Midterm Reviewer
-
Upload
jan-shaltiel-vincent-dy -
Category
Documents
-
view
609 -
download
4
description
Transcript of Midterm Reviewer
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
1
Art. 12 Excempting Circumstances
In exempting circumstances the act does
not result in criminal liability because the act is not voluntary or negligent. (Different from
justifying because here a crime is actually committed. Imputable to a person but not
criminally liable)
There is absence of:
Intelligence, freedom of action, intent or negligence.
Insanity or imbecility
Minority(15 years of age or under) RA 9344
Minority above 15 below 18 if acting w/o discernment)
Performance of a lawful act with due care (accident)
Compulsion of an irresistible force
Uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury
Failure to perform an act due to some lawful or insuperable cause
1. An Imbecile or an insane person
Imbecile – mental deficiency
(mental age of a child), deprived completely of reason or discernment
and freedom of the will at the time
of committing the crime Insane – unsound mind or suffers
from a mental disorder, complete deprivation of intelligence in the
commission of the act or that the accused acted without the least
discernment (Ambal)
An insane person may have
lucid intervals but an imbecile
does not.
Acting like a crazy person
because you‟re angry is not
insanity
Crazy vs Insane There is a vast difference between an insane person and one who has
worked himself up into such a
frenzy of anger that he fails to use reason or good judgment in what he
does.
The fact that a person acts crazy is
not conclusive that he is insane. The popular meaning of the word „crazy‟
is not synonymous with the legal
terms „insane‟, „non compos mentis‟ unsound mind‟, „idiot‟ or „lunatic‟.
(Ambal)
Presumption is in favour of sanity The law presumes that every person
is of sound mind, in the absence of
proof to the contrary” xxx “The law always presumes all acts to be
voluntary. It is improper to presume that acts were executed
unconsciously. (Ambal).
…that when a defendant in a
criminal case interposes the defense of mental incapacity, the burden of
establishing that fact rests upon him, has been adopted in a series of
decisions by this court.” (PP vs
Bascos)
Circumstancial evidence: Bascos case 1922
Witnesses say that the accused
has been insane for many years
The doctor who examined the
accused testified that the
accused was a violent maniac
and that he may have been
insane when he killed the
victim, and
Lack of motive on the part of
the accused to kill the victim
Quantum of evidence Bonoan 1937
Insanity as a defense is a confession and avoidance and as such must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
2
When the commission of a crime is established and the defense of
insanity is not made out beyond
reasonable doubt conviction follows.
Accused confined at San Larazo
Hospital twice (1922, 1926) –
tendency of recurring
Dementia praecox is an
exempting circumstance
(authorities)
Insomnia for 4 days before the
crime, symptom of or leads to
dementia praecox;
A day after his arrest he was
sent to the Psychopathic
hospital
Alienist reported that the
accused had a form of psychosis
– Manic depressive psychosis
Commission vs Trial Insanity at the time of the commission of the offense is
different from insanity at the time of the trial. In the first instance, it is an
exempting circumstance, in the second the accused is not exempt
but the proceedings are suspended
until the accused is fit to stand trial.
Burden of evidence The alleged insanity of Ambal was
not substantiated by any sufficient
evidence. The presumption of sanity was not overthrown. He was not
completely bereft of reason or discernment and freedom of will
when he mortally wounded his wife. He was not suffering from any
disease or defect. (Ambal)
PP vs Legaspi 2001
“Mere prior confinement does not prove that accused-appellant was
deprived of reason at the time of
the incident” – not establishing insanity(only proves you went to
mental hospital), he was discharged (proof of cure).
No evidence that he was adjudged insane. Discharge is proof of being
cured.
Mental depravity which results not
from any disease of the mind, but from a perverted condition of the
moral system, where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one
from responsibility for crimes committed under its influence.
PP vs Madarang 2000 The courts have established a more
stringent criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is required that
there must be a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. i.e. the accused
is deprived of reason he acted without the least discernment
because there is a complete absence of the power to discern.
Establishing insanity is a question of fact and may be established by:
A witness who is intimately
acquainted with the accused.
(relative, a very good friend)
A witness who has rational basis
to conclude that the accused
was insane based on the
witness‟ own perception of the
accused. (you can be a witness
if you can perceive and relate
what you have perceived)
Expert testimony (Madarang)
Pp vs Madarang
The testimony or proof of the accused‟s insanity must relate to the
time preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the offense with
which he is charged.
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
3
…proof of abnormal behavior
immediately before or simultaneous
to the commission of the crime. Evidence on the alleged insanity
must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very
moment of its execution.
PP vs Opuran 2004
A man‟s act is presumed voluntary. It is improper to assume the
contrary. *Such unusual behavior may be
considered as mere abnormality of
the mental faculties, which will not exclude imputability.
*Medicine was not shown to be for any mental illness.
*Was never confined in a mental
institution. * Dr. Verona‟s findings were not
based on incomplete and sufficient facts;
*Failed to invoke insanity at the earliest opportunity.
Stringent standard
2. Minority
RA 9344 Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act (May 20, 2006)
New concepts:
Age of criminal responsibility – From 9 to 15 to 15 to 18. 15 below
no criminal responsibility.
Effects – No more prisoned. Minor offenders committing crimes in
broad daylight they have in their pockets birth certificates to show
they are minors. The law is being
abused. Presumptions – in favour of
minority. Once accused says he is a minor it is up to the state to prove
otherwise. Age of criminal responsibility
A child fifteen years of age and under at the time of the commission
of the offense is exempt from
criminal liability.
Child is subject to intervention. Intervention refers to a series of
activities which are designed to
address issues that caused the child to commit an offense.
Section 3(1) Ra 9344
Intervention refers to a series of activities which are designed to
address issues that caused the child
to commit an offense. It may take the form of an individualized
treatment program which may include counselling, skills training,
education, and other activities that
will enhance his/her psychological, emotional and psychological
Above 15 but below 18
Without discernment - child is
exempt but subject to
intervention
With discernment – subject to
appropriate proceedings, i. e.
diversion
No exemption from civil liability – parents, guardians can be liable for
damages
Discernment is the mental capacity
to understand the difference between right and wrong.
It may be shown by:
Manner of committing a crime
Conduct of offender
Appearance of the minor
Attitude
Comportment
Behavior, before, during and
after the trial.
Determination of age
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
4
Birth certificate
Baptismal certificate
Other pertinent document
In the absence of the documents mentioned:
- Testimony of the child or other
persons
- Physical appearance
- Other relevant evidence
Presumption of minority (Sec. 7)
Imposable Penalty Not more than 6 years (barangay
level, police level)
Mediation, family conferencing
and conciliation if appropriate
(where there is a private
offended party)
In victimless crimes, diversion
or rehabilitation
More than 6 years
Diversion by the court Kinds of Diversion, Sec. 31, Barangay Level
Restitution – return what was
taken
Reparation – pay the value of
what was taken
Indemnification – in cases like
assault or physical injury,
hospital fees, medicine, loss of
income when hospitalized
Written or oral apology
Care guidance and supervision
orders
Counselling
Trainings, seminars and lectures
- Anger management
- Problem solving
- Values formation
- Other skills to aid the child
Participation in community
based programs
Participation in education,
vocation and life skills
program
Kinds of Diversion, Law Enforcement Level - Confiscation and forfeiture of
the proceeds
- All the programs at the
barangay level
Kinds of Diversion, Court Court
All programs at barangay and
law enforcement
Written or oral reprimand
Fine
Payment of the cost of
proceedings
Institutional care and custody
Sec. 58. Offenses not applicable to
children Vagrancy and Prostitution
Mendicancy
Sniffing of Rugby
Shall undergo appropriate counselling and treatment
4. Accident
Elements:
Performance of a lawful act
With Due care
Injury is caused to another by
mere accident
There is no fault or intention of
causing the injury
An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it
comes about through some act of our will,
lies beyond the bounds of humanly
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
5
foreseeable consequences (PP vs Agliday 2001)
PP vs Genita 2004 He must show with clear and convincing
proofs that 1) he was performing a lawful act with due care, 2) the injury caused was
by a mere accident, and 3) he had no fault
or intention of causing the injury.
Basis as an exempting circumstance Criminal liability does not arise in case a
crime is committed by any person who while performing a lawful act with due care
causes an injury by mere accident
Performance of a lawful act
For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the act has to be lawful. The
act of firing a shotgun at another is not a
lawful act. (Agliday)
Intent is a mental state It connotes the absence of criminal intent,
intent is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by a person‟s overt acts
Accused got his shotgun and shot his son. A shotgun has to be cocked first before it
could be discharged. (Agliday)
Dual Standard Thus, in determining whether an accident
attended the incident, courts must take into
account the dual standards of lack on intent to kill and absence of fault or negligence
(Pomoy vs PP)
Accident inconsistent with self-defense Self-defense is inconsistent with the
exempting circumstance of accident, in
which there is no intent to kill. On the other hand, self-defense necessarily contemplates
a premeditate intent to kill in order to defend oneself from harm.
5. Compulsion of an irresistible force Elements:
Compulsion is by physical force
The physical force is irresistible
The physical force must come
from a third person
Exempted from criminal liability “Because he does not act with freedom”
“reduce him to be a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his
will” “must be present, imminent and impending
and of such a nature as to induce a well-
grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done”
“a threat of future injury is not enough” “The compulsion must be of such a
character as to leave no opportunity to the
accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat” (PP vs Loreno 1984)
6. Impulse of an uncontrollable fear of
an equal or greater injury Elements:
The threat which causes the
fear is of an evil greater than or
at least equal to that which is
required to commit.
That the evil is of such gravity
and imminence that the
ordinary man would succumb to
it.
Opportunity to escape At that time the alleged masterminds were
waiting for both appellants from a distance
of about one kilometre. By not availing of this chance to escape, appellants, allegation
of fear or duress becomes untenable. Xxx. It is necessary that the compulsion be of such
a character as to leave no opportunity to
escape or self-defense in equal combat. PP vs Saldana 2004.
Irresistible Force vs Uncontrollable Fear
IF – violence or physical force
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
6
UF – intimidation or threat
7. Prevented by Insuperable Cause
Elements:
An act is required by law
A person fails to perform such
act
Such failure is due to some
lawful or insuperable cause.
Art. 13 Mitigating Circumstances
- Circumstances that reduce the
penalty but do not entirely free
the actor from criminal liability.
- Mitigating circumstance whether
privileged or ordinary only serve
to reduce the penalty but does
not change the nature of the
crime.
Kinds:
1.) Ordinary – Art. 13
May be offset by aggravating
circumstances, effect is penalty is lowered by one or two
degrees
2.) Privileged –Art. 68, 69, 64
Cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance, effect is penalty is
applicable in its minimum period
1. All requisites necessary to
justify or to exempt from
criminal liability are not
attendant
Not all the requisites are required The requisites attendant must not
be a majority or it will be a
privileged mitigating
Self-defence, relatives or strangers -Unlawful aggression being an indispensable
requisite is the only one that is possible
under this article
The presence of another makes the circumstance a privileged mitigating.
PP vs Librando – to avail of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense,
there must be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
State of necessity/Avoidance of greater evil or injury
That an evil actually exists must be present The presence of any of the two others
(injury feared is greater, no other practical and less harmful means) would result in a
privileged mitigating circumstance.
Performance of duty (not an ordinary
mitigating; privileged) Since there are only two requisites, the
presence of one is considered a privileged
mitigating circumstance (Oanis)
2. Minority and over 70 years of
age
RA 9344
Age: If 15 and below – no criminal liability (intervention)
If above 15 below 18
If acted w/o discernment
(presumption) no criminal
liability (intervention)
If acted with discernment
(diversion)
Diversion
Barangay level
(look at back of syllabus)
Nature of offense
If offense is punishable by imprisonment by not more than 6 years
Conduct mediation, family
conferencing and conciliation if
possible, i.e. where there is a
private offended party, by
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
7
Barangay or Law Enforcement
assisted by LCPC. Parents of the
child shall attend.
In victimless crimes possible
diversion or rehabilitation
program by local social welfare
and development officer with
parents/guardians
If offense is punishable by more than 6
years diversion may be resorted to only by the regional trial court (ex/ robbery)
Over 70 years of age - A generic or ordinary mitigating
circumstance
- RA 9346 – prohibits the
imposition of death penalty
3. No Intention to commit so
grave a wrong
- The facts proven show that
there exists notable and evident
disproportion between means
employed to execute the
criminal act and its
consequences
- Notorious disproportion
between evil produced and the
means employed to execute it
*means employed can prove intention
Intent is a state of mind - The intention of the agent, as
an internal act and of his own
conscience and of his own
conscience, cannot be revealed
in any other manner than by
external and overt acts which
may accompany intention
Deducing intent - The intention of the culprit must
be deduced as a rule from the
nature and extent of the
tangible evil produced, as this is
almost always the palpable
manifestation of his will, except
when the proof and other
circumstances or antecedent
events may be a sufficient
ground to cause the belief that
the material act has
transcended the bounds of his
intention (Reyes)
- Baston and Death –
remembering that the
implement as a baston, the use
of which will force on the head
of a person would ordinarily
fracture the head.
- External acts may show intent –
The weapon used, nature of
injury inflicted, attitude of
mind/manner of commission
PP vs Callet The lack of intent to commit a
wrong so grave is an internal state. It is weighted based on the weapon
used, the part of the body injured,
the injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted. 9 inch knife, on the
neck, attacking victim from behind, without giving him an opportunity to
defend himself. This shows he intended to do what he actually did.
Attendant facts and circumstance While intent to kill may be
presumed from the fact of the death of the victim, this mitigating factor
may still be considered when
attendant facts and circumstances so warrant as in the instant case.
Consider: Petitioner tried to avoid fight being smaller, He tried to parry
the blows of Tomelden, Hit lucky punch. He even helped carry his
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
8
unconscious co-worker to the office of general manager.(Urbano)
PP vs Gonzales -This mitigating circumstance is
obtaining when there is a notable disparity between the means
employed by the accused to commit
a wrong and the resulting crime committed.
- The appellant‟s use of a gun, although not deliberately sought nor
employed in the shooting should have reasonably placed the
appellant on guard of the possible
consequences of his act.
Not inconsistent with treachery – treachery but mitigated by no
intention to commit so grave a
wrong - The trial court gave all of the
accused the benefit of the
mitigating circumstance that the
offenders had no intention to
commit so grave a wrong. The
estimation of this circumstance
was proper, and its allowance
was not inconsistent with the
finding that the crime was
murder. There was a clear
agreement that they will beat
the victim up using iron bars to
inflict only serious injury even
the one who didn‟t agree and
brought a knife. (Pp. vs
Enriquez GR no. 37408 Oct. 10,
1933. See also Cagoco)
Attendant circumstances
- The record shows, however,
that the offense committed was
characterized by treachery and
the appellants left the scene of
the crime only after the victim
had fallen down, Hence, the
mitigating circumstance of lack
of intention cannot be
appreciated in favour of the
appellants. PP vs Pajenado GR
No. L-26458 -1976
4. Sufficient Provocation
Requisites:
Provocation must be:
Sufficient
Originating from offended
party Immediate
Be sufficient and immediately preceding
(must be no interval of time) the act
The provocation to constitute a
mitigating circumstance, must, in the
language of the law, be sufficient, that
is, adequate to excite the person to
commit the wrong and must accordingly
be proportionate to its gravity. (PP. vs
Nabora. GR No. 48101 1941)
Must be accordingly proportionate to
each other the provocation and the act
committed
Sufficient provocation
Depends on:
The act constituting the
provocation
Social standing of the person
provoked
Place and time of provocation
Examples:
Forcing one‟s way into a line
despite being told not to by a
foreman (Carrero)
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
9
Kicking and abusing the accused
for not preparing the evening
meal. (Firmo)
Asking for pardon from her
husband after the latter saw a
man jump from their window
(Marquez)
Urbano
When the law speaks of provocation either as a mitigating circumstance or as an
essential element of self-defense, the reference is to an unjust or improper
conduct of the offended party capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone it is
not enough that the provocative act be
unreasonable or annoying; the provocation must be sufficient to excite one to commit
the wrongful act and should immediately precede the act.
…immediately precede the act There should be no interval of time.
Between the provocation made by the offended party and the commission of the
crime by the accused.
5. Immediate vindication of a grave
The grave offense is done to:
One committing offense
Spouse
Ascendants
Descendants
Legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters
Relatives by affinity within the
same degree
Immediate = Proximate (wrong interpretation from the Spanish Text)
Although this offense, which engenders perturbation of mind, was not so immediate,
this court is of the opinion that the influence
thereof, by reason of its gravity and the circumstances under which it was inflicted,
lasted until the moment the crime was committed.
Time to regain composure or equanimity
…still this mitigating circumstance cannot be
considered where sufficient time elapsed for the accused to regain his composure.”
“Without question, sufficient time had passed for appellants‟ emotions to cool and
for them to recover their equanimity.”
Grave offense NOT grave felony
The gravity of the offense depends on:
Social standing of the person
subject of the grave offense;
Place;
Time when insult was made
Grave offense “I will make a roast pig out of you” (Ampar)
“You live at the expense of your wife”
(Rosel) “You are a Japanese spy” (Luna)
6. Passion or obfuscation
The accused must have acted on an impulse so powerful that it naturally
That there be an act both
unlawful and sufficient to
produce such condition of mind
and
That said act which produces
the obfuscation was not far
remote from the
commission of crime for a
considerable length of time,
during which the perpetrator
might recover his normal
equanimity (PP vs Gravino)
Requisites:
Accused acted on impulse
Impulse so powerful that it
resulted to passion or
obfuscation
Prior unjust or improper conduct The circumstance “should not be taken into
consideration as an extenuating
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
10
circumstance unless it appears that it was provoked by prior unjust or improper acts.”
(US vs Taylor G.R. No. 2309)
PP vs Noynay G.R. No. 38715
In order to be entitled to this mitigating circumstance it must appear that the
obfuscation of the accused arose from
lawful sentiments. The fact that an offense was committed in an uncontrollable burst of
passion should not be taken into consideration as an extenuating
circumstance unless it appears that it was provoked by prior unjust or improper acts.
PP vs Caliso GR No. 37271 The accused, in poisoning the child, was
actuated more by a spirit of lawlessness and revenge than by any sudden impulse of
natural and uncontrollable fury and because
such sudden burst of passion was not provoked by prior unjust or improper acts…
US vs Sarikala GR NO. L-12988
(Muslim househelp) The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation
cannot be considered when a long period of
time has intervened between the impulse which produces it and the criminal act.”
…be not far removed…
(Pissing on coffee cup and spitting on face)
For the circumstance to exist, it is necessary that the act which gave rise to the
obfuscation be not removed from the commission of the offense by a considerable
length of time, during which period the
perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity…(PP vs Layson GR No. L-25177)
Must arise from lawful sentiments
(girl left previous lover and went to another soldier)…the only causes which mitigate the
criminal responsibility for the loss of self-
control are such as originate from legitimate feelings, not those which arise from vicious,
unworthy, and immoral passions. (US vs Hicks GR No. 4971)
Hicks and Dela Cruz distinguished In (Hicks) the cause of the alleged “passion
and obfuscation”…the refusal of the woman
to continue to live in illicit relations with him, which she had a perfect right to do;
In the present case however, the impulse upon which defendant acted and which
naturally “produced passion and
obfuscation” was not that the woman declined to have illicit relations with him, but
the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him, and his discovery of her in flagrante
in the arms of another. (US vs De la Cruz G.R. No. 7094)
Legitimate or illegitimate In Engay, the natural feeling of despair in
her after finding out that the man, she had been supporting and made many sacrifices
for, abandoned her is the source of the
passion/obfuscation
In Yuman, the woman who stabbed her partner who after taking advantage of said
woman abandoned her was considered by the SC as a legitimate source of passion or
obfuscation.
In Bello, it was the refusal of the woman to
go back to the accused and instead remain as a public hostess. It is curious that in this
case, it was the accused who induced the
victim to obtain employment as a public hostess in the first place.
Summary of rules
The act producing the condition of
mind/impulse must be unlawful while the sentiments of the accused from which the
passion or obfuscation originate from must be lawful. A single fact cannot be made the basis of different modifying circumstances
Well-settled is the rule that if these two
circumstance are based on the same facts, they should be treated together as one
mitigating circumstance. From the facts established in this case, it is clear that both
circumstances arose from the same set of
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
11
facts aforementioned. Hence, they should not be treated as two separate mitigating
circumstances. (Romera vs PP GR No.
151978)
7. Voluntary surrender and confession For surrender to be appreciated it must be
spontaneous and unconditional because
he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities from the trouble
and expenses in his search and capture.
Requisites
Offender has not been actually
arrested.
The offender surrendered
himself to a person in
authority or his agent.
The surrender is voluntary.
PP vs Obligado GR No. 171735
(narrow footpath leading to accused‟s house and met with police on the way home after
the crime)
Inasmuch as he was intercepted by the arresting officer there, appellant had no
means of evading arrest. His surrender therefore was neither voluntary nor
spontaneous.
Warrant of arrest; issuance different from
service For while it is true that the warrant for his
arrest was dated 7 March 1967and the
police authorities were able to take custody of the accused only on 31 March 1967,
there is nothing on record to show that the warrant had actually been served
on him, or that it had been returned unserved for failure of the server to locate said accused. (PP vs Brana GR. No.
L-29210)
8. Physical Defect
Defect must restrict means of action,
defense or communication.
Law does not distinguish whether accused is educated or not.
9. Illness
Requisites:
Illness diminishes offenders
exercise of willpower
Does not deprive offender of
consciousness of his acts
10. Similar and Anologous Circumstances
Art. 14. Aggravating Circumstance
(Generic)
Increase the penalty without
exceeding the maximum
Based on greater perversity
Motivating power Place of commission
Means and ways
employed Time
Personal circumstances
Four Kinds
Generic Specific
Qualifying
Inherent
Qualifying Generic
cannot be offset can be offset
changes nature of crime
increases penalty
must be alleged must be alleged as amended
1. Advantage be taken by the
offender of his public position
a. What is important is that
the offender is a public
officer and he takes
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
12
advantage of his public
position to commit the
crime.
Ex. People vs Villamor Policeman shot someone
using his service revolver.
Did the accused abuse his office to commit the crime?
This circumstance is not present.
US vs Torrida Torrida was a councilman
and demanded a non-existent fee from the
residents of their barrio. His position placed him in a
position to commit these
crimes. If he wasn‟t, he could not have induced the
injured parties to pay these alleged fines. It was for his
position that the injured
people made the payments.
Pablo vs PP Three Policemen in a motor
vehicle picked up people at
night and harassed the victims making false
charges to the victims and giving them choice to just
give them their valuables and they will not be
imprisoned. Their positions
caused the persuasion to let the victims into boarding
the mobile patrol car and hand over their money.
Clear case wherein public
officers abused their position.
PP vs Magayac 2000
CAFGU became embroiled in a family dispute and verbal
arguments turned into fist
blows and ultimately
defendant got his rifle to shoot the victim. That
accused-appellant was a
member of the dreaded CAFGU and used his
government issued M-14 rifle to kill Jimmy does not
necessarily prove that he
took advantage of his public position to commit the
crime.
PP vs Fallorina 2004 Fallorina was a policeman
on a motorcycle and met a
neighbour child playing with a kite who climbed the roof
to get the kite. Fallorina told child to get off the roof and
got pissed and shot the
child. There is no evidence on record that the appellant
took advantage of his position as a policeman.
PP vs Herrera 2001
The mere fact that the
accused-appellant is a policeman who used his
government issued .38 revolver to kill Ganan is not
sufficient to establish that
he misused his public position in the commission
of the crim.
PP vs Gapasin 1994
Appellant, a member of the PC, committed the crime
with an armalite which was issued to him when he
received the mission order. Aggravating circumstance
present.
2. In contempt of or w/insult to
the public authorities
Requisites:
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
13
1. A public authority is engaged
in the exercise of functions
2. The public authority is not the
person against whom the crime
is committed
3. The offender knows him to be
a public authority
4. The presence of the public
authority does not prevent
the commission of the crime by
the offender
Public authority – One vested with jurisdiction. One with power to
govern and execute the laws.
Agents are not included – policemen and tanods.
PP vs Gutierrez 1999 Public officer should not be the
object of the offense
3. Disregard of Rank, Age, Sex or
Dwelling of Offended Party
Age may refer to the victim‟s
advanced age or very young age.
Rank - social position, standing in society, employment, any
organizations with hierarchy Must be deliberately intended to
insult the rank, age or sex of the
offended party for it to be considered.
PP vs Mangsant 1938
It was not shown that he had intended to offend or insult the sex
of the victim
PP vs Dela Cruz 2004
Accused stabbed a sickly 81-year old man.
It was not shown that appellant
deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of the offended party.
PP vs Hernandez 2004
Case involves robbery with homicide
This circumstance is limited to crimes against persons or honor.
Dwelling – a building or structure exclusively used for rest and
comfort. May be the entire structure or a portion thereof.
-Effects of the crime are felt in the
dwelling. Accused need not enter the dwelling.
PP vs Alcala 1922
Foot of the staircase of the house regarded as an integral part of the
dwelling of that family. The porch of
a house, not common to different neighbours, is a part of the
dwelling.
Sufficient provocation by owner of
the dwelling When there is sufficient provocation by the owner of the dwelling, this circumstance cannot
be appreciated.
“There must be a close relation
between provocation and commission of crime in the dwelling
of the person from whom the provocation came.”
US vs LIicarte 1912 Daughter was grossly insulted.
Dwelling was not considered.
PP vs Dequina 1934
Accused figured out that his wife and the victim were having an affair
from some source. He went to the lover‟s house and killed him. Later
on when he was charged he said there was sufficient provocation.
The provocation was not given
immediately prior to the commission of the crime and had no particular
relation to the house of the deceased. If the defendant had
entered the house of the deceased
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
14
and surprised the deceased and the wife of the defendant in the act of
adultery, the aggravating
circumstance of morada(dwelling) would not exist.
When provocation negates dwelling
1. Must be immediate before the
commission of the crime
2. Close relation between the
provocation and the crime
committed in the dwelling
PP vs Agoncillo 2001 Rosalyn was not raped therein; she
was taken from her house and
raped somewhere. Although she was abducted therefrom, accused-
appellant was not charged with forcible abduction with rape but only
with rape. Considering that she was
not raped in her home, dwelling cannot be appreciated.
4. Abuse of confidence or obvious
ungratefulness.
1. The offended party trusts the offender
2. The offender abused such trust, and
3. The abuse facilitated the commission of the crime
Fiduciary(one of trust) relationship between offended and offender
PP vs Caliso 1933
Aggravating circumstance of grave
abuse of confidence was present since the appellant was the
domestic servant of the family and the “amah”.
PP vs Cram
There was no fiduciary relationship
between Cram and the child(victim).
5. Palace of the Chief Executive, in his presence, public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of duties or
in a place dedicated to public worship Palace of the Chief executive and
place dedicated to public worship – official or religious functions need
not be held.
Where public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties – there must be some
performance of public functions
Par. 5 vs Par. 2
Public authorities are
performing their duties – same
Public authorities engaged in
the performance of their duties
must be inside their office –
Public authorities are
performing their duties outside
of their office
Public authority may be the
offended party – Public party
should not be the offended
party
Intent to commit the crime when the person entered/arrived at the
place.
6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, by a band
Considered as one if all are present.
Nighttime PP vs Librando 2000
One aggravating circumstance only. They can be considered
separately if their elements are
distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater
degree of perversity.
PP vs Silva 2002 Three ways which nighttime can be
considered (either of the 3):
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
15
1. Especially sought for by the
offender
2. It is taken advantage of by him
3. It facilitates the commission of
the crime by ensuring the
offender‟s immunity from
capture
The fact that they brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that
they intended to commit the crime in darkness…
Darkness or obscurity
PP vs Carino 2004
The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the obscuridad
afforded by, and not merely chronological onset of, nighttime.
Although it was committed at night
nocturnity is not a modifying factor if place is adequately lighted.
Uninhabited place
Reasonable possibility for the victim
to receive some help in the place of the commission of the crime.
PP vs Rubia 1928
Aggravating circumstance of the crime having been committed in an
uninhabited place must be
considered, the incident having taken place at sea where it was
difficult for the offended party to receive help, while the assailants
could easily have escaped
punishment.
PP vs Lumandong 2000 Accused didn‟t get proper wages so
decided to kill family members of employer.
Isolated and grassy portion of the
Iponan River 200 meters away from her house before killing his said
victim thereby facilitating the commission of the crime.
Band More than three = at least four
Directly participate in the
execution of the act constituting the crime.
PP vs Magdamit 1997 Offense committed en cuadrilla
when more than three armed
malefactors shall have acted together in the commission thereof.
In the present case, there were seven armed conspirators involved
in the commission of the composite crime.
PP vs Dinamling 2002 It may be not all of you would kill
but all participated directly. All four accused-appellants were armed,
three with long firearms and the
other with short arms.
PP vs Lozano 2003 Any weapon which by reason of its
intrinsic nature or the purpose for which it was made or used by the
accused, is capable of inflicting
serious or fatal injuries upon the victim of the crime may be
considered as arms for purposes of the law on cuadrilla (fours).
7. On the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune. The rule in here is that the offender
must take advantage of the
calamity or misfortune in the commission of the crime
SC decision on post-World War II
chaos scenario – chaotic conditions is included in the calamity or
misfortune analogy.
8. Aid of armed men or persons who
insure or afford impunity
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
16
Armed men must not participate in the execution of the felony otherwise they
are co-principals.
Lozano
Aid of armed men requires that they are accomplices who take part in
minor capacity, directly or indirectly.
9. Recividism
One who, at the time of the trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of
the RPC.
Basis – indication of non-reform/criminal propensity
Theft and estafa, murder and homicide, homicide and physical
injuries.
Requisites: 1. Is on trial
2. Previously convicted by final
judgment
3. 1st and 2nd offense embraced in
the same title
4. Convicted of the 2nd offense
No recidivism if 2nd conviction is for
a crime committed before the commission of the crime involved in
the 1st conviction.
PP vs Rapisora 147855
Recidivist – one who at the time of his trial for one crime shall have
been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of this
Code.
Necessary to allege the same
in the information and attach
thereto certified copies of the
sentences rendered against
the accused.
10. Reiteracion or Habituality Requisites:
1. The accused is on trial 2. Previously served sentence for another offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for the
new offense;
3. The accused is convicted for the new offense
Recividism vs Habituality
Previously convicted by final
judgment – Previously served
sentence
Both are the same in that the
time of appreciative is at the
time the offender is facing trial
Reiteracion Recidivism
sentence served out
final judgement
not in same title same title of the
same code
not always aggravating
always aggravating
11. In consideration of a price, reward or promise
The price, reward or promise must be the primary consideration of
the offender in committing the crime.
Includes the person who gives the
rewards
PP vs Talledo 1950 This circumstance was not
considered primarily because there
was no conclusive evidence and the
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
17
circumstance was not alleged in the information
PP vs Alincastre 1971 Shot and killed the mayor of
Olongapo The Talledo case is not authority on
this question
Indeed, the established rule in the Spanish jurisprudence is to the
effect that the aggravating circumstance of price, rewards or
promise thereof affects both the offeror and the acceptor.
The circumstance may even evince
even greater moral depravity in the offeror than in the acceptor.
PP vs Canete 1984
Aggravating circumstance of price
was present in the crime to both offeror and acceptor.
12. By means of inundation, fine,
poison, explosion, stranding of vessel or intentional damage thereto,
derailment of locomotive, or any other
artifice involving great waste or ruin Any of the circumstances in this
paragraph must be used by the offender to accomplish the crime,
hence the phrase “by means of…”
Means must be specifically resorted
to commit the crime. In treachery as long as it‟s present
that aggravated circumstance is
there without regard to the purpose of the offender (ex. His plan was to
commit a tree adjacent to window where victim sleeps and shoot him
while he sleeps. When person enters he shoots person who is
different from intended victim)
PP vs Comadre 2004
He threw a stick of dynamite at the person who is prostrate at the
ground. Explosive became the
qualifying aggravating circumstance while treachery as generic
aggravating circumstance.
PP vs Galura
Chocolates with Cantharide to sexually stimulate girl. But boyfriend
did not intend to kill girlfriend.
13. Evident premeditation
Requisites: 1. The time when the offender
determined to commit the crime
2. An act manifestly indicating the
culprit‟s determination to
commit the crime
3. A sufficient lapse of time
between determination and
execution
Sufficient time to contemplate
the consequences of his acts
PP vs Tobechukwu 2001
The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution
of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon
the resolution to carry out the
criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm
judgment.
US vs The Moro Manalinde 1909 A case where you have all the 3
requisites of evident premeditation present.
Time – decided to commit the crime accepting the order
Determination – got knife and wrapped it with banana leaves and
A sufficient lapse of time – walked
for 3 days
PP vs Mendoza No sufficient time to coolly and
serenely think and deliberate on the meaning and the consequences of
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
18
what they planned to do, an interval long enough
PP vs Hilario 2001 Arrived early afternoon, witnesses
heard them planning to kill a person, when information was
brought to them of the location of
the victim, they went there and killed person but not the intended
victim (white t-shirt). Evident premeditation cannot be take into
account when the person whom the defendant proposed to kill from the
one who became his victim.
Manalinde vs Hilario
The fact was the victim was not predetermined. Does not affect the
nature of the crime.
14. Craft, Fraud orDisguise
Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning.
PP vs Nunez
Craft should also be appreciated as
aggravating when victim was lured. Rivera to accept the proceeds of the
sale of a gun. A scheme employed by the accused to get him to get
inside the car.
Disguise
PP vs Reyes 1998
It is also worth mentioning that
while appellant reportedly had a sort of a mask and was usng
sunglasses, these clumsy accoutrements could not constitute
the aggravating circumstance of disguise. Legally, disfraz
contemplates a superficial but
somewhat effective dissembling to avoid identification. Disguise was
also not alleged in the information
PP vs Cabato 1988
Cabato‟s disguise (mask) fell during the commission of the crime. The
fact that the mask subsequently fell
down thus paving the way for Cabato‟s identification will not
render this aggravating circumstance inapplicable. Disguise
was considered.
PP vs Cunanan 1977
Malefactors resorted to disguise. Circumstance did not facilitate the
consummation of the killing. Nor was it taken advantage of by the
malefactors in the course of the
assault. They announced their presence at
the scene of the crime with shouts and gunshots. That mode of attack counteracted whatever deception might have arisen from their disguise.
Purpose of the offender is to
conceal his identity
To facilitate the commission of
the crime
Offender takes advantage of
the disguise
Effective
15. Advantage be taken of superior
strength or means be employed to weaken the defense.
PP vs Drew 2001 GR No. 127368
Several of them ganged up on victim.
Must be shown that accused is physically stronger than the victim.
Used and abused their superiority of
their combined strength or inherent superiority.
PP vs Padilla GR No. 75508 1994
45 caliber pistol, defense plywood. Abuse of superior strength may
include use of powerful weapon out
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
19
of proportion to the defense available to the offended party.
PP vs Amodia 177356 2008 Numerical superiority but took
turns. SC said they did not took advantage of superior strength.
Numbers is not enough there must
be clear proof that assailants purposely used excessive force out
of proportion to the defense available to the person attacked.
PP vs Ventura 148145-46 2004
Killed the employer and the wife of
the employer at dawn. A man with a deadly weapon attacked an
unarmed and defenceless woman constitutes the circumstance of
abuse of that superiority which his
sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the
woman was unable to defend herself.
Means employed to weaken
defense.
The means must not be of such a nature that the victim could not put
up any sort of defense otherwise that would be a case of treachery.
PP vs Ducusin 30724 1929 He made victim drunk with Cognac.
16. Treachery
PP vs Gidoc GR 185162 2009
Singing in the karaoke Crimes against persons, employing
means methods, or forms in the execution thereof that tend directly
and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from
the defense which the victim might
make.
-Swift and unexpected attack w/out the slightest provocation on
the latter‟s part.
PP vs REgalado 177302 2009
Chu was caught off-guard because
he was still asking forgiveness then accused suddenly drew a curved
knife and stabbed and pursued the following victim. Precluding Chua
from defending himself.
Treachery cannot be presumed
PP vs Abdulah 182518 2009 Abdulah was looking for a girl and
asked directions and was able to locate the girl. Later on girl was
discovered dead. SC said it is not
enough to establish treachery. All was circumstantial. Must be proved
as if it is an element of the offense.
Elements of treachery Velasco vs PP
166479 2006 a) The time of the attack, the
victim was not in a position to
defend himself;
PP vs Dela Pena 183567 2009
Victim was unarmed, attacked from behind a window to mask
his presence and identity.
b) And the accused consciously
and deliberately adopted the
particular means, methods or
forms of attack employed by
him.
PP vs Guevarra 182192 2008 Inspector Barte as just sitting in
the jeep and was shot on the
head and the chest by .45 caliber.
Baluyot and Canete
If aggression is continuous
treachery must be present in the beginning of the assault.
If there is an interruption in the assault, it is sufficient that treachery be present at the moment the fatal blow was delivered. It is this interruption that gives the accused
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
20
the time to consciously and deliberately adopt the means and
method of execution.
…with treachery
PP vs Trinidad 38930 1988 As long as treachery is present it
will be considered even if there is a
mistake in the person, blow, etc. That Juan Angel, and not his
mother, was apparently the intended victim is not incompatible
with the existence of treachery. When he saw a person sleeping in
the room offender shot the person.
Not intended victim. Treachery may be taken into account even if the
victim of the attack was not the person whom the accused intended
to kill.
17. Ignominy
Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which
adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. US vs Abaigar 1255 1903
Effects of the crime more humiliating.
US vs De Leon 522 1902
Land owner was made to kneel
before his servants before he was killed.
A deliberate effort to add humiliation to the effects of the
crime.
PP vs Acaya L-72998 188
Victim was dancing a fandango in public and was stabbed while
dancing. It does not follow that there was intention to put the
offended party to shame the fact
that he was stabbed in a public place.
PP vs Siao 126021 2000
Used not only the missionary position but also the dog position
the aggravating circumstance of
ignominy attended the commission thereof.
18. Unlawful Entry
When an entrance is effected by a
way not intended for the purpose.
PP vs Mendiona 129056 2000 Entrance through the window
19. Breaking wall, roof, floor, door or
window
Must be resorted to as a means to the commission of the crime
What distinguishes this from unlawful entry is that in the latter
the window or point of ingress need
not be broken
20. Aid of persons under 15 or by means of motor vehicle, airships or
other similar means. Must be deliberately used in the
commission of the crime.
PP vs Espejo L-27708 1970
Jeep was used at arriving, to carry the effects, escaping. Deliberately
used in the commission of the
crime.
More jurisprudence state that
mere use of a motor vehicle in
escaping is not aggravating.
21. Cruelty
Cruelty refers to physical suffering as compared to Ignominy which
refers to moral suffering, i.e.,
disgrace and shame.
Test in appreciating cruelty PP vs Sitchon 2002
Child was killed with a hammer. Whether the accused deliberately
and sadistically augmented the
Criminal 1: Notes from Fiscal Carillo’s Powerpoint Presentation
Compiled by Patrick Gallito Edited & Layout by Jan Shaltiel Vincent Estrada
2010
21
wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or
inhumanly increased the victims
suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse…the culprit
enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually,
causing him moral and physical pain
which is unnecessary for the consummation of the criminal act
which he intended to commit. Accused was not given the
aggravating circumstance because it was more of a result of drug use.