BOOK ONE
CRIMINAL LAW - that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment. CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW 1. GENERAL - it is binding on all persons
who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory (Art. 14, NCC)
EXCEPTIONS:
a) Treaty stipulations
b) Laws of preferential application c) Principles of Public International
Law.
The following persons are exempted:
a. Sovereigns and other chief of state
b. Ambassadors,ministers, plenipotentiary, minister
resident and charges
d’affaires.
Consuls, vice-consuls and other
commercial representatives of foreign nation cannot claim the privileges and immunities accorded to ambassadors and ministers.
2. TERRITORIAL – penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory.
EXCEPTIONS: (Art. 2, RPC) i.e.,
enforceable even outside
Philippine territory.
1) Offense committed while on a Philippine ship or airship
2) Forging or counterfeiting any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Government.
3) Introduction into the country of the above-mentioned obligations and securities.
4) While being public officers or employees should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions.
5) Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations defined in Title One of Book Two.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: Penal laws not applicable within or without Philippine territory if so provided in treaties and laws of preferential application. (Art.2, RPC) 3. PROSPECTIVE
GENERAL RULE: Penal laws cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed.
EXCEPTION: (it may be applied retroactively) When the new law is favorable to the accused.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION a) The new law is expressly made
inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of actions.
b) Offender is a habitual criminal.
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS: 1. No ex post facto law shall be enacted 2. No bill of attainder shall be enacted 3. No law that violates equal protection
clause of the constitution shall be enacted
4. No law which imposes cruel and unusual punishments nor excessive fines shall be enacted.
THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW
1. Classical Theory - basis of criminal liability is human free will. Under this theory, the purpose of penalty is retribution. The RPC is generally governed by this theory.
2. Positivist Theory – basis of criminal liability is the sum of the social and economic phenomena to which the actor is exposed wherein prevention and correction is the purpose of penalty. This theory is exemplified in the provisions regarding impossible crimes and habitual delinquency. 3. Eclectic or Mixed Theory – combination
of positivist and classical thinking wherein crimes that are economic and social in nature should be dealt in a positive manner; thus, the law is more compassionate.
PRELIMINARY TITLE ART. 2 – APPLICATION OF ITS
PROVISIONS RULES ON VESSELS:
1.) Philippine vessel or aircraft.
Must be understood as that which is registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs.
2.) On Foreign Merchant Vessels
ENGLISH RULE: Crimes committed aboard a vessel within the territorial waters of a country are triable in the courts of such country.
EXCEPTION: When the crimes merely affect things within the vessel or when they only refer to the internal management thereof.
FRENCH RULE:
GENERAL RULE: Crimes committed aboard vessel within the territorial waters of a country are not triable in the courts of said country.
EXCEPTION: When their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or when the safety of the state is endangered.
In the Philippines, we follow the English Rule.
In the case of a foreign warship, the same is not subject to territorial laws.
TITLE ONE: FELONIES AND
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Chapter One: Felonies (Arts. 3-10) ART. 3 – FELONIES
Felonies – are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC.
ELEMENTS OF FELONIES (GENERAL) 1. there must be an act or omission ie,
there must be external acts.
2. the act or omission must be punishable by the RPC.
3. the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa. “NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE” - there is no crime where there is no law punishing it.
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
ACCORDING TO THE MEANS BY WHICH THEY ARE COMMITTED:
1. Intentional Felonies – the act is performed with deliberate intent or malice.
Requisites of DOLO or MALICE: a. Freedom
b. Intelligence c. Criminal Intent
Mistake of Fact – is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person causing injury to another. Such person is not criminally liable as he acted without criminal intent.
Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:
a. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be. b. That the intention of the
accused in performing the act should be lawful. c. That the mistake must be
without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused.
2. Culpable Felonies - performed
without malice. Requisites of CULPA:
a. Freedom b. Intelligence
c. Negligence and Imprudence REASON FOR PUNSHING ACTS OF
NEGLIGENCE: A man must use common sense and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent.
Mala Prohibita - the class of crimes punishable by SPECIAL LAWS and where criminal intent is not, as a rule, necessary, it being sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law.
MALA IN SE vs. MALA PROHIBITA
MALA IN SE PROHIBITA MALA
1. As to moral trait of the offender
The moral trait is considered. Liability will arise only when there is dolo or culpa. The moral trait of the offender is not considered. It is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done. 2. As to use of good faith as a defense Good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless the crime is the result of culpa. Good faith is not a defense. 3. As to degree of accom- plish-ment of the crime The degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender.
The act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated.
4. As to mitigati ng and aggravat ing circum-stances Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in imposing the penalty. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are generally not taken into account. 5. As to degree of partici-pation When there is more than one offender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account. Degree of participation is generally not taken into account. All who participated in the act are punished to the same extent. 6. As to what laws are violated Violation of the RPC (General rule) Violation of Special Laws (General rule)
Intent distinguished from Motive
INTENT MOTIVE 1. Is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result 1. Is the moving power which impels one to act
2. Is an element of the crime, except in unintentional felonies (culpable) 2. Is NOT an element of the crime 3. Is essential in intentional felonies 3. Is essential only when the identity of the perpetrator is in doubt
ART. 4 – CRIMINAL LIABILITY PAR. 1 - Criminal Liability for a felony different from that intended to be committed
REQUISITES:
a) That an intentional felony has been committed.
b) That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed. PROXIMATE CAUSE – that cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury without which the result would not have occurred. Thus, the person is still criminally liable in:
1. Error in personae- mistake in the identity of the victim.
2. Abberatio ictus – mistake in the blow.
3. Praeter intentionem – lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.
PAR. 2 (IMPOSSIBLE CRIME) REQUISITES:
a) That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property. b) That the act was done with evil intent. c) That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.
d) That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.
ART. 6 – CONSUMMATED,
FRUSTRATED & ATTEMPTED FELONIES
STAGES OF EXECUTION: 1. CONSUMMATED FELONY
When all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.
2. FRUSTRATED FELONY ELEMENTS:
a) The offender performs all the acts of execution.
b) All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence.
c) But the felony is not produced.
d) By the reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
WHAT CRIMES DO NOT ADMIT OF FRUSTRATED STAGE?
1) Rape 2) Bribery
3) Corruption of Public Officers 4) Adultery
5) Physical Injury 3. ATTEMPTED FELONY ELEMENTS:
a) The offender commences the
commission of the felony directly by overt acts.
b) He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony.
c) The offender’s acts are not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance.
DESISTANCE - is an absolutory cause which negates criminal liability because the law encourages a person to desist from committing a crime.
- this is applicable only in the attempted stage.
OVERT ACTS – Some physical activity or deed, indicating intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles, nor by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator will logically ripen into a concrete offense.
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE: One where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. The accused maybe convicted for a felony defined by the acts performed by him up to the time of desistance.
2 STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME:
1) Internal acts
Such as mere ideas in the mind of person.
Not punishable. 2) External acts cover:
a) Preparatory acts - ordinarily not punished except when considered by law as independent crimes (e.g. Art. 304, Possession of picklocks and similar tools)
b) Acts of Execution - punishable under the RPC
ART. 7 – LIGHT FELONIES Light Felonies are punishable only
when they have been consummated EXCEPT: If committed against persons or property, punishable even if not consummated.
Only principals and accomplices are liable, accessories are not liable even if committed against persons or property.
ART. 8 – CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY
REQUISITES OF CONSPIRACY
1. That 2 or more persons came to an agreement.
2. That the agreement pertains to the commission of a felony.
3. That the execution of the felony was decided upon.
2 CONCEPTS OF CONSPIRACY 1. Conspiracy as a crime by itself.
EXAMPLE: conspiracy to commit rebellion or insurrection, treason, sedition.
2. Conspiracy as a means of committing a crime
a) There is a previous and express agreement;
b) The participants acted in concert
or simultaneously which is
indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal objective. There is an implied agreement.
GENERAL RULE: Mere conspiracy or proposal to commit a felony is not punishable since they are only preparatory acts
EXCEPTION: in cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor, such as in treason, coup d’etat, and rebellion or insurrection
“The act of one is the act of all”
GENERAL RULE: When conspiracy is established, all who participated therein, irrespective of the quantity or quality of his participation is liable equally, whether
conspiracy is pre-planned or
instantaneous. EXCEPTION: Unless one or some of the conspirators committed some other crime which is not part of the intended crime.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: When the act constitutes a “single indivisible offense”.
Conspiracy may be inferred when two or more persons proceed to perform
overt acts towards the
accomplishment of the same felonious objective, with each doing his act, so that their acts though seemingly independent were in fact connected, showing a common design.
These overt acts must consist of: - active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or - moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime, or
- exerting a moral ascendance over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan (PEOPLE vs. ABUT, et
al., GR No. 137601, April 24, 2003)
REQUISITES OF PROPOSAL:
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony; and
some other person or persons.
ART. 9 – CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES ACCORDING TO GRAVITY
Importance of Classification
1. To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not.
2. To determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty.
Grave felonies – are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of the Code.
Less grave felonies – are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with Art. 25 of the Code. Light felonies – are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided.
ART. 10 – OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE RPC GENERAL RULE: RPC provisions are supplementary to special laws.
EXCEPTION:
1. Where the special law provides otherwise; and
2. When the provisions of the RPC are impossible of application, either by express provision or by necessary implication.
Thus, when the special law adopts the penalties imposed in the RPC, such as
reclusión perpetua or reclusión temporal,
the provisions of the RPC on imposition of penalties based on stage of execution, degree of participation, and attendance of mitigating and aggravating circumstances may be applied by necessary implication. Chapter Two: Justifying Circumstances and Circumstances Which Exempt from Criminal Liability (Arts. 11-12)
ART. 11. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES – are those where the act of a person is said to be in
accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. There is no civil liability, except in par. 4 of Art. 11, where the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act.
1. SELF- DEFENSE REQUISITES:
a) Unlawful aggression (condition sine qua non);
b) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and c) Lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself.
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
- is equivalent to an actual physical assault or, at least
- threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind which is offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. TEST OF REASONABLENESS – the means employed depends upon the nature and quality of the (1) weapon used by the aggressor, and (2) his physical condition, character, size and other circumstances, (3) and those of the person defending himself, (4) and also the place and occasion of the assault.
Perfect equality between the weapons used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is not required,
nor material commensurability
between the means of attack and defense.
REASON: Because the person assaulted does not have sufficient tranquility of mind to think and to calculate.
Rights included in self-defense:
Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by law. Thus, it includes:
1. The right to honor. Hence, a slap on
the face is considered as unlawful aggression directed against the honor of the actor (People vs. Sabio, 19 SCRA
2. The defense of property rights, only if
there is also an actual and imminent danger on the person of the one defending ( People vs Narvaez, 121
SCRA 389).
“Stand ground when in the right” - the law does not require a person to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.
Under Republic Act 9262, known as the Anti- Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004:
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any
criminal or civil liability notwithstanding
the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC. (Sec. 26, R.A. No. 9262) The law provides for an additional justifying circumstance.
Battered Woman Syndrome – refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
Battery – refers to any act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to physical and psychological or emotional distress.
2. DEFENSE OF RELATIVES REQUISITES:
1. Unlawful Aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had no part therein.
RELATIVES THAT CAN BE DEFENDED: 1. Spouse
2. Ascendants 3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees.
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.
3. DEFENSE OF STRANGER REQUISITES:
1. Unlawful Aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
4. AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY
REQUISITES:
1. That the evil sought to be avoided
actually exists:
2. That the injury feared be greater
than that done to avoid it; and 3. There be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it. No civil liability except when there is
another person benefited in which case the latter is the one liable. Greater evil must not be brought
about by the negligence or imprudence or violation of law by the actor. 5. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY; OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE.
REQUISITES:
1. That the accused acted in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
2. That the injury caused or the
offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. 6. OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE.
REQUISITES:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior.
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.
Subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order if he is not aware of its illegality and he is not negligent. ART. 12. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Exempting Circumstances (or the
circumstances for non-imputability) – are those grounds for exemption from punishment, because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which makes the act voluntary, or negligent.
The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
1. It affects the act not the actor.
1. It affects the actor not the act. 2. The act is
considered to have been done within the bounds of law; hence, legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law.
2. The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the actor is not liable.
3. Since the act is considered lawful, there is no crime.
3. Since the act complained of is actually wrong there is a crime but since the actor acted without
voluntariness, there is no dolo nor culpa 4. Since there is no
crime, nor a criminal, there is also no criminal or civil liability. (except Art. 11, par. 4) 4. Since there is a crime committed though there is no criminal, there is civil liability. 1. IMBECILITY OR INSANITY
Insanity or imbecility exists when there is
a complete deprivation of intelligence or freedom of the will.
An insane person is not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted during a
lucid interval. But an imbecile is
exempt in all cases from criminal liability.
TWO TESTS OF INSANITY:
1. Test of COGNITION – complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the crime.
2. Test of VOLITION – total
deprivation of freedom of will. The defense must prove that the
accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime because the presumption is always in favor of sanity.
Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. The accused must be "so insane as to be incapable of entertaining criminal intent." He must be deprived of reason and acting
without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the will. (PEOPLE vs.
ANTONIO, GR No. 144266, November 27, 2002)
2. PERSON UNDER NINE YEARS OF AGE An infant under the age of nine years
is absolutely and conclusively
presumed to be incapable of
committing a crime.
The phrase “under nine years” should be construed “nine years or less” 3. PERSON OVER NINE YEARS OF AGE
AND UNDER 15 ACTING WITHOUT DISCERNMENT.
Must have acted without discernment. DISCERNMENT – mental capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of an unlawful act.
Discernment maybe shown by:
a) The manner the crime was
committed: or
b) The conduct of the offender after its commission.
4. ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENTION OF CAUSING IT
Basis: Lack of negligence or intent. ELEMENTS:
1. A person is performing a lawful act; 2. With due care;
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident;
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
5. A PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTABLE FORCE
ELEMENTS:
1. That the compulsion is by means of
physical force.
2. That the physical force must be
irresistable.
3. That the physical force must come
from a third person.
Basis: complete absence of freedom or voluntariness.
The force must be so irresistable as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument
who act not only without will but against his will.
6. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR ELEMENTS:
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than, or at least equal to, that which he is required to commit;
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.
Duress as a valid defense should be
based on real, imminent, or
reasonable fear for one’s life or limb and should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear.
“ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS ACTUS” – An act done by me against my will is not my act.
7. INSUPERABLE CAUSE.
INSUPERABLE CAUSE – some motive which has lawfully, morally or physically prevented a person to do what the law commands.
ELEMENTS:
1. That an act is required by law to be done.
2. That a person fails to perform such act.
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.
Examples:
a. The municipal president detained the
offended party for three days because to take him to the nearest justice of the peace required a journey for three days by boat as there was no other means of transportation. (US vs.
Vicentillo, 19 Phil. 118)
The distance which required a journey for three days was considered an insuperable cause.
Note: Under the law, the person arrested must be delivered to the nearest judicial authority at most within 18 hours (now 36 hours, Art. 125 RPC); otherwise, the public officer will be liable for arbitrary detention.
b. A mother who at the time of childbirth
was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility, and left the child in a thicket were said child died, is not liable for infanticide because it was
physically impossible for her to take home the child. (People vs. Bandian,
63 Phil. 530).
The severe dizziness and extreme debility of the woman constitute an insuperable cause.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES - are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed.
Other absolutory causes:
1. Spontaneous desistance (Art. 6)
2. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability (Art. 20)
3. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
4. Persons exempt from criminal liability for theft, swindling and malicious mischief (Art. 332)
5. Instigation
Entrapment is NOT an absolutory
cause. A buy-bust operation
conducted in connection with illegal drug-related offenses is a form of entrapment.
ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION
1. Ways and
means are
resorted to for the capture of lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan.
1. Instigator induces the would-be accused to commit the crime, hence he becomes a co-principal. 2. not a bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker 2. it will result in the acquittal of the accused.
Chapter Three: Circumstances Which Mitigate Criminal Liability
ART.13 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES – those which if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability but serve only to reduce the penalty.
One single fact cannot be made the basis of more than one mitigating circumstance. Hence, a mitigating circumstance arising from a single fact, absorbs all the other mitigating circumstances arising from the same fact.
BASIS : Diminution of either freedom of action intelligence or intent or on the lesser perversity of the offender.
CLASSES ORDINARY PRIVILEGED
Source Subsections 1-10 of Art. 13 (RPC) Arts. 68, 69 and 64 of RPC As to the effect If not offset (by an aggravating circumstanc e) it will operate to have the penalty imposed at its minimum period, provided the penalty is a divisible one It operates to reduce the penalty by one to two degrees depending upon what the law provides As to offset May be offset by aggravating circums-tance Cannot be offset 1. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Applies, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act are not attendant.
But in the case of “incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of a stranger”, unlawful aggression must be present, it being an indispensable requisite.
2. UNDER 18, OR OVER 70 YEARS OLD It is the age of the accused at the time
of the commission of the crime which should be determined. His age at the time of the trial is immaterial.
Legal effects of various ages of offender
1. Nine (9) years of age and below –
exempting circumstance. (Art. 12, par. 2)
2. Over 9 but not more than 15 –
exempting unless, he acted with discernment in which case penalty is reduced to at least two (2) degrees lower than that imposed. (Art. 12, par. 3; Art. 68, par. 1)
3. Above 15 but under 18 - regardless of
discernment, penalty is reduced by one (1) degree lower than that imposed. (Art. 68 par. 2)
4. Minor delinquent under 18 years of
age, sentence suspended (Art. 192, PD 603 as amended by PD 1179)
5. 18 years or over – full criminal
responsibility.
6. 70 years or over – mitigating, no
imposition of death penalty; if already imposed, execution of death penalty is suspended and commuted. BASIS: diminution of intelligence 3. NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG
Rule for the application:
Can be taken into account only when the facts proven show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences.
Intention may be ascertained by considering:
a) the weapon used
b) the part of the body injured c) the injury inflicted
BASIS : intent is diminished 4. PROVOCATION OR THREAT
PROVOCATION – any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating any one.
REQUISITES:
1. The provocation must be sufficient. 2. It must originate from the offended
party.
3. The provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked.
The threat should not be offensive and positively strong. Otherwise, the threat to inflict real injury is an unlawful aggression, which may give rise to self-defense.
5. VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE REQUISITES:
1. That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants; descendants,
legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees; 2. That the felony is committed in
immediate vindication of such grave offense.
“Immediate” allows for a lapse of time unlike in sufficient provocation, as long as the offender is still suffering from the mental agony brought about by the offense to him.
PROVOCATION VINDICATION
1. It is made directly only to the person committing the felony. 1. The grave offense may be committed also against the offender’s relatives mentioned by law. 2. The cause that
brought about the provocation need not be a grave offense.
2. The offended party must have done a grave offense to the offender or his relatives mentioned by law. 3. It is necessary that the provocation
or threat
immediately preceded the act.
3. The vindication of the grave offense may be proximate, which admits of an INTERVAL of time.
5. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION It requires that:
1. The accused acted upon an impulse. 2. The impulse must be so powerful that
it naturally produced passion or obfuscation in him.
REQUISITES:
1. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind;
2. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.
A mitigating circumstance only when
the same arose from lawful
sentiments.
BASIS: Loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power.
WHEN PASSION OR OBFUSCATION NOT MITIGATING: When committed:
1. In the spirit of lawlessness, or 2. In a spirit of revenge
PASSION/ OBFUSCATION
PROVOCATION
- produced by an impulse which may be caused by provocation
- the provocation comes from the injured party.
- the offense need not be immediate. It is only required that the influence thereof lasts until the moment the crime is committed
-must immediately precede the commission of the crime.
7. SURRENDER AND CONFESSION OF
GUILT
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER: 1. That the offender had not been
actually arrested;
2. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent;
3. That the surrender was voluntary. WHEN SURRENDER VOLUNTARY
A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because:
1. he acknowledges his guilt; or
2. he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILTY:
1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt.
2. That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case; and
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
BASIS: lesser perversity of the offender.
8. PHYSICAL DEFECT OF OFFENDER
When the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect, restricting his means of action, defense or communication with others.
The physical defect must relate to the offense committed.
BASIS: diminution of element of voluntariness.
9. ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER
1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power.
2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.
Includes illness of the mind not amounting to insanity.
BASIS: diminution of intelligence and intent.
10. SIMILAR AND ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
EXAMPLES:
1) Impulse of jealousy, similar to passion and obfuscation.
2) Testifying for the prosecution,
analogous to plea of guilty
Chapter Four: Circumstances which Aggravate Criminal Liability (Art. 14) Aggravating circumstances – are those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to have the penalty imposed in its maximum period provided by law for the offense or change the nature of the crime.
BASIS:
They are based on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of the felony as shown by: 1. the motivating power itself, 2. the place of the commission, 3. the means and ways employed 4. the time, or
5. the personal circumstances of the offender, or the offended party.
KINDS OF AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. Generic – those which apply to all crimes, such as:
a) Advantage taken of public
position;
b) Contempt or insult of public authorities;
c) Crime committed in the dwelling of the offended party;
d) Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness;
e) Place where crime is committed; f) Nighttime, uninhabited place, or
band;
g) Recidivism (reincidencia); h) Habituality (reiteracion);
i) Craft, fraud or disguise; j) Unlawful entry;
k) Breaking of parts of the house; l) Use of persons under 15 years of
age.
2. Specific – those which apply only to specific crimes, such as ignominy in crimes against chastity and cruelty and treachery which are applicable only to crimes against persons.
a) Disregard of rank, age or sex due the offended party;
b) Abuse of superior strength or means be employed to weaken the defense;
c) Treachery (alevosia); d) Ignominy;
e) Cruelty;
f) Use of unlicensed firearm in the murder or homicide committed therewith (RA 8294).
3. Qualifying – those that change the nature of the crime.
Alevosia (treachery) or evident premeditation qualifies the killing of a person to murder.
Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying aggravating circumstances which quality the killing of person to murder.
4. Inherent – those which of necessity accompany the commission of the crime, therefore not considered in increasing the penalty to be imposed, such as:
a) Evident premeditation in robbery,
theft, estafa, adultery and
concubinage;
b) Abuse of public office in bribery; c) Breaking of a wall or unlawful
entry into a house in robbery with the use of force upon things; d) Fraud in estafa;
e) Deceit in simple seduction; f) Ignominy in rape.
5. Special – those which arise under special conditions to increase the penalty of the offense and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances, such as:
a) Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160); b) Complex crimes (Art. 48); c) Error in personae (Art. 49);
d) Taking advantage of public position and membership in an organized/syndicated crime group (Par.1[a], Art. 62). GENERIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE As to its effect
Increases the penalty which should be imposed upon the accused to the maximum period but without exceeding the limit prescribed by law.
To give the crime its proper and exclusive name and to place the author thereof in such a situation as to deserve no other penalty than that specially prescribed by law for said crime.
As to whether it can be offset by a mitigating circumstance May be offset by a mitigating circumstance. Cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance RULES ON AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Aggravating circumstances shall not be appreciated if:
a) They constitute a crime specially punishable by law, or
b) They are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing a penalty therefor, shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
EXAMPLE: “That the crime be
committed by means of
…fire,…explosion” (Art. 14, par. 12) is in itself a crime of arson (Art. 321) or a crime involving destruction (Art. 324). It is not to be considered to increase the penalty for the crime of arson or for the crime involving destruction.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect
to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof. (Art. 62, par.
2)
3. Aggravating circumstances which
arise:
a) From the moral attributes of the offender, or
b) From his private relations with the offended party, or
c) From any personal cause,
shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant. (Art. 62,
par. 3)
4. The circumstances which consist a) In the material execution of
the act, or
b) In the means employed to accomplish it,
shall serve to aggravate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein. Except when there is proof of conspiracy in which case the act of one is deemed to be the act of all, regardless of lack of knowledge of the facts constituting the circumstance.
(Art. 62, par. 4)
5. Aggravating circumstances, regardless of its kind, should be specifically alleged in the information AND proved as fully as the crime itself in order to increase the penalty. (Sec. 9, Rule
110, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure)
6. When there is more than one qualifying aggravating circumstance present, one of them will be appreciated as qualifying aggravating while the others will be considered as generic aggravating.
ART. 14 – AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Par. 1. – That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
Applicable only when the offender is a public officer.
The offender must have abused his public position or at least use of the same facilitated the commission of the offense.
This circumstance cannot be taken into consideration in offenses where taking advantage of official position is made by law an integral element of the crime, such as in malversation under Art. 217, or in falsification of a
document committed by public
officers under Art. 171.
Taking advantage of a public position is also inherent in the case of accessories under Art. 19, par. 3 (harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime), and in crimes committed by public officers (Arts. 204-245).
Par. 2 – That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.
REQUISITES OF THIS CIRCUMSTANCE: 1. That the public authority is engaged in
the exercise of his functions.
2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the person against whom the crime is committed.
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority.
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act.
Public authority – sometimes also called a person in authority, is a public officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the power to govern and execute the laws; like a mayor, councilor, governor, barangay captain and barangay chairman.
A teacher or professor of a public or recognized private school is not a
“public authority within the
contemplation of this paragraph. While he is a person in authority under Art. 152, that status is only for purposes of Art. 148 (direct assault)
and Art. 152 (resistance and
disobedience).
Par. 3 – That the act be committed (1) with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his (a) rank, (b) age, or (c) sex, or
(2) that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
The four circumstances enumerated
should be considered as one
aggravating circumstance only.
Disregard of rank, age or sex is essentially applicable only to crimes against person or honor. They are not taken into account in crimes against property.
To be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, there must be evidence that in the commission of the crime, the offender deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex, age and rank of the offended party.
Rank of the offended party – is the designation or title of distinction used to fix the relative position of the offended party in reference to others.
- there must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the offended party.
Age of the offended party – may refer to old age or the tender age of the victim. Sex of the offended party – refers to the female sex, not to the male sex.
THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:
1. When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation.
2. When there exists a relationship between the offended party and the offender.
3. When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission of
the crime. (e.g. in parricide,
abduction, seduction and rape)
Disregard of sex and age are not
absorbed in treachery because
treachery refers to the manner of the commission of the crime, while disregard of sex and age pertains to the relationship of the victim (People
vs. Lapaz, March 31, 1989).
Dwelling – must be a building or structure, exclusively used for rest and comfort. A “combination of a house and a store” or a market stall where the victim slept is not a dwelling.
- dwelling includes
dependencies, the foot of the staircase and enclosure under the house.
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling requires that the crime be wholly or partly committed therein or in any integral part thereof.
Dwelling does not mean the
permanent residence or domicile of the offended party or that he must be the owner thereof. He must, however, be actually living or dwelling therein even for a temporary duration or purpose.
It is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house, although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the assault from without.
WHAT AGGRAVATES THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME IN ONE’S DWELLING:
1. The abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in the offender by opening the door to him; or
2. The violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing therein with violence or against the will of the owner.
MEANING OF PROVOCATION IN THE
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
DWELLING:
The provocation must be:
1. Given by the owner of the dwelling, 2. Sufficient, and
3. Immediate to the commission of the crime.
If all these conditions are present, the offended party is deemed to have given the provocation, and the fact that the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party is not an aggravating circumstance.
REASON: When it is the offended party who has provoked the incident, he loses his right to the respect and consideration due him in his own house.
DWELLING IS NOT AGGRAVATING IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:
1. When both the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same house, and this is true even if offender is a servant in the house. EXCEPTION: In case of adultery in
the conjugal dwelling, the same is aggravating. However, if the paramour also dwells in the conjugal dwelling, the applicable aggravating circumstance is abuse of confidence.
2. When robbery is committed by the use of force upon things, dwelling is not aggravating because it is inherent. But dwelling is aggravating in
robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons because
this class of robbery can be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party’s house.
3. In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is inherent or included by law in defining the crime.
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation.
There must exist a close relation between the provocation made by the victim and the commission of the crime by the accused.
5. The victim is not a dweller of the house.
Par. 4. – That the act be committed with (1) abuse of confidence or
(2) obvious ungratefulness.
Par. 4 provides two aggravating circumstances which, if present in the same case and must be independently appreciated.
While one may be related to the other in the factual situation in the case, they cannot be lumped together as abuse of confidence requires a special
confidential relationship between the
offender and the victim, but this is not so in ungratefulness.
REQUISITES OF ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE: 1. That the offended party had trusted
the offender.
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence
facilitated the commission of the
crime.
Abuse of confidence is inherent in malversation (Art. 217), qualified theft (Art. 310), estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315), and qualified seduction (Art. 337).
REQUISITES OF OBVIOUS
UNGRATEFULNESS
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party.
3. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness.
The ungratefulness contemplated by par. 4 must be such clear and manifest ingratitude on the part of the accused.
Par. 5 – That the crime be committed (1) in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or (2) where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or
(3) in a place dedicated to religious worship.
Except for the third which requires that official functions are being performed at the time of the commission of the crime, the other places mentioned are aggravating per
se even if no official duties or acts of
religious worship are being conducted there.
Cemeteries, however respectable they may be, are not considered as place dedicated to the worship of God.
PAR. 5. Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties PAR. 2. Contempt or insult to public authorities In both
Public authorities are in the performance of their duties
Place where public duty is performed
In their office. Outside of their office.
The offended party
May or may not be the public authority
Public authority should not be the offended party Par. 6. – That the crime be committed
(1) in the nighttime, or
(2) in an uninhabited place, or (3) by a band, whenever such circumstance may facilitate the commission of the offense.
When present in the same case and their element are distinctly palpable and can subsist independently, they shall be considered separately.
WHEN NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE OR BAND AGGRAVATING:
1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or
2. When especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity; or
3. When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity. Nighttime (obscuridad) – that period of darkness beginning at end of dusk and ending at dawn. Nights are from sunset to sunrise.
It is necessary that the commission of the crime was begun and completed at nighttime.
When the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating.
GENERAL RULE: Nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
EXCEPTION: Where both the treacherous mode of attack and nocturnity were deliberately decided upon in the same case, they can be considered separately if such circumstances have different factual bases. Thus:
In People vs. Berdida, et. al. (June
30, 1966), nighttime was considered since it was purposely sought, and treachery was further appreciated because the victim’s hands and arms were tied together before he was beaten up by the accused.
In People vs. Ong, et. al. (Jan. 30,
1975), there was treachery as the
victim was stabbed while lying face up and defenseless, and nighttime was considered upon proof that it facilitated the commission of the offense and was taken advantage of by the accused.
Uninhabited place (despoblado) – one where there are no houses at all; a place at a considerable distance from town, or where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other.
What actually determines whether this aggravating circumstance should be considered against the accused, aside from the distance and isolation of the place, is the reasonable possibility of the victim receiving or securing aid from third persons.
Band (en cuadrilla) – whenever more than
three (i.e., at least four) armed
malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed committed by a band.
The requisite four armed persons contemplated in this circumstance must all be principals by direct participation who acted together in the execution of the acts constituting the crime.
If one of them was a principal by inducement, there would be no
cuadrilla but the aggravating circumstance of having acted with the aid of armed men may be considered against the inducer if the other two acted as his accomplice.
This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in the circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
This aggravating circumstance is not applicable in crimes against chastity.
Par. 7 – That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
REASON FOR THE AGGRAVATION:
The debased form of criminality met in one who, in the midst of a great calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them. Therefore it is necessary that the offender took advantage of the calamity or misfortune.
Par. 8 – That the crime be committed with the aid of
(1) armed men or
(2)persons who insure or afford impunity.
REQUISITES:
1. That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime,
directly or indirectly.
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed.
This aggravating circumstance requires that the armed men are accomplices who take part in that minor capacity directly or indirectly, and not when they were merely present at the crime scene. Neither should they constitute a band, for then the proper aggravating circumstance would be
cuadrilla.
WHEN THIS AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE SHALL NOT BE
CONSIDERED:
1. When both the attacking party and the party attacked were equally armed. 2. When the accused as well as those
who cooperated with him in the commission of the crime acted under the same plan and for the same
purpose.
Par. 6 “By a
band” Par. 8. “With the aid of armed men” As to their number
Requires more than three armed malefactors (i.e., at least four)
At least two
As to their action
Requires that more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense.
This circumstance is present even if one of the offenders merely relied on their aid, for actual aid is not necessary.
If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in employment of a band. If there are three armed men or less, aid of armed men may be the aggravating circumstance.
“Aid of armed men” includes “armed women.”
Par. 9 – That the accused is a recidivist.
REQUISITES:
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. That he was previously convicted by
final judgment of another crime;
3. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same
title of the Code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.
MEANING OF “at the time of his trial for one crime.”
It is employed in its general sense, including the rendering of the judgment. It is meant to include everything that is done in the course of the trial, from arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge in open court.
Being an ordinary aggravating
circumstance, recidivism affects only the periods of a penalty, except in prostitution and vagrancy (Art. 202) and gambling (PD 1602) wherein recidivism increases the penalties by degrees. No other generic aggravating circumstance produces this effect. In recidivism it is sufficient that the
succeeding offense be committed
after the commission of the preceding
offense provided that at the time of his trial for the second offense, the accused had already been convicted of the first offense.
If both offenses were committed on the same date, they shall be considered as only one, hence, they cannot be separately counted in order
to constitute recidivism. Also,
judgments of convicted handed down on the same day shall be considered as only one conviction.
REASON: Because the Code requires that to be considered as separate convictions, at the time of his trial for one crime the accused shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of the other.
To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the same in the information and to attach thereto certified copy of the
sentences rendered against the
accused.
Recidivism must be taken into account no matter how many years have intervened between the first and second felonies.
Even if the accused was granted a pardon for the first offense, but he commits another felony embraced in the same title of the Code, the first conviction is still counted to make him a recidivist since pardon does not obliterate the fact of his prior conviction.
The rule is different in the case of amnesty which theoretically considers the previous transgressions as not punishable.
Par. 10 – That the offender has been 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.
REQUISITES of REITERACION or
HABITUALITY:
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an
a) Equal or
b) Greater penalty, or
c) For two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense; and 3. That he is convicted of the new
offense
REITERACION RECIDIVISM As to the first offense
It is necessary that the offender shall have served out his sentence for the first offense
It is enough that a final judgment has been rendered in the first offense.
As to the kind of offenses involved
The previous and subsequent offenses must not be em braced in the same title of the Code.
Requires that the offenses be included in the same title of the Code.
THE FOUR FORMS OF REPETITION ARE: 1. Recidivism (par. 9, Art. 14) – where a
person, on separate occasions, is
convicted of two offenses embraced in the same title in the RPC. This is a generic aggravating circumstance.
2. Reiteracion or habituality (par. 10, Art. 14) – where the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. This is a generic aggravating circumstance.
3. Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency (Art. 62, par, 5) – where a person within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of the said crimes a third time or oftener. This is an extraordinary aggravating circumstance.
4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) – Where a person commits felony before beginning to serve or while serving sentence on a previous conviction for a felony. This is a special aggravating circumstance.
Since reiteracion provides that the accused has duly served the sentence for his previous conviction/s, or is legally considered to have done so, quasi-recidivism cannot at the same time constitute reiteracion, hence this aggravating circumstance cannot apply to a quasi-recidivist.
If the same set of facts constitutes recidivism and reiteracion, the liability of the accused should be aggravated by recidivism which can easily be proven.
Par. 11 – That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise.
When this aggravating circumstance is present, there must be two or more principals, the one who gave or offered the price or promise and the one who accepted it, both of whom are principals.
If without previous promise it was given voluntarily after the crime had been committed as an expression of his appreciation for the sympathy and aid shown by the other accused, it should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
The price, reward or promise need not consist of or refer to material things or that the same were actually delivered, it being sufficient that the offer made by the principal by inducement be accepted by the principal by direct participation before the commission of the offense.
Par. 12 – That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
When another aggravating
circumstance already qualifies the crime, any of these aggravating circumstances shall be considered as generic aggravating circumstance only. A killing committed through any of
these qualifies the crime to murder, except if arson was resorted to but without intent to kill, in view of P.D. 1613 which provides a specific penalty for that situation.
PAR. 12 “by means of inundation, fire,
etc.”
PAR. 10 “on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, etc.
The crime is committed by means of any such acts involving great waste or ruin. The crime is committed on the occasion of a calamity or misfortune.
Par. 13 – That the act be committed with evident premeditation
REQUISITES:
The prosecution must prove –
1. The time when the offender
determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will. To establish evident premeditation, it must be shown that there was a period sufficient to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection, a time adequate to allow the conscience to overcome the resolution of the will, as well as outward acts showing the intent to kill. It must be shown that the offender had sufficient time to reflect upon the consequences of his act but still persisted in his determination to commit the crime.
(PEOPLE vs. SILVA, et. al., GR No. 140871, August 8, 2002)
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. (PEOPLE vs. ABADIES, GR
No. 135975, August 14, 2002)
Evident premeditation is presumed to exist when conspiracy is directly established. When conspiracy is merely implied, evident premeditation cannot be presumed, the latter must be proved like any other fact. (PEOPLE
vs. SAPIGAO, et. al., GR No. 144975, June 18, 2003)
Premeditation is absorbed by reward or promise.
When the offender decides to kill a particular person and premeditated on the killing of the latter, but when he carried out his plan he actually killed another person, it cannot properly be said that he premeditated on the killing of the actual victim.
But if the offender premeditated on the killing of any person, it is proper to consider against the offender the
aggravating circumstance of
premeditation, because whoever is killed by him is contemplated in his premeditation.
Par. 14 – That (1) craft, (2) fraud, or (3) disguise be employed
