​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D.

, CeLR​​ ​ Criminal Law 1

Persons Liable for Felonies and the accessories exempted from liability

1. Principals
●​ Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; those who directly force
or induce others to commit it; and those who cooperate in the commission of the
offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished

a. By Direct Participation
These are persons who physically execute the criminal act or are present
at the scene, directly performing the acts constituting the crime.

Example:​
A and B plan to rob a store. On the day of the crime, both enter the
store, threaten the cashier, and take the money. Both A and B are
principals by direct participation.

Those who are liable:

i) Materially Execute the Crime

These are individuals who physically perform the criminal
act itself. They are the ones whose actions directly result in the
commission of the crime.

Example:​
If A stabs B with a knife, causing B's death, A is the principal by direct
participation because A materially executed the crime of homicide

ii) Appear at the Scene of the Crime

Presence at the scene, by itself, does not automatically
make one a principal. However, if the person is present and
actively participates in the commission of the crime, such as by
restraining the victim or acting as a lookout, this presence,
combined with action, constitutes direct participation.

Example:​
During a robbery, C enters the store with D. While D points a gun at the
cashier, C collects the money from the register. Both are present at the
scene and are actively participating, making them principals by direct
participation.

iii) Perform Acts Necessary in the Commission of the

Offense

1
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

This refers to those who perform acts that are essential to

the accomplishment of the crime. Their actions are so closely
connected to the criminal act that, without them, the crime could
not have been committed as planned.

Example:​
In a bank heist, E disables the alarm system while F and G break into
the vault. E’s act of disabling the alarm is necessary for the commission
of the robbery, making E a principal by direct participation.

b. By Inducement
These are persons who directly force or induce others to commit the
crime, such as by offering money, threats, or other forms of persuasion.

Example:​
C offers D ₱50,000 to kill E. D, motivated by the offer, kills E. C is a
principal by inducement, while D is a principal by direct participation.

When does a principal by inducement become liable:

Example 1: Inducement with Execution

●​ Scenario:​
A (the inducer) tells B (the direct participant), "I will pay you
P100,000 if you burn down C's house." B, motivated by the
offer, burns down C's house.
●​ Legal Result:​
Both A (principal by inducement) and B (principal by direct
participation) are criminally liable for arson. A is liable because
the act he induced was actually committed by B.

Example 2: Inducement without Execution

●​ Scenario:​
A tells B, "I will pay you P100,000 if you burn down C's house."
B, however, decides not to do it and never acts on the
inducement.
●​ Legal Result:​
A is not criminally liable as a principal by inducement for arson,
because the crime was never committed by B. The law requires
that the induced act must be executed for the inducer to be held
liable as a principal by inducement.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

Example 3: Attempted Inducement

●​ Scenario:​
A tries to convince B to commit theft, but B refuses and does
nothing.
●​ Legal Result:​
A cannot be held liable as a principal by inducement for theft,
since the crime was not committed by B.

Example 4: Multiple Principals

●​ Scenario:​
A (inducer) and B (direct participant) conspire, and B commits
the crime as planned.
●​ Legal Result:​
Both are liable: A as principal by inducement, B as principal by
direct participation. The liability of A is contingent on B’s actual
commission of the crime.

c. By Indispensable Cooperation
These are persons who cooperate in the commission of the offense by
performing another act without which the crime would not have been
accomplished.

Example:​
F disables the alarm system of a bank, allowing G and H to enter and
rob it. Without F’s act, the robbery would not have succeeded. F is a
principal by indispensable cooperation.

“To be a principal by indispensable cooperation, one must

participate in the criminal resolution, a conspiracy or unity
in criminal purpose and cooperation in the commission of
the offense by performing another act without which it
would not have been accomplished.”

Pro Reo Doctrine

The pro reo doctrine is a fundamental principle in Philippine criminal law

which holds that when a penal law is susceptible to two reasonable
interpretations—one favorable to the accused and one unfavorable—the
interpretation that is more lenient or favorable to the accused must be adopted.

Example 1: Ambiguity in the Definition of a Crime

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

Scenario:​
A law penalizes "theft of property," but it is unclear whether "property"
includes intangible items like digital files.

Application:​
If a person is prosecuted for "stealing" a digital file, and the law is
ambiguous as to whether digital files are included, the court must
resolve the ambiguity in favor of the accused and acquit, unless the law
clearly covers such acts.​

Example 2: Doubt in the Application of Penalties

Scenario:​
A penal law prescribes two possible penalties for a crime, but it is
unclear which applies to the accused's specific circumstances.

Application:​
If one penalty is lighter and the other is harsher, and the law is
ambiguous, the lighter penalty must be imposed.​

Example 3: Family Exemption in Crimes

Scenario:​
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code provides that certain relatives
are exempt from criminal liability for theft, swindling, and malicious
mischief. There is doubt whether this exemption applies to a son-in-law
after the death of his spouse.

Application:​
The Supreme Court held that the exemption continues, resolving the
doubt in favor of the accused to preserve family harmony and applying
the pro reo doctrine.

Example 4: Bail as a Matter of Right

Scenario:​
A statute is ambiguous as to whether an accused is entitled to bail for a
specific offense.

Application:​
The court, applying the pro reo doctrine, grants bail to the accused,
favoring liberty in the face of ambiguity.

2. Accomplices

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

Accomplices are those who, not being principals, cooperate in the execution of
the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. Their participation is not
indispensable, but it facilitates the commission of the crime.

Example:​
I, knowing of J and K’s plan to rob a store, lends them his car to use as
a getaway vehicle. I is an accomplice.

When is One Regarded as an Accomplice?

Note: Determine if There is Conspiracy

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and
decide to commit it. If conspiracy is established, all conspirators are considered
principals, and the act of one is the act of all. This is a settled doctrine under Article 8 of
the Revised Penal Code and affirmed in jurisprudence:​
"Once conspiracy is established, all accused shall be deemed responsible for the acts of
all conspirators. ... when two or more persons agree or conspire to commit a crime, each
is responsible for all the acts of the others, done in furtherance of the agreement or
conspiracy."

If conspiracy is NOT established, the court must determine the individual

participation of each accused. This is where the concept of an accomplice comes in.

Elements of Accomplice Liability:

a. Community of Design
There must be a "community of design"—the alleged accomplice must know the
criminal plan of the principal by direct participation and concur with it. This means the
accomplice is aware of the principal’s intent to commit the crime and agrees to
cooperate, even if he did not participate in the original decision to commit the crime.

Example:​
Scenario:​
B learns that A plans to rob a store. B, after learning of A’s plan,
agrees to help by acting as a lookout.

Analysis:​
B did not plan the robbery but, upon learning of A’s intent, agreed to
assist. This satisfies the "community of design" element.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

b. Cooperation by Previous or Simultaneous Acts (Material or Moral Aid)

The accomplice must cooperate in the execution of the offense by acts done
before or during its commission, intending to supply material (physical) or moral
(psychological/supportive) aid that is effective in facilitating the crime. The aid need not
be indispensable, but it must contribute to the commission of the crime.

Example:

Scenario:​
C, knowing D intends to commit murder, provides D with a knife
before the crime, or stands guard outside the victim’s house
during the attack to warn of approaching police.

Analysis:​
C’s act of providing the weapon or acting as a lookout is a previous or
simultaneous act that supplies material or moral aid, even if the crime
could have been committed without C’s help.

c. Relation Between the Acts of the Principal and the Accomplice

There must be a clear connection between the acts of the principal and those of
the accomplice. The accomplice’s acts must be related to, and facilitate, the commission
of the crime by the principal.

"That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those
attributed to the person charged as accomplice."

Example:​
Scenario:​
E, knowing F’s plan to kidnap a victim, rents a vehicle for F to use
in transporting the victim.

Analysis:​
E’s act of renting the vehicle is directly related to F’s commission
of kidnapping, as it facilitates the crime.

3. Accessory
Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime,
and without having participated therein as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following ways:

1.​ By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of

the crime;

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

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

instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery;
3.​ By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal, under
certain conditions.

When Accessories Are Not Criminally Liable (Exemptions)

A. When the Felony Committed is a Light Felony

Accessories are not criminally liable if the crime committed is a light felony (e.g.,
slight physical injuries, theft of a small item).

Example:

●​ Scenario: X helps Y hide a stolen pen (petty theft, a light felony)

after the crime.
●​ Result: X is not criminally liable as an accessory because the
underlying crime is a light felony.

B. When the Accessory is Related to the Principal

Accessories are exempt from criminal liability if they are related to the principal
as:

●​ Spouse
●​ Ascendant or descendant
●​ Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister
●​ Relative by affinity within the same degree

Example:

●​ Scenario: X helps his brother Y escape after Y committed

homicide.
●​ Result: X is not criminally liable as an accessory due to the
relationship, unless X profited from the crime.

C. Exception: If the Accessory Profited or Assisted the Offender to Profit

Exception to the relationship exemption: If the accessory profited from the effects
or proceeds of the crime or assisted the offender to profit, the exemption does not
apply—even if the accessory is a close relative.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

Example:

●​ Scenario: X (Y’s sister) sells stolen jewelry for Y and keeps part
of the money.
●​ Result: X is criminally liable as an accessory, despite the
relationship, because she profited from the crime.

When One Cannot Be an Accessory

A. No Knowledge of the Commission of the Crime

A person cannot be an accessory if they do not know that a crime has been
committed.

Example:

●​ Scenario: X unknowingly helps Y move a box containing stolen

goods, believing it is just personal property.
●​ Result: X is not an accessory because he had no knowledge of
the crime.

B. Participation as Principal or Accomplice

A person cannot be an accessory if they already participated in the crime as a
principal or accomplice.

Example:

●​ Scenario: X helped plan and execute a robbery (principal), then

later helps hide the loot.
●​ Result: X is not an accessory for hiding the loot; he is already
criminally liable as a principal.

General Rule: Exemption of Certain Relatives

Under Article 20 of the RPC accessories who are related to the principal as
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
relative by affinity within the same degree, are generally exempt from criminal liabilityas
accessories.
“ART. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability.—The
penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,

descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters,
or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single
exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1
of the next preceding article.”

Exception: When the Accessory Profited or Assisted the Offender to Profit

The exemption does NOT apply if the accessory, even if related, either:
●​ Profited from the effects or proceeds of the crime, or
●​ Assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

Situational Examples
Example 1: Accessory Profited from the Effects of the Crime
Scenario:

●​ X is the brother of Y, who committed robbery.

●​ After the robbery, Y gives X a portion of the stolen money, and X
keeps it for himself.

Legal Result:

●​ X is not exempt from criminal liability as an accessory, even

though he is Y’s brother, because he profited from the effects of
the crime

Example 2: Accessory Assisted the Offender to Profit

Scenario:

●​ Z is the spouse of A, who stole a valuable painting.

●​ After the theft, Z helps A sell the painting and gives the
proceeds to A.

Legal Result:

●​ Z is not exempt from criminal liability as an accessory, even

though Z is A’s spouse, because Z assisted the offender to profit
by the effects of the crime.

Example 3: Accessory Did Not Profit or Assist to Profit

(Exempt)
Scenario:

●​ B is the son of C, who committed homicide.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

●​ After the crime, B helps C hide from the police but does not
receive any benefit or help C profit from the crime.

Legal Result:

●​ B is exempt from criminal liability as an accessory because he is

a close relative and did not profit or assist C to profit

4. Light Felonies: Only Principals and Accomplices are Liable

For light felonies (minor offenses), only the principals and accomplices are
criminally liable. Accessories are not held liable.

Example:​
N and O conspire to commit slight physical injuries (a light felony). N
slaps P, while O holds P’s arms. Both N (principal) and O (accomplice)
are liable. If Q, after the act, helps N escape, Q is not criminally liable as
an accessory because the crime is only a light felony.

MODULE 14

Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability and Person’s Criminally Liable for the
Commission of the Crime

Justifying circumstances are situations defined by law where an act, which would
otherwise be criminal, is deemed lawful because it was committed under conditions that
the law recognizes as legitimate. The most common example is self-defense.

Under Article 11 of the RPC, justifying circumstances include:

●​ Self-defense
●​ Defense of relative
●​ Defense of stranger
●​ State of necessity
●​ Performance of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office
●​ Obedience to a lawful order

Justifying circumstance

a. It affects the act, not the actor.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

A justifying circumstance removes the criminal character of the act itself, not
because of who committed it, but because of the situation in which it was committed.
The law focuses on the nature of the act, not the personal condition or status of the
actor.

Example:

●​ Scenario: X kills Y in self-defense during an unlawful attack.

●​ Result: The killing is not a crime because the act (killing in
self-defense) is justified, regardless of who X is.

Legal Basis:

"Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
following circumstances concur: First. Unlawful aggression; Second.
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; Third.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself."

b. The act is considered to have been done within the bounds of law; hence,
legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law.

If a justifying circumstance is present, the law treats the act as if it were done
lawfully. The act is not only excused; it is considered a legitimate exercise of a right or
duty.

Example:

●​ Scenario: A police officer shoots an armed robber to prevent a

crime, using only the force necessary.
●​ Result: The shooting is considered lawful, as it was done in the
fulfillment of duty and within legal bounds

c. Since the act is considered lawful, there is no liability.

Because the act is justified, there is no criminal liability. The law does not punish
acts that are justified.

Example:

●​ Scenario: X, in order to avoid being stabbed, pushes Y, causing

Y to fall and suffer injuries.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

●​ Result: X incurs no criminal liability because the act was

justified as self-defense.

d. There is no criminal or civil liability.

When an act is justified, the actor is not only free from criminal liability but also
from civil liability (i.e., no obligation to pay damages to the person harmed).

Example:

●​ Scenario: X shoots Y in self-defense, resulting in Y’s death.

●​ Result: X is not criminally liable for homicide, nor is X civilly
liable to Y’s heirs for damages.

Legal Basis:

"As a result, Aquino was acquitted of both criminal and civil liability, with the
Court underscoring that self-defense is a justifying circumstance that fully
exonerates the accused when all requisites are met."

Exempting circumstances

Are situations where the law recognizes that, although a crime was committed,
the actor is not criminally liable because of the absence of voluntariness (i.e.,
intelligence, freedom, or intent). The act remains wrongful, but the actor is excused due
to a personal condition or situation.

a. It affects the actor, not the act.

Exempting circumstances focus on the personal condition or situation of the actor
at the time of the crime. The act itself remains unlawful, but the law excuses the actor
because he or she lacked voluntariness (e.g., intelligence, intent, or freedom).

Example:

●​ Scenario: D, while insane, kills E.

●​ Result: The act (killing) is still unlawful, but D is not criminally
liable because insanity affects D’s capacity to act with
discernment.

b. The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the actor is not liable.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

The act remains a crime in the eyes of the law, but the actor is not criminally
liable due to the exempting circumstance.

Example:

●​ Scenario: F, a 10-year-old child, steals a wallet.

●​ Result: Theft is a crime, but F is not criminally liable because,
under Article 12, a child under 15 (without discernment) is
exempt.

c. Since the act complained of is actually wrong, there is a crime but since the
actor acted without voluntariness, there is no dolo or culpa.

There is a crime (the act is wrongful), but the actor is not criminally liable
because he acted without intent (dolo) or fault (culpa)—that is, without voluntariness.

Example:

●​ Scenario: G, while performing a lawful act with due care,

accidentally injures H.
●​ Result: The injury is a crime (e.g., physical injuries), but G is not
criminally liable because the injury was caused by mere
accident, without fault or intent.

d. There is a crime, although there is no criminal, so there is civil liability (Except:

Art. 12, par. 4 and 7 where there is no civil liability).
Generally, when an exempting circumstance applies, there is a crime but no
criminal (no one to punish), so civil liability (damages) may still be imposed on the actor
or those responsible for him (e.g., parents of a minor).

Exception: For accident (Art. 12, par. 4) and failure to perform an act required by
law due to lawful or insuperable cause (Art. 12, par. 7), there is no civil liability.

Examples:

General Rule: Civil Liability Remains

●​ Scenario: I, an insane person, burns J’s house.
●​ Result: I is not criminally liable, but his guardian or estate may
be held civilly liable for damages (J6, J7, L1).

Exception: No Civil Liability (Accident)

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

●​ Scenario: K, while driving carefully and lawfully, accidentally hits

L, causing injury, with no fault or negligence.
●​ Result: K is not criminally or civilly liable because the injury was
caused by mere accident (J1, J3, L1).

Exception: No Civil Liability (Insuperable Cause)

●​ Scenario: M fails to rescue N from a burning building because M
is physically trapped and cannot help.
●​ Result: M is not criminally or civilly liable because his failure was
due to a lawful or insuperable cause (L1).

Difference between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear in Exempting

Circumstances

"Irresistible force" is an exempting circumstance under Article 12 of the RPC. A

person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force is exempt from criminal
liability because he does not act with freedom; his will is overpowered by an external
force.

a. Irresistible force must operate directly upon the person of the accused, and the
injury feared may be a lesser degree than the damage caused by the accused.

●​ Direct Operation: The force must act directly on the accused, not merely as a
threat to someone else or as a general fear. It must physically or psychologically
overpower the accused at the moment of the crime.

●​ Degree of Injury: The law does not require that the injury feared be greater than
the harm caused by the accused. Even if the injury feared is of a lesser degree,
as long as the force is irresistible and directly compels the accused, the
exempting circumstance applies.

Example:​
A person is physically dragged by armed men and forced, at gunpoint,
to open a safe during a robbery. The person fears being shot (a lesser
injury than the total value of the stolen goods), but the force is direct
and irresistible.

b. Offender uses physical force or violence to compel another person to commit a

crime.
Physical Compulsion: This refers to situations where the accused is physically
forced or violently compelled to commit a criminal act, such that resistance is impossible.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

Example:​
A person is held by several men, and his hand is forcibly used to sign a
fraudulent check or to pull a trigger. The accused's own will is
overpowered by the physical force applied by others.

Uncontrollable Fear as an Exempting Circumstance

Uncontrollable Fear

This means that a person is exempt from criminal liability if he commits a

crime because he is compelled by a real, imminent, and grave threat of harm that
is equal to or greater than the harm caused by the crime.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that for this exempting circumstance to apply,
the following elements must be present:

1.​ The existence of an uncontrollable fear;

2.​ The fear must be real and imminent;
3.​ The fear of injury must be greater than, or at least equal to, that committed;
4.​ The compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity for escape
or self-defense in equal combat.

Example:​
A man is forced to steal money from his employer after a criminal
threatens to kill his wife if he refuses. The threat is real and imminent
(the criminal is holding the wife at gunpoint in front of him). The harm
feared (death of the wife) is greater than the harm caused (theft of
money). If the man had no reasonable opportunity to escape or seek
help, he may be exempt from criminal liability under Article 12(6) of the
RPC.

Provocation as a Mitigating Circumstance

A.​ Sufficient provocation as a requisite of incomplete self-defense

Provocation is a mitigating circumstance under Article 13, paragraph 4 of the

RPC.

The provocation must be:

○​ Sufficient: Adequate to excite a person to commit a wrong, proportionate

to its gravity.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

○​ Immediate: It must immediately precede the act.

○​ Originating from the offended party: The victim must be the source of
the provocation.

Example​
C is at home when D enters, curses at C, and threatens him with a
knife. In a fit of rage, C stabs D.

Analysis:​
D’s violent and immediate provocation (cursing and threatening with a
knife) is sufficient and directly led to C’s act. Even if C is criminally
liable, the court may appreciate the mitigating circumstance of sufficient
provocation, reducing C’s penalty

Counter-Example:​
If the provocation was trivial (e.g., D merely called C a name days
before the incident), it is not sufficient or immediate, and the mitigating
circumstance does not apply

B.​ Provocation as a mitigating circumstance

Is recognized under Article 13 of the RPC. It refers to a situation where

the victim’s unjust or improper conduct incites the accused to commit a
crime, thereby reducing the accused’s criminal liability. For provocation to
be considered mitigating, it must be:

Sufficient: The act must be adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong, and
proportionate in gravity.

Immediate: The provocation must immediately precede the act, with no

significant interval between the provocation and the commission of the crime.

Example 1: Sufficient Provocation Appreciated

●​ Scenario: A victim enters the accused’s house, cursing and
wielding a knife at the accused. The accused, in a fit of rage
and fear, immediately stabs the victim.
●​ Legal Outcome: The Supreme Court has held that such “violent
behavior” by the victim is sufficient provocation, mitigating the
accused’s liability

Example 2: Insulting Remarks

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

●​ Scenario: The victim hurls insulting and defiant words at the

accused, immediately before the accused retaliates with
violence.
●​ Legal Outcome: The Court considered the victim’s remarks as
sufficient provocation, mitigating the penalty for the accused.

Example 3: Insufficient Provocation

●​ Scenario: The victim points a finger and asks a provocative
question, but the accused responds by killing the victim.
●​ Legal Outcome: The Court ruled that such acts were not
sufficient provocation to justify the accused’s violent response
(People v. Aporado (2024)).

Example 4: Retaliation Disproportionate to Provocation

●​ Scenario: A short, heated exchange of words or a shove occurs,
but the accused responds with deadly force.
●​ Legal Outcome: The provocation is not considered sufficient, as
the response is not proportionate to the provocation (People v.
Aporado (2024)).

Provocation

a. It is made directly only to the person committing the felony.

The provocation must be addressed specifically to the accused, not to a third
party. If the provocation is directed at someone else, it cannot mitigate the liability
of the accused.

Example:

●​ Situation: A shouts insults directly at B, calling him a thief and a

liar in front of their neighbors. B, enraged, immediately punches
A.
●​ Legal Effect: The provocation is mitigating for B because it was
made directly to him.

Counter-example:

●​ Situation: A insults B’s friend, C, but B reacts violently against A.

●​ Legal Effect: The provocation is not mitigating for B, as it was
not directed at him.

b. The offense need not be a grave offense.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

For provocation to be mitigating, the act or words of the offended party need not
amount to a grave offense; it is enough that the act is unjust or improper and
sufficient to excite the accused to commit the crime (Urbano v. People (2009)).

Example:

●​ Situation: During a card game, A repeatedly mocks B for losing,

calling him “useless” and “stupid.” B, humiliated, immediately
slaps A.
●​ Legal Effect: Even though the mockery is not a grave offense, it
may be considered sufficient provocation if it is found to be
adequate to excite B to violence.

c. The provocation or threat must immediately precede the act.

There must be no significant interval between the provocation and the
commission of the crime. If there is a lapse of time sufficient for the accused to
regain self-control, the mitigating circumstance does not apply.

Example:

●​ Situation: A and B argue heatedly. A slaps B, and B immediately

retaliates by punching A.
●​ Legal Effect: The provocation immediately preceded the act, so
it may be mitigating.

Counter-example:

●​ Situation: A insults B in the morning. B waits until evening to

attack A.
●​ Legal Effect: The interval removes the immediacy; provocation
is not mitigating.

d. It is a mere spite against the one giving the provocation or threat.

If the act is committed out of mere spite or revenge, and not as an immediate
reaction to the provocation, the mitigating circumstance does not apply. The law
requires that the act be a direct result of the provocation, not a product of
premeditated spite (People v. Aporado (2024)).

Example:

●​ Situation: A insults B. B, harboring resentment, plans and

attacks A days later.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

●​ Legal Effect: The act is out of spite, not an immediate reaction;

provocation is not mitigating.

Vindication

"That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave

offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees."

a. The grave offense may be committed against the offender’s relatives mentioned
by law.
Vindication applies not only when the grave offense is committed against the
accused, but also when it is committed against his/her spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted siblings, or relatives by affinity within the
same degrees.

Example:

●​ Situation: A publicly insults B’s wife with grave accusations. B, in

a fit of rage, immediately attacks A.
●​ Legal Effect: The grave offense (public insult) was committed
against B’s wife, a relative within the degree required by law;
vindication may be mitigating.

b. The offended party must have done a grave offense to the offender or his
relatives.
The act that provokes the accused must be a grave offense—one that seriously
affronts the honor or person of the accused or his relatives.

Example:

●​ Situation: A sexually harasses B’s daughter. B, upon learning of

this, immediately assaults A.
●​ Legal Effect: The sexual harassment is a grave offense;
vindication may be mitigating.

c. The grave offense may be proximate, which admits of an interval of time

between the grave offense done by the offended party and the commission of the
crime by the accused.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

Unlike provocation, vindication does not require strict immediacy. The law allows
for a reasonable interval between the grave offense and the act of vindication, as long as
the accused acts under the influence of the outrage caused by the grave offense.

Example:

●​ Situation: A discovers that C has gravely insulted his mother a

few hours earlier. Still under the influence of anger, A confronts
and attacks C later that day.
●​ Legal Effect: The interval is allowed, provided the act is still
impelled by the outrage.

d. It concerns the honor of the person.

Vindication typically involves the defense or restoration of the honor of the
accused or his/her relatives, as opposed to mere anger or spite.

Example:

●​ Situation: A spreads false and scandalous rumors about B’s

sister, damaging her reputation. B, incensed, immediately
confronts and slaps A.
●​ Legal Effect: The act is in vindication of the sister’s honor; the
mitigating circumstance may apply.

What Are Generic Aggravating Circumstances?

a. Effect of a Generic Aggravating Circumstance (Not Offset by Mitigating

Circumstance): Increases Penalty to Maximum Period
If a generic aggravating circumstance is present and there is no mitigating
circumstance, the penalty for the crime is imposed in its maximum period. This means
the court will select the highest range of the penalty prescribed by law for the offense.

Example:

●​ Scenario:​
X is convicted of homicide. The penalty for homicide is reclusion
temporal (12 years and 1 day to 20 years). The crime was
committed at night (nocturnity), which is a generic aggravating
circumstance, and there are no mitigating circumstances.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

●​ Legal Effect:​
The court must impose the penalty in its maximum period (17
years, 4 months, and 1 day to 20 years) because of the
unmitigated aggravating circumstance

b. Not an Ingredient of the Crime; Only Affects the Penalty

A generic aggravating circumstance does not form part of the elements of the
crime. Its presence does not change the nature or designation of the offense; it only
affects the severity of the penalty imposed.

Example:

●​ Scenario:​
Y is charged with theft. The theft was committed in the dwelling
of the victim (dwelling is a generic aggravating circumstance).
●​ Legal Effect:​
The crime remains theft; it is not elevated to a different crime.
However, the penalty for theft will be imposed in the maximum
period if there are no mitigating circumstances

c. Can Be Offset by an Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance

If an ordinary mitigating circumstance (e.g., voluntary surrender, plea of guilty, or
lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong) is present, it can offset a generic aggravating
circumstance. The court will then impose the penalty in its medium period.

Example:

●​ Scenario:​
Z is convicted of physical injuries. The crime was committed
with the generic aggravating circumstance of disregard of age
(victim is a child). However, Z voluntarily surrendered to
authorities (mitigating circumstance).
●​ Legal Effect:​
The aggravating and mitigating circumstances offset each other.
The penalty will be imposed in the medium period, not the
maximum

Qualifying Circumstances

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

a. Effect of a Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance

A qualifying aggravating circumstance does more than merely increase the
penalty for a crime; it changes the very nature and designation of the offense. When
present, it gives the crime its proper and exclusive name and mandates the imposition of
the specific penalty prescribed by law for that qualified crime.

Example:​
If a person kills another and the killing is attended by treachery, the
crime is not simply homicide but is elevated to murder. The presence of
treachery (a qualifying circumstance) changes the crime’s name and
the penalty imposed.

b. The Circumstance Affects the Nature of the Crime

A qualifying aggravating circumstance is not just an external factor; it is an
ingredient of the crime itself. Its presence means the offender is liable for a more serious
crime, as defined by law.

Example:​
In rape cases, if the victim is under 12 years old (statutory rape) and the
offender is a parent, the relationship is a qualifying circumstance. The
crime becomes qualified rape, which carries a higher penalty than
simple rape.

c. Cannot Be Offset by Mitigating Circumstances

Because a qualifying aggravating circumstance is an essential element of the
qualified crime, it cannot be offset or neutralized by any mitigating circumstance. The law
prescribes a specific penalty for the qualified crime, and this must be imposed regardless
of the presence of mitigating factors.

Example:​
If a father rapes his minor daughter (qualified rape), even if he
pleads guilty (a mitigating circumstance), the penalty for qualified
rape must still be imposed. The plea of guilty does not reduce the
penalty.

"By a Band" as an Aggravating Circumstance (Par. 6, Art. 14, RPC)

a. Requires More Than 3 Armed Malefactors

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

For the aggravating circumstance of "by a band" to be appreciated, there must be

at least four armed malefactors acting together in the commission of the crime. The law
is explicit: "more than three" means a minimum of four, and all must be armed.

Example:​
Four individuals, each carrying a firearm, conspire and rob a store.
Since all four are armed, the crime is committed "by a band."​
If only three are armed and the fourth is unarmed, the aggravating
circumstance does notapply

b. Requires That More Than Three Armed Malefactors Act Together in the
Commission of an Offense
It is not enough that there are four or more armed persons present; they must act
together in the commission of the crime. The law requires collective action in furtherance
of the criminal design.

Example:​
Five armed men break into a house and, acting in concert, commit
robbery. All five participate in the act, so the crime is committed by a
band.​
If only two are armed at the start and the others arm themselves only
after the crime has begun, the requirement is not met

c. Band Members Are All Principals

All members of the band who are present at the commission of the crime are
considered principals—not merely accomplices or accessories—even if they did not
personally perform every act constituting the offense. This is a special rule under the
RPC.

Example:​
During a robbery by a band, one member stands guard outside while
the others enter and commit violence. The lookout is still considered a
principal to the robbery and any assaults committed by the band,
unless he can prove he tried to prevent the violence.

"With Aid of Armed Men" as an Aggravating Circumstance (Par. 8, Art. 14, RPC)

a. At Least Two Armed Men

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

For the aggravating circumstance of "with aid of armed men" to be appreciated,

there must be at least two armed men who take part in the commission of the crime,
directly or indirectly. The use of the plural "men" in the law means that the presence of
only one armed man is insufficient.

Example:​
If an accused commits robbery and is accompanied by two armed men
who stand guard outside, the aggravating circumstance is present. If
only one armed man is present, it does not apply.

b. Reliance on Aid is Sufficient; Actual Aid Not Necessary

It is not necessary that the armed men actually participate in the criminal act. The
aggravating circumstance is present even if the offender merely relied on their aid or
presence to ensure the commission of the crime or to afford impunity. The law
recognizes the psychological and practical advantage gained by the offender from the
mere presence or potential support of armed men.

Example:​
During a robbery, the main perpetrator enters a store while two armed
men wait outside, ready to assist if needed. Even if the armed men do
not intervene, the main perpetrator’s reliance on their presence is
enough for the aggravating circumstance to apply.

c. Armed Men are Mere Accomplices

The law distinguishes between principals and accomplices. In the context of this
aggravating circumstance, the armed men are considered mere accomplices unless it is
shown that they acted together with the principal in the commission of the crime under a
common purpose. If they are co-conspirators or co-principals, the aggravating
circumstance does not apply.

Par. 9 Recidivism

a. It is enough that a final judgment has been rendered in the first offense
For recidivism to exist, it is sufficient that the accused, at the time of trial for the
new offense, has already been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime.
There is no requirement that the sentence for the first offense has been served; what
matters is the existence of a final judgment.

Example:​
If an accused is on trial for theft, and it is shown that he was previously

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

convicted by final judgment for robbery (even if he has not yet served
the sentence), recidivism exists.

b. Requires that the offenses be included in the same title of the Code
Recidivism applies only if both the previous and the new offense are embraced in
the same title of the Revised Penal Code. The Code is divided into titles (e.g., Crimes
Against Property, Crimes Against Persons), and both crimes must fall under the same
title.

Example:​
If a person was previously convicted of theft (a crime against property)
and is now being tried for robbery (also a crime against property),
recidivism is present. However, if the previous conviction was for theft
(property) and the new charge is homicide (person), recidivism does not
apply.

c. Always to be taken into consideration in fixing the penalty to be imposed

upon the accused
Recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance. The court must always
consider it in determining the penalty, regardless of whether it is alleged in the
information, as long as it is proven during trial.

Example:​
If the prosecution presents evidence of a prior conviction for a crime
under the same title, the court must appreciate recidivism as an
aggravating circumstance in imposing the penalty, even if it was not
mentioned in the charge sheet.

d. Rationale is the proven tendency to commit a similar offense

The rationale for considering recidivism as an aggravating circumstance is that
the accused has shown a tendency to commit crimes of the same nature, indicating a
greater degree of perversity and disregard for the law.

Article 14, Paragraph 10: Reiteracion (Habituality)

a. It is necessary that the offender shall have served out his sentence for the
first offense.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

For reiteracion to be appreciated, the law requires that the offender must have
already served the sentence for the previous offense(s) before committing the
subsequent crime. This distinguishes reiteracion from recidivism, where it is enough that
there is a prior conviction by final judgment, regardless of whether the sentence has
been served.

Example:​
If an accused was convicted of theft, served his sentence, was
released, and then later committed and was convicted of estafa,
reiteracion may be appreciated if the other requirements are met.

b. The previous and subsequent offenses must not be embraced in the same
title of the Code.
Reiteracion applies only when the previous and subsequent offenses are not
under the same title of the Revised Penal Code. If both crimes are under the same title,
the proper aggravating circumstance is recidivism, not reiteracion.

Example:​
If the first offense was grave threats (Title Nine: Crimes Against
Personal Liberty and Security) and the second offense is homicide (Title
Eight: Crimes Against Persons), reiteracion may be considered,
provided the other elements are present.

c. Not always an aggravating circumstance

Reiteracion is not always appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. It must be
properly alleged and proven, and the circumstances must strictly comply with the
requirements of Article 14(10). If the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty for the
crime, aggravating circumstances like reiteracion do not affect the penalty to be
imposed.

Example:​
If the penalty for the new offense is reclusion perpetua (a single
indivisible penalty), the presence of reiteracion will not increase the
penalty, but may be considered for other purposes such as parole
eligibility.

d. Rationale is the proven resistance to rehabilitation

The rationale for treating reiteracion as an aggravating circumstance is that the
offender, having already been punished for a previous crime, demonstrates a resistance
to rehabilitation and a persistent disregard for the law by committing another offense.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

Example:

A person who, after serving a sentence for homicide, is later

convicted of theft, shows a pattern of criminal behavior and
resistance to reform, justifying the imposition of a heavier
penalty for the new offense.

Art. 14, Par. 9 Recidivism

a. Two Convictions Are Enough

Recidivism is established when, at the time of trial for a new crime, the accused
has already been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime under the
same title of the RPC. Only two convictions are necessary: one prior, one current.

Example:

●​ First conviction: Theft (Art. 308, Title Ten: Crimes Against

Property) — convicted in 2015.
●​ Second offense: Robbery (Art. 293, also Title Ten) — on trial in
2025.
●​ Result: The accused is a recidivist because both crimes are
under Title Ten and there are two convictions.

b. The Crimes Are Not Specified; It Is Enough That They May Be Embraced Under
the Same Title of the Revised Penal Code
The law does not require the crimes to be identical. It is sufficient that both the
previous and current crimes fall under the same title of the RPC.

Example:

●​ First conviction: Estafa (Art. 315, Title Ten: Crimes Against

Property).
●​ Second offense: Malicious mischief (Art. 327, also Title Ten).
●​ Result: Recidivism applies because both crimes are under Title
Ten, even though they are different offenses.

c. There Is No Time Limit Between the First Conviction and the Subsequent
Conviction. Recidivism Is Imprescriptible.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

Recidivism is not affected by the passage of time between convictions. Even if

decades have passed, as long as the first conviction is by final judgment and the new
crime is under the same title, recidivism is present.

Example:

●​ First conviction: Homicide (Art. 249, Title Eight: Crimes Against

Persons) — convicted in 1980.
●​ Second offense: Physical injuries (Art. 262, also Title Eight) —
on trial in 2025.
●​ Result: Recidivism applies, even though 45 years have passed.

d. It Is a Generic Aggravating Circumstance Which Can Be Offset by an Ordinary

Mitigating Circumstance
Recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance. It increases the penalty to the
maximum period but can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance (e.g., voluntary
surrender, plea of guilty).

Example:

●​ Scenario: The accused is a recidivist (prior and current

convictions under the same title), but voluntarily surrendered to
authorities.
●​ Result: The aggravating effect of recidivism is offset by the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, so the penalty is
not increased to the maximum period.

e. If Not Offset, It Would Only Increase the Penalty Prescribed by Law for the
Crime Committed to Its Maximum Period
If there is no mitigating circumstance to offset recidivism, the court must impose
the penalty in its maximum period, not the next higher degree.

Example:

Crime: Murder (Art. 248, Title Eight) — penalty is reclusion perpetua to

death.

Recidivist: No mitigating circumstance present.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

Result: The penalty is imposed in its maximum period (death, if not

prohibited; otherwise, reclusion perpetua), as recidivism is not offset.

Habitual Delinquency
a. At Least Three Convictions Are Required
A person is considered a habitual delinquent if, within the prescribed period, he is
found guilty of any of the specified crimes a third time or more. Thus, at least three
convictions are necessary.

Example:

●​ First conviction: Theft (2010)

●​ Second conviction: Robbery (2014)
●​ Third conviction: Estafa (2018)
●​ Result: Upon the third conviction, the accused is declared a
habitual delinquent.

b. The Crimes Are Limited and Specified

Only convictions for the following crimes are counted for habitual delinquency:

1.​ Serious physical injuries

2.​ Less serious physical injuries
3.​ Robbery (robo)
4.​ Theft (hurto)
5.​ Estafa (swindling)
6.​ Falsification

Example:

●​ First conviction: Serious physical injuries (2012)

●​ Second conviction: Theft (2015)
●​ Third conviction: Falsification (2019)
●​ Result: All three are qualifying crimes; habitual delinquency
applies.

Counter-example:

●​ First conviction: Theft (2012)

●​ Second conviction: Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (2015)
●​ Third conviction: Robbery (2019)

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

●​ Result: The second conviction does not count; only the first and
third are qualifying crimes. The person is not a habitual
delinquent.

c. There Is a Time Limit of Not More Than 10 Years Between Every Conviction or
Release
The law requires that each subsequent conviction (or release from punishment)
for a qualifying crime must occur within 10 years from the previous conviction or release.
This period is computed from the date of the last conviction or release to the date of the
next conviction.

Example:

●​ First conviction: Theft (released: 2000)

●​ Second conviction: Robbery (convicted: 2008) — 8 years after
release
●​ Third conviction: Estafa (convicted: 2015) — 7 years after
second conviction
●​ Result: All convictions are within 10 years of each other; habitual
delinquency applies.

Counter-example:

●​ First conviction: Theft (released: 2000)

●​ Second conviction: Robbery (convicted: 2012) — 12 years after
release
●​ Third conviction: Estafa (convicted: 2015)
●​ Result: The second conviction is more than 10 years after the
first; habitual delinquency does not apply.

d. Habitual Delinquency Is a Special Aggravating Circumstance; It Cannot Be

Offset by Any Mitigating Circumstance
Unlike generic aggravating circumstances, habitual delinquency is a special
aggravating circumstance. It cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance (e.g., plea
of guilty, voluntary surrender). The additional penalty must be imposed regardless of
mitigating factors.

Example:

●​ Scenario: The accused is a habitual delinquent and voluntarily

surrendered.

​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ RENEFRID T. TEJERO, J.D., CeLR​ ​ ​ Criminal Law 1

______________________________________________________________________

●​ Result: The court must still impose the additional penalty for
habitual delinquency; voluntary surrender does not offset it.

e. Additional Penalty Imposed Depending on the Number of Convictions

In addition to the penalty for the last crime, the following additional penalties are
imposed:

●​ Third conviction: Prision correccional (medium and maximum periods)

●​ Fourth conviction: Prision mayor (minimum and medium periods)
●​ Fifth or subsequent conviction: Prision mayor (maximum period) to reclusion
temporal (minimum period)

​ ​ ​ ​ ​