crim law reviwer 1
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
1/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
I. Criminal Law:Definition and Sources
A. DEFINITION
Criminal law is that branch or division ofmunicipal law which defines crimes, treats oftheir nature and provides for their punishment.
It is that branch of public substantive lawwhich defines offenses and prescribes their
penalties. It is substantive because it defines thestate’s right to inflict punishment and the
liability of the offenders. It is public law because
it deals with the relation of the individual with
the state.
B. STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH
CRIME
1. LIMITATIONS
a. Must be general in application.
b. Must not partake of the nature of an expost facto law. (19! "onst. #rt III$
%ec.&&'
c. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of
attainder. (19! "onst. #rt III$ %ec &&'
d. Must not impose cruel and unusual
punishment or excessive fines. (19!"onst. #rt III$ %ec 19'
2. PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES
a. Utilitarian t!"r# "r $r"t!%ti&!t!"r#he primary purpose of the punishment
under criminal law is the protection of
society from actual or potential wrongdoers.
he courts$ therefore$ in exacting retribution
for the wronged society$ should direct thepunishment to potential or actualwrongdoers$ since criminal law is directed
against acts and omissions which thesociety does not approve of. "onsistent with
this theory$ the mala prohibita principle
which punishes an offense regardless of
malice or criminal intent$ should not be
utili)ed to apply the full harshness of thespecial law.
In Ma'n" &(. CA) decided on *une &+$199&$ the %upreme "ourt ac,uitted Magno
of violation of -atas ambansa -lg. && whenhe acted without malice. he wrongdoer is
not Magno but the lessor who deposited the
checks. /e should have returned the checks
to Magno when he pulled out the
e,uipment. o convict the accused would
defeat the noble ob0ective of the law and
the law would be tainted with materialism
and opportunism.
*. Cla((i%al "r +,ri(ti% $il"("$#-est remembered by the maxim #n eyefor an eye$ a tooth for a tooth.2 34ote5 If
you want to impress the examiner use the
latin version6 7culo pro oculo$ dente prodente.8
he purpose of penalty is retribution. he
offender is made to suffer for the wrong he
has done. here is scant regard for the
human element of the crime. he law does
not look into why the offender committed
the crime. "apital punishment is a productof this kind of school of thought. Man is
regarded as a moral creature whounderstands right from wrong. %o that when
he commits a wrong$ he must be prepared
to accept the punishment therefore.
%.P"(iti&i(t "r r!ali(ti% $il"("$#he purpose of penalty is reformation.
here is great respect for the human
element because the offender is regarded associally sick who needs treatment$ not
punishment. "ages are like asylums$ 0ailslike hospitals. hey are to segregate the
offenders from the good2 members of
society.
rom this philosophy came the 0ury
system$ where the penalty is imposed on a
case to case basis after examination of the
offender by a panel of social scientists whichdo not include lawyers as the panel would
not want the law to influence theirconsideration.
"rimes are regarded as social phenomena
which constrain a person to do wrong
although not of his own volition. # tendency
towards crime is the product of one’s
environment. here is no such thing as a
natural born killer.
his philosophy is critici)ed as being toolenient.
-. E%l!%ti% "r i/!- $il"("$#his combines both positivist and classical
thinking. "rimes that are economic and
social by nature should be dealt with in a
positivist manner: thus$ the law is more
compassionate. /einous crimes should be
dealt with in a classical manner: thus$
capital punishment.
%ince the ;evised enal "ode wasadopted from the %panish "odigo enal$
which in turn was copied from the rench
"ode of 11< which is classical in character$
it is said that our "ode is also classical. his
is no longer true because with the #merican
occupation of the hilippines$ many
provisions of common law have been
engrafted into our penal laws. he ;evisedenal "ode today follows the mixed or
eclectic philosophy. or example$intoxication of the offender is considered to
mitigate his criminal liability$ unless it is
intentional or habitual: the age of the
offender is considered: and the woman who
killed her child to conceal her dishonor has
in her favor a mitigating circumstance.
C. BASIC PRINCIPLES
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
2/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
1. =enerality&. erritoriality
>. rospectivity
?. @egality
A. %trict "onstruction of penal laws against
the %tate
1. GENERALITY OF CRIMINAL LA0
=enerality of criminal law means that thecriminal law of the country governs all personswithin the country regardless of their race$
belief$ sex or creed. /owever$ it is sub0ect to
certain exceptions brought about by
international agreement. #mbassadors$ chiefs
of states and other diplomatic officials are
immune from the application of penal laws
when they are in the country where they are
assigned.
4ote that consuls are not diplomaticofficers. his includes consul6general$ vice6consul or and consul in a foreign country$ who
are therefore$ not immune to the operation orapplication of the penal law of the country
where they are assigned.
#lso excepted under the law of generality
are Members of the "ongress who are notliable for libel or slander with any speech in
"ongress or congressional committee. (%ec11$ #rt BI 19! "onstitution'
=enerality has no reference to territory.
Chenever you are asked to explain this$ it
does not include territory. It refers to personsthat may be governed by the penal law.
he generality principle of penal laws is alsosub0ect to the principles of public international
law and to treaty stipulations (#rt. 1? "ivil"ode'. Examples of this would be the B# and;# !A (concerning immunities$ rights andprivileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic
representatives in the hilippines.
Take note of the Bisiting orces #greement$ #rt. B$which defines "riminal *urisdiction over Dnited %tatesmilitary and civilian personnel temporarily in the
hilippines in connection with activities approved bythe hilippine =overnment
2. TERRITORIALITY OF CRIMINAL LA0
a. G!n!ral r,l!erritoriality means that the penal laws of
the country have force and effect only
within its territory. It cannot penali)e crimes
committed outside the same. his is sub0ect
to certain exceptions brought about byinternational agreements and practice. he
territory of the country is not limited to theland where its sovereignty resides but
includes also its maritime and interior
waters as well as its atmosphere.
errestrial 0urisdiction is the 0urisdiction
exercised over land.
luvial 0urisdiction is the 0urisdictionexercised over maritime and interior waters.
#erial 0urisdiction is the 0urisdictionexercised over the atmosphere.
Excepted under the territoriality
characteristic of penal laws are the cases
provided for by #rt. & of the ;evised enal
"ode. he "ode therefore has territorial and
extraterritorial applications.
*. T! ar%i$!la'i% r,l!he #rchipelagic ;ule states that all
bodies of water comprising the maritime
)one and interior waters abounding different
islands comprising the hilippine
#rchipelago are part of the hilippine
territory regardless of their breadth$ depth$
width or dimension.
7n the fluvial 0urisdiction there is
presently a departure from the acceptedInternational @aw ;ule$ because the
hilippines adopted the #rchipelagic ;ule as
stated above.
In the International @aw ;ule$ when a
strait within a country has a width of more
than + miles$ the center lane in excess of
the > miles on both sides is consideredinternational waters.
%. S%"$! " a$$li%ati"n " t! $r"&i(i"n(" t! r!&i(!- $!nal %"-!he provisions in #rticle & embraces two
scopes of applications5
i. Intraterritorial application
Intraterritorial refers to the application
of the ;evised enal "ode within thehilippine territory.
In the intraterritorial application of the
;evised enal "ode$ #rticle & makes itclear that it does not refer only to the
hilippine archipelago but it also includes
the atmosphere$ interior waters and
maritime )one. %o whenever you use the
word territory$ do not limit this to land
area only.
#s far as 0urisdiction or application ofthe ;evised enal "ode over crimes
committed on maritime )ones or interiorwaters$ the #rchipelagic ;ule shall be
observed. %o the three6mile limit on our
shoreline has been modified by the rule.
#ny crime committed in the interior
waters comprising the hilippine
archipelago shall be sub0ect to our laws
although committed on board a foreign
merchant vessel.
# vessel is considered a hilippine shiponly when it is registered in accordance
with hilippine laws. Dnder international
law$ as long as such vessel is not within
the territorial waters of a foreign country$
hilippine laws shall govern.
ii. Extraterritorial applicationExtraterritorial refers to the application
of the ;evised enal "ode outside the
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
3/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
Extraterritorial application of the
;evised enal "ode on a crime committed
on board a hilippine ship or airship is not
within the territorial waters or
atmosphere of a foreign country.
7therwise$ it is the foreign country’s
criminal law that will apply.
/owever$ there are two situations
where the foreign country may not applyits criminal law even if a crime was
committed on board a vessel within its
territorial waters and these are5
Chen the crime is committed in a
war vessel of a foreign country$because war vessels are part of the
sovereignty of the country to whosenavel force they belong:
Chen the foreign country in whose
territorial waters the crime was
committed adopts the rench ;ule$which applies only to merchantvessels$ except when the crime
committed affects the nationalsecurity or public order of such
foreign country.
-. Cri!( %"itt!- a*"ar- !r%ant&!((!l( il! in t! t!rrit"rial at!r(" an"t!r %",ntr#hese rules apply only to a foreign
merchant vessel if a crime was committed
aboard that vessel while it was in theterritorial waters of another country. If that
vessel is in the high seas or open seas$
there is no occasion to apply the two rules.If it is not within the 0urisdiction of any
country$ these rules will not apply.
i. he rench ;ule
The French Rule provides that thenationalit of the vessel follows the flagwhich the vessel flies, unless the crimecommitted endangers the nationalsecurit of a foreign countr where thevessel is within !urisdiction in which casesuch foreign countr will never lose
!urisdiction over such vessel.
i i. he English (7r #nglo6%axon 7r
#merican' ;ulehis rule strictly enforces the
territoriality of criminal law. The law ofthe foreign countr where a foreignvessel is within its !urisdiction is strictlapplied, except if the crime affects onlthe internal management of the vessel inwhich case it is sub!ect to the penal lawof the countr where it is registered.
Ce observe the English ;ule. hilippinecourts have no 0urisdiction over offenses
committed on board foreign warships interritorial waters.
!. THREE INTERNATIONAL THEORIESON AERIAL JURISDICTION
i ree Fone heory
The atmosphere over the countr isfree and not sub!ect to the !urisdiction ofthe sub!acent state, except for the
protection of its national securit and public order.
Dnder this theory$ if a crime is
committed on board a foreign aircraft at
the atmosphere of a country$ the law ofthat country does not govern unless the
crime affects the national security.
ii. ;elative heory
The sub!acent state exercises !urisdiction over the atmosphere onl tothe extent that it can effectivel exercisecontrol thereof.
Dnder this theory$ if a crime was
committed on an aircraft that is alreadybeyond the control of the sub0acent state$
the criminal law of the state will not
govern anmore. -ut if the crime iscommitted in an aircraft within the
atmosphere over a sub0acent state that
exercises control$ then its criminal law will
govern.
iii. #bsolute heory
#dopted by the hilippines
The sub0acent state has complete !urisdiction over the atmosphere above itsub!ect onl to the innocent passage baircraft of a foreign countr.
Dnder this theory$ if the crime is
committed in an aircraft$ no matter howhigh$ as long as it can be established thatit is within the hilippine atmosphere$hilippine criminal law will govern.
. 0!n $,*li% "i%!r( "r !$l"#!!(%"it an "!n(! in t! !/!r%i(! "t!ir ,n%ti"n(he most common sub0ect of bar
problems in #rticle & is paragraph ?5 Chile
being public officers or employees$ 3they8
should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions52
#s a general rule$ the ;evised enal "odegoverns only when the crime committed
pertains to the exercise of the public
official’s functions$ those having to do with
the discharge of their duties in a foreign
country. he functions contemplated are
those$ which are$ under the law$ to be
performed by the public officer in the
oreign %ervice of the hilippinegovernment in a foreign country.
Exception" The Revised #enal Codegoverns if the crime was committed withinthe hilippine Embass or within theembass grounds in a foreign countr. Thisis because embass grounds are consideredan extension of sovereignt .
Illustration5
$ #hilippine consulate official who is
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
4/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
and who marries again in a foreigncountr cannot be prosecuted here forbigam because this is a crime notconnected with his official duties.%owever, if the second marriage wascelebrated within the #hilippineembass, he ma be prosecuted here,since it is as if he contracted the
marriage here in the #hilippines.
3. PROSPECTIVITY OF CRIMINAL LA0
his is also called irretrospectivity.
#cts or omissions will only be sub0ect to a
penal law if they are committed after a penal
law had already taken effect. Bice versa$ this
act or omission which has been committed
before the effectivity of a penal law could notbe penali)ed by such penal law because penal
laws operate only prospectively.
In some textbooks$ an exemption is said
to exist when the penal law is favorable to theoffender$ in which case it would have
retroactive application (;" #rt. &&': provided
that the offender is not a habitual delin,uent
and there is no provision in the law against its
retroactive application.
his is consistent with the generalprinciple that criminal laws$ being a limitation
on the rights of the people$ should beconstrued strictly against the %tate and
liberally in favor of the accused.
he exception where a penal law may be
given retroactive application is true only with
a repealing law. If it is an original penal law$that exception can never operate. Chat is
contemplated by the exception is that there isan original law and there is a repealing law
repealing the original law. It is the repealinglaw that may be given retroactive application
to those who violated the original law$ if the
repealing penal law is more favorable to the
offender who violated the original law. If there
is only one penal law$ it can never be given
retroactive effect.
;ule of prospectivity also applies to
administrative rulings and circulars. In C" &(.CA 415536) it was held that the principle ofprospectivity of statutes also applies toadministrative rulings and circulars. In this
case$ "ircular 4o. ? of the Ministry of *ustice$
dated Gecember$ 1A$ 191$ provides that
where the check is issued as part of an
arrangement to guarantee or secure the
payment of an obligation$ whether pre6
existing or not$ the drawer is not criminally
liable for either estafa or violation of - &&.2%ubse,uently$ the administrative
interpretation was reversed in "ircular 4o. 1&$issued on #ugust $ 19?$ such that the claim
that the check was issued as a guarantee or
part of an arrangement to secure an obligation
or to facilitate collection$ is no longer a valid
defense for the prosecution of - &&. /ence$ it
was ruled in 7,! &(. P!"$l! that under the
new "ircular$ a check issued merely toguarantee the performance of an obligation iscovered by - &&. /owever$ consistent with
should not apply to parties who had relied onthe old "ircular and acted on the faith thereof.
4o retrospective effect.
8. LEGALITY 4NULLUM CRIMEN NULLAPOENA SINE LEGE6
here is no crime when there is no law
punishing the same. his is true to civil lawcountries$ but not to common law countries.
-ecause of this maxim$ there is no
common law crime in the hilippines. 4o
matter how wrongful$ evil or bad act is$ if
there is no law defining the act$ the same is
not considered a crime.
"ommon law crimes are wrongful acts
which the communityH society condemns as
contemptible$ even though there is no lawdeclaring the act criminal.
4ot any law punishing an act or omission
may be valid as a criminal law. If the law
punishing an act is ambiguous$ it is null andvoid.
9. STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LA0SAGAINST STATE: THE ;DOCTRINE OFPRO REO<
Chenever a penal law is to be construedor applied and the law admits of two
interpretations 6 one lenient to the offenderand one strict to the offender6 that
interpretation which is lenient or favorable to
the offender will be adopted.
his is in consonance with the
fundamental rule that all doubts shall beconstrued in favor of the accused and
consistent with the presumption of innocenceof the accused. his is peculiar only to criminal
law.
D. BASIC MA=IMS IN CRIMINAL LA0
1. ACTUS NON FACIT REUM) NISI MENSSIT REA
The act cannot be criminal where themind is not criminal. his is true to a felonycharacteri)ed by dolo$ but not a felony
resulting from culpa. his maxim is not an
absolute one because it is not applied toculpable felonies$ or those that result from
negligence.
2. ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON ESTMEUS ACTUS
$n act done b me against m will is notm act. his is related to the preceding maximand is manifested in eople vs #h "hong.
3. EL 7UE ES CAUSA DE LA CAUSA ESCAUSA DEL MAL CAUSADO
%e who is the cause of the cause is the
cause of the evil caused. his is the rationalein par. 1 of #rticle ? which enunciates the
doctrine of proximate cause. /e who commitsan intentional felony is responsible for all the
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
5/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
conse,uences which may naturally andlogically result therefrom$ whether foreseen or
intended or not.
II. De(elo)ment of CriminalLaw in t*e P*ili))ines
A. CODE OF MARAGTAS
If you will be asked about the development
of criminal law in the hilippines$ do not start
with the ;evised enal "ode. he penal
provisions of the Maragtas "ode were allegedly
written and compiled by Gatu %umakwel in
1&A
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
6/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
slept in "ongress. It was never enacted into law.#mong those who participated in drafting the
"ode of "rimes was *udge =uellermo =uevarra.
%ince that "ode of "rimes was never
enacted as law$ he enacted his own code of
crimes. -ut it was the "ode of "rimes that was
presented in the -atasan as "abinet -ill 4o. &.
-ecause the "ode of "rimes prepared by=uevarra was more of a moral code than a penal
code$ there were several oppositions against thecode.
G. PROPOSED PENAL CODE OF THEPHILIPPINES
hrough #ssemblyman Estelito Mendo)a$
the D @aw "enter formed a committee which
drafted the enal "ode of the hilippines. hisenal "ode was substituted as "abinet -ill 4o. &
and this has been discussed in the floor of the-atasang ambansa. %o the "ode of "rimes now
in "ongress was not the "ode of "rimes duringthe time of resident ;oxas. his is a different
one. "abinet -ill 4o. & is the enal "ode of the
hilippines drafted by a code committee chosen
by the D @aw "enter$ one of them was
rofessor 7rtega. here were seven members of
the code committee. It would have been enacted
into law if not for the dissolution of the -atasang
ambansa. he "ongress was planning to reviveit so that it can be enacted into law.
H. SPECIAL LA0S
Guring Martial @aw$ there are many
residential Gecrees issued aside from the
special laws passed by the hilippine @egislature"ommission. #ll these special laws which are
penal in character$ are part of our enal "ode.
III. ,elonies
A. FELONIES) OFFENSE)MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME
1. FELONY
he term felony is limited only to violations
of the ;evised enal "ode. Chen the crime ispunishable under a special law you do not
refer to this as a felony$ it is to be understood
as referring to crimes under the ;evised enal
"ode.
his is important because there are certain
provisions in the ;evised enal "ode where
the term felony2 is used$ which means thatthe provision is not extended to crimes under
special laws. # specific instance is found in
$rticle &'() *uasi)Recidivism, which reads" $ person who shall commit a
felon after having been convictedb final !udgment, beforebeginning to serve sentence orwhile serving the same, shall be
punished under the maximum period of the penalt.
4ote that the word felony2 is used.
2. OFFENSE
# crime punished under a special law is
called a statutory offense.
3. MISDEMEANOR
# minor infraction of the law$ such as a
violation of an ordinance$ is referred to as amisdemeanor.
8. CRIME
Chether the wrongdoing is punished under
the ;evised enal "ode or under a special law$
the generic word crime can be used.
B. FELONIES: HO0 COMMITTED
1. ELEMENTS OF FELONIES
a. here must be an act or omissionb. hat the act or omission must be
punishable by the ;"
c. hat the act is performed or the
commission incurred by means of dolo or
culpa
o be considered as a felony$ there must bean act or omission: a mere imagination no
matter how wrong does not amount to afelony. #n act refers to any kind of body
movement that produces change in the
outside world. or example$ if #$ a passenger
of a 0eepney seated in front of a lady$ started
putting out his tongue suggesting lewdness$
that is already an act in contemplation of
criminal law. /e cannot claim that there was
no crime committed. If # scratchessomething$ this is already an act which annoys
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
7/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
the lady he may be accused of un0ustvexation$ not malicious mischief. 7n the other
hand$ omission is the failure to perform a duty
re,uired by law. Examples of such are failure
to render assistance$ failure to issue receipt or
non disclosure of knowledge of conspiracy
against the government.
/owever$ it does not mean that if an act oromission is punished under the ;evised enal
"ode$ a felony is already committed. o beconsidered a felony$ it must also be done with
dolo or culpa.
2. DOLO
Dnder #rticle >$ there is dolo when there is
deceit. his is no longer true. #t the time the
;evised enal "ode was codified$ the termnearest to dolo was deceit. /owever$ deceit
means fraud$ and this is not the meaning ofdolo.
Golo is deliberate intent otherwise referredto as criminal intent$ and must be coupled
with freedom of action and intelligence on the
part of the offender as to the act done by him.
a. El!!nt(he term$ therefore$ has three re,uisites
on the part of the offender5
i. "riminal intent:ii. reedom of action: and
iii. Intelligence
If any of these is absent$ there is no dolo.
If there is no dolo$ there could be no
intentional felony 4Vi(*al &(. B,*an)2@@36.
*. Pr!(,$ti"n Criinal Int!nt%ince intent is a mental state$ the
existence of which is shown by the overt act
of a person$ so criminal intent is presumed
to exist only if the act is unlawful. It does
not apply if the act is not criminal. he
presumption of criminal intent may arise
from proof of the criminal act and it is for
the accused to rebut this presumption.
/owever$ in some crimes intent cannot bepresumed being an integral element
thereof: so it has to be proven (i.e. infrustrated homicide$ specific intent to kill is
not presumed but must be proven$
otherwise it is merely physical in0uries'.
%. Cat!'"ri!( " Int!ntIn criminal law$ intent is categori)ed into
two5
i. =eneral "riminal Intent
+eneral criminal intent is presumedfrom the mere doing of a wrong act. hisdoes not re,uire proof. he burden is
upon the wrong doer to prove that he
acted without such criminal intent.
ii. %pecific "riminal Intent
pecific criminal intent is not presumed
because it is an ingredient or element ofa crime, like intent to kill in the crimesattempted or frustrated homicideH
parricideH murder. he prosecution hasthe burden of proving the same.
-. Di(tin%ti"n B!t!!n Int!nt an-Di(%!rn!ntIntent is the determination to do a certain
thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It isthe design to resolve or determination by
which a person acts.
7n the other hand$ discernment is themental capacit to tell right from wrong. Itrelates to the moral significance that a
person ascribes to his act and relates to the
intelligence as an element of dolo$ distinct
from intent.
!. Di(tin%ti"n B!t!!n Int!nt an-M"ti&!Intent is demonstrated by the use of a
particular means to bring about a desiredresult6 it is not a state of mind or a reason
for committing a crime.
7n the other hand$ motive implies
motion. It is the moving power which impels
one to do an act. Chen there is motive in
the commission of a crime$ it always comes
before the intent. -ut a crime may becommitted without motive.
Motive$ unlike intent$ is not an element of
a crime. # man can be convicted with orwithout motive$ or with good or bad motive.
It is important only when the identity of the
culprit is in doubt and not when he is
positively identified by a credible witness.
#lso$ lack of motive can aid in showing the
innocence of the accused. (eople vs/assan$ 19'
If the crime is intentional$ it cannot be
committed without intent. Intent ismanifested by the instrument used by the
offender. he specific criminal intent
becomes material if the crime is to be
distinguished form the attempted or
frustrated stage. or example$ a husband
came home and found his wife in a pleasant
conversation with a former suitor.
hereupon$ he got a knife. he moving forceis 0ealousy. he intent to resort to the knife$
so that means he desires to kill the formersuitor.
Even if the offender states that he had no
reason to kill the victim$ this is not criminal
intent. "riminal intent is the means resorted
to by him that brought about the killing. If
we e,uate intent as a state of mind$ many
would escape criminal liability.
In a case where mother and son wereliving in the same house$ and the son got
angry and strangled his mother$ the son$
when prosecuted for parricide$ raised the
defense that he had no intent to kill his
mother. It was held that criminal intent
applies on the strangulation of the vital part
of the body. "riminal intent is on the basisof the act$ not on the basis of what theoffender says.
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
8/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
-ook into motive to determine the propercrime which can be imputed to the accused.
If a 0udge was killed$ determine if the
killing has any relation to the official
functions of the 0udge in which case the
crime would be direct assault complexed
with murderH homicide$ not the other way
around. If it has no relation$ the crime is
simply homicide or murder.
. M!n( R!ahe technical term mens rea is sometimes
referred to in common parlance as the
gravamen of the offense. To a laman, thatis what ou call the bullsee/ of the crime.This term is used snonmousl withcriminal or deliberate intent, but that is notexactl correct.
Mens rea of the crime depends upon the
elements of the crime. Jou can only detectthe mens rea of a crime by knowing the
particular crime committed. Cithout
reference to a particular crime$ this term ismeaningless. or example$ in theft$ the
mens rea is the taking of property of
another with intent to gain. In falsification$
the mens rea is the effecting of the forgery
with intent to pervert the truth. It is notmerely writing something that is not true:
the intent to pervert the truth must followthe performance of the act.
In criminal law$ we sometimes have to
consider the crime on the basis of intent.
or example$ attempted or frustrated
homicide is distinguished from physical
in0uries only by the intent to kill. #ttempted
rape is distinguished from acts oflasciviousness by the intent to have sexual
intercourse. In robbery$ the mens rea is thetaking of the property of another coupled
with the employment of intimidation orviolence upon persons or things: remove
the employment of force or intimidation and
it is not robbery any longer.
'. Mi(ta! " Fa%tChen an offender acted out of a
misapprehension of fact$ it cannot be said
that he acted with criminal intent. hus$ incriminal law$ there is a mistake of fact.2
Chen the offender acted out of a mistake offact$ criminal intent is negated$ so do not
presume that the act was done with criminal
intent. his is absolutory if the crime
involved dolo.
Mistake of fact would be relevant only
when the felony would have been
intentional or through dolo$ but not whenthe felony is a result of culpa. Chen the
felony is a product of culpa$ do not discussmistake of fact. Chen the felonious act is
the product of dolo and the accused claimed
to have acted out of mistake of fact$ there
should be no culpa in determining the real
facts$ otherwise$ he is still criminally liable$
although he acted out of a mistake of fact.
Mistake of fact is only a defense inintentional felony but never in culpablefelony.
he re,uisites of mistake of fact are5
i. hat the act done would have been
lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be:
ii. hat the intention of the accused in
performing the act should be lawful:
iii. hat the mistake must be without fault
or carelessness on the part of theaccused. Chen the accused is
negligent$ mistake of fact is not adefense. (eople vs 7anis$ 19'.
3. CULPA
#lthough there is no intentional felony$
there could be culpable felony.
Dnder #rticle >$ it is clear that culpa is 0usta modality by which a felony may be
committed. # felony may be committed orincurred through dolo or culpa. "ulpa is 0ust a
means by which a felony may result.
In #rticle >+A$ you have criminal negligence
as an omission which the article definitely or
specifically penali)ed. he concept of criminal
negligence is the inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the personperforming or failing to perform an act. If the
danger impending from that situation is clearlymanifest$ you have a case of reckless
imprudence. -ut if the danger that wouldresult from such imprudence is not clear$ not
manifest nor immediate$ you have only a case
of simple negligence. #lso$ if you were the one
who put yourself in a situation wherein danger
would most likely happen (e.g. drunk driving'$
this is reckless imprudence. /owever$ if thereis some contributory negligence on the part of
the victim (while driving you hit a person whowas 0aywalking'$ this may be a case of simple
negligence.-ecause of #rticle >+A$ one mightthink that criminal negligence is the one being
punished. hat is why a ,uestion is created
that criminal negligence is the crime in itself.
In P!"$l! &(. Fall!r$ it was statedindirectly that criminal negligence or culpa is
0ust a mode of incurring criminal liability. In
this case$ the accused was charged withmalicious mischief. Malicious mischief is an
intentional negligence under #rticle >&! of the;evised enal "ode. he provision expressly
re,uires that there be a deliberate damaging
of property of another$ which does not
constitute destructive arson. Jou do not have
malicious mischief through simple negligence
or reckless imprudence because it re,uires
deliberateness. aller was charged with
malicious mischief$ but was convicted ofdamage to property through reckless
imprudence. he %upreme "ourt pointed outthat although the allegation in the information
charged the accused with an intentional
felony$ yet the words feloniously and
unlawfully$ which are standard languages in
an information$ covers not only dolo but also
culpa because culpa is 0ust a mode of
committing a felony.
In 7,!"n &(. J,(ti%! " t! P!a%!$
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
9/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
that criminal negligence is a ,uasi6offense$and the correct designation should not be
homicide through reckless imprudence$ but
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
he view of *ustice ;eyes is sound$ but the
problem is #rticle >$ which states that culpa is
0ust a mode by which a felony may result.
a. El!!nt("ulpa re,uires the concurrence of three
re,uisites5i. criminal negligence on the part of the
offender$ that is$ the crime was the
result of negligence$ reckless
imprudence$ lack of foresight or lack of
skill:
ii. freedom of action on the part of the
offender$ that is$ he was not acting
under duress: andiii. intelligence on the part of the offender
in the performance of the negligent act.
*. Di(tin',i(!- Fr" D"l"
-etween dolo and culpa$ the distinctionlies on the criminal intent and criminal
negligence.
%. Di(tin%ti"n B!t!!n N!'li'!n%! An-I$r,-!n%!In negligence$ there is deficienc of
action. In imprudence$ there is deficiencof perception.
-. D"%trin!( C"n%!rnin' C,l$a*l!Cri!(
i. Emergency ;ule
# person who is confronted with a
sudden emergency may be left no time
for thought$ must make speedy decisionbased largely upon impulse or instinct$
and cannot be held to the same conductas one who has had an opportunity to
reflect$ even though it later appears thathe made the wrong decision.
he emergency doctrine is applicable
only where the situation which arises to
confront the actor is sudden and
unexpected$ and is such as to deprive him
of all the opportunity for deliberation.
ii. Goctrine 7f @ast "lear "hance2
he contributory negligence of theparty in0ured will not defeat the action if it
be shown that the accused might$ by the
exercise of reasonable care and prudence$
have avoided the conse,uences of the
negligence of the in0ured party.
iii. ;ule 7f 4egative Ingredient
his is related to the doctrine ofproximate cause and applicable when
certain causes leading to the result arenot identifiable.
his rule states that the prosecution
must first identify what the accused failed
to do. 7nce this is done$ the burden of
evidence shifts to the accused. he
accused must show that the failure didnot set in motion the chain of eventsleading to the in0ury. ("arillo vs eople$
C. CRIMES DEFINED AND PENALIEDBY SPECIAL LA0S
1. CRIMES MALA IN SE AND MALAPROHIBITA
Biolations of the ;evised enal "ode arereferred to as malum in se$ which literallymeans$ that the act is inherently evil or bad or
per se wrongful. 7n the other hand$ violationsof special laws are generally referred to as
malum prohibitum.
4ote$ however$ that not all violations of
special laws are mala prohibita. Chile
intentional felonies are always mala in se$ it
does not follow that prohibited acts done in
violation of special laws are always malaprohibita. Even if the crime is punished under
a special law$ if the act punished is one whichis inherently wrong$ the same is malum in se$
and$ therefore$ good faith and the lack ofcriminal intent is a valid defense: unless it is
the product of criminal negligence or culpa.
@ikewise when the special laws re,uire that
the punished act be committed knowingly and
willfully$ criminal intent is re,uired to be
proved before criminal liability may arise.
or example$ residential Gecree 4o. A>&
punishes piracy in hilippine waters and thespecial law punishing brigandage in the
highways. hese acts are inherently wrong
and although they are punished under special
laws$ the act themselves are mala in se: thus
good faith or lack of criminal intent is a
defense.
2. TEST TO DETERMINE IF VIOLATION OFSPECIAL LA0 IS MALUM PROHIBITUMOR MALUM IN SE
#naly)e the violation5 Is it wrong because
there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as
suchK If you remove the law$ will the act still
be wrongK
If the working of the law punishing the
crime uses the word willfully$2 then malicemust be proven. Chere malice is a factor$
good faith is a defense.
In violation of special law$ the act
constituting the crime is a prohibited act.
herefore$ culpa is not a basis of liability$
unless the special law punishes an omission.
Chen given a problem$ take note if the
crime is a violation of the ;evised enal "odeor a special law.
3. DISTINCTION BET0EEN CRIMESPUNISHED UNDER THE REVISED PENALCODE AND CRIMES PUNISHED UNDERSPECIAL LA0S
a. A( T" M"ral Trait O T! O!n-!rIn crimes punished under the ;evised
enal "ode$ the moral trait of the offenderis considered his is why liability would
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
10/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
only arise when there is dolo or culpa in thecommission of the punishable act.
In crimes punished under special laws$
the moral trait of the offender is not
considered: it is enough that the prohibited
act was voluntarily done.
*. A( T" U(! O G""- Fait A( D!!n(!In crimes punished under the ;evised
enal "ode$ good faith or lack of criminalintent is a valid defense: unless the crime is
the result of culpa.
In crimes punished under special laws$
good faith is not a defense.
%. A( T" D!'r!! O A%%"$li(!nt OT! Cri!In crimes punished under the ;evised
enal "ode$ the degree of accomplishmentof the crime is taken into account in
punishing the offender: thus$ there are
attempted$ frustrated and consummatedstages in the commission of the crime.
In crimes punished under special laws$
the act gives rise to a crime only when it is
consummated: there are no attempted orfrustrated stages$ unless the special law
expressly penali)es a mere attempt orfrustration of the crime.
-. A( T" Miti'atin' An- A''ra&atin'Cir%,(tan%!(In crimes punished under the ;evised
enal "ode$ mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are taken into account since
the moral trait of the offender is considered.
In crimes punished under special laws$mitigating and aggravating circumstances
are not taken into account in imposing thepenalty.
!. A( T" D!'r!! O Parti%i$ati"nIn crimes punished under the ;evised
enal "ode$ when there is more than one
offender$ the degree of participation of each
in the commission of the crime is taken into
account in imposing the penalty: thus$offenders are classified as principal$
accomplice and accessory.
In crimes punished under special laws$
the degree of participation of the offenders
is not considered. #ll who perpetrated the
prohibited act are penali)ed to the same
extent. here is no principal or accessory to
consider.
8. RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LA0S:SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF RPC
7ffenses punishable under special laws are
not sub0ect to the provisions of the ;". he
;" shall be supplementary to special laws$
unless the latter should specially provide the
contrary ( $rt. &(, R#C '
#rticle 1< is the conse,uence of the legalre,uirement that you have to distinguish
under the ;evised enal "ode. Cith regard to#rticle 1
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
11/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
crime of cattle6rustling is not a malaprohibitum but a modification of the crime of
theft of large cattle. %o residential Gecree
4o. A>>$ punishing cattle6rustling$ is not a
special law. It can absorb the crime of
murder. If in the course of cattle rustling$
murder was committed$ the offender cannot
be prosecuted for murder. Murder would be a
,ualifying circumstance in the crime of,ualified cattle rustling. his was the ruling in
P!"$l! &(. Martina-a.
he amendments of residential Gecree 4o.
+?&A (he Gangerous Grugs #ct of 19!&' by
;epublic #ct 47. !+A9$ which adopted the
scale of penalties in the ;evised enal "ode$
means that mitigating and aggravating
circumstances can now be considered in
imposing penalties. residential Gecree 4o.+?&A does not expressly prohibit the
suppletory application of the ;evised enal"ode. he stages of the commission of
felonies will also apply since suppletory
application is now allowed.
or cases of Illegal possession of firearms$
P!"$l! &. Si"n held that althoughresidential Gecree 4o. 1++ is a special law$
the penalties therein were taken from the;evised enal "ode$ hence the rules in said
"ode for graduating by degrees ordetermining the proper period should be
applied.
D. PUNISHABLE CONDUCT
1. Crongful act different from that intended
&. 7mission
>. roposal and "onspiracy
?. #ttemptA. rustration
+. "onsummation
1. 0RONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM THATINTENDED
"riminal liability under part.1 #rticle is
incurred only when these two re,uisites are
present5 first$ the accused must be
committing a crime and that crime must be a
felony: second$ there must be no supervening
event strong enough to destroy the causal linkbetween the offender’s act and the resulting
harm.
here are three situations contemplated
under paragraph 1 of #rticle ?5
• #berratio ictus or mistake in blow thereby
hitting a different or another victim:
• Error in personae or mistake in identity of
the victim:
• raeter intentionem or where the
conse,uence exceeded the intention (in
here the accused is liable for the crimescommitted but he may invoke the
mitigating circumstance that he did not
intend to commit so grave a wrong under
#rt. 1>$ par >'.
2. OMISSION
7mission is the inaction$ the failure tof iti d t hi h h i b d t
do. here must be a law re,uiring the doing orperforming of an act.
3. PROPOSAL AND CONSPIRACY 4INFRA6
8. ATTEMPT 4INFRA6
9. FRUSTRATION 4INFRA6
. CONSUMMATION 4INFRA6
E. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
his ,uestion was asked in the bar
examination5 /ow do you classify felonies and
how are felonies classifiedK
Chat the examiner had in mind was #rticles >$
+ and 9. Go not write the classification offelonies under -ook & of the ;evised enal "ode.
hat was not what the examiner had in mindbecause the ,uestion does not re,uire the
candidate to classify but also to define.herefore$ the examiner was after the
classifications under #rticles >$ + and 9.
elonies are classified as follows5
1. #ccording to the manner of their commission
&. #ccording to the stages of their execution>. #ccording to their gravity
1. ACCORDING TO THE MANNER OF THEIRCOMMISSION
Dnder #rticle >$ they are classified as5
a. intentional felonies or those committed
with deliberate intent: and
b. culpable felonies or those resulting from
negligence$ reckless imprudence$ lack offoresight or lack of skill.
2. ACCORDING TO THE STAGES OF THEIRE=ECUTIONDnder #rticle +$ felonies are classified as5
a. attempted felony when the offender
commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts$ and does not
perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance:b. frustrated felony when the offender
commences the commission of a felony
as a conse,uence but which wouldproduce the felony as a conse,uence but
which nevertheless do not produce the
felony by reason of causes independent
of the will of the perpetrator: and
c. consummated felony when all the
elements necessary for its execution are
present.
he classification of stages of a felony in#rticle + are true only to crimes under the
;evised enal "ode. his does not apply to
crimes punished under special laws. -ut even
certain crimes which are punished under the
;evised enal "ode do not admit of these
stages.
he purpose of classifying penalties is tobring about a proportionate penalty and
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
12/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
e,uitable punishment. he penalties aregraduated according to their degree of
severity. he stages may not apply to all kinds
of felonies. here are felonies which do not
admit of division.
a. F"ral Cri!(ormal crimes are crimes$ which are
consummated in one instance. or example$in oral defamation$ there is no attempted
oral defamation or frustrated oraldefamation: it is always in the
consummated stage.
%o also$ in illegal exaction under #rticle
&1> is a crime committed when a public
officer who is authori)ed to collect taxes$
licenses or impose for the government$ shall
demand an amount bigger than or differentfrom what the law authori)es him to collect.
Dnder sub6paragraph a of #rticle &1> onillegal exaction$ the law uses the word
demanding.2 Mere demanding of an
amount different from what the lawauthori)es him to collect will already
consummate a crime$ whether the taxpayer
pays the amount being demanded or not.
ayment of the amount being demanded is
not essential to the consummation of thecrime.
*. Att!$t An- Fr,(trati"nhe difference between the attempted
stage and the frustrated stage lies on
whether the offender has performed all the
acts of execution for the accomplishment of
a felony. @iterally$ under the article$ if the
offender has performed all the acts of
execution which should produce the felonyas a conse,uence but the felony was not
reali)ed$ then the crime is already in thefrustrated stage. If the offender has not yet
performed all the acts of executionthere issomething yet to be performedbut he was
not able to perform all the acts of execution
due to some cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance$ then you
have an attempted felony.
Jou will notice that the felony begins
when the offender performs an overt act.4ot any act will mark the beginning of a
felony$ and therefore$ if the act so far beingdone does not begin a felony$ criminal
liability correspondingly does not begin. In
criminal law$ there is such a thing as
preparatory act. hese acts do not give rise
to criminal liability.
$n overt act is that act which if allowed tocontinue its natural course would definitelresult into a felon.
In the attempted stage$ the definition
uses the word directly.2 his is significant.
In the attempted stage$ the acts so far
performed may already be a crime or it may
0ust be an ingredient of another crime. he
word directly2 emphasi)es the re,uirement
that the attempted felony is that which isdirectly linked to the overt act performed bythe offender$ no the felony he has in his
In criminal law$ you are not allowed to
speculate$ not to imagine what crime is
intended$ but apply the provisions of the
law to the facts given.
Chen a person starts entering the
dwelling of another$ that act is already
trespassing. -ut the act of entering is aningredient of robbery with force upon
things. Jou could only hold him liable forattempted robbery when he has already
completed all acts performed by him directly
leading to robbery. he act of entering
alone is not yet indicative of robbery
although that may be what he may have
planned to commit. In law$ the attempted
stage is only that overt act which is directly
linked to the felony intended to becommitted.
In US &(. Naa+a$ the accused wasarrested while he was detaching some of
the wood panels of a store. /e was alreadyable to detach two panels. o a layman$ the
only conclusion that will come to your mind
is that this fellow started to enter the store
to steal something. /e would not be there
0ust to sleep there. -ut in criminal law$ sincethe act of removing the panel indicates only
at most the intention to enter. /e can onlybe prosecuted for trespass. he removal of
the paneling is 0ust an attempt to trespass$not an attempt to rob. #lthough 4ama0a
was prosecuted for attempted robbery$ the
%upreme "ourt held it is only attempted
trespass because that is the crime that can
be directly linked to his act of removing the
wood panel.
here are some acts which areingredients of a certain crime$ but which
are$ by themselves$ already criminaloffenses.
In abduction$ your desire may lead to acts
of lasciviousness. In so far the woman being
carried is concerned$ she may already be
the victim of lascivious acts. he crime is
not attempted abduction but acts of
lasciviousness. Jou only hold him liable foran attempt$ so far as could be reasonably
linked to the overt act done by him. Go notgo far and imagine what you should do.
0esistanceGesistance on the part of the offender
negates criminal liability in the attempted
stage. Gesistance is true only in the
attempted stage of the felony. If under the
definition of the felony$ the act done isalready in the frustrated stage$ no amount
of desistance will negate criminal liability.
he spontaneous desistance of the
offender negates only the attempted stage
but not necessarily all criminal liability. Even
though there was desistance on the part of
the offender$ if the desistance was made
when acts done by him already resulted to afelony$ that offender will still be criminallyliable for the felony brought about his act.
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
13/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
stage$ but there may be other feloniesconstituting his act.
Illustrations5
$ fired at 1 and 1 was hit on theshoulder. 1ut 12s wound was not mortal.3hat $ then did was to approach 1, andtold 1, 4ow ou are dead, I will kill ou./
1ut $ took pit and kept the revolver andleft. The crime committed is attemptedhomicide and not phsical in!uries,because there was an intention to kill.The desistance was with the second shotand would not affect the first shotbecause the first shot had alread hit 1.The second attempt has nothing to dowith the first.
In another instance, $ has a verseductive neighbor in the person of 1. $had alwas been looking at 1 and hadwanted to possess her but their statuswere not the same. 5ne evening, after $
saw 1 at her house and thought that 1was alread asleep, he entered the houseof 1 through the window to abuse her.%e, however, found out that 1 was nudeso he lost interest and left. Can $ beaccused of attempted rape6 4o, becausethere was desistance, which preventedthe crime from being consummated. Theattempted stage was erased because theoffender desisted after havingcommenced the commission of thefelon.
he attempted felony is erased by
desistance because the offender
spontaneously desisted from pursuing theacts of execution. It does not mean$
however$ that there is no more felonycommitted. /e may be liable for a
consummated felony constituted by his actof trespassing. Chen # entered the house
through the window$ which is not intended
for entrance$ it is always presumed to be
against the will of the owner. If the offender
proceeded to abuse the woman$ but the
latter screamed$ and # went out of the
window again$ he could not be prosecuted
for ,ualified trespass. Gwelling is taken asan aggravating circumstance so he will be
prosecuted for attempted rape aggravatedby dwelling.
In deciding whether a felony is attempted
or frustrated or consummated$ there are
three criteria involved5
i. he manner of committing
the crime:
ii. he elements of thecrime: and
iii. he nature of the crimeitself.
i. Manner 7f "ommitting # "rime
or example$ let us take the crime of
bribery. "an the crime of frustrated
bribery be committedK 4o. (Incidentally$
the common concept of bribery is that itis the act of one who corrupts a publicofficer. #ctually$ bribery is the crime of
the giver is corruption of public official.-ribery is the crime of the public officer
who in consideration of an act having to
do with his official duties would receive
something$ or accept any promise or
present in consideration thereof.'
he confusion arises from the fact that
this crime re,uires two to committhegiver and the receiver. he law called the
crime of the giver as corruption of publicofficial and the receiver as bribery. =iving
the idea that these are independent
crimes$ but actually$ they cannot arise
without the other. /ence$ if only one side
of the crime is present$ only corruption$
you cannot have consummated corruption
without the corresponding consummated
bribery. here cannot be a consummatedbribery without the corresponding
consummated corruption. If you havebribery only$ it is only possible in the
attempted stage. If you have corruption
only$ it is possible only in the attemptedstage. # corruptor gives money to a
public officer for the latter not to
prosecute him. he public officer received
the money but 0ust the same$ arrested
him. /e received the money to haveevidence of corruption. Go not think that
because the corruptor has alreadydelivered the money$ he has already
performed all the acts of execution and$therefore$ the corruption is already
beyond the attempted stage. hat
thinking does away with the concept of
the crime that it re,uires two to commit.
he manner of committing the crime
re,uires the meeting of the mindsbetween the giver and the receiver.
Chen the giver delivers the money to
the supposed receiver$ but there is nomeeting of the minds$ the only act done
by the giver is an attempt. It is not
possible for him to perform all the acts of
execution because in the first place$ the
receiver has no intention of being
corrupted. %imilarly$ when a public
officer demands a consideration by official
duty$ the corruptor turns down thedemand$ there is no bribery.
If the one to whom the demand was
made pretended to give$ but he had
reported the matter to higher authorities$
the money was marked and this was
delivered to the public officer. If the
public officer was arrested$ do not think
that because the public officer already
had the money in his possession$ thecrime is already frustrated bribery$ it is
only attempted bribery. his is becausethe supposed corruptor has no intention
to corrupt. In short$ there is no meeting
of the minds. 7n the other hand$ if there
is a meeting of the minds$ there is
consummated bribery or consummated
corruption. his leaves out the frustrated
stage because of the manner ofcommitting the crime.
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
14/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
-ut indirect bribery is alwaysconsummated. his is because the
manner of consummating the crime does
not admit of attempt or frustration.
Jou will notice that under the ;evised
enal "ode$ when it takes two to commit
the crime$ there could hardly be a
frustrated stage. or instance$ the crimeof adultery. here is no frustrated
adultery. 7nly attempted orconsummated. his is because it re,uires
the link of two participants. If that link is
there$ the crime is consummated: if such
link is absent$ there is only an attempted
adultery. here is no middle ground when
the link is there and when the link is
absent.
here are instances where an intended
felony could already result from the actsof execution already done. -ecause of
this$ there are felonies where the offender
can only be determined to haveperformed all the acts of execution when
the resulting felony is already
accomplished. Cithout the resulting
felony$ there is no way of determining
whether the offender has alreadyperformed all the acts of execution or not.
It is in such felonies that the frustratedstage does not exist because without the
felony being accomplished$ there is noway of stating that the offender has
already performed all the acts of
execution. #n example of this is the crime
of rape. he essence of the crime is
carnal knowledge. 4o matter what the
offender may do to accomplish apenetration$ if there was no penetration
yet$ it cannot be said that the offenderhas performed all the acts of execution.
Ce can only say that the offender in rapehas performed all the acts of execution
when he has effected a penetration. 7nce
there is penetration already$ no matter
how slight$ the offense is consummated.
or this reason$ rape admits only of the
attempted and consummated stages$ no
frustrated stage. his was the ruling in
the case of P!"$l! &(. Orita.
In rape$ it re,uires the connection ofthe offender and the offended party. 4o
penetration at all$ there is only an
attempted stage. %lightest penetration or
slightest connection$ consummated (the
doctrine in 7rita regarding slight
penetration was modified in P!"$l! &(.Ca$,an which re,uired thepenetration of at least the labia ma0orafor rape to be consummated'. Jou will
notice this from the nature of the crimere,uiring two participants.
his is also true in the crime of arson.
It does not admit of the frustrated stage.
In arson$ the moment any particle of the
premises intended to be burned is
blackened$ that is already an indication
that the premises have begun to burn. Itdoes not re,uire that the entire premisesbe burned to consummate arson. -ecause
been eased out. he reasoning is that onecannot say that the offender$ in the crime
of arson$ has already performed all the
acts of execution which could produce the
destruction of the premises through the
use of fire$ unless a part of the premises
has begun to burn. If it has not begun to
burn$ that means that the offender has
yet to perform all the acts of execution.7n the other hand$ the moment it begins
to burn$ the crime is consummated.#ctually$ the frustrated stage is already
standing on the consummated stage
except that the outcome did not result. #s
far as the stage is concerned$ the
frustrated stage overlaps the
consummated stage.
-ecause of this reasoning by the "ourtof #ppeals in P!"$l! &(. Gar%ia$ the%upreme "ourt followed the analysis thatone cannot say that the offender in the
crime of arson has already performed all
the acts of execution which wouldproduce the arson as a conse,uence$
unless and until a part of the premises
had begun to burn.
In US &(. Val-!) the offender hadtried to burn the premises by gathering
0ute sacks laying these inside the room./e lighted these$ and as soon as the 0ute
sacks began to burn$ he ran away. heoccupants of the room put out the fire.
he court held that what was committed
was frustrated arson.
his case was much the way before the
decision in the case of P!"$l! &(. Gar%iawas handed down and the "ourt of#ppeals ruled that there is no frustratedarson. -ut even then$ the analysis in the
case of US &(. Val-! is correct. his isbecause$ in determining whether the
felony is attempted$ frustrated or
consummated$ the court does not only
consider the definition under #rticle + of
the ;evised enal "ode$ or the stages of
execution of the felony. Chen the
offender has already passed the
sub0ective stage of the felony$ it isbeyond the attempted stage. It is already
on the consummated or frustrated stagedepending on whether a felony resulted.
If the felony did not result$ frustrated.
he attempted stage is said to be
within the sub0ective phase of execution
of a felony. 7n the sub0ective phase$ it is
that point in time when the offender
begins the commission of an overt actuntil that point where he loses control of
the commission of the crime already. Ifhe has reached that point where he can
no longer control the ensuing
conse,uence$ the crime has already
passed the sub0ective phase and$
therefore$ it is no longer attempted. he
moment the execution of the crime has
already gone to that point where thefelony should follow as a conse,uence$ itis either already frustrated or
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
15/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
follow as a conse,uence$ it is alreadyfrustrated. If the felony follows as a
conse,uence$ it is consummated.
he trouble is that$ in the 0urisprudence
recogni)ing the ob0ective phase and the
sub0ective phase$ the %upreme "ourt
considered not only the acts of the
offender$ but also his belief. hatalthough the offender may not have done
the act to bring about the felony as aconse,uence$ if he could have continued
committing those acts but he himself did
not proceed because he believed that he
had done enough to consummate the
crime$ %upreme "ourt said the sub0ective
phase has passed. his was applied in the
case of US &(. Val-!$ where theoffender$ having already put kerosene on 0ute sacks$ lighted the same$ he had no
reason not to believe that the fire wouldspread$ so he ran away. hat act
demonstrated that in his mind$ he
believed that he has performed all theacts of execution and that it is only a
matter of time that the premises will
burn. he fact that the occupant of the
other room came out and put out the fire
is a cause independent of the will of theperpetrator.
he ruling in the case of US &(. Val-!is still correct. -ut in the case of P!"$l!&(. Gar%ia$ the situation is different./ere$ the offender who put the torch over
the house of the offended party$ the
house being a nipa hut$ the torch which
was lighted could easily burn the roof of
the nipa hut. -ut the torch burned out.
In that case$ you cannot say that theoffender believed that he had performed
all the acts of execution. here was noteven a single burn of any instrument or
agency of the crime.
he analysis made by the "ourt of
#ppeals is still correct5 that they could not
demonstrate a situation where the
offender has performed all the acts of
execution to bring about the crime ofarson and the situation where he has not
yet performed all the acts of execution.he weight of authority is that the crime
of arson cannot be committed in the
frustrated stage. he reason is because
we can hardly determine whether the
offender has performed all the acts of
execution that would result in arson$ as a
conse,uence$ unless a part of the
premises has started to burn. 7n theother hand$ the moment a particle or a
molecule of the premises has blackened$in law$ arson is consummated. his is
because consummated arson does not
re,uire that the whole of the premises be
burned. It is enough that any part of the
premises$ no matter how small$ bas
begun to burn.
Chat if the contents of the buildingwere burned but the structure itself was
case of US. V(. G" F"" S,#$ the crime isconsummated arson.
here are also certain crimes that do
not admit of the attempted or frustrated
stage$ like physical in0uries. 7ne of the
known commentators in criminal law has
advanced the view that the crime of
physical in0uries can be committed in the
attempted as well as the frustrated stage./e explained that by going through the
definition of an attempted and afrustrated felony under #rticle +$ if a
person was about to give a fist blow to
another raises his arms$ but before he
could throw a blow$ somebody holds that
arm$ there would be attempted physical
in0uries. he reason for this is because
the offender was not able to perform all
the acts of execution to bring aboutphysical in0uries.
7n the other hand$ he also stated that
the crime of physical in0uries may be
committed in the frustrated stage whenthe offender was able to throw the blow
but somehow$ the offended party was
able to sidestep away from the blow. /e
reasoned out that the crime would be
frustrated because the offender was ableto perform all the acts of execution which
would bring about the felony were it notfor a cause independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
he explanation is academic. Jou will
notice that under the ;evised enal "ode$
the crime of physical in0uries is penali)ed
on the basis of the gravity of the in0uries.
#ctually$ there is no simple crime ofphysical in0uries. Jou have to categori)e
because there are specific articles thatapply whether the physical in0uries are
serious$ less serious or slight. If you sayphysical in0uries$ you do not know which
article to apply. his being so$ you could
not punish the attempted or frustrated
stage because you do not know what
crime of physical in0uries was committed.
ii. Elements 7f he "rime
In the crime of estafa$ the element ofdamage is essential before the crime
could be consummated. If there is nodamage$ even if the offender succeeded
in carting away the personal property
involved$ estafa cannot be considered as
consummated. or the crime of estafa to
be consummated$ there must be
misappropriation already done$ so that
there is damage already suffered by the
offended party. If there is no damage yet$the estafa can only be frustrated or
attempted.
7n the other hand$ if it were a crime of
theft$ damage or intent to cause damage
is not an element of theft. Chat is
necessary only is intent to gain$ not even
gain is important. he mere intent to
derive some profit is enough but thethinking must be complete before a crimeof theft shall be consummated. hat is
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
16/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
why we made that distinction betweentheft and estafa.
If the personal property was received
by the offender$ this is where you have to
decide whether what was transferred to
the offender is 0uridical possession or
physical possession only. If the offender
did not receive the personal property$ buttook the same from the possession of the
owner without the latter’s consent$ thenthere is no problem. hat cannot be
estafa: this is only theft or none at all.
In estafa$ the offender receives the
property: he does not take it. -ut in
receiving the property$ the recipient may
be committing theft$ not estafa$ if what
was transferred to him was only thephysical or material possession of the
ob0ect. It can only be estafa if what wastransferred to him is not only material or
physical possession but 0uridical
possession as well.
Chen you are discussing estafa$ do not
talk about intent to gain. In the same
manner that when you are discussing the
crime of theft$ do not talk of damage.
he crime of theft is the one commonlygiven under #rticle +. his is so because
the concept of theft under the ;evisedenal "ode differs from the concept of
larceny under #merican common law.
Dnder #merican common law$ the crime
of larceny which is e,uivalent to out crime
of theft here re,uires that the offender
must be able to carry away or transportthe thing being stolen. Cithout that
carrying away$ the larceny cannot beconsummated.
In our concept of theft$ the offender
need not move an inch from where he
was. It is not a matter of carrying away.
It is a matter of whether he has already
ac,uired complete control of the personal
property involved. hat complete control
simply means that the offender has
already supplanted his will from the will ofthe possessor or owner of the personal
property involved$ such that he couldexercise his own control over the thing.
Illustration5
I placed a wallet on a table inside aroom. $ stranger comes inside theroom, gets the wallet and puts it in his
pocket. I suddenl started searchinghim and I found the wallet inside his
pocket. The crime of theft is alreadconsummated because he alreadac7uired complete control of m wallet.This is so true when he removed thewallet from the confines of the table.%e can exercise his will over the walletalread, he can drop this on the floor,etc. 1ut as long as the wallet remains
on the table, the theft is not etconsummated8 there can onl beattempted or frustrated theft. If he has
frustrated. If he is in the act of tringto take the wallet or place it under,attempted.
aking2 in the concept of theft$ simply
means exercising control over the thing.
If instead of the wallet, the man
who entered the room pretended tocarr the table out of the room, and thewallet is there. 3hile taking the tableout of the room, I apprehended him. Itturned out that he is not authori9ed atall and is interested onl in the wallet,not the table. The crime is not etconsummated. It is onl frustratedbecause as far as the table isconcerned, it is the confines of thisroom that is the container. $s long ashe has not taken this table out of thefour walls of this room, the taking isnot complete.
$ man entered a room and found achest on the table. %e opened it andfound some valuables inside. %e tookthe valuables, put them in his pocketand was arrested. In this case, theft isconsummated.
1ut if he does not take thevaluables but lifts the entire chest, andbefore he could leave the room, he wasapprehended, there is frustrated theft.
If the thing is stolen from a compound
or from a room$ as long as the ob0ect has
not been brought out of that room$ or
from the perimeter of the compound$ thecrime is only frustrated. his is the
confusion raised in the case of US &(.Din" compared with P!"$l! &(. E($irit,an- P!"$l! &(. A-i".
In US &(. Din") the accused loadedboxes of rifles on their truck. Chen they
were on their way out of the %outh
/arbor$ they were checked at the
checkpoint$ so they were not able to leave
the compound. It was held that what was
committed was frustrated theft.
In P!"$l! &(. E($irit,) the accusedwere on their way out of the supply house
when they were apprehended by the
military police who found them secreting
some hospital linen. It was held that what
was committed was consummated theft.
he emphasis$ which was erroneously
laid in some commentaries$ is that$ inboth cases$ the offenders were not liable
to pass the checkpoint. -ut why is it thatin one$ it is frustrated and in the other$ it
is consummatedK
In the case of US &(. Din") the boxesof rifle were stocked inside the compound
of the %outh /arbor. #s far as the boxes
of rifle are concerned$ it is the perimeterof the compound that is the container. #slong as they were not able to bring these
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
17/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
taking is not complete. 7n the otherhand$ in the case of P!"$l! &(. E($irit,)what were taken were hospital linens.
hese were taken from a warehouse.
/ospital linens were taken from the boxes
that were diffused or destroyed and
brought out of the hospital. rom the
moment they took it out of the boxes
where the owner or the possessor hadplaced it$ the control is complete. Jou do
not have to go out of the compound tocomplete the taking or the control.
his is very decisive in the problem
because in most problems given in the
bar$ the offender$ after having taken the
ob0ect out of the container changed his
mind and returned it. Is he criminally
liableK Go not make a mistake by sayingthat there is desistance. If the crime is
one of theft$ the moment he brought itout$ it was consummated. he return of
the thing cannot be desistance because in
criminal law$ desistance is true only in theattempted stage. Jou cannot talk of
desistance anymore when it is already in
the consummated stage. If the offender
has already ac,uired complete control of
what he intended to take$ the fact that hechanged his mind and returned the same
will no longer affect his criminal liability.It will only affect the civil liability of the
crime because he will no longer bere,uired to pay the ob0ect. #s far as the
crime committed is concerned$ the
offender is criminally liable and the crime
is consummated theft.
Illustration5 $ and 1 are neighbors. 5neevening, $ entered the ard of 1 andopened the chicken coop where 1keeps his fighting cocks. %e discoveredthat the fighting cocks were not
phsicall fit for cockfighting so hereturned it. The crime is consummatedtheft. The will of the owner is to keepthe fighting cock inside the chickencoop. 3hen the offender succeeded inbringing the coop, it is clear that hiswill is completel governed orsuperseded the will of the owner tokeep such cock inside the chicken coop.%ence, the crime was alreadconsummated, and beingconsummated, the return of theowner2s propert is not desistanceanmore. The offender is criminallliable but he will not be civill liable buthe will not be civill liable because theob!ect was returned.
Chen the receptacle is locked orsealed$ and the offender broke the same$
in lieu of theft$ the crime is robbery with
force upon things. /owever$ that the
receptacle is locked or sealed has nothing
to do with the stage of the commission of
the crime. It refers only to whether it is
theft or robbery with force upon things.
In the crime of abduction$ the crucial
with lewd designs. he ,uestion is$ shouldthe mathematical distance be a
consideration in determining the liability
of the offenderK In ;egalado’s
commentary he pointed out two case
illustrations which seem to show that
distance is a consideration. In P!"$l! &(.Rair!$ the woman was taken to
another province in an automobile$ thecrime was consummated abduction. In
P!"$l! &(. D! la Cr,) the victim wastaken only &< meters away and the court
ruled that the crime is attempted
abduction. ;egalado suggests that
distance should not be a decisive factor
because in every crime there are other
relevant facts which can be considered
such as those indicative of intent$ the
offender’s capacity to perform the act andthe stages thereof.
iii. 4ature 7f he "rime Itself
In crimes involving the taking of human
lifeparricide$ homicide$ and murderinthe definition of the frustrated stage$ it is
indispensable that the victim be mortally
wounded. Dnder the definition of the
frustrated stage$ to consider the offender
as having performed all the acts ofexecution$ the acts already done by him
must produce or be capable of producinga felony as a conse,uence. he general
rule is that there must be a fatal in0uryinflicted$ because it is only then that
death will follow.
If the wound is not mortal$ the crime is
only attempted. he reason is that the
wound inflicted is not capable of bringingabout the desired felony of parricide$
murder or homicide as a conse,uence: itcannot be said that the offender has
performed all the acts of execution whichwould produce parricide$ homicide or
murder as a result.
#n exception to the general rule is the
so6called sub0ective phase. he %upreme
"ourt has decided cases$ which applied
the sub0ective standard that when the
offender himself believed that he hadperformed all the acts of execution$ even
though no mortal wound was inflicted$ theact is already in the frustrated stage. his
was laid down in the doctrine of P!"$l!&(. S# Pi". /owever$ this case can bedistinguished from its precedents such as
P!"$l! &(. E-,a&! and P!"$l! &(.Da'an. In these cases$ the accusedbelieved that he had performed all the
elements of the crime but there was nodeath$ however$ it is readily distinguished
that the wounds could have resulted in death. In the case of %y io even thoughhe was correctly convicted of attempted
homicide$ the wounds were not in fact not
fatal. /ence$ it was superfluous for the
"ourt to lay down the above6mentioned
dictum because there was no need to
revert to the belief of the accused in lightof the physical evidence.
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
18/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
wo ways for conspiracy to exist5
• here is an agreement.
• he participants acted in concert or
simultaneously which is indicative of a
meeting of the minds towards acommon criminal goal or criminal
ob0ective. Chen several offenders actin a synchroni)ed. "oordinated
manner$ the fact that their actscomplimented each other is indicative
of the meeting of the minds. here is
an implied agreement.
wo kinds of conspiracy5
• "onspiracy as a crime: and
• "onspiracy as a manner of incurring
criminal liability.
Chen conspiracy itself as a crime$ no
overt act is necessary to bring about the
criminal liability. he mere conspiracy is thecrime itself. his is only true when the law
expressly punishes the mere conspiracy:
otherwise$ the conspiracy does not bringabout the commission of the crime becauseconspiracy is not an overt act but a mere
preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, seditionand coup d2 etat are the onl crimes wherethe conspirac and proposal to committhem are punishable.
Chen the conspiracy is only a basis of
incurring criminal liability$ there must be anovert act done before the co6conspirators
become criminally liable.
Chen the conspiracy itself is a crime$ this
cannot be inferred or deduced because
there is no overt act. #ll that there is is theagreement. 7n the other hand$ if the co6
conspirator or any of them would execute
an overt act$ the crime would no longer be
the conspiracy but the overt act itself.
Illustration5
$, 1, C and 0 came to an agreementto commit rebellion. Their agreement wasto bring about the rebellion on a certaindate. Even if none of them has performedthe act of rebellion, there is alreadcriminal liabilit arising from theconspirac to commit the rebellion. 1ut ifanone of them has committed the overt
act of rebellion, the crime of all is nolonger conspirac but rebellion itself. Thissubsists even though the other co)conspirator does not know that one ofthem had alread done the act ofrebellion.
his legal conse,uence is not true if the
conspiracy is not a crime. If the conspiracy
is only a basis of criminal liability$ none ofthe co6conspirators would be liable$ unless
there is an overt act. %o$ for long as anyoneshall desist before an overt act in
furtherance of the crime was committed$
such a desistance would negate criminal
liability.
Illustration5
Three persons plan to rob a bank.For as long as none of the conspiratorshas committed an overt act, there is nocrime et. 1ut when one of them commitsan overt act, all of them shall be heldliable, unless a co)conspirator was absentfrom the scene of the crime or he showedup, but he tried to prevent the
commission of the crime.
#s a general rule$ if there has been aconspiracy to commit a crime in a particular
place$ anyone who did not appear shall be
presumed to have desisted. he exception
to this is if such person who did not appear
was the mastermind.
Ce have to observe the distinction
between the two because conspiracy as acrime$ must have a clear and convincing
evidence of its existence. Ever crime mustbe proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Chen the conspiracy is 0ust a basis ofincurring criminal liability$ however$ the
same may be deduced or inferred from the
acts of several offenders in carrying out the
commission of the crime. he existence of a
conspiracy may be reasonably inferred fromthe acts of the offenders when such acts
disclose or show a common pursuit of thecriminal ob0ective. his was the ruling in
P!"$l! &(. Pint") 2@8 SCRA 5. #lthough conspiracy is defined as two or
more persons coming to an agreement
regarding the commission of a felony and
deciding to commit it$ the word person2
here should not be understood to re,uire a
meeting of the co6conspirator regarding thecommission of the felony. # conspiracy of
the second kind can be inferred or deducedeven though they have not met as long as
they acted in concert or simultaneously$indicative of a meeting of the minds toward
a common goal or ob0ective.
"onspiracy is a matter of substance which
must be alleged in the information$
otherwise$ the court will not consider the
same.
In P!"$l! &(. La,ri") 2@@ SCRA 85) itwas held that it must be established bypositive and conclusive evidence$ not by
con0ectures or speculations.
In Ta!r &(. CA) 1 SCRA 95@) it washeld that mere knowledge$ ac,uiescence to$
or approval of the act$ without cooperation
at least$ agreement to cooperate$ is not
enough to constitute a conspiracy. heremust be an intentional participation in the
crime with a view to further the commonfelonious ob0ective.
Chen several persons who do not know
each other simultaneously attack the victim$
the act of one is the act of all$ regardless of
the degree of in0ury inflicted by any one of
them. #ll will be liable for the conse,uences.# conspiracy is possible even whenparticipants are not known to each other.
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
19/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
Go not think that participants are alwaysknown to each other.
Illustrations5
$ thought of having her husbandkilled because the latter was maltreatingher. he hired some persons to kill himand pointed at her husband. The goons
got hold of her husband and startedmauling him. The wife took pit andshouted for them to stop but the goonscontinued. The wife ran awa. The wifewas prosecuted for parricide. 1ut theupreme Court said that there wasdesistance so she is not criminall liable.
$ law student resented the fact thathis brother was killed b $. %e hired 1 tokill $ and offered him #:(,(((.((. %edisclosed to 1 that $ was being arraignedin the Cit %all of ;anila and told him toexecute the plan on following da. In theevening of that same da, the law
student changed his mind so heimmediatel went to the police and toldthem to dispatch police officers to prevent1 from committing the crime.
-
8/20/2019 Crim Law Reviwer 1
20/97
I. Criminal Law : Definition and SourcesCriminal Law I
#$ -$ and "$ under the influence ofmari0uana$ broke into a house because they
learned that the occu