ARTICLES 11-15

Question 1

What are the five circumstances affecting criminal liability of a person under RPC?

Answer 1

1. Justifying Circumstances
2. Exempting Circumstances
3. Mitigating Circumstances
4. Aggravating Circumstances
5. Alternative Circumstances

Question 2

What are Justifying Circumstances?

Answer 2

Justifying Circumstances are those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from criminal and civil liability where the civil liability is borne by the person benefited by the act.

Question 3

What are Exempting Circumstances?

Answer 3

Exempting Circumstances are those grounds for exception from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary, or negligent, such as intelligence, freedom, intent or negligence.

Question 4

What are Mitigating Circumstances?

Answer 4

Mitigating Circumstances are those which if present in the commission of a crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability but serve only to reduce the penalty.

Question 5

What are Aggravating Circumstances?

Answer 5

Aggravating Circumstances are those which if attendant in the commission of a crime, serve to increase the penalty, without, however exceeding the maximum penalty provided by law for the offense.

Question 6

What are Alternative Circumstances?

Answer 6

Alternative Circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and other conditions attending to the commission.

Question 7

What are the elements of self defense?

Answer 7

1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Question 8

What are the elements of defense of relative?

Answer 8

1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
3. In case of Provocation was given by the person attacked, one defending had no part therein.

Question 9

What are the elements of defense of stranger?

Answer 9

1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
3. Person defending is not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

Question 10

What are the elements of avoidance of greater evil or injury?

Answer 10

1. Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2. Injury feared is greater than to avoid it
3. No other practical and less harmful means preventing it

Question 11

What are the elements of duty or lawful exercise of right or office?

Answer 11

1. Accused acted in performance of duty or lawful exercise of right or office
2. Injury caused as necessary consequence of due performance of duty or office

Question 12

What are the elements of obedience to superior order?

Answer 12

1. Order issued by superior
2. Lawful Purpose or at least patently lawful
3. Means to carry out order is also lawful

Question 13

What is imputability in relation to criminal law?

Answer 13

Imputability is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner. It implies that the act committed has been freely and consciously done and may, therefore, be put down to the doer as his very own.

Question 14

What is responsibility in relation to criminal law?

Answer 14

Responsibility is the obligation of suffering the consequences of crime. It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil consequences of the crime.

Question 15

Distinguish responsibility and imputability.

Answer 15

Imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to

a person, responsibility implies that the person must take the consequence of such a deed.

Question 16

What is guilt?

Answer 16

Guilt is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty.

Question 17

What are the six Justifying Circumstances?

Answer 17

1. Self-defense
2. Defense of a relative
3. Defense of a stranger
4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury
5. Duty or lawful exercise of right or office
6. Obedience to superior order

Question 18

T or F
Well-entrenched is the rule that where the accused invokes self defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself and he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution, for, even if the prosecution evidence is weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing.

Answer 18

True.

Question 19

T or F
Self-defense, must be proved with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it and it cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any
separate competent evidence but, in itself, is extremely doubtful.

Answer 19

True.

Question 20

T or F
The plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but in itself is extremely doubtful.

Answer 20

True.

Question 21

What are the rights included in self defense?

Answer 21

1. Right to life
2. Right to property
3. Right to honor

Question 22

T or F
There can be no self-defense, complete or
incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending himself

Answer 22

True.

Question 23

T or F
The reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it will have no basis if there is no unlawful aggression.

Answer 23

True.

Question 24

T or F
The lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself will have no basis if there is no unlawful aggression.

Answer 24

True.

Question 25

T or F

Unlawful aggression in self-defense is a condition sine qua non

Answer 25

True.

Question 26

What is lawful aggression?

Answer 26

The fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right in a more or less violent manner is an aggression that is lawful.

Question 27

What is unlawful aggression?

Answer 27

Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least
threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind.

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 weapon.

There must be an actual physical assault upon a person, or at least a threat to inflict real injury.

In case of threat, the same must be offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause an injury.

Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.

Unlawful aggression refers to an attack that has actually broken out or materialized or at the very least is clearly imminent; it cannot consist in oral threats or a merely threatening stance or posture.

Question 28

T or F
Insulting words addressed to the accused, no matter
how objectionable they may have been, without physical assault, could not constitute unlawful aggression.

Answer 28

True.

Question 29

T or F

A slap on the face is an unlawful aggression.

Answer 29

True. Since the face represents a person and his dignity, slapping it is a serious personal attack. It is a physical assault coupled with a willful disregard, nay, a defiance, of an individual’s personality. It may, therefore, be frequently regarded as placing in real danger a person’s dignity, rights and safety.

Question 30

T or F

Retaliation is self defense.

Answer 30

False.

Retaliation is different from an act of self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him. In self-defense, the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making a defense.

Question 31

T or F

There is unlawful aggression in an agreement to fight.

Answer 31

False.
Where the fight is agreed upon, each of the protagonists is at once assailant and assaulted, and neither can invoke the right of self-defense, because aggression which is an incident in the fight is bound to arise from one or the other of the combatants.

When parties mutually agree to fight, it is immaterial who attacks or receives the wound first, for the first act of force is an incident of the fight itself and in no wise is it an unwarranted and unexpected aggression which alone can legalize self-defense.

Question 32

T or F
The ancient common law rule in homicide denominated “retreat to the wall,” has now given way to the new rule “stand ground when in the right.”

Answer 32

True.

Question 33

When can defense of property be invoked as self defense as a justifying circumstance?

Answer 33

Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying
circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on
the person of one entrusted with said property.

Question 34

T or F
Defense of property is not of such importance as right to life, and defense of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted
with said property.

Answer 34

True.

Question 35

A, in the peaceable pursuit of his affairs, sees B rushing rapidly toward him, with an outstretched arm and a pistol in his hand, and using violent menaces against his life as he advances. Having approached near enough in the same attitude, A, who has a club in
his hand, strikes B over the head before or at the instant the pistol is discharged; and of the wound B dies. It turns out the pistol was loaded with powder only, and that the real design of B is only to terrify A.

Can A claim self-defense?

Answer 35

Yes, A can claim self-defense.

Will any reasonable man say that A is more criminal than he would have been if there had been a bullet in the pistol? Those who hold such doctrine must require that a man so attacked must, before he strikes the assailant, stop and ascertain how the pistol is loaded a doctrine which would entirely take away the essential right of self-defense. (US vs Ah Chong)

Question 36

T or F
The threatening attitude of the aggressor must be offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause an injury.

Answer 36

True.

Question 37

T or F
Whether or not the means employed is reasonable, will depend upon the nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor, his physical condition, character, size and other circumstances, and those of the person defending himself, and also the place and occasion of the assault.

Answer 37

True.

Question 38

T or F
Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability between the means of attack and defense. What the law requires is rational equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent
danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than reason, that moves or impels the defense, and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury.

Answer 38

True.

Question 39

What factors must be considered in determining the reasonableness of the means employed in self-defense?

Answer 39

1. The nature and quality of the weapons
2. Physical condition, character and size.
3. Other circumstances considered.

Question 40

When is there a lack of sufficient provocation?

Answer 40

The third requisite of self-defense is present —

1. When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself; or
2. When, even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient; or
3. When, even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself; or
4. When, even if a provocation was given by the person
   defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate
   to the act of aggression.

Question 41

T or F

Verbal argument is sufficient provocation in self defense.

Answer 41

False.

Question 42

T or F
Under Rep. Act No . 9262 otherwise known as Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, which took effect on March 27, 2004, provides for Battered Women Syndrome as a Defense.

Answer 42

True.

Question 43

What is a battered woman?

Answer 43

A battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman.”

Question 44

Who are the relatives that can be defended?

Answer 44

1. Spouse.
2. Ascendants.
3. Descendants.
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or
   relatives by affinity in the same degrees.
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.

Relatives by affinity, because of marriage, are parents-in-law, son or daughter-in-law, and brother or sister-in-law.

Question 45

T or F
Consanguinity refers to blood relatives. Brothers and sisters are within the second civil degree; uncle and niece or aunt and nephew are within the third civil degree; and first cousins are within the fourth
civil degree.

Answer 45

True.

Question 46

What are the requisites of the defense of relatives?

Answer 46

Requisites of defense of relatives:

1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making a defense had no part therein.

Question 47

T or F

The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is immaterial.

Answer 47

True.

Question 48

A slapped and provoked B. B retaliated by drawing a knife and attempted to stab A. C is the father of A and C killed B in defense of A. Can C claim self defense of a relative.

Answer 48

Yes, even if it was A who caused the provocation. The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is immaterial.

Question 49

What are the requisites of the defense of a stranger?

Answer 49

Requisites:

1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

Question 50

Who are deemed strangers for purposes of self-defense?

Answer 50

Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of article 11, is considered stranger for the purpose of paragraph 3. Hence, even a close friend or a distant relative is a stranger within the meaning of paragraph 3.

Question 51

What are the requisites in the avoidance of greater evil or injury?

Answer 51

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 it;

Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

Question 52

T or F
As a rule there is no civil liability in justifying circumstances, it is only in paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the RPC where there is civil liability, but the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented, shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.

Answer 52

True.

Question 53

What are the requisites in the justifying circumstance of FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE?

Answer 53

Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

Requisites:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;

2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

Question 54

T or F

Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified.

Answer 54

True.

Question 55

T or F

Shooting a thief who refused to be arrested is not justified.

Answer 55

True.

Question 56

What are the requisites in OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE as a justifying circumstance?

Answer 56

Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

Requisites:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior.
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose.
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.
Both the person who gives the order and the person who executes it, must be acting within the limitations prescribed by law.

Question 57

T or F
The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent.

Answer 57

True.

Question 58

T or F
When an accused acted upon orders of superior officers, which he, as military subordinate, could not question, and obeyed the orders in good faith, without being aware of their illegality, without any fault
or negligence on his part, he is not liable because he had no criminal intent and he was not negligent.

Answer 58

True.

Question 59

What is the basis for exempting circumstances?

Answer 59

The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.

Under the Revised Penal Code, a person must act with
malice or negligence to be criminally liable. One who acts without intelligence, freedom of action or intent does not act with malice. On the other hand, one who acts without intelligence, freedom of action or fault does not act with negligence.

Question 60

What are the exempting circumstances under the RPC?

Answer 60

Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability.
— The following are exempt from criminal liability:
1 . An imbecile o r an insane person, unless the latter
has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed
an act which the la w define s as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement i n one o f the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.

2. A person under nine years of age.

3 . A person over nine year s of age and under fifteen,
unless he has acted with discernment, in which case , such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80 of this Code.

When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible , the court, in conformity with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said Article 80.

4 . Any person who , while performing a lawful act with
due care , causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.

5 . Any person who acts under the compulsion of an
irresistible force .

6 . Any person who acts under the impulse o f a n uncontrollable fear of an equal o r greater injury.

7 . Any person who fails to perform an act required by
law, when prevented by some lawful o r insuperable cause.

Question 61

T or F

In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises.

Answer 61

True.

Question 62

T or F
Technically, one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumstances commits a crime, although by the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arise.

Answer 62

True.

Question 63

T or F
While the imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability, the insane is not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted during a lucid interval.

Answer 63

True.

Question 64

What is an imbecile?

Answer 64

An imbecile is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children between two and seven years of age.

An imbecile within the meaning of Art. 12 is one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime.

Question 65

T or F

During lucid interval, the insane acts with intelligence.

Answer 65

True.

Question 66

T or F
In order that the exempting circumstance of insanity may be taken into account, it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence while
committing the act, that is, that the accused be deprived of reason; that he acts without the least discernment; or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will.

Answer 66

True.

Question 67

When is there insanity of a person?

Answer 67

Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment, because there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is a total deprivation of freedom of the will.

Question 68

What is the procedure to be followed when the imbecile or the insane committed a felony?

Answer 68

The court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the court.

But the court has no power to permit the insane person to leave the asylum without first obtaining the opinion of the Director of Health that he may be released without danger.

Question 69

Who has the burden of proof to show insanity?

Answer 69

The defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime, because the presumption is always in favor of sanity.

Sanity being the normal condition of the human mind, the prosecution may proceed upon the presumption that the accused was sane and responsible when the act was committed. The presumption is always in favor of sanity and the burden of proof of insanity is on
the defense.

Question 70

T or F

Presumption is always in favor of sanity.

Answer 70

True.

Question 71

T or F

When a person was sane at the time of the commission of thefelony, he is exempt from criminal liability.

Answer 71

False. He is criminally liable if he was sane during the commission.

When a person was insane at the time of the commission of the felony, he is exempt from criminal liability.

Question 72

T or F
When a person was sane at the time of the commission of the crime, but he becomes insane at the time of the trial, he is liable criminally.

Answer 72

True.

The trial, however, will be suspended until the mental capacity of the accused be restored to afford him a fair trial.

Question 73

T or F
The evidence of insanity 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. He is presumed to be sane when he committed it.

Answer 73

True.

Question 74

Is feeblemindedness an exempting circumstance under imbecility or insanity?

Answer 74

In the case of People vs. Formigones, supra, it was held that feeblemindedness is not exempting, because the offender could distinguish right from wrong. An imbecile or an insane cannot distinguish right from wrong.

Question 75

What are the other instances wherein there is a lack of intelligence?

Answer 75

1. Committing a crime while in a dream.
   a. Somnambulism or sleepwalking
   b. Hypnotism
2. Committing a crime while suffering from malignant
   malaria - can cause insanity sometimes.
3. A person under 15 years of age (15 years or less).
4. Children above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years of age who acted without discernment.

Question 76

Explain the treatment of children who commit crimes.

Answer 76

1. A person who is 9 years old or under are exempt from criminal liability.
2. Republic Act No. 9344 otherwise known as “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006” raised the age of absolute irresponsibility from nine (9) to fifteen (15) years of age. A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subject
   to an intervention program.
3. A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subject to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with Republic Act No. 9344 otherwise known as “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”

Question 77

When can a minor child be held criminally liable?

Answer 77

When the child is above 15 years old but below eighteen and has acted with discernment.

Question 78

T or F
It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a
minor who is over 15 but under 18 years of age has acted with discernment, in order for the minor not to be entitled to this exempting circumstance.

Answer 78

True.

Question 79

What are the periods of criminal responsibility under RA 9344?

Answer 79

Under the Code as amended by Republic Act No. 9344
(Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), the life of a human being is divided into four periods:

(1) The age of absolute irresponsibility — 9 years and below (infancy).
(2) The age of conditional responsibility — between 9 and 15 years.
(3) The age of full responsibility — 18 or over (adolescence) to 70 (maturity).
(4) The age of mitigated responsibility — over 9 and under 15, offender acting with discernment; 15 or over but less than 18; over 70 years of age.

Hence, senility which is the age over 70 years, although said to be the second childhood, is only a mitigated responsibility. It cannot be considered as similar to infancy which is exempting.

Question 80

What does discernment mean in relation to criminal law?

Answer 80

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, and such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial.

Question 81

Differentiate intent and discernment.

Answer 81

While both are products of the mental processes within a person, “intent” refers to the desired act of the person while “discernment” relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to the said act.

Question 82

T or F
The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority. He / She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years old or older.

Answer 82

True.

Question 83

How is the age of a minor determined?

Answer 83

The age of a child may be determined from the child’s birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.

Question 84

T or F

In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.

Answer 84

True.

Question 85

What are the elements of an accident as an exempting circumstance?

Answer 85

Elements:

1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
4. Without fault or intention of causing it

Question 86

Differentiate accident from negligence.

Answer 86

Supreme 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.

Question 87

What are the elements of force or violence exerted as an exempting circumstance?

Answer 87

Elements:

1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force.
2. That the physical force must be irresistible.
3. That the physical force must come from a third person.

Question 88

What are the elements of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury as an exempting circumstance?

Answer 88

Elements:
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which he is required to commit;

2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.

Question 89

What are the requisites of the prevention of a lawful cause as an exempting circumstance?

Answer 89

Elements:

1. That an act is required by law to be done;
2. That a person fails to perform such act;
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.

Question 90

Differentiate Justifying and Exempting Circumstances.

Answer 90

(1) A person who acts by virtue of a justifying circumstance does not transgress the law, that is, he does not commit any crime in the eyes of the law, because there is nothing unlawful in the act as well as in the intention of the actor. The act of such person is in itself both just and lawful.

In justifying circumstances, there is neither a crime nor a criminal. No civil liability, except in par. 4 (causing damage to another in state of necessity).

(2) In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no criminal liability. The act is not justified, but the actor is not criminally liable. There is civil liability, except in pars. 4 and 7 (causing an injury by mere accident; failing to perform an act required by law when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause) of Art. 12.

Question 91

What are absolutory causes?

Answer 91

Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.

Question 92

Differentiate entrapment from instigation.

Answer 92

There is a wide difference between entrapment and instigation, for while in the latter case 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 trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan.

Entrapment is no bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker. But when there is instigation, the accused must be acquitted.

Question 93

T or F
If the one who made the instigation is a private individual, not performing public function, both he and the one induced are criminally liable for the crime committed: the former, as principal by induction;
and the latter, as principal by direct participation.

Answer 93

True. It is only when the instigation was made by a public officer acting to incriminate the accused will the latter be acquitted.

Question 94

T or F

There is neither instigation nor entrapment when the violation of the law is simply discovered.

Answer 94

True.

Question 95

T or F

Assurance of immunity by a public officer does not exempt a person from criminal liability.

Answer 95

True.

Question 96

What are the complete defenses in criminal cases?

Answer 96

Complete defenses in criminal cases.

1. Any of the essential elements of the crime charged is not proved by the prosecution and the elements proved do not constitute any crime.
2. The act of the accused falls under any of the justifying circumstances. (Art. 11)
3. The case of the accused falls under any of the exempting circumstances. (Art. 12)
4. The case is covered by any of the absolutory causes:
   a. Spontaneous desistance during attempted stage (Art. 6), and no crime under another provision of the Code or other penal law is committed.

b. Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is not
against persons or property. (Art. 7)

c. The accessory is a relative of the principal. (Art. 20)
d. Legal grounds for arbitrary detention. (Art. 124)
e. Legal grounds for trespass. (Art. 280)

f. The crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is
committed against a relative. (Art. 332)

g. When only slight or less serious physical injuries are
inflicted by the person who surprised his spouse or
daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another
person. (Art. 247)

h. Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime committed is rape, abduction, seduction, or acts of lasciviousness. (Art. 344)
i. Instigation.
5. Guilt of the accused not established beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Prescription of crimes. (Art. 89)
7. Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal action in crime against chastity. (Art. 344)

Question 97

What is the basis of mitigating circumstances?

Answer 97

Mitigating circumstances are based on the diminution of

either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the offender.

Question 98

What are the classes of mitigating circumstances?

Answer 98

1. Ordinary mitigating circumstances - subsections 1-10
2. Privileged mitigating circumstances - found throughout the RPC
   a. Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under
   eighteen years of age
   b. Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime
   committed is not wholly excusable
   c. Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which
   contain three periods.
   d. Art. 268, par. 3
   e. Art. 333, par. 3

Question 99

T or F
Ordinary mitigating is susceptible of being offset by any aggravating circumstance; while privileged mitigating cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance.

Answer 99

True.

Question 100

T or F
Ordinary mitigating, if not offset by an aggravating
circumstance, produces only the effect of applying the
penalty provided by law for the crime in its minimum
period, in case of divisible penalty; whereas, privileged mitigating produces the effect of imposing upon the
offender the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that provided by law for the crime.

Answer 100

True.

Question 101

T or F

Mitigating circumstances only reduce the penalty, but do not change the nature of the crime.

Answer 101

True.

Question 102

There is mitigating circumstance if one of the elements/requisites of justifying or exempting circumstance is missing. To which justifying or exempting circumstance is this applicable?

Answer 102

The circumstances of justification or exemption which may give place to mitigation, because not all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are attendant, are the following:

(1) Self-defense (Art. 11, par. 1);
(2) Defense of relatives (Art. 11, par. 2);
(3) Defense of stranger (Art. 11, par. 3);
(4) State of necessity (Art. 11, par. 4);
(5) Performance of duty (Art. 11, par. 5);
(6) Obedience to order of superior (Art. 11, par. 6);
(7) Minority over 9 and under 15 years of age (Art. 12, par. 3);
(8) Causing injury by mere accident (Art. 12, par. 4); and
(9) Uncontrollable fear. (Art. 12, par. 6)

Question 103

T or F
In mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of stranger, unlawful aggression is not essential.

Answer 103

False. Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of stranger as a mitigating circumstance requires unlawful aggression because it is a condition sine qua non. What is absent in incomplete defense are the other two requisites.

Question 104

T or F
If there is no unlawful aggression, there could be no self defense or defense of a relative, whether complete or incomplete

Answer 104

True.

Question 105

Is there a mitigating circumstance in unintentional abortion? (Art 257)

Answer 105

In unintentional abortion, where the abortion that resulted is not intended by the offender, the mitigating circumstance that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed is not applicable. Art 13 par 3 not applicable.

Question 106

What is provocation?

Answer 106

By provocation is understood any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating any one.

Question 107

What are the requisites of provocation as a mitigating circumstance?

Answer 107

Requisites:

1. That the provocation must be sufficient.
2. That it must originate from the offended party.
3. That the provocation must be immediate to the act, i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked.

Question 108

T or F
Between the provocation by the offended party and the
commission of the crime by the person provoked, there should not be any interval of time.

Answer 108

True.

Question 109

What are the requisites of vindication of a grave offense against a relative as a mitigating circumstance?

Answer 109

Requisites:
1. That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees;

2. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense. A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense.

Question 110

What are the requisites for passion of obfuscation to be a mitigating circumstance?

Answer 110

Par. 6. — That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.

This paragraph requires that —

1. The accused acted upon an impulse.
2. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation in him.

Question 111

Why is passion or obfuscation mitigating?

Answer 111

When there are causes naturally producing in a person powerful excitement, he loses his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power.

Question 112

What are the instances wherein even if there is passion or obfuscation, the same will not be a mitigating circumstance??

Answer 112

Even if there is actually passion or obfuscation
on the part of the offender, there is no mitigating circumstance,
when:
(1) The act is committed in a spirit of lawlessness; or
(2) The act is committed in a spirit of revenge.

Question 113

What are the requisites of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation?

Answer 113

Requisites of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation:

1. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and
2. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.

Question 114

Why is passion or obfuscation a mitigating circumstance?

Answer 114

Passion or obfuscation is a mitigating circumstance because the offender who acts with passion or obfuscation suffers a diminution of his intelligence and intent.

Question 115

Distinguish passion or obfuscation from provocation

Answer 115

1. Provocation comes from the injured party; passion or obfuscation is produced by an impulse which may be caused
   by provocation.
2. Provocation must immediately precede the commission of the crime; in passion or obfuscation, the offense which engenders perturbation of mind need not be immediate. It is only required that the influence thereof lasts until the
   moment the crime is committed.
3. In both, the effect is the loss of reason and self-control on the part of the offender.

Question 116

What are the requisites for voluntary surrender to be a mitigating circumstance?

Answer 116

a. That the offender had not been actually arrested.
b. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent.
c. That the surrender was voluntary.

Question 117

T or F
When there is the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and voluntary confession of guilt, they shall be treated as one mitigating circumstance.

Answer 117

False.
When both are present, they should
have the effect of mitigating as two independent circumstances. If any
of them must mitigate the penalty to a certain extent, when both are present, they should produce this effect to a greater extent.

Question 118

When is there voluntary surrender?

Answer 118

For 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..

The accused must actually surrender his own person to the authorities, admitting complicity in the crime. His conduct, after the commission of the crime, must indicate a desire on his part to own the responsibility for the crime.

Question 119

T or F

There was voluntary surrender when the accused was served an arrest warrant and complied with the police accordingly.

Answer 119

False.

Question 120

T or F
The accused went into hiding and surrendered only when they realized that the forces of the law were closing in on
them. The accused is entitled to mitigating circumstance

Answer 120

False.

Question 121

T or F

Surrender of weapons cannot be equated with voluntary surrender.

Answer 121

True. People vs. Verges

Question 122

T or F

There must be a voluntary surrender of his own person on the part of the accused for there to be voluntary surrender.

Answer 122

True.

Question 123

Who is deemed a person in authority?

Answer 123

A “person in authority” is one directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the power to govern and execute the laws whether as an individual or as a member of some court or
governmental corporation, board or commission. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman are also persons in authority.

Question 124

Who is deemed an agent in authority?

Answer 124

An “agent of a person in authority” is a person, who, by direct provision of the 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 and any person who comes to the aid of
persons in authority

Question 125

T or F
Voluntary surrender to the chief clerk of a district engineer is not mitigating, because such chief clerk is neither a person in authority nor his agent.

Answer 125

True.

Question 126

In voluntary surrender, what does spontaneous mean?

Answer 126

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.

Question 127

T or F
Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated in favor of an accused
who surrenders only after a warrant of arrest is issued and he finds it futile to continue being a fugitive from justice.

Answer 127

True.

Question 128

T or F
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated in favor of the accused who claims to have intended to surrender but did not, despite several opportunities to do so, and was in fact arrested.

Answer 128

True

Question 129

T or F

There is spontaneity even if the surrender is induced by fear of retaliation by the victim’s relatives.

Answer 129

True. People vs. Clemente

Question 130

What are the requisites for voluntary confession of guilt to be a mitigating circumstance?

Answer 130

In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, the three requisites must be present:
1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;

2. That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case; and
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.

Question 131

T or F
Plea of guilty in the RTC in a case appealed from the Municipal Court is not mitigating, because the plea of guilty must be made at the first opportunity, that is, in the Municipal Court.

Answer 131

True.

Question 132

T or F

The extrajudicial confession made by the accused is not the voluntary confession which the Code contemplates

Answer 132

True.

Question 133

T or F

The confession of guilt must be made prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.

Answer 133

True.

Question 134

T or F

Withdrawal of plea of not guilty and pleading guilty before presentation of evidence by prosecution is still mitigating.

Answer 134

True.

Question 135

T or F

The change of plea should be made at the first opportunity.

Answer 135

True.
In a case where the accused committed the crime on March 22,1956, and when arraigned on May 14,1956, he pleaded not guilty, and it was only on August 11, 1957, or about 1 year, 3 months and 7 days that he felt contrite and repentant by changing his former plea of not guilty to that of guilty, his plea of guilty was obviously not spontaneous, and was apparently done not because of his sincere desire to repent but because of his fear of eventual conviction.

Question 136

T or F

A conditional plea of guilty is not a mitigating circumstance.

Answer 136

True.

Question 137

Why is plea of guilty mitigating?

Answer 137

It is an act of repentance and respect for the law; it indicates a moral disposition in the accused, favorable to his reform.

Question 138

T or F

Plea of guilty is mitigating in culpable felonies

Answer 138

False.

Plea of guilty is NOT mitigating in culpable felonies

Question 139

T or F

In crimes punished by special laws, plea of guilty is mitigating

Answer 139

False
In crimes punished by special laws, plea of guilty is mitigating

When the crime is punished by a special law, the court shall also exercise its sound discretion, as Art. 64 is not applicable. The penalty prescribed by special laws is usually not divisible into three periods. Art. 64 is applicable only when the penalty has three periods.

Question 140

T or F
“That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with
his fellow beings,” is a mitigating circumstance

Answer 140

True. Article 13, paragraph 8.

Question 141

What are the requisites for illness to be a mitigating circumstance?

Answer 141

Requisites:

1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power.
2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.

Question 142

T or F
Voluntary restitution of the property stolen
by the accused or immediately reimbursing the amount malversed is a mitigating circumstance as analogous to voluntary surrender.

Answer 142

True. (People vs. Luntao)

Question 143

T or F
Any other circumstance of a similar
nature and analogous to those of Article 13 Sec 1-9 are mitigating circumstances.

Answer 143

True.

Question 144

T or F
The act of testifying for the prosecution, without previous discharge should be considered as a mitigating circumstance analogous to a plea of guilty.

Answer 144

True.

Question 145

T or F

Extreme poverty may mitigate a crime against property, such as theft, but not a crime of violence

Answer 145

True.

State of necessity is a justifying circumstance under Art. 11, paragraph 4. Incomplete justification is a mitigating circumstance under paragraph 1 of Article 13.

Question 146

T or F
Mitigating circumstance s which arise (1) from the moral attributes of the offender, or (2) from his private relations with the
offended party, or (3) from any other personal cause, shall only serve to mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.

Answer 146

True.

Mitigating circumstances are personal.

Question 147

What is the basis for aggravating circumstances?

Answer 147

They are based on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of the felony as shown by:

(1) the motivating power itself,
(2) the place of commission,
(3) the means and ways employed,
(4) the time, or
(5) the personal circumstances of the offender, or of the offended party.

Question 148

What are the four kinds of aggravating circumstances?

Answer 148

Four kinds of aggravating circumstances:

1. Generic — Those that can generally apply to all crimes.
   Example — Dwelling, nighttime, or recidivism. In Art. 14, the circumstances in paragraphs Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9,10,14,18,19 , and 20, except “by
   means of motor vehicles,” are generic aggravating circumstances.
2. Specific — Those that apply only to particular crimes.
   Example — Ignominy in crimes against chastity or cruelty and treachery in crimes against persons. In Art. 14, the circumstances in paragraphs Nos. 3
   (except dwelling), 15,16,17 and 21 are specific aggravating circumstances.
3. Qualifying — Those that change the nature of the crime.
   Example — Alevosia (treachery) or evident premeditation qualifies the killing of a person to murder. Art. 248 enumerate s the qualifying aggravating circumstances which qualify the killing of person to murder.
4. Inherent — Those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime. (Art. 62, par. 2) Example — Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, theft, estafa, adultery and concubinage.

Question 149

Differentiate generic aggravating from qualifying aggravating circumstance.

Answer 149

1. The effect of a generic aggravating circumstance, not offset by any mitigating circumstance, is to increase the penalty which should be imposed upon the accused to the maximum period, but without exceeding the limit prescribed by law; while that of a qualifying circumstance is not only to give the crime its proper
   and exclusive name but also to place the author thereof in such a situation as to deserve no other penalty than that specially prescribed by law for said crime.
2. A qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance; a generic aggravating circumstance may be compensated by a mitigating circumstance.
3. A qualifying aggravating circumstance to be such must be alleged in the information. If it is not alleged, it is a generic aggravating circumstance only.

Question 150

T or F

A qualifying aggravating and generic aggravating circumstance may be offset by a mitigating circumstance.

Answer 150

False.
A qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by a
mitigating circumstance; a generic aggravating circumstance
may be compensated by a mitigating circumstance.

Question 151

T or F
A qualifying aggravating circumstance to be such must be alleged in the information. If it is not alleged, it is a generic aggravating circumstance only.

Answer 151

True.

Question 152

What are the aggravating circumstances which do not increase the effect of penalty?

Answer 152

Aggravating circumstances :

(a) which in themselves constitute a
crime specially punishable by law (ARSON), or

(b) which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the
penalty (ROBBERY).

Question 153

T or F
Aggravating circumstances which arise:
(a) from the moral attributes of the offender, or
(b) from his private relations with the
offended party, or
(c) from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories
as to whom such circumstances are attendant.

Answer 153

True.

Question 154

T or F
The circumstances which consist

(1) in the material execution of the act, or
(2) in the means employed to accomplish it

shall serve to aggravate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.

Answer 154

True.

Example:

1. In his house, A ordered B to kill C. A and B did not talk about the manner C would be killed. B left the house of A and looked for C. B found C and killed the latter with
   treachery. (Art. 14, par. 16) The aggravating circumstance of treachery consists in the material execution of the act. Since A had no knowledge of it, treachery shall only
   aggravate the liability of B.
2. A ordered B and C to kill D, instructing them to wait until nighttime so that the crime could be committed with impunity. B and C killed D at nighttime. Although A did
   not take direct part in the commission of the crime, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime shall also aggravate his liability, because he had knowledge of it at the time of the execution of the act by B and C.

Question 155

T or F

Aggravating circumstances are presumed.

Answer 155

False, not presumed.

An aggravating circumstance should be proved as fully as the crime itself in order to increase the penalty.

Question 156

What are the aggravating circumstances provided for in the RPC?

Answer 156

Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating circumstances:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

2 . That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.

3 . That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.

4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.

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

6 . That the crime be committed in the nighttime or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be
deemed to have been committed by a band.

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
   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 .
10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty .
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional
    damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.
14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended part y might make.

17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age, or by means of motor vehicle, airships, or other similar means.
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.

Question 157

T or F
In the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public office by the offender, the essence of the matter is presented in the inquiry, “Did the accused abuse his office in order to commit the crime?”

Answer 157

True.

Question 158

T or F
There must be proof that the accused took advantage of his public
position.

Answer 158

True.

Question 159

T or F

Failure in official duties is tantamount to abusing of office.

Answer 159

True.

Question 160

T or F
Taking advantage of public position is not aggravating when it is an integral element of, or inherent in, the offense such as malversation or in falsification of document under Art 217 and Art 171 respectively.

Answer 160

True.

Question 161

What is the basis for the aggravating circumstance of crimes committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities?

Answer 161

This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his lack of respect for the public authorities.

Question 162

What are the requisites for the aggravating circumstance of crimes committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities?

Answer 162

Requisites of this circumstance:
1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions.

2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the person against whom the crime is committed.
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority.
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act.

Question 163

Who is considered a public authority?

Answer 163

A public authority, sometimes also called a person in authority, is a public officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a
public officer who has the power to govern and execute the laws. The councilor, the mayor, the governor, etc., are persons in authority. The barangay captain and barangay chairman are also persons in
authority.

Question 164

T or F

When the crime is committed in the presence of an agent only, there is an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 164

False.

Paragraph 2 of Art. 14 was not applied in a case where the crime was committed in the presence of the chief of police of a town, because he is not a public authority, but an agent of the authorities.

Question 165

Who is an agent of a person in authority?

Answer 165

An agent of a person in authority is “any 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 barrio
councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader, and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.”

Question 166

T or F

If a crime is committed directly against the person in authority, Art 14 Par 2 applies as an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 166

False.
If the crime is committed against a public authority while he is in the performance of his official duty, the offender commits direct
assault (Art. 148) without this aggravating circumstance, because it is not a crime committed “in contempt of or with insult” to him, but a crime directly committed against him.

What will apply is aggravating circumstance by reason of disregard of rank in Art 14 par 3.

Question 167

T or F

Knowledge that a public authority is present is essential for Art 14 Par 2 to apply as an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 167

True.

Question 168

T or F
If A killed B in the presence of the town mayor, but A did not know of the presence of the mayor, this aggravating circumstance should be considered against A.

Answer 168

False.
If A killed B in the presence of the town mayor, but A did not know of the presence of the mayor, this aggravating circumstance should NOT be considered against A.

Knowledge that a public authority is present is essential for Art 14 Par 2 to apply as an aggravating circumstance.

Question 169

T or F
Crimes committed
(1) with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his (a) rank, (b) age, or (c) sex, or

(2) that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.

Are aggravating circumstances.

Answer 169

True. Art 14 par 3

Question 170

When all the four aggravating circumstances are present as contemplated in Art 14 par 3,
must they be considered as one?

Answer 170

Yes. Four circumstances are enumerated in this paragraph, which
can be considered single or together. If all the four circumstances are
present, they have the weight of one aggravating circumstance only.

Question 171

T or F

Art 14 par 3 is applicable only to all crimes.

Answer 171

False. Art 14 par 3 is applicable only to crimes against person or honor.

Question 172

T or F
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 to be an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 172

True.

Question 173

What does rank mean?

Answer 173

“Rank” refers to a high social position or standing as a grade in the armed forces; or to a graded official standing or social position or station; or to the order or place in which said officers are placed in the army and navy in relation to others; or to the designation or title of distinction conferred upon an officer in order to fix his relative position in reference to other officers in matters of privileges, precedence, and sometimes of command or by which to determine his pay and emoluments as in the case of army staff officers; 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.

Question 174

T or F

Proof of fact of disregard of rank and deliberate intent to insult required to be an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 174

True.

Question 175

A, an octogenarian, was the victim in a case of robbery with homicide committed by B. Is B’s penalty aggravated by reason of disregard of A’s old age?

Answer 175

No. It is not proper to consider disregard of old age 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.
(People vs. Nabaluna)

Question 176

T or F
The aggravating circumstance of disregard of age applies to tender age as well as to
old age.

Answer 176

True. This circumstance was applied in a murder case where one of the victims was a boy twelve years of age.

Question 177

T or F

Disregard of sex applies only to female sex.

Answer 177

True.

Question 178

T or F
Disregard of sex is not aggravating in the absence of evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim or showed manifest disrespect to her womanhood.

Answer 178

True.

Question 179

T or F

Thus, in (a) parricide, (b) rape, (c) abduction, or (d) seduction, sex is not aggravating.

Answer 179

True.

Question 180

T or F
Dwelling is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode.

Answer 180

True.
One’s dwelling place is a “sanctuary
worthy of respect” and that one who slanders another in the latter’s
house is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.

Question 181

T or F
The aggravating circumstance of crimes committed in one’s dwelling is not applicable when it is the victim who causes the provocation.

Answer 181

True.
Meaning of provocation in the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.
The provocation must be:
(1) Given by the owner of the dwelling,
(2) Sufficient, and
(3) Immediate to the commission of the crime.
If all these conditions are present, the offended party is deemed to have given provocation, and the fact that the crime is
committed in the dwelling of the offended party is not an aggravating circumstance.

Question 182

A learned that B, his wife and C had illicit relations. A went to C’s house and killed him then and there. Will aggravating circumstance on disregard of dwelling be applied?

Answer 182

Yes, because the provocation (the illicit relations) was not given immediately prior to the commission of the crime. Dwelling is still aggravating. (People vs. Dequina)

Question 183

A went to C’s house and was surprised that C and A’s wife B were having illicit relations. A killed C. Will aggravating circumstance on disregard of dwelling be applied?

Answer 183

No. If the defendant surprised the deceased and the wife of the
defendant in the act of adultery in the house of the deceased, the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling would not exist because provocation was immediate.

Question 184

T or F
For aggravating circumstance because of disregard of dwelling to apply, prosecution must prove that no provocation was given by the offended party.

Answer 184

True.

Question 185

A shot B, who was inside his house, from outside. Will aggravating circumstance because of disregard of dwelling apply?

Answer 185

Yes.

Question 186

T or F
Even if the crime took place outside the dwelling, it is aggravating provided that the commission of the crime was begun
in the dwelling.

Answer 186

True.

In abduction or illegal detention where the victim was taken from her or his house and carried away to another place, dwelling is
aggravating.

Question 187

T or F

When both offender and offended party are occupants of the same house, dwelling is aggravating.

Answer 187

False. Not aggravating.

Question 188

T or F

When the robbery is committed by the use of force upon things only, dwelling is aggravating.

Answer 188

False because it is inherent. To commit robbery by the use of force upon things, the offender must enter the dwelling house, or other building, of the offended party.

Question 189

T or F

Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons

Answer 189

True. Because this class of robbery can be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party’s house.

Question 190

T or F
There are two kinds of robbery: (1) robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; and (2) robbery with force upon things in inhabited house.

Answer 190

True.
Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons - dwelling becomes aggravating

Robbery with force upon things in inhabited house - dwelling is not aggravating because it is inherent

Question 191

T or F

In the crime of trespass to dwelling, dwelling is aggravating.

Answer 191

False. Dwelling is not aggravating because it is inherent or included by law in defining the crime. This crime can be committed only in the dwelling of another.

Question 192

T or F

Dwelling is different from domicile.

Answer 192

True.

Question 193

T or F

Dwelling may mean temporary dwelling

Answer 193

True.

Question 194

T or F
When adultery is committed in the dwelling of the husband, even if it is also the dwelling of the unfaithful wife, it is aggravating

Answer 194

True, because besides the latter’s breach of the fidelity she owes her husband, she
and her paramour violated the respect due to the conjugal home and they both thereby injured and committed a very grave offense against the head of the house.

Question 195

T or F
If the wife and her paramour as defendants and the husband all live in the same dwelling, the same shall be aggravating circumstance.

Answer 195

False. Because the defendants had a right to be in the house.

What applies here is the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence (US vs Destrito)

Question 196

What are the requisites for the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence?

Answer 196

Requisites:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender.

2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.

Question 197

T or F

It must be an abuse of confidence that facilitated the commission of the crime which is aggravating.

Answer 197

True.

Question 198

T or F

The confidence between the offender and the offended party must be immediate and personal to be aggravating

Answer 198

True

Question 199

T or F

Where abuse of confidence is inherent in the crime it is not aggravating.

Answer 199

True.
It is inherent in malversation (Art. 217), qualified theft (Art. 310), estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315), and qualified seduction.

Question 200

T or F
The Chief Executive need not be in Malacañang palace. His presence alone in any place where the crime is committed is enough to constitute the aggravating circumstance.

Answer 200

True.

Question 201

T or f
The place of the commission of the felony (par. 5), if it is Malacañang palace or a church, is aggravating, regardless of whether State or official or religious functions are being held.

Answer 201

True.

Question 202

T or F
An electoral precinct during election day is a place “where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, and crimes committed there shall be aggravated by the same fact.

Answer 202

True.

Question 203

T or F

Cemeteries are considered religious sites.

Answer 203

False.

Question 204

T or F
Par 6 of Art 14 provides: 
That the crime be committed 
(1) in the nighttime, or
(2) in an uninhabited place, or 
(3) by a band, whenever such circumstance may facilitate the commission of the offense

If all these are present, they shall be considered separate aggravating circumstances

Answer 204

True.

Question 205

When is nighttime, uninhabited place or band is aggravating?

Answer 205

(1) When it FACILITATED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME; or
(2) When ESPECIALLY SOUGHT FOR by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity
(3) When the OFFENDER TOOK ADVANTAGE THEREOF for the purpose of impunity.

Question 206

T or F

Nighttime by and of itself is NOT an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 206

True.

Question 207

T or F
To be aggravating, the prosecution must show that the accused purposely
sought to commit the crime at nighttime in order to facilitate the achievement of his objectives, prevent discovery or evade capture.

Answer 207

True.

Question 208

T or F
The information must allege that nighttime was sought for or taken advantage of by the accused or that it facilitated the commission of the crime to be aggravating

Answer 208

True.

Question 209

What is considered an uninhabited place?

Answer 209

An uninhabited place is one where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from town, or where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other.

Question 210

What is a band?

Answer 210

Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. The armed men must act together in the commission of the crime.

Question 211

T or F
The mere fact that there are more than three armed men at the scene of the crime does not prove the existence of a band, if only one of them committed the crime while the others were not aware of the commission of the crime.

Answer 211

True.

The definition of “by a band” says that the armed men “shall have acted together in the commission of the offense.”

Question 212

T or F
The band must be composed of more than three armed persons. Hence, even if there are 20 persons, but only 3 are armed, this aggravating circumstance by a band cannot be considered.

Answer 212

True.

Question 213

T or F
In the crime of brigandage, which is committed by more than three armed persons forming a band of robbers (Art. 306), the circumstance that the crime was committed by a band should not be
considered as aggravating, because it is inherent in or is necessarily included in defining the crime.

Answer 213

True.

Question 214

T or F
Crimes committed on the occasion of a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune is an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 214

True. Art 14 Par 7.

Question 215

T or F
If the accused was provoked by the offended party to commit the crime during the calamity or misfortune, this aggravating circumstance may not be taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the penalty because the accused did not take advantage of it.

Answer 215

True.

Question 216

T or F
Crimes committed with the aid of (1) armed men, or (2) persons who insure or afford impunity is an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 216

True.

Question 217

What are the requisites in order that aid of armed men, or persons who insure or afford impunity is an aggravating circumstance?

Answer 217

1. That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly.
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed.

Question 218

When shall the aid of armed men not be considered aggravating?

Answer 218

(1) This aggravating circumstance shall not be considered when both the attacking party and the party attacked were
equally armed. (Albert)

(2) This aggravating circumstance is not present when the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the
commission of the crime acted under the same plan and for the same purpose.

Question 219

Distinguish aid of armed men from a band.

Answer 219

By a band requires that more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense. Aid of armed men is present even if one of the offenders merely relied on their aid, for
actual aid is not necessary.

Question 220

T or F
If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in employment of a band. If there are three armed men or less, aid of armed men may be the aggravating
circumstance.

Answer 220

True.

Question 221

T or F

Being a recidivist is an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 221

True. Art par 9

Question 222

Who is a recidivist? What are the requisites?

Answer 222

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 the Revised Penal Code.
Requisites:
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.

Question 223

T or F
In the aggravating circumstance of being a recidivist, what is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of the commission of the crime. It is not required that at the time of the commission of the crime, the accused should have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime.

Answer 223

True.

Question 224

T or F

To be a recidivist, one must be previously convicted by final judgment.

Answer 224

True.

Question 225

The accused was prosecuted and tried for theft, estafa and robbery. Judgments for three offenses were read on the same day. Is he a recidivist?

Answer 225

No, because the judgment in any of the first two offenses was not yet final when he was tried for the third offense.

Question 226

T or F

The present crime and the previous crime must be “embraced in the same title of this Code” to be a recidivst.

Answer 226

True.

Question 227

T or F

One is a recidivist if he violated a special law and was convicted, and subsequently violated the RPC.

Answer 227

False, the previous crime must be penalized by the RPC.

Question 228

T or F
Recidivism must be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance no matter how many years have intervened between
the first and second felonies.

Answer 228

True.

Question 229

T or F
Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist; but amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects.

Answer 229

True. People vs Sotelo

Question 230

T or F
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 is an aggravating circumstances.

Answer 230

True. Art 14 par 10 REITERACION

Question 231

What are the requisites of Art 14 Par 10 to be applicable as aggravating circumstance?

Answer 231

The basis is the same as that of recidivism, i.e., the greater perversity of the offender as shown by his inclination to crimes.
Requisites:
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;

2. That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense.

Question 232

The accused once served sentence for homicide punishable by a penalty ranging from 12 year s and 1 day to 20 years. Now, he is convicted of falsification punishable by a penalty ranging from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. Is there reiteracion or habituality in this case? Yes, because the penalty for homicide for which he served sentence is greater than that for the new offense (falsification). Suppose it was falsification first and homicide now? Then, there is no habituality, because the penalty for the first offense is less than that for the second offense. The penalty for the first offense must at least be equal to that for the second offense.

Answer 232

Suppose it was homicide before and homicide now? Then, there is recidivism, because the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code. Although the law requires only final
judgment in recidivism, even if the convict served sentence for one offense, there is still recidivism, provided the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code.

Question 233

Differentiate recidivism and reiteracion.

Answer 233

The circumstance of reiteracion may be distinguished from that of recidivism as follows:

(a) In reiteracion, it is necessary that the offender shall have served out his sentence for the first offense; whereas, in recidivism, it is enough that a final judgment has been
rendered in the first offense.

(b) In reiteracion, the previous and subsequent offenses must not be embraced in the same title of the Code; whereas, recidivism, requires that the offenses be included in the same title of the Code.
(c) Reiteracion is not always an aggravating circumstance; whereas, recidivism is always to be taken into consideration in fixing the penalty to be imposed upon the accused.

Question 234

What are the forms of repetition?

Answer 234

The four forms of repetition are:

1. Recidivism. (Paragraph 9, Art. 14)
2. Reiteracion or habituality. (Paragraph 10, Art. 14)
3. Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency. (Art. 62, paragraph 5)
4. Quasi-recidivism. (Art. 160)

The first two are generic aggravating circumstances, while the third is an extraordinary aggravating circumstance. The fourth is a special aggravating circumstance.

Question 235

What is habitual delinquency?

Answer 235

There is habitual delinquency when a person, within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or
falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. (Art. 62, last paragraph) In habitual delinquency, the offender is either a recidivist or one who has been previously punished for two
or more offenses (habituality). He shall suffer an additional penalty for being a habitual delinquent.

Question 236

T or F

That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise is an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 236

True. Art 14 Par 11.
When this aggravating circumstance is present, there must be two or more principals, the one who gives or offers the price or promise and the one who accepts it, both of whom are principals to the former, because he directly induces the latter to commit the crime, and the latter because he commits it.

Question 237

T or F
The evidence must show that one of the accused used money or other valuable consideration for the purpose of inducing another to perform the deed to be aggravating.

Answer 237

True.

Question 238

T or F
That the crime be committed by means of
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin is an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 238

True. Art 14 par 12.

Question 239

Differentiate what happens when a person actually intended to kill a person by setting house to a fire, and arson which killed a person.

Answer 239

When the crime intended to be committed is arson and somebody dies as a result thereof, the crime is simply arson and the act resulting in the death of that person is not even an independent crime of
homicide, it being absorbed.

On the other hand, if the offender had the intent to kill the victim, burned the house where the latter was, and the victim died as a consequence, the crime is murder, qualified by the circumstance that the crime was committed “by means of fire.”

If the purpose of the explosion, inundation, fire or poison is to kill a predetermined person, the crime committed is murder.

Question 240

What crime is committed if a hand grenade is thrown into the
house where a family of seven persons live, and as a result of the
explosion, the wall of the house is damaged, endangering the lives of
the people there?

Answer 240

The offense is a crime involving destruction. (Art. 324) If one of the people there died, but there is no intent to kill on the part of the
offender, it will be a crime involving destruction also.

Question 241

What crime is committed if a hand grenade is thrown into the house where a family of seven persons live, and as a result of the
explosion, the wall of the house is damaged, endangering the lives of the people there and there is intent to kill and explosion is used by the offender to accomplish his criminal purpose?

Answer 241

It is murder if the victim dies as a direct consequence thereof aggravated by Art 14 par 12.

Question 242

T or F

That the act be committed with evident premeditation is an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 242

True.

Question 243

T or F
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 the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.

Answer 243

True.

Question 244

T or F
There must be evidence showing that the accused meditated and reflected on his intention between the time when the crime was conceived by him and the time it was actually perpetrated.

Answer 244

True. The premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected.

Question 245

What are the requisites of evident premeditation?

Answer 245

Requisites of evident premeditation:
The prosecution must prove —

1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.

Question 246

T or F

That (1) craft, (2) fraud, or (3) disguise be employed is an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 246

True. Art 14 par 14

Question 247

What is craft?

Answer 247

Craft (involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused).

Question 248

Differentiate craft from fraud.

Answer 248

When there is a direct inducement by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present; otherwise, the act of the accused done in order NOT TO AROUSE SUSPICION of the victim constitutes craft.

Question 249

What is disguise?

Answer 249

Disguise (resorting to any device to conceal identity).

Question 250

T or F
That (1) advantage be taken of superior strength, or (2) means be employed to weaken the defense is an aggravating circumstance

Answer 250

True. Art 14 Par 15

Question 251

What does advantage be taken mean?

Answer 251

To take advantage of superior strength means to use purposely excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.

Question 252

When is abuse of superior strength aggravating?

Answer 252

The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.

Question 253

T or F

When there is an allegation of treachery, superior strength is absorbed.

Answer 253

True

Question 254

Distinguish The circumstance of “by a band” and that of “abuse of superior strength,”

Answer 254

The element of band is appreciated when the offense is committed by more than three armed malefactors regardless of the comparative strength of the victim or victims. Hence, the indispensable
components of cuadrilla are (1) at least four malefactors, and (2) all of the four malefactors are armed.

On the other hand, the gravamen of abuse of superiority is the taking advantage by the culprits of their collective strength to overpower their relatively weaker victim or
victims. Hence, in the latter aggravating factor, what is taken into account is not the number of aggressors nor the fact that they are armed, but their relative physical might vis-à-vis the offended party.

Question 255

T or F

That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia) is an aggravating circumstance

Answer 255

True. Art 14 par 16

Question 256

What is treachery? When is there treachery?

Answer 256

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make.

Question 257

T or F

Treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons.

Answer 257

True.

Question 258

T or F

Treachery is not presumed.

Answer 258

True.

Question 259

What are the requisites of treachery?

Answer 259

Requisites of treachery:

(1) That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and
(2) That the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.

Question 260

T or F

Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Answer 260

True.

Question 261

T or F

Nighttime inherent in treachery.

Answer 261

True. Hence, nighttime is not a separate aggravating circumstance, whenever treachery is already considered.

Question 262

T or F
Craft is included in and absorbed by the qualifying circumstance
of treachery

Answer 262

True.

Question 263

T or F

Disregard of age and sex may be deemed included in treachery.

Answer 263

true.

Question 264

T or F
That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act is an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 264

True. Art 14 par 17

Question 265

What is ignominy?

Answer 265

Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime.

Question 266

To which set of crimes is ignominy aggravating?

Answer 266

Only to crimes against chastity, less serious physical injuries, and light or grave coercion, and murder.

Question 267

T or F

That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry is an aggravating circumstance

Answer 267

True. Art 14 par 18.

Question 268

What is unlawful entry?

Answer 268

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

Question 269

T or F
Dwelling and unlawful entry taken are separately in murders committed
in a dwelling

Answer 269

True.

Question 270

T or F

Unlawful entry is not aggravating in trespass to dwelling.

Answer 270

True, because unlawful entry is inherent in the crime of trespassing.

Question 271

T or F
That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken is an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 271

True. Art 14 par 19.

Question 272

T or F
That the crime he committed (1) with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age, or (2) by means motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means is an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 272

True. art 14 par 20

Question 273

T or F
That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission is an aggravating circumstance.

Answer 273

True. Art 14 par 21.

Question 274

What is cruelty?

Answer 274

There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary
physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.

For cruelty to be aggravating, it is essential that the wrong done was intended to prolong the suffering of the victim, causing
him unnecessary moral and physical pain.

Question 275

What are the requisites of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance?

Answer 275

Requisites of cruelty:

1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender.

Question 276

Differentiate ignominy from cruelty.

Answer 276

Ignominy (par. 17) involves moral suffering, while cruelty (par. 21) refers to physical suffering.

Question 277

What are alternative circumstances?

Answer 277

Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission.

The alternative circumstances are:

1. Relationship;
2. Intoxication; and
3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender.