Act No.

3815 - Revised Penal Code

Art. 2 - Application of Its Provisions

Indeed it is fundamental that the place where the crime was committed determines
not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. In order for
the courts to acquire jurisdiction in criminal cases, the offense should have been
committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. If the evidence adduced during the trial shows that
the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for
want of jurisdiction.
Teofilo Evangelista vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 163267, May 5, 2010

Art. 4 – Criminal Liability

The basic principle in our criminal law is that a person is criminally liable for a
felony committed by him. Under the classical theory on which our penal code is
mainly based, the basis of criminal liability is human free will. Man is essentially a
moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil. When he
commits a felonious or criminal act (delito doloso), the act is presumed to have been
done voluntarily, i.e., with freedom, intelligence and intent. Man, therefore, should be
adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears
unimpaired.
People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000

Distinct penalties prescribed by law in special complex crimes is in recognition of

the primacy given to criminal intent over the overt acts that are done to achieve that
intent. This conclusion is made implicit in various provisions of the Revised Penal
Code. Thus, practically all of the justifying circumstances, as well as the exempting
circumstances of accident (paragraph 4, Article 12) and lawful or insuperable cause
(paragraph 7, Article 12), are based on the lack of criminal intent. 2 In felonies
committed by means of dolo, as opposed to those committed by means of culpa
(including offenses punished under special laws), criminal intent is primordial and
overt acts are considered basically as being mere manifestations of criminal intent.
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 1
 Paragraph 2, Article 4, of the Revised Penal Code places emphasis on "intent" over
effect, as it assigns criminal liability to one who has committed an "impossible crime,"
said person having intended and pursued such intent to commit a felony although,
technically, no crime has actually been committed. Article 134 of the same Code,
penalizing the crime of rebellion, imposes a distinct penalty, the rebel being moved by
a single intent which is to overthrow the existing government, and ignores individual
acts committed in the furtherance of such intent.
People of the Phil. vs. Juan Gonzales Escote, et al., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003

Art. 6 – Consummated, Frustrated and Attempted Felonies (Stages of

Execution)

In general
Consummated felony
Frustrated and attempted felonies
Frustrated felony
Attempted felony
Overt acts
Stages of execution in rape

In general

The subjective phase in the commission of a felony is that portion of its execution
starting from the point where the offender begins by overt acts to pursue the crime
until he is prevented, against his will, by some outside cause from performing all of
the acts which would produce the offense. If the subjective phase has not yet passed,
then the crime is only attempted. If that phase has been done but the felony is not
produced, the crime is frustrated.
United States vs. Protasio Eduave, G.R. No. 12155, Feb. 2, 1917

It is not the gravity of the wounds inflicted which determines whether a felony is
attempted or frustrated but whether or not the subjective phase in the commission of
an offense has been passed. By subjective phase is meant "[t]hat portion of the acts
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 2
 constituting the crime included between the act which begins the commission of the
crime and the last act performed by the offender which, with the prior acts, should
result in the consummated crime. From that time forward, the phase is objective. It
may also be said to be that period occupied by the acts of the offender over which he
has control — that period between the point where he begins and the point where he
voluntarily desists. If between these two points the offender is stopped by reason of
any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been
passed and it is an attempt. If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the
last act, it is frustrated."
People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Balas Medios, G.R. Nos. 132066-67, Nov. 29, 2001

It is not the gravity of the wounds alone which determines whether a felony is
attempted or frustrated, but whether the assailant had passed the subjective phase in
the commission of the offense.
Leonidas Epifanio vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 157057, June 26, 2007

Consummated felony

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dogaojo y Morante, G.R. Nos. 137834-40, December
3, 2001

The crime is consummated if, following the subjective phase, the last of the
elements of the felony meets to concur. These rules are inapplicable to offenses
governed by special laws.
United States vs. Jose Lopez Basa, G.R. No. L-3540, March 19, 1907, 8 Phil. 89

People of the Phil. Islands vs. Ngan Te, G.R. No. 42574, Dec. 12, 1935, 62 Phil. 588

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Enriquez, et al., G.R. No. 99838, Oct. 23, 1997

Frustrated and attempted felonies

It must be remembered that a felony is frustrated when: 1.] the offender has
performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony; 2.] the felony is

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 3
 not produced due to causes independent of the perpetrator's will. On the other hand, in
an attempted felony: 1.] the offender commits overt acts to commence the perpetration
of the crime: 2.] he is not able to perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony; and 3.] his failure to perform all the acts of execution was due to
some cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. The distinction between
an attempted and frustrated felony was lucidly differentiated thus in the leading case
of United States vs. Protasio Eduave, G.R. No. 12155, February 2, 1917, 36 Phil. 209:

A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the offender, after

beginning the commission of the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against his
will, by some outside cause from performing all of the acts which should
produce the crime. In other words, to be an attempted crime the purpose of the
offender must be thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes and
compels him to stop prior to the moment when he has performed all of the
acts which should produce the crime as a consequence, which acts it is his
intention to perform. If he has performed all the acts which should result in
the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from proceeding
further, it cannot be an attempt. The essential element which distinguishes
attempted from frustrated felony is that, in the latter, there is no intervention
of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency between the beginning of the
commission of crime and the moment when all the acts have been performed
which should result in the consummated crime; while in the former there is
such intervention and the offender does not arrive at the point of performing
all of the acts which should produce the crime. He is stopped short of that
point by some cause apart from his voluntary desistance.

To put it another way, in case of an attempt the offender never passes the subjective
phase of the offense. He is interrupted and compelled to desist by the intervention of
outside causes before the subjective phase is passed.

On the other hand, in case of frustrated crimes, the subjective phase is completely
passed. Subjectively the crime is complete. Nothing interrupted the offender while he
was passing through the subjective phase. The crime, however, is not consummated
by reason of the intervention of causes independent of the will of the offender. He did
all that was necessary to commit the crime. If the crime did not result as a
consequence it was due to something beyond his control.
People of the Phil. vs. Ceilito Orita, G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Balas Medios, G.R. Nos. 132066-67, Nov. 29, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 4
 People of the Phil. vs. Armando Caballero, et al., G.R. Nos. 149028-30, April 2, 2003

Distinctions between frustrated and attempted felony are as follows:

1) In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of

execution which should produce the felony as a consequence;
whereas in attempted felony, the offender merely commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform
all the acts of execution.

2) In frustrated felony, the reason for the non-accomplishment of the

crime is some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator; on the
other hand, in attempted felony, the reason for the non-fulfillment of
the crime is a cause or accident other than the offender's own
spontaneous desistance.

The crucial point to consider is the nature of the wound inflicted which must be
supported by independent proof showing that the wound inflicted was sufficient to
cause the victim's death without timely medical intervention.
Giovani C. Serrano vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010, citing
Palaganas v. People, G.R. No. 165483, September 12, 2006

Frustrated felony

For there to be frustrated murder, the offender must perform all the acts of
execution that would produce the felony as a consequence, but the felony is not
thereby produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. A
verbal expression that Lugatiman would be killed sixteen (16) hours after such
statement was made is not sufficient to show an actual design to perpetrate the act.
Intent must shown not only by a statement by the aggressor of the purpose to kill, but
also by the execution of all acts and the use of means necessary to deliver a fatal blow
while the victim is not placed in a position to defend himself. However, after the
performance of the last act necessary, or after the subjective phase of the criminal act
was passed, the crime is not produced by reason of forces outside of the will of the
aggressor. (People of the Phil. vs. Basilio Borinaga, G.R. No. 33463, December 18,
1930, 55 Phil., 433)
People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Ravelo, et al., G.R. Nos. 78781-82, Oct. 15, 1991

The information more than substantially satisfies the requirement of designating the
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 5
 offense of frustrated murder considering that it contains the acts constituting the
felony, the name of the crime by statute and the stage (frustrated) of the commission
of the crime by definition. Besides the absence of the averment of intent to kill may be
inferred from the allegation that the stab wound would have caused the death (in this
case murder) of the victim. (People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Pilpa, G.R. No. L-30250,
September 22, 1977).
People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Francisco, et al., G.R. Nos. 118573-74, May 31, 2000

A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless, do not produce it
by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Francisco, et al., G.R. Nos. 118573-74, May 31, 2000

Solomon Rabor vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 140344, August 18, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Noel Padilla, G.R. Nos. 138472-73, Aug. 9, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Raul Oco, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Lasanas, G.R. Nos. L-48879-82, July 7, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Cenon Brioso, et al., G.R. Nos. 72028-31, Nov. 9, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Emeliano Trinidad, G.R. Nos. 79123-25, Jan. 9, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Rufino Bacalto, et al., G.R. Nos. 116307-10, Aug. 14, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Laudemar De La Cruz, G.R. Nos. 109619-23, June 26, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Donato B. Continente, et al., G.R. Nos. 100801-02, Aug. 25,
2000

People of the Phil. vs. Allan Jarandilla, G.R. Nos. 115985-86, August 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rafael, G.R. No. 123176, October 13, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Guilbert Arcillas, G.R. No. 126817, Dec. 27, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. George Bayod, G.R. No. 122664, Feb. 5, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Edmundo Lucero, G.R. Nos. 102407-08, March 26, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Julio R. Recto, G.R. No. 129069, October 17, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Raquim Pinuela, G.R. Nos. 140727-28, January 31, 2003

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 6
 People of the Phil. vs. Raul Oco, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003

such as prompt medical aid.

People of the Phil. vs. Allan Jarandilla, G.R. Nos. 115985-86, August 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Edmundo Lucero, G.R. Nos. 102407-08, March 26, 2001

For the crime of murder, the frustrated stage is reached only if the wound inflicted
would have been mortal.
People of the Phil. vs. Noel Padilla, G.R. Nos. 138472-73, Aug. 9, 2001

People of the Phil. Islands vs. Felipe Kalalo, et al., G.R. Nos. 339303-39305, March 17,
1934

People of the Phil. vs. Manuel I. Pilones, G.R. Nos. L-32754-5, July 21, 1978

People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Tamani, G.R. Nos. L-22160 and L-22161, Jan. 21, 1974

A crime is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it
by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. However, if the
offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the crime is only
attempted.
People of the Phil. vs. Lapnayo Buka, et al., G.R. Nos. 68311-13, Jan. 30, 1992

Ramon Ingles vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 117161, March 3, 1997

The essential elements of a frustrated felony are as follows: 1. The offender

performs all the acts of execution; 2. All the acts performed would produce the felony
as a consequence; 3. But the felony is not produced; 4. By reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Benjamin P. Martinez vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 168827, April 13, 2007

Aristotel Valenzuela vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007

Attempted felony

The attempted phase of a felony is defined as when the offender commences the

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 7
 commission of a felony, directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance (Article 6, Revised Penal Code).
People of the Phil. vs. Dominador G. Gavarra, et al., G.R. No. L-37673, Oct. 30, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Herbieto, et al., G.R. No. 103611, March 13, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Ruperto Balderas, G.R. No. 106582, July 31, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino C. Maguikay, G.R. Nos. 103226-28, Oct. 14, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Tiu, G.R. Nos. 75032-33, Dec. 1, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tan, et al., G.R. Nos. 116200-02, June 21, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dogaojo y Morante, G.R. Nos. 137834-40, December
3, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Sumibcay, G.R. Nos. 132130-31, May 29, 2002

The prosecution must, therefore, establish the following elements of an attempted

felony:

1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt

acts;

2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony;

3. The offender's act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;

4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident

other than his spontaneous desistance.
People of the Phil. vs. Ian Contreras, G.R. Nos. 137123-34, August 23, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003

The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, namely:

(1) That there be external acts;

(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be
committed.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 8
 An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the
intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation,
which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without
being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. The raison
d'etre for the law requiring a direct overt act is that, in a majority of cases, the conduct
of the accused consisting merely of acts of preparation has never ceased to be
equivocal; and this is necessarily so, irrespective of his declared intent. It is that
quality of being equivocal that must be lacking before the act becomes one which may
be said to be a commencement of the commission of the crime, or an overt act or
before any fragment of the crime itself has been committed, and this is so for the
reason that so long as the equivocal quality remains, no one can say with certainty
what the intent of the accused is. (People vs. Miller, 2 Cal. 2d., 527, 531–532, 42 P.
2d. 308, 310, citing Wharton.) It is necessary that the overt act should have been the
ultimate step towards the consummation of the design. It is sufficient if it was the
"first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the
offense after the preparations are made." (People vs. Gibson, 94 Cal. App. 2d. 468).
The act done need not constitute the last proximate one for completion. It is necessary,
however, that the attempt must have a causal relation to the intended crime. (Wharton,
Criminal Law, Vol. 1, 12 ed. 287). In the words of Viada, the overt acts must have an
immediate and necessary relation to the offense.

Acts constitutive of an attempt to commit a felony should be distinguished from

preparatory acts which consist of devising means or measures necessary for
accomplishment of a desired object or end. One perpetrating preparatory acts is not
guilty of an attempt to commit a felony. However, if the preparatory acts constitute a
consummated felony under the law, the malefactor is guilty of such consummated
offense. The Supreme Court of Spain, in its decision of March 21, 1892, declared that
for overt acts to constitute an attempted offense, it is necessary that their objective be
known and established or such that acts be of such nature that they themselves should
obviously disclose the criminal objective necessarily intended, said objective and
finality to serve as ground for designation of the offense. [People vs. Lamahang, 62
Phil. 703 (1935)]

There is persuasive authority that in offenses not consummated as the material

damage is wanting, the nature of the action intended (accion fin) cannot exactly be
ascertained but the same must be inferred from the nature of the acts executed (accion
medio). Hence, it is necessary that the acts of the accused must be such that, by their

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 9
 nature, by the facts to which they are related, by circumstances of the persons
performing the same, and b the things connected therewith, that they are aimed at the
consummation of the offense. This Court emphasized in People vs. Lamahang that:

"The relation existing between the facts submitted for appreciation and the offense
which said facts are supposed to produce must be direct; the intention must be
ascertained from the facts and therefore it is necessary, in order to avoid regrettable
instances of injustice, that the mind be able to cause a particular injury."

If the malefactor does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of his
spontaneous desistance, he is not guilty of an attempted felony. Spontaneous means
proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint;
synonymous with impulsive, automatic and mechanical. (Webster, Third New
International Dictionary, p. 2204).] The law does not punish him for his attempt to
commit a felony.

The rationale of the law, as explained by Viada:

"La Ley, en efecto, no hiere sino a pesar suyo; prefiere impedir el

crimen que castigarlo. Si el autor de la tentativa, despues de haber comenzado
a ejecutar el delito por actos exteriores, se detiene, por un sentimiento libre y
espontaneo, en el borde del abismo, salvo esta. Es un llamamiento al
remordimiento, a la conciencia, una gracia un perdon que concede la Ley al
arrepentimiento voluntario." Aquino, Revised Penal Code, Vol. 1, 1987 ed.

As aptly elaborated on by Wharton:

"First, the character of an attempt is lost when its execution is

voluntarily abandoned. There is no conceivable overt act to which the
abandoned purpose could be attached. Secondly, the policy of the law requires
that the offender, so long as he is capable of arresting an evil plan, should be
encouraged to do so, by saving him harmless in case of such retreat before it is
possible for any evil consequences to ensue. Neither society, nor any private
person, has been injured by his act. There is no damage, therefore, to redress.
To punish him after retreat and abandonment would be to destroy the motive
for retreat and abandonment."

It must be borne in mind, however, that the spontaneous desistance of a malefactor

exempts him from criminal liability for the intended crime but it does not exempt him
from the crime committed by him before his desistance.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 10
 People of the Phils. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003

Felony is attempted where assailants were not able to perform all acts which would
consummate killing. The assault cannot be characterized as frustrated murder since
the wound inflicted upon them could not have caused their death. As to them, the
crime is only attempted murder. There was intent to kill. The accused intended to kill
the three victims but were not able to perform all the acts which would consummate
the killing.
People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Corpuz, et al., G.R. No. L-36234, February 10, 1981

Overt acts

"Overt acts" has been defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the
intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation,
which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Mauricio, G.R. No. 133695, February 28, 2001

The overt act must be an external one which has direct connection with the felony,
it being "necessary to prove that said beginning of execution, if carried to its complete
termination following its natural course without being frustrated by external obstacles
nor by the voluntary desistance of the offender, will logically and necessarily ripen to
a concrete offense" (Padilla Criminal Law: Revised Penal Code Annotated, vol. I,
1987 ed., p. 141 citing People of the Phil. vs. Aurelio Lamahang, G.R. No. 43530,
August 3, 1935, 61 Phil. 703).
People of the Phil. vs. Rosemarie N. De La Cruz, G.R. No. 120988, August 11, 1997

The trial court did not err in considering appellant's act of embracing the victim
with intent of having carnal knowledge of her against her will as an overt act
commencing the perpetration of the crime of rape. For, were it not for the resistance
offered by the victim, said act of the appellant would have naturally ended up with the
consummation of his criminal objective of having carnal knowledge of the victim
against her will which he expressly admitted in his extra-judicial confession.

The offender's act need not be one of those mentioned by the appellant in order to
be considered as an overt act commencing the perpetration of the crime of rape when
the criminal objective of having carnal knowledge of the victim against her will is
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 11
 admitted or is sufficiently established and said act would naturally end up with the
consummation of said criminal objective unless frustrated by some external cause or
by offender's voluntary desistance. Furthermore, even the mentioned acts would not
be considered as overt acts commencing the perpetration of the crime of rape when it
is sufficiently established that the man had no intention of having sexual intercourse
with the woman without her consent. Of vital importance, therefore, is the criminal
objective in performing the act. Was there intent to commit rape? The evidence shows
there was. Hence the trial court correctly convicted the appellant of the crime of
attempted rape with homicide.
People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Gajetas, G.R. No. L-38325, February 24, 1981

Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt to commit a felony
when the offender commences the commission of a felony by direct acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution by reason of some causes or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance. In People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. No.
143468-71, January 24, 2003 we held:

. . . The Supreme Court of Spain, in its decision of March 21, 1892, declared that
for overt acts to constitute an attempted offense, it is necessary that their objective be
known and established or such that acts be of such nature that they themselves should
obviously disclose the criminal objective necessarily intended, said objective and
finality to serve as ground for designation of the offense.
People of the Phil. vs. Noel Darilay, G.R. Nos. 139751-52, January 26, 2004

Stages of execution in rape

Correlating these two provisions, there is no debate that the attempted and
consummated stages apply to the crime of rape. Our concern now is whether or not
the frustrated stage applies to the crime of rape. x x x

Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge
of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the
essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be
done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the
crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. In a long line of cases (People of the Phil.
Islands, vs. Catalino Oscar, G.R. No. 24055, December 28, 1925, 48 Phil. 527; People
of the Phil. Islands, vs. Domingo Hernandez, G.R. No. 23916, October 14, 1926, 49
Phil. 980; People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Royeras, G.R. No. L-31886, April 29,
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 12
 1974; People of the Phil. vs. Wendelino Amores, G.R. No. L-32996, August 21,
1974), We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect
penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is
sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen
or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is
attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ (People of the Phil. Islands,
vs. Jose Tayaba, G.R. No. 43137, December 5, 1935, 62 Phil. 559; People of the Phil.
Islands, vs. Lazaro Rabadan, et al., G.R. No. 27856, December 16, 1927, 53 Phil. 594;
United States vs. Eligio C. Garcia, G.R. No. L-3570, December 23, 1907, 9 Phil. 434)
because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender merely commenced the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Taking into account the nature,
elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the
matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be
committed.
People of the Phil. vs. Ceilito Orita, G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990

Let it be said once again that, as the Revised Penal Code presently so stands, there
is no such crime as frustrated rape. In People of the Phil. vs. Ceilito Orita, G.R. No.
88724, April 3, 1990, the Court has explicitly pronounced:

"Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge
of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the
essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be
done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the
crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. In a long line of cases (People of the Phil.
Islands, vs. Catalino Oscar, G.R. No. 24055, December 28, 1925, 48 Phil. 527; People
of the Phil. Islands, vs. Domingo Hernandez, G.R. No. 23916, October 14, 1926, 49
Phil. 980; People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Royeras, G.R. No. L-31886, April 29,
1974; People of the Phil. vs. Wendelino Amores, G.R. No. L-32996, August 21,
1974), We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect
penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is
sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen
or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is
attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ (People of the Phil. Islands,
vs. Jose Tayaba, G.R. No. 43137, December 5, 1935, 62 Phil. 559; People of the Phil.
Islands, vs. Lazaro Rabadan, et al., G.R. No. 27856, December 16, 1927, 53 Phil. 594;
United States vs. Eligio C. Garcia, G.R. No. L-3570, December 23, 1907, 9 Phil. 434)
because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender merely commenced the

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 13
 commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Taking into account the nature,
elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the
matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be
committed.

"Of course, We are aware of our earlier pronouncement in the case of People of the
Phil. vs. Julian Eriñia y Vinolla, G.R. No. 26298, January 20, 1927, 50 Phil. 998
where We found the offender guilty of frustrated rape there being no conclusive
evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the offended party. However, it appears
that this is a 'stray' decision inasmuch as it has not been reiterated in Our subsequent
decisions. Likewise, We are aware of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 2632 (dated September 12, 1960) and Republic Act
No. 4111 (dated March 29, 1965) which provides, in its penultimate paragraph, for the
penalty of death when the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed
by reason or on the occasion thereof. We are of the opinion that this particular
provision on frustrated rape is a dead provision. The Eriñia case, supra, might have
prompted the law-making body to include the crime of frustrated rape in the
amendments introduced by said laws."
People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Quiñanola, et al., G.R. No. 126148, May 5, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Primo Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Decoroso Aca-ac, G.R. No. 142500, April 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Orande, G.R. Nos. 141724-27, November 12, 2003

The felony is consummated when the penis touches the pudendum, however
slightly.
People of the Phil. vs. Crisanto Oliver, G.R. No. 123099, February 11, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Clemente De La Peña, G.R. No. 116060, July 31, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Celerino Castromero, G.R. No. 118992, October 9, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Roger Evangelista, G.R. No. 121627, November 17, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Caballes, et al., G.R. Nos. 102723-24, June 19, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Andan, G.R. No. 116437, March 3, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Magana, G.R. No. 105673, July 26, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Gastador, G.R. No. 123727, April 14, 1999

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 14
 Ejaculation is not an element of the crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Gastador, G.R. No. 123727, April 14, 1999

Felix Rait vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 180425, July 31, 2008

Art. 8 - Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony

Definition
The act of one is the act of all
Degree of participation
Presence at the scene of the crime
Desistance of co-conspirator
Rules to establish conspiracy
Not an element of murder or homicide
Must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself
Circumstantial evidence
Eyewitness not necessary
May be inferred from confessions of conspirators
Formal agreement not necessary
May be inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a common design
Information / Indictment

Definition

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning

the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
People of the Phil. vs. Ging Sam, G.R. No. L-4287, December 29, 1953

People of the Phil. vs. Leonido Cadag, et al., G.R. No. L-13830, May 31, 1961

People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Clarit, et al, G.R. No. L-14150, October 30, 1961

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 15
 People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Peralta et al., G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Angelino Pudpud, et al., G.R. No. L-26731, June 30, 1971

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Largo, et. al., G.R. No. L-28106, August 18, 1972

People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Ogapay, et al., G.R. No. L-28566, August 21, 1975

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Alonzo, et al., G.R. No. L-32163, October 19, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Monaga, et al., G.R. No. L-39528, November 19, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Alvis, G.R. No. L-39049, June 24, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Rojas, et al., G.R. Nos. L-46960-62, January 8, 1987

Jorge Taer vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Ballinas, et al., G.R. No. 93300, October 4, 1991

Roberto E. Iton vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94065, December 2, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Hadji Jaid Hasiron, G.R. No. 100797, October 15, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo V. Pajarit, et al., G.R. No. 82770, October 19, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito "Ben" Villanueva, G.R. Nos. 97144-45, July 10, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Manero, G.R. Nos. 86883-85, January 29, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Enrique Taguba, et al., G.R. Nos. 95207-17, January 19, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Roming Silong, et al., G.R. No. 110830, May 23, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Adronico Gregorio, et al., G.R. Nos. 109614-15, March 29, 1996

Odon Pecho vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Arthur Pangilinan, et al., G.R. Nos. 134823-25, January 14, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Romero, et al., G.R. No. 145166, October 8, 2003

Alex Asuncion, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 140247, October 23, 2003

Nomer Ocampo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 163705, July 30, 2007

People of the Phil. vs. Armando Rodas, et al., G.R. No. 175881, August 28, 2007

People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Delim, et al., G.R. No. 175942, September 13, 2007

People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 16
 whether they act through the physical volition of one or all, proceeding severally or
collectively.
People of the Phil. vs. Noel Agda, et al., G.R. No. L-36377, January 30, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Herhelito Dayag, G.R. No. L-35416, June 25, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo G. Sy, et al., G.R. No. L-39400, March 29, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Abundio Labinia, G.R. No. L-38140, July 20, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Monaga, et al., G.R. No. L-39528, November 19, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Edito R. Petenia, et al., G.R. No. L-51256, August 12, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Rosalio Laguardia, G.R. No. L-63243, February 27, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Damaso, et al., G.R. Nos. 41490-92, October 18, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Villalobos, G.R. No. 71526, May 27, 1992

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is conspiracy when two or
more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not
essential to establish conspiracy, and may be inferred from the collective acts of the
accused before, during and after the commission of the crime. [People of the Phil. vs.
Gil Templa, et al., G.R. No. 121897, August 16, 2001] Conspiracy can be presumed
from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when the said acts point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests. [People of the Phil.
vs. Roderick Licayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911, August 15, 2001] It is not
necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim.
Conspiracy renders all the conspirators as co-principals regardless of the extent and
character of their participation because in contemplation of law, the act of one
conspirator is the act of all.
People of the Phil. vs. Antonio L. Sanchez, et al., G.R. No. 131116, August 27, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Casiano Buntag, et al., G.R. No. 123070, April 14, 2004

Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy when ten or more
offenders agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be
proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Conspiracy must be shown
as distinctly and conclusively as the crime itself. [People of the Philippines vs. Jose
Reapor Y San Juan, G.R. No. 130962, October 5, 2001] It may be declared from the
acts of the suspect before, during and after the commission of the felony which are
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 17
 indicative of a joint purpose, concocted action and concurrence of sentiments. [People
of the Phil. vs. Danilo Arapok, G.R. No. 134974, December 8, 2000]

To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he

need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be
performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. Each conspirator may be
assigned separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated to one another but,
in fact, constitute a whole collective effort to achieve their common criminal
objective. [People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001]
Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The precise
extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, [People of the
Phil. vs. Ronnie Quinicio, G.R. No. 142430, September 13, 2001] since all the
conspirators are principals. To exempt himself from criminal liability, a conspirator
must have performed an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy
to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof.
People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Morial, et al., G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo De Jesus, G.R. No. 134815, May 27, 2004

Conspiracy transcends mere companionship, it denotes an intentional participation

in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.
People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Izon, et al., G.R. No. L-10397. October 16, 1958

People of the Phil. vs. Arcadio Aniel, et al., G.R. No. L-34416, February 21, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Segundo Manuel, et al., G.R. Nos. 93926-28, July 28, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Teddy Quinao, et al., G.R. No. 108454, March 13, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Marquita, et al., G.R. Nos. 119958-62, March 1, 2000

An assumed intimacy is of no legal bearing inasmuch as conspiracy "transcends

companionship." (Mere companionship does not establish conspiracy.)
People of the Phil. vs. Manuel C. Custodio, G.R. No. L-30463, October 30, 1972

People of the Phil. vs. Porferio Sosing, G.R. No. L-42791, January 30, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo P. Saavedra, G.R. No. L-48738, May 18, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Alex Padrones, G.R. No. 85823, September 13, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto Furugganan, G.R. Nos. 90191-96, January 28, 1991

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 18
 People of the Phil. vs. Noel Paguntalan, et al., G.R. No. 116272, March 27, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Berroya, et al., G.R. No. 122487, December 12, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999

People of the Phil. of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, 5 July 2000

People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Wilfredo Leaño, et al., G.R. No. 138886, October 9, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Isagani P. Guittap, et al., G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003

Mere relationship or association alone is not a badge of conspiracy.

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo P. Saavedra, G.R. No. L-48738, May 18, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Primo Camaddo, et al., G.R. No. 97934, January 18, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Ferras, et al., G.R. No. 119495, April 15, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Willy Figuracion, et al., G.R. No. 129162, August 10, 2001

From the legal standpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the
offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution.
People of the Phil. vs. Cielito Buluran, et al., G.R. No. 113940, February 15, 2000

It is unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a crime.

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Lising, et al., G.R. Nos. 106210-11, January 30, 1998

Although the facts may show a unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the
unlawful objective, essential however is an agreement to commit the crime and a
decision to commit it.
Wilfredo R. Antonio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-57937, October 21, 1988

Jorge Taer vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990

There is conspiracy if at the time of the commission of the offense, the acts of two
or more accused show that they were animated by the same criminal purpose and were
united in their execution.
People of the Phil. vs. Nicomedes Fabro, G.R. No. 95089, August 11, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo M. Hilario, G.R. No. 128083, March 16, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 19
 or where the acts of the malefactors indicate a concurrence of sentiments, a joint
purpose and a concerted action.
People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Sumbillo, et al., G.R. No. 105292, April 18, 1997

There is conspiracy where several accused by their acts aimed at the same object,
one performing one part and another performing another part so as to complete it with
a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently
independent are in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal
association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.
People of the Phil. vs. Jose Geronimo, et al., G.R. No. L-35700, October 15, 1973

People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Dalusag, et al., G.R. No. L-38988, October 31, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Edito R. Petenia, et al., G.R. No. L-51256, August 12, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Lasanas, G.R. Nos. L-48879-82, July 7, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Mamerto Serante, G.R. No. L-46724, July 31, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Silvestre Sunpongco, et al., G.R. No. L-42665, June 30, 1988

Wilfredo R. Antonio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-57937, October 21, 1988

Geronimo Manalaysay vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79946, April 12, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Francisco, et al., G.R. No. 69580, February 15, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Veras, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 86727, September 13, 1991

Roberto E. Iton vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94065, December 2, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Conrado G. Lagmay, et al., G.R. No. 67973, October 29, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Bayrante, et al., G.R. No. 92508, August 4, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Celedonio B. De Leon, et al., G.R. No. 110558, July 3, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Salvatierra, [Link]., G.R. No. 111124, June 20, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Abordo, et al., G.R. No. 107245, December 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Mario Abendan, et al., G.R. Nos. 132026-27, June 28, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003

Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 20
 existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful
purpose, conspiracy is evident.
People of the Phil. vs. Ramir Carizo, et al., G.R. No. 96510, July 6, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Adronico Gregorio, et al., G.R. Nos. 109614-15, March 29, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Benedicto Javier, et al., G.R. No. 84449, March 4, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Hitro Sancholes, et al. G.R. Nos. 110999 and 111000, April 18,
1997

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Mercado, et al., G.R. No. 111165, July 17, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Jurry Andal, et al., G.R. No. 124933, September 25, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 118967, July 14, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Leonilo Villarba, et al., G.R. No. 132784, October 30, 2000

A conspiracy in the statutory language exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The
objective then on the part of the conspirators is to perform an act or omission
punishable by law. What is required is assent to the perpetration of such a misdeed.
That must be their intent. There is need in the language of Justice Mapa in the early
leading case of United States vs. Magcomot, a 1909 decision, for 'concurrence of
wills' or 'unity of action and purpose.' The usual phraseology employed in many of the
later cases is 'common and joint purpose and design.' At times, reference is made to
'previous concert of criminal design.' Its manifestation could be shown by 'united and
concerted action. Thus a conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence it may be
deducted from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. The
conditions attending its commission and the acts executed may be indicative of a
common design to accomplish a criminal purpose and objective. If, to use the apt
words of Chief Justice Bengzon, there is a 'chain of circumstances' to that effect, then
conspiracy has been established. If such be the case then, the act of one is the act of all
the others involved and each is to be held to the same degree of liability as the others.
So it has been our constant ruling from the 1905 decision of United States vs. Mazu"
People of the Phil. vs. Angelino Pudpud, et al., G.R. No. L-26731, June 30, 1971

People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Lunar, et al, G.R. No. L-15579, May 29, 1972

People of the Phil. vs. Manuel C. Custodio, G.R. No. L-30463, October 30, 1972

People of the Phil. vs. Jose "Pitong" Tiongson, et al., G.R. No. L-29569, October 30,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 21
 1972

People of the Phil. vs. Antolin Cardenas, et al., G.R. No. L-29090, April 29, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Venancio Malilay, et al., G.R. No. L-27938, April 22, 1975

People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Ogapay, et al., G.R. No. L-28566, August 21, 1975

People of the Phil. vs. Herminio Taaca, et al., G.R. No. 35652, September 29, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Mangulabnan, et al., G.R. No. 65864, August 16, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 99258, September 13, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Conrado Gabatin, et al., G.R. No. 84730, October 28, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Jaime C. Caranzo, G.R. No. 76743, May 22, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Sabornido, G.R. No. 102141, September 18, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Eliseo A. Martinado, et al., G.R. No. 92020, October 19, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Julito Mindac, G.R. No. 83030, December 14, 1992

The simultaneous arrival of appellants, their specific acts before and after the
shooting, and their simultaneous flight pointed to a conspiracy among them.
People of the Phil. vs. Nomer Delos Santos, et al., G.R. No. 132123, November 23,
2000

The essence of conspiracy is the combination of two or more persons, by concerted

action, to accomplish a criminal or unlawful purpose, or some purpose not in itself
criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means.

Its elements are: agreement to accomplish an illegal objective, coupled with one or
more overt acts in furtherance of the illegal purpose; and requisite intent necessary to
commit the underlying substantive offense.
United States vs. Melchor-Lopez, 627 F 2d 886, 890 [1980], also citing other cases

Jose "Jinggoy" E. Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 148965, February 26,
2002

There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide
to commit it. It is hornbook doctrine that conspiracy must be proved by positive and
convincing evidence, the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 22
 Jose S. Ingal vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173282, March 4, 2008

Conspiracy is always predominantly mental in composition because it consists

primarily of a meeting of minds and intent. By its nature, conspiracy is planned in
utmost secrecy. Hence, for collective responsibility to be established, it is not
necessary that conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit
the crime as only rarely would such agreement be demonstrable since, in the nature of
things, criminal undertakings are rarely documented by agreements in writing.

But the courts are not without resort in the determination of its presence. The
existence of conspiracy may be inferred and proved through the acts of the accused,
whose conduct before, during and after the commission of the crime point to a
common purpose, concert of action, and community of interest. In short, conduct may
establish conspiracy.

An accepted badge of conspiracy is when the accused by their acts aimed at the
same object, one performing one part and another performing another so as to
complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts though
apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness
of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.
People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Serrano, et al., G.R. No. 179038, May 6, 2010, citing
People vs. Jaime Medina, G.R. No. 127157, July 10, 1998

The act of one is the act of all. Each accused is responsible for the act of the others.

"The general rule is well settled that, where several parties conspire or combine
together to commit any unlawful act, each is criminally responsible for the acts of his
associates or confederates committed in furtherance of any prosecution of the
common design for which they combine. In contemplation of law the act of one is the
act of all. . . . It is immaterial, as affecting the question of co-equal responsibility, that
one or more were not actually present at the consummation of the preconceived
design." (Conspiracy having been proved, the act of one conspirator becomes the act
of all; and it is of no moment that not all the accused participated in the actual
commission of every act constituting the crime.)
United States vs. Rufino Ponte, et al., G.R. No. 5952, October 24, 1911

United States vs. Roque Dato, et al., G.R. No. L-12855, December 21, 1917

People of the Philippines vs. Ging Sam, G.R. No. L-4287, December 29, 1953

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 23
 People vs. Caluag et al., G.R. No. L-6203, February 26, 1954

People of the Phil. vs. Ben Paredes, et al., G.R. No. L-19149, August 16, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Agapito De La Cruz, G.R. No. L-30912, April 30, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Bravante, G.R. No. 73804, May 29, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Tamba, et al., G.R. No. 71272, January 29, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Leoncio Jusep, G.R. No. L-45722, June 23, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Mamerto Serante, G.R. No. L-46724, July 31, 1987

Wilfredo R. Antonio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-57937, October 21, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Diomede Orongan, G.R. No. L-32751, December 21, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Arcillo Manlolo, G.R. No. 40778, January 26, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Muñoz, G.R. Nos. 38969-70, February 9, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Armando M. Solares, G.R. No. 82363, May 5, 1989

Renato A. Valdez vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 75896, May 5, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Damaso, et al., G.R. Nos. 41490-92, October 18, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rebulado, et al., G.R. No. L-42987, March 4, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Noel Pama, G.R. No. 90297, December 11, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Julian Rostata, Jr., G.R. No. 91482, February 9, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Dindo Liquiran, G.R. Nos. 105693-96, November 19, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Canillo, et al., G.R. No. 106579, August 30, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Sion, et al., G.R. No. 109617, August 11, 1997

Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his confederates which

follows incidentally in the execution of a common design as one of its probable and
natural consequences even though it was not intended as part of the original design.
Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular
purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and
growing out of the purpose intended. Conspirators are held to have intended the
consequences of their acts and by purposely engaging in conspiracy which necessarily
and directly produces a prohibited result that they are in contemplation of law,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 24
 charged with intending the result. Conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of
another conspirator even though such act differs radically and substantively from that
which they intended to commit.
People of the Phil. vs. Dima Montanir, et al., G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011

A person may be convicted for the criminal act of another, where between them,
there has been conspiracy or unity and intention in the commission of the offense
charged.
People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Talla, et al., G.R. No. 44414, January 18, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando H. Maranion, G.R. Nos. 90672-73, July 18, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie D. Cortes, et al., G.R. No. 105010, September 3, 1993

Mere simultaneous aiming by appellant and his co-accused at the victim with their
firearms does not by itself demonstrate concurrence of will or unity of action or
purpose that could be a basis for their collective responsibility.
People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Quitlong, et al., G.R. No. 121562, July 10, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. John Edward Leysa, G.R. No. 130889, June 6, 2002

To show conspiracy, direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not

necessary since the synchronized actuations and the oneness of criminal intent may be
inferred from the mode, method and manner by which the offense was perpetrated.
Once conspiracy is proved to exist, all the accused become equally liable.
People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Datun, et al., G.R. No. 118080, May 7, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 123397, Oct. 13, 1998

For collective responsibility to be established, it is not necessary that conspiracy be

proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime. It may be
inferred from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.
People of the Phil. vs. Estela Romualdez, et al., G.R. No. 31012, September 10, 1932

People of the Phil. vs. Epifanio Manabat et al., G.R. Nos. L-1710 & L-1711, December
23, 1948

El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Clemente Macul y Otros, G.R. No. L-2823. May 19, 1950

People of the Phil. vs. Leonido Cadag, et al., G.R. No. L-13830, May 31, 1961

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 25
 People of the Phil. vs. Ambrocio Belen, et al., G.R. No. L-13895, September 30, 1963

People of the Phil. vs. Benigno D. Pineda, et al., G.R. No. L-72400, January 15, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Capito et al., G.R. No. L-24466, March 19, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Peralta et al., G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Pagaduan, et al., G.R. No. L-26948, August 25, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Alcantara, et al., G.R. No. L-26867, June 30, 1970

People of the Phil. vs. Angelino Pudpud, et al., G.R. No. L-26731, June 30, 1971

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Tingson, et al., G.R. No. L-31228, October 24, 1972

People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Mejia, G.R. No. L-26195, January 31, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Cariño, et al., G.R. No. L-33608, February 12, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso (Bongcolo) Genoguin, et al., G.R. No. L-23019, March
28, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Ogapay, et al., G.R. No. L-28566, August 21, 1975

People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Manlangit, et al., G.R. No. L-32993, September 28,
1976

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Alonzo, et al., G.R. No. L-32163, October 19, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Cabiling, G.R. No. L-38091, December 17, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Avelino Roncal, et al., G.R. Nos. L-26857-58, October 21, 1977

People of the Phil. vs. Esteban Yu, et al., G.R. No. L-29667, November 29, 1977

People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio Candado, et al., G.R. No. L-34089, August 1, 1978

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Cercano, et al., G.R. Nos. L-37853, November 21, 1978

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus G. Ruiz, G.R. Nos. L-33604-05, October 30, 1979

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio C. Garcia, G.R. No. L-30449, October 31, 1979

People of the Phil. vs. Eulalio Bohos, et al., G.R. No. L-40995, June 25, 1980

People of the Phis. vs. Simplicio Realon, G.R. No. L-30832, August 29, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Muñoz, et al., G.R. No. L-38016, September 10, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo G. Sy, et al., G.R. No. L-39400, March 29, 1982

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 26
 People of the Phil. vs. Abundio Labinia, G.R. No. L-38140, July 20, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Enecito Villason, G.R. No. L-38208, July 30, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Efreniano Balane, G.R. No. L-48319, July 25, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Palon, G.R. No. L-33271, February 20, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Pueblas, et al. , G.R. No. L-32859, February 24, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Villanueva, et al., G.R. No. L-32274, April 2, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Laganzon, et al., G.R. No. L-47118, May 21, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo P. Patog, G.R. No. L-69620, September 24, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dagangon, et al., G.R. Nos. L-62654-58, November 13,
1986

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Punzalan, G.R. No. L-54562, August 6, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Dominador M. Roca, G.R. No. 77779, June 27, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 28, 1988

Jose P. De La Concepcion vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 73854, May 9, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo R. De La Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 83798, March 29, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Valeriano Pacris, et al., G.R. No. 69986, March 5, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Mario Briones, et al., G.R. No. 90319, October 15, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Jaime G. Serdan, G.R. No. 87318, September 2, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Sabornido, G.R. No. 102141, September 18, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Eliseo A. Martinado, et al., G.R. No. 92020, October 19, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Tirso Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 94187, November 4, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Noel Pama, G.R. Nos. 90297-98, December 1, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo C. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 100386, December 11, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Gorgonio G. Buntan, Sr., G.R. No. 90736, April 12, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. John Amet G. Baello, G.R. No. 101314, July 1, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo S. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 98321-24, June 30, 1993

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 27
 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Cordova, et al., G.R. Nos. 83373-74, July 5, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Julio Lug-aw, et al., G.R. No. 85735, January 18, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Roming Silong, et al., G.R. No. 110830, May 23, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Canillo, et al., G.R. No. 106579, August 30, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Cabrera, et al., G.R. No. 105992, February 1, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Noel Paguntalan, et al., G.R. No. 116272, March 27, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Silvestre, et al., G.R. No. 109142, May 29, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Hubilla, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 114904, January 29, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Adronico Gregorio, et al., G.R. Nos. 109614-15, March 29, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Landicho, G.R. No. 116600, July 3, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. David Cabiles, G.R. No. 115216, July 5, 1996

Odon Pecho vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Coloma Tabag, et al., G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Epifanio Gayon, et al. , G.R. No. 116228, March 13, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo P. Cayetano, G.R. Nos. 112429-30, July 23, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Sion, et al., G.R. No. 109617, August 11, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Aaron Bionat, G.R. No. 121778, September 4, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Norlito Cara, et al., G.R. Nos. 117483-84, December 12, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Hilario, G.R. No. 123455, January 16, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Pulusan, et al., G.R. No. 110037, May 21, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Gil Tadeje, et al., G.R. No. 123143, July 19, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Ben Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 145371, September 28, 2001

Roberto Erquiaga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124513, October 17, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Garcia, et al., G.R. Nos. 133489 and 143970, January 15,
2002

People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Catian, et al., G.R. No. 139693, January 24, 2002

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 28
 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dalmacio, et al., G.R. No. 126515, February 6, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Efren Tejero, et al., G.R. No. 135050, April 19, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Arthur Pangilinan, et al., G.R. Nos. 134823-25, January 14, 2003

Conspiracy is a common design to commit a felony. Once established, evidence of

participation by an accused in each and every aspect of the crime is not indispensable.
All those who, in one manner or another, took part in the consummation of the offense
are considered co-principals,
People of the Phil. vs. Danilo R. De La Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 83798, March 29, 1990

Benjamin Venturina vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 78038, January 18, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Primo Camaddo, et al., G.R. No. 97934, January 18, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Miranda, et al., G.R. No. 92369, August 10, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Disipulo, et al., G.R. Nos. 113245-47, August 18, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Medina, et al., G.R. No. 127157, July 10, 1998

each of them being held liable for the criminal deed executed by the other or others
in its perpetration.
People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Punzalan, G.R. No. L-54562, August 6, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Miranda, et al., G.R. No. 92369, August 10, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Disipulo, et al., G.R. Nos. 113245-47, August 18, 1997

Degree of participation

The degree of participation by each of them is immaterial. (Role played by each

conspirator is of no moment.)
El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Clemente Macul y Otros, G.R. No. L-2823, May 19, 1950

People of the Phil. vs. Bautil Pedro, et al., G.R. No. L-18997, January 31, 1966

People of the Phil. vs. Makalahi Reyes, et al., G.R. No. L-18892, May 30, 1966

People of the Phil. vs. Kamad Akiran, et al., G.R. No. L-18760, September 29, 1966

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Yap, et al., G.R. No. L-50300, October 26, 1983

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 29
 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Mozar, G.R. No. L-33544, July 25, 1984

Where conspiracy has been proven, a showing as to who inflicted the fatal blow is
not required.
People of the Phil. vs Roberto Gungon, et al., G.R No. 119574, March 19, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 28, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Alvarez, G.R. No. 70446, January 31, 1989

People of the Phil. vs Tonny Adoc, et al., G.R No. 132079, April 12, 2000

Raymundo Tan vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 119832, October 12, 2000

Acts done by co-conspirators cannot prejudice a co-accused who participated in the

commission of the offense but not in the plan to carry out the same.
People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Regular, et al., G.R. No. L-38674, September 30, 1981

Under the law, a conspirator, no matter how minimal his participation in the crime,
is as guilty as the principal perpetrator of the crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Cedon, G.R. No. 101117, June 15, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Robert Dinglasan, G.R. No. 101312, January 28, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Abordo, et al., G.R. No. 107245, December 17, 1999

In the cases where the Court held that persons who provided the weapon used in
the commission of the crime are co-conspirators.
People of the Phil. vs. Hipolito Agbuya, et al., G.R. Nos. 36366-68, September 23, 1932

People of the Phil. vs. Sulpicio Dela Cerna, et al., G.R. No. L-20911, October 30, 1967

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul and Elmer Avenue, G.R. No. 124809, December
19, 2001

Although "a conspiracy is in its nature a joint offense . . . it does not follow that one
person only cannot be convicted of conspiracy. So long as the acquittal or death of a
co-conspirator does not remove the basis for a charge of conspiracy, one defendant
may be found guilty of the offense."
United States vs. Ponciano Remigio et al., G.R. No. L-12822, February 11, 1918

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 30
 Camilo Villa vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 87186, April 24, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Epie Arlalejo, G.R. No. 127841, June 16, 2000

Melecia Paña, et al. vs. Floripinas C. Buyser, et al., G.R. No. 130144, May 24, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Felix Uganap, et al., G.R. No. 130605, June 19, 2001

To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he

need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be
performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. Each conspirator may be
assigned separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated to one another but,
in fact, constitute a whole collective effort to achieve their common criminal
objective. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators.
The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary,
since all the conspirators are principals.
People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011

Presence at the scene of the crime

Mere passive presence at the scene of the crime does not make a person liable
therefor.
People of the Phil. vs. Custodio Regal, et al., G.R. No. L-14753, July 31, 1962

People of the Phil. vs. Tirso Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 94187, November 4, 1992

Mere presence of an accused in the crime scene or at the discussion of a

conspiracy, even approval of it, without any active participation in the same, is not
enough for purposes of conviction.
People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Berroya, et al., G.R. No. 122487, December 12, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Hilario, G.R. No. 123455, January 16, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 129371, October 4, 2000

Ricardo Salvatierra, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115998, June 16, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Primitiva Dizon, et al., G.R. No. 130742, July 18, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rafael, G.R. No. 123176, October 13, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Willy Figuracion, et al., G.R. No. 129162, August 10, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 31
 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Wilfredo Leaño, et al., G.R. No. 138886, October 9, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Lomer Mandao, G.R. No. 135048, December 3, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Rene Gayot Pilola, G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003

Desistance of co-conspirator

To extricate himself from criminal liability, the conspirator must have performed
an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the unlawful plan to commit the
felony.
People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo De Los Reyes, et al., G.R. No. L-44112, October 22,
1992

People of the Phil. vs. Julio Lug-aw, et al., G.R. No. 85735, January 18, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo P. Cayetano, G.R. Nos. 112429-30, July 23, 1997

One who joins a criminal conspiracy in effect adopts as his own the criminal
designs of his co-conspirators; he merges his will into the common felonious intent. A
person who embraces a criminal conspiracy is properly held to have cast his lot with
his fellow conspirators and to have taken his chances that things may go awry and that
the offended party may resist or third persons may get killed in the course of
implementing the basis criminal design. To free himself from such criminal liability,
the law requires some overt act on the part of the conspirator, to seek to prevent
commission of the second or related felony or to abandon or dissociate himself from
the conspiracy to commit the initial felony.
People of the Phil. vs. Pancho A. Pelagio, et al., G.R. No. L-16177, May 24, 1967

People of the Phil. vs. Juan G. Escober, et al., G.R. Nos. L-69564 and L-69658,
January 29, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Ciriaco Bazar, et al., G.R. No. L-41829, June 27, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Salvador, G.R. No. L-77964, July 26, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Roel Punzalan, et al., G.R. No. 78853, November 8, 1991

Rules to establish conspiracy

For the prosecution to establish conspiracy, we considered the following rules:

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 32
 1. The well-settled rule is that conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the
commission of the offense itself.
People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Quilaton, et al., G.R. No. 131835, February 3, 2000

2. Proof of previous agreement among the malefactors to commit the crime would
be unnecessary to establish conspiracy when by their overt acts it would be deduced
that they conducted themselves in concert with one another in pursuing their unlawful
design.
People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Nullan, et al., G.R. No. 126303, April 14, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Andales, G.R. No. 125994, January 18, 2000

3. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after
the crime, which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of
sentiments.
People of the Phil. vs. Sergon Manes, et al., G.R. No. 122737, February 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003

Not an element of murder or homicide

Conspiracy is not an element of the crime of murder or homicide. Conspiracy

assumes pivotal importance in the determination of the liability of the perpetrators.
Thus, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution fails to prove conspiracy, only those
whose liability can be established can be held liable for the crime charged. In the case
under consideration, the prosecution was able to prove that petitioner was the one who
stabbed the victim. But since conspiracy was not shown in the instant case, the other
accused cannot be convicted because their respective liabilities were not satisfactorily
proved as well. Petitioner alone is liable for the death of the victim.
Jose S. Ingal vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173282, March 4, 2008

Must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself

To establish conspiracy, there must be proof that two or more persons agreed to
commit the crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Renato Albao, et al., G.R. No. 117481, March 6, 1998

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 33
 Considering the far-reaching consequences of criminal conspiracy, the same degree
of proof required for establishing the crime is required to support a finding of its
presence, that is, it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the
commission of the offense itself. (Conspiracy must be shown beyond reasonable
doubt.)
People of the Phil. vs. Antonino Cerdeña, et al., G.R. No. 28389, January 20, 1928

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bernal, G.R. No. L-4409, July 14, 1952, 91 Phil. 619

People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Canare, G.R. No. L-10677, September 30, 1959

People of the Phil. vs. Custodio Regal, et al., G.R. No. L-14753, July 31, 1962

People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Tividad, et al., G.R. No. L-21469, June 30, 1967

People of the Phil. vs. Lorenzo Portugueza, et al., G.R. No. L-22604, July 31, 1967

People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Peralta et al., G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Chaw Yaw Shun, G.R. No. L-19590, April 25, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Santiago Tatlonghari, et al., G.R. No. L-22094, March 28, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Vicente, et al., G.R. No. L-26241, May 21, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Bartolay, et al., G.R. No. L-30610, October 22, 1971

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Tingson, et al., G.R. No. L-31228, October 24, 1972

People of the Phil. vs. Manuel C. Custodio, G.R. No. L-30463, October 30, 1972

People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Llamera, et al., G.R. Nos. L-21604-6, May 25, 1973

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Geronimo, et al., G.R. No. L-35700, October 15, 1973

People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Dorico, et al., G.R. No. L-31568, November 29, 1973

People of the Phil. vs. Policarpo Tumalip, et al., G.R. No. L-28451, October 28, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Lominog Macatanaw, G.R. No. L-37883, February 25, 1975

People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Ogapay, et al., G.R. No. L-28566, August 21, 1975

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Alonzo, et al., G.R. No. L-32163, October 19, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo S. Vistido, G.R. No. L-31582, October 26, 1977

People of the Phil. vs. Arcadio Aniel, et al., G.R. No. L-34416, February 21, 1980

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 34
 People of the Phil. vs. Simplicio Realon, G.R. No. L-30832, August 29, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Jacobito Marquez, G.R. No. L-31403, December 14, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Eufemio P. Caparas, et al., G.R. No. L-47411, January 18, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Porferio Sosing, G.R. No. L-42791, January 30, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Noel Agda, et al., G.R. No. L-36377, January 30, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Lito Varroga, et al., G.R. No. L-38100, March 15, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Lobaton, G.R. No. L-33431, June 28, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Benavidez, et al., G.R. No. L-59985, January 20, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Palon, G.R. No. L-33271, February 20, 1984

Dolores G. Gomez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 63202, April 9, 1985

Juanito Moniza, Jr. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 72719, September 18, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo P. Saavedra, G.R. No. L-48738, May 18, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Elizaga, et al., G.R. No. 78794, November 21, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Pardilla, et al., G.R. No. L-45266, November 24, 1988

Pedro Castañeda vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 61243, March 16, 1989

Alejandro G. Macadangdang vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 75440-43, February

14, 1989

Jose P. De La Concepcion vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 73854, May 9, 1989

Delfin Orodio vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-57519, September 13, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Herminio Taaca, et al., G.R. No. 35652, September 29, 1989

Enrico M. Perez vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 76203-04, December 6, 1989

Jorge Taer vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Alex Padrones, G.R. No. 85823, September 13, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Cruz, G.R. No. 74048, November 14, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Laurio, et al., G.R. No. 95351, August 9, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Dante Donato, et al., G.R. No. 94530, March 6, 1992

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 35
 People of the Phil. vs. Tirso Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 94187, November 4, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Belarmino Divina, et al., G.R. Nos. 93808-09, April 7, 1993

Gil Tapalla, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 100682, May 31, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo S. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 98321-24, June 30, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Julio Lug-aw, et al., G.R. No. 85735, January 18, 1994

Odon Pecho vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Berroya, et al., G.R. No. 122487, December 12, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Henry Ortiz, G.R. No. 111713 January 27, 1997, 334 Phil. 590,
1997

Jose P. Dans, et al. vs. People of the Phil., et al, G.R. No. 127073, January 29, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Maluenda, et al., G.R. No. 115351 March 27, 1998, 351
Phil. 467, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Ferras, et al., G.R. No. 119495 April 15, 1998, 351
Phil. 1020, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinghug, G.R. No. 125814, November 16, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Quilaton, et al., G.R. No. 131835, February 3, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Carlie Alagon, et al., G.R. Nos. 126536-37, February 10, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Nilo Bautista, et al., G.R. No. 131840, April 27, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Primitiva Dizon, et al., G.R. No. 130742, July 18, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Rustico Tilos, et al., G.R. No. 138385, January 16, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Roderick Licayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911, August 15,
2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ben Aquino and Romeo Aquino, G.R. No. 145371, September
28, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Wilfredo Leaño, et al., G.R. No. 138886, October 9, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. John Edward Leysa, G.R. No. 130889, June 6, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Jessee "George" Castro, G.R. No. 132726, July 23, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Sabiyon, G.R. No. 129113, September 17, 2002

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 36
 People of the Phil. vs. Isagani P. Guittap, et al., G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Hugo, et al., G.R. No. 134604, August 28, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Natividad, et al., G.R. No. 151072, September 23, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Gregorio, et al., G.R. No. 153781, September 24, 2003

To be the basis for a conviction, conspiracy must be proved in the same manner as
any element of the criminal act itself.
People of the Phil. vs. Arquillos Tabuso, G.R. No. 113708, October 26, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Cresenciano Canaguran, et al., G.R. No. 108174, October 28,
1999

People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinhug, G.R. Nos. 125814-15, November 16, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Cupino, et al., G.R. No. 125688, April 3, 2000

The same degree of proof required to establish the crime is necessary to support a
finding of the presence of conspiracy, that is, it must be shown to exist as clearly and
convincingly as the commission of the offense itself.
People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Berroya, et al., G.R. No. 122487, December 12, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Primitiva Dizon, et al., G.R. No. 130742, July 18, 2000

Conspiracy, to be the basis for a conviction, should be proved in the same manner
as the criminal act itself. It is also essential that a conscious design to commit an
offense must be established. Conspiracy is not the product of negligence but of
intentionality on the part of the cohorts.
People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Gomez, G.R. No. 101817, March 26, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Quitlong, et al., G.R. No. 121562, July 10, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Abina, et al., G.R. No. 129891, October 27, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinhug, G.R. Nos. 125814-15, November 16, 1999

Geronimo Dado vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 131421, November 18, 2002

As to conspiracy, it must be established by the same quantum of evidence as any

other ingredient of the offense. The same degree of proof necessary to establish the
crime is required to establish a finding of criminal conspiracy, that is, proof beyond
reasonable doubt. It cannot be established by conjectures but by and conclusive
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 37
 evidence. Since conspiracy must be proved beyond peradventure of a doubt, it cannot
be appreciated where the facts can be consistent with the non-participation of the
accused in the fancied cabal.
People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Cruz, G.R. No. 74048, November 14, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto Furugganan, G.R. Nos. 90191-96, January 28, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Leoniza S. Villagonzalo, et al., G.R. No. 105388, November 18,
1994

Conspiracy must be established by positive evidence and conviction pursuant

thereto must be founded on facts, not on mere inferences and presumption.
People of the Phil. vs. Jacobito Marquez, G.R. No. L-31403, December 14, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Lobaton, G.R. No. L-33431, June 28, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Narciso R. Martinez, G.R. No. L-33907, January 31, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Felix Mozar, G.R. No. L-33544, July 25, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto Furugganan, G.R. Nos. 90191-96, January 28, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Laurio, et al., G.R. No. 95351, August 9, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Timple, et al., G.R. Nos. 100391-92, September 26,
1994

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Desoy, et al., G.R. No. 127754, August 16, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Cresenciano Canaguran, et al., G.R. No. 108174, October 28,
1999

People of the Phil. vs. Willy Figuracion, et al., G.R. No. 129162, August 10, 2001

The time-honored jurisprudence is that direct proof is not essential to prove

conspiracy. It may be shown by a number of indefinite acts, conditions and
circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished and from
which may logically be inferred that here was a common design, understanding or
agreement among the conspirators to commit the offense charged.
People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Esponilla, et al., G.R. No. 122766, June 20, 2003

Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy. It need not be shown that the
parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter in and pursue a
common design.
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 38
 People of the Phil. vs. Rey Salison, G.R. No. 115690, February 20, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 126047, September 16, 1999

The existence of the assent of minds may be and from the secrecy of the crime,
usually must be inferred from proof of the circumstances which, taken together,
apparently indicate they are merely parts of some complete whole.
People of the Phil. vs. Rene Ubaldo, et al., G.R. Nos. 128110-11, October 9, 2000

Conspiracy may be proved by facts and circumstances, which taken together,

indicate that the assailants cooperated and labored to the same end.
El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Clemente Macul y Otros, G.R. No. L-2823. May 19, 1950, 86
Phil 423

People of the Phil. vs. Luisito Bernales, et al., G.R. No. L-30966, December 14, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Palon, G.R. No. L-33271, February 20, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dagangon, et al., G.R. Nos. L-62654-58, November 13,
1986

People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Catian, et al., G.R. No. 139693, January 24, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Rene Gayot Pilola, G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003

Or from a number of facts done in pursuance of a common unlawful purpose.

People of the Phil. vs. Jovito Aguel, et al., G.R. No. L-36554, May 19, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Palon, G.R. No. L-33271, February 20, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dagangon, et al., G.R. Nos. L-62654-58, November 13,
1986

Criminal conspiracy must always be founded on facts

People of the Phil. vs. Severino T. Campos, et al., G.R. No. 91716, October 3, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo B. Argawanon, et al., G.R. No. 106538, March 30, 1994

and, like any other ingredient of an offense, it must be established by clear and
convincing evidence.
People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Laurio, et al., G.R. No. 95351, August 9, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo B. Argawanon, et al., G.R. No. 106538, March 30, 1994

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 39
 It must be remembered that direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found for criminals
do not write down their lawless plans and plots.
People of the Phil. vs. Ulysses M. Cawaling, et al., G.R. No. 117970, July 28, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Pagpaguitan, et al., G.R. No. 116599, September 27,
1999

People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000

Jose Angeles vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 101442, March 28, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco E. Hapa, et al., G.R. No. 125698, July 19, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Alex Rivera, et al., G.R. No. 125895, July 4, 2002

While direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy as it may be shown by acts
and circumstances from which may logically be inferred the existence of a common
design among the accused to commit the offense(s) charged, the evidence to prove the
same must be positive and convincing considering that conspiracy is a facile devise by
which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold.
People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Tingson, et al., G.R. No. L-31228, October 24, 1972

People of the Phil. vs. Ricarte Madali, et al., G.R. Nos. 67803-04, July 30, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Magno, et al., G.R. No. 134535, January 19, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Ragundiaz, et al., G.R. No. 124977, June 22, 2000

Proof of the conspiracy need not be based on direct evidence because it may be
inferred from the parties' conduct indicating a common understanding among
themselves with respect to the commission of a crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Matic, et al., G.R. No. 133650, February 19, 2002

Alex Asuncion, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 140247, October 23, 2003

Prior agreement or assent to the crime is usually inferred from the acts of the
accused showing concerted action, common design and objective, actual cooperation,
concurrence of, or community of interest.
People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Domasian, et al., G.R. No. 95322, March 1, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Silvestre Miranday, et al., G.R. No. 111581, March 23, 1995

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 40
 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo "Eddie" Tami, G.R. Nos. 101801-03, May 2, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Marlo L. Compil, G.R. No. 95028, May 15, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Celedonio B. De Leon, et al., G.R. No. 110558, July 3, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Victor Torres, et al., G.R. No. 111289, August 11, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Asoy, et al., G.R. No. 109764, December 29, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Hubilla, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 114904, January 29, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Ermelindo Sequiño, et al., G.R. No. 117397, November 13, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Maluenda, et al., G.R. No. 115351, March 27, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Ulysses M. Cawaling, et al., G.R. No. 117970, July 28, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Roderick Licayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911, August 15,
2001

People of the Phil. vs. Arthur Pangilinan, et al., G.R. Nos. 134823-25, January 14, 2003

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning

the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To establish the existence of a
conspiracy, direct proof is not essential since it may be shown by facts and
circumstances from which may be logically inferred the existence of a common design
among the accused to commit the offense charged, or it may be deduced from the
mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.
People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Silvestre, et al., G.R. No. 109142, May 29, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Hubilla, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 114904, January 29, 1996

Odon Pecho vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Heracleo Manriquez, et al., G.R. Nos. 122510-11, March 17,
2000

More explicitly — . . . conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence of acts

charged, but may and generally must be proved by a number of indefinite acts,
conditions and circumstances, which vary according to the purpose accomplished.
Previous agreement to commit a crime is not essential to establish a conspiracy, it
being sufficient that the condition attending to its commission and the acts executed
may be indicative of a common design to accomplish a criminal purpose and
objective. If there is a chain of circumstances to that effect, conspiracy can be

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 41
 established.
People of the Phil. vs. Rolando H. Maranion, G.R. Nos. 90672-73, July 18, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Esponilla, et al., G.R. No. 122766, June 20, 2003

Thus, the rule is that conspiracy must be shown to exist by direct or circumstantial
evidence, as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself.
People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 28, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Esponilla, et al., G.R. No. 122766, June 20, 2003

In the absence of direct proof thereof, as in the present case, it may be deduced
from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred
from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and
design, concerted action and community of interest. plpecdtai

People of the Phil. vs. Noel Pama, G.R. No. 90297, December 11, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Cordova, et al., G.R. Nos. 83373-74, July 5, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Canillo, et al., G.R. No. 106579, August 30, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Gil Parica, et al., G.R. No. 80611, April 21, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Alberca, G.R. No. 117106, June 26, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Gomez, G.R. No. 101817, March 26, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Nardo, et al., G.R. No. 100197, April 4, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Datun, et al., G.R. No. 118080, May 7, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Pulusan, et. al.,, G.R. No. 110037, May 21, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Elezer Galapin, et al., G.R. No. 124215, July 31, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Nilo Barredo, et al., G.R. No. 122850, October 7, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Dacibar, et al., G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Adelio Conde, G.R. No. 133647, April 12, 2000

Jose Angeles vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 101442, March 28, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo P. Cabilto, et al., G.R. Nos. 128816 and 139979-80,
August 8, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 42
 People of the Phil. vs. Gio Concorcio @ Jun, G.R. Nos. 121201-02, October 19, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo P. Napalit, G.R. No. 142919, February 4, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Aliben, G.R. No. 140404, February 27, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo B. Reyes, G.R. No. 135682, March 26, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Donato Caraig, G.R. Nos. 116224-27, March 28, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Esponilla, et al., G.R. No. 122766, June 20, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Gregorio, et al., G.R. No. 153781, September 24, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Romero, et al., G.R. No. 145166, October 8, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Gildo B. Pelopero PNP, G.R. No. 126119, October 15, 2003

Alex Asuncion, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 140247, October 23, 2003

Absent any act or circumstance from which may be logically inferred the existence
of a common design among the accused to commit the crime, the theory of conspiracy
remains a speculation not a fact. plpecdtai

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Viernes, et al., G.R. No. 118091, October 3, 1996

Potenciana M. Evangelista vs. People of the Phil. et al., G.R. Nos. 108135-36,
September 30, 1999

The community of interests due to relationship, the absence of immediate and

sufficient cause or provocation, the joint attack and the obvious plan to deal separately
with the complainants are facts and circumstances from which the unity of design that
characterizes conspiracy can be inferred without need of direct proof.
People of the Phil. vs. Jose Carbonel, et al., G.R. No. 24177, March 16, 1926, 48 Phil.
236

Circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence, provided it is competent and convincing, will therefore be

sufficient to establish conspiracy.
People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dagangon, et al., G.R. Nos. L-62654-58, November 13,
1986

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando E. Roa, G.R. No. 78052, November 9, 1988

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 43
 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Aldeguer, G.R. No. 47991, April 3, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Tonog, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 94533, February 4, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo V. Pajarit, et al., G.R. No. 82770, October 19, 1992

While it is desirable that the conspiracy be proved by direct evidence, like an

express understanding among the plotters affirming their commitment and defining
their respective roles, it may nevertheless be established at times by circumstantial
evidence.
People of the Phil. vs. Donato Petil, et al., G.R. No. 70223, March 31, 1987

Valentino G. Castillo vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. L-52352-57, June 30, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Ancheta, G.R. No. 70222, February 27, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Viray, G.R. No. 72892, January 27, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Damaso, et al., G.R. Nos. 41490-92, October 18, 1990

People of the Phils. vs. Joselito Villalobos, G.R. No. 71526, May 27, 1992

Not necessary for eyewitnesses

It is not essential that there be eyewitnesses testifying to the actual conversation,

agreements, and acts of the accused as they conspired together to commit the offense.
People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Cercano, et al., G.R. Nos. L-37853, November 21, 1978

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Palon, G.R. No. L-33271, February 20, 1984

May be inferred from confessions of conspirators

Conspiracy may be inferred from the individual confessions of the defendants.

"These confessions are so intimately interwoven that it is hard, if not impossible, to
draw a line with a view to sifting the individually admitted facts. In the absence of
collusion among the declarants, their confessions should be read together, in order to
form a complete picture of the whole situation, and to consider them collectively
merely as corroborative and/or confirmatory of the evidence independent therefrom."
People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Castelo, et al., G.R. No. L-10774, May 30, 1964

People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Pamintuan, et al., G.R. No. L-48273, November 28,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 44
 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 129211, October 2, 2000

As regards the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and

during its existence, the law on evidence provides that such acts and declaration may
only be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration. Of course, it would be an entirely
different matter if any of the conspirators who are charged with the commission of an
offense are utilized as state witnesses.
People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Cordova, et al., G.R. Nos. 83373-74, July 5, 1993

Proof of conspiracy is perhaps most frequently made by evidence of a chain of

circumstances only.
People of the Phil. vs. Silvestre Miranday, et al., G.R. No. 111581, March 23, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Theodore Bernal, et al., G.R. No. 113685, June 19, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Maluenda, et al., G.R. No. 115351, March 27, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Visaya, G.R. No. 136967, February 26, 2001

Formal agreement not necessary

In conspiracy, no formal agreement between the parties to do the act charged is

necessary. It is sufficient that the minds of the parties meet understanding so as to
bring about an intelligent and deliberate agreement to do the act and to commit the
offense charged, although such agreement is not manifested by any formal words. A
mutual implied understanding is sufficient, so far as the combination or confederacy is
concerned, to constitute the offense. Previous acquaintance is unnecessary, and it is
not essential that each conspirator shall take part in every act, or the other conspirators
in the execution of the act of conspiracy. Conspiracy implies concert of design and not
participation in every detail of execution . . .. If the object of the combination is
unlawful, the means contemplated to effect such object is immaterial. . . . and it is not
even necessary that the means should have been agreed on, or that anytime should
have been set for the accomplishment of the design. (12 CJ. 544-545; People of the
Philippines vs. Ging Sam alias Taba, G.R. No. L-4287, December 29, 1953).

Conspiracy is inferrable and proven by joint and concerted acts of the accused.
(People of the Phil. vs. Emiliano Plandez, et al., G.R. No. L-31282, September 17,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 45
 1984).

There is conspiracy where several accused by their acts aimed at the same object,
one performing one part and another performing another part so as to complete it with
a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently
independent are in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal
association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.(People of the Phil. vs.
Rafael Dalusag, et al., G.R. No. L-38988, October 31, 1984).

Conspiracy having been established, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals
regardless of the extent and character of their participation because in contemplation
of law, the act of one is the act of all. (People of the Phil. vs. Eustaquio Loreno, et al.,
G.R. No. L-54414, July 9, 1984)."
People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Apawan, G.R. No. 85329, August 16, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Noel Paguntalan, et al., G.R. No. 116272, March 27, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Abordo, et al., G.R. No. 107245, December 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Julio Herida, et al., G.R. No. 127158, March 5, 2001

Conspiracy to exist does not require an agreement for an appreciable period prior to
the occurrence.
People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 126047, September 16, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinhug, G.R. Nos. 125814-15, November 16, 1999

Conspiracy to exist does not require an agreement for an appreciable period prior to
the occurrence; from the legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the
commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its
execution.
People of the Phil. vs. Leonido Cadag, et al., G.R. No. L-13830, May 31, 1961

People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Clarit, et al, G.R. No. L-14150, October 30, 1961

People of the Phil. vs. Doroteo Bollena, et al., G.R. No. L-13415, December 30, 1961

People of the Phil. vs. Felino C. Simon, et al., G.R. No. L-18035, February 28, 1964

People of the Phil. vs. Nicomedes Castro, et al., G.R. No. L-17465, August 31, 1964

People of the Phil. vs. Julian Tiongson y De La Cruz, G.R. Nos. L-9866-7, November

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 46
 28, 1964

People of the Phil. vs. Bautil Pedro, et al., G.R. No. L-18997, January 31, 1966

People of the Phil. vs. Kamad Akiran, et al., G.R. No. L-18760, September 29, 1966

People of the Phil. vs. Elmer Estrada, G.R. No. L-26103, January 17, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Fontillas, et al., G.R. No. L-25298, April 16, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Peralta et al., G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Magcamit, G.R. No. L-25555, March 28, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Odoncio Tarrayo, et al., G.R. No. L-26489, April 21, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Pastor Tapac, et al., G.R. No. L-26491, May 20, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Pagaduan, et al., G.R. No. L-26948, August 25, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Casey, et al., G.R. No. L-30146, February 24, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo G. Sy, et al., G.R. No. L-39400, March 29, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Enecito Villason, G.R. No. L-38208, July 30, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Pueblas, et al. , G.R. No. L-32859, February 24, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Delfino Beltran, et al., G.R. Nos. L-37168-69, September 13,
1985

People of the Phil. vs. Valeriano Pacris, et al., G.R. No. 69986, March 5, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Canillo, et al., G.R. No. 106579, August 30, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Silvestre, et al., G.R. No. 109142, May 29, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Hubilla, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 114904, January 29, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Landicho, G.R. No. 116600, July 3, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Ermelindo Sequiño, et al., G.R. No. 117397, November 13, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Aaron Bionat, G.R. No. 121778, September 4, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Hilario, G.R. No. 123455, January 16, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Rex Bergante, et al., G.R. Nos. 120369-70, February 27, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Elezer Galapin, et al., G.R. No. 124215, July 31, 1998

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 47
 People of the Phil. vs. Nonoy Felix, et al., G.R. No. 126914, October 1, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Silveriano Botona, G.R. No. 115693, March 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 126047, September 16, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Regino Marcelino et al., G.R. No. 126269, October 1, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinghug, G.R. No. 125814, November 16, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Cielito Buluran, et al., G.R. No. 113940, February 15, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Teodorico Cleopas, et al., G.R. No. 121998, March 9, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 118967, July 14, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Rene Ubaldo, et al., G.R. Nos. 128110-11, October 9, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Carrozo, et al., G.R. No. 97913, October 12, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo M. Hilario, G.R. No. 128083, March 16, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Hermosa, et al., G.R. No. 131805, September 7, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Villaver, et. Al., G.R. No. 133381, November 27, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Bagano, et al., G.R. No. 139531, January 31, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Dinamling, et al., G.R. No. 134605, March 12, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Rene Gayot Pilola, G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003

Settled is the rule that proof of previous agreement to commit the crime is not
necessary for conspiracy may be deduced from the facts and circumstances
surrounding the commission of the offense. Concert of action at the moment of
consummating the crime and the form and manner in which assistance is rendered to
the person inflicting the fatal wound may determine complicity.
People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Tirol, et al., G.R. No. L-30538, January 31, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Delfino Beltran, et al., G.R. No. L-37168-69, September 13, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Mamerto Serante, G.R. No. L-46724, July 31, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando H. Maranion, G.R. Nos. 90672-73, July 18, 1991

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 48
 People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio O. Lorenzo, et al., G.R. No. 89376, August 5, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Conrado G. Lagmay, et al., G.R. No. 67973, October 29, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Noel Pama, G.R. No. 90297, December 11, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Cordova, et al., G.R. Nos. 83373-74, July 5, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente D. Deuna, et al., G.R. No. 87555, November 16, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Canillo, et al., G.R. No. 106579, August 30, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Larry B. Laurente, et al., G.R. No. 116734, March 29, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Nicasio Enoja, et al., G.R. No. 102596, December 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Godoy, G.R. No. 140545, May 29, 2003

Although no formal agreement is necessary to establish conspiracy and said

conspiracy may be inferred from the circumstances attending the commission of the
crime, yet conspiracy like any other ingredient of the offense, must be established by
clear and convincing evidence. There must be evidence of intentional participation in
the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.
People of the Phil. vs. Noel Agda, et al., G.R. No. L-36377, January 30, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Manguigin Macatana, et al., G.R. No. L-57061, May 9, 1988

Jose B. Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84423, January 31, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Herminio Taaca, et al., G.R. No. 35652, September 29, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Manero, G.R. Nos. 86883-85, January 29, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Belarmino Divina, et al., G.R. Nos. 93808-09, April 7, 1993

Odon Pecho vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996

Fidelino Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124036, October 23, 2001

The mere fact that certain persons know each other do not necessarily prove
conspiracy. Other acts than this must be established. While conspiracy need not be
supported by documentary evidence, it may be from the mode and manner in which
the offense was committed.
People of the Phil. vs. Angelino Pudpud, et al., G.R. No. L-26731, June 30, 1971

People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Mejia, G.R. No. L-26195, January 31, 1974

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 49
 People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso (Bongcolo) Genoguin, et al., G.R. No. L-23019, March
28, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Calixto T. Tumale, G.R. No. 89116, August 22, 1990

[F]or conspiracy to exist, proof of an actual planning of the perpetration of the

crime is not a condition precedent. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in
which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a
joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest."
People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Landicho, G.R. No. 116600, July 3, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Coloma Tabag, et al., G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Datun, et al., G.R. No. 118080, May 7, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Silveriano Botona, G.R. No. 115693, March 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. David Andales, G.R. No. 130637, August 19, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Dacibar, et al., G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Roche, G.R. No. 115182, April 6, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Adelio Conde, G.R. No. 133647, April 12, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Herman D. Bato, et al., G.R. No. 127843, December 15, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo P. Cabilto, et al., G.R. Nos. 128816 and 139979-80,
August 8, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Bagano, et al., G.R. No. 139531, January 31, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Alex Rivera, et al., G.R. No. 125895, July 4, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Hamton, et al., G.R. Nos. 134823-25, January 14, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Aliben, G.R. No. 140404, February 27, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo B. Reyes, G.R. No. 135682, March 26, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Garcia, G.R. No. 138470, April 1, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Lastide A. Sube, et al., G.R. No. 146034, April 9, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Robert Gomez, et al., G.R. No. 128378, April 30, 2003

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 50
 People of the Phil. vs. Catalino Melendres, G.R. No. 134940, April 30, 2003

May be inferred from the acts of accused pointing to a common purpose or design

A settled ruled is that conspiracy may be inferred from the acts and circumstances
of the accused themselves when such acts and circumstances point to a common
purpose and design. From the legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the
commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its
execution.
People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Crisostomo, et al., G.R. No. L-19034, February 17, 1923,
46 Phil. 775, 1923

People of the Phil. vs. Mandagay, et al., G.R. No. L-20353, July 17, 1923, 46 Phil. 838

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Carbonel, et al., G.R. No. 24177, March 16, 1926, 48 Phil.
866

People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Cu Unjieng, G.R. No. 41200, March 26, 1935, 61 Phil.
236

People of the Phil. vs. Datu Dima Binasing, G.R. No. L-4837, April 28, 1956, 98 Phil.
902

People of the Phil. vs. Diego Colman, et al., G.R. Nos. L-6652-54, February 28, 1958,
103 Phil. 6

People of the Phil. vs. Garduque, G.R. No. L-10133, July 31, 1958 (unreported)

People of the Phil. vs. Catao, G.R. No. L-9532, April 29, 1960, 107 Phil. 861

People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Clarit, et al, G.R. No. L-14150, October 30, 1961

People of the Phil. vs. Filemon Cutura, G.R. No. L-12702, March 30, 1962

People of the Phil. vs. Ambrocio Belen, et al., G.R. No. L-13895, September 30, 1963,
118 Phil. 880

People of the Phil. vs. Nicomedes Castro, et al., G.R. No. L-17465, August 31, 1964

People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Verzo, et al., G.R. No. L-22517, December 26, 1967

People of the Phil. vs. Elmer Estrada, G.R. No. L-26103, January 17, 1968, 130 Phil.
108

People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Pagaduan, et al., G.R. No. L-26948, August 25, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Alcantara, et al., G.R. No. L-26867, June 30, 1970

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 51
 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Largo, et., al., G.R. No. L-28106, August 18, 1972

People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Pajenado, G.R. No. L-26458, January 30, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Aleta, et al., G.R. No. L-40694, August 31, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Cabiling, G.R. No. L-38091, December 17, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Avelino Roncal, et al., G.R. Nos. L-26857-58, October 21, 1977

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Cercano, et al., G.R. Nos. L-37853, November 21, 1978

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus G. Ruiz, G.R. Nos. L-33604-05, October 30, 1979

People of the Phil. vs. Agripino Carzano, et al., G.R. No. L-29571, January 22, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Eulalio Bohos, et al., G.R. No. L-40995, June 25, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo G. Sy, et al., G.R. No. L-39400, March 29, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Abundio Labinia, G.R. No. L-38140, July 20, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Laganzon, et al., G.R. No. L-47118, May 21, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Angel Manalo, et al., G.R. No. L-42505, December 26, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Delfino Beltran, et al., G.R. Nos. L-37168-69, September 13,
1985

People of the Phil. vs. Mamerto Serante, G.R. No. L-46724, July 31, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Amador Masangkay, et al., G.R. No. L-73461, January 25, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Napoleon Montealegre, G.R. No. L-67948, May 31, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Alvarez, G.R. No. 70446, January 31, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Pasco, et al., G.R. No. 68520, January 22, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Pio Cantuba, et al., G.R. No. 79811, March 19, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Adolfo Quiñones, et al., G.R. No. 80042, March 28, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Paquito Manzon, et al., G.R. No. 74784, October 11, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Joven Bausing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Gil Uy, G.R. No. 84275, February 14, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rebulado, et al., G.R. No. L-42987, March 4, 1992

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 52
 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo V. Pajarit, et al., G.R. No. 82770, October 19, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Gito Magalang, et al., G.R. No. 84274, January 27, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente D. Deuna, et al., G.R. No. 87555, November 16, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Juan G. Gundran, G.R. No. 105666, December 17, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Mallari, et al., G.R. No. 104891, February 6, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Modesto R. De Roxas, et al., G.R. No. 106783, February 15,
1995

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo "Eddie" Tami, G.R. Nos. 101801-03, May 2, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Victor Torres, et al., G.R. No. 111289, August 11, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Landicho, G.R. No. 116600, July 3, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. David Cabiles, G.R. No. 115216, July 5, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Artemio P. Ortaleza, G.R. No. 111549, July 5, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003

To prove conspiracy, the prosecution need not establish that all the parties thereto
agreed to every detail in the execution of the crime or that they were actually together
at all the stages of the conspiracy. It is enough that, from the individual acts of each
accused, it may reasonably be deduced that they had a common plan to commit the
felony.
People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo M. Caitor, G.R. No. L-66615, July 26, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio O. Lorenzo, et al., G.R. No. 89376, August 5, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Deborah Woolcock, et al., G.R. No. 110658, May 22, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Willito Salodaga, et al., G.R. No. 106784, August 7, 1995

Jurisprudential account tells us consistently that the conduct of the accused before,
during, and after the commission of the crime may be considered to show an extant
conspiracy.
People of the Phil. vs. Federico Balanag, et al., G.R. No. 103225, September 15, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Timple, et al., G.R. Nos. 100391-92, September 26,
1994

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 53
 People of the Phil. vs. Hermes Dalanon, G.R. No. 107458, October 14, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Marlo L. Compil, G.R. No. 95028, May 15, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Suchinda Leangsiri, et al., G.R. No. 112659, January 24, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Diomedes Magallano, et al., G.R. No. 114872, January 16, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Rolly Obello, G.R. No. 108772, January 14, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Sumalpong, et al., G.R. No. 124705, January 20, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Renato Albao, et al., G.R. No. 117481, March 6, 1998

People of the Phil. vs Roberto Gungon, et al., G.R No. 119574, March 19, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Perez, G.R. No. 130501, September 2, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Quilaton, et al., G.R. No. 131835, February 3, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Mansueto, G.R. No. 135196, July 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Visaya, G.R. No. 136967, February 26, 2001

If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts,
though apparently independent, were in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a
closeness of personal association and a concurrency of sentiment, a conspiracy may be
inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert is proved.
People of the Phil. vs. Jose Carbonel, et al., G.R. No. 24177, March 16, 1926, 48 Phil.
868

People of the Phil. vs. Calucer, G.R. No. L-6460, May 7, 1954

It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt acts as a direct
or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed. The
overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime
itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his con-conspirators by being present at
the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other
co-conspirators.
People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Berroya, et al., G.R. No. 122487, December 12, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Dacibar, et al., G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000

The presence of the element of conspiracy among the accused can be proven by
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 54
 their conduct before, during or after the commission of the crime showing that they
acted in unison with each other, evincing a common purpose or design.
People of the Phil. vs. Ralphy Alcantara, et al., G.R. Nos. 112858-59, March 6, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Ulysses M. Cawaling, et al., G.R. No. 117970, July 28, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Erick Macahia, G.R. No. 130931, May 19, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Visaya, G.R. No. 136967, February 26, 2001

There must be a showing that appellant cooperated in the commission of the

offense, either morally, through advice, encouragement or agreement or materially
through external acts indicating a manifest intent of supplying aid in the perpetration
of the crime in an efficacious way.
People of the Phil. vs. Manuel C. Custodio, G.R. No. L-30463, October 30, 1972

People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Visaya, G.R. No. 136967, February 26, 2001

Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the
existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful
purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals.
People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Roque Ellado, G.R. No. 124686, March 5, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Godoy, G.R. No. 140545, May 29, 2003

Mere knowledge, acquiescence or agreement to cooperate is not enough to

constitute one as a conspirator, absent any active participation in the commission of
the crime, with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.
People of the Phil. vs. Teddy Quinao, et al., G.R. No. 108454, March 13, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Roseller Alas, et al., G.R. Nos. 118335-36, June 19, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999

Ricardo Salvatierra, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115998, June 16, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Campos, G.R. No. 111535, 19 July 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Isagani P. Guittap, et al., G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003

In other words, to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 55
 he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
plan to commit the felony.
People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Elijorde, et al., G.R. No. 126531, April 21, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Rene Gayot Pilola, G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003

Conspiracy is established by concerted action.

People of the Phil. vs. Ronaldo M. Rosas, G.R. No. 72782, April 30, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Abagon, et al., G.R. No. L-68940, May 9, 1988

A concert and coordination of acts.

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Tala, et al., G.R. Nos. L-69153-54, January 30, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Ruben F. Ebora, et al., G.R. No. L-31013, February 10, 1986

Jose B. Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84423, January 31, 1989

Conspiracy is considered present when the pursuit and assault on the victim is
simultaneous or at least contemporaneous.
People of the Phil. vs. Juan C. Maguddatu, G.R. No. L-36446, September 9, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Valeriano Pacris, et al., G.R. No. 69986, March 5, 1991

or when two or more persons act together in the commission of the crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Acquiatan, G.R No. L-32072, July 25, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Valeriano Pacris, et al., G.R. No. 69986, March 5, 1991

Conspiracy is established by evidence of unity of purpose at the time of the

commission of the offense and unity in its execution.
People of the Phil. vs. Ronaldo M. Rosas, G.R. No. 72782, April 30, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Bravante, G.R. No. 73804, May 29, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Abagon, et al., G.R. No. L-68940, May 9, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Pio Cantuba, et al., G.R. No. 79811, March 19, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Damaso, et al., G.R. Nos. 41490-92, October 18, 1990

People of the Phils. vs. Joselito Villalobos, G.R. No. 71526, May 27, 1992

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 56
 People of the Phil. vs. Jaime G. Serdan, G.R. No. 87318, September 2, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Conrado G. Lagmay, et al., G.R. No. 67973, October 29, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Primo Camaddo, et al., G.R. No. 97934, January 18, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Manero, G.R. Nos. 86883-85, January 29, 1993

The concert of action at the moment of consummating the crime and the form and
manner in which assistance was rendered to the person inflicting the fatal wound
establish their common criminal design.
People of the Phil. vs. Esteban Yu, et al., G.R. No. L-29667, November 29, 1977

People of the Phil. vs. Dominador M. Roca, G.R. No. 77779, June 27, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Salvador, G.R. No. 77964, July 26, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Sabornido, G.R. No. 102141, September 18, 1992

There is conspiracy since the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly

indicates that the acts and behavior of both appellants reveal their common purpose to
assault and inflict harm upon the deceased and that there was a concerted execution of
that common purpose
People of the Phil. vs. Estanislao A. Batas, et al., G.R. Nos. 84277-78, August 2, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 99258, September 13, 1991

To establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere

cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required (Underhill's Criminal Evidence,
Section 773, pp. 1403-1405; Sibal and Salazar Jr., Compendium on Evidence, 1990
3rd ed. p. 403; 7 Francisco, Revised Rules of court, 1973 ed., p. 724).
People of the Phil. vs. Noel Paguntalan, et al., G.R. No. 116272, March 27, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Roseller Alas, et al., G.R. Nos. 118335-36, June 19, 1997

Even if an accused did not fire a single shot but his conduct indicated cooperation
with his co-accused, as when his armed presence unquestionably gave encouragement
and a sense of security to the latter, his liability is that of a co-conspirator.
People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Hubilla, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 114904, January 29, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Hermogenes Flora, et al., G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 57
 It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness
and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony.
People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Alib, et al., G.R. No. 130944, January 18, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Jerito Amazan, et al., G.R. Nos. 136251, 138606 and 138607,
January 16, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Alipio Carbonell and Dionisio Carbonell, G.R. Nos. 140789-92,
September 28, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Barnuevo. Et al., G.R. No. 134928, September 28,
2001

People of the Phil. vs. Bryan Ferdinand Dy, et al., G.R. Nos. 115236-37, January 29,
2002

People of the Phil. vs. Lomer Mandao, G.R. No. 135048, December 3, 2002

Proof of the conspiracy may be inferred from the proven conduct of the accused, at
the time of the commission of the felony, disclosing a common understanding among
them for the perpetration of the offense.
People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Geguira, G.R. No. 130769, March 13, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Yamashito Ronquillo, G.R. No. 126136, April 5, 2002

Conspiracy can be inferred and proved by the totality of the acts of the accused
when said acts point to a joint purpose and design.
People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Bayrante, et al., G.R. No. 92508, August 4, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Armando Gemoya, et al., G.R. No. 132633, October 4, 2000

"Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The agreement may be deduced from
the manner in which the crime was committed; or from the acts of the accused before,
during and after the commission of the crime, indubitably pointing to and indicating a
joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest."
People of the Phil. vs. Suchinda Leangsiri, et al., G.R. No. 112659, January 24, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Parungao, G.R. No. 125812, November 28, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Diomedes Magallano, et al., G.R. No. 114872, January 16, 1997

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 58
 People of the Phil. vs. Rolly Obello, G.R. No. 108772, January 14, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Renato Albao, et al., G.R. No. 117481, March 6, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Verzosa, et al., G.R. No. 118944, August 20, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Glenn Lotoc, et al., G.R. No. 132166, May 19, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Perez, G.R. No. 130501, September 2, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Orbita, et al., G.R. No. 122104, January 19, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Osmundo Fuertes ,et. Al., G.R. No. 95891-92, February 28, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Mendoza, G.R. No. 128890, May 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Bernardo Daroy, et al., G.R. No. 118942, July 18, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Dominador De La Rosa, et al., G.R. No. 133443, September 29,
2000

People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Carrozo, et al., G.R. No. 97913, October 12, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Nomer Delos Santos, et al., G.R. No. 132123, November 23,
2000

People of the Phils. vs. Cafgu Francisco Baltar, G.R. No. 125306, December 11, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Barnuevo. Et al., G.R. No. 134928, September 28,
2001

Roberto Erquiaga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124513, October 17, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul and Elmer Avenue, G.R. No. 124809, December
19, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Dinamling, et al., G.R. No. 134605, March 12, 2002

Tacit and spontaneous coordination of the attack by two accused shows existence
of conspiracy.
People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Aleta, et al., G.R. No. L-40694, August 31, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Dominador M. Roca, G.R. No. 77779, June 27, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo S. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 98321-24, June 30, 1993

The criminal intent of an accused to commit the crime charged not only should be
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 59
 known to but also shared by the other or others in conspiracy with him.
People of the Phil. vs. Jessee "George" Castro, G.R. No. 132726, July 23, 2002

The other contemporaneous acts of the accused before, during, and after the
commission of the crime showed that the accused acted in unison for a common
purpose.
People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul and Elmer Avenue, G.R. No. 124809, December
19, 2001

For an accused to be held liable as conspirator, ". . . it must be established that he

performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, either by actively
participating in the actual commission of the crime, or by lending moral assistance to
his co-conspirators by being present at the scene of the crime, or by exerting moral
ascendancy over the rest of the conspirators as to move them to executing the
conspiracy..."
People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Peralta et al., G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Efreniano Balane, G.R. No. L-48319, July 25, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Villanueva, et al., G.R. No. L-32274, April 2, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Luayon, G.R. No. 105672, August 22, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Berroya, et al., G.R. No. 122487, December 12, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Ragundiaz, et al., G.R. No. 124977, June 22, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Hermogenes Flora, et al., G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Agustin Agpawan, G.R. No. 123853, August 25, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Rustico Tilos, et al., G.R. No. 138385, January 16, 2001

Except when he is the mastermind in a conspiracy, it is necessary that a conspirator

should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the
execution of the crime planned to be committed. The overt act may consist of active
participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral
assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime or by
exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators.
People of the Phil. vs. Modesto R. De Roxas, et al., G.R. No. 106783, February 15,
1995

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 60
 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo "Eddie" Tami, G.R. Nos. 101801-03, May 2, 1995

Odon Pecho vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Ragundiaz, et al., G.R. No. 124977, June 22, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 129371, October 4, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Tamayo, G.R. No. 138608, September 24, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Isagani P. Guittap, et al., G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Esponilla, et al., G.R. No. 122766, June 20, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Gildo B. Pelopero PNP, G.R. No. 126119, October 15, 2003

Neither joint nor simultaneous action per se sufficient indicium of conspiracy,

unless proved to have been motivated by a common design.
People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Tividad, et al., G.R. No. L-21469, June 30, 1967

People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Dorico, et al., G.R. No. L-31568, November 29, 1973

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo P. Saavedra, G.R. No. L-48738, May 18, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Alex Padrones, G.R. No. 85823, September 13, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo R. Jorge, G.R. No. 99379, April 22, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Ragundiaz, et al., G.R. No. 124977, June 22, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 129371, October 4, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ludivino Miana, et al., G.R. No. 134565, August 9, 2001

Geronimo Dado vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 131421, November 18, 2002

In this case, the presence of accused-appellant and his colleagues, all of them
armed with deadly weapons at the locus criminis, indubitably shows their criminal
design to kill the victims.
People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000

The fact that both appellants left together would not necessarily prove conspiracy
since they live in the same vicinity.
People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Tividad, et al., G.R. No. L-21469, June 30, 1967

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 61
 People of the Phil. vs. Nilo De Jesus, et al., G.R. No. L-58506, November 19, 1982

Effect of conspiracy

When a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose, their individual
acts in pursuance of that purpose are treated as a single act, the act of execution,
which gives rise to a complex offense. The felonious agreement produces a sole and
solidary liability.
People of the Phil. vs. Emerito Abella, G.R. No. L-32205, August 31, 1979

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Garcia, et al., G.R. No. L-40106, March 13, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Pincalin, et al., G.R. No. L-38755, January 22, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Corpuz, et al., G.R. No. L-36234, February 10, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Tenorio, G.R. No. 122098, January 20, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmel Sanidad, et al., G.R. No. 146099, April 30, 2003

Although there was conspiracy in the case at bar, as evident from concert of action
and unity of purpose, it could not elevate the motive of the crime to a more serious
offense.

Conspiracy is neither aggravating nor qualifying but rather a manner in incurring

collective criminal liability among every co-conspirator in an equal degree, whereby
the effect is that the act of one becomes the act of all. The presence of conspiracy
cannot per se qualify a killing to murder.
People of the Phil. vs. Bernardo Peran, et al., G.R. No. 95259, October 26, 1992

Conspiracy is not a qualifying circumstance. Conspiracy may be a felony by itself

when the law defines it as a crime with an imposable penalty therefor or is merely a
mode of increasing criminal liability. Examples of conspiracy to commit a crime per
se include conspiracy to sell illicit drugs under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6485,
conspiracy to bribe voters under Section 261 (b) of the Omnibus Election Code and
conspiracy to commit any violation under Article 115 of the Revised Penal Code.
People of the Phil. vs. Zosimo Miranda, G.R. No. 123917, December 10, 2003

While courts have not infrequently regarded the existence of conspiracy as being
itself indicative of premeditation, there are instances when a finding of the
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 62
 circumstance of premeditation does not automatically follow a finding of conspiracy
or vice versa.
United States vs. Pedro Larion, G.R. No. 1285, August 31, 1903, 2 Phil 476

United States vs. Vicente Maquiraya, et al., G.R. No. 4846, October 9, 1909, 14 Phil
243

People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Dulot, et al., G.R. No. 137770, January 30, 2001

Although as a rule, conspiracy is not a crime, the existence of a conspiracy is

decisive in determining whether two or more persons who participated in the
commission of an offense are liable as co-principals or accomplices or are exempt
from criminal liability. If an express or implied conspiracy is proven, then all the
conspirators may be regarded as co-principals regardless of the extent of their
participation in the execution of the crime. Their liability is collective or joint.
People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Cogonon, G.R. No. 94548, October 4, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo M. Hilario, G.R. No. 128083, March 16, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003

Information / Indictment

In a conspiracy, the act of one becomes the act of all and the particular act of an
accused becomes of secondary relevance. Thus, it is essential that an accused must
know from the information whether he is criminally accountable not only for his acts
but also for the acts of his co-accused as well.
People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Quitlong, et al., G.R. No. 121562, July 10, 1998

Fidelino Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124036, October 23, 2001

An indictment for conspiracy is sufficient if: (1) it follows the words of the statute
creating the offense and reasonably informs the accused of the character of the offense
he is charged with conspiring to commit; or (2) following the statute, contains a
sufficient statement of an overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy; or (3) alleges
both the conspiracy and the contemplated crime in the language of the respective
statutes defining them.
Fidelino Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124036, October 23, 2001

Jose "Jinggoy" E. Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 148965, February 26,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 63
 2002

The rule is that conspiracy must be alleged, not merely inferred, in the information.
Absence of a particular statement in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet
concerning any definitive act constituting conspiracy renders the indictment
insufficient to hold one accused liable for the individual acts of his co-accused. Thus,
each of them would be held accountable only for their respective participation in the
commission of the offense.
Fidelino Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124036, October 23, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Luis Tampis, et al., G.R. No. 148725, July 31, 2003

Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner in which the
offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the accused when those acts point
to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interests. Proof of a
previous agreement and decision to commit the crime is not essential, but the fact that
the malefactors acted in unison pursuant to the same objective suffices. In a long line
of cases, we have held thus:

To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the

execution; he need not even take part in every act. Each conspirator may be
assigned separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated to one
another but, in fact, constitute a whole collective effort to achieve their
common criminal objective. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the
act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or modality of participation of
each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.

People of the Phil. vs. John Alvin Pondivida, G.R. No. 188969, February 27, 2013

Conspirators are persons who, under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
"come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit
it." Because witnesses are rarely present when several accused come to an agreement
to commit a crime, such agreement is usually inferred from their "concerted actions"
while committing it. On the other hand, accomplices, according to Article 18 of the
RPC, are the persons who, not being included in Article 17 [which identifies who are
principals], "cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
acts."
People of the Phil., et al. vs. Ricardo P. Eusebio, et al., G.R. No. 182152, February 25,
2013

The line that separates a conspirator by concerted action from an accomplice by

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 64
 previous or simultaneous acts is indeed slight. Accomplices do not decide whether the
crime should be committed; but they assent to the plan and cooperate in its
accomplishment. The solution in case of doubt is that, as the RTC said with ample
jurisprudential support, such doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.
People of the Phil., et al. vs. Ricardo P. Eusebio, et al., G.R. No. 182152, February 25,
2013

Art. 11 - Justifying Circumstances

It is a settled rule that when an accused claims the justifying circumstance of

self-defense, an accused admits the commission of the act of killing. The burden of
evidence, therefore, shifts to the accused's side in clearly and convincingly proving
that the elements of self-defense exist that could justify the accused's act.
People of the Phil. vs. David Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14, 2011

Art. 11 (1) - Justifying Circumstance: Self-defense

Elements
Admission of offense; burden of proof of self defense is on accused
Accused must rely on strength of own evidence
Unlawful aggression
Necessity of means employed to repel aggression
Self-defense distinguished from retaliation
Flight

Elements
Ladislao Espinosa vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 181071, March 15, 2010

Severino E. David, Jr., et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 136037, August 13, 2008

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 65
 The elements of self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
People of the Phil. vs. Juan M. Ganzagan, Jr., G.R. No. 113793, August 11, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Cahindo, G.R. No. 121178, January 22, 1997

Alex Jacobo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 107699, March 21, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Magallanes, G.R. No. 114265, July 8, 1997

Uldarico Escoto vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118002, September 5, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Robinson Timblor, G.R. No. 118939, January 27, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Noel A. Aguilar, G.R. Nos. 120622-23, July 10, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Frederick Villamor, et al., G.R. No. 124981, July 10, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Navarro, G.R. No. 125538. September 3, 1998

People of the Phil. vs Roger Dorado, G.R. No. 122248, February 11, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Cesario Sanchez, G.R. No. 118423, June 16, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinhug, G.R. Nos. 125814-15, November 16, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Emberga, et al., G.R. No. 116616, November 26, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Gaudioso More, et al., G.R. No. 128820, December 23, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Alib, et al., G.R. No. 130944, January 18, 2000

Roque G. Galang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128536, January 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Benito Mier, G.R. No. 130598, February 3, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Orlito Gadin, G.R. No. 130658, May 4, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Forca, et al., G.R. No. 134938, June 8, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Meneque, G.R. No. 129964-65, August 29, 2000

Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 66
 People of the Phil. vs. Edison Plazo, G.R. No. 120547, January 29, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Toradio Silvano, G.R. No. 125923, January 31, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Henry Almazan, G.R. No. 138943-44, September 17, 2001

Doroteo Tobes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127441, October 5, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Teodorico Ubaldo, G.R. No. 129389, October 17, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Elmer M. Damitan, G.R. No. 140544, December 7, 2001

Florentino Paddayuman vs. People of the Phil. , G.R. No. 120344, January 23, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dalmacio, et al., G.R. No. 126515, February 6, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Aliben, G.R. No. 140404, February 27, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Castillano, et al., G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Dala, G.R. No. 134563, October 28, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003

The elements of self-defense are: (1) that the victim has committed unlawful
aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person
claiming self-defense; (2) that there be reasonable necessity in the means employed to
prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) that there be lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense or, at least, that any
provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense be not the proximate and
immediate cause of the victim's aggression. plpecdtai

People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Eusebio Enfectana, et al., G.R. No. 132028, April 19, 2002

One who invokes self-defense, complete or incomplete, thereby admits having

killed the victim by inflicting injuries on him. The burden of evidence is shifted on the
accused to prove the confluence of the essential elements for the defense as provided

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 67
 in Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code: . . . (1) unlawful aggression; (2)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
Benjamin P. Martinez vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 168827, April 13, 2007

People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano M. Abesamis, G.R. No. 140985, August 28, 2007

The accused must prove the existence of all of these elements by clear and
convincing evidence.
People of the Phil. vs. Diomedes Magallano, et al., G.R. No. 114872, January 16, 1997

Alex Jacobo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 107699, March 21, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Veriato Molina, et al., G.R. Nos. 115835-36, July 22, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Loreto Noay, G.R. No. 122102, September 25, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinhug, G.R. Nos. 125814-15, November 16, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Meneque, G.R. No. 129964-65, August 29, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Galvez, et al., G.R. No. 130397, January 17, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, September 27, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Alcodia, G.R. No. 134121, March 6, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Aliben, G.R. No. 140404, February 27, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Gallego, et al., G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003

Conrado S. Cano vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 155258, October 7, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Paycana, Jr., G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008

As a justifying circumstance, self-defense may be complete or incomplete. It is

complete when all the three essential requisites are present; it is incomplete when the
mandatory element of unlawful aggression by the victim is present, plus any one of
the two essential requisites.
Noel B. Guillermo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 153287, June 30, 2008

A plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated where it is not only

uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, but also extremely doubtful
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 68
 by itself.
People of the Phil. vs. Laudemar De La Cruz, G.R. Nos. 109619-23, 26 June 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Janairo, G.R. No. 129254, July 22, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Rolly Pagador, G.R. No. 140006-10, April 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Dala, G.R. No. 134563, October 28, 2003

The question whether appellant acted in self-defense is essentially a question of

fact.
People of the Phil. vs. Editho Suyum, et al., G.R. No. 137518, March 6, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003

Case law has it that like alibi, the affirmative defense of self-defense under Article
11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, is a weak defense. [People of the Phil. vs.
Loreto Noay, G.R. No. 122102, September 25, 1998] The accused who invokes
self-defense thereby admits having killed the victim, and the burden of evidence is
shifted on him to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, the confluence of the
following essential elements: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it; and, (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself. The accused must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution because even if the
evidence of the prosecution is weak, the same can no longer be disbelieved. The
accused cannot escape conviction if he fails to prove the essential elements of a
complete self-defense.
People of the Phil. vs. Loredo Real, G.R. No. 121930, June 14, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Rene De Los Reyes, G.R. No. 140680, May 28, 2004

Admission of offense; burden of proof of self-defense is on accused

Jurisprudence holds that when the accused admits killing the victim, but invokes a
justifying circumstance, the constitutional presumption of innocence is effectively
waived and the burden of proving the existence of such circumstance shifts to the
accused. The rule regarding an accused's admission of the victim's killing has been
articulated in Ortega v. Sandiganbayan, to wit:

Well settled is the rule that where the accused had admitted that he is

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 69
 the author of the death of the victim and his defense anchored on self-defense,
it is incumbent upon him to prove this justifying circumstance to the
satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution, for the accused himself
had admitted the killing. The burden is upon the accused to prove clearly and
sufficiently the elements of self-defense, being an affirmative allegation,
otherwise the conviction of the accused is inescapable.

Aguilar v. DOJ, G.R. No. 197522, September 11, 2013, citing Ortega v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 57664 February 8, 1989

Having invoked self-defense, appellant is deemed to have admitted having killed

the victim, and the burden of proof thereupon is shifted to him to establish and prove
the elements of self-defense.
People of the Phil. vs. Rolando A. Alapide, G.R. No. 104276, September 20, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Rene Nuestro, et al., G.R. No. 111288, January 18, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Cahindo, G.R. No. 121178, January 22, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Enriquito Unarce, G.R. No. 120549, April 4, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Frederick Villamor, et al., G.R. No. 124981, July 10, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. George De la Cruz, G.R. No. 111704, March 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Navarro, G.R. No. 125538. September 3, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Stephen Santillana, G.R. No. 127815, June 9, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Gil Tadeje, et al., G.R. No. 123143, July 19, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Benito Mier, G.R. No. 130598, February 3, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Nilo Bautista, et al., G.R. No. 131840, April 27, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Orlito Gadin, G.R. No. 130658, May 4, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Teofisto Cotas, G.R. No. 132043, May 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Forca, et al., G.R. No. 134938, June 8, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Edison Plazo, G.R. No. 120547, January 29, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 70
 Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Jomer Cabansay, G.R. No. 138646, March 6, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Tumayao, et al., G.R. No. 137045, April 16, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Camacho, G.R. No. 138629, June 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Henry Almazan, G.R. No. 138943-44, September 17, 2001, 417
Phil. 697

People of the Phil. vs. Nole M. Zate, G.R. No. 129926, October 8, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Teodorico Ubaldo, G.R. No. 129389, October 17, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Bantiling, G.R. No. 136017, November 15, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Eusebio Enfectana, et al., G.R. No. 132028, April 19, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Quijano, Sr., G.R. Nos. 144523–26, June 10, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003

Well-entrenched is the rule that one who invokes self-defense admits authorship of
the killing, thus the burden shifts to that person to establish the justifying
circumstance with clear and convincing evidence.
People of the Phil. vs. Renato Albao, et al., G.R. No. 117481, March 6, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Borreros, G.R. No. 125185, May 5, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Laudemar De La Cruz, G.R. Nos. 109619-23, June 26, 1998

Nerio Salcedo y Medel vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 137143, December 8, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul and Elmer Avenue, G.R. No. 124809, December
19, 2001

Burden of evidence is shifted, not the burden of proof

Fe J. Bautista, et al. vs. Malcolm G. Sarmiento, et al., G.R. No. L-45137, September 23,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 71
 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Stephen Santillana, G.R. No. 127815, June 9, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Loredo Real, G.R. No. 121930, June 14, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Emarjonel Francisco Tomolin, G.R. No. 126650, July 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Gaspar, G.R. No. 131479, November 19, 1999

Doroteo Tobes @ Doting vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127441, October 5, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Dennis Mazo, G.R. No. 136869, October 17, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Gallego, et al., G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003

A plea of self-defense automatically shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution
to the defense since such a plea means that the accused admits to having performed
the criminal act, but disclaims legal liability on the ground that his life had been
exposed to harm first before he committed the act in defense of himself.
People of the Phil. vs. Robinson Timblor, G.R. No. 118939, January 27, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Laudemar De La Cruz, G.R. Nos. 109619-23, June 26, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Meneque, G.R. No. 129964-65, August 29, 2000

It devolves upon him to establish the elements of self-defense, to show that the
killing was justified and, consequently, he incurred no criminal liability therefor.
People of the Phil. vs. Elezer Galapin, et al., G.R. No. 124215, July 31, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Mahilum, G.R. No. 137990, September 27, 2002

Although it is a cardinal principle in criminal law that the prosecution has the
burden of proving the guilt of the accused, the rule is reversed where the accused
admits committing the crime, but only in defense of oneself.
People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Magallanes, G.R. No. 114265, July 8, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Magaro, G.R. No. 113021, July 2, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Camacho, G.R. No. 138629, June 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 72
 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel I. Annibong, G.R. No. 139879, May 8, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat — he who asserts, not he who denies,
must prove.
People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Masalihit, G.R. No. 124329, December 14, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

In such case, the burden of evidence shifted to the accused to prove the elements of
self-defense by clear and preponderant evidence, otherwise conviction would follow
from his admission that he killed the victim.
People of the Phil. vs. George R. Decena, G.R. No. 107874, August 4, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinhug, G.R. Nos. 125814-15, November 16, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Geneblazo, G.R. No. 133580, July 20, 2001

Doroteo Tobes @ Doting vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127441, October 5, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Nole M. Zate, G.R. No. 129926, October 8, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Gallego, et al., G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003

Accused must rely on strength of own evidence

Accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence, and not on the weakness of
that of the prosecution.
People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Obzunar, G.R. No. 92153, December 16, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto D. Carpio, G.R. No. 110031, November 17, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Melvin Mendoza, G.R. No. 115809, January 23, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Peña, G.R. No. 116022, July 1, 1998

People of the Phil. vs Roger Dorado, G.R. No. 122248, February 11, 1999

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 73
 People of the Phil. vs. Emarjonel Francisco Tomolin, G.R. No. 126650, July 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Norlito Tan, and Jose Tan, G. R. No. 132324, September 28,
1999

People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Caverte and Teofilo Caverte, G.R. No. 123112, March 30,
2000

People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Forca, et al., G.R. No. 134938, June 8, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Orlito Gadin, G.R. No. 130658, May 4, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Edison Plazo, G.R. No. 120547, January 29, 2001

Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Basadre, G.R. No. 131851, February 22, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Jomer Cabansay, G.R. No. 138646, March 6, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Mahilum, G.R. No. 137990, September 27, 2002

for, even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused's
open admission of responsibility for the killing.
People of the Phil. vs. Modesto Silang Cruz, G.R. No. 31045, October 1, 1929, 53 Phil
635

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Ansoyon, G.R. No. L-3, January 29, 1946, 75 Phil 772

People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Clemente, et al., G.R. No. L-23463, September 28, 1967

People of the Phil. vs. Castulo Corecor, G.R. No. L-63155, March 21, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Abagon, et al., G.R. No. L-68940, May 9, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto M. Montejo, G.R. No. L-68857, November 21, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Maceda, G.R. No. 91106, May 27, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Tidong, G.R. No. 101583, August 13, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Papa Talaboc, Jr., G.R. No. 103290, April 23, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Melvin Mendoza, G.R. No. 115809, January 23, 1998

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 74
 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Peña, G.R. No. 116022, July 1, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Efren Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, March 9, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Meneque, G.R. No. 129964-65, August 29, 2000

Gil Macalino, Jr. vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 121802, September 7, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, January 24, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Camacho, G.R. No. 138629, June 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Bantiling, G.R. No. 136017, November 15, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul and Elmer Avenue, G.R. No. 124809, December
19, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, September 27, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Ansowas y Ampatin, G.R. No. 140647, December 18,
2002

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Cueto, G.R. No. 147764, January 16, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Alcodia, G.R. No. 134121, March 6, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Areo, G.R. No. 138692, June 16, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Gallego, et al., G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Dala, G.R. No. 134563, October 28, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003

Unlawful aggression
People of the Phil. vs. Clemente C. Casta, G.R. No. 172871, September 16, 2008

Peter C. Tarapen vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173824, August 28, 2008

Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to

inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and
strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual,
sudden, unexpected or imminent danger — not merely threatening and intimidating

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 75
 action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to
one's life.
People of the Phil. vs. David Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14, 2011 citing
People vs. Manulit, G.R. No. 192581, November 17, 2010

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of
self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. Unlawful aggression presupposes an
actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a
threatening or intimidating attitude. There must be actual physical force or a threat to
inflict physical injury. In case of a threat, it must be offensive and positively strong so
as to display a real, not imagined, intent to cause injury.
Peter C. Tarapen vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173824, August 28, 2008

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of
self-defense. There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim
has committed unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. In the
absence of such element, petitioner's claim of self-defense must fail.
United States vs. Emilio Carrero, G.R. No. L-3956, January 10, 1908, 9 Phil. 544

People of the Phil. vs. Sixto S. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Cañete, G.R. No. 82113, July 5, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Rosendo Delgado, G.R. No. 79672, February 15, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Agapinay, et al., G.R. No. 77776, June 27, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990

Mariano R. De Luna vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111484, June 2, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Claro Bernal, G.R. No. 101332, March 13, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Gaspar, G.R. No. 131479, November 19, 1999

Roque G. Galang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128536, January 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Nilo Bautista, et al., G.R. No. 131840, April 27, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, December 6, 2000

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 76
 Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001

Benito Calim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140065, February 13, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Camacho, G.R. No. 138629, June 20, 2001, 411 Phil.
715

People of the Phil. vs. Elmer M. Damitan, G.R. No. 140544, December 7, 2001

Eladio C. Tangan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105830, January 15, 2002

Florentino Paddayuman vs. People of the Phil. , G.R. No. 120344, January 23, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Eusebio Enfectana, et al., G.R. No. 132028, April 19, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Ansowas y Ampatin, G.R. No. 140647, December 18,
2002

People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003

There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one's life, limb or right is either
actual or imminent. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon. It
is a statutory and doctrinal requirement to establish self-defense that unlawful
aggression must be present. It is a condition sine qua non; there can be no
self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim commits unlawful aggression
against the person defending himself.
People of the Phil. vs. Clemente C. Casta, G.R. No. 172871, September 16, 2008

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio A. Ansowas, G.R. No. 140647, December 18, 2002

We must stress that unlawful aggression is the first and primordial element of
self-defense. Without it, the justifying circumstance cannot be invoked. As one
commentator observed, "if there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent
or repel." (Regalado, Criminal Law Conspectus, 1st ed., p. 45)
People of the Phil. vs. Rosaria V. Ignacio, G.R. No. 107801, March 26, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Abdulajid Sabdani, G.R. No. 134262, June 28, 2000

Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 77
 Benito Calim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140065, February 13, 2001

People of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 103613 & 105830, February 23,
2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Camacho, G.R. No. 138629, June 20, 2001, 411 Phil.
715

Conrado S. Cano vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 155258, October 7, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Areo, G.R. No. 138692, June 16, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003

Jose Rimano vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 156567, November 27, 2003

Unlawful aggression is indispensable, it being the main ingredient to self-defense.

People of the Phil. vs. Segundino "Goding" Jotoy, G.R. No. L-61154, May 31, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

Unlawful aggression refers to an attack or a threat to attack, positively showing the

intent of the aggressor to cause injury.
United States vs. Emilia Guy-Sayco, G.R. No. 4912, March 25, 1909, 13 Phil 292

People of the Phil. vs. Abdulajid Sabdani, G.R. No. 134262, June 28, 2000

Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this
justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if the other elements
are present.
People of the Phil. vs. Sergio A. Caratao, G.R. No. 126281, June 10, 2003

It presupposes not merely a threatening or an intimidating attitude, but an actual,

sudden and unexpected attack or an imminent danger thereof, which imperils one's
life or limb. Thus, when there is no peril, there is no unlawful aggression.
People of the Phil. vs. Rosaria V. Ignacio, G.R. No. 107801, March 26, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Noel A. Aguilar, G.R. Nos. 120622-23, July 10, 1998

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 78
 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Janairo, G.R. No. 129254, July 22, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Abdulajid Sabdani, G.R. No. 134262, June 28, 2000

Gil Macalino, Jr. vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 121802, September 7, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Ramonito Saure, G.R. No. 135848, March 12, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Ansowas y Ampatin, G.R. No. 140647, December 18,
2002

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Rubiso, G.R. No. 128871, March 18, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Sergio A. Caratao, G.R. No. 126281, June 10, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Areo, G.R. No. 138692, June 16, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Dala, G.R. No. 134563, October 28, 2003

It bears stressing that, for unlawful aggression to be present, there must be a real
danger to life or personal safety.
People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Sabio, G.R. No. L-23734, April 27, 1967

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo R. Cagalingan, et al., G.R. No. 79168, August 3, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, September 27, 2002

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of
self-defense. Without it, there can be no self-defense, whether complete or
incomplete, that can validly be invoked. "There is an unlawful aggression on the part
of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent danger the life, limb, or right of the
person invoking self-defense. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a
weapon." It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to
one's life. It must be continuous; otherwise, it does not constitute aggression
warranting self-defense.
People v. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, October 23, 2013

There must be an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof,
and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 79
 Uldarico Escoto vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118002, September 5, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Borreros, G.R. No. 125185, May 5, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, September 27, 2002

To constitute aggression, the person attacked must face a real threat to his life and
the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary.
People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto D. Langres, G.R. No. 128754, October 13, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Elmer M. Damitan, G.R. No. 140544, December 7, 2001

The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force
or with actual use of weapon.
People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Crisostomo, G.R. No. L-38180, October 23, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Ebrada, G.R. No. 122774, September 25, 1998, 357
Phil. 345

People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, December 6, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Georgino Bonifacio, et al., G.R. No. 133799, February 5, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Ramonito Saure, G.R. No. 135848, March 12, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Ansowas y Ampatin, G.R. No. 140647, December 18,
2002

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Rubiso, G.R. No. 128871, March 18, 2003

Aggression, if not continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting

self-defense.
Simon A. Flores vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013

Self-defense cannot be proved except by sufficient and credible evidence. On one

hand, it excludes any vestige of unlawful aggression on the part of the person
invoking it.
People of the Phil. vs. Cesario Sanchez, G.R. No. 118423, June 16, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 80
 People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Mahilum, G.R. No. 137990, September 27, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, September 27, 2002

On the other hand, self-defense fails where unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim is not properly established.
People of the Phil. vs. Rolly Pagador, G.R. No. 140006-10, April 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Mahilum, G.R. No. 137990, September 27, 2002

Verily, to invoke self-defense successfully, there must have been an unlawful and
unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused who was then forced to
inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the
attack.
People of the Phil. vs. Hermes B. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 126145, April 30, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003

An act of aggression when its author does not persist in his purpose, or when he
discontinues his aggression such that the object of his attack is no longer in peril, is
not unlawful aggression.
People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Geneblazo, G.R. No. 133580, July 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Gallego, et al., G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003

Even the cocking of a rifle without aiming the firearm at any particular target is not
sufficient to conclude that one's life was in imminent danger. Hence, a threat, even if
made with a weapon, or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not
sufficient. It is necessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of aggression
or by some external acts showing the commencement of actual and material unlawful
aggression.
Lolito T. Nacnac vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012 citing People
vs. Rubiso, G.R. No. 128871, March 18, 2003

A police officer is trained to shoot quickly and accurately. A police officer cannot
earn his badge unless he can prove to his trainors that he can shoot out of the holster
quickly and accurately . . . . Given this factual backdrop, there is reasonable basis to
presume that the appellant indeed felt his life was actually threatened. Facing an
armed police officer like himself, who at that time, was standing a mere five meters
from the appellant, the [latter] knew that he has to be quick on the draw. It is worth
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 81
 emphasizing that the victim, being a policeman himself, is presumed to be quick in
firing. Hence, it now becomes reasonably certain that in this specific case, it would
have been fatal for the appellant to have waited for SPO1 Espejo to point his gun
before the appellant fires back.
Lolito T. Nacnac vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012

Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real

imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong,
positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It "presupposes actual, sudden,
unexpected or imminent danger — not merely threatening and intimidating action." It
is present "only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life."
In the present case, the element of unlawful aggression is absent. Mere allegation by
appellant that the victim pulled out a knife is insufficient to prove unlawful aggression
and warrant the justification of the victim's killing.
People of the Phil. vs. Efren R. Laurio, G.R. No. 182523, September 13, 2012

Necessity of means employed to repel aggression

The gauge of rational necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression as
against one's self or in defense of a relative is to be found in the situation as it appears
to the person repelling the aggression. It has been held time and again that the
reasonableness of the means adopted is not one of mathematical calculation or
"material commensurability between the means of attack and defense" but the
imminent danger against the subject of the attack as perceived by the defender and the
instinct more than reason that moves the defender to repel the attack. It has further
been stressed in such cases that to the imminent threat of the moment, one could not
be hoped to exercise such calm judgment as may be expected of another not laboring
under any urgency and who has sufficient time to appraise the urgency of the
situation.
Noli Eslabon vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-66202, February 24, 1984

"The law does not require, and it would be too much to ask of the ordinary man,
that when he is defending himself from a deadly assault, in the heat of an encounter at
close quarters, he should so mete out his blows that upon a calm and deliberate review
of the incident, it will not appear that he exceeded the precise limits of what was
absolutely necessary to put his antagonist hors de combat; or that he struck one blow
more than was absolutely necessary to save his own life; or that he failed to hold his

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 82
 hand so as to avoid inflicting a fatal wound where a less severe stroke might have
served his purpose. Of course, the victim of an unlawful aggression may not lawfully
exceed the bounds of rational necessity in repelling the assault. But the measure of
rational necessity in cases of this kind is to be found in the situation as it appears to
the victim of the assault at the time when the blow is struck; and the courts should not
and will not, in the light of after events or fuller knowledge, hold the victims of such
deadly assaults at close quarters, to so strict a degree of accountability that they will
hesitate to put forth their utmost effort in their own defense when that seems to them
to be reasonably necessary."
United States vs. Mariano Singson, G.R. No. 15697, September 6, 1920

"The reasonableness of the means employed to prevent an aggression depends upon

the nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor, his physical condition, his
size, his character and the surrounding circumstances vis-a-vis those of the person
defending himself. It is also well-settled that in emergencies which imperil the life and
limb of a person, human nature acts not upon processes of formal reason but in
obedience to the imperious dictates of the instinct of self-preservation . . . the
protective mantle of the law shields not only him who repels actual aggression but as
well as him who prevents an aggression that is real and imminent. And the killing of
the aggressor would be justified at a time when all the elements of self-defense are
present."
People of the Phil. vs. Zambarrano, 54 O.G. 8455

The means employed by a person claiming self-defense must be commensurate to

the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted, and must be rationally
necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.
Simon A. Flores vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013

"In emergencies of this kind, human nature does not act upon processes of formal
reason but in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation, and when it is apparent
that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to
sanction the act and to hold the actor irresponsible in law for the consequences."
People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Lara, G.R. No. 24014, October 16, 1925, 48 Phil. 153

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Punzalan, G.R. No. L-54562, August 6, 1987

Self-defense distinguished from retaliation

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 83
 Self-defense must be distinguished from retaliation; in that in retaliation, the
inceptual unlawful aggression had already ceased when the accused attacked him. In
self-defense, the unlawful aggression was still existing when the aggressor was
injured or disabled by the person making the defense.
People of the Phil. vs. George R. Decena, G.R. No. 107874, August 4, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Gallego, et al., G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003

"When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any justification to
kill or wound the original aggressor. The assailant is no longer acting in self-defense
but in retaliation against the original aggressor." Retaliation is not the same as
self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already
ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression still
existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused.
Simon A. Flores vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013

People v. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, October 23, 2013

Flight

The justifying circumstance of self-defense may not survive in the face of accused's
flight from the crime scene and his failure to inform the authorities of the incident.
People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Gerolaga, et al., G.R. No. 89075, October 15, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, December 6, 2000

Benito Calim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140065, February 13, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Atadero, et al., G.R. No. 135239-40, August 12, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003

Accident and self-defense do not have the same meaning or legal effect.
Self-defense is a justifying circumstance under paragraph 1 of Article 11, while
accident is an exempting circumstance under paragraph 4 of Article 12, both of the
Revised Penal Code.
People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 84
 It is settled that the nature and number of wounds inflicted by an assailant are
constantly and unremittingly considered important incidents which disprove a plea of
self-defense, or, for that matter, defense of a stranger.
People of the Phil. vs. Mario Rivera, G.R. No. 101798, May 10, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995

The bare fact that the appellants sustained injuries does not prove that they acted in
self-defense or in defense of a relative.
People of the Phil. vs. TWolver Tumaob, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 125690, June 22, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

Art. 11 (2) – Justifying Circumstance: Defense of Relative

Whether the accused acted in self-defense or in defense of a relative is a question

of fact to be determined by the trial court based on the evidence on record.
Alex Jacobo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 107699, March 21, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

For defense of a relative to be appreciated, the following requisites must concur:

(1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it; and (3) in case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, that the person making the defense took no part therein.
People of the Phil. vs. Joven Bausing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Babor, et al., G.R. No. 106875, September 24, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Agapinay, et al., G.R. No. 77776, June 27, 1990

Procerfina Olbinar vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 76235, January 21, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Emilio D. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Broncano, et al., G.R. No. 104870, August 22, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio De Gracia et al., G.R. No. 112984, November 14,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 85
 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Cristituto Cortes, et al., G.R. No. 120920, February 12, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Amamangpang, G.R. No. 108491, July 2, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Sergon Manes, et al., G.R. No. 122737, February 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Emberga, et al., G.R. No. 116616, November 26, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Efren Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, March 9, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Dano, G.R. No. 117690, September 1, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Barrameda, et al., G.R. No. 130177, October 11, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Mana-ay, G.R. No. 132717, November 20, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Madrid, et al., G.R. No. 129896, November 23, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Jerito Amazan, et al., G.R. Nos. 136251, 138606 and 138607,
January 16, 2001

Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Lansang, G.R. No. 131815, August 14, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

In the event that not all of the aforementioned requisites are attendant, the accused
shall be entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of a
relative pursuant to Article 13 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.
People of the Phil. vs. Emilio D. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996

The burden is on the accused to prove these elements of self-defense or defense of

relative.
Alex Jacobo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 107699, March 21, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Jerito Amazan, et al., G.R. Nos. 136251, 138606 and 138607,
January 16, 2001

Of these three requisites, "unlawful aggression" is said to be the most essential and
primary, without which any "defense" is not possible or justified. Thus: "If there is no
unlawful aggression there would be nothing to prevent or repel." In that event, not
even incomplete self-defense can be validly invoked.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 86
 People of the Phil. vs. Joven Bausing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Malazzab, G.R. No. L-39136, April 15, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Agapinay, et al., G.R. No. 77776, June 27, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Rosaria V. Ignacio, G.R. No. 107801, March 26, 1997

Alex Jacobo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 107699, March 21, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Sergon Manes, et al., G.R. No. 122737, February 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Efren Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, March 9, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ben Francisco, G.R. No. 121682, April 12, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Dano, G.R. No. 117690, September 1, 2000

Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

Our running jurisprudence is that the unlawful aggression of the victim must be
clearly established by evidence.
People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Quino, G.R. No. 105580, May 17, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Cristituto Cortes, et al., G.R. No. 120920, February 12, 1998

Under prevailing law and jurisprudence, the presence of unlawful aggression is a

condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of defense, be it of self,
relative, or stranger. There can be no defense, complete or incomplete, unless the
victim committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending. For the right
of defense to exist, it is necessary that the stranger be assaulted or at least be
threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent manner. If there is no
unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or repel, and the second requisite of
defense will have no basis.
Ernesto Andres vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-48957, June 23, 1987

Angelito Ortega vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 57664, February 8, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Sixto S. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Joanes Agravante, et al., G.R. No. 105402-04, September 5,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 87
 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Gaspar, G.R. No. 131479, November 19, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

Ricardo Balunueco vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 126968, April 9, 2003

In addition, for unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual,

sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening
or intimidating attitude (People of the Phil. vs. Saturnino Rey, (G.R. No. 80089, April
13, 1989), People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., (G.R. No. 129961-62, August
25, 2003), People of the Phil. vs. Armando Sarabia, (G.R. No. 106102, October 29,
1999) and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression
(Jorge C. Pacificar vs. Court of Appeals, et al. (G.R. No. L-33277, November 25,
1983); People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Aquiatan, (G.R. No. L-32072 July 25, 1983);
People of the Phil. vs. Mario M. Aquino, (G.R. No. L-50523, September 29, 1983).
Unlawful aggression must be such as to put in real peril the life or personal safety of
the person defending himself or of a relative sought to be defended and not an
imagined threat.
People of the Phil. vs. Joven Bausing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991

When an unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists, the one making
the defense has no more right to kill or even wound the former aggressor.
People of the Phil. vs. Jose D. Capoquian, G.R. No. 109145, September 22, 1994

The gauge of rational necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression as
against one's self or in defense of a relative is to be found in the situation as it appears
to the person repelling the aggression. It has been held time and again that the
reasonableness of the means adopted is not one of mathematical calculation or
"material commensurability between the means of attack and defense" but the
imminent danger against the subject of the attack as perceived by the defender and the
instinct more than reason that moves the defender to repel the attack. It has further
been stressed in such cases that to the imminent threat of the moment, one could not
be hoped to exercise such calm judgment as may be expected of another not laboring
under any urgency and who has sufficient time to appraise the urgency of the
situation.
People of the Phil. vs. Cunigunda Boholst-Caballero, G.R. No. L-23249, November 25,
1974

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 88
 Carlos Castañares vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. L-41269-70, August 6, 1979

Norman Lacson vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-46485, November 21, 1979

Noli Eslabon vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-66202, February 24, 1984

The law does not require, and it would be too much to ask of the ordinary man, that
when he is defending himself from a deadly assault, in the heat of an encounter at
close quarters, he should so mete out his blows that upon a calm and deliberate review
of the incident, it will not appear that he exceeded the precise limits of what was
absolutely necessary to put his antagonist hors de combat; or that he struck one blow
more than was absolutely necessary to save his own life; or that he failed to hold his
hand so as to void inflicting a fatal wound where a less severe stroke might have
served his purpose. Of course the victim of an unlawful aggression may not lawfully
exceed the bounds of rational necessity in repelling the assault. But the measure of
rational necessity in cases of this kind is to be found in the situation as it appears to
the victim of the assault at the time when the blow is struck; and the courts should not
and will not, in the light of after events or fuller knowledge, hold the victims of such
deadly assaults at close quarters, to so strict a degree of accountability that they will
hesitate to put forth their utmost effort in their own defense when that seems to them
to be reasonably necessary.
United States vs. Mariano Singson, G.R. No. 15697, September 6, 1920, 41 Phil. 53

People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Broncano, et al., G.R. No. 104870, August 22, 1996

For lack of a clear unlawful aggression on the part of the victim Roberto and of the
reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused-appellant, the justifying
circumstance of defense of relative cannot be availed of.
People of the Phil. vs. Rubico Sagre, G.R. No. L-32306, April 30, 1979

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Lingatong, G.R. No. 34019, January 29, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Eduarte, et al., G.R. No. 72976, July 9, 1990

His failure to report the attempt on the life of his sister to the authorities and his
hiding in a remote place is certainly incompatible with his claim that be killed the
deceased in defense of his sister.
People of the Phil. vs. Sergio R. Pospos, G.R. No. L-40310, July 25, 1983

If indeed he acted in defense of his younger brother Sergon who was then under

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 89
 attack, he would not harbor any fear in presenting himself to the proper authorities.
Instead, he made no such report. Persons who act in legitimate defense of their
persons or rights invariably surrender themselves to the authorities and describe fully
and in all candor all that has happened with a view to justify their acts. They lose no
time in going to the punong barangay, the municipal mayor or the police and lay
before them all the facts.
People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Espidol, et al., G.R. No. 150033, November 12, 2004

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Lacson, G.R. No. L-1900, May 12, 1949, 83 Phil. 574

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Pulido, et al., G.R. No. L-2447, March 4, 1950, 85 Phil.
695

People of the Phil. vs. Consorcio Pelago y Bekilla, G.R. No. L-24884, August 31, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Briones, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 101257, September 23,
1993

People of the Phil. vs. Sergon Manes, et al., G.R. No. 122737, February 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Ben Francisco, G.R. No. 121682, April 12, 2000

The natural impulse of any person who has killed someone in defense of his person
or relative is to bring himself to the authorities and try to dispel any suspicion of guilt
that the authorities might have against him.
Ricardo Balunueco vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 126968, April 9, 2003

We cannot appreciate the justifying circumstance of defense of relative in favor of

the accused-appellants. There was no necessity at all of defending the brother since
his life was not actually in danger.
People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Lingatong, G.R. No. 34019, January 29, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Eswan, et al., G.R. No. 84713, June 4, 1990

For this justifying circumstance to prosper, the evidence adduced must be

persuasive.
People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Eduarte, et al., G.R. No. 72976, July 9, 1990

Appellant invokes the defense of a relative, thereby admitting the fact that he did
hack the deceased on that fatal day. Correspondingly, a person who seeks justification
for his act must prove by clear and convincing evidence the presence of the necessary

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 90
 justifying circumstance. Having admitted the slaying of the victim, he is criminally
liable unless he is able to convince the Court that he acted in legitimate defense.
People of the Phil. vs. Jose D. Capoquian, G.R. No. 109145, September 22, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Emberga, et al., G.R. No. 116616, November 26, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

Case law has it that like alibi, self-defense or defense of relatives are inherently
weak defenses which, as experience has shown, can easily be fabricated.
People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

An accused relying on said justifying circumstances must prove the same by means
of sufficient, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.
People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Quino, G.R. No. 105580, May 17, 1994

As the burden of proof rests upon him to establish the same, he must necessarily
rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of the
prosecution.
People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Caras, G.R. No. 112731, July 18, 1994

And, where the prosecution evidence, as in the present appeal, renders extremely
doubtful the veracity of the defense version, said defenses cannot be granted any
evidentiary weight.
People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Babor, et al., G.R. No. 106875, September 24, 1996

Anyone who admits the killing of a person but invokes the defense of relative to
justify the same has the burden of proving these elements by clear and convincing
evidence. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if the prosecution evidence is weak it
cannot be disbelieved if the accused has admitted the killing.
People of the Phil. vs. Joven Bausing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Efren Peñones, et al., G.R. No. 71153, August 16, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Julito Mindac, G.R. No. 83030, December 14, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 91
 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Cahindo, G.R. No. 121178, January 22, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Cayabyab, G.R. No. 123073, June 19, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Ulysses M. Cawaling, et al., G.R. No. 117970, July 28, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Efren Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, March 9, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ben Francisco, G.R. No. 121682, April 12, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Barrameda, et al., G.R. No. 130177, October 11, 2000

Just as the presence and severity of a large number of wounds on the part of the
victim disprove self-defense, so do they belie the claim of defense of a relative and
indicate not the desire to defend one's relative but a determined effort to kill.
People of the Phil. vs. Adronico Gregorio, et al., G.R. Nos. 109614-15, March 29, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio De Gracia et al., G.R. No. 112984, November 14,
1996

People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Barrameda, et al., G.R. No. 130177, October 11, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Teodorico Ubaldo, G.R. No. 129389, October 17, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Madrid, et al., G.R. No. 129896, November 23, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

The bare fact that the appellants sustained injuries does not prove that they acted in
self-defense or in defense of a relative.
People of the Phil. vs. TWolver Tumaob, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 125690, June 22, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

Art. 11 (3) - Justifying Circumstance: Defense of Stranger

Self-defense and defense of the rights of another are recognized circumstances

justifying an offense and exempting the perpetrator from criminal liability.
People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Punzalan, G.R. No. L-54562, August 6, 1987

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 92
 The question of whether appellant acted in self-defense, and defense of a stranger
for that matter, is essentially a question of fact.
People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Dano, G.R. No. 117690, September 1, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Galvez, et al., G.R. No. 130397, January 17, 2002

A party who invokes the justifying circumstance of "defense of a stranger" has the
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the exculpatory cause that can
save him from conviction.
People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo Dijan, G.R. No. 142682, June 5, 2002

The justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of stranger, like alibi, is a

defense which can easily be fabricated.
People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Bantiling, G.R. No. 136017, November 15, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

The justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of stranger, like alibi, is a

defense which can easily be fabricated. Hence, it is inherently weak, and in order that
it may be successfully invoked, accused-appellant must prove the following elements:
(1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means to
prevent or repel it; and (3) the person defending was not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive.
People of the Phil. vs. Renato Moral, et al., G.R. No. L-31139, October 12, 1984

Norberto Masipequiña, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-51206, August 25,
1989

People of the Phil. vs. Efren Peñones, et al., G.R. No. 71153, August 16, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Obias, G.R. No. 114185, January 30, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Emberga, et al., G.R. No. 116616, November 26, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Calabroso, et al., G.R. No. 126368, September 14, 2000

People of the Phils. vs. Benny Acosta, G.R. No. 140386, November 29, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Galvez, et al., G.R. No. 130397, January 17, 2002

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 93
 People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo Dijan, G.R. No. 142682, June 5, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

Absent either or both of the last two (2) requisites, the mitigating circumstance of
incomplete defense of stranger may be appreciated. However, in either case, unlawful
aggression is always an essential element. It has been held that without unlawful
aggression, there could never be a defense, complete or incomplete.
People of the Phil. vs. Irving D. Flores, G.R. Nos. 103801-02, October 19, 1994

The unlawful aggression must be a continuing circumstance or must have been

existing at the time the defense is made. Once unlawful aggression is found to have
ceased, the one making the defense of a stranger would likewise cease to have any
justification for killing, or even just wounding, the former aggressor.
People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo Dijan, G.R. No. 142682, June 5, 2002

Defense, whether of one's self, a relative or a stranger, as a justifying or mitigating

circumstance requires as a condition sine qua non the element of unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim.
People of the Phil. vs. Julian Apolinario, G.R. No. 38562, October 18, 1933, 58 Phil.
586

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Tesorero, G.R. Nos. L-34828-31, June 30, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Obeda, G.R. No. L-40150, Dec. 19, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Caras, G.R. No. 112731, July 18, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Balamban, et. al., G.R. No. 119591, November 21, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Navarro, G.R. No. 125538. September 3, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Gaspar, G.R. No. 131479, November 19, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Magnabe, Jr., G.R. No. 143071, August 6, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

There can be no defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim committed an

unlawful aggression against the person defending. For the right of defense to exist, it
is necessary that the stranger be assaulted or at least be threatened with an attack in an
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 94
 immediate and imminent manner. If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing
to prevent or repel, and the second requisite of defense will have no basis.
Ernesto Andres vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-48957, June 23, 1987

Angelito Ortega vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 57664, February 8, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Sixto S. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Joanes Agravante, et al., G.R. No. 105402-04, September 5,
1994

With the absence of unlawful aggression that can be attributed to the victim, it
becomes unnecessary to determine the remaining requisites for they obviously have no
leg to stand on. Thus, in this case, the defense of stranger will not lie, complete or
incomplete.
People of the Phil. vs. Ricarte Madali, et al., G.R. Nos. 67803-04, July 30, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996

Rudy Almeda vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 120853, March 13, 1997

Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or

imminent danger thereof. The person defending himself must have been attacked with
actual physical force or with actual use of weapon.
People of the Phil. vs. Ramonito Saure, G.R. No. 135848, March 12, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

In both self-defense and defense of a stranger, unlawful aggression is a primordial

element. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or
imminent danger on the life and limb of a person — not a mere threatening or
intimidating attitude — but, most importantly, at the time the defensive action was
taken against the aggressor.
People of the Phil. vs. Roberto E. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 128359, December 6, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Galvez, et al., G.R. No. 130397, January 17, 2002

It is settled that the nature and number of wounds inflicted by an assailant are
constantly and unremittingly considered important incidents which disprove a plea of

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 95
 self-defense, or, for that matter, defense of a stranger.
People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Adronico Gregorio, et al., G.R. Nos. 109614-15, March 29, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Barrameda, et al., G.R. No. 130177, October 11, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo Dijan, G.R. No. 142682, June 5, 2002

Moreover, the number, location and severity of the fatal wounds suffered by the
victim belie the claim of defense of stranger but is indicative of a determined effort to
kill.
People of the Phil. vs. Manlapaz, G.R. No. L-27259, February 27, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bigcas, et al., G.R. No. 94534, July 20, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Emilio D. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996

Rudy Almeda vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 120853, March 13, 1997

Accused must then show by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in
self-defense or in defense of a relative or a stranger. For that purpose, he must rely on
the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's
evidence.
People of the Phil. vs. Regoberto Ybeas, G.R. No. 98062, September 11, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo C. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 100386, December 11, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Boniao, G.R. No. 100800, January 27, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Ariel Gomez, G.R. No. 109146, August 17, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Abelo Albarico, G.R. Nos. 108596-97, November 17, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Efren Rivero, G.R. No. 112721, March 15, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Mario C. Aliviado, G.R. Nos. 113782-84, August 14 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Wilson Gutual, et al., G.R. No. 115233, February 22, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Elezer Galapin, et al., G.R. No. 124215, July 31, 1998

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 96
 People of the Phil. vs Roger Dorado, G.R. No. 122248, February 11, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Gaspar, G.R. No. 131479, November 19, 1999

Art. 11 (4) - Justifying Circumstance - State of necessity (In order to avoid evil
or injury, does an act which causes damage to another)

Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code reads:

ART. 11. Justifying circumstances. —

xxx xxx xxx

4) Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act

which causes damage to another provided that the following requisites are
present:

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;

Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of

preventing it.

The provision was taken from Article 8, paragraph 7 of the Spanish Penal Code,
which reads:

ARTICULO 8.

7. El que para evitar un mal ejecuta un hecho que produzca dañ en la

propiedad ajena, siempre que concurran las circumstancias siguientes:

Primera. Realidad del mal que se trata de evitar.

Segunda. Quesea mayor que el causado para evitarlo.

Tercera. Que no haya otro medio practicable y menos perjudicial

para impedirlo.

Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code is not an accurate translation of
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 97
 the Spanish Penal Code. The phrase "an injury" does not appear in the first paragraph
in the Spanish Penal Code. Neither does the word "injury" appear in the second
subparagraph of the Spanish Penal Code.

The justification is what is referred to in the Spanish Penal Code as el estado de

necessidad:

Es una situation de peligro, actual o immediato para bienes, juridicamente

protegides que solo puede ser evitada mediante, la lesion de bienes, tambien
juridicamento protegidos, pertenecientes a otra personas.

The phrase "state of necessity" is of German origin. Countries which have

embraced the classical theory of criminal law, like Italy, do not use the phrase. The
justification refers to a situation of grave peril (un mal), actual or imminent (actual o
imminente). The word propiedad covers diverse juridical rights (bienes juridicos) such
as right to life, honor, the integrity of one's body, and property (la vida, la integridad
corporal, el pudor, el honor, bienes patrimoniales) belonging to another.

It is indispensable that the state of necessity must not be brought about by the
intentional provocation of the party invoking the same.

A number of legal scholars in Europe are of the view that the act of the accused in
a state of necessity is justifying circumstance; hence, lawful. Under Article 11,
paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, a "state of necessity" is a justifying
circumstance. The accused does not commit a crime in legal contemplation; hence, is
not criminally and civilly liable. Civil liability is borne by the person/persons
benefited by the act of the accused. Crimes cannot exist unless the will concurs with
the act, and when, says Blackstone, "a man intending to do a lawful act, does that
which is unlawful, the deed and the will act separately" and there is no conjunction
between them which is necessary to constitute a crime. Others are of the view that
such act is a cause for exclusion from being meted a penalty; still others view such act
as a case of excluding the accused from culpability.

According to Groizard, rights may be prejudiced by three general classes of acts,

namely, (a) malicious and intentional acts; (b) negligent or reckless acts; (c) acts
which are neither malicious, imprudent nor negligent but nevertheless cause damages.

Nuestra propiedad puede ser perjudicada, puede sufrir detrimentos por

tres clases de hechos. Por actos maliciosos, intencionales, encaminados
directamente a causarnos daño; por actos que, sin llevar ese malicioso fin y

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 98
 por falta de prudencia, por culpa o temeridad del que los ejecuta, den ese
mismo resultado, y por actos que, sin concurrir en su ejecucion un proposito
doloso, ni culpa, ni negligencia sin embargo produzcan menocabo en nuestros
bienes.

The defense of a state of necessity is a justifying circumstance under Article 11,

paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. It is an affirmative defense that must be
proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence. By admitting causing the
injuries and killing the victim, the accused must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution because if such
evidence is weak but the accused fails to prove his defense, the evidence of the
prosecution can no longer be disbelieved. Whether the accused acted under a state of
necessity is a question of fact, which is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court. The legal aphorism is that the findings of facts by the trial court, its calibration
of the testimony of the witnesses of the parties and of the probative weight thereof as
well as its conclusions based on its own findings are accorded by the appellate court
high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued or
misapplied cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, will
change the outcome of the case. We have meticulously reviewed the records and find
no basis to deviate from the findings of the trial court.
People of the Phil. vs. Jesus G. Retubado, G.R. No. 124058, December 10, 2003

Under paragraph 4, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, infliction of damage or

injury to another so that a greater evil or injury may not befall one's self may be
justified only if it is taken as a last resort and with the least possible prejudice to
another. If there is another way to avoid the injury without causing damage or injury
to another or, if there is no such other way but the damage to another may be
minimized while avoiding an evil or injury to one's self, then such course should be
taken.
People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Punzalan, Jr., G.R. No. 199892, December 10, 2012

Art. 11 (5) - Justifying Circumstance: Fulfillment of a duty

A person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in

the lawful exercise of a right or office. But we must stress there are two requisites for
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 99
 this justifying circumstance: (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or
in the lawful exercise of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right: and (b) that the
injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of
such right or office. plpecdtai

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Z. Oanis, et al., G.R. No. 47722, July 27, 1943

Jose Frias, Jr., et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-65762, June 23, 1984

Bernardo Lacanilao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34940, June 27, 1988

Fausto Andal vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 60159, Nov. 6, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Pinto, Jr., G.R. No. 39519, November 21, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Ulysses M. Cawaling, et al., G.R No. 117970, July 28, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Belbes, G.R. No. 124670, June 21, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, September 20, 2000

Eduardo P. Balanay vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 112924, October 20, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, January 24, 2001

John Angcaco vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 146664, February 28, 2002

Mario Valeroso vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149718, September 29, 2003

In the absence of the second requisite, the justification becomes an incomplete one
thereby converting it into a mitigating circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the
same Code.
People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Pinto, Jr., G.R. No. 39519, November 21, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, September 20, 2000

"Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right
or office." The requisites of the defense of fulfillment of duty are: (1) that the accused
acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or duty; (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.
Jose Frias, Jr., et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-65762, June 23, 1984

Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides that a person who acts in the
fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office does not incur any
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 100
 criminal liability. Two requisites must concur before this defense can prosper: 1) the
accused must have acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office; and 2) the injury caused or the offense committed should have been the
necessary consequence of such lawful exercise. These requisites are absent in this
case. Appellant was not performing his duties at the time of the shooting, because the
men he shot had not been indiscriminately firing guns in his presence, as he alleges.
Further, as found by the RTC, "nothing was mentioned in [his] direct testimony that
he was there to effect an arrest."
People of the Phil. vs. Carmelo Catbagan, G.R. Nos. 149430-32, February 23, 2004

In no way can Sarenas claim the privileges under paragraphs 5 and 6, Article 11 of
the Revised Penal Code, for the massacre of the Magdasals can by no means be
considered as done in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of an office or
in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
People of the Phil. vs. Coloma Tabag, et al., G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997

This exercise of a statutory right to suspend installment payments is, to our mind, a
valid defense against the purported violations of B.P. Blg. 22 that petitioner is charged
with… Following Article 11 (5) 24 of the Revised Penal Code, petitioner's exercise of
a right of the buyer under Article 23 of P.D. No. 957 is a valid defense to the charges
against him.
Francisco T. Sycip vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125059, March 17, 2000

The fifth justifying circumstance which exempts a person from criminal liability is
found in this provision: "Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right or office." The requisites of the defense of fulfillment of
duty are: (1) that the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or duty; (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.
People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Z. Oanis, et al., G.R. No. 47722, July 27, 1943

Jose Frias, Jr., et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-65762, June 23, 1984

Bernardo Lacanilao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34940, June 27, 1988

Fausto Andal vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 60159, Nov. 6, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Pinto, Jr., G.R. No. 39519, November 21, 1991

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 101
 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Belbes, G.R. No. 124670, June 21, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, September 20, 2000

Eduardo P. Balanay vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 112924, October 20, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, January 24, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tan, et al., G.R. Nos. 116200-02, June 21, 2001

John Angcaco vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 146664, February 28, 2002

In the absence of the second requisite, the justification becomes an incomplete one
thereby converting it into a mitigating circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the
same Code.
People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Pinto, Jr., G.R. No. 39519, November 21, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, September 20, 2000

The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under paragraph 5, Article 11, of

the Revised Penal Code may be invoked only after the defense successfully proves
that: (1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty; and (2) the injury inflicted or
offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance or lawful
exercise of such duty.
People of the Phil. vs. Cawaling, G.R. No. 117970, July 28, 1998

Rufino S. Mamangun vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149152, February 2, 2007

Art. 11 (6) - Justifying Circumstance: Compliance with Superior Order

Compliance with a superior order is justifiable only where the order was "lawful"
and that the accused acted without criminal intent. In this case, the alleged order was
not within legal bounds, but at the same time, the petitioner, in complying therewith,
had indeed criminal designs.
People of the Phil. vs. Luciano S. Barroga, G.R. No. 31563, January 16, 1930, 54 Phil.
277

People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Beronilla, G.R. No. L-4445, February 28, 1955, 96 Phil.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 102
 566

Isidro Recamadas vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. L-53694-99, November 5, 1987

Neither can petitioner be declared as having merely obeyed a lawful order issued by
a superior officer; there being a clear violation of Circular No. 40, series of 1974 of
the Bureau of Posts, while Galinato, on whose order Ramos supposedly paid the
questioned vouchers, was not even his immediate supervisor.
Aniceto Ramos vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 58876, November 27, 1990

Even if the order is illegal if it is patently legal and the subordinate is not aware of
its illegality, the subordinate is not liable, for then there would only be a mistake of
fact committed in good faith. Such is the ruling in "Nassif vs. People", 78 Phil.
67……

This is not a sheer case of blind and misguided obedience, but obedience in good
faith of a duly executed order. Indeed, compliance to a patently lawful order is
rectitude far better than contumacious disobedience. In the case at bench, the order
emanated from the Office of the President and bears the signature of the President
himself, the highest official of the land. It carries with it the presumption that it was
regularly issued. And on its face, the memorandum is patently lawful for no law
makes the payment of an obligation illegal. This fact, coupled with the urgent tenor
for its execution constrains one to act swiftly without question. Obedientia est legis
essentia. Besides, the case could not be detached from the realities then prevailing.
Luis A. Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 103501-03 and 103507, February
17, 1997

Art. 12 – Exempting Circumstances in General

In General
Good Faith in Malum Prohibitum
Entrapment

In General

It should be noted, however, that a mitigating circumstance differs from an

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 103
 exempting circumstance. The former presupposes the existence of both the crime and
the criminal while the latter recognizes only a felonious act but admits that there is no
criminal offender because the performance of the act was not attended with
voluntariness on the part of the human actor.
People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Talavera, G.R. No. 139967, July 19, 2001

Good Faith in Malum Prohibitum

Even granting that accused acted in good faith, he cannot escape criminal
responsibility. The crime with which he is charged is a malum prohibitum. Lack of
criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances. As held in People of
the Phil. vs. Lo Ho Wing, et al. [G.R. No. 88017, January 21, 1991]:

Moreover, the act of transporting a prohibited drug is a malum prohibitum because

it is punished as an offense under a special law. It is a wrong because it is prohibited
by law. Without the law punishing the act, it cannot be considered a wrong. As such,
the mere commission of said act is what constitutes the offense punished and suffices
to validly charge and convict an individual caught committing the act so punished,
regardless of criminal intent.

Likewise, in People of the Phil. vs. Cornelio Bayona, G.R. No. 42288, February 16,
1935, 61 Phil. 181, citing United States vs. Go Chico, G.R. No. 4963, September 15,
1909, 14 Phil. 128, it was held:

The rule is that in acts mala in se there must be a criminal intent, but in those mala
prohibita it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done. "Care must be
exercised in distinguishing the difference between the intent to commit the crime and
the intent to perpetrate to act."

Indeed, Comia cannot claim to have acted in good faith. Even assuming that he did
not know that the packages contained shabu, the fact is that he tried to facilitate the
importation of dutiable goods free of customs duties.
People of the Phil. vs. Go Shiu Ling, et al., G.R. No. 115156, December 14, 1995

It is settled that lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting
circumstances where the crime charged is malum prohibitum. Hence, appellant’s
contention that he did not know that the box he was carrying contained "shabu"
cannot constitute a valid defense. Mere possession and/or delivery of a regulated drug,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 104
 without legal authority, is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act.
People of the Phil. vs. Sy Bing Yok, G.R. No. 121345, June 23, 1999

Lack of knowledge cannot constitute a valid defense, for lack of criminal intent and
good faith are not exempting circumstances where the crime charged is malum
prohibitum. [People of the Phil. vs. Sy Bing Yok, G.R. No. 121345, June 23, 1999]
Thus, this Court has uniformly held that the uncorroborated claim of an accused of
lack of knowledge that he had a prohibited drug in his possession is insufficient.
[People of the Phil. vs. Josefina A. Esparas, et al., G.R. No. 120034, July 10, 1998;
People of the Phil. vs. William Robert Burton, G.R. No. 114396, February 19, 1997]
To warrant his acquittal, accused-appellant must show that his act of transporting the
package containing marijuana in his tricycle was done without intent to possess a
prohibited drug.
People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Baludda, G.R. No. 114198, November 19, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Del Mundo, G.R. No. 138929, October 2, 2001

Entrapment

In an entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and
capturing the law breakers in the execution of their criminal plan; whereas, in
instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into the
commission of the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal. Entrapment is no bar
to the prosecution and conviction; in instigation, the defendant would have to be
acquitted.
United States vs. James O. Phelps, G.R. No. 5728, August 11, 1910, 16 Phil. 440

People of the Phil. vs. Apolinario Abella, et al., G.R. No. L-20600, October 16, 1923, 46
Phil. 857

People of the Phil. vs. Lua Chu, et al., G.R. No. 34917, September 7, 1931, 56 Phil. 44

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Valmores, G.R. No. L-58635, June 24, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Elmer P. Nillos, G.R. No. L-66161, January 30, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Beralde, G.R. No. L-68482, October 23, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo P. Patog, G.R. No. L-69620, September 24, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Putthi Natipravat, et al., G.R. No. L-69876, November 13, 1986

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 105
 People of the Phil. vs. Andru Lapatha, et al., G.R. Nos. L-63074-75, November 9, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Efren M. Asio, G.R. No. 84960, September 1, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. John K. Guiagui, G.R. No. 78527, April 25, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo E. Estevan, G.R. No. 69676, June 4, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio B. Payumo, G.R. No. 81761, July 2, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Estanislao T. Yutuc, G.R. No. 82590, July 26, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando B. Madriaga, G.R. No. 82293, July 23, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Queroben A. Polizon, G.R. No. 84917, September 18, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio M. Rivera, G.R. No. 86491, December 11, 1992

Entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping
or capturing a lawbreaker. Oftentimes it is the only effective way of apprehending a
criminal in the act of the commission of the offense. In entrapment the idea to commit
the crime originated from the accused. Nobody induces or prods him into committing
the offense. A criminal is caught committing the act by ways and means devised by
peace officers.

It must be distinguished from inducement or instigation wherein the criminal intent

originates in the mind of the instigator and the accused is lured into the commission of
the offense charged in order to prosecute him. The instigator practically induces the
would-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a
co-principal. In entrapment ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of
capturing the lawbreaker in fragrante delicto. In entrapment, the crime had already
been committed while in instigation, it was not and could not have been committed
were it not for the instigation by the peace officer.
People of the Phil. vs. Yabes Gatong-o, G.R. No. 78698, December 29, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio B. Payumo, G.R. No. 81761, July 2, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Estanislao T. Yutuc, G.R. No. 82590, July 26, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Melvin B. Odicta, et al., G.R. No. 93708, May 15, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Ramos, Jr., G.R. No. 88301, October 28, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. George P. Agustin, G.R. No. 98362, November 13, 1992

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 106
 People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Eligino, G.R. No. 70113, December 11, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Salih S. Juma, G.R. No. 90391, March 24, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo A. Bay, G.R. No. 101310, May 28, 1993

There is a wide difference between entrapment and instigation, for while in the
latter case the instigator practically induces the will be accused into the commission of
the offense and himself becomes a co-principal, in entrapment ways and means are
resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law breaker in the execution
of his criminal plan.
People of the Phil. vs. Galicia, 40 O.G. 4476

People of the Phil. vs. Jose C. Quintana, et al., G.R. No. 83888, June 30, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo M. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 87607, October 31, 1990

Instigation and inducement must be distinguished from entrapment. The general

rule is that instigation and inducement to commit a crime, for the purpose of filing
criminal charges, is to be condemned as immoral, while entrapment, which is the
employment of means and ways for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law
breaker, is sanctioned and permissible. And the reason is obvious. Under the first
instance, no crime has been committed, and to induce one to commit it makes of the
instigator a co-criminal. Under the last instance, the crime has already been committed
and all that is done is to entrap and capture the law breaker.
People of the Phil. vs. De Leon, 48 O.G. 4858

People of the Phil. vs. Jose C. Quintana, et al., G.R. No. 83888, June 30, 1989

A buy-bust operation is the method employed by peace officers to trap and catch a
malefactor in flagrante delicto. (People of the Phil. vs. Don Rodrigueza, G.R. No.
95902, February 4, 1992) It is essentially a form of entrapment since the peace officer
neither instigates nor induces the accused to commit a crime. Entrapment is the
employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a
lawbreaker from whose mind the criminal intent originated. Oftentimes, it is the only
effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of the offense.
People of the Phil. vs. Juan G. Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 83260, April 18, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Yabes Gatong-o, G.R. No. 78698, December 29, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro B. William, et al., G.R. No. 93712, June 15, 1992

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 107
 People of the Phil. vs. Gilberto Yumang, G.R. No. 94977, May 17, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Macasa, G.R. No. 105283, January 21, 1994

Entrapment, therefore, has received judicial sanction as long as it is carried out

with constitutional and legal circumspection.
People of the Phil. vs. Floro Del Pilar, G.R. No. 86360, July 28, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Salih S. Juma, G.R. No. 90391, March 24, 1993

It must be noted that in instigation, where the officers of the law or their agents
incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense, which he
otherwise would not commit and has no intention of committing, the accused cannot
be held liable. But in entrapment, where the criminal intent or design to commit the
offense charged originates from the mind of the accused and law enforcement
officials merely facilitate the commission of the offense, the accused cannot justify his
conduct. Instigation is a "trap for the unwary innocent." Entrapment is a trap for the
unwary criminal (Enrico M. Cabrera, vs. James B. Pajares, A.M. Nos. R-278-RTJ &
R-309-RTJ, May 30, 1986).

In entrapment, the entrapper resorts to ways and means to trap and capture a
lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan. On the other hand, in instigation the
instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into committing the offense, and
himself becomes a co-principal (People vs. Natipravat, infra). Entrapment is no bar to
prosecution and conviction while in instigation, the defendant would have to be
acquitted (People of the Phil. vs. Andru Lapatha, et al., G.R. Nos. L-63074-75,
November 9, 1988).

The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent. In
entrapment, the means originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the
resolve to commit the crime come from him. In instigation, the law enforcer conceives
the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and
carries it into execution. The legal effects of entrapment do not exempt the criminal
from liability. Instigation does (Aquilina R. Araneta, vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R.
No. L-46638, July 9, 1986).
People of the Phil. vs. Dante S. Marcos, G.R. No. 83325, May 8, 1990

Entrapment has consistently proven to be an effective method of apprehending

drug peddlers.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 108
 People of the Phil. vs. Yabes Gatong-o, G.R. No. 78698, December 29, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando B. Madriaga, G.R. No. 82293, July 23, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Bobby G. De Paz, G.R. No. 104277, July 5, 1993

The crime of illegal possession of prohibited drugs had already been committed by
the accused when the policemen resolved to entrap him into revealing such possession
and selling of the prohibited drug. The acts of the arresting officers here constituted
entrapment, a process or operation not prohibited by the Revised Penal Code
People of the Phil. vs. June C. Sanchez, G.R. No. 77588, May 12, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Lamberto M. Borja, G.R. No. 71838, February 26, 1990

Art. 12 (1) - Exempting Circumstance: Insanity

In General
Must be present before the act or at the moment of its execution
Burden of proof is upon one invoking insanity
Should be proven by clear and positive evidence
Not exempting if subsequent to commission of offense
Lucid interval
Acquittal for insanity does not mean outright release of accused
Imbecility
Feebleness, not exempting
Schizophrenia
Amnesia
Pedophilia

In General

In order that insanity may be taken as an exempting circumstance, there must be

complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act or that the accused

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 109
 acted without the least discernment because there is complete absence of the power to
discern, or that there is total deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of
the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. The onus probandi rests upon him
who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance and he must prove it by clear and
positive evidence.
People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950, 87
Phil 658

People of the Phil. vs. Remigio Cruz, G.R. Nos. L-13219-20, August 31, 1960, 109
Phil. 288

People of the Phil. vs. Loreto S. Renegado, G.R. No. L-27031, May 31, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Ambal, G.R. No. L-52688, October 17, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Andres Magallano, G.R. No. L-32978, October 30, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto F. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo O. Manalang, G.R. No. L-47136-39, July 25, 1983, 208
Phil. 504

People of the Phil. vs. Renato M. Aldemita, G.R. No. L-55033-34, November 13, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Aragon, G.R. No. L-51736, August 4, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Gole Cruz, G.R. No. 69251, September 13, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Q. Aquino, G.R. No. 87084, June 27, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Teotimo Danao, G.R. No. 96832, November 19, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Ariel S. Catanyag, G.R. No. 103974, September 10, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Elyboy O. So, G.R. No. 104664, August 28, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Roger N. Austria, G.R. Nos. 111517-19, July 31, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio Tabugoca, G.R. No. 125334, January 28, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Medina, G.R. No. 113691, February 6, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Mengote, G.R. No. 130491, March 25, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Dewing V. Cañeta, et al., G.R. No. 110855-56, June 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Ralph Velez Diaz, G.R. No. 130210, December 8, 1999

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 110
 People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Pambid, G.R. No. 124453, March 15, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Ocfemia, G.R. No. 126135, October 25, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Robiños, G.R. No. 138453, May 29, 2002

As an exempting circumstance, insanity means that the accused must have been
deprived completely of reason and freedom of the will at the time of the commission
of the crime or be incapable of entertaining criminal intent.
People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Mengote, G.R. No. 130491, March 25, 1999

The nature of insanity may be gleaned from the definition of insane persons in
Section 1039 of the Revised Administrative Code which provides: "Insanity is a
manifestation in language or conduct of disease or defect of the brain, or a more or
less permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality, functional or
organic, and characterized by perversion, inhibition, or disordered function of the
sensory or of the intellective faculties, or by impaired or disordered volition." Article
800 of the Civil Code provides: "The law presumes that every person is of sound
mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary." The allegation of insanity must be
clearly proved. The law presumes all acts to be voluntary. Not every aberration of the
mind or exhibition of mental deficiency is insanity.
People of the Phil. vs. Teotimo Danao, G.R. No. 96832, November 19, 1992

Insanity itself is a condition, not a thing. It is not susceptible of the usual means of
proof and to this fact is due the unusual difficulty of making proof of its existence and
measuring its effect, when once proven to exist. As no man can look into the mind of
another, the state of such mind can only be measured as the same is reflected in the
actions of the body it is created to govern. Thus, we have held that mind can only be
known by outward acts. Thereby we read the thoughts, the motives and emotions of a
person and come to determine whether his acts conform to the practice of people of
sound mind. In interpreting these physical manifestations, scientific knowledge and
experience have been resorted to by our judicial agencies.
People of the Phil. vs. Celestino Bonoan y Cruz, G.R. No. 45130, February 17, 1937,
64 Phil. 87

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Q. Aquino, G.R. No. 87084, June 27, 1990

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 111
 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12, 2000

Although the Court has ruled many times in the past on the insanity defense, it was
only in People vs. Formigones that the Court elaborated on the required standards of
legal insanity, quoting extensively from the Commentaries of Judge Guillermo
Guevara on the Revised Penal Code. The standards set out in Formigones were
commonly adopted in subsequent cases. A linguistic or grammatical analysis of those
standards suggests that Formigones established two (2) distinguished tests: (a) the test
of cognition — "complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the [criminal]
act," and (b) the test of volition — "or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of
the will."
People of the Phil. vs. Policarpio Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991

Our caselaw shows common reliance on the test of cognition, rather than on a test
relating to "freedom of the will;" examination of our caselaw has failed to turn up any
case where this Court has exempted an accused on the sole ground that he was totally
deprived of "freedom of the will," i.e., without an accompanying "complete
deprivation of intelligence." This is perhaps to be expected since a person's volition
naturally reaches out only towards that which is presented as desirable by his
intelligence, whether that intelligence be diseased or healthy. In any case, where the
accused failed to show complete impairment or loss of intelligence, the Court has
recognized at most a mitigating, not an exempting, circumstance in accord with
Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code: "Such illness of the offender as would
diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving
him of the consciousness of his acts."
People of the Phil. vs. Policarpio Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991

In considering the plea of insanity as a defense in a prosecution for crime, the

starting premise is that the law presumes all persons to be of sound mind or otherwise
stated, the law presumes all acts to be voluntary, and that it is improper to presume
that acts were done unconsciously. Insanity being the exception, rather than the rule,
in the human condition, " . . . the moral and legal presumption is that freedom and
intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person . . . " and that ". . . a felonious
or criminal act (delito doloso) . . . (has) been done with deliberate intent, that is, with
freedom, intelligence and malice. . . ." Whoever, therefore, invokes insanity as a
defense has the burden of proving its existence. Another basic premise is that the
inquiry into the mental condition of an accused who pleads insanity as an exempting
circumstance must relate to the time preceding, or coetaneous with, the commission of
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 112
 the offense with which he is charged. The evidence (of mental condition), it has been
held " . . . must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very
moment of its execution."
People of the Phil. vs. Renato M. Aldemita, G.R. No. L-55033-34, November 13, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Teotimo Danao, G.R. No. 96832, November 19, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Ocfemia, G.R. No. 126135, October 25, 2000

Insanity is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties

which is manifested in language and conduct. An insane person has no full and clear
understanding of the nature and consequences of his acts. Hence, insanity may be
shown by the surrounding circumstances fairly throwing light on the subject, such as
evidence of the alleged deranged person's general conduct and appearance, his acts
and conduct consistent with his previous character and habits, his irrational acts and
beliefs, as well as his improvident bargains. The vagaries of the mind can only be
known by outward acts, by means of which we read thoughts, motives and emotions
of a person, and through which we determine whether the acts conform to the practice
of people of sound mind.
People of the Phil. vs. Rosalino Dungo, G.R. No. 89420, July 31, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Enrico A. Valledor, G.R. No. 129291, July 3, 2002

Insanity must be present before the act or at the moment of its execution

When insanity is alleged as a ground for exemption from responsibility, the

evidence on this point must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to
the very moment of its execution (U.S. vs. Guevara, 27 Phil. 547).
People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto F. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Erlindo Yam-Id, G.R. No. 126116, June 21, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 113
 Burden of proof is upon one invoking insanity

The onus probandi rests upon him who invokes insanity as an exempting
circumstance and he must prove it by clear and positive evidence.
People of the Phil. vs. Loreto S. Renegado, G.R. No. L-27031, May 31, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Andres Magallano, G.R. No. L-32978, October 30, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Renato M. Aldemita, G.R. No. L-55033-34, November 13, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Aragon, G.R. No. L-51736, August 4, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Gole Cruz, G.R. No. 69251, September 13, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Q. Aquino, G.R. No. 87084, June 27, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Elyboy O. So, G.R. No. 104664, August 28, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Ralph Velez Diaz, G.R. No. 130210, December 8, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto San Juan, G.R. No. 144505, August 6, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Florendo, G.R. No. 136845, October 8, 2003

Insanity should be proven by clear and positive evidence

People of the Phil. vs. Donato Bascos, G.R. No. 19605, December 19, 1922

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto F. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Erlindo Yam-Id, G.R. No. 126116, June 21, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000

The law presumes everyone to be sane. The accused who pleads the exempting
circumstance of insanity incurs the burden of proving it. To be adjudged insane under
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, he or she must have been completely deprived
of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time the crime was committed.
For such deprivation to be ascertained, it is but proper to receive evidence during a
reasonable period before or after the commission of the crime, for the mind — its
thoughts, motives and emotions — may be fathomed only by examining whether the
external acts conform with those of people of sound minds.
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 114
 People of the Phil. vs. Roger N. Austria, G.R. Nos. 111517-19, July 31, 1996, 328 Phil.
1208

People of the Phil. vs. Oliver Arevalo Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 150542-87, February 3, 2004

People of the Phil. vs. Anacito Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17, 2004

Since insanity is a condition of the mind, it is not susceptible of the usual means of
proof. As no man can know what is going on in the mind of another, the state or
condition of a person's mind can only be measured and judged by his behavior.
(People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12, 2000) Thus,
the vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts, by means of which we
read the thoughts, motives, and emotions of a person, and then determine whether the
acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind.
People of the Phil. vs. Celestino Bonoan y Cruz, G.R. No. 45130, February 17, 1937,
64 Phil 87

People of the Phil. vs. Rosalino Dungo, G.R. No. 89420, July 31, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Enrico A. Valledor, G.R. No. 129291, July 3, 2002

Insanity is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties

which is manifested in language and conduct. (People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villa,
Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000) However, not every aberration of the mind or
mental deficiency constitutes insanity. (People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Medina, G.R.
No. No. 113691, February 6, 1998; People of the Phil. vs. Andres Magallano, G.R.
No. No. L-32978, October 30, 1980) As consistently held by us, "A man may act
crazy, but it does not necessarily and conclusively prove that he is legally so." Thus,
we had previously decreed as insufficient or inconclusive proof of insanity certain
strange behavior, such as, taking 120 cubic centimeters of cough syrup and consuming
three sticks of marijuana before raping the victim; slurping the victim's blood and
attempting to commit suicide after stabbing him; crying, swimming in the river with
clothes on, and jumping off a jeepney.

The stringent standard established in People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Formigones,
G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950 [87 Phil. 658] requires that there be a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the accused acted without the
least discernment because of a complete absence of the power to discern or a total
deprivation of the will.

In People of the Phil. vs. Policarpio Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 115
 1991 we analyzed the Formigones standard into two distinguishable tests: (a) the test
of cognition — whether there was a "complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the criminal act" and (b) the test of volition — whether there was a "total
deprivation of freedom of the will." We observed that our case law shows common
reliance on the test of cognition, rather than on the test of volition, and has failed to
turn up any case where an accused is exempted on the sole ground that he was totally
deprived of the freedom of the will, i.e., without an accompanying "complete
deprivation of intelligence." This is expected, since a person's volition naturally
reaches out only towards that which is represented as desirable by his intelligence,
whether that intelligence be diseased or healthy.

Establishing the insanity of an accused often requires opinion testimony which may
be given by a witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused; has rational basis
to conclude that the accused was insane based on his own perception; or is qualified
as an expert, such as a psychiatrist.
People of the Phil. vs. Anacito Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17, 2004

Mere prior confinement in a mental institution does not prove that the perpetrator
was deprived of reason at the time the crimes were committed.

In the present case, while Organista had indeed been confined at the National
Center for Mental Health for treatment, it does not necessarily follow that he still
suffered from schizophrenia during the period of the rapes. No convincing evidence
was presented by the defense to show that he had not been in his right mind, or that he
had acted under the influence of a sudden attack of insanity, or that he had generally
been regarded as insane around the time of the commission of the acts attributed to
him. Well-settled is the rule that an inquiry into the mental state of the accused should
relate to the period immediately before or at the very moment the act under
prosecution was committed. Mere prior confinement in a mental institution does not
prove that the perpetrator was deprived of reason at the time the crimes were
committed.
People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-65, April 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Oliver Arevalo Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 150542-87, February 3, 2004

Insanity subsequent to commission of offense is not exempting

Indeed, when insanity is alleged as a ground for exemption from criminal

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 116
 responsibility, the evidence must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution
or to the very moment of its execution. If the evidence points to insanity subsequent to
the commission of the crime, the accused cannot be acquitted.
People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Robiños, G.R. No. 138453, May 29, 2002

To ascertain a person's mental condition at the time of the act, it is permissible to

receive evidence of the condition of his mind within a reasonable period both before
and after that time. Direct testimony is not required. Neither are specific acts of
derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. Circumstantial evidence, if
clear and convincing, suffices; for the unfathomable mind can only be known by overt
acts. A person's thoughts, motives, and emotions may be evaluated only by outward
acts to determine whether these conform to the practice of people of sound mind.
People of the Phil. vs. Celestino Bonoan y Cruz, G.R. No. 45130, February 17, 1937,
64 Phil. 87

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Fausto y Tomas, G.R. No. L-16381, December 30,
1961, 113 Phil. 841

People of the Phil. vs. Roger N. Austria, G.R. Nos. 111517-19, July 31, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Condino, G.R. No. 130945, November 19, 2001

While there is evidence tending to show that the accused in some instances had
displayed some unusual behavior, at most these could only be eccentricities which do
not mean complete deprivation of intelligence or discernment. The presumption of
sanity is not overcome by mere abnormality of behavior.
People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Andres Magallano, G.R. No. L-32978, October 30, 1980

Lucid Interval

An insane person is exempt from criminal liability unless he has acted during a
lucid interval.
People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000

Acquittal for insanity does not mean outright release of accused

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 117
 If the court therefore finds the accused insane when the alleged crime was
committed, he shall be acquitted but the court shall order his confinement in a hospital
or asylum for treatment until he may be released without danger. An acquittal of the
accused does not result in his outright release, but rather in a verdict which is
followed by commitment of the accused to a mental institution.
United States vs. Simeon Guendia, G.R. No. L-12462, December 20, 1917, 37 Phil. 345

People of the Phil. vs. Celestino Bonoan y Cruz, G.R. No. 45130, February 17, 1937,
64 Phil. 87

People of the Phil. vs. Roger N. Austria, G.R. Nos. 111517-19, July 31, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000

Imbecility

Imbecility, like insanity, is a defense which pertains to the mental condition of a

person. Our caselaw projects the same standards in respect of both insanity and
imbecility, that is, that the insanity or imbecility must constitute complete deprivation
of intelligence in committing the criminal act, or total deprivation of freedom of the
will.
People of the Phil. vs. Laroy T. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 93752, July 15, 1992

Feebleness, not exempting

The defendant-appellant, Rolando Aragon, may be mentally deficient, but his

feeblemindedness does not exempt him from criminal liability.
People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Aragon, G.R. No. L-51736, August 4, 1988

Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia pleaded by appellant has been described as a chronic mental disorder

characterized by inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and often
accompanied by hallucinations and delusions. Formerly called dementia praecox, it is
said to be the most common form of psychosis and usually develops between the ages
15 and 30. In previous cases where schizophrenia was interposed as an exempting
circumstance, it has mostly been rejected by the Court. In each of these cases, the
evidence presented tended to show that if there was impairment of the mental
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 118
 faculties, such impairment was not so complete as to deprive the accused of
intelligence or the consciousness of his acts.
People of the Phil. vs. Policarpio Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Florendo, G.R. No. 136845, October 8, 2003

Schizophrenia is defined as a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to

distinguish between fantasy and reality, and often accompanied by hallucinations and
delusions. A "Paranoid Type Schizophrenia" is described as follows: "Frequently the
prepsychotic personality of the paranoid schizophrenic is characterized by poor
interpersonal rapport. Often he is cold, withdrawn, distrustful, and resentful of other
persons. Many are truculent, have a chip-on-the-shoulder attitude, and are
argumentative, scornful, sarcastic, defiant, resentful of suggestions or of authority,
and given to caustic remarks. Sometimes flippant, facetious responses cover an
underlying hostility. . . . The patient's previous negative attitudes become more
marked, and misinterpretations are common. Ideas of reference are among the first
symptoms. Disorders of association appear. Many patients show an unpleasant
emotional aggressiveness. Through displacement, the patient may begin to act out his
hostile impulses. His grip on reality begins to loosen. At first his delusions are limited,
but later they become numerous and changeable . . . Delusions of persecution are the
most prominent occurrences in paranoid schizophrenia, but expansive and obviously
wish-fulfilling ideas and hypochondriacal and depressive delusions are not
uncommon. With increasing personality disorganization, delusional beliefs become
less logical. Verbal expressions may be inappropriate and neologistic. The patient is
subjected to vague magical forces; and his explanations become extremely vague and
irrational. Imaginative fantasy may become extreme but take on the value of reality.
Repressed aggressive tendencies may be released in a major outburst; some
inarticulate paranoids may manifest an unpredictable assaultiveness. Many paranoid
schizophrenics are irritable, discontented, resentful, and angrily suspicious and show a
surly aversion to being interviewed. Some manifest an unapproachable, aggressively
hostile attitude and may live in a bitter aloofness."
People of the Phil. vs. Roger N. Austria, G.R. Nos. 111517-19, July 31, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12, 2000

Amnesia

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 119
 Accused-appellant's charade of amnesia is evidently a desperate gambit for
exculpation. Yet, amnesia, in and of itself, is no defense to a criminal charge unless it
is shown by competent proof that the accused did not know the nature and quality of
his action and that it was wrong. Failure to remember is in itself no proof of the
mental condition of the accused when the crime was performed.
People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio Tabugoca, G.R. No. 125334, January 28, 1998

Pedophilia

The doctor's testimony however did not help accused-appellant’s case because
although he admitted having initially categorized accused-appellant as insane, the
doctor eventually diagnosed accused-appellant to be afflicted with pedophilia, a
mental disorder not synonymous with insanity. He explained that pedophilia is a
sexual disorder wherein the subject has strong, recurrent and uncontrollable sexual
and physical fantasies about children which he tries to fulfill, especially when there
are no people around. He claimed, however, that despite his affliction the subject
could distinguish right from wrong. In fact, he maintained that pedophilia could be
committed without necessarily killing the victim although injuries might be inflicted
on the victim in an effort to repel any resistance.
People of the Phil. vs. Ralph Velez Diaz, G.R. No. 130210, December 8, 1999

Art. 12 (1) - Exempting Circumstance: Imbecility

Imbecility
Epilepsy

Imbecility

Imbecility, like insanity, is a defense which pertains to the mental condition of a

person. Our case law projects the same standards in respect of both insanity and
imbecility, that is, that the insanity or imbecility must constitute complete deprivation
of intelligence in committing the criminal act, or total deprivation of freedom of the
will.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 120
 People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950, 87
Phil. 658

People of the Phil. vs. Laroy T. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 93752, July 15, 1992

Imbecility, one of the exempting circumstances under Article 12 of the Revised

Penal Code, is defined as feeblemindedness or a mental condition approaching that of
one who is insane. It is analogous to childishness and dotage. An imbecile, within the
meaning of Article 12, is one who must be deprived completely of reason or
discernment and freedom of will at the time of committing the crime. He is one who,
while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children
between two and seven years of age.
People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo P. Cayetano, G.R. No. 112429-30, July 23, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950, 87
Phil. 658

Epilepsy

Epilepsy per se is not an exempting circumstance. As early as 1927, the Court has
dismissed the defense of epilepsy thus:

Neither can the defense of lack of free will of the accused Ciriaco Aguilar, who is
an epileptic, be sustained. While Ciriaco Aguilar, as an epileptic was susceptible to
nervous attacks that may momentarily deprive him of his mental faculties and lead
him to unconsciously attempt to take his own life and the lives of others, nevertheless,
it has not been shown that he was under the influence of an epileptic fit before,
during, and immediately after the aggression.
People of the Phil. vs. Crispino Mancao, et al., G.R. No. 26361, January 20, 1927, 49
Phil. 887

People of the Phil. vs. Ronaldo Almaden, G.R. No. 112088, March 25, 1999

Art. 12 (3) - Exempting Circumstance: Minor Over Nine and Under Fifteen
Years of Age

The surfacing of a corollary controversy with respect to the first issue raised is
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 121
 evident, that is, whether the term "discernment", as used in Article 12(3) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) is synonymous with "intent." It is the position of the
petitioner that "discernment" connotes "intent" (p. 96, Rollo), invoking the unreported
case of People vs. Nieto, G.R. No. 11965, 30 April 1958. In that case We held that the
allegation of "with intent to kill . . ." amply meets the requirement that discernment
should be alleged when the accused is a minor between 9 and 15 years old.

Petitioner completes his syllogism in saying that:

"If discernment is the equivalent of 'with intent', then the allegation in the
information that the accused acted with discernment and willfully unlawfully, and
feloniously, operate or cause to be fired in a reckless and imprudent manner an air
rifle .22 caliber' is an inherent contradiction tantamount to failure of the information
to allege a cause of action or constitute a legal excuse or exception." (Memorandum
for Petitioner, p. 97, Rollo)

If petitioner's argument is correct, then no minor between the ages of 9 and 15 may
be convicted of a quasi-offense under Article 265 of the RPC.

On the contrary, the Solicitor General insists that discernment and intent are two
different concepts. We agree with the Solicitor General's view; the two terms should
not be confused.

The word "intent" has been defined as:

"(a) design; a determination to do a certain things; an aim the purpose

of the mind, including such knowledge as is essential to such intent; . . .; the
design resolve, or determination with which a person acts." (46 CJS Intent p.
1103.)

It is this intent which comprises the third element of dolo as a means of committing
a felony, freedom and intelligence being the other two. On the other hand, We have
defined the term "discernment," as used in Article 12(3) of the RPC, in the old case of
People vs. Doquena, 68 Phil. 580(1939), in this wise:

"The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from

criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine, who
commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the
difference between right and wrong . . ." (italics Ours) p. 583

From the foregoing, it is clear that the terms "intent" and "discernment" convey two

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 122
 distinct thoughts. While both are products of the mental processes within a person, the
former refers to the desired of one's act while the latter relate to the moral significance
that person ascribes to the said act. Hence a person may not intend to shoot another
but may be aware of the consequences of his negligent act which may cause injury to
the same person in negligently handling an air rifle. It is not connect, therefore, to
argue, as petitioner does, that since a minor above nine years of age but below fifteen
acted with discernment, then he intended such act to be done. He may negligently
shoot his friend, thus did not intend to shoot him, and at the same time recognize the
undesirable result of his negligence.

In further outlining the distinction between the words "intent" and "discernment," it
is worthy to note the basic reason behind the enactment of the exempting
circumstances embodied in Article 12 of the RPC; the complete absence of
intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part
of the accused. In expounding on intelligence as the second element of dolus, Albert
has stated:

"The second element of dolus is intelligence; without this power,

necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from
an illicit act, no crime can exist, and because . . . the infant (has) no
intelligence, the law exempts (him) from criminal liability." (Emphasis Ours)

It is for this reason, therefore, why minors nine years of age and below are not
capable of performing a criminal act. On the other hand, minors above nine years of
age but below fifteen are not absolutely exempt. However, they are presumed to be
without criminal capacity, but which presumption may be rebutted if it could be
proven that they were "capable of appreciating the nature and criminality of the act,
that is, that (they) acted with discernment." The preceding discussion shows that
"intelligence" as an element of dolo actually embraces the concept of discernment as
used in Article 12 of the RPC and as defined in the aforecited case of People vs.
Doquena, supra. It could not therefore be argued that discernment is equivalent or
connotes "intent" for they refer to two different concepts. Intelligence, which includes
discernment, is a distinct element of dolo as a means of committing an offense.

In evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa, three (3) elements are

indispensable, namely, intelligence, freedom of action, and negligence. Obviously,
intent is wanting in such felonies. However, intelligence remains as an essential
element, hence, it is necessary that a minor above nine but below fifteen years of age
be possessed with intelligence in committing a negligent act which results in a
quasi-offense. For him to be criminally liable, he must discern the rightness or
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 123
 wrongness of the effects of his negligent act. Indeed, a minor over nine years of age
but below fifteen may be held liable for a said Article would reveal such fact as it
starts off with the phrase "Any person . . ." without any distinction or exception made.
Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos.

In his last attempt to justify his position equating the words "intent" and
"discernment" used under the law, he cites the case of People vs. Nieto, supra.
However, petitioner failed to present the qualifying sentence preceding the ruling he
now invokes, which reads:

"That requirement should be deemed amply met with the allegation in the
formation that she . . . 'with the intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, criminally
and feloniously push one Lolita Padilla . . ." into a deep place of the Penaranda River
and as a consequence thereof Lolita Padilla got drowned and died right then and
there.' This allegation clearly conveys the idea that she knew what would be the
consequence of her unlawful act of publishing her victim into deep water and that she
knew it to be wrong. (Emphasis Ours)

From the above, it is clear that We did not mean to equate the words "intent" and
discernment." What We meant was that the combines effect of the words used in the
information is to express a knowledge, on the part of the accused Nieto, of the
wrongness or rightness of her act. Hence, petitioner may not validly contend that since
the information now in question alleged "discernment," it in effect alleged "intent."
The former may never embrace the idea of the latter; the former expresses the thought
of passivity while the latter signifies activity.
John Philip Guevarra vs. Ignacio Almodovar, G.R. No. 75256, January 29, 1989

Art. 12 (4) - Exempting Circumstance: Accident

Whether or not the appellant is exempt from criminal liability is a factual issue. The
appellant was burdened to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, his affirmative
defense that the victim’s death was caused by his gun accidentally going off, the bullet
hitting the victim without his fault or intention of causing it; hence, is exempt from
criminal liability under Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

The basis for the exemption is the complete absence of intent and negligence on the
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 124
 part of the accused. For the accused to be guilty of a felony, it must be committed
either with criminal intent or with fault or negligence.

The elements of this exempting circumstance are (1) a person is performing a

lawful act; (2) with due care; (3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident; and
(4) without any fault or intention of causing it. An accident is an occurrence 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 foreseeable consequences.” If the
consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence.
People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004

People of the Phil. vs. Federico Genita, G.R. No. 126171, March 11, 2004

In Jarco Marketing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 129792,
December 21, 1999, this Court held that an accident is a fortuitive circumstance, event
or happening; an event happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly
or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstance is unusual or
unexpected by the person to whom it happens. Negligence, on the other hand, is the
failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of
care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand without which
such other person suffers injury. Accident and negligence are intrinsically
contradictory; one cannot exist with the other. In criminal negligence, the injury
caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act
performed without malice. [People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Z. Oanis, et al., G.R. No.
47722, July 27, 1943, 74 Phil. 257] The appellant must rely on the strength of his
evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution because by admitting
having caused the death of the victim, he can no longer be acquitted. In this case, the
appellant failed to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, his defense.
People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004

It must be stressed that the accused has the burden of proving the elements of this
exempting circumstance. He must show the following with clear and convincing
evidence: 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.
People of the Phil. vs. Segundino Utrela, G.R. No. L-38172, July 15, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Janairo, G.R. No. 129254, July 22, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Ava Ma. Victoria Cariquez, G.R. No. 129304, September 27,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 125
 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Suelto y Cordeta, G.R. No. 103515, October 7, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo T. Agliday, G.R. No. 140794, October 16, 2001

For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the act has to be lawful.

People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Nepomuceno, Jr., G.R. No. 127818, November 11,
1998

The act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful act.

People of the Phil. vs. Arsenio Borja, G.R. No. L-54114, June 29, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo T. Agliday, G.R. No. 140794, October 16, 2001

An accident is an occurrence 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 foreseeable consequences." It connotes the absence of criminal intent. Intent
is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by a person's overt acts.
United States vs. Victoriano Mendoza , G.R. No. 13818, September 26, 1918, 38 Phil.
691

People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Mabug-at, G.R. No. 25459, August 10, 1926, 51 Phil.
967

Roman Catholic vs. Mun. in the Prov. of Iloilo, G.R. No. L-3008, March 19, 1951, 88
Phil. 368

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo T. Agliday, G.R. No. 140794, October 16, 2001

As has been noted by the Court, "the failure of the accused to prove self-defense
belies his claim that he was performing a lawful act" — one of the essential elements
of the exempting circumstance of accident.
People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Janairo, G.R. No. 129254, July 22, 1999

For the exempting circumstance of accident to be properly appreciated in

accused-appellant's favor, the following requisites must concur: (1) that the accused
person was performing a lawful act with due care; (2) that the injury is caused by mere
accident; and (3) that there was no fault or intent of causing the injury (Paragraph 4,
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code). In the case at bar, accused-appellant is liable

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 126
 for his unlawful act even if he never intended to hit his mother since his act of hitting
his mother was not done in the performance of a lawful act as required by the
aforementioned Article.
People of the Phil. vs. Pacalso K. Mat-an, G.R. No. 91115, December 29, 1992

At all events, accident to be exempting, presupposes that the act done is lawful.
Here, however, the act of accused-appellant of drawing a weapon in the course of a
quarrel, the same not being in self-defense, is unlawful — it at least constitutes light
threats (Article 285, par. 1, Revised Penal Code). There is thus no room for the
invocation of accident as a ground for exemption (People vs. Reyta, Jr., 13 CAR (25)
1190 [1968]).
People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Nepomuceno, Jr., G.R. No. 127818, November 11,
1998

Accused-appellant's invocation of accident deserves scant consideration. Under

paragraph 4 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a person who, while performing
a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by accident without fault or intention of
causing it, is exempt from criminal liability. Having ruled, however, that self-defense
was not present, then it cannot be said that accused-appellant was performing a lawful
act.
People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998

Accident and self-defense do not have the same meaning or legal effect.
Self-defense is a justifying circumstance under paragraph 1 of Article 11, while
accident is an exempting circumstance under paragraph 4 of Article 12, both of the
Revised Penal Code.
People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

Accident presupposes lack of intention to stab the victim, while self-defense

presumes voluntariness, induced only by necessity.
People of the Phil. vs. Fausto Carlos, G.R. No. L-16306, July 31, 1962, 115 Phil. 704

Indeed, if there is truth to either of his claim, his natural course of action was to
assist the victim, or at the very least, report the incident to the authorities. Certainly,
the justifying circumstance of self-defense.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 127
 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Rivera, G.R. No. 101798, May 10, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Gerolaga, et al., G.R. No. 89075, October 15, 1996

For the exempting circumstance of accident cannot be appreciated considering

accused-appellant's flight from the crime scene and his failure to inform the
authorities of the incident. Furthermore, that he did not surrender the knife to the
authorities is inconsistent with a clean conscience and, instead, indicates his
culpability of the crime charged.
People of the Phil. vs. Willy Figuracion, et al., G.R. No. 129162, August 10, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003

Well settled is the rule in criminal cases, that the prosecution has the burden of
proof to establish the guilt of the accused. 15 However, once the defendant admits the
commission of the offense charged, but raises an exempting circumstance as a
defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. By invoking mere accident as a defense,
appellant now has the burden of proving that he is entitled to that exempting
circumstance under Article 12 (4) of the Code.

The existence of accident must be proved by the appellant to the satisfaction of the
court. For this to be properly appreciated in appellant's favor, the following requisites
must concur: (1) that the accused was performing a lawful act with due care; (2) that
the injury is caused by mere accident; and (3) that there was no fault or intent on his
part to cause the injury.
People of the Phil. vs. Pacalso K. Mat-an, G.R. No. 91115, December 29, 1992

Appellant must convincingly prove the presence of these elements in order to

benefit from the exempting circumstance of accident.
People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rodolfo Concepcion y Peralta, G.R. No. 136844, August 1,
2002

Practically all of the justifying circumstances, as well as the exempting

circumstances of accident (paragraph 4, Article 12) and lawful or insuperable cause
(paragraph 7, Article 12), are based on the lack of criminal intent.
People of the Phil. vs. Juan Gonzales Escote, et al., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003

"Accident" is an affirmative defense which the accused is burdened to prove, with

clear and convincing evidence.
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 128
 People of the Phil. vs. Isaias C. Castillo, G.R. No. 172695, June 29, 2007

Before an accused may be exempted from criminal liability by the invocation of

Article 12 (paragraph 4) of the RPC, the following elements must concur: (1) a person
is performing a lawful act (2) with due care, and (3) he causes an injury to another by
mere accident and (4) without any fault or intention of causing it. For an accident to
become an exempting circumstance, the act that causes the injury has to be lawful.
Victoriano's act of physically maltreating his spouse is definitely not a lawful act. To
say otherwise would be a travesty — a gross affront to our existing laws on violence
against women.
People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano L. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 187683, February 11, 2010

Art. 12 (5) - Exempting Circumstance: Irresistible Force

Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is exempt from criminal
liability if he acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse
of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, because such person does not act
with freedom. (People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8,
2002) In Del Rosario, however, we held that for such defense to prosper the duress,
force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such
nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if
the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough.
People of the Phil. vs. Narciso Saldaña, et al., G.R. No. 148518, April 15, 2004

It has been held that fear or duress as a valid defense should be based on real,
imminent, or reasonable fear for one's life or limb. It should not be inspired by
speculative, fanciful, or remote fear. (People vs. Semañada, 103 Phil. 790 [1958])
Does the appellant's defense meet this test? The answer is in the negative.
People of the Phil. vs. Antonio L. Ong, G.R. No. L-43957, February 10, 1981

The defense invoked by the appellants that they acted in view of the irresistible
force and uncontrollable fear …. Basis of these two exempting circumstances is the
complete absence of freedom.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 129
 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto A. Ramos, G.R. No. L-32265, May 16, 1983

A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts
under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt from
criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. (Actus me invito factus non
est meus actus. An act done by me against my will is not my act.) The force must be
irresistible to reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but
against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation 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.
People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dagangon, et al., G.R. Nos. L-62654-58, November 13,
1986

The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the

accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.
People of the Phil. vs. Eustaquio M. Loreno, et al., G.R. No. L-54414, July 9, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro T. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-9529, August 30, 1958, 104
Phil. 450

People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo De Los Reyes, et al., G.R. No. L-44112, October 22,
1992

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo "Eddie" Tami, G.R. Nos. 101801-03, May 2, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Diarangan Dansal, G.R. No. 105002, July 17, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Lising, et al., G.R. Nos. 106210-11, January 30, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Cando, et al., G.R. No. 128114, October 25, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Dante L. Domingo, G.R. No. 131817, August 8, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002

A speculative, fanciful or remote fear,

People of the Phil. vs. Miguel M. Moreno, G.R. No. L-64, October 28, 1946, 77 Phil.
549, Oct. 28, 1946

People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Fernando, et al., G.R. No. L-24781, May 29, 1970

People of the Phil. vs. Diarangan Dansal, G.R. No. 105002, July 17, 1997

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 130
 even fear of future injury, is insufficient.
People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Palencia, et al., G.R. No. L-38957, April 30, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Abanes, et al., G.R. No. L-30609, September 28, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Diarangan Dansal, G.R. No. 105002, July 17, 1997

As a rule, it is natural for people to be seized by fear when threatened with

weapons, even those less powerful than a gun, such as knives and clubs. People will
normally, usually and probably do what an armed man asks them to do, nothing more,
nothing less. In the instant case, del Rosario was threatened with a gun. He could not
therefore be expected to flee nor risk his life to help a stranger. A person under the
same circumstances would be more concerned with his personal welfare and security
rather than the safety of a person whom he only saw for the first time that day.
People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999

A person who invokes the exempting circumstance of compulsion due to

irresistible force must prove his defense by clear and convincing evidence.
People of the Phil. vs. Diarangan Dansal, G.R. No. 105002, July 17, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Jose D. Capoquian, G.R. No. 109145, September 22, 1994

Art. 12 (6) - Exempting Circumstance: Uncontrollable Fear

For this exempting circumstance to be invoked successfully, the following

requisites must concur: (a) existence of an uncontrollable fear; (b) the fear must be
real and imminent; and (c) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that
committed.
People of the Phil. vs. Edito R. Petenia, et al., G.R. No. L-51256, August 12, 1986

It has been held that fear or duress as a valid defense should be based on real,
imminent, or reasonable fear for one's life or limb. It should not be inspired by
speculative, fanciful, or remote fear. (People vs. Semañada, et al., 103 Phil. 790
[1958])
People of the Phil. vs. Jesus (alias Ernesto Quilloy), G.R. No. L-2313, January 10,
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 131
 1951, 88 Phil. 53

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Abanes, et al., G.R. No. L-30609, September 28, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Borja, G.R. No. L-22947, July 12, 1979

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio L. Ong, G.R. No. L-43957, February 10, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto A. Ramos, G.R. No. L-32265, May 16, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dagangon, et al., G.R. Nos. L-62654-58, November 13,
1986

People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Fronda, G.R. Nos. 102361-62, May 14, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Salvatierra, [Link]., G.R. No. 111124, June 20, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Geral, et al., G.R. No. 145731, June 26, 2003

A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts
under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt from
criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. The force must be irresistible
to reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will.
The duress, force, fear or intimidation 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.
People of the Phil. vs. Pedro T. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-9529, August 30, 1958, 104
Phil. 450

People of the Phil. vs. Eustaquio M. Loreno, et al., G.R. No. L-54414, July 9, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Serrano, G.R. No. L-45382, May 13, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dagangon, et al., G.R. Nos. L-62654-58, November 13,
1986

People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo De Los Reyes, et al., G.R. No. L-44112, October 22,
1992

People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Fronda, G.R. Nos. 102361-62, May 14, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo "Eddie" Tami, G.R. Nos. 101801-03, May 2, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Salvatierra, [Link]., G.R. No. 111124, June 20, 1996

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 132
 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo P. Cayetano, G.R. No. 112429-30, July 23, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Lising, et al., G.R. Nos. 106210-11, January 30, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Dante L. Domingo, G.R. No. 131817, August 8, 2001

Thus, duress has been held unavailing where the accused had every opportunity to
run away if he has wanted to or to resist any possible aggression because he was also
armed.
People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Palencia, et al., G.R. No. L-38957, April 30, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Abanes, et al., G.R. No. L-30609, September 28, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Edito R. Petenia, et al., G.R. No. L-51256, August 12, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Salvatierra, [Link]., G.R. No. 111124, June 20, 1996

Under the situation, the alleged threat can hardly be characterized as real and
irresistible, since it could not have induced in the appellant a well-grounded fear for
his life or limb. Before force or intimidation can be considered to be an irresistible
one, it must produce such an effect upon an individual that, inspite of all resistance on
his part, it reduces him to a mere instrument . . . who acts not only without will, but
against his will.
People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Elicanal, G.R. No. 11439, October 28, 1916, 35 Phil.
209

People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Serrano, G.R. No. L-45382, May 13, 1985

Art. 12 (7) - Exempting Circumstance: Lawful or insuperable cause

Distinct penalties prescribed by law in special complex crimes is in recognition of

the primacy given to criminal intent over the overt acts that are done to achieve that
intent. This conclusion is made implicit in various provisions of the Revised Penal
Code. Thus, practically all of the justifying circumstances, as well as the exempting
circumstances of accident (paragraph 4, Article 12) and lawful or insuperable cause
(paragraph 7, Article 12), are based on the lack of criminal intent.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 133
 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Gonzales Escote, et al., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003

Art. 13 - Mitigating Circumstances in General

It should be noted, however, that a mitigating circumstance differs from an

exempting circumstance. The former presupposes the existence of both the crime and
the criminal while the latter recognizes only a felonious act but admits that there is no
criminal offender because the performance of the act was not attended with
voluntariness on the part of the human actor.
People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Talavera, G.R. No. 139967, July 19, 2001

No doubt, the concept of mitigating circumstances is founded on leniency in favor

of an accused who has shown less perversity in the commission of an offense.
People of the Phil. vs. Emilio D. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Belbes, G.R. No. 124670, June 21, 2000

Art. 13 (1) - Mitigating Circumstance: Incomplete Justifying or Incomplete

Exempting

Incomplete Defense
Unlawful aggression
Incomplete Fulfillment of Duty

Incomplete Defense (Self, Relative or Stranger)

Under prevailing law and jurisprudence, the presence of unlawful aggression is a

condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of defense, be it of self,
relative, or stranger. There can be no defense, complete or incomplete, unless the
victim committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending.
People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Hisugan, G.R. No. L-38687, August 31, 1982

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 134
 People of the Phil. vs. Simeon Gamut, G.R. No. L-34517, November 2, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Regino Camilet, G.R. No. 70392, June 30, 1986

Ernesto Andres vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-48957, June 23, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Prudencio Nulla, G.R. No. L-69346, August 31, 1987

Angelito Ortega vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 57664, February 8, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Sixto S. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Estanislao A. Batas, et al., G.R. Nos. 84277-78, August 2, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Boniao, G.R. No. 100800, January 27, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Segundino "Goding" Jotoy, G.R. No. L-61154, May 31, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Joanes Agravante, et al., G.R. No. 105402-04, September 5,
1994

Mariano R. De Luna vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111484, June 2, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Rosaria V. Ignacio, G.R. No. 107801, March 26, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Lascota, G.R. No. 113257, July 17, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Sambulan, et al., G.R. No. 112972, April 24, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Ebrada, G.R. No. 122774, September 25, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Loredo Real, G.R. No. 121930, June 14, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 118311, February 19, 1999

Roque G. Galang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128536, January 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, December 6, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, January 24, 2001

Benito Calim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140065, February 13, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 135
 People of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 103613 & 105830, February 23,
2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Camacho, G.R. No. 138629, June 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001

Eladio C. Tangan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105830, January 15, 2002

Florentino Paddayuman vs. People of the Phil. , G.R. No. 120344, January 23, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Ansowas y Ampatin, G.R. No. 140647, December 18,
2002

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Gallego, et al., G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003

Jose Rimano vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 156567, November 27, 2003

For the claim of incomplete self-defense or defense of relative to prosper, it is

essential to prove unlawful aggression. Absent this evidence, there could be no
defense, complete or incomplete.

For defense of a relative to be appreciated, the following requisites must concur:

(1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it; and (3) in case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, that the person making the defense took no part therein.

In the event that not all of the aforementioned requisites are attendant, the accused
shall be entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of a
relative pursuant to Article 13 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.
People of the Phil. vs. Emilio D. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996

Just as the presence and severity of a large number of wounds on the part of the
victim disprove self-defense, (People of the Phil. vs. Amador Masangkay, et al., G.R.
No. 73461, October 27, 1987; People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Maceda, G.R. No.
91106, May 27, 1991; People of the Phil. vs. Juan Ganzagan, Jr., G.R. No. 113793,
August 11, 1995; People of the Phil. vs. Elyboy O. So, G.R. No. 104664, August 28,
1995) so do they belie the claim of incomplete defense of a relative and indicate not
the desire to defend one's relative but a determined effort to kill.
People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio De Gracia et al., G.R. No. 112984, November 14,
1996

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 136
 The mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of a relative cannot be
appreciated in favor of Sinonor. Although this mitigating circumstance can be
appreciated even if based on the mistaken belief of the person making the defense that
there was unlawful aggression against his relative, [United States vs. Ponciano
Esmedia, et al., G.R. No. L-5749 October 21, 1910, 17 Phil. 260] it is required that
the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them
to be [United States vs. Ah Chong, G.R. No. 5272, March 19, 1910, 15 Phil. 488]. It is
settled that a person making a defense has no more right to attack an aggressor when
the unlawful aggression has ceased [People of the Phil. vs. Dioscoro Alconga, et al.,
G.R. No. L-162, April 30, 1947, 78 Phil. 366].
Felipe E. Pepito, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 119942, July 8, 1999

Incomplete self-defense is not considered as a justifying act, but merely a

mitigating circumstance; hence, the burden of proving the crime charged in the
information is not shifted to the accused. In order that it may be successfully
appreciated, however, it is necessary that a majority of the requirements of
self-defense be present, particularly the requisite of unlawful aggression on the part of
the victim.
United States vs. Antonio Navarro, G.R. No. L-1878, March 9, 1907, 7 Phil. 713

People of the Phils. vs. Aniceto Martin, G.R. No. L-3002, May 23, 1951, 89 Phil. 18

People of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 103613 & 105830, February 23,
2001

Unlawful agression

Unlawful aggression by itself or in combination with either of the other two

requisite suffices to establish incomplete self-defense. Absent the unlawful
aggression, there can never be self-defense, complete or incomplete, because if there
is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of defense will have no basis.
Angelito Ortega vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 57664, February 8, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando M. Picardal, G.R. No. 72936, June 18, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Rosaria V. Ignacio, G.R. No. 107801, March 26, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 118311, February 19, 1999

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 137
 People of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 103613 & 105830, February 23,
2001

People of the Phil. vs. Dennis Mazo, G.R. No. 136869, October 17, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Dano, G.R. No. 117690, September 1, 2000

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non, without which there can be no
self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. There is incomplete self-defense when
the element of unlawful aggression by the victim is present, and any of the other two
essential requisites for self-defense.
People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Tabarnero, et al., G.R. No. 168169, February 24, 2010

Incomplete Fulfillment of Duty

Unquestionably, the present case would have fallen under No. 5 of Article 11 if the
two conditions therefor, viz.: (1) that the accused acted in the performance of a duty
or in the lawful exercise of a right or office and (2) that the injury or offense
committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the
lawful exercise of such right or office, concurred. But here only the first condition is
fulfilled; the second is wanting.

The accused acted in the performance of a duty but that the shooting of the victim
was not the necessary consequence of the due performance thereof, therefore,
crediting to him the mitigating circumstance consisting of the incomplete justifying
circumstance of fulfillment of duty.
People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Z. Oanis, et al., G.R. No. 47722, July 27, 1943, 74 Phil
257

Bernardo Lacanilao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34940, June 27, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Belbes, G.R. No. 124670, June 21, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, September 20, 2000

Art. 13 (2) - Mitigating Circumstance: Age – Under 18 or Over 70 Years Old

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 138
 Whether petitioner was either 16 years old or over 17 years old but below 18 years
at the time of the commission of the crime charged herein, he is entitled to the special
mitigating circumstance of minority which allows the reduction of the imposable
penalty provided by law to one degree lower upon a defendant or accused" over
fifteen and under eighteen years of age" (par. 2, Art. 68 in relation to Art. 13, par. 2,
Revised Penal Code). 05plpecda

Pacifico De Sagun vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-53196, July 31, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Salustiano Tismo, G.R. No. 44773, December 4, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Edgar B. Fernandez, G.R. No. 94008, February 21, 1992

Reasonable doubt on the issue of age of the accused will be resolved in his favor.
United States vs. Severa Bergantino, G.R. No. 1441, December 29, 1903, 3 Phil. 118

United States vs. Silvino Roxas, G.R. No. 1594, December 5, 1905, 3 Phil. 375

United States vs. Pedro Barbicho, G.R. No. 5109, July 31, 1909, 13 Phil 616

United States vs. Estaban Agadas, et al., G.R. No. 11632, February 12, 1917, 36 Phil
246

People of the Phil. vs. Salustiano Tismo, G.R. No. 44773, December 4, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Alex V. Regalado, et al. , G.R. No. 101451, March 23, 1993

Joaquin E. David vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 111168-69, June 17, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Elmer Bolivar, G.R. No. 130597, February 21, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Baroy, et al., G.R. No. 137520-22, August 15, 2003

The analogous circumstance of age of over 70 years cannot be considered

mitigating because accused-appellant was only 59 years old at the time of the
commission of the offense.
People of the Phil. vs. Walter Nacional, G.R. Nos. 111294-95, September 7, 1995

Art. 13 (3) - Mitigating Circumstance: Lack of Intention to Commit So Grave

a Wrong (Praeter Intentionem)

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 139
 Article 13, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code "addresses itself to the intention of the
offender at the particular moment when he executes or commits the criminal act; not
to his intention during the planning stage."
People of the Phil. vs. Dicto Arpa, et al., G.R. No. L-26789, April 25, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Mabini Garachico, et al., G.R. No. L-30849, March 29, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Abueg, G.R. No. L-54901, November 24, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo O. Badilla, G.R. No. 69317, May 21, 1990

Intention is a mental process and is an internal state of mind. The intention must be
judged by the action, conduct and external acts of the accused. What men do is the
best index of their intention. In the case at bar, the aforesaid mitigating circumstance
cannot be appreciated considering that the acts employed by the accused were
reasonable sufficient to produce the result that they actually made — the death of the
victim.
People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Amit, G.R. No. L-29066, March 25, 1970

People of the Phil. vs. Miguel Regato, et al., G.R. No. L-36750, January 31, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Cabarrubias, et al., G.R. Nos. 94709-10, June 15, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Isleta, G.R. No. 114971, November 19, 1996

Since intention partakes of the nature of a mental process, an internal act, it can, as
a general rule, be gathered from and determined only by the conduct and external acts
of the offender, and the results of the acts themselves.
People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Yu, G.R. No. L-13780, January 28, 1961

People of the Phil. vs. Floremar Retubado, G.R. No. L-58585, June 20, 1988

The lack of "intent" to commit a wrong so grave is an internal state. It is weighed

based on the weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury inflicted and the
manner it is inflicted.
People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Pajenado, G.R. No. L-26458, January 30, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Elbert Callet, G.R. No. 135701, May 9, 2002

The brute force employed by the accused completely contradicts the claim that they
had no intention to kill the victim.
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 140
 People of the Phil. vs. Julian Flores, G.R. No. 27093, August 11, 1927, 50 Phil. 548

People of the Phil. vs. Artemio R. Orongan, G.R. No. L-38435, September 19, 1933, 58
Phil. 421

People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Reyes, G.R. No. 42117, March 29, 1935, 61 Phil. 341

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Yu, G.R. No. L-13780, January 28, 1961

People of the Phil. vs. Mabini Garachico, et al., G.R. No. L-30849, March 29, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Floremar Retubado, G.R. No. L-58585, June 20, 1988

Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong does not mitigate in homicide cases
where the accused used a deadly weapon in inflicting mortal wounds on vital organs
of the victim.
People of the Phil. vs. Emiliano Dayrit, G.R. No. L-14388, May 20, 1960, 108 Phil. 100

People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Caña Leonor, G.R. No. 125053, March 25, 1999

The location of the stab wounds manifest accused-appellants' intention to kill and
belies their claim that they did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed.
People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Nepomuceno, Jr., G.R. No. 127818, November 11,
1998

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Francisco, et al., G.R. Nos. 118573-74, May 31, 2000

The sheer number of wounds, twenty-one in all, inflicted by the accused-appellant

Cual on the body of the victim brings forth in bold relief the intention of the accused
to snuff out the life of the deceased, and definitely negates any pretense of lack of
intention to commit so grave a wrong.
People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Braña, G.R. No. L-29210, Oct. 31, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Dario Cabanas Cual, et al., G.R. No. 131925, March 9, 2000

There was no notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to
shoot Manondo and its consequences. Intending to kill Manondo, Vicente shot him.
Death was the result. He intended the resulting wrong.
United States vs. Vicente Reyes, G.R. No. 12635, Sept. 25, 1917, 36 Phil. 904

People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Mancao, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 61215, Oct. 31, 1984

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 141
 Where the evidence shows that the accused repeatedly stabbed Milagros on the
chest, left side of the neck and inflicted two lacerated wounds on her left hand, with a
pair of scissors, while holding her in tight embrace, it is clear that the accused
intended to do exactly what he did and must be held responsible for the consequences
of his act and he cannot avail of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to
commit so grave a wrong. Intention, being an internal state must be judged by external
acts, that is, by considering the weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury
inflicted, the manner it is inflicted, and the attitude of the mind when the accused
attacked the deceased.
People of the Phil. vs. Sofronio Amoto, G.R. No. L-28273, Jan. 18, 1982

Taking into consideration the circumstances under which the appellant's act was
executed, as well as the marked disproportion between the means employed and the
ultimate consequence thereof, the appellant's claim that he merely intended to chastise
Ferdinand, and not to do away with him, deserves the fullest credence. On this
premise, the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
should be appreciated in his favor.
People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Castro, G.R. No. L-38989, Oct. 29, 1982

Accused used a deadly weapon in consummating the killing. The means which he
employed were adequate to bring about the evil which was caused and intended. This
is not a case where the wrongful act was different from that which was intended.
People of the Phil. vs. Cayetano Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-41263, Dec. 15, 1982

Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong must be appreciated in favor of the

petitioner. Barring exceptional circumstances indicating otherwise, such as clear
physical capability to inflict a fatal blow, an intention to kill cannot be deduced from a
single fist blow, especially when the assailant, as in the case at bar, was intoxicated
when the attack took place.
Job Quial vs. Court of Appeals, et al., et al., G.R. No. L-63564, November 28, 1983

Art. 13 (4) - Mitigating Circumstance: Sufficient Provocation by Offended

Party

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 142
 A criminal liability may be mitigated if there was sufficient provocation on the part
of the offended party which immediately preceded the act complained of. To avail
oneself of this mitigating circumstance, it must be duly proven that the alleged
provocation originated from the offended party.
Roberto Licyayo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008

Provocation is defined to be any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended

party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone. In order to be mitigating,
provocation must be sufficient and should immediately precede the act. Provocation is
sufficient if it is adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong, which must
accordingly be proportionate in gravity. That the provocation must immediately
precede the act means that there should not be any interval of time between the
provocation by the offended party and the commission of the crime by the person
provoked.
Felipe E. Pepito, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 119942, July 8, 1999

Felipe Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999

The provocation must immediately precede the act so much so that there is no
interval between the provocation by the offended party and the commission of the
crime by the accused.
Felipe Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999

Under paragraph 4, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, a criminal liability may
be mitigated if there was sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party
which immediately preceded the act complained of. To avail oneself of this mitigating
circumstance, it must be duly proven that the alleged provocation originated from the
offended party.
Roberto Licyayo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008

The mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the

offended party should be credited in favor of appellant. Aside from the fact that the
provocation should immediately precede the commission of the offense, it should also
be "proportionate to the damage caused by the act and adequate to stir one to its
commission."
People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Luayon, G.R. No. 105672, August 22, 1996

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 143
 To avail of this benefit, it must be shown that the provocation originated from the
offended party, in this case, the victim.
Rudy Almeda vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 120853, March 13, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000

The provocation sufficient to mitigate an offense must be proportionate to the

gravity of the retaliatory act.
People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Caña Leonor, G.R. No. 125053, March 25, 1999

The provocation contemplated here is one that is sufficient and immediate to the
commission of the crime. In other words, the invasion of the privacy of the offended
party’s house must have been the direct and immediate consequence of the
provocation given by the latter as where, for example, the accused and the victim
quarrelled in front of the latter’s house and the accused, in a fit of rage entered the
victim’s house and proceeded to stab him.
United States vs. Vicenta Licarte, G.R. No. 6784, August 15, 1912, 23 Phil. 10

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Molina, G.R. No. 129051, July 28, 1999

The derogatory statement made by the deceased Santos which so irritated Centeno
did not constitute such a grave provocation as to warrant the lessening of his penalty
for reacting as he did in punishing the victim to death.
People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Centeno, et al., G.R. No. 33284, April 20, 1989

Art. 13 (5) - Mitigating Circumstance: Immediate Vindication of a Grave

Offense

The benefit of the said mitigating circumstance cannot be considered in favor of the
appellant pursuant to the established rule that there can be no immediate vindication
of a grave offense when the accused had sufficient time to recover his serenity."
People of the Phil. vs. Alberto R. Benito, G.R. No. L-32042, December 17, 1976

People of the Phil. vs. Leandro F. Pajares, G.R. No. 96444, June 23, 1992

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 144
 People of the Phil. vs. Emilio D. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996

It may be noted that the English text providing for the immediate vindication of a
grave offense is not an exact translation of the Spanish text which is controlling and
states "La de haber ejecutado el hecho en vindicacion proxima de una ofensa grave."
However, in the factual context of this case, such divergence would be insignificant
since proximate also means "that immediately preceding or following (as in a chain of
events, causes or effects)" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1993).
People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Sambulan, et al., G.R. No. 112972, April 24, 1998

People of the Phils. vs. Roberto Palabrica, G.R. No. 129285, May 7, 2001

People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003

While the law speaks of an "immediate" vindication of a grave offense, the same
should be understood to mean "proximate."

The English translation appears to be erroneous since the Spanish text, which is
controlling, states: "La de haber ejecutado el hecho en vindicacion proxima de una
ofensa grave." Thus, for instance, in U.S. vs. Diokno, et al., 63 Phil. 601 (1936),
People vs. Parana, 64 Phil. 331 (1937), and People vs. Dagatan, 106 Phil. 88 (1959),
there was a substantial interval of time between the commission of the crime by the
accused and the prior commission by the victim of the offense sought to be vindicated.
People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Babor, et al., G.R. No. 106875, September 24, 1996

People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003

Although the incident did not immediately precede the killing (a few hours had
lapsed), its impact, by reason of its seriousness and the circumstances under which it
was inflicted, festered till the commission of the crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Primo Parana, G.R. No. 45373, March 31, 1937, 64 Phil. 331

People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Cañete, et al., G.R. No. 138366, September 11, 2003

If not done immediately, it is no longer to vindicate the wrong done to him and his
family but rather to take revenge that accused-appellant killed the victim.
People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Evangelista, G.R. Nos. 84332-33, May 8, 1996

Immediate vindication of a grave offense, like any other, modifying circumstance,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 145
 should be affirmatively proven.
People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Sambulan, et al., G.R. No. 112972, April 24, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Dioscoro Alconga, et al., G.R. No. L-162, April 30, 1947, 78 Phil.
366

Aside from the fact that the provocation should immediately precede the
commission of the offense, it should also be proportionate to the damage caused by
the act and adequate to stir one to its commission.
People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Luayon, G.R. No. 105672, August 22, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Lopez, G.R. No. 136861, November 15, 2000

If appellant attacked his victim in the proximate vindication of a grave offense, he

cannot successfully claim in the same breath that he was also blinded by passion and
obfuscation. At most, only one of two circumstances could be considered in favor of
appellant (People vs. Yaon, Court of Appeals, 43 O.G. 4142 cited in I Reyes, Revised
Penal Code [1981]).
People of the Phil. vs. Juan De los Santos, G.R. No. L-2405, March 31, 1950, 85 Phil.
870

People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Dagatan, G.R. No. L-10851, August 28, 1959, 106 Phil.
88

People of the Phil. vs. Melchor B. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995

People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003

In an earlier case involving the infidelity of a wife, the killing of her paramour
prompted proximately — though not immediately — by the desire to avenge the
wrong done, was considered an extenuating circumstance in favor of the accused. (US
vs. Davis, 11 Phil. 96 (1908); US vs. Arribas, 1 Phil. 86, 87 (1902)) The time elapsed
between the offense and the suspected cause for vindication, however, involved only
hours and minutes, not days. Hence, we agree with the Solicitor General that the lapse
of two (2) weeks between his discovery of his wife's infidelity and the killing of her
supposed paramour could no longer be considered proximate. The passage of a
fortnight is more than sufficient time for appellant to have recovered his composure
and assuaged the unease in his mind. The established rule is that there can be no
immediate vindication of a grave offense when the accused had sufficient time to
recover his serenity.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 146
 People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003

This mitigating circumstance is not available where appellant was not present when
the alleged assault on his father (i.e., the wrong sought to be vindicated) was made.
People of the Phil. vs. Emilio D. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996

What was done was an immediate vindication of the stabbing perpetrated by

Magaso on appellant's brother Moises. For relatively less serious crimes than this, this
Court has taken into consideration this mitigating circumstance.
United States vs. Clemente Ampar, G.R. No. L-12883, November 26, 1917, 37 Phil.
201

People of the Phil. vs. Epifanio Diokno, et al., G.R. No. 45100, October 26, 1936, 63
Phil. 601

People of the Phil. vs. Custodio Rosel, G.R. No. 46095, October 10, 1938, 66 Phil. 323

People of the Phil. vs. Santos Doniego, G.R. No. L-17321, November 29, 1963, 118
Phil. 1384

People of the Phil. vs. Mario Capalac, G.R. No. L-38297, October 23, 1982

Certainly it seems probable that the reason why the lower court failed to do so was
the fact that appellant was a member of the police force. That is not conclusive. What
is decisive is the fact that the brothers Capalac, responsive to what is a traditional
norm of conduct, reacted in a manner which for them was necessary under the
circumstances. That was a fulfillment of what family honor and affection require. The
aggressor who did them wrong should not go unpunished. This is not to justify what
was done. It offers though an explanation. At the same time, the rule of law, which
frowns on an individual taking matters into his own hands, requires that every
circumstance in favor of an accused should not be ignored. That is to render justice
according to law. This mitigating circumstance calls for application.
People of the Phil. vs. Mario Capalac, G.R. No. L-38297, October 23, 1982

The appellant, however, is entitled to the mitigating circumstance analogous to, if

not the same as, vindication of a grave offense committed by the deceased when the
latter took away the carabao of the appellant and held it for ransom, and thereafter,
failed to fulfill his promise to pay its value after the carabao had died.
People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Monaga, et al., G.R. No. L-39528, November 19, 1982

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 147
 The accused-appellant is also entitled to the mitigating circumstance of having
acted in proximate vindication of a grave offense committed by the deceased against
the honor of his daughter when the deceased said:

"Oh, come on, let your daughter dance with Padi Nanong. Anyway, my nephew is
already thru with your daughter and someday we'll be in-laws."

It is not denied that the appellant was embarrassed, to say the least, by the utterance
of these words. In fact, he threw a glass half-filled with beer at the deceased and they
would have fought had not their companions separated them. No doubt, the
accused-appellant sought to vindicate the honor of his family and appease his
self-respect when he killed the deceased.
People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Regulacion, G.R. No. L-33489, March 18, 1983

We thus appreciate the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense

under Art. 13, par. 5, of the Revised Penal Code, or as a circumstance similar in
nature or analogous to it, pursuant to Art. 13, Art. 10, of the same code. The
circumstance that Felix, Arthur's father, was boxed by Marbel was serious enough to
perturb Arthur's mind and diminish the voluntariness of his action.
People of the Phil. vs. Arthur Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 130608, August 26, 1999

The act of the victim, which undoubtedly insulted and humiliated

accused-appellant, came within the purview of a "grave offense" under Article 13,
paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code.
People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Espina, G.R. Nos. 132325-26, July 26, 2001

Art. 13 (6) - Mitigating Circumstance: Passion or Obfuscation

In general
Lawful sentiments
Cannot co-exist with treachery
Cannot co-exist with evident premeditation
Analogous circumstances

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 148
 In general

Passion and obfuscation exists when (1) there is an act, both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such a condition of the mind, and (2) the 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.
People of the Phil. vs. Juan Alanguilang, G.R. No. 30125, January 21, 1929, 52 Phil.
663

People of the Phil. vs. Guillano, G.R. No. L-11904, February 29, 1960 (unreported)

People of the Phil. vs. Fabian Ulita, G.R. No. L-12655, June 30, 1960, 108 Phil. 730

People of the Phil. vs. Simplicio S. Gervacio, et al., G.R. No. L-21965, August 30,
1968, 133 Phil. 805

People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Layson, et al., G.R. No. L-25177, October 31, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe B. Pareja, et al., G.R. No. L-21937, November 29, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Nonceto Gravino, G.R. Nos. L-31327-29, May 16, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Constancio L. Cauyan, G.R. No. L-33697, April 2, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Felix Mozar, G.R. No. L-33544, July 25, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Gelaver, G.R. No. 95357, June 9, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Takbobo, G.R. No. 102984, June 30, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Basin Javier, G.R. No. 130654, July 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Jeronico M. Lobino, G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Caber, Sr., G.R. No. 129252, November 28, 2000

People of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 103613 & 105830, February 23,
2001

People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Noel Feliciano, G.R. No. 127759-60, September 25, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001

People of the Phils. vs. Wilson Lab-Eo, G.R. No. 133438, January 16, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Arande Colina Adlawan, G.R. No. 131839, January 30, 2002

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 149
 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor and Mario Rafael, G.R. Nos. 146235-36, May 29, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002

People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003

Miguel Danofrata vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 143010, September 30, 2003

The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is also not obtaining. For
this mitigating circumstance to be considered, it must be shown that (1) an unlawful
act sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation was committed by the intended
victim; (2) that the crime was committed within a reasonable length of time from the
commission of the unlawful act that produced the obfuscation in the accused's mind;
and that (3) "the passion and obfuscation arouse from lawful sentiments and not from
a spirit of lawlessness or revenge".
People of the Phil. vs. Inocencio Gonzalez, G.R. No. 139542, June 21, 2001

Provocation must be sufficient to excite a person to commit the wrong committed

and that the provocation must be commensurate to the crime committed. The
sufficiency of provocation varies according to the circumstances of the case.
People of the Phil. vs. Inocencio Gonzalez, G.R. No. 139542, June 21, 2001

As a fact, there was no threat or provocation directed at petitioner, then he could

not have been provoked into passion or obfuscation.
Doroteo Tobes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127441, October 5, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Caña Leonor, G.R. No. 125053, March 25, 1999

Passion and obfuscation cannot be considered extenuating because the accused

acted in a spirit of unmitigated lawlessness (and revenge). Moreover, the act
producing the obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime
by a considerable length of time
People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Hernandez, G.R. No. L-17283, March 7, 1922, 43 Phil. 104

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Alanguilang, G.R. No. 30125, January 21, 1929, 52 Phil.
663

People of the Phil. vs. Silverio Daos, et al., G.R. No. 40331, April 27, 1934, 60 Phil 143

People of the Phil. vs. Alexander M. Dela Fuente, G.R. Nos. L-63251-52, December 29,
1983

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 150
 People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Pampanga, G.R. No. L-66046, October 17, 1985

Passion and obfuscation cannot be considered when accused acted more in a spirit
of lawlessness rather than due to a sudden and legitimate impulse of natural and
uncontrollable fury.
People of the Phil. vs. Magdalena Caliso, G.R. No. 37271, July 1, 1933, 58 Phil 283

People of the Phil. vs. Laurencio Laspardas, G.R. No. L-46146, October 23, 1979

People of the Phil. vs. Nonceto Gravino, G.R. Nos. L-31327-29, May 16, 1983, 207 Phil.
107

People of the Phil. vs. Sukarno K. Mawallil, G.R. No. 63154, June 19, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Pampanga, G.R. No. L-66046, October 17, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Cabarrubias, et al., G.R. Nos. 94709-10, June 15, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Aquino, G.R. No. 128887, January 20, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Caber, Sr., G.R. No. 129252, November 28, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Bates, G.R. No. 139907, March 28, 2003

Lawful sentiments

Passion and obfuscation as affecting the mind and resulting in lack of reason and
self-control must originate from lawful sentiments.
People of the Phil. vs. Modesto Silang Cruz, G.R. No. 31045, October 1, 1929, 53 Phil.
637

United States vs. Manuel Flores, et al., G.R. No. 9008, September 17, 1914, 28 Phil.
29

United States vs. Augustus Hicks, G.R. No. 4971, September 23, 1909, 14 Phil. 217

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio G. Reyes, G.R. No. L-33767, October 30, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Nonceto Gravino, G.R. Nos. L-31327-29, May 16, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Pampanga, G.R. No. L-66046, October 17, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Ramy Valles, G.R. No. 110564, January 28, 1987

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 151
 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo L. Tiongco, G.R. No. 108430, September 14, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Lopez, G.R. No. 132168, October 10, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Caber, Sr., G.R. No. 129252, November 28, 2000

The exercise of a lawful right cannot be the proper source of obfuscation that may
be considered a mitigating circumstance.
People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Lopez, G.R. No. 132168, October 10, 2000

With respect to passion and obfuscation, it must be brought by causes naturally

producing in a person powerful excitement such that he losses his reason and
self-control thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power.
United States vs. Donato Salandanan et al., G.R. No. 947, November 4, 1902, 1 Phil.
464

United States vs. Gabriel Diaz, G.R. No. 5155, February 2, 1910, 15 Phil. 123

People of the Phil. vs. Felix Mozar, G.R. No. L-33544, July 25, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Caña Leonor, G.R. No. 125053, March 25, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Caber, Sr., G.R. No. 129252, November 28, 2000

Accused cannot claim passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance

because he did not act due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior and
unjust improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus which would overcome reason.
United States vs. Anderson Taylor, G.R. No. 2309, April 19, 1906, 6 Phil. 162

People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Mancao, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 61215, Oct. 31, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Ramy Valles, G.R. No. 110564, January 28, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Jeronico M. Lobino, G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Rodel Dizon, G.R. No. 131506, September 6, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Noel Feliciano, G.R. Nos. 127759-60, September 25, 2001

People of the Phils. vs. Wilson Lab-Eo, G.R. No. 133438, January 16, 2002

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 152
 People of the Phil. vs. Samuel "Sonny" Emperador y Lopez, G.R. No. 132669,
September 25, 2002

Miguel Danofrata vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 143010, September 30, 2003

To be blinded by passion and obfuscation is to lose self-control, not consciousness.

Moreover, courts cannot appreciate passion and obfuscation unless there is a clear
showing that there was cause naturally tending to produce such powerful excitement
as to deprive the accused of reason and self-control.
People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Caña Leonor, G.R. No. 125053, March 25, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002

The turmoil and unreason which naturally result from a quarrel or fight should not
be confused with the sentiment or excitement in the mind of person injured or
offended to such a degree as to deprive him of his sanity and self-control, because the
cause of this condition of mind must necessarily have preceded the commission of the
offense.
United States vs. Juan Giner, G.R. No. 2736, August 30, 1906, 6 Phil 406

People of the Phil. vs. Ramy Valles, G.R. No. 110564, January 28, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999

The excitement which is inherent in all persons who quarrel and come to blows
does not constitute obfuscation.
People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999

United States vs. Ciriaco Herrera, G.R. No. 4960, July 17, 1909, 13 Phil. 583

The circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which

is planned and calmly meditated before its execution.
People of the Phil. vs. Pedro M. Pagal, et al., G.R. No. L-32040, October 25, 1977

People of the Phil. vs. Mabini Garachico, et al., G.R. No. L-30849, March 29, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Gentem Kintuan, G.R. No. L-74100, December 3, 1987

It has been held that where at least half an hour elapsed between the previous fight
and the killing, the accused cannot be given the benefit of the attenuating
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 153
 circumstance of obfuscation.
People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60
Phil. 887

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999

Passion and obfuscation not considered when act which was supposed to have
caused it was committed three (3) days earlier.
People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Caber, Sr., G.R. No. 129252, November 28, 2000

The lapse of more than 24 hours, reckoned from the commission of the act which
produced the passion or obfuscation up to the time of the commission of the felony,
constituted a considerable period of time after which such circumstance would no
longer be deemed present.
United States vs. Sarikala, G.R. No. L-12988, January 24, 1918, 37 Phil. 486

The period of two (2) weeks which spanned the discovery of his wife's extramarital
dalliance and the killing of her lover was sufficient time for appellant to reflect and
cool off.
People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003

There can be no passion and obfuscation when more than five (5) hours had lapsed
between the discovery of his wife's unfaithfulness and the killing of his wife. The
appellant had enough time to reflect and gain control of his self.
People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Aguilando, et al., G.R. No. L-5346, January 30, 1953,
92 Phil. 583

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60
Phil. 887

United States vs. Sarikala, G.R. No. L-12988, January 24, 1918, 37 Phil. 486

People of the Phil. vs. Fernandito S. Sicat, G.R. No. 89278, September 4, 1992

When crime was committed almost a year after the victim had abandoned the
conjugal dwelling.
People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Gelaver, G.R. No. 95357, June 9, 1993

If appellant attacked his victim in the proximate vindication of a grave offense, he

cannot successfully claim in the same breath that he was also blinded by passion and
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 154
 obfuscation. At most, only one of two circumstances could be considered in favor of
appellant.
People of the Phil. vs. Melchor B. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Yaon, 43 O.G. 4142

Passion cannot co-exist with treachery

Passion cannot co-exist with treachery because in passion, the offender loses his
control and reason, while in treachery the means employed are consciously adopted
and one who loses his reason and self-control could not deliberately employ a
particular means, method or form of attack in the execution of the crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Wong, 70 O.G. 4844, Oct. 5, 1973

People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Germina, G.R. No. 120881, May 19, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Dante L. Domingo, G.R. No. 131817, August 8, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Samuel "Sonny" Emperador y Lopez, G.R. No. 132669,
September 25, 2002

Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with evident premeditation

The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation cannot co-exist with the

circumstance of passion and obfuscation. The essence of premeditation is that the
execution of the criminal act must be preceded by calm thought and reflection upon
the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to
arrive at a composed judgment.
People of the Phil. vs. Pedro M. Pagal, et al., G.R. No. L-32040, October 25, 1977

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002

The rule is that the mitigating circumstances of vindication of a grave offense and
passion and obfuscation cannot be claimed at the same time, if they arise from the
same facts or motive.
People of the Phil. vs. Melchor B. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995, 312 Phil. 775

People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 155
 Analogous Circumstances

An impulse of invidious or resentful feelings contemplates a situation akin to

passion and obfuscation. This circumstance is mitigating since, like passion and
obfuscation, the accused who acts with these feelings suffers a diminution of his
intelligence and intent, a reduction in his mental and rational faculties.
People of the Phil. vs. Nestor G. Soriano, G.R. No. 142565, July 29, 2003

Examples

a) Passion and obfuscation considered

There can be no question that the accused was driven strongly by jealousy because
of the rumors regarding the amorous relationship between his wife and the victim. The
feeling of resentment resulting from rivalry in amorous relations with a woman is a
powerful stimulant to jealousy and is sufficient to produce loss of reason and
self-control. In other words, it is a powerful instigator of jealousy and prone to
produce anger and obfuscation.
United States vs. Vicente Santillan, G.R. No. 1541, January 27, 1905, 4 Phil. 170

People of the Phil. vs. Delfin Muit, G.R. No. L-48875, October 21, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002

Natural instinct that impels a father to rush to the rescue of a beleaguered son,
regardless of whether the latter be right or wrong –
People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Castro, G.R. No. L-38989, Oct. 29, 1982

Finding one’s house being unlawfully damaged and its accessibility to the highway
as well as of his rice mill being closed –
People of the Phil. vs. Mamerto Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983

b) Passion and obfuscation not considered

When provocative act which caused the incident was parents’ disapproval of
appellant’s proposal to marry their daughter –
People of the Phil. vs. Nonceto Gravino, G.R. Nos. L-31327-29, May 16, 1983

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 156
 The act of the victim in berating and humiliating appellant was enough to produce
passion and obfuscation, considering that the incident happened in a market place
within full view and within hearing distance of many people.
People of the Phil. vs. Melchor B. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995

Art. 13 (7) - Mitigating Circumstance: Plea of Guilty

Under Article 13 (7) of the Code, a plea of guilty on arraignment is a mitigating

circumstance.
People of the Phil. vs. Joey Manlansing, et al., G.R. Nos. 131736-37, March 11, 2002

To be entitled to such mitigating circumstance, the accused must have voluntarily

confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution. The following requirements must therefore concur: (1) the accused
spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) the confession of guilt was made in open court,
that is, before a competent court trying the case; and (3) the confession of guilt was
made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio Crisostomo, G.R. No. L-32243, April 15, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Bueza, G.R. No. 79619, August 20, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. William Montinola, G.R. Nos. 131856-57, July 9, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco L. Calpito, G.R. No. 123298, November 27, 2003

To effectively alleviate the criminal liability of an accused, a plea of guilty must be

made at the first opportunity, indicating repentance on the part of the accused. In
determining the timeliness of a plea of guilty, nothing could be more explicit than the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code requiring that the offender voluntarily confess
his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
It is well settled that a plea of guilty made after arraignment and after trial had begun
does not entitle the accused to have such plea considered as a mitigating circumstance.
People of the Phil. vs. Roman Meneses, G.R. No. 111742, March 26, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Ramos, G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 157
 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Emelito Sitchon, G.R. No. 134362, February 27, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003

Under Section 7, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, a plea of guilty can be
considered a mitigating circumstance if done before the prosecution presents it
evidence. In the event, the prosecution did not consent to this desperate attempt of
appellant to qualify for a lower penalty. The trial court argued and did not re-arraign
appellant. Dura lex sed lex.
People of the Phil. vs. Salustiano Callos, G.R. No. 133478, January 16, 2002

Article 13(7) requires that the offender voluntarily confesses his guilt before the
court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. A plea of guilty
made after arraignment and after trial had begun does not entitle the accused to have
such plea considered as a mitigating circumstance.
People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003

It is elementary that a plea of guilty, besides being a mitigating circumstance, is a

judicial confession of guilt — an admission of all the material facts alleged in the
information, including the aggravating circumstances alleged. To be considered, it
must be made spontaneously in open court prior to presentation of evidence. It must
also be made unconditionally.
People of the Phil. vs. Moro Quinta, G.R. Nos. 29373-76, August 4, 1928, 51 Phil. 820

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Ubaldo, G.R. No. 33522, October 31, 1930, 55 Phil. 95

People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Berio, G.R. No. 40602, February 20, 1934, 59 Phil. 533

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Ansoyon, G.R. No. L-3, January 29, 1946, 75 Phil 772

People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Bauden, G.R. No. L-270, August 30, 1946, 77 Phil. 105

People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Egido, G.R. No. L-4217, January 31, 1952, 90 Phil.
762

People of the Phil. vs. Llagas, G.R. No. L-50115, May 31, 1957

People of the Phil. vs. Eutiquio Yamson, et al., G.R. No. L-14189, October 25, 1960

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 158
 People of the Phil. vs. Roger M. Perete, et al., G.R. No. L-15515, April 29, 1961

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Boyles, et al., G.R. No. L-15308, May 29, 1964

People of the Phil. vs. Dario Roldan, G.R. No. L-22030, May 29, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Dicto Arpa, et al., G.R. No. L-26789, April 25, 1969

People of the Phils. vs. Diosdado Comendador, G.R. No. L-38000, September 19, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Petronilo Espejo, et., al., G.R. No. L-27708, December 19, 1970

People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin R. Retania, G.R. No. L-34841, January 22, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Ariola, et al., G.R. No. L-38457, October 29, 1980

It is the essence of a plea of guilty that the accused admits absolutely and
unconditionally his guilt and responsibility for the offense imputed to him.
People of the Phil. vs. Patrick De Luna, G.R. No. 77969, June 22, 1989

People of the Phils. vs. Antonio Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000

Hence, an accused may not foist a conditional plea of guilty on the court by
admitting his guilt provided that a certain penalty will be meted unto him.
United States vs. Ambrosio Estabillo, et al., G.R. No. L-3934, January 21, 1908, 9 Phil.
668

People of the Phil. vs. Moro Sabilul, G.R. No. L-5520, July 31, 1953, 93 Phil. 567

People of the Phil. vs. Rolly O. Albert, G.R. No. 114001, December 11, 1995

People of the Phils. vs. Antonio Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000

Accused-appellant's plea of guilty is undoubtedly a conditional plea. Hence, the

trial court should have vacated such a plea and entered a plea of not guilty for a
conditional plea of guilty, or one subject to the proviso that a certain penalty be
imposed upon him, is equivalent to a plea of not guilty and would, therefore, require a
full-blown trial before judgment may be rendered.
People of the Phil. vs. Moro Sabilul, G.R. No. L-5520, July 31, 1953, 93 Phil. 567

People of the Phils. vs. Antonio Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000

While it is true that accused-appellant requested for a lesser penalty, such does not
make his plea of guilty conditional. It remains to be an admission of the facts alleged
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 159
 in the information charging robbery with homicide. At most, said plea for a lesser
penalty is an appeal to emotion as it does not assail, restrict or qualify the information.
It does not even specify the penalty desired to be imposed. Unlike in People vs.
Sabilul, 93 Phil. 567, the case cited by accused-appellant in support of his contention,
the plea for the lesser penalty of destierro qualifies the information for murder to that
crime described under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit death under
exceptional circumstances, as the plea therein specifies a certain penalty to be
imposed.
People of the Phils. vs. Diosdado Comendador, G.R. No. L-38000, September 19, 1980

While the accused offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, he was
charged with murder for which he had already entered a plea of not guilty. We have
ruled that an offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be considered as
an attenuating circumstance under the provisions of Art. 13 of The Revised Penal
Code because to be voluntary the plea of guilty must be to the offense charged.
People of the Philippines vs. Edgar Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, September 17, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Noble, G.R. No. L-288, August 29, 1946, 77 Phil 104

Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

SECTION 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence.

— When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct
a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the
precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence on his
behalf.

Under this Rule, three things are enjoined upon the trial court when a plea of guilty
to a capital offense is entered: (1) the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness of the plea and the accused's full comprehension of the consequences
thereof; (2) the court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the
guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and, (3) the court must
ask the accused if he desires to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so
if he desires.
People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Camay, G.R. No. L-51306, July 29, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Verano, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-45589, July 28, 1988

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 160
 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando G. Dayot, G.R. No. 88281, July 20, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Arnel B. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995, 321
Phil. 657

People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bello, G.R. Nos. 130411-14, October 13, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Elegio Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Expedito Abapo, G.R. Nos. 133387-423, March 31, 2000

People of the Phils. vs. Antonio Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000

People of the Phils. vs. Bernardino Aranzado, G.R. Nos. 132442-44, September 24,
2001

What constitutes a searching inquiry is that the plea of guilt must be based on a free
and informed judgment. Hence, a searching inquiry must focus on: (1) the
voluntariness of the plea, and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences of the
plea.
People of the Phil. vs. Arnel B. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995, 321
Phil. 657

People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bello, G.R. Nos. 130411-14, October 13, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Elegio Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000

So indispensable is this requirement that a plea of guilt to a capital offense can be

held null and void where the trial court has inadequately discharged the duty of
conducting the prescribed "searching inquiry."
People of the Phil. vs. Arnel B. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995, 321
Phil. 657

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Tizon, et al., G.R. No. 126955, October 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Durango, G.R. Nos. 135438-39, April 5, 2000

There is no debate that the trial court had persuasively observed the second
command of the rule by directing the prosecution to adduce evidence to determine the
exact culpability of the accused, taking into account the presence of other possible
aggravating or mitigating circumstances. It then heard with remarkable diligence and
dispatch the prosecution's case. It is in the rule's first and third requirements that, sadly
but not without hope of immediate rectification, the trial court missed its bounden
duty.
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 161
 On the first requirement, it bears to note that a searching inquiry must focus on the
voluntariness of the plea and the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea
so that the plea of guilty can be truly said to be based on a free and informed
judgment. While there can be no hard and fast rule as to how a judge may conduct a
"searching inquiry," it would be well for the court to do the following:

(1) Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into the
custody of the law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a competent counsel during
the custodial and preliminary investigations; and (c) under what conditions he was
detained and interrogated during the investigations. These the court shall do in order
to rule out the possibility that the accused has been coerced or placed under a state of
duress either by actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent or avenging
quarters.

(2) Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had

conferred with, and completely explained to, the accused the meaning and
consequences of a plea of guilty.

(3) Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such as his
age, socio-economic status, and educational background, which may serve as a
trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilty.

(4) Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature of the penalty
under the law and the certainty that he will serve such sentence. Not infrequently
indeed an accused pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or upon bad advice
or because of promises of the authorities or parties of a lighter penalty should he
admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty of the judge to see to it that the accused
does not labor under these mistaken impressions.

(5) Require the accused to fully narrate the incident that spawned the charges
against him or make him reenact the manner in which he perpetrated the crime, or
cause him to supply missing details of significance.

The searching inquiry conducted by the trial court left much to be desired.
People of the Phil. vs. Bernardino Aranzado, G.R. Nos. 132442-44, September 24,
2001

The trial court should also be convinced that the accused has not been coerced or
placed under a state of duress either by actual threats or physical harm coming from

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 162
 malevolent or avenging quarters, and this it can do either by eliciting from the accused
himself the manner in which he has been brought into the custody of the law and
whether he had the assistance of competent counsel during the custodial and
preliminary investigations or by ascertaining from him the conditions of his detention
and interrogation during the investigation. Likewise, a series of questions directed at
defense counsel on whether or not counsel has conferred with the accused and has
completely explained to him the meaning of a plea of guilt are well-taken steps along
those lines.
People of the Phil. vs. Danilo O. Badilla, G.R. No. L-69317, September 11, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Henry Parba, G.R. No. L-63409, May 30, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Mauricio Petalcorin, et al., G.R. No. 65376, December 29, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Melchor G. Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 117485-86, April 22, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Durango, G.R. Nos. 135438-39, April 5, 2000

The warnings given by the trial court in this case fall short of the requirement that it
must make a searching inquiry to determine whether accused-appellant understood
fully the import of his guilty plea. As has been said, a mere warning that the accused
faces the supreme penalty of death is insufficient.
People of the Phil. vs. Melchor G. Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 117485-86, April 22, 1996, 326
Phil. 429

People of the Phil. vs. Elegio Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000

For more often than not, an accused pleads guilty upon bad advice or because he
hopes for a lenient treatment or a lighter penalty. The trial judge must erase such
mistaken impressions.
People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bello, G.R. Nos. 130411-14, October 13, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Elegio Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000

He must be completely convinced that the guilty plea made by the accused was not
made under duress or promise of reward. The judge must ask the accused the manner
the latter was arrested or detained, and whether he was assisted by counsel during the
custodial and preliminary investigations. In addition, the defense counsel should also
be asked whether he conferred with the accused and completely explained to him the
meaning and the consequences of a plea of guilt. Furthermore, since the age,
educational attainment and socio-economic status of the accused may reveal insights
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 163
 for a proper verdict in the case, the trial court must ask questions concerning them.
People of the Phil. vs. Melchor G. Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 117485-86, April 22, 1996, 326
Phil. 429

People of the Phil. vs. Elegio Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000

In this case, absent any showing that these questions were put to accused-appellant,
a searching inquiry cannot be said to have been undertaken by the trial court.
People of the Phil. vs. Elegio Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000

Even if [the] accused['s] . . . plea was improvidently made, if the evidence

presented thereafter by the prosecution is sufficient to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, the court's verdict of guilt based solely on the hard evidence
presented can be sustained. At this point then, the improvidence of the plea of guilt is
irrelevant.
People of the Phil. vs. Roman Derilo, et al., G.R. No. 117818, April 18, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Godofredo Tahop, G.R. No. 125330, September 29, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Expedito Abapo, G.R. Nos. 133387-423, March 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Efren Jabien, G.R. Nos. 133068-69, May 31, 2000

As held by this Court in People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Lakindanum, G.R. No.
127123, March 10, 1999, People of the Phil. vs. Romeo E. Nismal, G.R. No. L-51257,
June 25, 1982, People of the Phil. vs. Mauricio Petalcorin, et al., G.R. No. 65376,
December 29, 1989, and People of the Phil. vs. Godofredo Tahop, G.R. No. 125330
September 29, 1999, convictions based on pleas of guilty to capital offenses have
been set aside because of improvidence of the plea, but only when such plea is the
sole basis of the judgment. Where, as here, the trial court relied solely on the
prosecution's sufficient and convincing evidence to convict the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt, not on his guilty plea, the same must be sustained.
People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Nuñez y Dubduban, G.R. No. 128875, July 8, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Efren Jabien, G.R. Nos. 133068-69, May 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Lima, G.R. No. 128289, April 23, 2002

A plea of guilt is improvidently accepted where no effort is made to explain to the

accused that, in a case involving a capital offense, such plea may result in the

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 164
 imposition of the death penalty.
People of the Phil. vs. Roman Derilo, et al., G.R. No. 117818, April 18, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bello, G.R. Nos. 130411-14, October 13, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Galvez, G.R. No. 135053, March 6, 2002

Recently, in People vs. Bernas, the Court set aside a death sentence and remanded
the case to the trial court, because the Aranzado guidelines on how to conduct a
"searching inquiry" had not been followed.
People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Bernas, G.R. Nos. 133583-85, February 20, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Galvez, G.R. No. 135053, March 6, 2002

Art. 13 (7) - Mitigating Circumstance: Voluntary Surrender

Elements
Requisites
Intent and conduct of accused
Person in authority or his agents
Flight
Immediate surrender not necessary

Elements

Article 13 (7) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an accused is entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilty if "he had voluntarily
confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence by the
prosecution." The following requisites must concur: (1) the accused spontaneously
confessed his guilt; (2) the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before
a competent court trying the case; and (3) the confession of guilt was made prior to
the presentation of evidence by the prosecution.
People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Juan, G.R. No. 152289, January 14, 2004

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 165
 Requisites

In order that the mitigating circumstance may be appreciated, the defense must
clearly satisfy three requisites: (a) the offender has not been actually arrested; (b) the
offender surrenders himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and (c) the
surrender is voluntary.
People of the Phil. vs. Eulogio Ignacio, G.R. No. 134568, February 10, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Dario Cabanas Cual, et al., G.R. No. 131925, March 9, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Teofisto Cotas, G.R. No. 132043, May 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Cardel, et al., G.R. No. 105582, July 19, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Dichoso, et al., G.R. No. 131822, July 27, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Vital, G.R. No. 130785, September 29, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Caber, Sr., G.R. No. 129252, November 28, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. John Panela, G.R. No. 124475, November 29, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Bayotas, G.R. No. 136818, December 19, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Alo, et al., G.R. No. 125533, December 27, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Marcos, G.R. No. 132392, January 18, 2001

Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Toradio Silvano, G.R. No. 125923, January 31, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Hernani Dichoson, G.R. No. 118986-89, February 19, 2001

Exuperancio Canta vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 140937, February 28, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, March 7, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Quinicio, G.R. No. 142430, September 13, 2001

People of the Philippines vs. Marlon Gadia, G.R. No. 132384, September 21, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Noel Feliciano, G.R. Nos. 127759-60, September 25, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 166
 People of the Philippines vs. Sherjohn Arondain, et al., G.R. Nos. 131864-65,
September 27, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Dennis Mazo, G.R. No. 136869, October 17, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Elger Guzman, G.R. No. 132750, December 14, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul and Elmer Avenue, G.R. No. 124809, December
19, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo R. Ancheta, G.R. No. 138306-07, December 21, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Armando Quening, G.R. No. 132167, January 8, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Job Cortezano, G.R. No. 140732, January 29, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Emelito Sitchon, G.R. No. 134362, February 27, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Joey Manlansing, et al., G.R. No. 131736-37, March 11, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Gutierrez, et al., G.R. No. 142905, March 18, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Angelo Zeta, G.R. No. 140901, May 9, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Alex Rivera, et al., G.R. No. 125895, July 4, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Bonnie R. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, August 22, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Michael Tadeo, G.R. No. 127660, September 17, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Raelito Librando, G.R. No. 132251, July 6, 2000

People of the Philippines vs. Edgar Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, September 17, 2002

Josue R. Ladiana vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 144293, December 4, 2002

Joel Luces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149492, January 20, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Lastide A. Sube, et al., G.R. No. 146034, February 11, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel I. Annibong, G.R. No. 139879, May 8, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Tinampay, G.R. No. 146271, May 29, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Sergio A. Caratao, G.R. No. 126281, June 10, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Rufino I. Mallari, G.R. No. 145993, June 17, 2003

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 167
 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Hugo, et al., G.R. No. 134604, August 28, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Raul Oco, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003

People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 140513, November 18, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Roger Ospig, G.R. No. 141766, November 18, 2003

A fourth requisite was added by the following cases, thus: (4) there is no pending
warrant of arrest or information filed.
People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Sion, et al., G.R. No. 109617, August 11, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Aquino, G.R. No. 128887, January 20, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ampie C. Taraya, et al., G.R. No. 135551, October 27, 2000

Joel Luces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149492, January 20, 2003

But in the case of Rivera vs. CA, voluntary surrender was considered in favor of
accused even if he surrendered after the order of arrest was issued.

The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was properly appreciated in

favor of petitioner. The records show that when the Information was filed after the
preliminary investigation, he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
trial court and posted his bail bond before he could be arrested.

In People v. Yeda (68 Phil. 740 [1939]) and People v. Turalba (G.R. No. L-29118,
February 28, 1974), it was held that when after the commission of the crime and the
issuance of the warrant of arrest, the accused presented himself in the municipal
building to post the bond for his temporary release, voluntary surrender is mitigating.
The fact that the order of arrest had already been issued is no bar to the consideration
of the circumstances because the law does not require that the surrender be prior to the
order of arrest.
Benjamin Rivera vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125867, May 31, 2000

The fact that the warrants had already been issued is no bar to the consideration of
this mitigating circumstance, because the law does not require that the surrender be
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 168
 prior to the order of arrest.
People of the Phil. vs. Teodulo Yecla, G.R. No. 46612, October 14, 1939, 68 Phil. 740

People of the Phil. vs. Carmelo Valera, G.R. No. L-15662, August 30, 1962

People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Macandog, et al., G.R. No. 129534, June 6, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Herson Florague, et al., G.R. No. 134779, July 6, 2001

In this case, it was appellant's commanding officer who surrendered him to the
custody of the court. Being restrained by one's superiors to stay within the camp
without submitting to the investigating authorities concerned is not tantamount to
voluntary surrender as contemplated by law. The trial court is correct in not
appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in appellant's favor.
People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Acuram, G.R. No. 117954, April 27, 2000

There can be no voluntary surrender if the warrant of arrest showed that the
defendant was in fact arrested.
El Pueblo De Filipinas vs. Martin Conwi, G.R. No. 47557, Abril 22, 1941, 71 Phil. 595

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Baybado, G.R. No. 132136, July 14, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Tinampay, G.R. No. 146271, May 29, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Roger Ospig, G.R. No. 141766, November 18, 2003

In order that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender may be credited to

the accused, the following requisites should be present: (a) the offender has not
actually been arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority;
and (c) the surrender must be voluntary. A surrender, to be voluntary, must be
spontaneous, i.e., there must be an intent to submit oneself to authorities, either
because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and
expenses in capturing him.
People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Tabarnero, et al., G.R. No. 168169, February 24, 2010

Intent and conduct of accused

The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to
submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledges his
guilt or he wants to save the State the trouble of having to effect his arrest. (For
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 169
 voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the same must be spontaneous in such a manner
that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities,
either because he acknowledged his guilt or because he wishes to save them the
trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture.)
People of the Phil. vs. Sakam, et al., G.R. No. 41566, December 7, 1934, 61 Phil. 27

People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Noble, G.R. No. L-288, August 29, 1946, 77 Phil. 104

Job Quial vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-63564, Nov. 28, 1983, 211 Phil. 220

People of the Phil. vs. Clemente S. Radomes, G.R. No. L-68421, March 20, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Carlo M. Lagrana, et al., G.R. No. L-68790, January 23, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Lingatong, G.R. No. 34019, January 29, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Salustiano Tismo, G.R. No. 44773, December 4, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Ruben A. Lee, G.R. No. 66848, December 20, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Devaras, et al., G.R. No. 48009, February 3, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio C. Deopante, G.R. No. 102772, October 30, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Sambulan, et al., G.R. No. 112972, April 24, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Umadhay, et al., G.R. No. 119544, August 3, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Ramos, G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Hilario Rebamontan, G.R. No. 125318, April 13, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Stephen Santillana, G.R. No. 127815, June 9, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Loredo Real, G.R. No. 121930, June 14, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Eulogio Ignacio, G.R. No. 134568, February 10, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Elmer D. Salas, G.R. No. 115192, March 7, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Efren Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, March 9, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Heracleo Manriquez, et al., G.R. Nos. 122510-11, March 17,
2000

People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Acuram, G.R. No. 117954, April 27, 2000

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 170
 People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Dichoso, et al., G.R. No. 131822, July 27, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Abella, et al., G.R. No. 127803, August 28, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Vital, G.R. No. 130785, September 29, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Alo, et al., G.R. No. 125533, December 27, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Marcos, G.R. No. 132392, January 18, 2001

Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, March 7, 2001

Dela Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139150, July 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001

People of the Philippines vs. Sherjohn Arondain, et al., G.R. Nos. 131864-65,
September 27, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Dennis Mazo, G.R. No. 136869, October 17, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Eladio Viernes, G.R. Nos. 136733-35, December 13, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Elger Guzman, G.R. No. 132750, December 14, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul, et al., G.R. No. 124809, December 19, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Job Cortezano, G.R. No. 140732, January 29, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Emelito Sitchon, G.R. No. 134362, February 27, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Editho Suyum, et al., G.R. No. 137518, March 6, 2002

People of the Phils. vs. Ruben Logalada Boquila, G.R. No. 136145, March 8, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Gutierrez, et al., G.R. No. 142905, March 18, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Angelo Zeta, G.R. No. 140901, May 9, 2002

Oscar M. Poso vs. Judge Jose H. Mijares, et al., A.M. RTJ-02-1693, August 21, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Bonnie R. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, August 22, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Mario Verceles, et al., G.R. No. 130650, September 10, 2002

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 171
 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, September 27, 2002

Josue R. Ladiana vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 144293, December 4, 2002

Joel Luces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149492, January 20, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Clarence Astudillo, et al., G.R. No. 141518, April 29, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Tinampay, G.R. No. 146271, May 29, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Rufino I. Mallari, G.R. No. 145993, June 17, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 140513, November 18, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Roger Ospig, G.R. No. 141766, November 18, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Alex L. Flores, G.R. Nos. 143435-36, November 28, 2003

If none of these two reasons impelled the accused to surrender, because his
surrender was obviously motivated more by an intention to insure his safety, his arrest
being inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous.
People of the Phil. vs. Laurel, C.A. 59 O.G. 7618

People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Basite, G.R. No. 150382, October 2, 2003

The word "spontaneous" emphasizes the idea of an inner impulse, acting without
external stimulus. The conduct of the accused, not his intention alone, after the
commission of the offense, determines the spontaneity of the surrender.
People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Arande Colina Adlawan, G.R. No. 131839, January 30, 2002

The fact alone that accused did not resist but went peacefully with the police
officers does not mean that he voluntarily surrendered.
People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Siojo, G.R. No. 41746, March 27, 1935, 61 Phil. 307

People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio C. Deopante, G.R. No. 102772, October 30, 1996

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 172
 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Bonnie R. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, August 22, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, September 17, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Castillano, et al., G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003

The fact that the accused did not escape or go into hiding after the commission of
the murder and in fact accompanied the chief of police to the scene of the crime,
without however surrendering to him and admitting complicity in the killing, did not
amount to voluntary surrender to the authorities, and this circumstance would not be
extenuating in that case.
People of the Phil. vs. Felicisimo Canoy, et al., G.R. No. L-4224, December 28, 1951,
90 Phil. 633

People of the Phil. vs. Teotimo Rubinial, G.R. No. L-12275, November 29, 1960, 110
Phil. 119

People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001

Accused must actually surrender his own person to the authorities, admitting to
complicity in the crime. His conduct after the commission of the crime must indicate a
desire on his part to own responsibility for the crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001

Voluntary surrender presupposes repentance. This circumstance was not present in

the instant case as accused-appellant denied any participation and knowledge of the
crime when he was in the custody of the police authorities. Hence, the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated.
People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Job Cortezano, G.R. No. 140732, January 29, 2002

Joel Luces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149492, January 20, 2003

Although accused admitted that he surrendered because of fear of reprisal, this fact
should not be taken against him for this circumstance does not detract from the
spontaneity of the surrender, nor does it alter the fact that, by giving himself up, he
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 173
 has saved the State the time and trouble of searching for him until arrested.
People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Clemente, et al., G.R. No. L-23463, September 28, 1967

People of the Phil. vs. Jerito Amazan, et al., G.R. Nos. 136251, 138606 and 138607,
January 16, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Elger Guzman, G.R. No. 132750, December 14, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Elbert Callet, G.R. No. 135701, May 9, 2002

In the case at bar, the appellant's alleged surrender to the barangay chairman was
not voluntary. On the contrary, it was solely motivated by self-preservation from what
he feared was an imminent retaliation from the immediate relatives of the victim.
Consequently, the same cannot be appreciated in his favor.
People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 140513, November 18, 2003

It is indispensable that the accused must in fact surrender to the custody of a person
in authority or of his agent.
People of the Phil. vs. Hernani Dichoson, G.R. No. 118986-89, February 19, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso Palo, et al., G.R. Nos. L-9593-94, July 31, 1957, 101
Phil. 963

Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated where the evidence adduced shows that
it was the authorities who came looking for the accused.
People of the Phil. vs. Irving D. Flores, G.R. Nos. 103801-02, October 19, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Sumalpong, et al., G.R. No. 124705, January 20, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Dichoso, et al., G.R. No. 131822, July 27, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, September 17, 2002

Though they did not give a statement regarding the stabbing incident, the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should nonetheless be considered in
their favor. What matters is that they spontaneously, voluntarily and unconditionally
placed themselves at the disposal of the authorities. This act of respect for the law
indicates a moral disposition favorable to their reform.
People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Gelaver, G.R. No. 95357, June 9, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 174
 311 Phil. 637

People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio De Gracia et al., G.R. No. 112984, November 14,
1996, 332 Phil. 226

People of the Phil. vs. Clarence Astudillo, et al., G.R. No. 141518, April 29, 2003

When the accused goes to a police station merely to clear his name and not to give
himself up, voluntary surrender may not be appreciated.
People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Evangelista, G.R. Nos. 84332-33, May 8, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Joel Pinca, G.R. No. 129256, November 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Abella, et al., G.R. No. 127803, August 28, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Eladio Viernes, G.R. Nos. 136733-35, December 13, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Mario Verceles, et al., G.R. No. 130650, September 10, 2002

Joel Luces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149492, January 20, 2003

Voluntary surrender is not a mitigating circumstance where it appears that the

purpose of the accused in going to the authorities is for an entirely different matter as
to inquire merely about a warrant of arrest in connection with a pending case against
the accused for rape.
People of the Phil. vs. Cipriano De Vera, G.R. Nos. 121462-63, June 9, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Mario Verceles, et al., G.R. No. 130650, September 10, 2002

The accused who had gone to the police headquarters merely to report the shooting
incident did not evince any desire to admit responsibility for the killing. Thus, he
could not be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered.
People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Rogales, G.R. No. L-17531, November 30, 1962

People of the Phil. vs. Ramy Valles, G.R. No. 110564, January 28, 1987

Josue R. Ladiana vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 144293, December 4, 2002

Appellant's surrender was not voluntary. Rather, he was forced to give himself up,
because members of the barangay tanod were already inside his house, thereby
precluding his escape.
People of the Phil. vs. Eulogio Ignacio, G.R. No. 134568, February 10, 2000

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 175
 Voluntary surrender cannot be considered in favor of accused when his alleged
surrender was made too late, and in a place too distant from the crime site as well as
his place of residence.
People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Costales, G.R. Nos. 141154, January 15, 2002

Person in authority or his agents

Although a barangay tanod is not a person in authority but only an agent of a

person in authority, (People of the Phil. vs. Edmundo De Guzman, G.R. No. L-73464,
August 9, 1988; People of the Phil. vs. Anastacio Caricungan, et al., G.R. No. 71461,
September 30, 1991) nevertheless, a tanod could be treated as an intermediary to
accused-appellant's surrender so as to justify appreciating this mitigating circumstance
in favor of accused-appellant.
People of the Phil. vs. Teofisto Cotas, G.R. No. 132043, May 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Caber, Sr., G.R. No. 129252, November 28, 2000

Purok president also considered an intermediary.

People of the Phil. vs. John Panela, G.R. No. 124475, November 29, 2000

Mayor (person in authority).

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000

Governor (person in authority).

People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel I. Annibong, G.R. No. 139879, May 8, 2003

Kagawad is a person in authority under RA No. 7160 (Local Government Code).

People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio Q. Vicente, G.R. No. 137296, June 26, 2003

Flight

Voluntary surrender does not simply mean non-flight. As a matter of law, it does
not matter if the accused never avoided arrest and never hid or fled.
Job Quial vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-63564, Nov. 28, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Dichoso, et al., G.R. No. 131822, July 27, 2000

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 176
 People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001

Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated in appellant's favor. Appellant fled

immediately after the killing. It took him more than a month-and-a-half to surrender
himself to the authorities. It cannot be said that such surrender, in view of his fleeing
and hiding, was "spontaneous," "showing either acknowledgment of his guilt or an
intention to save the authorities the trouble and expense that his search and capture
would require."
People of the Phil. vs. Stephen Santillana, G.R. No. 127815, June 9, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001

Voluntary surrender and non-flight do not conclusively prove innocence.

Ricardo Bacabac vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149372, September 11, 2007

Immediate surrender not necessary

For voluntary surrender to mitigate an offense, it is not required that the accused
surrender at the first opportunity. For as long the aforementioned requisites are met,
voluntary surrender can be appreciated.
People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul and Elmer Avenue, G.R. No. 124809, December
19, 2001

It is of no moment that appellant Antonio did not immediately surrender to

authorities, but did so only after the lapse of about six (6) hours. In the case of People
of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996, the voluntary
surrender of the accused to a police authority four (4) days after the commission of the
crime was considered attenuating. There is no dispute that appellant Antonio
voluntarily surrendered to the mayor, a person in authority, before he was arrested,
hence the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be considered in
appellant Antonio's favor.
People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Medina, G.R. No. 113691, February 6, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Amamangpang, G.R. No. 108491, July 2, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Elger Guzman, G.R. No. 132750, December 14, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 177
 Surrender day after incident occurred considered.
People of the Phil. vs Rolito Cabical, G.R. No. 148519, May 29, 2003

Surrender after lapse of two (2) days considered.

People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel I. Annibong, G.R. No. 139879, May 8, 2003

Surrender nine (9) months after issuance of warrant of arrest not considered.
People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Mabuyo, G.R. No. L-29129, May 8, 1975

Surrender three (3) years after issuance of warrant of arrest not considered.
People of the Phil. vs. Arande Colina Adlawan, G.R. No. 131839, January 30, 2002

Art. 13 (9) - Mitigating Circumstance: Illness

In general
Psychological Paralysis
Schizophrenia
Insomia

In general

For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be appreciated, the law
requires the presence of the following requisites: (1) illness must diminish the exercise
of the will-power of the offender; and (2) such illness should not deprive the offender
of consciousness of his acts.
People of the Phil. vs. Celestino Bonoan y Cruz, G.R. No. 45130, February 17, 1937, 64
Phil. 95

El Pueblo De Filipinas Contra Francisco Balneg, G.R. No. L-1085, Enero 9, 1948, 79
Phil. 805

People of the Phil. vs. Rucila B. Amit, G.R. No. L-2060, February 15, 1949, 82 Phil. 820

People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin R. Retania, G.R. No. L-34841, January 22, 1980

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 178
 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Basin Javier, G.R. No. 130654, July 28, 1999

Psychological Paralysis

The severe beatings repeatedly inflicted on appellant constituted a form of

cumulative provocation that broke down her psychological resistance and self-control.
This "psychological paralysis" she suffered diminished her will power, thereby
entitling her to the mitigating factor under paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 13 of the
Revised Penal Code.
People of the Phil. vs. Marivic Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004

Schizophrenia

Schizophrenic reaction, although not exempting 'because it does not completely

deprive the offender of the consciousness of his acts, may be considered as a
mitigating circumstance under Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., as an
illness which diminishes the exercise of the offender's will-power without, however,
depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto F. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Policarpio Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Bañez, G.R. No. 125849, January 20, 1999

The evidence of accused-appellant shows that while there was some impairment of
his mental faculties, since he was shown to suffer from the chronic mental disease
called schizo-affective disorder or psychosis, such impairment was not so complete as
to deprive him of his intelligence or the consciousness of his acts. The
schizo-affective disorder or psychosis of accused-appellant may be classified as an
illness which diminishes the exercise of his will-power but without depriving him of
the consciousness of his acts. He may thus be credited with this mitigating
circumstance but will not exempt him from his criminal liability.
People of the Phil. vs. Wilson Antonio, Jr., G.R. No. 144266, November 27, 2002

Insomnia

In this appeal, accused-appellant alleged that prior to the incident, he had been
suffering from insomnia for around a month, thus leading him to commit an act
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 179
 beyond his control, the killing of his wife. The defense went on to cite medical
literature on the effects of total and partial sleep loss to support his contentions.

For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be appreciated, the law
requires the presence of the following requisites: (1) illness must diminish the exercise
of the will-power of the offender; and (2) such illness should not deprive the offender
of consciousness of his acts.

Since accused-appellant has already admitted to the killing, it is incumbent upon

him to prove the claimed mitigating circumstance of illness. In this case, however,
aside from the testimony of the accused that his mind went blank when he killed his
wife due to loss of sleep, no medical finding was presented regarding his mental
condition at the time of killing. This Court can hardly rely on the bare allegations of
accused-appellant, nor on mere presumptions and conjectures. No clear and
convincing evidence was shown that accused-appellant was suffering an illness which
diminished his exercise of will-power at the time of the killing.
People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Basin Javier, G.R. No. 130654, July 28, 1999

Art. 13 (10)- Mitigating Circumstances: Analogous Mitigating Circumstances

Passion or Obfuscation
Membership in a Cultural Minority
Vindication of a Grave Offense
Plea of Guilty
Voluntary Surrender
Over 70 Years of Age
Illness
Schizophrenia
Retarded or impaired mental faculties

Passion or Obfuscation

Accused was given the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and one
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 180
 analogous to passion and obfuscation because Chua previously threatened Ong for
non-payment of debt arising from gambling, causing Ong humiliation and shame.
People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin K. Ong, G.R. No. L-37908, October 23, 1981

An outraged feeling, believing the deceased to be a rebel

People of the Phil. vs. Franklin Quintos, G.R. No. 51107, June 4, 1990

An impulse of invidious or resentful feelings contemplates a situation akin to

passion and obfuscation. This circumstance is mitigating since, like passion and
obfuscation, the accused who acts with these feelings suffers a diminution of his
intelligence and intent, a reduction in his mental and rational faculties.
People of the Phil. vs. Nestor G. Soriano, G.R. No. 142565, July 29, 2003

In this case it was established that petitioner and his wife had a violent altercation
and that petitioner was mauled by his neighbors after he kicked some of them for
laughing at him. These events and circumstances prior to the killing of Alfredo
Gonzales could have caused unusual outbursts of passion and emotion on petitioner's
part. These resulted in the tragic stabbing of the victim thus entitling petitioner to the
mitigating circumstance analogous to passion and obfuscation.
Miguel Danofrata vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 143010, September 30, 2003

Membership in a Cultural Minority

Mere membership in a cultural minority is not expressly mentioned by the Revised

Penal Code among the mitigating circumstances, nor would it come under paragraph
10, Art. 13 of said Code, which speaks of "any other circumstances of a similar nature
and analogous to those above mentioned."
People of the Phil. vs. Saglala Macatanda, G.R. No. L-51368, November 6, 1981

Vindication of a Grave Offense

The appellant, however, is entitled to the mitigating circumstance analogous to, if

not the same as, vindication of a grave offense committed by the deceased when the
latter took away the carabao of the appellant and held it for ransom, and thereafter,
failed to fulfill his promise to pay its value after the carabao had died.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 181
 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Monaga, et al., G.R. No. L-39528, November 19, 1982

We thus appreciate the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense

under Art. 13, par. 5, of the Revised Penal Code, 17 or as a circumstance similar in
nature or analogous to it, pursuant to Art. 13, Art. 10, of the same code. The
circumstance that Felix, Arthur's father, was boxed by Marbel was serious enough to
perturb Arthur's mind and diminish the voluntariness of his action.
People of the Phil. vs. Arthur Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 130608, August 26, 1999

Plea of Guilty

Accused-appellant further contends that the lower court erred in not considering
repentance and remorse as a similar or analogous mitigating circumstance. We find no
merit in this contention. As correctly observed by the Solicitor-General repentance is
already one of the overriding considerations in appreciating the voluntary plea of guilt
as a mitigating circumstance. Thus in People v. De la Cruz (63 Phil. 874) we held that
a confession of guilt constitutes a cause for the mitigation of the penalty because it is
an act of repentance and respect for the law. It indicates a moral disposition in the
accused favorable to his reform.
People of the Phil. vs. Nonceto Gravino, G.R. Nos. L-31327-29, May 16, 1983

The late plea of guilty entered by herein appellant cannot be considered mitigating
because the plea made is not "of a similar nature and analogous" to the plea of guilty
contemplated in paragraph 7 of Article 13. A plea of guilty is considered mitigating on
the rationale that an accused spontaneously and willingly admits his guilt at the first
opportunity as an act of repentance. An accused should not be allowed to speculate on
the outcome of the proceedings by pleading not guilty on arraignment, only to later
substitute the same with a plea of guilty after discovering that the People has a strong
case against him.
People of the Phil. vs. Roman Derilo, et al., G.R. No. 117818, April 18, 1997

Voluntary Surrender

In malversation of public funds, payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of

funds misappropriated, after the commission of the crime, does not extinguish the
criminal liability of the offender which, at most, can merely affect the accused's civil
liability thereunder and be considered a mitigating circumstance being analogous to
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 182
 voluntary surrender.
El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Santiago S. Velasquez, 72 Phil. 98

Luciano N. Kimpo vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 95604, April 29, 1994

When it took the petitioner several years before he returned the government
property, such circumstance cannot be considered a special mitigating circumstance
analogous to voluntary surrender, as the trial court did credit to the petitioner. Said
government property appear to be under the control and possession of petitioner all
the time. There was no reason why he could not return the same promptly if not
soonest to the government. The much delayed return of the property must be a
desperate act and afterthought of petitioner when he realized that all possible hope of
exoneration was lost during the trial.
Emiliano Cimafranca, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 94408, February 14, 1991

In petitioner's case, he voluntarily took the cow to the municipal hall of Padre
Burgos to place it unconditionally in the custody of the authorities and thus saved
them the trouble of having to recover the cow from him. This circumstance can be
considered analogous to voluntary surrender and should be considered in favor of
petitioner.
Exuperancio Canta vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 140937, February 28, 2001

Over 70 Years of Age

The analogous circumstance of age of over 70 years cannot be considered

mitigating because accused-appellant was only 59 years old at the time of the
commission of the offense.
People of the Phil. vs. Walter Nacional, G.R. Nos. 111294-95, September 7, 1995

Illness

The injury sustained by accused-appellant after he was allegedly struck by a stool

on the head will not entitle him to a mitigating circumstance. The alleged injury hardly
qualifies as mitigating circumstance analogous to illness or defect that would diminish
the exercise of will-power.
People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Antonio, G.R. No. 144933, July 3, 2002

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 183
 Schizophrenia

In People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto F. Puno, (G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981), the
Court ruled that schizophrenic reaction, although not exempting because it does not
completely deprive the offender of the consciousness of his acts, may be considered as
a mitigating circumstance under Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., as an
illness which diminishes the exercise of the offender's will-power without, however,
depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
People of the Phil. vs. Policarpio Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991

Retarded or impaired mental faculties

At the same time, we believe, however, that the medical evidence of record does
show that appellant's mental faculties were to some extent retarded or impaired in
their development, which impairment or retardation reflects a diminished level of
responsibility for his criminal acts. (Article 13 (9) of the Revised Penal Code) We
think that the mitigating circumstance contemplated in Article 13 (9) of the Revised
Penal Code was present in the case at bar.
People of the Phil. vs. Laroy T. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 93752, July 15, 1992

Art. 14 – Aggravating Circumstances: In general

Qualifying and aggravating circumstances, which are taken into consideration for
the purpose of increasing the degree of penalty to be imposed, must be proved with
equal certainty as the commission of the act charged and cannot be considered as
being integrated with the plea of guilty.
People of the Phil. vs. Jose P. Tampus, G.R. No. L-44690, March 28, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Roman Derilo, et al., G.R. No. 117818, April 18, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Latupan, G.R. Nos. 112453-56, June 28, 2001

Oscar M. Poso vs. Judge Jose H. Mijares, et al., A.M. RTJ-02-1693, August 21, 2002

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 184
 Art. 14 (1) - Aggravating Circumstance: Advantage Due to Public Position

In general
Allegation in the information
Absorbed in treachery
Police officer
Barangay captain
Mayor
Member of the AFP/Soldier

In general

For public position to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, the public

official must use his influence, prestige and ascendancy which his office gives him in
realizing his purpose. If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without
occupying his position, then there is no abuse of public position.
United States vs. Manuel Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-6343, March 11, 1911, 19 Phil 23

Manuel Montilla, et al. vs. Zoilo Hilario, et al., G.R. No. L-4922, September 24, 1951, 90
Phil 49

People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Sales, G.R. No. L-29340, April 27, 1972, 97 Phil 995

People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Felix Padilla, G.R. No. 75508, June 10, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Pacifico Sumaoy, G.R. No. 105961, October 22, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo K. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bangcado, et al., G.R. No. 132330, November 28, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Amion, G.R. No. 140511, March 1, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Renato F. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08, January 15, 2002

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 185
 The essence of the matter is presented in the inquiry "Did the accused abuse his
office to commit the crime?"
United States vs. Manuel Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 6344, March 21, 1911, 19 Phil 150

People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Magayac, G.R. No. 126043, April 19, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Renato F. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08, January 15, 2002

It could not be said that the accused purposely used or took advantage of his
position or rank in killing the victim because he could have committed the crime just
the same by using another weapon not necessarily his service firearm.
People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Sales, G.R. No. L-29340, April 27, 1972, 97 Phil 995

People of the Phil. vs. CIC Loreto Gapasin, et al., G.R. No. 73489, April 25, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Felix Padilla, G.R. No. 75508, June 10, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo K. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Amion, G.R. No. 140511, March 1, 2001

In Manuel Montilla, et al. vs. Zoilo Hilario, et al., G.R. No. L-4922, September 24,
1951, 90 Phil 49, we held: The fact that, as alleged, the accused public officers made
use of firearms which they were authorized to carry or possess by reason of their
positions, could not supply the required connection between the office and the crime
charged (murder). Firearms however and wherever obtained are not an ingredient of
murder or homicide.

In the murder by a public officer, it was ruled that firearms, however and whenever
obtained, are not an ingredient of murder or homicide. The crime could have been
committed by defendants in the same or like manner and with the same ease if they
had been private individuals and fired with unlicensed weapons. In the case at bar,
although the victim was killed with appellant's armalite rifle which was issued to him,
there was nothing to show that appellant took advantage of his position. In the
absence of proof that advantage was taken by appellant, the aggravating circumstance
of abuse of position could not be properly appreciated against him.
People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo K. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Amion, G.R. No. 140511, March 1, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 186
 Allegation in the information

People of the Phil. vs. Demosthenes L. Magallanes (G.R. No. 118013-14, October
11, 1995) - The allegation of "aking advantage of his position" or "taking advantage
of their respective positions" incorporated in the informations is not sufficient to bring
the offenses within the definition of "offenses committed in relation to public office."
In Manuel Montilla, et al. vs. Zoilo Hilario, et al., G.R. No. L-4922, September 24,
1951, 90 Phil 49, such an allegation was considered merely as an allegation of an
aggravating circumstance, and not as one that qualifies the crime as having been
committed in relation to public office. It says: But the use or abuse of office does not
adhere to the crime as an element; and even as an aggravating circumstance, its
materiality arises, not from the allegations but on the proof, not from the fact that the
criminals are public officials but from the manner of the commission of the crime.
Also, in Rolando P. Bartolome vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-64548, July
7, 1986, despite the allegation that the accused public officers committed the crime of
falsification of official document by "taking advantage of their official positions," this
Court held that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case because "[t]he
information [did] not allege that there was an intimate connection between the
discharge of official duties and the commission of the offense. Accordingly, for lack
of an allegation in the informations that the offenses were committed in relation to the
office of the accused PNP officers or were intimately connected with the discharge of
the functions of the accused, the subject cases come within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court and not of the Sandiganbayan as insisted by the petitioner.

No evidence was adduced to show that the killing was in any way facilitated by the
accused-appellant's public position. It was not even shown whether the
accused-appellant wore his uniform or used his service firearm when he committed
the crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Loreto Gapasin, et al., G.R. No. 73489, April 25, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Felix Padilla, G.R. No. 75508, June 10, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Pacifico Sumaoy, G.R. No. 105961, October 22, 1996

Must be alleged in the information.

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 187
 Absorbed in treachery
People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo C. Pascual, G.R. No. 42769, December 5, 1991

Police officer

Policemen who purposely used their being such to gain ready entrance into the
residence of the victims.
People of the Phil. vs. Saturnino Mendoza, et al., G.R. No. L-33127, July 15, 1981

Circumstance was not taken against policeman who acted instinctively to aid his
brother who was assaulted and who did not purposely rely on his being a policeman to
commit the act.
People of the Phil. vs. Mario Capalac, G.R. No. L-38297, October 23, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Libardo, G.R. No. L-33638, February 20, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Malazzab, G.R. No. L-39136, April 15, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Reynato Asuncion, et al., G.R. No. 83870, November 14, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Pinto, Jr., G.R. No. 39519, November 21, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Pacifico Sumaoy, G.R. No. 105961, October 22, 1996

The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of one's public position,

however, is present since the gun used by accused-appellant was the service revolver
issued to him.
People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Gutierrez, G.R. No. 116281, February 8, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Noroña and Freddie Noroña, G.R. No. 132192, March
31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Renato F. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08, January 15, 2002

A policeman committed the crime with the aid of a gun which he had been
authorized to carry as a peace officer. Instead of upholding the law, the appellant
broke the law: instead of using his service firearm for good, he used it for evil.
Clearly, his crime is graver and his responsibility greater.
People of the Phil. vs. Angel A. Reyes, G.R. No. L-33154, February 27, 1976

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 188
 People of the Phil. vs. Arcito Magdaraog, G.R. No. L-40988, April 15, 1988

The policeman who, taking advantage of his public position, maltreats a private
citizen, merits no judicial leniency. The methods sanctioned by medieval practice are
surely not appropriate for an enlightened democratic civilization. While the law
protects the police officer in the proper discharge of his duties, it must at the same
time just as effectively protect the individual from the abuse of the police.
United States vs. Joaquin Pabalan et al., G.R. No. L-13020, December 20, 1917, 37
Phil. 352

People of the Phil. vs. Arcito Magdaraog, G.R. No. L-40988, April 15, 1988

The mere fact that the three (3) accused were all police officers at the time of the
robbery placed them in a position to perpetrate the offense. If they were not police
officers they could not have terrified the Montecillos into boarding the mobile patrol
car and forced them to hand over their money. Precisely it was on account of their
authority that the Montecillos believed that Mario had in fact committed a crime and
would be brought to the police station for investigation unless they gave them what
they demanded.
Ricardo Fortuna vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 135784, December 15, 2000

The mere fact that accused-appellant is a policeman and used his government
issued .38 caliber revolver to kill Ganan is not sufficient to establish that he misused
his public position in the commission of the crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001

Barangay Captain

Ferrera was ostensibly illicitly asserting his authority as barangay captain

concurrently CHDF head and were it not for the abused power of the latter, the victim
would not have meekly obeyed the command for him to go down from the "motorela"
and to enter the camp with Ferrera, et al.
People of the Phil. vs. Arsenio B. Ferrera, G.R. No. L-66965, June 18, 1987

It is a settled doctrine that mere failure of official duty, such as the failure of
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 189
 accused Ferrera to maintain law and order in his barangay, suffices to aggravate
criminal liability under paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
People of the Phil. vs. Arsenio B. Ferrera, G.R. No. L-66965, June 18, 1987

Mayor

Mayor found guilty of rape with aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of

his public position.
People of the Phil. vs. Robert Poculan, G.R. Nos. 70565-67, November 9, 1988

Mayor who gave instructions to his policemen and henchmen to kill victim.
People of the Phil. vs. Saturnino Mendoza, et al., G.R. No. L-33127, July 15, 1981

Member of the AFP/Soldier

Appellant undoubtedly took advantage of his public position as a soldier, when he

maltreated and killed a civilian victim of mauling, whom he was supposed to protect
in the performance of his duties.
People of the Phil. vs. Esperidion Alegarbes, Jr., G.R. No. L-49761, September 21,
1987

At the time of the incident, the accused was an army draftee and was in full army
fatigue uniform. It was on account of his being an army man that he arrested the
victim on the pretext that the latter was a rebel and brought him to the ranch where the
victim was mauled to death.
People of the Phil. vs. Franklin Quintos, G.R. No. 51107, June 4, 1990

Where the accused was a sergeant of the Philippine Army, the Court held that the
mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and had an army rifle at the time is not
sufficient to establish that he misused his public position.
People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968

Appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary, committed the crime with an

armalite which was issued to him when he received the mission order –
People of the Phil. vs. Paciano Madrid, G.R. No. L-3023, January 3, 1951, 88 Phil 1

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 190
 People of the Phil. vs. CIC Loreto Gapasin, et al., G.R. No. 73489, April 25, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo K. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Gutierrez, G.R. No. 132878, September 29, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo I. Acaya, G.R. No. 108381, March 7, 2000

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.
People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Magayac, G.R. No. 126043, April 19, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000

Art. 14 (2) - Aggravating Circumstance: Contempt of or insult to public

authorities

Requisites
Teacher, not a person in authority

Requisites

The requisites of this circumstance are: (1) the public authority is engaged in the
discharge of his duties and (2) he is not the person against whom the crime is
committed.
People of the Phil. vs. Olimpio Rizal, G.R. Nos. L-43487-89, February 26, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Hernando De Mesa, et al., G.R. No. 137036, March 14, 2001

In order that the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime with insult to

public authority be appreciated, it must not only be shown that the crime was
committed in the presence of the public authority but also that the crime was not
committed against the public authority himself.
United States vs. Manuel Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 6344, March 21, 1911, 19 Phil 150

People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Siojo, G.R. No. 41746, March 27, 1935, 61 Phil. 307

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 191
 People of the Phil. vs. Olimpio Rizal, G.R. Nos. L-43487-89, February 26, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Tiongson, G.R. Nos. L-35123-24, July 25, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Hermogenes Magdueño, G.R. No. L-68699, September 22, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Gutierrez, G.R. No. 116281, February 8, 1999

The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were committed in contempt of or

with insult to the public authorities cannot also be appreciated since Pat. Gelera and
PC Constable Canela were the very ones against whom the crime were committed.
Besides, Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela are not persons in authority, but merely
agents of a person in authority.
People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Verzo, et al., G.R. No. L-22517, December 26, 1967

People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Tiongson, G.R. Nos. L-35123-24, July 25, 1984

If the accused herein were charged with the complex crime of murder with assault
against an agent of a person in authority, and not merely murder, then the aggravating
circumstance of disregard of rank or contempt of or insult to public authority cannot
be appreciated as aggravating because either circumstance is inherent in the charge of
assault against a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority.
People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156, November 20, 1981

The aggravating circumstance of contempt of, or insult to public authority under

paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code can likewise be appreciated in
the case at bar. The evidence of the prosecution clearly established that Chief of
Police Primo Panaligan of Indang was present as he was taking his lunch in the same
restaurant when the incident occurred.

While it may be true in the cases of United States vs. Manuel Rodriguez, et al.,
G.R. No. 6344, March 21, 1911, (19 Phil. 150, 157-158), People of the Phil. vs.
Joaquin Siojo, G.R. No. 41746, March 27, 1935, (61 Phil. 307, 317); and People of
the Phil. vs. Getulio Verzo, et al., G.R. No. L-22517, December 26, 1967, this Court
ruled that the term public authority refers to a person in authority and that a PC
lieutenant or town chief of police is not a public authority but merely an agent of a
person in authority; there is need of re-examining such a ruling since it is not justified
by the employment of the term public authority which is specifically used in Articles
148 and 152 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no extended reasoning of the
doctrine enunciated in the aforesaid three (3) cases why the phrase public authority

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 192
 should comprehend only person in authority. The lawmaker could have easily utilized
the term "person in authority" in the aforesaid paragraph 2 of Article 14 in much the
same way that it employed the said phrase in Articles 148 and 152. The lawmaker
must have intended a different meaning for the term public authority, which may
however include, but not limited to persons in authority.

Under the decided cases, a municipal mayor, barrio captain, barrio lieutenant or
barangay captain is a person in authority or a public authority. Even a public school
teacher is now considered a person in authority under CA 578 amending Article 152
of the Revised Penal Code (Sarcepudes vs. People, 90 Phil. 228). So is the town
municipal health officer (People vs. Quebral, et al., 73 Phil. 640), as well as a nurse, a
municipal councilor or an agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (People vs.
Yosoya, CA-G.R. No. 8522-R, May 26, 1955; People vs. Reyes, et al., O.G.S. 11 p.
24)

The chief of police should therefore be considered a public authority or a person in

authority; for he is vested with jurisdiction or authority to maintain peace and order
and is specifically duty bound to prosecute and to apprehend violators of the laws and
municipal ordinances, more than the aforementioned officials who cannot prosecute
and who are not even enjoined to arrest malefactors although specifically mentioned
as persons in authority by the decided cases and by Article 152 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by R.A. 1978 of June 22, 1957. The town chief of police heads and
supervises the entire police force in the municipality as well as exercises his authority
over the entire territory of the municipality, which is patently greater than and
includes the school premises or the town clinic or barrio, to which small area the
authority or jurisdiction of the teacher, nurse, or barrio lieutenant, respectively, is
limited.
People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156, November 20, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Regala, et al., G.R. No. L-23693, April 27, 1982

Teacher, not a person in authority

Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1978 and
Presidential Decree No. 299, provides as follows:

"Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority. —

Who shall be deemed as such. — In applying the provisions of the preceding
and other articles of this Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 193
 whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government
corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A
barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in
authority.

A person who by direct provision of law or by election or by

appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of
public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as a
barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader and any person who
comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person
in authority.

In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code,

teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or
duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the
actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such
performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (As amended by P.D. No.
299, September 19, 1973 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12, 1985)."

Careful reading of the last paragraph of Article 152 will show that while a teacher
or professor of a public or recognized private school is deemed to be a "person in
authority," such teacher or professor is so deemed only for purposes of application of
Articles 148 (direct assault upon a person in authority), and 151 (resistance and
disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person) of the Revised
Penal Code. In marked contrast, the first paragraph of Article 152 does not identify
specific articles of the Revised Penal Code for the application of which any person
"directly vested with jurisdiction, etc." is deemed "a person in authority." Because a
penal statute is not to be given a longer reach and broader scope than is called for by
the ordinary meaning of the ordinary words used by such statute, to the disadvantage
of an accused, we do not believe that a teacher or professor of a public or recognized
private school may be regarded as a "public authority" within the meaning of
paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, the provision the trial court
applied in the case at bar.
People of the Phil. vs. Renato H. Tac-an, G.R. Nos. 76338-39, February 26, 1990

Art. 14 (3) - Aggravating Circumstance: With insult or disregard of rank, age,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 194
 sex

In general
Rank
Sex
Age

In general

It is necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance, other than that the victim
is a woman, (or an old man or one of high rank) showing insult or disregard of sex
(age or rank) in order that it may be considered as aggravating circumstance.
People of the Phil. vs. Valencia, C.A., 43 O.G. 3740

There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime, the accused
deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or age of the offended party.
People of the Phil. vs. Clemente E. Mangsant, G.R. No. 45704, May 25, 1938, 65 Phil.
548

People of the Phil. vs. Jeronico M. Lobino, G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999

Disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex
may be taken in account only in crimes against persons or honor, when in the
commission of the crime there is some insult or disrespect shown to rank, age, or sex.
It is not proper to consider this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property.
Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against persons.
Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and
object of the criminal. It is thus erroneous to take this aggravating circumstance into
account in robbery with homicide.
People of the Phil. vs. Pedro M. Pagal, et al., G.R. No. L-32040, October 25, 1977

People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, October 23, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Ang, et al., G.R. No. L-62833, October 8, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Juan L. Nabaluna, et al., G.R. No. L-60087, July 7, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Pecato, et al., G.R. No. L-41008, June 18, 1987

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 195
 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Collado, et al., G.R. No. 88631, April 30, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Roel Punzalan, et al., G.R. No. 78853, November 8, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence S. Ponciano, G.R. No. 86453, December 5, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Ely Cabiles, et al., G.R. No. 113785, September 14, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Zaldy P. Padilla, G.R. No. 126124, January 20, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. William Montinola, G.R. Nos. 131856-57, July 9, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Morial, et al., G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001

Even if disrespect or disregard of age or sex were not appreciated, the four
circumstances enumerated in Article 14, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, can be considered singly or together. (In this case, dwelling was considered
as an aggravating circumstance.)
People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002

Rank

"The term 'rank' should be given its plain, ordinary meaning, and as such, refers to
a high social position or standing as a grade in the armed forces (Webster's Third New
International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, p. 1881); or to a graded
official standing or social position or station (75 CJS 458); . . . or to a grade or official
standing, relative position in civil or social life, or in any scale of comparison, status,
grade, including its grade, status or scale of comparison within a position (Vol. 36,
Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, p. 100). xxx xxx xxx "As explained by Mr.
Justice Mariano Albert, then of the Court of Appeals, those 'generally considered of
high station in life, on account of their rank (as well as age or sex), deserve to be
respected. Therefore, whenever there is a difference in social condition between the
offender and the offended party, this aggravating circumstance sometimes is present'
(Albert M.A. - The Revised Penal Code Annotated, 1946 Ed., p. 109).
People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156, November 20, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Regala, et al., G.R. No. L-23693, April 27, 1982

The aggravating circumstance of with insult or in disregard due to rank is

appreciated against an accused only when there is proof of fact of disregard and
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 196
 deliberate intent to insult the rank of the victim.
People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Talay, G.R. No. L-24852, November 28, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Peña, G.R. No. 116022, July 1, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Basao, et al., G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, March 7, 2001

Disregard of the rank of the victim who was a barangay captain cannot be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. There is no proof of the specific fact or
circumstance that the defendants disregarded the respect due to the offended party.
People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Talay, G.R. No. L-24852, November 28, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Regino Camilet, G.R. No. 70392, June 30, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Madrid, et al., G.R. No. 129896, November 23, 2000 –
barangay tanod

Thus, disregard of rank aggravated the killing of a staff sergeant by his corporal
(People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Mil, G.R. Nos. L-28104-05, July 30, 1979), the killing
of the Assistant Chief of Personnel Transaction of the Civil Service Commission by a
clerk therein (People of the Phil. vs. Alberto R. Benito, G.R. No. L-32042, February
13, 1975), the murder by a pupil of his teacher (U.S. vs. Cabling, 7 Phil. 469; People
vs. Aragon, 107 Phil. 706), the murder of a municipal mayor (People vs. Lopez de
Leon, 69 Phil. 298), the murder of a city chief of police by the chief of the secret
service division (People vs. Hollero, 88 Phil. 167); assault upon a 66-year old District
Judge of the Court of First Instance by a justice of the peace (People vs. Torrecarreon,
CA 52 OG 7644), the killing of a Spanish consul by his subordinate — a mere
chancellor (People vs. Godinez, 106 Phil. 597), and the killing of an army general
(People vs. Torres, L-4642, May 29, 1953).
People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156, November 20, 1981

Disregard or insult of rank appreciated where accused knows the official position
of victim -
People of the Phil. vs. Mario Ablao, G.R. No. 69184, March 26, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Basao, et al., G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 197
 People of the Phil. vs. Jeronico M. Lobino, G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, March 7, 2001

Sex

Disregard of sex is not aggravating where there is no evidence that the accused
deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim or showed manifest
disrespect to her womanhood.
United States vs. Felix De Jesus, G.R. No. 5003, September 18, 1909, 14 Phil. 190

People of the Phil. vs. Clemente E. Mangsant, G.R. No. 45704, May 25, 1938, 65 Phil.
548

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Jaula, G.R. No. L-3835, November 15, 1951, 90 Phil. 379

People of the Phil. vs. Mori (Bilaan), et al., G.R. Nos. L-23511 & L-23512, January 31,
1974

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto F. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Remegio Suza, G.R. No. 130611, April 6, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. George Cortes, G.R. No. 137050, July 11, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Pablito T. Inggo, G.R. No. 140872, June 23, 2003

There is no showing that appellant specially saw to it that his victim would be a
woman. In US vs. De Jesus, 14 Phil. 190, the aggravating circumstance of sex "is not
sustained by the fact that the victim was a woman, unless it further appears that aside
from the unlawful taking of her life, there was in the commission of the crime some
specific insult or disrespect shown to her womanhood."
People of the Phil. vs. Cristuto Ursal, G.R. No. L-33768, April 20, 1983

Quirico Mari vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 127694, May 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002

There was no proof of specific fact or circumstance, other than the victim is a
woman, showing insult or disregard of sex in order that it may be considered as
aggravating circumstance.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 198
 United States vs. Felix De Jesus, G.R. No. 5003, September 18, 1909, 14 Phil. 190

People of the Phil. vs. Clemente E. Mangsant, G.R. No. 45704, May 25, 1938, 65 Phil.
548

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Limaco, G.R. No. L-3090, January 9, 1951, 88 Phil. 35

People of the Phil. vs. Simplicio S. Gervacio, et al., G.R. No. L-21965, August 30,
1968, 133 Phil. 805

People of the Phil. vs. Mori (Bilaan), et al., G.R. Nos. L-23511 & L-23512, January 31,
1974

Quirico Mari vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 127694, May 31, 2000

It has not been shown that Appellant had particularly intended to cast insult or
commit disrespect to the sex of the victim. In one case where lesiones were inflicted
by the defendant on his prospective mother-in-law, abuse of superiority was
considered aggravating but not disregard of sex.
United States vs. Juan Escobar, G.R. No. 108, April 8, 1902, 1 Phil. 200

People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Braña, G.R. No. L-29210, Oct. 31, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Pantaleon Berbal, et al., G.R. No. 71527, August 10, 1989

Abuse of superior strength absorbs disregard of sex of victim –

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Roel Punzalan, et al., G.R. No. 78853, November 8, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Modesto R. De Roxas, et al., G.R. No. 106783, February 15,
1995

People of the Phil. vs. Jeronico M. Lobino, G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999

Quirico Mari vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 127694, May 31, 2000

Age

The circumstance of disregard of age cannot also be considered because it has

neither been proved nor admitted by the accused that in committing the crime he had
intended to offend or insult the age of the victim.
People of the Phil. vs. Clemente E. Mangsant, G.R. No. 45704, May 25, 1938, 65 Phil.
548

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 199
 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Diaz, et al., G.R. No. L-24002, January 21, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Floremar Retubado, G.R. No. L-58585, June 20, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Sixto S. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Bajar, G.R. No. 143817, October 27, 2003

For this aggravating circumstance to be appreciated, it is necessary that there be

such a deliberate intent.
People of the Phil. vs. Clemente E. Mangsant, G.R. No. 45704, May 25, 1938, 65 Phil.
548

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Limaco, G.R. No. L-3090, January 9, 1951, 88 Phil. 35

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 68319, March 31, 1992

We hold that for this circumstance to constitute an aggravation of criminal liability,

it is necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance, other than that the victim is
an old man, showing insult or disregard of age in order that it may be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
People of the Phil. vs. Clemente E. Mangsant, G.R. No. 45704, May 25, 1938

People of the Phil. vs. Cristuto Ursal, G.R. No. L-33768, April 20, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Pantaleon Berbal, et al., G.R. No. 71527, August 10, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. George R. Decena, G.R. No. 107874, August 4, 1994

Disregard of sex and old age in the case of the 79-year-old woman victim.
People of the Phil. vs. Felicito Tawat, et al., G.R. No. 62871, May 25, 1984

The aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex and age cannot be similarly

absorbed. Treachery refers to the manner of the commission of the crime. Disregard of
sex and age pertains to the relationship of the victim, who is a 70-year old woman,
and the appellant who is young man, 27 years old, at the time of the commission of
the offense.
People of the Phil. vs. Cristoto Lapaz, et al., G.R. No. 68898, March 31, 1989

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 200
 Disregard of age is included in that of treachery.
People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Limaco, G.R. No. L-3090, January 9, 1951, 88 Phil. 35

People of the Phil. vs. Floremar Retubado, G.R. No. L-58585, June 20, 1988

The mere fact that Julio Bactong was 74 years old does not warrant the
appreciation of said aggravating circumstance against the accused-appellant in the
absence of proof that the latter deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of the
offended party. In fact, it has not been denied that the accused-appellant in this case
did not even know whether the deceased was more than 70 years or not.
People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio B. Galapia, G.R. Nos. L-39303-05, August 1, 1978

People of the Phil. vs. Putito Café, G.R. No. L-60674, October 28, 1988

The aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the victim on account
of her age, 58 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, is not present. The
prosecution failed to show that the accused had deliberately intended to offend or
insult her age
People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Diaz, et al., G.R. No. L-24002, January 21, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Pantaleon Berbal, et al., G.R. No. 71527, August 10, 1989

Accused-appellant, who was nearly 20 years younger than the victim, manifestly
showed grave disrespect to the latter.
People of the Phil. vs. Rustico Tilos, et al., G.R. No. 138385, January 16, 2001

Art. 14 (3) - Aggravating Circumstance: Dwelling (morada)

In general
Dwelling an aggravating circumstance in rape cases
Provocation by offended party
Aggravating even when offense ends outside dwelling
Aggravating even when dwelling is temporary
Includes dependencies

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 201
 Not necessary for assailant to have entered dwelling
Separate structure
Not aggravating if accused and victim have the same dwelling
When aggravating in abduction and illegal detention cases
Inherent in robbery with force upon things
When aggravating in robbery with homicide
Allegation in information

In general

It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of

privacy that the law accords to the human abode.
People of the Phil. vs. Danilo S. Mesias, G.R. No. 67823, July 9, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Belo, G.R. No. 109148, December 4, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Roland Paraiso, G.R. No. 127840, November 29, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Dizon, G.R. No. 129893, December 10, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Quinciano Rendoque, et al., G.R. No. 106282, January 20, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Locsin Fabon, G.R. No. 133226, March 16, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Noel Sapinoso, et al., G.R. No. 122540, March 22, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Taño, G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Baliwang Bumidang, G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Gener B. Agoncillo, G.R. No. 138983, May 23, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Morial, et al., G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Joel Bragat, G.R. No. 134490, September 4, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Delos Santos, G.R. No. 134525, February 28, 2003

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 202
 As one commentator puts it, one's dwelling is a sanctuary worthy of respect; thus
one who slanders another in the latter's house is more severely punished than one who
offends him elsewhere. According to Cuello Calon, the commission of the crime in
another's dwelling shows worse perversity and produces graver alarm.
People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando A. Feliciano, G.R. No. 102078, May 15, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Belo, G.R. No. 109148, December 4, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Molina, G.R. No. 129051, July 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Biñas, G.R. No. 121630, December 8, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Noel Sapinoso, et al., G.R. No. 122540, March 22, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Hilarion Bergonio, Jr., G.R. No. 133981, September 13, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Baliwang Bumidang, G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Morial, et al., G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Bajar, G.R. No. 143817, October 27, 2003

"He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong, is more guilty than
he who offends him elsewhere." Viada, 5th Ed., Vol. II, pp. 323-324, cited in Reyes,
The Revised Penal Code, Twelfth Edition, Vol. I, p. 336.
People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Amania, et al., G.R. No. 108598, September 21, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando A. Feliciano, G.R. No. 102078, May 15, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Teddy Quinao, et al., G.R. No. 108454, March 13, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Belo, G.R. No. 109148, December 4, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Molina, G.R. No. 129051, July 28, 1999

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 203
 People of the Phil. vs. Roland Paraiso, G.R. No. 127840, November 29, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Biñas, G.R. No. 121630, December 8, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Marquita, et al., G.R. Nos. 119958-62, March 1, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Noel Sapinoso, et al., G.R. No. 122540, March 22, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Taño, G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Raul Gallego, G.R. No. 130603, August 15, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Riglos, et al., G.R. No. 134763, September 4, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Joel Bragat, G.R. No. 134490, September 4, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Hilarion Bergonio, Jr., G.R. No. 133981, September 13, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Perreras, et al., G.R. No. 139622, July 31, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Morial, et al., G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001

The rationale for considering dwelling as an aggravating circumstance is the

violation by the offender of the sanctity of the home of the victim by trespassing
therein to commit a crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Bañez, G.R. No. 125849, January 20, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo K. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999

The Code speaks of "dwelling", not domicile.

El Pueblo De Filipinas vs. Celestino Basa y Otros, G.R. No. L-1212, Mayo 18, 1949, 83
Phil 622

People of the Phil. vs. Amado Daniel, G.R. No. L-40330, November 20, 1978

People of the Phil. vs. Pacito Sto. Tomas, G.R. Nos. L-40367-69, August 22, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997

Appellants' contention that said aggravating circumstance exists only when there is
trespass upon the dwelling of the offended party with the use of force or violence or
against his will is clearly erroneous. For it is not the trespass which transgresses the
sanctity of one's dwelling but the commission of the crime in said dwelling, regardless
of how the offender gained entrance to the same.
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 204
 People of the Phils. vs. Jovito Mercado, G.R. No. L-39511, April 28, 1980

Dwelling an aggravating circumstance in rape cases

Under Article 14 (3) of the Revised Penal Code, dwelling is an aggravating

circumstance where the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party and
the latter has not given provocation. Hence, we have steadfastly held that dwelling is
an aggravating circumstance in the crime of rape. Dwelling is considered as an
aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords
to human abode.
People of the Phil. vs. Rolly L. Montesa, G.R. No. 181899, November 27, 2008

Provocation by offended party

The circumstance of dwelling aggravates the felony when the crime was committed
in the residence of the offended party and the latter had not given provocation.
People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Tirol, et al., G.R. No. L-30538, January 31, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Felix Atienza, G.R. No. L-39777, August 31, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Mario A. Bañez, G.R. No. 95456, September 18, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Edna P. Cordero, G.R. No. 97229, January 5, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Julian Rostata, Jr., G.R. No. 91482, February 9, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Almenario, G.R. No. 66420, April 17, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando A. Feliciano, G.R. No. 102078, May 15, 1996, 326 Phil
719

People of the Phil. vs. Teddy Quinao, et al., G.R. No. 108454, March 13, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Andres Caisip, G.R. No. 119757, May 21, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Molina, G.R. No. 129051, July 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Roland Paraiso, G.R. No. 127840, November 29, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Aquino, G.R. No. 128887, January 20, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Juan, et al., G.R. Nos. 100718-19, January 20, 2000

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 205
 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Dacibar, et al., G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Marquita, et al., G.R. Nos. 119958-62, March 1, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Taño, G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Angel Rios, G.R. No. 132632, June 19, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Raul Gallego, G.R. No. 130603, August 15, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Riglos, et al., G.R. No. 134763, September 4, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Sasan Bariquit, et al., G.R. No. 122733, October 2, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Hilot, et al., G.R. No. 129532, October 5, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Baliwang Bumidang, G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000

Melecia Paña, et al. vs. Floripinas C. Buyser, et al., G.R. No. 130144, May 24, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Perreras, et al., G.R. No. 139622, July 31, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Catalino Melendres, G.R. No. 134940, April 30, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Bajar, G.R. No. 143817, October 27, 2003

Provocation in the aggravating circumstance of dwelling must be: (a) given by the
offended party, (b) sufficient, and (c) immediate to the commission of the crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Angel Rios, G.R. No. 132632, June 19, 2000

Melecia Paña, et al. vs. Floripinas C. Buyser, et al., G.R. No. 130144, May 24, 2001

Aggravating even when offense ends outside the dwelling

An act performed cannot be divided or its unity be broken up, when the offender
began the aggression in the dwelling of the offended party and ended it in the street or
outside said dwelling. Dwelling is aggravating if the victim was taken from his house
and killed just beside his abode although the offense was not completed therein.
United States vs. Felipe Lastimosa, G.R. No. 9178, March 30, 1914, 27 Phil. 432

People of the Phil. vs. Horacio Jardiniano, G.R. No. L-37191, March 30, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Carlo Y. Uycoque, et al., G.R. No. 107495, July 31, 1995

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 206
 People of the Phil. vs. Josue Dela Torre, G.R. No. 98431, January 15, 2002

Aggravating even when dwelling is temporary

Dwelling may be appreciated even if place of crime is only a temporary sojourn

(e.g., boarding house) of victim. Dwelling, then, may mean temporary dwelling.
Dwelling is an aggravating circumstance even though the victim was not the owner of
the house where the crime was committed.
El Pueblo De Filipinas vs. Celestino O. Basa, G.R. No. L-1212, Mayo 18, 1949, 83 Phil
622

People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio B. Galapia, G.R. Nos. L-39303-05, August 1, 1978

People of the Phil. vs. Amado Daniel, G.R. No. L-40330, November 20, 1978

People of the Phil. vs. Pacito Sto. Tomas, G.R. Nos. L-40367-69, August 22, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Julian Perante, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-63709-10, July 16, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo O. Badilla, G.R. No. 69317, May 21, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Dante Alfeche, et al., G.R. No. 124213, August 17, 1998

"[O]ne does not lose his right of privacy where he is offended in the house of
another because as [an] invited guest [or a housemaid as in the instant case], he, the
stranger, is sheltered by the same roof and protected by the same intimacy of life it
affords. It may not be his house, but it is, even for a brief moment, "home" to him. He
is entitled to respect even for that short moment."
People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Noel Sapinoso, et al., G.R. No. 122540, March 22, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Hilot, et al., G.R. No. 129532, October 5, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Josue Dela Torre, G.R. No. 98431, January 15, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Catalino Melendres, G.R. No. 134940, April 30, 2003

Regardless of whether the victim was a lessee, a boarder, a bedspacer,

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 207
 People of the Phil. vs. Amado Daniel, G.R. No. L-40330, November 20, 1978

People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997

or even an invited guest,

El Pueblo De Filipinas vs. Celestino Basa y Otros, G.R. No. L-1212, Mayo 18, 1949, 83
Phil 622

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990

the place is his home, the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect and uphold.
People of the Phil. vs. Pacito Sto. Tomas, G.R. Nos. L-40367-69, August 22, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Hilot, et al., G.R. No. 129532, October 5, 2000

Includes dependencies

A dwelling must be a building or structure, exclusively used for rest and comfort.
The crime was committed in a store which was about fifteen meters away from the
complainant's house. It is obvious that the store can not be considered a dwelling, or
even a dependency of complainant's home.
People of the Phil. vs. Romeo C. Joya, G.R. No. 79090, October 1, 1993

The word dwelling includes every dependency of the house that forms an integral
part thereof and therefore it includes the staircase of the house and much more, its
terrace.
People of the Phil. vs. Paulo Alcala, G.R. No. L-18988, December 29, 1922, 46 Phil.
739

People of the Phil. vs. Angel Rios, G.R. No. 132632, June 19, 2000

Although the same was a makeshift room inside her brother's motor shop, said
room constituted for all intents and purposes a dwelling as the term is used in Article
14(3) of the Revised Penal Code.
People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999

Where at the very moment that the victim was hacked on the leg, he was at the top
rung of the stairs locking their house, dwelling aggravates the penalty because the
staircase forms an integral part of the house.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 208
 People of the Phil. vs. Paulo Alcala, G.R. No. L-18988, December 29, 1922, 46 Phil.
739

People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Gida, et al., G.R. No. L-41419, January 19, 1981

Not necessary for assailant to have entered dwelling

For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered, 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. (Since the victim was
killed inside his house, even though the assailants were outside the house, the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be appreciated.)
People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Ompad, et al., G.R. No. L-23513, January 31, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Quinciano Rendoque, et al., G.R. No. 106282, January 20, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Dacibar, et al., G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Perreras, et al., G.R. No. 139622, July 31, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Angelito B. Bagsit, G.R. No. 148877, August 19, 2003

Dwelling may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance considering that it is

not necessary that the accused should have entered the dwelling of the victim.
People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Lacanieta, et al., G.R. No. 124299, April 12, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Erlindo Talo, G.R. No. 125542, October 25, 2000

Although the attack was made not from inside the house but from below the floor
of the house, nevertheless, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling may be
considered as attending the shooting, as in fact the target/victim was hit inside his own
house
People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Dacibar, et al., G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Lazaro Albar, G.R. No. L-3024, April 1, 1950, 86 Phil. 36

Separate structure

The building where the two offenses were committed was not entirely for dwelling
purposes. It consisted of two floors: the ground floor, which was being operated as a
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 209
 video rental shop, and the upper floor, which was used as a residence. It was in the
video rental shop where the rape was committed. Being a commercial shop that caters
to the public, the video rental outlet was open to the public. As such, it is not
attributed the sanctity of privacy that jurisprudence accords to residential abodes.
Hence, dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of
rape.
People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Taño, G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000

The mere fact that a woman knocked at the victim's door to buy ice is not sufficient
to prove that the victim was running a store inside her house.
People of the Phil. vs. Lito M. Palino, et al., G.R. No. 73044, March 26, 1990

Dwelling cannot be considered as victim was attacked while seated on a bench

outside his house. Although that bench was beside the steps leading to the door of the
house, it cannot be considered as an integral part or a dependency of the victim's
dwelling.
People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Ramirez Sarino, et al., G.R. Nos. 94992-93, April 7,
1993

It cannot be definitely stated that the crime was committed inside the house of the
victim. All that can be gathered from the record is that Aquilina when struck by
appellant "was near the awning of the house." This would indicate that she was
outside her house.
People of the Phil. vs. Cristuto Ursal, G.R. No. L-33768, April 20, 1983

Not aggravating if accused and victim have the same dwelling

The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is not appreciated against accused who

lived in the same dwelling as the victim/s.
People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Morales, G.R. No. L-35413, November 7, 1979

People of the Phil. vs. Lito B. Revotoc, et al., G.R. No. L-37425, July 25, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Bañez, G.R. No. 125849, January 20, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo K. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492, January 31, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 210
 People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-65, April 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Gener B. Agoncillo, G.R. No. 138983, May 23, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Felixberto Lao-As, G.R. No. 126396, June 29, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo S. Añonuevo, G.R. No. 137843, October 12, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Josue Dela Torre, G.R. No. 98431, January 15, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Melchor and Mario Rafael, G.R. Nos. 146235-36, May 29, 2002

It is true that Español and the victims lived in the same house but the fact is that his
dwelling place was the bodega of the wine store, a place distinct from the residential
portion of the house where the master bedroom was located. It is not proper to
conclude under the circumstances that Español and his victims had the same dwelling.
United States vs. Chu Ning Co, G.R. No. L-3418, March 8, 1907, 7 Phil. 710

People of the Phil. vs. Salvador E. Español, et al., G.R. Nos. L-57597, 57598 & 57599,
June 29, 1982

Dwelling should also have been disregarded because the accused (except Domingo
Mendoza) all resided in the servants' quarter of Mrs. Fule's residence. The servants'
quarter may be assimilated to the victim's house, the former being an appendage of, or
attachment to, the latter.
People of the Phil. vs. Roel Punzalan, et al., G.R. No. 78853, November 8, 1991

When aggravating in abduction and illegal detention cases

In the crimes of abduction and illegal detention where the offended party is taken
from his house, dwelling may be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance.
United States vs. Higino Velasquez, G.R. No. L-3586, August 7, 1907, 8 Phil. 321

United States vs. Pedro Banila, G.R. No. 6624, March 20, 1911, 19 Phil. 130

People of the Phil. vs. Domnino G. Grefiel, G.R. No. 77228, November 13, 1992

Inherent in robbery with force upon things

The circumstance of dwelling is an inherent element of robbery with force upon

things committed inside the dwelling of the victim. Entrance to said house is

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 211
 inevitable, without such entrance there could be no robbery.
People of the Phil. vs. Ewaldo Cabatlao, G.R. No. L-42149, October 23, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Escabarte, et al., G.R. No. L-42964, March 14, 1988

When aggravating in robbery with homicide

The trial court correctly appreciated against accused-appellants the aggravating

circumstance of dwelling since the crime of robbery with homicide (or robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons) can be committed without the necessity of
transgressing the sanctity of the home. (Although dwelling (morada) is considered as
inherent in crimes which can only be committed in the abode of the victim such as
trespass to dwelling and robbery in an inhabited house, it has been held as aggravating
in robbery with homicide because the author thereof could have accomplished the
heinous deed of snuffing out the victim's life without having to violate his domicile.)
United States vs. Florentino Leyba, et al., G.R. No. L-3767, September 28, 1907, 8 Phil.
671

People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Valdez, G.R. No. 45589, October 25, 1937, 64 Phil 860

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Napili, G.R. No. L-2406, February 22, 1950, 85 Phil. 521

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Y. Sebastian, et al., G.R. No. L-2725, February 27, 1950,
85 Phil. 601

People of the Phil. vs. Primitivo Pinca, et al., G.R. No. L-16595, February 28, 1962, 114
Phil 498

People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Apduhan, et al., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio Mongado, et al., G.R. No. L-24877, June 30, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Crisostomo Saquing, et al., G.R. No. L-27903, December 26,
1969

People of the Phil. vs. Ruperto Aquino, G.R. No. L-27184, May 21, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Lucero, G.R. No. L-28811, March 31, 1980

People of the Phils. vs. Jovito Mercado, G.R. No. L-39511, April 28, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Teodulfo Gatcho, G.R. No. L-27251, February 26, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, October 23, 1981

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 212
 People of the Phil. vs. Darwin M. Veloso, G.R. No. L-32900, February 25, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Mabini Garachico, et al., G.R. No. L-30849, March 29, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Rufineo L. Dejaresco, et al., G.R. No. L-32701, June 19, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Gapasin, et al., G.R. No. L-52017, October 27, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Pecato, et al., G.R. No. L-41008, June 18, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Sabangan Cabato, G.R. No. L-37400, April 15, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Candido Robante, et al., G.R. No. 69307, October 16, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo S. Mesias, G.R. No. 67823, July 9, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo De Los Reyes, et al., G.R. No. L-44112, October 22,
1992

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Lagario, et al., G.R. No. 92000, July 5, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando A. Feliciano, G.R. No. 102078, May 15, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Pareja, et al., G.R. No. 88043, December 9, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Locsin Fabon, G.R. No. 133226, March 16, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Clarito Arizobal, et al., G.R. No. 135051-52, December 14, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Charlie Almoguerra, et al., G.R. No. 121177, November 12, 2003

In robbery with homicide, dwelling is aggravating even if homicide was committed

outside of the house if the principal offense of robbery was perpetrated inside.
People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo L. Penillos, et al., G.R. No. 65673, January 30, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Hermes Dalanon, G.R. No. 107458, October 14, 1994

Allegation in information

We have previously ruled that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling may be

appreciated against the accused even if it was not alleged in the information when
proved without any objection on his part
People of the Phil. vs. Hector Estares, G.R. No. 121878, December 5, 1997

or even over his objection.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 213
 People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Ang, et al., G.R. No. L-62833, October 8, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Ramos, G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998

However, in the case of People of the Phil. vs. Raul Gallego, (G.R. No. 130603,
August 15, 2000) citing People of the Phil. vs. Rolly O. Albert, G.R. No. 114001,
December 11, 1995, the court did not consider dwelling as it was not alleged in the
information.
People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-65, April 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Joel Bragat, G.R. No. 134490, September 4, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo S. Añonuevo, G.R. No. 137843, October 12, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Joey Manlansing, et al., G.R. No. 131736, March 11, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Melchor and Mario Rafael, G.R. Nos. 146235-36, May 29, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Llanda, G.R. No. 133386, November 27, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Philip Hammer, G.R. No. 147836, December 17, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Caloza, Jr., G.R. No. 138404, January 28, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Casitas Jr., G.R. No. 137404, February 14, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Dionesio Santiago, G.R. No. 133445, February 27, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Castillano, et al., G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Daniela, et al., G.R. No. 139230, April 24, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio B. Sibonga, et al., G.R. No. 95901, June 16, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Joselito D. Dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 138931-32, July 17, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003

Although dwelling has not been alleged in the informations, it may nonetheless be
considered for the purpose of determining liability of accused-appellants for
exemplary damages in view of Art. 2230 of the Civil Code which provides that
exemplary damages may be awarded as a part of the civil liability of the accused in
criminal cases "when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances."

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 214
 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor and Mario Rafael, G.R. Nos. 146235-36, May 29, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo H. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Jolito Oranza, G.R. No. 127748, July 25, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Caloza, Jr., G.R. No. 138404, January 28, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003

Art. 14 (4) - Aggravating Circumstance: Abuse of confidence or obvious

ungratefulness

Abuse of confidence

As to the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence, it is essential to show

that confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal, such as would
give the accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the criminal act.
The confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the
culprit taking advantage of the offended parties' belief that the former would not
abuse said confidence.
United States vs. Florencio Torrida, G.R. Nos. 7450, 7451 & 7452, September 18,
1912, 23 Phil 189

People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Luchico, G.R. No. 26170 December 6, 1926, 49 Phil
689

People of the Phil. vs. Armingol Y. Hanasan, G.R. No. L-25989, September 30, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Martin Mandolado, G.R. No. L-51304, June 28, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Gelera, et al., G.R. No. 121377, August 15, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Lomerio, G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492, January 31, 2001

For this circumstance to be taken and appreciated, it is necessary that there exists a
relation of trust and confidence between the accused and the one against whom the
crime was committed and the accused made use of such relation to commit the crime.
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 215
 People of the Phils. vs. Diosdado Comendador, G.R. No. L-38000, September 19, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Belinda V. Lora, G.R. No. L-49430, March 30, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Martin Mandolado, G.R. No. L-51304, June 28, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Villanueva, G.R. No. 135330, August 31, 2000

It certainly cannot be said, therefore, that the commission of the crime was
facilitated by the confidence deceased had in appellant, which alone would justify the
appreciation of abuse of confidence as an aggravating circumstance.
People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Luchico, G.R. No. 26170 December 6, 1926, 49 Phil
689

People of the Phil. vs. Gabino Alqueza, G.R. No. 28995, August 4, 1928, 51 Phil. 817

People of the Phil. vs. Magdalena Caliso, G.R. No. 37271, July 1, 1933, 58 Phil 283

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe T. Villas, G.R. No. L-20953, April 21, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Armingol Y. Hanasan, G.R. No. L-25989, September 30, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus G. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-33609, December 14, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Onabia, G.R. No. 128288, April 20, 1999

“Abuse of confidence” will not hold true if the victim had already lost confidence
in the accused.
People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Luchico, G.R. No. 26170 December 6, 1926, 49 Phil
689

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus G. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-33609, December 14, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Onabia, G.R. No. 128288, April 20, 1999

"When the killer of the child is the domestic servant of the family and was
sometimes the deceased child's amah, the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of
confidence is present."
People of the Phil. vs. Magdalena Caliso, G.R. No. 37271, July 1, 1933, 58 Phil 283

People of the Phil. vs. Belinda V. Lora, G.R. No. L-49430, March 30, 1982

Español was allowed to have lodging in the bodega of the store because of the trust
and confidence reposed in him by his employers, the Arellano spouses. Abuse of

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 216
 confidence was considered aggravating in a case where the cook inflicted physical
injuries on his mistress.
United States vs. Saturnino Trinidad, G.R. No. 1851, January 23, 1905, 4 Phil. 152

People of the Phil. vs. Salvador E. Español, et al., G.R. Nos. L-57597, 57598 & 57599,
June 29, 1982

The accused was treated like a member of the family and was completely trusted.
That confidence facilitated the commission of the offense.
People of the Phil. vs. Jose Verdad, G.R. No. L-51797, May 16, 1983

The victim trusted accused-appellant in going with him upon the latter's invitation
on account of her familiarity with him as their neighbor.
People of the Phil. vs. Nolito Boras, G.R. No. 127495, December 22, 2000

The aggravating circumstances of dwelling and abuse of confidence or obvious

ungratefulness are appreciated in the killing of Ricardo Rivera. Ricardo Rivera was
killed in his own home by the appellant who was a guest of the deceased.
People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence S. Ponciano, G.R. No. 86453, December 5, 1991

The rape of the child of accused-appellant's common-law spouse is attended by the

generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence.
People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Villanueva, G.R. No. 135330, August 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Gonzales, G.R. Nos. 139445-46, June 20, 2001

The rape of a child by her father is attended by the generic aggravating

circumstance of abuse of confidence, there being the relation of trust and confidence
between them.
People of the Phil. vs. Nicomedes D. Platilla, G.R. No. 140723, March 6, 2002

Obvious ungratefulness (manifest ingratitude)

The ungratefulness of the accused to the victim is very obvious. He admitted he

was living in the house of the victim. He was employed by the victim as overseer and
in charge of carpentry work. He had free access to the house of the victim who was
very kind to him, his family, and who helped him solve his problems. He paid all the
kindness shown him by the victim by committing the most heinous of crimes against
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 217
 his benefactor.
People of the Phil. vs. Alexio Lupango, G.R. No. L-32633, November 12, 1981

There could have been no obvious ungratefulness in the commission of the crime
for the simple reason that the requisite trust of the victims upon the accused prior to
the criminal act and the breach thereof as contemplated under Article 14, par. 4 of the
Revised Penal Code are manifestly lacking or non- existent. In all likelihood, the
accused Army then in their uniforms and holding their high-powered firearms cowed
the victims into boarding their jeep for a ride at machine gun point which certainly is
no source of gratefulness or appreciation.
People of the Phil. vs. Martin Mandolado, G.R. No. L-51304, June 28, 1983

Obvious ungratefulness cannot be appreciated as there is no evidence as to what

generosities and the extent thereof were received by the appellant from the victim.
People of the Phil. vs. Danilo O. Badilla, G.R. No. 69317, May 21, 1990

Art. 14 (5) - Aggravating Circumstance: Crime is committed in the palace of

Chief Executive or in his presence, where public authorities are engaged in
discharge of their duties, or place dedicated to religious worship

Place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties

It must be pointed out that this aggravating circumstance is based on the greater
perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of the commission of the crime,
which must be respected.
People of the Phil. vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003

The aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime in a place where the public

authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties should be appreciated against
petitioner Navarro. The offense in this case was committed right in the police station
where policemen were discharging their public functions.
People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Regala, et al., G.R. No. L-23693, April 27, 1982

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 218
 Felipe Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999

Place dedicated to religious worship

It was proven at the trial that the violation of the child Brigida took place in the Sta.
Cruz Chapel in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, a building dedicated to and actively used for
religious worship. The criminal information did not apparently specify the place of the
commission of the rape. Nonetheless, the trial court could have and should have found
the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of commission of the offense in
a place dedicated to religious worship. The trial court made no mention of such
aggravating circumstance in its decision.
People of the Phil. vs. Carlos V. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 75267, September 10, 1990

Art. 14 (6) - Aggravating Circumstance: Nighttime (nocturnidad), uninhabited

place (despoblado), by a band (cuadrilla)

In general
Tests
Nighttime
Uninhabited place
Band

In general

If the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place or band concur in

the commission of the crime, all will constitute one aggravating circumstance only as
a general rule although they can be considered separately if their elements are
distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of
perversity.
People of the Phil. vs. Raelito Librando, G.R. No. 132251, July 6, 2000

El Pueblo De Filipinas vs. Jacinto Santos, G.R. No. L-4189, Mayo 21, 1952, 91 Phil 320

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 219
 Tests

There are two tests for nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance. First is the
objective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitates the
commission of the offense. Second is the subjective test, under which nocturnity is
aggravating because it was purposely sought by the offender. The two tests should be
applied in the alternative.
People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997, 338 Phil. 1010

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Demate, et al., G.R. Nos. 132310 & 143968-69, January
20, 2004

Nighttime (nocturnidad)

The mere fact that the offense was committed at night will not suffice to sustain a
finding of nocturnity.
People of the Phil. vs. Permonette Joy Fortich, et al., G.R. Nos. 80399-404, November
13, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Belo, G.R. No. 109148, December 4, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Rustom Bermas and Galma Arcilla, G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312,
July 5, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Dizon, G.R. No. 129893, December 10, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Amer Moyong, et al., G.R. Nos. 135413-15, November 15, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Gener B. Agoncillo, G.R. No. 138983, May 23, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio R. Moreno, G.R. No. 140033, January 25, 2002

People of the Phils. vs. Ruben Logalada Boquila, G.R. No. 136145, March 8, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003

The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the "obscuridad" afforded by, and
not merely the chronological onset of, nighttime.
United States vs. Benito Paraiso et al., G.R. No. L-5658, September 28, 1910, 17 Phil
142

People of the Phil. vs. Raul Oco, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 220
 Nocturnidad (to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance) "must concur with
the intent or design of the offender to capitalize on the intrinsic impunity afforded by
the darkness of the night."
People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60
Phil. 887

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Boyles, et al., G.R. No. L-15308, May 29, 1964

People of the Phil. vs. Pelagio Condemena, et al., G.R. No. L-22426, May 29, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Apduhan, et al., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Epifanio Flores y Marikit, G.R. No. L-32692, July 30, 1971

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Coderes, et al., G.R. No. L-32509, April 27, 1981

There are two tests of nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance: the objective test,
under which nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitates the commission of the
crime and the subjective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it was
purposely sought for by the offender. The two are to be applied in the alternative.
People of the Phil. vs. Antonio C. Garcia, G.R. No. L-30449, October 31, 1979

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Palon, G.R. No. L-33271, February 20, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Velaga, Jr., G.R. No. 87202, July 23, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Ambrosio Ronquillo, G.R. No. 96125, August 31, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Dayson, G.R. No. 106234, March 2, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Pallarco, G.R. No. 119971, March 26, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Renato Gailo, et al., G.R. No. 116233, October 13, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Galam, G.R. No. 114740, February 15, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Lomerio, G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000

By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance. It becomes so only

when (1) it is specially sought by the offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by him;
or (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime, by insuring the offender's immunity
from capture.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 221
 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Boyles, et al., G.R. No. L-15308, May 29, 1964

People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Z. Marra, et al., G.R. No. 108494, September 20, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Cayabyab, G.R. No. 123073, June 19, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Laudemar Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 109619, June 26, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Amamangpang, G.R. No. 108491, July 2, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Rustom Bermas and Galma Arcilla, G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312,
July 5, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Lomerio, G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Madelo Espina, G.R. No. 123102, February 29, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Raul Gallego, G.R. No. 130603, August 15, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Baliwang Bumidang, G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ambrosio Conde, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 134483, January 16, 2002

People of the Phils. vs. Ruben Logalada Boquila, G.R. No. 136145, March 8, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Caloza, Jr., G.R. No. 138404, January 28, 2003

The law provides that there are three (3) elements to be taken into account before
the aggravating circumstance of nighttime and uninhabited place may be considered,
to wit: (a) When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or (b) When especially
sought for by the offender; or (c) When offender took advantage thereof for the
purpose of impunity.
United States vs. Inocente Billedo, et al., G.R. No. 10883, December 20, 1915, 32 Phil
574

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60
Phil. 887

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Coderes, et al., G.R. No. L-32509, April 27, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Narciso, G.R. No. 103875, September 18, 1996

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 222
 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Lomerio, G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000

Nighttime is aggravating when it is especially sought for the purpose of impunity.

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60
Phil. 887

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Pardo, G.R. No. L-562, November 19, 1947, 79 Phil. 568

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Boyles, et al., G.R. No. L-15308, May 29, 1964

People of the Phil. vs. Teodulfo Gatcho, G.R. No. L-27251, February 26, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Coderes, et al., G.R. No. L-32509, April 27, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto V. Lagtu, G.R. No. L-52237, September 30, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, October 23, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Darwin M. Veloso, G.R. No. L-32900, February 25, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Paulino Morales, G.R. No. 37107, April 27, 1982, 199 Phil. 157

People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Alcober Gueron, et al., G.R. No. L-29365, March 25,
1983

People of the Phil. vs. Mario M. Aquino, G.R. No. L-50523, September 29, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Ferrer, et al., G.R. No. 102062, March 14, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tampon, G.R. No. 105583, July 5, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Andres Caisip, G.R. No. 119757, May 21, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Senen Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Rustom Bermas and Galma Arcilla, G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312,
July 5, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Constancio Merino, et al., G.R. No. 132329, December 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Clarito Arizobal, et al., G.R. No. 135051-52, December 14, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Benny Cabangcala, et al., G.R. No. 135065, August 8, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 223
 People of the Phil. vs. Alvin Villanueva, G.R. No. 139177, August 11, 2003

Nighttime must be purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime and
the criminal’s escape from the scene or his immunity from identification.
People of the Phil. vs. Paulo Alcala, G.R. No. L-18988, December 29, 1922, 46 Phil.
739

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60
Phil. 887

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Pardo, G.R. No. L-562, November 19, 1947, 79 Phil. 568

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Boyles, et al., G.R. No. L-15308, May 29, 1964

People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Bato, G.R. No. L-23405 December 29, 1967, 129 Phil.
740

People of the Phil. vs. Aurelio S. Cristobal, Jr., G.R. No. L-32562, June 29, 1979

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto V. Lagtu, G.R. No. L-52237, September 30, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Alexio Lupango, G.R. No. L-32633, November 12, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Nolasco Famador, G.R. No. L-36553, March 30, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Miguel Regato, et al., G.R. No. L-36750, January 31, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Modesto Mesias, Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. L-40318-20, February 28,
1984

People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Lor, et al., G.R. Nos. L-47440-42, September 12, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Renato Moral, et al., G.R. No. L-31139, October 12, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Mamerto Serante, G.R. No. L-46724, July 31, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Cabale, et al., G.R. Nos. 73249-50, May 8, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Luis B. Toring, et al., G.R. No. 56358, October 26, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Velaga, Jr., G.R. No. 87202, July 23, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Mario Aguiluz, G.R. No. 91662, March 11, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Armando G. Pasiliao, et al., G.R. Nos. 98152-53, October 26,
1992

People of the Phil. vs. Peter Cadevida, et al., G.R. No. 94528, March 1, 1993

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 224
 People of the Phil. vs. Crisologo Empacis, G.R. No. 95756, May 14, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Desalisa, G.R. No. 95262, January 4, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Segundo Manuel, et al., G.R. No. 93926-28, July 28, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Z. Marra, et al., G.R. No. 108494, September 20, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Casingal, et al., G.R. No. 87163, March 29, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Abe Rosario, et al., G.R. No. 108789, July 18, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Ambrosio Ronquillo, G.R. No. 96125, August 31, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Cayabyab, G.R. No. 123073, June 19, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Dionel Meren, G.R. No. 120998, July 26, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Erlindo Talo, G.R. No. 125542, October 25, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003

The application of nocturnity is proper when accused waited until

midnight/nighttime to execute their designs and took advantage of the cover of
darkness to avoid discovery, minimize the risk of capture and facilitate their escape.
People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60
Phil. 887

People of the Phil. vs. Jorge Barredo, G.R. No. L-2728, December 29, 1950, 87 Phil.
800

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Boyles, et al., G.R. No. L-15308, May 29, 1964

People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Apduhan, et al., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Dominador R. Salcedo, G.R. No. 78774, April 12, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Baring, G.R. No. 87017, July 20, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto M. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 90255, January 23, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Velaga, Jr., G.R. No. 87202, July 23, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Benitez, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 83697, October 4, 1991

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 225
 People of the Phil. vs. Cipriano Barba, G.R. No. 50433, November 13, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bigcas, et al., G.R. No. 94534, July 20, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Armando G. Pasiliao, et al., G.R. Nos. 98152-53, October 26,
1992

People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Z. Marra, et al., G.R. No. 108494, September 20, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Garcia, G.R. No. 118824, July 5, 1996

To take advantage of a fact or circumstance in committing a crime clearly implies

an intention to do so, and one does not avail oneself of the darkness unless one
intended to do so.
People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Apduhan, et al., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Pamintuan, et al., G.R. No. L-48273, November 28,
1983

Where the scene of the crime was well-illuminated, nighttime is not generally
considered aggravating. (Nocturnity is not aggravating where the place of the
commission of the crime was well-illuminated.)
People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Bato, G.R. No. L-23405 December 29, 1967

People of the Phil. vs. Renato Moral, et al., G.R. No. L-31139, October 12, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Benito I. Espiritu, et al., G.R. No. 80406, November 20, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Abe Rosario, et al., G.R. No. 108789, July 18, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Pallarco, G.R. No. 119971, March 26, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Laudemar Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 109619, June 26, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Dionel Meren, G.R. No. 120998, July 26, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Renato Gailo, et al., G.R. No. 116233, October 13, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Galam, G.R. No. 114740, February 15, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Madelo Espina, G.R. No. 123102, February 29, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Leo Macaliag, et al., G.R. No. 130655, August 9, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Clarito Arizobal, et al., G.R. No. 135051-52, December 14, 2000

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 226
 People of the Phil. vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Raul Oco, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003

Nighttime is not specially sought for when the notion to commit the crime was
conceived only shortly before its commission.
People of the Phil. vs. Jose Pardo, G.R. No. L-562, November 19, 1947, 79 Phil. 568

People of the Phil. vs. Mario M. Aquino, G.R. No. L-50523, September 29, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Bayani Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 85771, November 19, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Cayabyab, G.R. No. 123073, June 19, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999

Nocturnity would not be an aggravating circumstance if it was not purposely sought

for and a crime was committed at night upon mere casual encounter.
People of the Phil. vs. Bayani Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 85771, November 19, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Cayabyab, G.R. No. 123073, June 19, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999

Nighttime appreciated when the darkness of the night was merely incidental to the
collision between the two vehicles which caused the heated argument and the eventual
stabbing of the victim.
People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Velaga, Jr., G.R. No. 87202, July 23, 1991

The aggravating circumstance of nighttime (nocturnidad) cannot be absorbed in

treachery because in this crime treachery arose from the defenseless position of Chua
when he was killed, while nighttime was purposely sought by the accused to facilitate
immunity in the commission of the crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin K. Ong, G.R. No. L-37908, October 23, 1981

We have already ruled that nighttime is inherent (or absorbed) in treachery and
cannot be appreciated separately.
People of the Phil. vs. Olimpio Corpuz and Julian Serquiña, G.R. No. L-12718, February
24, 1960, 107 Phil. 44

People of the Phil. vs. Nicanor Sespeñe, G.R. No. L-9346, October 30, 1957, 102 Phil

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 227
 199

People of the Phil. vs. Angel Ramillano, et al., G.R. No. 61119, November 14, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Bardon, et al., G.R. No. L-60764, September 19, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Maravilla, Jr., G.R. No. 77968, November 23, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Bueza, G.R. No. 79619, August 20, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Benito I. Espiritu, et al., G.R. No. 80406, November 20, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Amando Tasarra, et al., G.R. No. 85531, December 10, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Rosalino Necerio, G.R. No. 98430, July 10, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Vergara, et al., G.R. No. 103313, May 5, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Coloma Tabag, et al., G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Dionel Meren, G.R. No. 120998, July 26, 1999

The lighting of a matchstick or use of flashlights does not negate the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime.
People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Soriano, G.R. No. L-32244, June 24, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Pantaleon Berbal, et al., G.R. No. 71527, August 10, 1989

The fact that they brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that they intended to
commit the crime in darkness.
People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002

Nighttime, being a generic aggravating circumstance, need not be alleged in the

information.
People of the Phil. vs. Juan Martinez Godinez, G.R. No. L-12268, November 28, 1959,
106 Phil 597

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Vergara, et al., G.R. No. 103313, May 5, 1993

Uninhabited place (despoblado)

The law provides that there are three (3) elements to be taken into account before
the aggravating circumstance of nighttime and uninhabited place may be considered,
to wit: (a) When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or (b) When especially
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 228
 sought for by the offender; or (c) When offender took advantage thereof for the
purpose of impunity.
United States vs. Inocente Billedo, et al., G.R. No. 10883, December 20, 1915, 32 Phil
574

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60
Phil. 887

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Coderes, et al., G.R. No. L-32509, April 27, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin K. Ong, G.R. No. L-37908, October 23, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Lor, et al., G.R. Nos. L-47440-42, September 12, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Ely Cabiles, et al., G.R. No. 113785, September 14, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Caballes, et al., G.R. Nos. 102723-24, June 19, 1997

Uninhabited place is aggravating when the crime is committed in a solitary place,

where help to the victim is difficult and escape of the accused is easy, provided that
solitude was purposely sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of
the felony.
People of the Phil. vs. Jose Coderes, et al., G.R. No. L-32509, April 27, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rubia, et al., G.R. No. 28792, October 6, 1928, 52 Phil 172

An uninhabited place is one where there are no houses at all, a place at a

considerable distance from the town, or where the houses are scattered at a great
distance from each other. (Reyes, Revised Penal Code, 1974, Book 1, p. 318).
United States vs. Leocadio Salgado, G.R. No. 4498, August 5, 1908, 11 Phil 56

People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rubia, et al., G.R. No. 28792, October 6, 1928, 52 Phil 172

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 33843, February 11, 1931, 55 Phil.
610

People of the Phil. vs. Victor B. Asibar, et al., G.R. No. L-37255, October 23, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Dalmacio C. Maalihan, et al., G.R. Nos. L-34106-08, July 25,
1984

People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Tiongson, G.R. Nos. L-35123-24, July 25, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Sancho A. Budol, et al., G.R. No. L-48010, July 31, 1986

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 229
 The term uninhabited place does not refer to the distance of the nearest house to the
locus criminis for the more important consideration is whether the place of
commission affords a reasonable possibility for the victim to receive some help. (The
site of the killing was purposely selected so that succor would not be available.)
People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rubia, et al., G.R. No. 28792, October 6, 1928, 52 Phil 172

People of the Phil. vs. Dicto Arpa, et al., G.R. No. L-26789, April 25, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Fausto Damaso, G.R. No. L-30116, November 20, 1978

People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Sadiwa, et al., G.R. No. L-37203, October 23, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Simplicio Maribung, et al., G.R. No. L-47500, April 29, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Desalisa, G.R. No. 95262, January 4, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado Egot, G.R. No. L-35775, June 29, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Salvador F. Balisteros, et al., G.R. No. 110289, October 7, 1994

People of the Phil. vs. Ely Cabiles, et al., G.R. No. 113785, September 14, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando R. Cayago, G.R. No. 128827, August 18, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Gener B. Agoncillo, G.R. No. 138983, May 23, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Renato Z. Dizon, G.R. No. 134802, October 26, 2001

It is evident that the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place was present

since appellant and his co-accused obviously and deliberately chose the desolation and
isolation of the sugarcane plantation to perpetrate the crime far from the gaze of
potential eye-witnesses.
People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado Egot, G.R. No. L-35775, June 29, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Sancho A. Budol, et al., G.R. No. L-48010, July 31, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo L. Padica, et al., G.R. No. 102645, April 7, 1993

The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place can neither be appreciated.

Although there is testimony to the effect that the crime was committed in a secluded
place where people rarely pass, the fact remains that it is the usual road going to the
residences of Aquino and the deceased, at the junction where it met with another road
going to the residence of Aquino. It is not apparent from the evidence that the accused
selected the place of the commission of the crime either to obtain their object without
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 230
 interference or to secure themselves against detection and punishment.
People of the Phil. vs. Juan Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 33843, February 11, 1931, 55 Phil.
610

People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dequia, G.R. No. L-3731, April 20, 1951, 88 Phil 520

People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, October 23, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Mario M. Aquino, G.R. No. L-50523, September 29, 1983

The appellant likewise claims despoblado "is not present even if the crime was
committed in an uninhabited place, if the offended party was casually encountered by
the accused and the latter did not take advantage of the place or it can not be shown
that it facilitated the commission of the crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Luneta, et al., G.R. No. L-840, January 12, 1948, 79 Phil.
815

People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado Egot, G.R. No. L-35775, June 29, 1984

While there may be occasional passersby, this does not destroy its being an
uninhabited place.
People of the Phil. vs. Juan Bangug, et al., G.R. No. 28832, September 17, 1928, 52
Phil. 87

People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Saylan, G.R. No. L-36941, June 29, 1984

The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place (despoblado) is present due to

the deliberate selection of an isolated place for killing and burying the victim.
People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin K. Ong, G.R. No. L-37908, October 23, 1981

The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place cannot be appreciated if the

place is can easily be located.
United States vs. Cornelio Devela, et al., G.R. No. 1542, April 9, 1904, 3 Phil 625

People of the Phils. vs. Diosdado Comendador, G.R. No. L-38000, September 19, 1980

The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place cannot be appreciated if there

are houses in the vicinity.
People of the Phil. vs. Sancho A. Budol, et al., G.R. No. L-48010, July 31, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Peter Cadevida, et al., G.R. No. 94528, March 1, 1993

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 231
 The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place considered when there were no
houses near the scene of the crime and the possibility of any help or assistance to the
victims during the commission of the crime in such place is almost nil. It is clear that
the malefactors selected that uninhabited place as the scene of the crime to prevent
any interference with their evil act.
People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dequia, G.R. No. L-3731, April 20, 1951, 88 Phil 520

People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Boado, G.R. No. L-44725, March 31, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, October 23, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Mario M. Aquino, G.R. No. L-50523, September 29, 1983

Although the offense was committed in an uninhabited place, the record does not
show that the defendant-appellant actually sought the solitude of the place to better
attain his purpose.
United States vs. Julio Vitug et al., G.R. No. L-5430, September 8, 1910, 17 Phil. 1

People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Luneta, et al., G.R. No. L-840, January 12, 1948, 79 Phil.
815

People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dequia, G.R. No. L-3731, April 20, 1951, 88 Phil 520

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Andaya, G.R. No. L-63862, July 31, 1987

Aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place appreciated in that the felony was

perpetrated in the open sea, where no help could be expected by the victim from other
persons and the offenders could easily escape punishment.
People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rubia, et al., G.R. No. 28792, October 6, 1928, 52 Phil 172

People of the Phil. vs. Prudencio Nulla, G.R. No. L-69346, August 31, 1987

This aggravating circumstance of despoblado should, therefore, be considered

against appellant even if it was not alleged in the informations since it was duly
proved.
People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Collado, G.R. No. 41248, September 14, 1934, 60
Phil. 610

People of the Phil. vs. Emilio H. Domondon, G.R. No. 41523, October 11, 1934, 60 Phil.
729

People of the Phil. vs. Noel R. Jovellano, et al., G.R. No. L-32421, March 27, 1974

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 232
 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo L. Padica, et al., G.R. No. 102645, April 7, 1993

Band (cuadrilla)

Under Article 14, No. 6, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the indispensable
elements of band are: 1) there must be at least four (4) malefactors; and 2) all of the
four (4) malefactors must be armed.
People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Sadia, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 92633, October 17, 1991

The element of "in band," that is, "whenever more than three armed malefactors
shall have acted together in the commission of an offense," has been satisfied.
United States vs. Emigdio Mendigoren, G.R. No. 950, January 23, 1903, 1 Phil. 658

United States vs. Alfonso Melegrito, et al., G.R. No. 4487, September 7, 1908, 11 Phil.
229

People of the Phil. vs. Janahudin Pakah, et al., G.R. No. L-1263, August 27, 1948, 81
Phil. 426

People of the Phil. vs. Maximo A. Pizarras, G.R. No. L-35915, October 30, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Mabilangan, et al., G.R. No. L-48217, January 30, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Escabarte, et al., G.R. No. L-42964, March 14, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Jackariya Lungbos, et al., G.R. No. L-57293, June 21, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Ruben A. Lee, G.R. No. 66848, December 20, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Lapnayo Buka, et al., G.R. Nos. 68311-13, Jan. 30, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando G. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 102063, January 20, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Landicho, G.R. No. 116600, July 3, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Jury Magdamit, et al., G.R. No. 118130, September 24, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Sasan Bariquit, et al., G.R. No. 122733, October 2, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Saspa, et al., G.R. No. 123069, March 1, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Dinamling, et al., G.R. No. 134605, March 12, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Narciso, G.R. No. 146425, November 21, 2002

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 233
 People of the Phil. vs. Raul R. Guimba, et al., G.R. No. 139472, November 27, 2002

Band was not proven because it was not shown that the four malefactors were all
armed.
People of the Phil. vs. Francisco See, G.R. No. L-36347, December 21, 1983

Band is not aggravating when only three malefactors are armed.

People of the Phil. vs. Dalmacio C. Maalihan, et al., G.R. Nos. L-34106-08, July 25,
1984

People of the Phil. vs. Jackariya Lungbos, et al., G.R. No. L-57293, June 21, 1988

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990

There is an intention to cause death if the accused throws a stone at the victims,
thus including stone under the term arms in the phrase "more than 3 armed
malefactors acted together".
People of the Phil. vs. Arcillo Manlolo, G.R. No. 40778, January 26, 1989

Band or cuardrilla was likewise absorbed in treachery

People of the Phil. vs. Mori (Bilaan), et al., G.R. Nos. L-23511 & L-23512, January 31,
1974

People of the Phil. vs. Laureano Sangalang, G.R. No. L-32914, August 30, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Jimenez, et al., G.R. Nos. L-36613-14, July 24, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Arsenio Arbois, et al., G.R. No. L-36936, August 5, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Coloma Tabag, et al., G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Isa Abdul et al., G.R. No. 128074, July 13, 1999

If treachery absorbs abuse of superiority and band (U.S. vs. Abelinde, 1 Phil. 568),
then it is reasonable to hold that band should not be treated as an aggravating
circumstance separate and distinct from abuse of superior strength. The two
circumstances have the same essence which is the utilization of the combined strength
of the assailants to overpower the victim and consummate the killing.
People of the Phil. vs. Mori (Bilaan), et al., G.R. Nos. L-23511 & L-23512, January 31,
1974

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 234
 People of the Phil. vs. Ceferino T. Medrana, G.R. No. L-31871, December 14, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Alex Bantillo, et al., G.R. No. 117949, October 23, 2000

The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of their superior strength and

with the use of firearms is absorbed by the generic aggravating circumstance of the
commission of the offense by a band.
People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Escabarte, et al., G.R. No. L-42964, March 14, 1988

Since the robbery with homicide herein was committed by a band, the element of
band would be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance which may be
offset by mitigating circumstances.
People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Alvarez, G.R. No. 70446, January 31, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Apduhan, et al., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Marquez, et al.,, G.R. Nos. L-24373-74, November 28,
1969

People of the Phil. vs. Crisostomo Saquing, et al., G.R. No. L-27903, December 26,
1969

People of the Phil. vs. Mabini Garachico, et al., G.R. No. L-30849, March 29, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Aniceto Pedroso, G.R. No. L-32997, July 30, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Cruz, G.R. No. L-37173, November 29, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Lamosa, et al., G.R. Nos. 74291-93, May 23, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Mateo, Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 53926-29, November 13,
1989

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Precioso, et al., G.R. No. 95890, May 12, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Cayanan, et al., G.R. Nos. 73257-58, June 16, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Pacapac, et al., G.R. No. 90623, September 7, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Orlando L. Lutao, et al., G.R. No. 107798, November 16, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Reyes and Nestor Pagal, G.R. No. 120642, July 2, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Carrozo, et al., G.R. No. 97913, October 12, 2000

In the crime of robbery with rape, band is an aggravating circumstance.

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 235
 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando L. Lutao, et al., G.R. No. 107798, November 16, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Tejero, G.R. No. 128892, June 21, 1999

We cannot treat the ordinary aggravating circumstance of band because it was not
alleged in the body of the information. Though it is an ordinary aggravating
circumstance, the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure require that even generic
aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the Information.
People of the Phil. vs. Nerio Suela, G.R. No. 133570-71, January 15, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Tumulak, G.R. No. 112459, March 28, 2003

Although the new rule took effect on December 1, 2000 long after the crime was
committed, the same shall be applied retroactively being favorable to the appellant.
People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Salvador, G. R. No. 132481, August 14, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Pio Biso, G.R. Nos. 111098-99, April 3, 2003

Art. 14 (9) - Aggravating Circumstance: Recidivism (Reincidencia)

Article 14(9) of the Revised Penal Code defines a recidivist as "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." To prove recidivism, it is
necessary to allege the same in the Information and to attach thereto certified copies
of the sentences rendered against the accused. [People of the Phil. vs. Roland Molina,
G.R. Nos. 134777-78, July 24, 2000] Nonetheless, the trial court may still give such
aggravating circumstance credence if the accused does not object to the presentation
of evidence on the fact of recidivism.
People of the Phil. vs. Conde Rapisora, G.R. No. 147855, May 28, 2004

A recidivist is 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. It is one of the requisites of recidivism that both the first and second
offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code.
People of the Phil. vs. Amador Atienza, G.R. No. L-38571, March 31, 1980

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 236
 People of the Phil. vs. Victor B. Asibar, et al., G.R. No. L-37255, October 23, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Toledo, G.R. No. L-38495, July 25, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Gentem Kintuan, G.R. No. 74100, December 3, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Kyamko, G.R. No. 103805, May 17, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Roland Molina, G.R. Nos. 134777-78, July 24, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Escarda, G.R. No. 120548, October 26, 2001

In recidivism or reincidencia, the offender shall have been previously convicted by

final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code
(Revised Penal Code, Art. 14[g]. In reiteracion, the offender shall have been punished
previously for an offense of which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for
two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty (Revised Penal Code, Art. 14
[10]). Unlike in recidencia, the offender in reiteracion commits a crime different in
kind from that for which he was previously tried and convicted (Guevarra, Penal
Sciences and Philippine Criminal Law 129 [1974).
People of the Phil. vs. Melchor B. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995

"At the time of trial for an offense" is employed in the general sense, including the
rendering of judgment.
People of the Phil. vs. Juan P. Enriquez, G.R. No. L-4934, November 28, 1951, 90 Phil
423

People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio G. Lagarto, Jr., G.R. No. 65833, May 6, 1991

"At the trial" 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.
United States vs. J. Valentine Karelsen, G.R. No. 1376, January 21, 1904, 3 Phil. 223

People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio G. Lagarto, Jr., G.R. No. 65833, May 6, 1991

There can be no recidivism without final judgment.

Carlos Lopido y Galang vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 45698, December 18, 1937, 65
Phil 189 (1937)

People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Escarda, G.R. No. 120548, October 26, 2001

The best evidence of a prior conviction is a certified copy of the original judgment
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 237
 of conviction, and such evidence is always admissible and conclusive unless the
accused himself denies his identity with the person convicted at the former trial.
United States vs. Ah Tung, et al., G.R. No. 8946, December 20, 1913, 26 Phil 321

People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Escarda, G.R. No. 120548, October 26, 2001

To find recidivism against an accused, the same must be alleged in the Information
and certified copies of the sentences rendered must be adduced at the trial and
admitted as evidence with knowledge of the accused.
United States vs. Eulogio De Mesa, et al., G.R. No. L-3441, March 9, 1907, 7 Phil. 729

People of the Phil. vs. Swame Claudett Scott, G.R. No. 43178, December 4, 1935, 62
Phil. 553

People of the Phil. vs. Diego Hermosilla, G.R. No. L-58414, June 24, 1983

People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Ang, et al., G.R. No. L-62833, October 8, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990

However, even if it is not alleged, the same may be appreciated if proven by

evidence,
People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro L. Perez, G.R. No. 50044, July 31, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Entes, G.R. No. L-50632, February 24, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Ang, et al., G.R. No. L-62833, October 8, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando C. Monteverde, G.R. No. L-60962, July 11, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Martinada, et al., G.R. Nos. 66401-03, February 13,
1991

or if admitted by the accused during the trial (or if the accused does not object to
the presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism).
People of the Phil. vs. Silverio Luna, G.R. No. L-28812, July 31, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Agripino Carzano, et al., G.R. No. L-29571, January 22, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Ariola, et al., G.R. No. L-38457, October 29, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro L. Perez, G.R. No. 50044, July 31, 1981

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 238
 People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Ang, et al., G.R. No. L-62833, October 8, 1985

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando C. Monteverde, G.R. No. L-60962, July 11, 1986

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Martinada, et al., G.R. Nos. 66401-03, February 13,
1991

People of the Phil. vs. Peter Cadevida, et al., G.R. No. 94528, March 1, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Chua, G.R. No. 121792, October 7, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Roland Molina, G.R. Nos. 134777-78, July 24, 2000

But, it was also held that absence of allegation in the information bars the trial
court from allowing presentation of evidence regarding the matter.
United States vs. Tieng Pay, G.R. No. 17333, October 3, 1921, 42 Phil. 212

People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Molato, G.R. No. 66634, February 27, 1989

Even if the prosecution did not formally offer the judgment of conviction in
another criminal case involving the accused, the trial court may appreciate recidivism
by taking judicial notice of the finality of said judgment. The decision in that case was
rendered by the same trial court which convicted appellant in the instant case.
People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Somera, G.R. No. 65589, May 31, 1989

Recidivism cannot be appreciated if prosecution fails to present "certified true

copies of the judgment of conviction" in the other case even if accused-appellant fails
"to object to such lack or presentation."
People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio C. Compendio, Jr., G.R. No. 114002, July 5, 1996

Pardon for a preceding offense does not obliterate the fact that accused is a
recidivist upon conviction of a second offense embraced in the same title of the Code.
People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Lacao, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 95320, September 4, 1991

Art. 14 (10) - Aggravating Circumstance: Habitual offender (reiteracion)

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 239
 By reason of his previous three convictions by final judgment for the crime of theft,
the lower court also rightly considered him as a habitual delinquent.
People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Oquiño, G.R. No. L-37483, June 24, 1983

In recidivism or reincidencia, the offender shall have been previously convicted by

final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code
(Revised Penal Code, Art. 14[g]). In reiteracion, the offender shall have been
punished previously 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 (Revised Penal
Code, Art. 14[10]). Unlike in reincidencia, the offender in reiteracion commits a crime
different in kind from that for which he was previously tried and convicted (Guevarra,
Penal Sciences and Philippine Criminal Law 129 [1974]).
People of the Phil. vs. Melchor B. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995

The robbery was aggravated by habituality or reiteracion under Article 14(10) not
recidivism under Article 14(9) as ruled by the trial court. Habituality requires 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." Unlike in recidivism where the offender has been "previously convicted by
final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title" of the Revised Penal
Code, in reiteracion, the previous crime must not belong to the same title of the Code
as the second offense.
People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Q. Monterey, G.R. No. 109767, September 3, 1996

To prove reiteracion, it is necessary to present as evidence certified copies of the

sentence rendered against the accused except when the defendant pleads guilty to an
information alleging reiteracion.
United States vs. Juan Ramos et al., G.R. No. 539, April 1, 1902, 1 Phil. 192

United States vs. Eulogio De Mesa, et al., G.R. No. L-3441, March 9, 1907, 7 Phil. 729

People of the Phil. vs. Swame Claudett Scott, G.R. No. 43178, December 4, 1935, 62
Phil. 553

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco De La Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 45284, December 29,
1936, 63 Phil. 874

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Q. Monterey, G.R. No. 109767, September 3, 1996

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 240
 Art. 14 (11) - Aggravating Circumstance: In consideration of a price, reward
or promise (precio, recompensa or promesa)

Evident premeditation and price, reward or promise must be considered separately -

"It has been suggested that the commission of the crime with deliberate premeditation
and 'for a price or promise of reward' should not be treated as two distinct aggravating
circumstances, because it is said that the latter necessarily implies the former. This
contention, however, can not be sustained in this case and is fully answered by the
language of the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision of March 3, 1885:

'Considering, it says, 'that one or the other of the circumstances (treachery or

premeditation) is present, either one of them serves to qualify the crime of
assassination, and the other to determine the penalty according to the constant
jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, and it further appears that the assassination was
committed for a price, without there existing any incompatibility between this
circumstance and that of premeditation, because, if it is certain that by the general rule
the first implies the second, it is not less certain that the latter may be present without
the former, and in the present case, after the agreement of the criminals as to the price,
they exhibited in their acts a studied and insistent tenacity in accomplishing the
criminal object they had proposed.' (Vinda, Vol. 1, p. 263)."
United States vs. Blas Rabor, G.R. No. L-3290, March 9, 1907, 7 Phil 726

People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano C. Hipolito, et al., G.R. No. L-31402, August 17, 1981

The aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and offer of money,

reward or promise are not incompatible and may be appreciated together, one being
independent of the other.
United States vs. Moro Manalinde, G.R. No. 5292, August 28, 1909, 14 Phil 77

People of the Phil. vs. Nicomedes Fabro, G.R. No. 95089, August 11, 1997

The aggravating circumstance of price, reward or promise considered regardless of

non prosecution of alleged giver of price, reward or promise.
People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano C. Hipolito, et al., G.R. No. L-31402, August 17, 1981

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 241
 The aggravating circumstance of price was present in the commission of the crime
and this affects not only the person who received the money or the reward but also the
person who gave it.
People of the Phil. vs. Leonora Talledo, et al., G.R. No. L-1778, February 23, 1950, 85
Phil. 533

People of the Phil. vs. Adriano Cañete, et al., G.R. No. L-37945, May 28, 1984

As defined by Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is the crime committed
by a person who kills another "in consideration of a price, reward, or promise." Said
qualifying circumstance of price or reward equally affects both the offeror and the
offeree — the former becomes a principal by inducement and the latter, a principal by
direct participation.
United States vs. Maharaja Alim, G.R. No. 13312, April 1, 1918, 38 Phil. 1

People of the Phil. vs. Nenito Alincastre y Nabor, et al., G.R. No. L-29891, August 30,
1971

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Gerolaga, et al., G.R. No. 89075, October 15, 1996

Art. 14 (13) - Aggravating Circumstance: Evident Premeditation

(Premeditation Conocida)

In general
Requisites
First element - The time when the offender determined to commit the crime
Second element - An act manifestly indicating that the culprit had clung to his
determination
Third element - Sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution
Must be proven as clearly as the crime itself
Conspiracy
Motive
Inherent in crimes against property
Cannot co-exist with passion and obfuscation
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 242
 May exist even when definite victim has not been settled upon
Not appreciated if deceased was not intended victim
May be appreciated even if deceased was not intended victim if conspirators were
determined to kill anyone who may resist

In general

There is evident premeditation when the killing had been carefully planned by the
offender, when he prepared before hand the means which he deemed suitable for
carrying it into execution, and when he had sufficient time dispassionately to consider
and accept the consequences, and when there has been a concerted plan.
United States vs. Eulalio Cornejo, G.R. No. 9773. November 20, 1914, 28 Phil. 457

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Bangug, et al., G.R. No. 28832, September 17, 1928, 52
Phil. 87

People of the Phil. vs. Lucas Canitan, et al., G.R. No. L-16498. June 29, 1963, 118
Phil. 370

People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Camano, G.R. Nos. L-36662-63, July 30, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Lasanas, G.R. No. L-48879-82, July 7, 1987

The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must
be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the
criminal intent, during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
People v. Dearo, G.R. No. 190862, October 9, 2013

Requisites

Evident premeditation requires proof of the following: (1) the time when the
offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the
culprit had clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his
will after he decided to hearken its warnings.
People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Magno, et al., G.R. No. 134535, January 19, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Casimiro Jose, G.R. No. 130666, January 31, 2000

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 243
 People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso Virtucio Jr., G.R. No. 130667, February 22, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Orio et al., G.R. No. 128821, April 12, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Orlito Gadin, G.R. No. 130658, May 4, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Ladit, et al., G.R. No. 127571, May 11, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Forca, et al., G.R. No. 134938, June 8, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Luter Orcula, et al., G.R. No. 132350, July 5, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio De la Tongga G.R. No. 133246, July 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Samolde, et al., G.R. No. 128551, July 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Zaldy Casingal, G.R. No. 132214, August 1, 2000

Solomon Rabor vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 140344, August 18, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Cando, et al., G.R. No. 128114, October 25, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Sabado, G.R. No. 135963, November 20, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ruby Mariano, et al., G.R. No. 134847, December 6, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Rafael D. Torres Jr., G.R. No. 138046, December 8, 2000

People of the Phils. vs. Cafgu Francisco Baltar, G.R. No. 125306, December 11, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Cortez, et al., G.R. No. 131924, December 26, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, January 24, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Capitle, G.R. No. 137046, February 26, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Julio Herida, et al., G.R. No. 127158, March 5, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Jomer Cabansay, G.R. No. 138646, March 6, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Galvez, G.R. No. 136790, March 26, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Enriquez, G.R. No. 138264, April 20, 2001

People of the Phils. vs. Roberto Palabrica, G.R. No. 129285, May 7, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Felix Uganap, et al., G.R. No. 130605, June 19, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tan, et al., G.R. Nos. 116200-02, June 21, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Ben Aquino and Romeo Aquino, G.R. No. 145371, September

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 244
 28, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Cabote a.k.a. "Pito", G.R. No. 136143, November 15,
2001

People of the Phils. vs. Rosauro Sia, et al., G.R. No. 137457, November 21, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Gario Alba, G.R. No. 130523, January 29, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Calago, G.R. No. 141122, April 22, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Abadies, G.R. No. 135975, August 14, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Loterono G.R. No. 146100, November 13, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Alvin Villanueva, G.R. No. 139177, August 11, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Perez, G.R. No. 134485, October 23, 2003

For evident premeditation to be considered, it must affirmatively appear from the

overt acts of the accused that they definitely resolved to commit the offense; that they
coolly and dispassionately reflected on the means of carrying their resolution into
execution and on the consequences of their criminal design; and, that an appreciable
length of time elapsed as to expect an aroused conscience to otherwise relent and
desist from the accomplishment of the intended crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio T. Pastoral, G.R. No. 51686, September 10, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro R. Cedenio, et al., G.R. No. 93485, June 27, 1994

First Element - The time when the offender determined to commit the crime

To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, it must appear not only that the
accused decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution but also that
this decision was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection, or persistent attempt
-
People of the Phil. vs. Antonio V. Eribal, G.R. No. 127662, March 25, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Basao, et al., G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 245
 People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Paragas, et al., G.R. No. 146308, July 18, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Riz M. Jarlos, G.R. No. 140897, February 19, 2003

Evident premeditation can not be appreciated where the prosecution failed to

establish that the accused killed the victim pursuant to a preconceived plan.
People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Molina, G.R. No. 125397, August 10, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Cando, et al., G.R. No. 128114, October 25, 2000

The essence of premeditation is that the accused meditated and reflected on his
criminal intent between the time when the crime was conceived by him and the time it
was actually perpetrated.
People of the Phil. vs. Elorde Antud, G.R. No. 95684, October 27, 1992

People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Balderama, et al., G.R. Nos. 89597-98, September 17,
1993

When there is no showing as to how and when the plan to kill was decided or what
time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered
to exist
People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Patawaran, G.R. No. 108616, June 19, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Sambulan, et al., G.R. No. 112972, April 24, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Naag, G.R. No. 123860, January 20, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Orlito Gadin, G.R. No. 130658, May 4, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Ladit, et al., G.R. No. 127571, May 11, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Noel Feliciano, G.R. Nos. 127759-60, September 25, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003

Evident premeditation cannot be considered to qualify murder where it is not

shown when the plan to kill was hatched, or how much time had elapsed before it was
carried out.
People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Capitle, G.R. No. 137046, February 26, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Herrera De Leon, G.R. No. 126287, April 26, 2001

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 246
 People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Cabote a.k.a. "Pito", G.R. No. 136143, November 15,
2001

People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Paragas, et al., G.R. No. 146308, July 18, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Riz M. Jarlos, G.R. No. 140897, February 19, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Liberato Solamillo, et al., G.R. No. 123161, June 18, 2003

Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated to qualify a killing to murder in the

absence of evidence, not only of sufficient lapse of time, but also of the planning and
preparation to kill when the plan was conceived.
People of the Phil. vs. Jose Soldao, et al., G.R. No. 80225, March 31, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Nell, G.R. No. 109660, July 1, 1997

Second Element - An act manifestly indicating that the culprit had clung to his
determination

It is not sufficient to suspect that premeditation preceded the crime. The criminal
intent evidenced by outward acts must be notorious and manifest, and the purpose and
determination must be plain and have been adopted after mature consideration on the
part of the persons who conceived and resolved upon the perpetration of the crime, as
a result of deliberation, meditation, and reflection sometime before its commission.
United States vs. Felipe Bañagale, G.R. No. 7870, January 10, 1913, 24 Phil. 69

People of the Phil. vs. Hilario Mendova, G.R. No. L-7030, January 31, 1957, 100 Phil.
811

People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Lacao, et al., G.R. No. L-32078, September 30, 1974

People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Lamosa, et al., G.R. Nos. 74291-93, May 23, 1989

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Chua, G.R. No. 121792, October 7, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Onyot Mahinay, et al., G.R. No. 125311, March 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Tan, G.R. No. 129882, September 14, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 129371, October 4, 2000

In order to be considered an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must not

merely be "premeditation" but must be "evident premeditation."

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 247
 People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio Umayam, G.R. No. 134572, April 18, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Abadies, G.R. No. 135975, August 14, 2002

Evident premeditation must be based on external acts and must be evident, not
merely suspected, indicating deliberate planning. Otherwise stated, there must be a
demonstration by outward acts of a criminal intent that is notorious and manifest. It is
not enough that premeditation be suspected or surmised, but the criminal intent must
be evidenced by notorious outward acts evincing determination to commit the crime.
United States vs. Mariano Ricafort, G.R. No. 55. March 19, 1902, 1 Phil. 173

United States vs. Felipe Bañagale, G.R. No. 7870, January 10, 1913, 24 Phil. 69

People of the Phil. vs. Hilario Mendova, G.R. No. L-7030, January 31, 1957, 100 Phil.
811

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito C. Alde, G.R. No. L-31041, May 20, 1975

People of the Phil. vs. Emilio F. Narit, G.R. No. 77087, May 23, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Frederick Villamor, et al., G.R. No. 124981, July 10, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Chua, G.R. No. 121792, October 7, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Dimailig, G.R. No. 120170, May 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ruby Mariano, et al., G.R. No. 134847, December 6, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tan, et al., G.R. Nos. 116200-02, June 21, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Abadies, G.R. No. 135975, August 14, 2002

The plan to kill the victim must be evident and not merely suspected, or
contemplated mentally without external acts.
People of the Phil. vs. Armin Besana, G.R. No. 102722, March 17, 1993

The plan to commit the offense can be deduced from the outward circumstances.
People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Ompad, et al., G.R. No. L-23513, January 31, 1969

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus C. Saliling, G.R. No. 117732, October 10, 1995

Third Element – A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the
execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 248
 allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will after he decided to hearken
its warnings.

The qualifying circumstance of premeditation can be satisfactorily established only

if it could be proved that the defendant had ample and sufficient time to allow his
conscience to overcome the determination of his will, if he had so desired, after
meditation and reflection, following his plan to commit the crime.
United States vs. Felipe Abaigar, G.R. No. 1255, August 17, 1903, 2 Phil 417

United States vs. Joaquin Gil, G.R. No. 4704, April 26, 1909, 13 Phil 530

People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. L-119, April 10, 1946, 76
Phil. 473

People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto M. Montejo, G.R. No. L-68857, November 21, 1988

In other words, the qualifying circumstance of premeditation can be taken into

account only when there had been a cold and deep meditation, and a tenacious
persistence in the accomplishment of the criminal act.
United States vs. Felino Cunanan, G.R. No. L-13177, March 12, 1918, 37 Phil. 777

People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. L-119, April 10, 1946, 76
Phil. 473

People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto M. Montejo, G.R. No. L-68857, November 21, 1988

But when the determination to commit the crime was immediately followed by
execution, the circumstance of premeditation cannot be legally considered.
United States vs. Buenaventura Blanco, G.R. No. L-6071, January 4, 1911, 18 Phil.
206

People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. L-119, April 10, 1946, 76
Phil. 473

People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto M. Montejo, G.R. No. L-68857, November 21, 1988

To justify the inference of deliberate premeditation there must be a period

sufficient in a judicial sense to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection,
and sufficient time to allow the conscience of the actor to overcome the resolution of
his will (vencer las determinaciones de la voluntad) had he desired to hearken to its
warnings. The execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and
reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 249
 sufficient to arrive at a clear judgment.
People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Francisco, et al., G.R. No. 69580, February 15, 1990

People of the Phil. vs. Emilio F. Narit, G.R. No. 77087, May 23, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Cipriano Barba, G.R. No. 50433, November 13, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Edna P. Cordero, G.R. No. 97229, January 5, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Boniao, G.R. No. 100800, January 27, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo E. Cabodoc, G.R. No. 118320, October 15, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Joel Sol, G.R. No. 118504, May 7, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Renato Albao, et al., G.R. No. 117481, March 6, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Nonoy Felix, et al., G.R. No. 126914, October 1, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Tabones, et al., G.R. No. 129695, March 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Raul H. Sesbreño, G.R. No. 121764, September 9, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Carlie Alagon, et al., G.R. Nos. 126536-37, February 10, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Pio Biso, G.R. Nos. 111098-99, April 3, 2003

The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be
preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal
intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment
People of the Phil. vs. Carlie Alagon, et al., G.R. Nos. 126536-37, February 10, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Samolde, et al., G.R. No. 128551, July 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Felix Uganap, et al., G.R. No. 130605, June 19, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tan, et al., G.R. Nos. 116200-02, June 21, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Cabote a.k.a. "Pito", G.R. No. 136143, November 15,
2001

People of the Phils. vs. Rosauro Sia, et al., G.R. No. 137457, November 21, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Paragas, et al., G.R. No. 146308, July 18, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Abadies, G.R. No. 135975, August 14, 2002

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 250
 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Loterono G.R. No. 146100, November 13, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Rivera, G.R. No. 139185, September 29, 2003

Evident premeditation connotes a deliberate adherence to a plan to commit a crime.

The mere lapse of time is not enough, i.e., premeditation is not to be presumed from
mere lapse of time.
United States vs. Mariano Ricafort, G.R. No. 55. March 19, 1902, 1 Phil. 173

People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Manalo, G.R. No. L-55177, February 27, 1987

People of the Phil. vs. Emilio F. Narit, G.R. No. 77087, May 23, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Cipriano Barba, G.R. No. 50433, November 13, 1991

People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 111568, March 2, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Silvestre, et al., G.R. No. 109142, May 29, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio C. Deopante, G.R. No. 102772, October 30, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Layno, et al., G.R. No. 110833, November 21, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Joel Sol, G.R. No. 118504, May 7, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Nell, G.R. No. 109660, July 1, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Piamonte, G.R. No. 91999, February 25, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Pio Biso, G.R. Nos. 111098-99, April 3, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Bernabe Montemayor, G.R. No. 125305, June 18, 2003

It is necessary to establish that the accused meditated on his intention between the
time it was conceived and the time the crime was actually perpetrated. Defendant's
proposition (to kill the victim some time before the killing) was nothing but an
expression of his own determination to commit the crime which is entirely different
from premeditation.
People of the Phil. vs. Silvestre Carillo, G.R. No. L-283, October 30, 1946, 77 Phil 572

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito C. Alde, G.R. No. L-31041, May 20, 1975

People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio G. Lagarto, Jr., G.R. No. 65833, May 6, 1991

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 251
 The law does not prescribe a time frame that must elapse from the time the felon
has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he commits it. Each case must be
resolved on the basis of the extant factual milieu.
People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003

This Court has ruled that the lapse of just two (2) hours from the inception of the
plan to the execution of the crime satisfies the last requisite for the appreciation of
evident premeditation
People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas G. Mojica, G.R. No. L-17234, March 31, 1964

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Boniao, G.R. No. 100800, January 27, 1993

The interval between the two (2) events was only fifteen (15) minutes; we are
unable to say with any confidence that fifteen (15) minutes were enough to allow
reflection and the activation and operation of conscience.
United States vs. Buenaventura Blanco, G.R. No. L-6071, January 4, 1911, 18 Phil.
206

People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente D. Deuna, et al., G.R. No. 87555, November 16, 1993

The killing of the deceased was aggravated by evident premeditation, because the
accused conceived of the assault at least one hour before its perpetration
People of the Phil. vs. Porfirio Dumdum, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-35279, July 30, 1979

Where the assault followed closely a previous incident, between the assailant and
the victim, the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation cannot be deemed to
have attended the commission of the crime
People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Sagayno, et al., G.R. Nos. L-15961-62, October 31,
1963

People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto M. Montejo, G.R. No. L-68857, November 21, 1988

Accidental encounter negates existence of evidence premeditation

People of the Phil. vs. Felix Mozar, G.R. No. L-33544, July 25, 1984

Must be proven as clearly as the crime itself

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 252
 The requisites/elements of evident premeditation must be established with proof, as
clear as that for the crime itself. The evidence must be such as to dispel any
reasonable doubt as to its existence. The same quantum as is necessary to establish the
crime is required; that degree of clarity is indispensable.
People of the Phil. vs. Casimiro Jose, G.R. No. 130666, January 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Mendoza, G.R. No. 128890, May 31, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Amer Moyong, et al., G.R. Nos. 135413-15, November 15, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Ruby Mariano, et al., G.R. No. 134847, December 6, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Capitle, G.R. No. 137046, February 26, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tan, et al., G.R. Nos. 116200-02, June 21, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Felix Uganap, et al., G.R. No. 130605, June 19, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Abadies, G.R. No. 135975, August 14, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Bello, et al., G.R. No. 139054, December 9, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Perez, G.R. No. 134485, October 23, 2003

Mere presumptions and inferences, no matter how logical and probable they might
be, would not suffice to establish evident premeditation
People of the Phil. vs. Wilson Villanueva, G.R. No. 116610, December 2, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Chua, G.R. No. 121792, October 7, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Onyot Mahinay, et al., G.R. No. 125311, March 17, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Andres Peñaflorida, G.R. No. 130550, September 2, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Tan, G.R. No. 129882, September 14, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 129371, October 4, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Paragas, et al., G.R. No. 146308, July 18, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Pio Biso, G.R. Nos. 111098-99, April 3, 2003

Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated to qualify a killing murder in the

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 253
 absence of direct evidence of the planning and preparation to kill when the plan was
conceived.
People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tampon, G.R. No. 105583, July 5, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Narciso Nazareno, et al., G.R. No. 103964, August 11, 1996

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Patawaran, G.R. No. 108616, June 19, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Rodencio Narca, et al., G.R. No. 108488, July 21, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Asto, et al., G.R. No. 108611, August 20, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Renato Platilla, G.R. No. 126123, March 9, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Altabano, et al., G.R. No. 121344, October 29, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Orio et al., G.R. No. 128821, April 12, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Naag, G.R. No. 123860, January 20, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Orlito Gadin, G.R. No. 130658, May 4, 2000

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001

nor can it be deduced from a mere presumption or sheer speculation.

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo B. Barros, G.R Nos. 101107-08, June 27, 1995

People of the Phil. vs. Danny Queliza, G.R. No. 124135, September 15, 1997

Conspiracy

Under normal conditions, where conspiracy is directly established with proof of the
attendant deliberation and selection of the method, time and means of executing the
crime, the existence of evident premeditation can be taken for granted.
People of the Phil. vs. Valentin Custodio, et al., G.R. No. L-7442, October 24, 1955, 97
Phil. 698

People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Ramirez Sarino, et al., G.R. Nos. 94992-93, April 7,
1993

People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Moreno, et al., G.R. No. 120956, June 11, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Matt G. Campomanes, et al., G.R. No. 132568, February 6, 2002

The existence of conspiracy notwithstanding, evident premeditation cannot be

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 254
 presumed. Only where conspiracy is directly established, as opposed to its being
merely implied, can this aggravating circumstance itself be possibly assumed to be
attendant.
People of the Phil. vs. Mario Padlan, et al., G.R. No. 111263, May 21, 1998

People of the Phil. vs. Amador Sapigao, et al., G.R. No. 144975, June 18, 2003

When conspiracy is merely inferred from the acts of the accused in the perpetration
of the crime, evident premeditation may not be appreciated in the absence of proof as
to how and when the plan to kill the victim was hatched, or what period of time
elapsed before it was carried out.
People of the Phil. vs. Valentin Custodio, et al., G.R. No. L-7442, October 24, 1955, 97
Phil. 698

People of the Phil. vs. Charlie R. Repe, et al., G.R. No. 64935, July 19, 1989

Motive

While the motive for the commission of the crime may be duly established it does
not constitute sufficient ground to consider the existence of evident premeditation
People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Valdez, G.R. No. 127663, March 11, 1999

People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Basao, et al., G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999

Inherent in crimes against property

People of the Phil. vs. Dindo F. Pajotal, et al., G.R. No. 142870, November 14, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Cantonjos, et al., G.R. No. 136748, November 21, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio C. Felipe, G.R. No. 131808, February 6, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Eligio Ciron, G.R. No. 139409, March 18, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Catian, et al., G.R. No. 139693, January 24, 2002

but it may be considered in robbery with homicide if there is premeditation to kill

besides stealing.
People of the Phil. vs. Karunsiang Guiapar, et al., G.R. No. L-35465, May 31, 1984

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 255
 People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Cando, et al., G.R. No. 128114, October 25, 2000

Cannot co-exist with passion and obfuscation

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002

People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Cañete, et al., G.R. No. 138366, September 11, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Ponce Jamon, G.R. No. 141942, October 13, 2003

People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 140513, November 18, 2003

May exist even when definite victim has not been settled upon

Evident premeditation may exist even if at the time the offender determined to
commit the crime, a definite victim had not been settled upon. (The fact that the
arrangement between the instigator and the tool considered the killing of unknown
persons, the first encountered, does not bar the consideration of the circumstance of
premeditation. The nature and the circumstances which characterize the crime, the
perversity of the culprit, and the material and moral injury are the same, and the fact
that the victim was not predetermined does not affect nor alter the nature of the
crime.) plpecdtai

United States vs. Moro Manalinde, G.R. No. 5292, August 28, 1909, 14 Phil 77

People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Balatucan, et al., G.R. Nos. 93805-06, February 7, 1992

Not appreciated if deceased was not intended victim

Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated if the deceased was not the intended
victim. (Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated in a case where, although the
accused had planned the perpetuation of the killing, the victim was different from the
person whom the accused had originally intended to kill.)
People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Mabug-at, G.R. No. 25459, August 10, 1926, 51 Phil.
967

People of the Phil. vs. Julio Guillen, G.R. No. L-1477, January 18, 1950, 85 Phil. 307

People of the Phil. vs. Narciso Umali, G.R. No. L-5803, November 29, 1954, 96 Phil.
185

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 256
 People of the Phil. vs. Constancio Guevarra, et al., G.R. No. L-24371, April 16, 1968

People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Dueño, et al., G.R. No. L-31102, May 5, 1979

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Boniao, G.R. No. 100800, January 27, 1993

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo B. Barros, G.R Nos. 101107-08, June 27, 1995

May be appreciated even if deceased was not intended victim if conspirators were
determined to kill anyone who may resist

Evident premeditation may be considered as present, even if a person other than the
intended victim was killed (or wounded, as in this case), if it is shown that the
conspirators were determined to kill not only the intended victim but also anyone who
may help him put a violent resistance.
People of the Phil. vs. Timbol, 47 OG 1862, August 4, 1944

People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Ubiña, et al., G.R. No. L-6969, August 31, 1955, 97 Phil.
515

People of the Phil. vs. Elmer O. Belga, G.R. Nos. 94376-77, July 11, 1996

Art. 14 (14) - Aggravating Circumstance: Craft, fraud or disguise (disfraz)

Craft, fraud or disguise is a species of aggravating circumstance that denotes

intellectual trickery or cunning resorted to by an accused to aid in the execution of his
criminal design or to lure the victim into a trap and to conceal the identity of the
accused.
People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Quiñanola, et al., G.R. No. 126148, May 5, 1999
Craft
Fraud
Disguise (disfraz)

Craft

In the crime of robbery with homicide, craft is not absorbed by treachery when it
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 257
 has a very distinct application to robbery and is not employed to make treachery more
effective (treachery is applicable only to the homicide).
United States vs. Clemente Gampoña, et al., G.R. No. 12057, August 30, 1917, 36 Phil
817

People of the Phil. vs. Sakam, et al., G.R. No. 41566, December 7, 1934, 61 Phil. 27

People of the Phil. vs. Luisito San Pedro, et al., G.R. No. L-44274, January 22, 1980

Craft may be absorbed in treachery if it is deliberately adopted as the means,

method or from for the treacherous strategy. It may co-exist independently from
treachery only when both circumstances are adopted for different purposes in the
commission of the crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Sakam, et al., G.R. No. 41566, December 7, 1934, 61 Phil. 27

People of the Phils. vs. Wilson Lab-Eo, G.R. No. 133438, January 16, 2002

Craft involves the use of intellectual trickery or cunning on the part of the accused.
People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Napili, G.R. No. L-2406, February 22, 1950, 85 Phil. 521

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Juliano, G.R. No. L-33053, January 28, 1980

People of the Phil. vs. Lito B. Revotoc, et al., G.R. No. L-37425, July 25, 1981

People of the Phil. vs. Sabeniano Lobetania, G.R. No. L-56973, August 30, 1982

People of the Phil. vs. Miguel Regato, et al., G.R. No. L-36750, January 31, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Karunsiang Guiapar, et al., G.R. No. L-35465, May 31, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Lor, et al., G.R. Nos. L-47440-42, September 12, 1984

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Violin, et al., G.R. Nos. 114003-06, January 14, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Disipulo, et al., G.R. Nos. 113245-47, August 18, 1997

People of the Phil. vs. Vivencio Labuguen, G.R. No. 127849, August 9, 2000

Craft is chicanery resorted to by the accused to aid in the execution of his criminal
design. It is employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime.
People of the Phil. vs. Realino Zea, G.R. No. L-23109, June 29, 1984

The aggravating circumstance of craft in the commission of the crime should not
and cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because it is not such an
Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013 258
 intellectual trickery or cunning device, scheme or artifice resorted to by the accused in
order to carry out his evil design.
People of the Phils. vs. Diosdado Comendador, G.R. No. L-38000, September 19, 1980

Craft or fraud, too, although neither alleged in the I