1.

Mala in Se
 Meaning: Acts that are inherently wrong or evil by nature, regardless of whether they are
prohibited by law.
 Source of wrongfulness: Moral law, natural law, universally recognized as wrongful.
 Examples: Murder, theft, rape, robbery.
 Law applicable: Usually punished under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
 Good faith / absence of intent: Good faith may be a valid defense because criminal intent (mens
rea) must be proven.

2. Mala Prohibita
 Meaning: Acts that are not inherently wrong but are prohibited only because a law says so.
 Source of wrongfulness: Statutory prohibition for public welfare, safety, or order.
 Examples: Illegal possession of firearms, illegal fishing, traffic violations, illegal logging.
 Law applicable: Usually punished under special laws.
 Good faith / absence of intent: Generally not a defense — the mere commission of the prohibited
act consummates the offense (dolo not required, often punished by mere voluntariness).

3. Key Difference Table

Aspect Mala in Se Mala Prohibita
Nature Inherently wrong Wrong because prohibited by statute
Source Moral/natural law Positive/statutory law
Applicable Law Revised Penal Code Special laws
Must be proven (mens rea
Criminal Intent Not essential; act alone is punishable
essential)
Good Faith
May be a defense Generally not a defense
Defense
Illegal fishing, BP 22 violation, illegal possession of
Examples Murder, theft, rape
drugs

4. Jurisprudence
 Dela Torre v. COMELEC, 327 Phil. 1142 (1996) – Acts mala in se require proof of criminal intent;
acts mala prohibita punish the act itself regardless of intent.
 People v. Bayona, 61 Phil. 181 (1935) – In mala prohibita, intent is immaterial; it is enough that the
law was violated.

✅ Memory Tip:

Mala in se = “Bad in itself” → needs criminal intent.

Mala prohibita = “Bad because prohibited” → intent immaterial.

1
Here’s a bar-ready breakdown of attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages of execution of a
felony under the Revised Penal Code (RPC):

I. Legal Basis
 Article 6, RPC – Defines stages of execution of felonies.

II. Stages & Definitions

1. Attempted Felony

 Definition: The offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, but does
not perform all the acts of execution which would produce the felony by reason of some cause
other than his own spontaneous desistance.
 Key Points:
o There is intent to commit a particular felony.
o Overt acts toward commission are begun.
o The acts are incomplete and the crime is not produced.
 Example: Shooting at a person with intent to kill but missing entirely because someone pushed the
shooter.

2. Frustrated Felony

 Definition: The offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence, but the felony is not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
 Key Points:
o All acts to cause the crime have been done.
o The intended result does not occur.
 Example: Stabbing someone in the heart intending to kill, but the victim survives due to timely
medical intervention.

3. Consummated Felony

 Definition: All the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; the crime is
fully realized.
 Example: Shooting a person in the head intending to kill, and the person dies as a result.

2
III. Comparison Table
Result
Stage Acts Performed Cause of Non-Production Example
Produced?
Not all acts of Cause other than Gun fired but misses
Attempted No
execution spontaneous desistance target due to push
All acts of Cause independent of
Frustrated No Victim saved by surgery
execution perpetrator’s will
All acts of
Consummated Yes — Victim dies from gunshot
execution

IV. Jurisprudence
 People v. Orita, 184 SCRA 105 (1990) – Rape can only be consummated or attempted; no frustrated
stage because slightest penetration consummates the crime.
 Intod v. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 52 (1992) – Clarified elements of frustrated felony; grenade
thrown into empty room intended for victims — only attempted, since acts of execution were
incomplete regarding the intended victims.

✅ Memory Aid:

A-F-C:
Attempted = Acts not complete.
Frustrated = Finished acts, failed result.
Consummated = Crime complete.

1. Justifying Circumstances
Art. 11, RPC – Acts are not crimes because they are in accordance with law.

 Effect: No criminal liability, no civil liability (except in certain cases where there is civil liability for
damages to a third party).
 Examples:
1. Self-defense (unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means, lack of sufficient
provocation)
2. Defense of relative
3. Defense of stranger
4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury
5. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right/office
6. Obedience to an order issued by a superior

2. Exempting Circumstances
Art. 12, RPC – No criminal liability due to lack of voluntariness or lack of intelligence.
3
  Effect: No criminal liability, but civil liability subsists.
 Examples:
1. Imbecility or insanity (unless acted during lucid interval)
2. Minors under 15 years old (or over 15 but under 18 who acted without discernment)
3. Accident without fault
4. Irresistible force
5. Uncontrollable fear
6. Failure to perform an act required by law due to lawful cause or insuperable cause

3. Mitigating Circumstances
Art. 13, RPC – Reduce the penalty but do not erase liability.

 Effect: Penalty is lowered to its minimum period or to the next lower penalty if there is no
aggravating circumstance.
 Examples:
1. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances
2. Voluntary surrender
3. Plea of guilty before trial
4. Physical defect (restricting means of action, defense, or communication)
5. Illness diminishing will-power
6. Similar and analogous circumstances (e.g., extreme poverty)

4. Aggravating Circumstances
Art. 14, RPC – Increase criminal liability; punishable at the maximum period of the penalty.

 Kinds:
1. Generic – Apply to most crimes (e.g., nighttime, abuse of superior strength)
2. Specific – Apply only to particular crimes (e.g., cruelty in homicide)
3. Qualifying – Change the nature of the crime (e.g., treachery converting homicide to murder)
4. Inherent – Already part of the crime and thus not appreciated separately

5. Alternative Circumstances
Art. 15, RPC – May be considered mitigating or aggravating depending on the facts.

 Examples:
1. Relationship – e.g., parricide (aggravating) vs. aid without abuse (mitigating)
2. Intoxication – mitigating if not habitual and not intentional; aggravating if habitual or
intentional
3. Degree of instruction or education – mitigating if lack thereof contributed to crime;
aggravating if offender is highly educated and abused it

4
Here’s a Bar Review-style summary of Justifying, Exempting, Mitigating, Aggravating, and
Alternative Circumstances under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), with legal basis and examples:

1. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Art. 11, RPC – The act is lawful, hence no crime and no criminal liability.

Ground Requisites Example

1. Unlawful aggression
X attacks Y with a
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
Self-defense knife; Y stabs X to
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
prevent harm.
defending himself
Same as self-defense, but aggression is against spouse,
A attacks B’s sister; B
Defense of relative ascendants, descendants, legitimate/illegitimate
shoots A.
brothers/sisters, relatives by affinity in the same degree
X defends a co-
Same as self-defense, but aggression is against a stranger
Defense of stranger passenger from a
and the defender is not induced by revenge or resentment
mugger.
1. Evil sought to be avoided is greater than that done to
Avoidance of greater avoid it Breaking into a house
evil/injury 2. No other practical/less harmful means to escape a flash flood.
3. Evil did not arise from the person invoking
Fulfillment of duty or
Act is lawful and done in the performance of duty without Police shoots an armed
lawful exercise of
exceeding it robber during arrest.
right/office
Soldier follows a
Obedience to lawful
Order is lawful and given by a superior lawful order to guard a
order
checkpoint.

Effect: No criminal, no civil liability, except in avoidance of greater evil (civil liability may still attach to
the person benefited).

2. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Art. 12, RPC – There is a crime, but no criminal liability due to absence of voluntariness; civil liability
generally remains.

Ground Requisites Example

Insanity or Mental incapacity at the time of the act, Person with severe schizophrenia kills
imbecility except if lucid interval someone during psychotic break.
Below 15 yrs old; or over 15 but under 18
Minority 14-year-old commits theft.
without discernment (per RA 9344)
Act is lawful, performed with due care,
Car accident due to unforeseeable tire
Accident without fault, injury caused purely by
blowout.
accident
Irresistible force Compelled by force stronger than resistance Forced to commit crime at gunpoint.
Threatened with immediate death unless
Uncontrollable fear Real, imminent fear of equal or greater injury
crime is committed.
Lawful insuperable Missing court date due to sudden
Failure to act due to lawful cause
cause hospitalization.

5
3. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Art. 13, RPC – Reduces penalty.

 Ordinary mitigating: Lessens penalty (e.g., voluntary surrender, passion/obfuscation, no intent to

commit so grave a wrong).
 PO2 Cambe v. PEOPLE – voluntary surrender as mitigating circumstance requires:
 1. The accused has not been actually arrested
 2. The accused surrenders himself to a person in authority
 3. Surrender is voluntary

In this case, po2 cambe went to police station not to surrender but to report an incident.

 Privileged mitigating: Lowers penalty by one or more degrees (e.g., minority with discernment,
incomplete self-defense).

Example: Voluntary surrender after commission of crime.

4. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Arts. 14 & 62, RPC – Increase penalty; affect gravity of crime.

 Generic aggravating: Can be offset by mitigating.

 Specific aggravating: Applies only to specific crimes.
 Qualifying aggravating: Changes nature of crime (e.g., homicide → murder).
 Inherent aggravating: Part of the crime definition; not considered for increasing penalty.

Examples: Treachery (alevosia), evident premeditation, cruelty.

5. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Art. 15, RPC – Can be aggravating or mitigating depending on facts.

Circumstance As Mitigating As Aggravating

Offender is a relative and the crime is less Relationship used to facilitate the
Relationship
serious crime
Not habitual, not intentional to commit Habitual or intentional
Intoxication
crime drunkenness
Degree of High education used to commit
Low degree of education
instruction/education crime

Aggravating Circumstances
📜 Legal Basis: Articles 14 and 62, Revised Penal Code

6
Definition

Circumstances which, if present in the commission of a crime, increase the penalty without exceeding the
maximum provided by law. They do not affect the nature of the offense but affect the degree of punishment.

Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances

1. Ordinary Aggravating Circumstances

Increase the penalty to its maximum period but cannot exceed the statutory maximum.

Examples under Article 14:

1. Advantage of public position

o When the offender took advantage of being a public officer.
o Example: A barangay captain assaults a political rival during a session, using his authority to
facilitate the act.
2. Contempt of or insult to public authorities
o Committed in the presence of a person in authority (or immediate family) engaged in official
duties.
o Example: Assaulting a teacher while she’s teaching.
3. Disregard of rank, age, sex, or dwelling
o Rank: Ignoring the victim’s higher social position or office.
o Age/Sex: Showing disrespect to elders, minors, or women.
o Dwelling: Violating the sanctity of the victim’s home.
4. Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness
o Offender takes advantage of a trust relationship.
o Example: A helper steals jewelry from the employer.
5. Place of commission (nighttime, uninhabited place, band)
o Nighttime: Offender purposely sought the cover of darkness.
o Uninhabited place: Where help is unlikely to come.
o Band: More than 3 armed malefactors.
6. Means employed (fraud, disguise, superior strength, craft, etc.)
o Craft: Deceitful schemes to commit the crime.
o Fraud: Misrepresentation to facilitate the crime.
o Superior strength: Physical advantage over the victim.
7. Aid of armed men or persons who insure impunity
o Accomplices armed to prevent capture.
8. Recidivism (Art. 14(9))
o Offender, at the time of trial for one crime, has previously been convicted of another crime
under the same title of the RPC.
9. Reiteracion (habituality) (Art. 14(10))
o Offender previously punished for an offense equal to or greater than the present offense.
10. Cruelty, deliberate augmentation of harm
o Victim is made to suffer unnecessarily beyond what is required for the killing.

2. Special Aggravating Circumstances

7
  Specifically provided in the definition of certain crimes and cannot be offset by mitigating
circumstances.
 Example: Treachery in murder (Art. 248), Abuse of superior strength in rape with homicide.

3. Qualifying Circumstances

 Change the nature of the crime itself.

 Example: Homicide + treachery = Murder.
 They must be alleged in the information and proved during trial.

4. Inherent Aggravating Circumstances

 Already part of the crime’s definition, so they don’t affect the penalty anymore.
 Example: Evident premeditation in robbery (since robbery requires planning).

Rules on Application
 Aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information and proved during trial (Sec. 8,
Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure).
 They increase penalty within the limits of the law.
 Ordinary aggravating may be offset by mitigating circumstances.
 Qualifying and special aggravating cannot be offset.

1. Meaning

Qualifying circumstances are those which change the nature of the crime itself, elevating it to a higher
category or more serious offense under the law.

 Unlike generic aggravating circumstances (which only increase the penalty within the range provided
by law), qualifying circumstances alter the very designation of the crime.
 Example: Homicide (Art. 249, RPC) becomes Murder (Art. 248, RPC) when committed with
treachery or evident premeditation.

2. Legal Basis

 Found in Articles 14, 62, and in the specific provisions defining certain crimes in the Revised
Penal Code (RPC).
 Art. 14 lists some circumstances which may be generic aggravating or qualifying depending on how
they are alleged and proven.
 Art. 62(1): “Qualifying circumstances shall be considered as such only when specifically alleged
in the information.”

8
3. Requisites

For a qualifying circumstance to affect the nature of the crime:

1. Expressly alleged in the Information – It must be specifically stated in the charging document.
2. Proven beyond reasonable doubt – Mere allegation is insufficient; it must be established by
competent evidence.
3. Must be among those recognized by law as qualifying – Not all aggravating circumstances are
qualifying.
4. Not inherent in the crime – It must be something that adds a distinct element to elevate the offense.

4. Common Examples

1. Treachery (Alevosia) – Deliberate employment of means to ensure execution without risk to the
offender from any defense the victim might make.
o Effect: Homicide → Murder
2. Evident Premeditation – Offender planned the crime, reflected on it, and persisted in the intent.
3. Abuse of Superior Strength – Offender took advantage of their strength or means to overpower the
victim.
4. Relationship – Example: Parricide requires the relationship between offender and victim (e.g.,
killing a spouse or parent).
5. Use of Motor Vehicle – In some crimes like carnapping or robbery with violence, this may qualify
the offense.
6. By Reason of Price, Reward, or Promise – Committed in consideration of a material or other
benefit.

5. Effect on Penalty

 Changes the crime → e.g., from homicide (Reclusion Temporal max to Reclusion Perpetua) to
murder (Reclusion Perpetua to Death, if still allowed).
 The penalty is applied in its full extent, and mitigating circumstances do not lower it to the penalty
of the lesser offense.

6. Key Differences from Generic Aggravating Circumstances

Aspect Qualifying Circumstances Generic Aggravating Circumstances

Effect Change the nature of the crime Only increase penalty within legal range
Allegation in Mandatory, otherwise cannot be Also must be alleged, but omission does not
Information appreciated change the crime
Proof Required Beyond reasonable doubt Also beyond reasonable doubt
Treachery, evident premeditation, Nighttime, uninhabited place, abuse of confidence
Examples
relationship in parricide (unless qualifying in a specific crime)

9
Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.

Key Points:

 Agreement + Decision to Commit → Both elements must be present.

 Mere Knowledge or Approval is NOT Enough → Passive acquiescence doesn’t make one a
conspirator.
 Direct Proof Not Always Necessary → Conspiracy may be proven through circumstantial evidence,
such as coordinated acts indicating a common criminal design.
 Liability → When conspiracy is established, the act of one is deemed the act of all, making all
conspirators equally liable as principals.

📌 Legal Effect:
If conspiracy is proven, no distinction is made between the actual perpetrator and the others who
cooperated — all are punished with the same penalty for the felony committed.

Here’s your Bar Review Table on Conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code 📚⚖️

Kind of
Definition How Proved Example Legal Effect
Conspiracy
Direct evidence (e.g.,
Exists when two or more A and B agree in All conspirators are
testimony of a witness
Express persons explicitly agree to writing to rob a liable as principals
to the agreement,
Conspiracy commit a felony and decide bank on a certain for the crime
written or verbal
to commit it (Art. 8, RPC). date. committed.
admission).
No direct proof of
Circumstantial Several men
agreement, but the acts of
evidence showing surround a victim, The act of one is the
Implied the accused demonstrate a
coordinated acts take turns stabbing act of all; same
Conspiracy common criminal design
before, during, and him without protest penalty as principal.
toward the same unlawful
after the crime. from the others.
purpose.
A single person or group
Hub liable for all;
(“hub”) conspires with two Proof that each spoke Drug kingpin
each spoke liable for
Wheel or more separate persons or was aware of the arranging separate
the crimes in their
Conspiracy groups (“spokes”), but the common purpose couriers for
own chain if aware
spokes do not necessarily facilitated by the hub. different routes.
of the overall plan.
conspire with each other.
Persons at different levels of
a chain work toward a single Evidence showing Smuggling All in the chain
Chain illegal goal, where the sequential operation: suppliers liable if aware of the
Conspiracy success of one link depends coordination for a → transporters → overall unlawful
on the performance of the single enterprise. distributors. design.
others.

General Rules on Conspiracy (Bar Key Points)

10
 1. Art. 8, RPC – Agreement + Decision to commit the felony.
2. Conspiracy is not a crime itself, except in certain special laws or offenses (e.g., conspiracy to
commit treason, rebellion, or drug-related offenses where conspiracy is penalized).
3. Proof must be clear and convincing.
4. Once established, all conspirators are equally liable regardless of the extent of participation, unless
there’s proof of withdrawal prior to execution.
5. Mere presence at the scene does not prove conspiracy unless coupled with acts of cooperation.

Here’s your Bar Review Comparison Table: Homicide vs. Murder under the Revised Penal Code ⚖️📚

Aspect Homicide (Art. 249, RPC) Murder (Art. 248, RPC)

The unlawful killing of a person without The unlawful killing of a person with any of
Definition any of the qualifying circumstances of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in
murder. Art. 248.
1. A person was killed.
1. A person was killed.
2. The accused killed that person without
2. The accused killed that person without
lawful justification.
lawful justification.
Elements 3. The accused had intent to kill (animus
3. The accused had intent to kill.
interficendi).
4. The killing was attended by any of the
4. The killing was not attended by any
qualifying circumstances under Art. 248.
qualifying circumstance of murder.
Any of the following:
• Treachery or Premeditation- AMY
• Taking advantage of superior strength-
AMY
• By means of poison
• By means of fire, explosion, or similar
destructive device
• With evident premeditation
Qualifying • On occasion of calamities or misfortunes
None.
Circumstances • In consideration of a price, reward, or
promise
• By means of motor vehicles- AMY
• With cruelty, by deliberately
augmenting the suffering of the victim
• When victim is a person under 12 years
of age, or pregnant woman
• Other analogous circumstances
enumerated by law
Reclusion perpetua to death (reclusion
Reclusion temporal (12 years and 1 day
Penalty perpetua under current law since death
to 20 years).
penalty is suspended).
Must be proved through acts of the
Same as homicide, but presence of
Intent to Kill accused, weapon used, manner of attack,
qualifying circumstances elevates to murder.
or circumstances.
During a fistfight, A stabs B in the chest,
A shoots B from behind without warning
Example causing B’s death, without any qualifying
(treachery), causing instant death.
circumstance.

Bar Tip

11
  Always determine first if the killing is attended by a qualifying circumstance → if yes, it’s murder;
if none, it’s homicide.
 If the qualifying circumstance is not proved but alleged, the crime falls back to homicide.
 Remember that treachery and evident premeditation are the most commonly tested in the Bar.

Yes. Dwelling is expressly recognized as an aggravating circumstance under Article 14, paragraph 3 of
the Revised Penal Code.

📜 Legal Definition

Article 14(3), RPC:

"That the act be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation."

💡 Concept

 The law considers dwelling not merely as a physical place but as a sanctuary of privacy and peace.
 When a crime is committed there, it violates the respect due to the sanctity of the home, thus
increasing the offender’s moral culpability.

📜 Legal Basis
Article 336, RPC – Acts of Lasciviousness

Definition: Any person who commits any act of lasciviousness against another person under any of the
circumstances mentioned in Article 335 (Rape) shall be punished by prisión correccional.

✅ Requisites (Elements)
For liability under Art. 336, the prosecution must prove:

1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness (acts that are sexual in nature
and manifest the offender’s lust).
2. That it is done under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335, namely:
o By using force or intimidation;
o When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
o When the offended party is under 12 years of age, even if there is no force or intimidation or
even if the act was with consent.
3. That the offended party is another person (male or female).

💡 Meaning of “Acts of Lasciviousness”

12
  Lascivious conduct: Any physical act that is sexual in nature, done with lewd designs, short of
sexual intercourse.
 Examples: touching private parts, kissing with sexual intent, groping, grinding, etc.

⚖ Jurisprudence Example
📌 People v. Mangalino, G.R. No. 140458, August 15, 2001

The accused kissed and touched the private parts of the victim who was below 12 years old. The Court held
that such acts, done with lustful intent, constituted acts of lasciviousness, punishable even without proof of
force or intimidation because of the victim’s age.

If you want, I can also make you a quick comparison table between Acts of Lasciviousness and Rape so
you can easily remember the distinction for the Bar. That’s a common tricky question.

You said:

yes pls
ChatGPT said:

Here’s your Bar Review Comparison Table between Acts of Lasciviousness and Rape under the Revised
Penal Code:

Acts of Lasciviousness (Art. 336

Aspect Rape (Art. 266-A RPC, as amended by R.A. 8353)
RPC)
Carnal knowledge of a woman (sexual intercourse) or
Any act of lasciviousness committed
insertion of object/sexual organ into genital/anal/oral
Definition under circumstances mentioned in
orifice without consent or under qualifying
Art. 335 (now Art. 266-A).
circumstances.
Sexual act short of sexual Sexual intercourse or insertion of object/sexual
Nature of Act
intercourse; lewd conduct. organ.
Done through: Same circumstances apply:
1️⃣Force or intimidation 1️⃣Force, threat, or intimidation
Circumstances 2️⃣Victim deprived of reason or 2️⃣Victim deprived of reason or unconscious
unconscious 3️⃣Victim under 12 years old
3️⃣Victim under 12 years old ➕ Additional modes under R.A. 8353 (sexual assault).
Consent of Consent is immaterial if victim is
Consent is immaterial if victim is under 12 years old.
Victim under 12 years old.
Prisión correccional (6 months and Basic: Reclusion perpetua (20 years and 1 day to 40
Penalty
1 day to 6 years). years) for statutory or qualified rape.
Touching private parts, groping, Penile-vaginal intercourse, penile-anal penetration,
Examples
kissing with lustful intent, fondling. insertion of objects/fingers into genitalia or anus.
Lewd Design Must be present and proven. Lewd design is presumed from the sexual act itself.

📌 Memory Tip for the Bar:

13
  Acts of Lasciviousness = “Touching, not entry.”
 Rape = “Entry, however slight.”

CHILD ABUSE THROUGH LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT

(Sec. 5(b), R.A. 7610)

Definition

When a person commits an act of lascivious conduct on a child, regardless of consent, and the child is below
18 years old and is:

1. Exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse, or

2. Under the care, custody, or supervision of the offender.

Elements

Based on jurisprudence (e.g., People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019):

1. The offender commits any act of lascivious conduct;

2. The act is done on a child:
o Below 18 years old, or
o Over 18 but unable to fully take care of themselves due to disability/condition;
3. The child is:
o Exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse, or
o Under the care, custody, or supervision of the offender;
4. The act is performed with the intention of sexual gratification.

Meaning of “Lascivious Conduct”

As defined in People v. Abello (G.R. No. 214408, June 15, 2016):

The intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh,
or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus, or mouth of any person, with an intent
to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire.

Penalty

 Reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua (14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 40
years).
 If the victim is under 12 years old, it is prosecuted under Art. 336, RPC in relation to R.A. 7610,
but the higher penalty under R.A. 7610 applies.

14
Key Jurisprudence

📌 People v. Tulagan (2019) — Clarified the interplay of the RPC and R.A. 7610:

 Acts of lasciviousness on a child below 12 years old → prosecute under Art. 336 RPC in relation to
R.A. 7610.
 If the child is over 12 but below 18, and circumstances under Sec. 5(b) are present → prosecute
directly under R.A. 7610.

📌 People v. Chingh (G.R. No. 174939, Feb. 6, 2013) — Intent to arouse sexual desire is essential and may
be inferred from the nature and context of the act.

Bar Tip: Distinction from Acts of Lasciviousness (RPC)

Child Abuse through Lascivious Conduct (R.A.

Aspect Acts of Lasciviousness (Art. 336)
7610)
Victim’s Age Any age (special rules if under 12). Below 18 or unable to care for self.
Other Act done under force, intimidation, or Victim is exploited in prostitution/sexual abuse or
Requisite victim under 12. under offender’s care.
Prisión correccional (6 months and 1 Reclusion temporal (14 years, 8 months & 1 day to
Penalty
day to 6 years). 40 years).
Law Revised Penal Code. R.A. 7610.

Yes — an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct under R.A. No. 7610
(Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), provided that the
elements are present.

Legal Basis

📜 Section 5(b), R.A. No. 7610:

"Those who commit acts of lasciviousness or lewd conduct upon a child" shall be punished with reclusion
temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.

A “child” under the law is:

 Below 18 years of age, or

 Over but unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves due to a physical or mental
disability or condition.

Elements of the Crime

For Child Abuse through Lascivious Conduct to be established, the prosecution must prove:

1. The accused committed an act of lasciviousness or lewd conduct upon the victim.
15
 o Lewd conduct = any indecent act with a child that tends to arouse or gratify sexual desire.
2. The victim is a child (as defined above).
3. The act is committed with the intent of sexual gratification.
4. Circumstances of abuse under Sec. 3(b), R.A. No. 7610 are present:
o The child is exploited, treated with cruelty, or abused in a manner detrimental to their
psychological or emotional development.

Key Jurisprudence

People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019 (En Banc)

 The Supreme Court harmonized the RPC and R.A. No. 7610 provisions:
o If the victim is under 12 years old, the crime is punished under Art. 336 (Acts of
Lasciviousness) in relation to Art. 266-A (Rape) or Art. 266-B, as amended by R.A. No.
8353.
o If the victim is 12–17 years old, lascivious conduct can still be punished under Sec. 5(b),
R.A. 7610, provided the intent to abuse, exploit, or cause emotional/psychological harm is
established.

✅ Bottom line:
An accused may be convicted if the prosecution clearly proves:

 The indecent act happened,

 The victim is a child,
 There is intent to gratify sexual desire,
 The act is abusive within the meaning of R.A. 7610.

MURDER
Intent to kill- state of mind and is determined by the court only through external
manifestation. It must be proven either direct or circumstancial evidence, which may
consist of

1. the means used by malefactor

2. the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim

3. the conduct of malefactor before, during and immediately after the killing of the
victim

4. the circumstances under which the crime was committed

Treachery- the essence of treachery is the sudden, unexpected and unforeseen

attack on the victim without the slightest provocation on the victims part.

16
Infanticide- reclusion perpetua. However if it is committed by a mother to CONCEAL
HER DISHONOR- the penalty is prison correccional in its medium to maximum periods.

Aspect Parricide Infanticide

Legal Basis Article 246, RPC Article 255, RPC
The killing of a person by the offender The killing of a child less than three (3)
Definition who has a certain relationship with the days old, regardless of relationship to the
victim. offender.
- Legitimate or illegitimate father,
mother, or child (whether legitimate or
- A child less than 72 hours old (counted
Victim illegitimate); or
from birth).
- Other ascendants or descendants; or
- Spouse of the offender.
- Any person who has the relationship - Any person (relationship to the victim is
Offender
with the victim as specified above. irrelevant for classification as infanticide).
Relationship between offender and
Key Element Age of the victim (must be < 3 days old).
victim.
May be committed by the mother to
Qualifying Relationship itself qualifies the killing as
conceal her dishonor (affects penalty under
Circumstances parricide, regardless of motive.
Art. 255, 2nd paragraph).
Reclusion perpetua (if committed by any
person).
Reclusion perpetua to death (death If committed by the mother to conceal
Penalty
penalty suspended under R.A. 9346). dishonor → Prision correccional.
If by maternal grandparents for same reason
→ Reclusion temporal.
A man kills his biological father during a A woman suffocates her newborn 1 day
Example
heated argument. after birth to avoid social shame.
If the child is more than 3 days old → crime
If Elements If relationship not proven → crime may be
may be parricide, murder, or homicide
Missing homicide/murder instead.
depending on facts.

In Philippine criminal law, moral ascendancy refers to the influence, control, or dominance a person has
over another by reason of a relationship, authority, trust, or position, even without physical force or
intimidation.

It is often used in crimes against chastity (like rape and acts of lasciviousness) to replace the element of
"force or intimidation" when the offender holds such authority over the victim.

Legal Concept

 Basis: Not expressly defined in the Revised Penal Code, but recognized in jurisprudence.
 The Supreme Court has held that moral ascendancy or influence can substitute for actual force
or intimidation in proving certain crimes.
 Commonly applies where the offender is a parent, step-parent, relative, teacher, or person in loco
parentis to the victim.

17
Examples in Jurisprudence

1. Parent over a child – People v. Casil, G.R. No. 132424 (Feb. 15, 2002)
o The SC ruled that in incestuous rape, the father’s moral ascendancy and influence over his
daughter takes the place of violence or intimidation.
2. Teacher over a student – People v. Lizada, G.R. No. 129368 (Feb. 23, 2000)
o Teacher’s position of trust and authority over students was enough to establish moral
ascendancy.
3. Live-in partner over common-law spouse’s child – People v. Velasquez, G.R. No. 177753 (Aug. 3,
2010)
o The court recognized that moral ascendancy exists not just in legal parental relationships but
also in relationships of authority in fact.

Key Elements of Moral Ascendancy

 Existence of a relationship where the victim looks up to or depends on the offender.

 Trust, respect, or authority is inherent in the relationship.
 The offender uses this influence to commit the crime, making resistance from the victim difficult
or unnecessary.

📌 Bar Exam Tip:

When answering a problem involving rape, acts of lasciviousness, or sexual assault against minors by
relatives or persons in authority, mention moral ascendancy as the substitute for force or intimidation if
physical violence is not shown.

Aspect Kidnapping for Ransom Serious Illegal Detention Slight Illegal Detention
Art. 267, RPC (special
Legal Basis Art. 267, RPC Art. 268, RPC
form)
Unlawful taking, detaining,
Unlawful taking, detaining, Unlawful taking, detaining, or
or otherwise depriving a
or otherwise depriving a otherwise depriving a person of
person of liberty without
Definition person of liberty with the liberty, without ransom, but
ransom and without the
intent to extort ransom attended by any qualifying
qualifying circumstances
from victim or another. circumstance under Art. 267.
of Art. 267.
Presence of at least one of the
following: 1. Detention > 3 days;
2. Committed by simulating
Qualifying / Ransom is demanded or None of the Art. 267
public authority; 3. Serious
Essential paid (even if detention is qualifying circumstances
physical injuries inflicted or
Element brief). present.
threats to kill; 4. Victim is a minor
(under 18), female, or public
officer.
Any person, but qualifying
Victim Any person. circumstances may depend on Any person.
victim’s age, sex, or public status.
Duration Irrelevant — ransom Usually more than 3 days, unless Any length of time

18
 Aspect Kidnapping for Ransom Serious Illegal Detention Slight Illegal Detention
(usually less than 3 days
unless voluntary release
demand makes it the victim is a minor, female, or
within 3 days is without
Requirement kidnapping regardless of public officer (then duration
attaining purpose and
time. irrelevant).
before criminal
proceedings).
Reclusion perpetua (death
Penalty Reclusion perpetua. Reclusion temporal.
penalty before R.A. 9346).
Armed men abduct a Locking a neighbor in a
Detaining a 17-year-old girl for 1
Example businessman’s child and shed for 1 day as a prank
night without lawful cause.
demand ₱5M. without injury.
Penalty is lowered if
Proof of ransom offender voluntarily
demand/payment is crucial; Duration can be short if victim is a releases victim within 3
Special Note
even attempt to demand minor, female, or public officer. days without attaining
ransom qualifies. purpose and before
criminal proceedings.

Robbery with Homicide is a special complex crime under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), where a single criminal intent to commit robbery results in a killing.

Whether the accused may be held liable for robbery with homicide notwithstanding the fact that the victim is
one of the robbers? YES, Under Article 294(1), RPC, the crime of robbery with
homicide is committed when a homicide is committed by reason of or on the
occasion of the robbery, regardless of the identity of the person killed — whether it
be the victim of the robbery, a bystander, a law enforcer, or even one of the robbers
themselves.

1. Definition
 It is committed when, by reason of or on the occasion of a robbery, a person is killed — regardless
of whether the killing was intentional, accidental, or by negligence, and regardless of whether the
victim is the person robbed or a third party.

2. Essential Elements
To convict for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove:

1. The taking of personal property belonging to another;

2. With intent to gain (animus lucrandi);
3. By means of violence against or intimidation of persons;
4. A HOMICIDE OR RAPE (which includes murder, parricide, or even slight physical injuries
resulting in death) was committed:
o By reason of the robbery (killing is part of the plan), or

19
 o On the occasion of the robbery (killing happens while executing the robbery or during
escape).

3. Important Doctrines
 Single Indivisible Crime — The robbery and the homicide are treated as one crime, not separate
offenses.
 Homicide is Generic — "Homicide" is used in its generic sense; it includes murder, parricide, and
multiple killings.
 Timing — The homicide may occur before, during, or after the robbery, as long as it has a direct
relation to the robbery.
 Intent to Rob Must Precede Killing — If the intent to kill precedes the intent to rob, the crimes are
separate (e.g., murder + theft).

4. Penalty
 Reclusion perpetua to death (death now prohibited by R.A. No. 9346).

5. Example
 A group of armed men robs a jewelry store. In the process, a security guard resists and is shot dead
by one of the robbers. Even if only one fired the gun, all robbers are liable for robbery with
homicide.

6. Bar Exam Tip

 If homicide is committed during robbery, always qualify it as robbery with homicide — NOT
robbery + homicide separately.
 If there are multiple killings or injuries, they are all absorbed in the special complex crime.
 Even accidental killings (e.g., a stray bullet during robbery) qualify.

Estafa is a crime under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), committed by defrauding another,
with unfaithfulness, abuse of confidence, or through deceit, causing damage to the offended party.

1. Definition
 It is essentially fraud that causes damage, committed in any of the ways specified in Art. 315 RPC.

20
  It punishes breach of trust or deceit that leads to loss of money, property, or rights.

2. General Elements of Estafa

For any form of estafa, the prosecution must prove:

1. That the accused defrauded another:

o By abuse of confidence, or
o By deceit (false pretenses or fraudulent acts);
2. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party;
3. That the acts complained of are among those enumerated in Art. 315.

3. Common Modes of Commission (Art. 315 RPC)

A. By means of unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence

Examples:

1. Misappropriation or conversion of money, goods, or property received in trust, commission,

administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver or return the same.
o Example: A collects payments for goods sold but uses the money for personal expenses.
2. Misappropriating property pledged for a loan.
3. Taking advantage of signature in blank (fraudulently filling out a signed but otherwise blank
document).

Elements of Estafa by Misappropriation:

1. Money, goods, or property received by the offender in trust, on commission, for administration, or
under obligation to deliver or return;
2. Misappropriation or conversion by the offender, or denial of receipt;
3. Such misappropriation causes prejudice to another;
4. Demand was made (demand is not always indispensable but is generally required to prove
misappropriation).

B. By means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts

Examples:

1. Pretending to have qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary

transactions.
2. Issuing a postdated check in payment of an obligation without sufficient funds (also punished
under B.P. 22, but here intent to defraud must be shown).
3. Inducing another to sign a document through deceit.

Elements of Estafa by False Pretenses: FLORES VS. PEOPLE

21
 1. Offender makes a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to facts;
2. The false pretense was made prior to or simultaneously with the fraud;
3. The offended party relied on it and was induced to part with money or property;
4. Damage resulted.

4. Penalty
 Based on the amount defrauded:
o Over ₱2,400: Prision correccional max to prision mayor min, plus incremental penalty per
₱10,000 (up to 20 years max).
o Under ₱200: Arresto mayor in its medium and max periods.
 R.A. No. 10951 adjusted the value thresholds upward.

5. Bar Exam Reminders

 Estafa vs. BP 22: BP 22 punishes the mere issuance of a worthless check; Estafa punishes the
fraudulent inducement and requires proof of deceit.
 Demand: While not an element, proof of demand strengthens the presumption of misappropriation.
 Good faith is a defense — if the accused honestly believed he had the right to the property or
money, estafa is not committed.

Grave Threats is a crime under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), committed when a person
threatens another with a wrong amounting to a crime, under certain conditions.

1. Definition
A threat is a declaration of an intention to inflict harm upon the person, honor, or property of another,
amounting to a crime, made orally, in writing, or through a third person, and with a condition or
without one.

2. Forms of Grave Threats (Art. 282)

Grave threats may be committed in three ways:

(1) With a condition and demand for money or other condition

 Offender threatens another with a wrong amounting to a crime;

 Threat is subject to a condition (even if not unlawful), and
 Offender attains his purpose (threat carried out or complied with) → Penalty for the crime
threatened in its maximum period.
 If offender does not attain his purpose → Penalty is one degree lower.

22
(2) Without a condition

 Offender threatens another with a wrong amounting to a crime;

 No condition is imposed;
 Threat is not made in the heat of anger (if so, Art. 285 applies for other light threats);
 Penalty: Arresto mayor and fine.

(3) In writing or through a middleman

 If the threat is made in writing or through an intermediary, the penalty is one degree higher.

3. Essential Elements
For grave threats with condition:

1. Offender threatens another with a wrong amounting to a crime;

2. Threat is subject to a condition or demand for money/benefit;
3. Threat is not made in the heat of anger;
4. Offended party is placed in fear or anxiety.

4. Example
 With condition: “Give me ₱50,000 or I’ll burn your house.”
 Without condition: “I will kill you tomorrow.”

5. Penalty Summary (Art. 282)

Form Penalty
With condition & purpose attained Penalty for threatened crime, max period
With condition & purpose not attained Penalty for threatened crime, min period
Without condition Arresto mayor (1 mo. 1 day to 6 mos.) + fine ≤ ₱100,000
Committed in writing or through middleman One degree higher

📌 Bar Tip:

 If the threat does not amount to a crime, it falls under Other Light Threats (Art. 283/285).
 If the threat is made in the heat of anger and not repeated, it’s punished under Art. 285, not Art.
282.
 If threat is to accuse of a crime to extort money → may also be Blackmail (Grave Threats +
Extortion).

23
In Grave Threats under Article 282, RPC, we can break down the elements into the two fundamental
components of a crime — actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind).

1. Actus Reus (Guilty Act)

The physical or external act in Grave Threats consists of:

 Making a threat to inflict a wrong amounting to a crime upon the person, honor, or property of
another;
 The threat may be oral, in writing, or conveyed through a third person;
 The threat may be conditional (with a demand) or without condition;
 The act must be unlawful — no legal right to make the threat.

💡 Example: Saying, “I will burn your house unless you pay me ₱50,000” — the utterance itself is the actus
reus.

2. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)

The mental element in Grave Threats is:

 Intent to threaten — the purpose is to place the victim in fear of the threatened wrong;
 Knowledge that the act threatened is wrongful and punishable by law;
 In conditional threats, intent to compel compliance with the condition or demand.

💡 Example: The offender consciously and deliberately says those words intending to make the victim fear
harm and comply with the demand.

3. Relationship Between the Two

 Actus reus: The expression or communication of the threat.
 Mens rea: The deliberate will to instill fear and possibly compel the victim to act (or refrain from
acting).

In Bar terms:

In Grave Threats, the actus reus is the making of the threat to commit a crime against another, while the
mens rea is the intent to intimidate or compel the victim, knowing the threat is wrongful.

Bar-ready comparison table showing the Actus Reus (guilty act) and Mens Rea (guilty mind) for Grave
Threats, Light Threats, and Grave Coercion under the RPC:

Crime Actus Reus (Guilty Act) Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)

Grave - Making a threat to inflict a wrong amounting to a - Intent to intimidate or place victim
Threats crime upon the person, honor, or property of another. in fear of harm.

24
 Crime Actus Reus (Guilty Act) Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)
- Awareness that the threatened act is
- May be oral, written, or through a third person.
criminal.
(Art. 282 - May be conditional (with demand) or without
- In conditional threats, intent to
RPC) condition.
compel compliance with
- Threat is unlawful and intended to be taken seriously.
demand/condition.
- Intent to intimidate, but harm
Light - Making a threat to commit a wrong not amounting
threatened is minor or not criminal.
Threats to a crime (Art. 283) or making a threat in the heat of
- In Art. 285 (heat of anger), no
(Art. 283 & anger not repeated (Art. 285).
sustained intent — the threat is
285 RPC) - Communication of the threat to the victim.
impulsive and not carried out.
- Intent to restrict or compel
- Preventing another by violence, threats, or
another’s will or action.
Grave intimidation from doing something not prohibited by
- Knowledge that the person has a
Coercion law, or compelling him to do something against his
legal right to do (or not to do) the act
(Art. 286 will, whether right or wrong.
being restrained or compelled.
RPC) - Actual force or intimidation is used to restrict
- Specific intent is to control the
freedom of action.
victim’s conduct.

Bar Exam Memory Hooks

 Grave Threats → "Scare you with a crime" — focus is on the threat itself.
 Light Threats → "Scare you, but it’s not a crime" — threat is less serious or impulsive.
 Grave Coercion → "Force you to act or stop acting" — focus is on control of action, not just fear.

SPECIAL PENAL LAW

25
26