. ALBERTO MACASO, GR No. L-30489, 1975-06-30

  6. PEOPLE v. RICARDO FRANCISCO, GR No. 118573-74, 2000-05-31

  7. PEOPLE v. EDUARDO FERNANDEZ, GR Nos. L-32322-23, 1982-01-27

  8. PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO SANCHEZ, GR No. 88750, 1991-07-18

  9. ARTURO ROMERA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 151978, 2004-07-14

5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense

  1. RICARDO BACABAC v. PEOPLE, GR No. 149372, 2007-09-11

  2. PEOPLE v. ROSENDO REBUCAN, GR No. 182551, 2011-07-27

  3. GREGORIO PELONIA v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 168997, 2007-04-13

  4. PEOPLE v. FELIX VENTURA, GR Nos. 148145-46, 2004-07-05

  5. PEOPLE v. DENNIS TORPIO, GR No. 138984, 2004-06-04

  6. PEOPLE v. JUNE IGNAS, GR Nos. 140514-15, 2003-09-30

  7. PEOPLE v. RUBEN CA ETE, GR No. 138366, 2003-09-11

6. Passion or Obfuscation

  1. PEOPLE v. MARCELINO OLOVERIO, GR No. 211159, 2015-03-18

  2. VIRGINIA JABALDE v. PEOPLE, GR No. 195224, 2016-06-15

  3. PEOPLE v. ARANDE COLINA ADLAWAN, GR No. 131839, 2002-01-30

  4. RICARDO DEL POSO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 210810, 2016-12-07

  5. PEOPLE v. MAMERTO NARVAEZ, GR Nos. L-33466-67, 1983-04-20

  6. GEORGE BONGALON v. PEOPLE, GR No. 169533, 2013-03-20

  7. PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO, GR No. 186538, 2009-11-25

  8. PEOPLE v. NOEL CUASAY, GR No. 180512, 2008-10-17

  9. MIGUEL DANOFRATA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 143010, 2003-09-30

7. Voluntary surrender

  1. ALBERTO ALMOJUELA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 183202, 2014-06-02

  2. PEOPLE v. LITO HERNANDEZ, GR No. 139697, 2004-06-15

  3. PEOPLE v. RAMON PLACER, GR No. 181753, 2013-10-09

  4. PEOPLE v. LUIS B. TORING, GR No. 56358, 1990-10-26

  5. PEOPLE v. MAMERTO NARVAEZ, GR Nos. L-33466-67, 1983-04-20

  6. MARIA PAZ FRONTRERAS v. PEOPLE, GR No. 190583, 2015-12-07

  7. MARIO SALUTA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 181335, 2016-07-27

  8. ALOYSIUS DAIT LUMAUIG v. PEOPLE, GR No. 166680, 2014-07-07

  9. RODOLFO BELBIS v. PEOPLE, GR No. 181052, 2012-11-14

8. Voluntary plea of guilt

  1. PEOPLE v. MARLON JUAN, GR No. 152289, 2004-01-14
    Article 13 (7) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilty if "he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution." The following... requisites must concur: (1) the accused spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before a competent court trying the case; and (3) the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence by the... prosecution.[12]

  2. PEOPLE v. EDGAR DAWATON, GR No. 146247, 2002-09-17

  3. PEOPLE v. CASTANITO GANO, GR No. 134373, 2001-02-28

  4. PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER CA A LEONOR, GR No. 125053, 1999-03-25

  5. PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MAGAT, GR No. 130026, 2000-05-31

  6. PEOPLE v. WILLIAM MONTINOLA, GR Nos. 131856-57, 2001-07-09

9. Deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect

  1. PEOPLE v. ROGELIO DOEPANTE, GR No. 102772, 1996-10-30

  2. PEOPLE v. RICARDO FRANCISCO, GR No. 118573-74, 2000-05-31

  3. PEOPLE v. CELESTINO GARILLO, GR No. L-30281, 1978-08-02

10. Illness

  1. PEOPLE v. ALBERTO MEDINA, GR No. 113691, 1998-02-06

  2. PEOPLE v. POLICARPIO RAFANAN, GR No. 54135, 1991-11-21

  3. PEOPLE v. ABELARDO FORMIGONES, GR No. L-3246, 1950-11-29

11. Analogous circumstances

  1. ELISEO EDUARTE v. PEOPLE, GR No. 176566, 2009-10-02

  2. PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN ONG, GR No. L-34497, 1975-01-30

  3. PEOPLE v. MORO MACBUL, GR No. 48976, 1943-10-11

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 14 of the RPC)

Aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the complaint or information.

1. Taking advantage of public position
2. With insult to the public authorities
3. In disregard of one's rank, age, sex, or dwelling
4. With abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness
5. Committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
6. Committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
7. Committed on the occasion of a calamity or misfortune.
8. With the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
9. Accused is a recidivist
10. Previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
11. Committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
12. Use of any artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. Committed with evident premeditation
14. Craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.
15. Abuse of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.
16. Committed with treachery (alevosia).
17. Means employed to add ignominy.
18. Committed after an unlawful entry.
19. As a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
20. With the aid of minors or by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.
21. Cruelty

1. Taking advantage of public position

  1. ALBERTO GARONG v. PEOPLE, GR No. 172539, 2016-11-16

  2. PEOPLE v. PACIFICO SUMAOY, GR No. 105961, 1996-10-22

  3. PEOPLE v. BALTAZAR AMION, GR No. 140511, 2001-03-01

  4. US v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ ET AL., GR No. 6344, 1911-03-21

  5. PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO TABION, GR No. L-32629, 1979-10-23

  6. PEOPLE v. JOHN PETER HIPOL, GR No. 140549, 2003-07-22

  7. PEOPLE v. PO3 RENATO F. VILLAMOR, GR Nos. 140407-08, 2002-01-15

  8. PEOPLE v. LAMBERTO TAPEMO, GR No. L-33573, 1988-08-29

  9. EDGAR CRISOSTOMO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR NO. 152398, 2005-04-14
    While constitutional rights may be waived, such waiver must be clear and must be coupled with an actual intention to relinquish the... right.

In criminal cases where the imposable penalty may be death, as in the present case, the court is called upon to see to it that the accused is personally made aware of the consequences of a waiver of the right to present evidence.[64]

In fact, it is not... enough that the accused is simply warned of the consequences of another failure to attend the succeeding hearings.

the waiver of the right to present evidence in a criminal case involving a grave penalty is not assumed and taken lightly. The presence of the accused and his counsel is indispensable so that the court could personally conduct a searching inquiry into the... waiver.

the waiver of the right to present evidence in a criminal case involving a grave penalty is not assumed and taken lightly. The presence of the accused and his counsel is indispensable so that the court could personally conduct a searching inquiry into the... waiver.

  1. PEOPLE v. PO2 LEONARDO K. JOYNO, GR No. 123982, 1999-03-15

2. With insult to the public authorities

  1. PEOPLE v. OLIMPIO RIZAL, GR No. L-43487-89, 1981-02-26

  2. PEOPLE v. RENATO TAC-AN, GR Nos. 76338-39, 1990-02-26

  3. PEOPLE v. HERMOGENES MAGDUENO, GR NO. 68699, 1986-09-22

  4. PEOPLE v. RUDY TIONGSON, GR No. L-35123-24, 1984-07-25

  5. PEOPLE v. SPO1 ROMULO GUTIERREZ, GR No. 116281, 1999-02-08

  6. US v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ ET AL., GR No. 6344, 1911-03-21

3. In disregard of one's rank, age, sex, or dwelling

Disregard of rank

  1. PEOPLE v. FLORO RODIL, GR No. L-35156, 1981-11-20

  2. PEOPLE v. HILGEM NERIO, GR No. 142564, 2001-09-26

  3. PEOPLE v. JESUS MADRID, GR No. 129896, 2000-11-23

Disregard of age

  1. PEOPLE v. PABLO DELA CRUZ, GR Nos. 154348-50, 2004-06-08

  2. PEOPLE v. LITO HERNANDEZ, GR No. 139697, 2004-06-15

  3. PEOPLE v. BERNANDINO ALAJAY, GR Nos. 133796-97, 2003-08-12

  4. PEOPLE v. HILGEM NERIO, GR No. 142564, 2001-09-26

Disregard of sex

  1. QUIRICO MARI v. CA, GR No. 127694, 2000-05-31

  2. PEOPLE v. LITO HERNANDEZ, GR No. 139697, 2004-06-15

  3. PEOPLE v. ERNESTO PUNO, GR No. L-33211, 1981-06-29

  4. PEOPLE v. EDRALIN TABOGA, GR Nos. 144086-87, 2002-02-06

  5. PEOPLE v. CLEMENTE MANGSANT, GR No. 45704, 1938-05-25

  6. PEOPLE v. ANTONIO REYES, GR No. 153119, 2004-04-13

Disregard of dwelling

  1. PEOPLE v. IRENEO JUGUETA, GR No. 202124, 2016-04-05

  2. PEOPLE v. ROMEO JOYA, GR No. 79090, 1993-10-01

  3. PEOPLE v. AMADO DANIEL, GR L-40330, 1978-11-20

4. With abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness

  1. PEOPLE v. REALINO ZEA, GR No. L-23109, 1984-06-29

  2. PEOPLE v. SALVADOR ARROJADO, GR No. 130492, 2001-01-31

  3. PEOPLE v. MICHAEL BOKINGO, GR No. 187536, 2011-08-10

  4. PEOPLE v. VS.JOSEPH GELERA, GR No. 121377, 1997-08-15

  5. PEOPLE vs. MAGDALENA CALISO, G.R. No. 37271, July 01, 1933

  6. US v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ ET AL., GR No. 6344, 1911-03-21

5. Committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.

6. Committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.

Nighttime (nocturnity)
When the laws speak of nights, it shall be understood that nights are from sunset to sunrise (Art. 13, New Civil Code)

  1. PEOPLE v. FELIPE DEMATE, GR Nos. 132310 & 143968-69, 2004-01-20

  2. PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ALFANTA, GR No. 125633, 1999-12-09

  3. PEOPLE v. ROBERTO BOYLES, GR No. L-15308, 1964-05-29

  4. PEOPLE v. ROMUALDO CAPILLAS, GR No. L-27177, 1981-10-23

  5. PEOPLE v. ANGELO ZETA, GR No. 178541, 2008-03-27

  6. PEOPLE v. RAFAEL VELAGA, GR No. 87202, 1991-07-23

  7. PEOPLE v. DOMINADOR SALCEDO, GR No. 78774, 1989-04-12

  8. PEOPLE v. RAELITO LIBRANDO, GR No. 132251, 2000-07-06

  9. PEOPLE v. JOHNNY MALINAO, GR No. 128148, 2004-02-16

Uninhabited place (despoblado)

  1. ERNESTO GARCES v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 173858, 2007-07-17

  2. PEOPLE v. ELY CABILES, GR No. 113785, 1995-09-14

  3. PEOPLE v. ROSALIO LAGUARDIA, GR No. 63243, 1987-02-27

  4. PEOPLE v. SALVADOR BALISTEROS, GR No. 110289, 1994-10-07

  5. PEOPLE v. OLIMPIO CORPUZ, GR No. L-12718, 1960-02-24

  6. PEOPLE v. ELPEDIO TORRES, GR No. 134766, 2004-01-16

  7. PEOPLE v. ROMUALDO CAPILLAS, GR No. L-27177, 1981-10-23

  8. PEOPLE v. ROBERTO OSTIA, GR No. 131804, 2003-02-26

  9. PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN ONG, GR No. L-37908, 1981-10-23

By a band (en cuadrilla)

  1. PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARMANDO LOZANO, GR Nos. 137370-71, 2003-09-29

  2. PEOPLE v. LIBERATO 'DUKDUK' SOLAMILLO, GR No. 123161, 2003-06-18

  3. PEOPLE v. PROCULO MEJECA, GR No. 146425, 2002-11-21

  4. PEOPLE v. EDUARDO GALANZA, GR No. 89685, 1993-11-08

  5. PEOPLE v. EDGAR EVANGELIO, GR No. 181902, 2011-08-31

  6. PEOPLE v. ROMAN DERILO, GR No. 117818, 1997-04-18

  7. PEOPLE v. ROMEO MENDOZA, GR No. 104461, 1996-02-23

7. Committed on the occasion of a calamity or misfortune.

  1. PEOPLE v. DICTO ARPA, GR No. L-26789, 1969-04-25

  2. US v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ ET AL., GR No. 6344, 1911-03-21

  3. PEOPLE v. LAO WAN SING, GR No. L-16379, 1972-08-18

8. With the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.

  1. PEOPLE v. NELSON CARI O, GR No. 131117, 2004-06-15

  2. PEOPLE v. BALTAZAR AMION, GR No. 140511, 2001-03-01

  3. PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARMANDO LOZANO, GR Nos. 137370-71, 2003-09-29

  4. PEOPLE v. NOEL ENOJAS, GR No. 204894, 2014-03-10

9. Accused is a recidivist.

  1. PEOPLE v. RANDY BELONIO, GR No. 148695, 2004-05-27

  2. PEOPLE v. JOSELITO ESCARDA, GR No. 120548, 2001-10-26

  3. PEOPLE v. REYNALDO KYAMKO, GR No. 103805, 1993-05-17

  4. PEOPLE v. CONDE RAPISORA, GR No. 147855, 2004-05-28

  5. PEOPLE v. EUGENIO LAGARTO, GR No. 65833, 1991-05-06

  6. PEOPLE v. VS. ELEUTERIO C. COMPENDIO, GR No. 114002, 1996-07-05

  7. PEOPLE v. CANUTO BERNAL, GR No. 44988, 1936-10-31

  8. PEOPLE v. CELERINO COLOCAR, GR No. 40871, 1934-11-10

  9. PEOPLE v. JOHNNY MALINAO, GR No. 128148, 2004-02-16

  10. PEOPLE v. EDGAR DAWATON, GR No. 146247, 2002-09-17

10. Habituality (Reiteracion) - Previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

  1. PEOPLE v. MELCHOR REAL, GR No. 93436, 1995-03-24

  2. PEOPLE v. MAXIMO R. RACE, GR No. 93143, 1992-08-04

  3. PEOPLE v. ROGELIO VILLAPANDO, GR No. 73656, 1989-10-05

  4. PEOPLE v. ELMEDIO CAJARA, GR No. 122498, 2000-09-27

  5. PEOPLE v. ALBERTO GAORANA, GR Nos. 109138-39, 1998-04-27

11. Committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

  1. THE PEOPLE v. ADRIANO CA ETE, GR No. L-37945, 1984-05-28

  2. PEOPLE v. BEN PAREDES, GR Nos. L-19149 to L-19150, 1968-08-16

  3. PEOPLE v. NENITO ALINCASTRE, GR No. L-29891, 1971-08-30

  4. US v. MANUEL FLORES ET AL., GR No. 9008, 1914-09-17

  5. US v. GAMAO, GR No. 6942, 1912-08-30

12. Use of any artifice involving great waste and ruin.

By means of fire

  1. PEOPLE v. EDNA MALNGAN, GR NO. 170470, 2006-09-26

  2. PEOPLE v. PEDRO CEDENIO, GR No. 93485, 1994-06-27

  3. US v. FRANK E, GR No. 16648, 1921-03-05

By means of poison

  1. PEOPLE v. ARMINGOL HANASAN, GR No. L-25989, 1969-09-30

By means of explosion

  1. PEOPLE v. ANTONIO COMADRE, GR No. 153559, 2004-06-08

  2. PEOPLE v. MANUEL Y. TAYO, GR No. 52798, 1986-02-19

  3. PEOPLE v. DANTE DULAY, GR No. 194629, 2014-04-21

  4. PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BARDE, GR No. 183094, 2010-09-22

13. Committed with evident premeditation

  1. PEOPLE v. EDDIE OLAZO, GR No. 220761, 2016-10-03

  2. PEOPLE v. ANGELO ZETA, GR No. 178541, 2008-03-27

  3. PEOPLE v. TOMAS DIMACUHA, GR No. 191060, 2015-02-02

  4. PEOPLE v. LIBERATO 'DUKDUK' SOLAMILLO, GR No. 123161, 2003-06-18

  5. JERWIN DORADO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 216671, 2016-10-03

  6. PEOPLE v. YOLANDO LIBRE, GR No. 192790, 2016-08-01

  7. PEOPLE v. APOLONIO 'TOTONG' AVILA, GR No. 201584, 2016-06-15

14. Craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.

  1. PEOPLE v. AGAPITO QUI ANOLA, GR No. 126148, 1999-05-05

  2. PEOPLE v. LEOSON DELA CRUZ, GR NO. 171272, 2007-06-07

  3. PEOPLE v. DANILO FELICIANO, GR No. 196735, 2016-08-03

  4. PEOPLE v. MICHAEL NUNEZ, GR No. 112429-30, 1997-07-23

  5. PEOPLE v. VIVENCIO LABUGUEN, GR No. 127849., 2000-08-09

  6. PEOPLE v. SABANGAN CABATO, GR No. L-37400, 1988-04-15

15. Abuse of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.

  1. PEOPLE v. MC HENRY SUAREZ, GR No. 224889, 2016-10-19

  2. PEOPLE v. PABLO AMODIA, GR No. 173791, 2009-04-07

  3. PEOPLE v. EDDIE OLAZO, GR No. 220761, 2016-10-03

  4. PEOPLE v. ARDO BACERO, GR No. 208527, 2016-07-20

  5. PEOPLE v. APOLONIO 'TOTONG' AVILA, GR No. 201584, 2016-06-15

  6. PEOPLE v. RANDY BA EZ, GR No. 198057, 2015-09-21

  7. US v. CORNELIO DEVELA ET AL., GR No. 1542, 1904-04-09

  8. PEOPLE v. MARIANO DUCUSIN, GR No. 30724, 1929-08-08

  9. PEOPLE v. NENITO C. FERRER, GR No. L-60073, 1983-09-23

  10. PEOPLE v. JULITO DAVA, GR Nos. L-41642-45, 1987-05-15

  11. PEOPLE v. WILFREDO LLAGUNO, GR No. 91262, 1998-01-28

  12. PEOPLE v. FELIX VENTURA, GR Nos. 148145-46, 2004-07-05

16. Committed with treachery (alevosia).

  1. PEOPLE v. ANGELO BUENAFE, GR No. 212930, 2016-08-03

  2. PEOPLE v. MARIANO OANDASAN, GR No. 194605, 2016-06-14

  3. BENJAMIN RUSTIA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 208351, 2016-10-05

  4. PEOPLE v. EFIPANIA DELA CRUZ GO, GR No. 140897, 2003-02-19

  5. PEOPLE v. EDCEL COLORADA, GR No. 215715, 2016-08-31

  6. JOSEPH SCOTT PEMBERTON v. LEILA M. DE LIMA, GR No. 217508, 2016-04-18

  7. PEOPLE v. DANILO FELICIANO, GR No. 196735, 2014-05-05

  8. LENIDO LUMANOG v. PEOPLE, GR No. 182555, 2010-09-07

  9. PEOPLE v. VENANCIO ROXAS, GR No. 172604, 2010-08-17

17. Means employed to add ignominy.

  1. PEOPLE v. BERNARDO CORTEZANO, GR No. 123140, 2003-09-23

  2. PEOPLE v. DOMINADOR CACHOLA, GR Nos. 148712-15, 2004-01-21

  3. US v. FELIPE ABAIGAR, GR No. 1255, 1903-08-17

  4. PEOPLE v. ROGELIO SORIANO, GR No. L-32244, 1983-06-24

  5. PEOPLE v. PACIANO NIERRA, GR No. L-32624, 1980-02-12

  6. PEOPLE v. FREDDIE CATIAN, GR No. 139693, 2002-01-24

  7. PEOPLE v. OSMUNDO FUERTES, GR Nos. 95891-92, 2000-02-28

  8. PEOPLE v. ROLANDO BACULE, GR No. 127568, 2000-01-28

  9. PEOPLE v. ROLANDO ALFANTA, GR No. 125633, 1999-12-09

18. Committed after an unlawful entry.

There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.

  1. PEOPLE v. OSCAR LAMOSA, GR Nos. 74291-93, 1989-05-23

  2. PEOPLE v. ARSENIO SUNGA, GR No. 18054, 1922-03-18

  3. PEOPLE v. RENATO MARQUEZ, GR No. L-32860, 1982-09-30

  4. PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO ESCABARTE, GR No. L-42964, 1988-03-14

  5. PEOPLE v. ANTERO MUTYA, GR No. L-11255-11256, 1959-09-30

  6. PEOPLE v. JOHN AMET BAELLO, GR No. 101314, 1993-07-01

19. As a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.

  1. PEOPLE v. ROMUALDO CAPILLAS, GR No. L-27177, 1981-10-23

  2. PEOPLE v. OSCAR LAMOSA, GR Nos. 74291-93, 1989-05-23

20. With the aid of minors or by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.

  1. PEOPLE v. ZALDY SALAHUDDIN, GR No. 206291, 2016-01-18

  2. PEOPLE v. REYNALDO LOZADA, GR No. 141121, 2003-07-17

  3. PEOPLE v. ERASMO CUADRA, GR No. L- 27973, 1978-10-23

  4. PEOPLE v. ARTURO PUNZALAN, GR No. 199892, 2012-12-10

  5. PEOPLE v. MICHAEL BIGLETE, GR No. 182920, 2012-06-18

  6. PEOPLE v. EDUARDO S. HERBIAS, GR Nos. 112716-17, 1996-12-16

  7. PEOPLE v. PABLO L. ESTACIO, GR No. 171655, 2009-07-22

  8. PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARMANDO LOZANO, GR Nos. 137370-71, 2003-09-29

21. Cruelty

  1. PEOPLE v. GEORGE CORTES, GR No. 137050, 2001-07-11

  2. MOISES SIMANGAN v. PEOPLE, GR No. 157984, 2004-07-08

  3. PEOPLE v. VINCENT HENRY CHUA, GR No. 149538, 2004-07-26

  4. PEOPLE v. RONALD ESTORCO, GR No. 111941, 2000-04-27

  5. PEOPLE v. MANUEL MAGAYAC, GR No.126043, 2000-04-19

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 15 of the RPC)

Relationship.

  1. PEOPLE v. JOSEPH ORILLA, GR Nos. 148939-40, 2004-02-13

  2. PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO ATOP, GR Nos. 124303-05, 1998-02-10

  3. PEOPLE v. FELICIANO ULIT, GR Nos. 131799-801, 2004-02-23

  4. PEOPLE v. CONRADO CACAYAN, GR No. 180499, 2008-07-09

  5. PEOPLE v. ENRIQUE CEBALLOS JR., GR No. 169642, 2007-09-14

  6. PEOPLE v. CARLOS ALHAMBRA, GR No. 207774, 2014-06-30

  7. PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO CALONGUI, GR NO. 170566, 2006-03-03

  8. PEOPLE v. EMILIANO CAPAREDA, GR No. 128363, 2004-05-27

  9. PEOPLE v. SALVADOR ORILLOSA, GR Nos. 148716-18, 2004-07-07

Intoxication

  1. PEOPLE v. ROMEO BELARO, GR No. 99869, 1999-05-26

  2. PEOPLE v. ARNEL BERNAL, GR Nos. 132791 & 140465-66, 2002-09-02

  3. PEOPLE v. ANDRES C. FONTILLAS, GR No. 184177, 2010-12-15

  4. PEOPLE v. PERLITO MONDIGO, GR No. 167954, 2008-01-31

  5. PEOPLE v. EMILIANO CAPAREDA, GR No. 128363, 2004-05-27

  6. PEOPLE v. EDGARDO BORBON, GR No. 143085, 2004-03-10

  7. PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO BAJAR, GR No. 143817, 2003-10-27

  8. PEOPLE v. PABLITO INGGO, GR No. 140872, 2003-06-23

Degree of instruction and education of the offender

  1. PEOPLE v. JOSE GERONIMO, GR No. L-35700, 1973-10-15

  2. PEOPLE v. FELIX RIPAS, GR No. L-6246, 1954-05-26

  3. PEOPLE v. ROMEO BELARO, GR No. 99869, 1999-05-26

  4. PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN RETANIA, GR No. L-34841, 1980-01-22

  5. PEOPLE v. SAGLALA MACATANDA, GR No. 51368, 1981-11-06

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES

Absolutory causes are those causes where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed-- Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book I, pp. 231-232

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE/DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION (Arts. 16-19 of the RPC)

The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: principals, accomplices, and accessories. The following are criminally liable for light felonies: principals and accomplices.

  1. PEOPLE v. LTSG. DOMINADOR BAYABOS, GR No. 171222, 2015-02-18

1. Principals

Principal by direct participation

  1. PEOPLE v. NESTOR CARRIAGA, GR No. 135029, 2003-09-12

  2. PEOPLE v. ARNEL C. MONTANO, GR No. 130836, 2000-08-11

  3. PEOPLE v. SABELO RAGUNDIAZ, GR No. 124977, 2000-06-22

  4. PEOPLE v. PAT. RICARTE MADALI, GR Nos. 67803-04, 1990-07-30

  5. PEOPLE v. MELISSA CHUA, GR No. 187052, 2012-09-13

  6. RUPERTO A. AMBIL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR No. 175457, 2011-07-06

  7. PEOPLE v. ALEX LINGASA, GR No. 192187, 2010-12-13

  8. PEOPLE v. BARTOLOME TAMPUS, GR No. 181084, 2009-06-16

  9. PEOPLE v. MARLON DELIM, GR No. 175942, 2007-09-13

  10. PEOPLE v. ROSARIO LAO, GR No. L-10473, 1961-01-28

Principal by inducement

  1. PEOPLE v. JEANETTE YANSON-DUMANCAS, GR No. 133527-28, 1999-12-13

  2. PEOPLE v. ABELARDO PARUNGAO, GR No. 125812, 1996-11-28

  3. PEOPLE v. OSCAR BALDERAMA, GR No. 89597-98, 1993-09-17

  4. PEOPLE v. CRESENCIANO CANAGURAN, GR No. 108174, 1999-10-28

  5. PEOPLE v. ERNESTO ABARRI, GR No. 90185, 1995-03-01

  6. MANUEL J. JIMENEZ v. PEOPLE, GR No. 209195, 2014-09-17

  7. PEOPLE v. KHADDAFY JANJALANI, GR No. 188314, 2011-01-10

  8. PEOPLE v. CASTOR BATIN, GR No. 177223, 2007-11-28

  9. PEOPLE v. JEANETTE YANSON-DUMANCAS, GR No. 133527-28, 1999-12-13

  10. PEOPLE v. ANDRES LIWAG, GR No. 89112, 1993-08-03

  11. PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CRUZ, GR No. 74048, 1990-11-14

Principal by indispensable cooperation

  1. PEOPLE v. ROLLY OBELLO, GR No. 108772, 1998-01-14

  2. PEOPLE v. DINA DULAY, GR No. 193854, 2012-09-24

  3. PEOPLE v. EDUARDO JORGE, GR No. 99379, 1994-04-22

  4. PEOPLE v. SABELO RAGUNDIAZ, GR No. 124977, 2000-06-22

  5. PEOPLE v. GILBERT ELIJORDE, GR No. 126531, 1999-04-21

  6. PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO ABINA, GR No. 129891, 1998-10-27

  7. PEOPLE v. NAPOLEON MONTEALEGRE, GR No. 67948, 1988-05-31

2. Accomplices

  1. PEOPLE v. BARTOLOME TAMPUS, GR No. 181084, 2009-06-16

  2. PEOPLE v. WILFREDO TOLENTINO, GR No. 139179, 2002-04-03

  3. BENJAMIN RUSTIA v. PEOPLE, GR No. 208351, 2016-10-05

  4. PEOPLE v. LTSG. DOMINADOR BAYABOS, GR No. 171222, 2015-02-18

  5. PEOPLE v. PETRUS YAU, GR No. 208170, 2014-08-20

  6. PEOPLE v. HALIL GAMBAO, GR No. 172707, 2013-10-01

  7. PEOPLE v. MELCHOR RAFAEL, GR No. 123176, 2000-10-13

  8. PEOPLE v. VS.FERDINAND SUAREZ, GR No. 111193, 1997-01-28

  9. PEOPLE v. EDUARDO JORGE, GR No. 99379, 1994-04-22

  10. LEONILA G. SANTIAGO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 200233, 2015-07-15

  11. DANDY L. DUNGO v. PEOPLE, GR No. 209464, 2015-07-01
    Criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called acts mala in se; and acts which would ot be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them, called acts mala prohibita. This distinction is important with reference to the intent with... which a wrongful act is done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated? When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial.[64] When the doing of an act is prohibited by law, it is considered injurious to public welfare, and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.[65]

A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are provided by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may be mala in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder under

R.A. No. 7080, as amended.[66]

Similarly, there may be mala prohibita crimes defined in the RPC, such as technical malversation.[67]

The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or vileness of the penalized act. If the punishable act or omission is immoral in itself, then it is a crime mala in se; on the... contrary, if it is not immoral in itself, but there is a statute prohibiting its commission by reasons of public policy, then it is mala prohibita. In the final analysis, whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently... depends on all the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute.[68]

Recognizing the malum prohibitum characteristic of hazing, the law provides that any person charged with the said crime shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong.[87] Also, the framers... of the law intended that the consent of the victim shall not be a defense in hazing.

3. Accessories

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offenders to profit by the effects

  1. JORGE TAER v. THE CA, GR No.85204, 1990-06-18

  2. LEONARDO MENDOZA v. PEOPLE, GR No. L-46484, 1988-01-29

2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects

  1. PEOPLE v. SIMPLICIO REALON, GR No. L-30832, 1980-08-29

  2. PEOPLE v. WILFREDO TOLENTINO, GR No. 139179, 2002-04-03

  3. PEOPLE v. JEANETTE YANSON-DUMANCAS, GR No. 133527-28, 1999-12-13

  4. JACKSON PADIERNOS v. PEOPLE, GR No. 181111, 2015-08-17

  5. PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, GR No. 116736, 1997-07-24

  6. HERMOSO ARRIOLA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR NO. 165711, 2006-06-30

3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime

  1. PEOPLE v. ALBERTO S. ANTONIO, GR No. 128900, 2000-07-14

  2. PEOPLE v. DOMINGO ALPAPARA, GR No. 180421, 2009-10-30

ACCESSORIES WHO ARE EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

  1. PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, GR No. 116736, 1997-07-24

  2. PEOPLE v. RUBY MARIANO, GR No.134847, 2000-12-06