notes in crim law

7/28/2019 Notes in Crim Law

1/116

Notes in Criminal Law

Joseph Brian Torres Perez Article 1

CRIMINAL LAW

Criminal Law is the branch or division of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature andprovides for their punishment.

It is a branch of substantive law because it defines the states right to inflict punishment and the liabilityof the offenders. It is public law because it deals with the relation of the individual with the state.

CRIME

An act commited or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it.

FELONY

Crime punished by the RPC.

OFFENSE

Crime punished by a special law.

INFACTION OF AN ORDINANCECrime punished by an ordinance.

LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS

1. Must be general in application2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainer4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment of excessive fines

Must be general in application

The penal law must govern all persons within the country regardless of their race, belief, sex or creed.

However, it is subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreement.

Must not partake of the nature of an Ex Post Facto LawAn ex post facto law is one which

(a) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocentwhen done, and punishes such an act.(b) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greter than it was when committed.(c) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to thecrime when committed.(d) Alters the legal rules of evidence and authorizes conviction upon less or differenttestimony than the law required at the timeof the commission of the offense.(e) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect, imposes penalty ordeprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful and

(f) Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has becomeentitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty(In re:Kay Villegas Kami, inc., 35 SCRA 429, 431)

Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainderA bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is thesubstitution of a legislative act for a judicial determinatin of guilt. (People V. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382, 395).

Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment of excessive fines


2/116



CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMINAL LAW

1. Generality2. Territoriality3. Prospectivity

GeneralityGenenerality of criminal law means that the criminal law of the country governs all persons within thecountry, regardless of their race, belief, sex or creed. Art. 14 of the new Civil Code states:Penal laws andthose of public security and sfety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory,

subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations

Gennerality has no reference to territory. It refers only to persons that may be governed by the penal law.

Exceptions to the general application of criminal lawThe opening sentence of article 2 of the Revised Penal Code says that the provisions of this code

shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, except as provided in the treaties and laws ofpreferential application, Furthermore, Article 14 of the New Civil Code provides that the penal laws

and those public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippineterritory, subject to th principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.

The generality charachteristic of criminal law is subject to certain exceptions brought about byinternational agreement. Ambassadors, chiefs of states and their diplomatic officials are immune fromthe application of penal laws when they are in a country where they are assigned. However, this

doesnot apply to consuls in a foreign country where they are assigned. They are diplomatic officers,thus, no foreigner, except ambassadors, chiefs of states and their diplomatic officials, enjoy in this

country extra-territorial right to be exempted from its laws and jurisdiction.

Territoriality

Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have force and effect only within Philippine

territory. As a general rule, it cannot penalize crimes commited outside the same.

The territory of the country includes terrestrial (over land), fluvial (over maritime and interior waters) andaerial (over the atmosphere) jurisdiction.

The Archipelago Rule

All bodies of water comprising the maritime zone and interior waters abounding different islandscomprising the Philippine Archipelago are part of the Philippine territory, regardless of their bredth,depth, width or dimension.

On Fluvial Jurisdiction

At present, there is a departure from the accepting international Law Rule which states that when a strait

within a country has a width of than 6 miles, the center lane in excess of the 3 mile on both sides isconsidered international waters. The Philippines adopts the Archipelago rule.

Query: If a foreign merchant vessel is in the center lane and a crime was commited there, under the

International Law Rule, what law will apply?

Answer: Under the International Law Rule, the law of the country where that vessel is registered willapply, because the crime is deemed to have been committed in the high seas.


3/116



Note: The Philippines does not adhere to the International Law Rule anymore. Under the ArchipelagoRule as declared in Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution, all waters in the archipelago regardless of

the breadth, width or dimension are part of our national territory. Thus, there is no more centerlane as all these waters, regardless of their dimension or width, are part of Philippineterritory.Thus, if a foreign merchant vessel is in the center lane and crime is commited, the crimewill be prosecution before Philippine courts.

On Aerial Jurisdiction

There are three international law theories on aerial jurisdiction, to wit:

(a) Absolute TheoryThe subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the atmosphere above it subject only to

innocent passage by aircraft of foreign country.This is the theory adopted by the Philippines. Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an

aircraft, no matter hoe high, as long as it can be established that it is within the Philippineatmosphere, Philippine Criminal Law will govern.

(b) Relative TheoryThe atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to the jurisdiction of the subjacent state,except for the protection of its national security and public order. Thus, if a crime is committedon board a foreign aircraft at the atmosphere of a country, the law of the country does not govern

unless the crime affects the national security.

(c) The atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to the jurisdiction of thesubjacent state, except for the protection of its national security and public order. Under thistheory if a crime is committed on board a foreign aircraft at the atmosphere of a country, the law

of the country does not govern unless the crime affects the national security.

Prospectivity (Irretrospectivity)

A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed.

Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed after a penal law had alreadytaken effect. As such, acts or omissions which have been committed before the effectivity of a penal law

could not be penalized by such law because it must operate only prospectively.

Exceptions to prospective application of criminal lawsWhenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or

favorable to the accused, it can be given a retroactive effect.

Take note that this is only true with a repealing law. If it is an original penal law, that

exception can never operate. What is contemplated by the exception is that there is an original

law and there is a new law repealing the original one. It is the repealing law that may be givenretroactive application to those who violated the original law if the repealing penal law is morefavorable to the offender who violated the original law. If there is only one penal law, it can never

be given retroactive effect.

The rule of prospectivity also applies to administrtive rulings and circulars.

The above-mentioned has no application in the following instances:


4/116



(a) Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existingcauses of action, or

(b) Where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5, Article 62 of the RevisedPenal Code (Art. 22, RPC)

A person shall be deemed to be a habitual criminal if within a period of ten (10)

years rfom the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious orless serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, he is foundguiltyof any said crimes a third time or oftener.

EFFECT OF REPEAL OF PENAL LAW TO LIABILITY OF OFFENDER

What affects the criminal liability of an offender is not whether a penal law is expressly orimpliedly repealed. It is whether it is absolutely or totally repealed, or relatively or partially repealed.

Total or Absolute Repeal

There is no total or absolute repeal when the crime punished under the repealed originallaw has been descriminalized by the repealing law. Because of the repeal, the act or omission

which used to be a crime is no longer a crime. An example is R.A. No. 7363 whichdescriminalized subversion.

Consequences if repeal of penal law is total or absolute

1. If a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, the sameshall be dismissed, even though the accused may be habitual delinquent. This is so

because all persons accused of a crime are presumed innocent until they areconvicted by final judgement. Thus, the accused shall be acquited.

2. If the case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by finaljudgement; and if the convict is not habitual delinquent, he will be entitled to arelease unless there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to

those serving sentence at the time of the repeal. If there is no reservation clause, those

who are not habitual delinquents, even if they are already serving their sentence, willreceive the benfit of the repealing law. They are entitled to release.

If they are not released, they are not free to escape. If they escape, they commit the

crime of evasion of sentence, even if there is no more legal basis to hold them in thepenitentiary. Prisoners are accountabilities of the government. They are not supposedto step out simply because their sentence or the law under which they are sentencedhas been declared null or void. If they are not discharged from confinement, a

petition for habeas corpus should be filed to test the legality of their continued

confinement in jail.

On the other hand, if the convict is a habitual delinquent, he will continue to serve the

sentence in spite of the fact that the law under which he was convicted has alreadybeen absolutely repealed. This is because penal laws should be given retroactiveapplication to favor only those who are not habitual delinquents.

Query:A, a prisoner, learns that he is already overstaying in jail because his jailguard, B who happens to be a law student advised him that there is no more legalground for his continued imprisonment. B then told him that he can go. A got out of

jail and went home. Was there any crime committed?


5/116



Answer:A, the prisoner who is serving the sentence, committed the crime of evasionof sentence. B, the jail guard who allowed A to go, committed the crime of infidelity

in the custody of prisoners.

Partial or Relative Repeal

A repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the repealed law continuesto be a crime inspite of the repeal. This means that the repeal merely modified the conditionsaffecting the crime under the repealed law. The modification ma be prejudicial or beneficial tothe offender.

Consequences if repeal of penal law is partial or relative

1. If a cause is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and therepealing law is more favorable to the accused, it shall be the one applied to him. So,whether he is habitual delinquent or not, if the case is still pending in court the

repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealinglaw that it shall not apply to pending causes of action.

2. If a cause is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by finaljudgment, and the repealing law is partial or relative, the crime remains to be a crime.

Those who are not habitual delinquents will benefit on the effect of that repeal, sothat if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that willhenceforth apply to them.

Example: Under the original law, the penalty is 6 years. Under the repealing law, the

penalty is 4 years. Those convicted under the original law will be subjected to the 4 yearpenalty. This retroactive application will not be possible if there is a saving clause thatprovides that it should be given retroactive effect or unless he is a habitual deliinquent.

Express or Implied RepealExpress or implied repeal refers to the manner the repeal is done.

Express Repeal takes place when a subsequent law contains a provision that such law repeals an

earlier enactment. For example in RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), there is an expressprovision of repeal of Title V of the RPC.

Implied Repeal takes place when there is a law on a particular subject matter and a subsequentlaw is passed also on the same subject matter but is inconsistent with the first law, such that the two laws

cannot stand together. In this case, one of the two laws must give away. Thus, there is implied repealwhen there are two inconsistent laws.

Implied repeals are not favored by law. It requires a competent court to declare an impliedrepeal. If the two laws can be reconciled, the court shall always try to avoid an implied repeal.

Example: Article 9 paragraph 3 states Light felonies are those infractions of law for thecommission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided.

On the other hand, Article 26 statesA fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty, shallbe considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed6,000 pesos but not less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it be less than 200 pesos. To harmonizethem, the Supreme Court ruled that if the issue involves the prescription of the crime, that felony will beconsidered a light felony (under Article 9), and therefore, prescribes within two months. But if the issue


6/116



involves prescription of the penalty, the fine of 200 pesos will be considered correctional and willprescribe within 10 years.

Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or impled

1. If a penal law is impliedly repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive theoriginal law. Thus, the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original lawwill be revived and the same shall again be crimes although during the implied repeal, theymay not be punishable.

2. If the repeal is expressed, the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law. The actor omission will no longer be penalized.

Self-Repealing Law

Where an act expires by its own limitation, the effect is the same as though it had been repealed atthe time of the expiration. It is a recognized rule in this jurisdiction that the repeal of a law carries with it

the deprivation of the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence persons charged with violations ofthe old law prior to the repeal.

The effects of express or implied repeal do not apply to self-repealing laws or to those which

have automatic termination.

BASIC MAXIM IN CRIMINAL LAW

1. Doctrine of Pro Reo2. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege3. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea4. Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory

Doctrine of Pro Reo

Whenever a penal is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations one linient to

the offenderthat interpretation which is linient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.

This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accusedand consistent with the presumption of the innonce of the accused. This is peculiar to criminal law only.

Query: One boy was accused of parricide and was found to be guilty. Under the RPC, the penalty isreclusion perpetua to death. Assuming you were the judge, would you give the accused the benefit of the

Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW)? The ISLAW does not apply when the penalty imposed is life

imprisonment or death. Would you conseider the penalty imposable or the penalty imposed, taking intoconsideration the mitigating circumstance of minority?

Answer: If you will answer no, then you go against the Doctrine of Pro Reo because you can interpret

the ISLAW in a more lenient manner. Taking into account the doctrine, we interpret the ISLAW to meanthat the penalty prescribed by law, since it is more favorable for the accused to interpret the law.

Nullum Crimen nulla poena sine lege


7/116



This is true to civil law countries but not to common law countries. Because of this maxim, there are nocommon law crimes in the Philippines. A common law crime is any wrongful act which the community

or society condemns as contemptible, even though there is no law declaring the act criminal. Thus, unlessthere be a particular provision in the penal code or special penal law that defines and punishes the act,even if it be socially or morally wrong, no criminal liability is incurred by its commission.

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal.

This is true for a felony characterized by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa. Thus, this maxim isnot an absolute one because it is not apllied to culpable felonies or those that result from negligence.

Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory

The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the nprotection of society from actual and

potential wrongdoers.

The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society, should direct the punishment topotential or actual wrongdoers, since criminal law is directed against acts and omissions which the societydoes not approve. Consistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle which punishes an offense

regardless of malice or criminal intent should not be utilized to apply the full harshness of the special law.

THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW

1. Classical or Juristic Theory2. Positivist or Realistic Theory3. Eclectic or Mixed Theory

Classical or Juristic Theory

This theory is best remembered by the maxim An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth or in Latin, Oculopro oculo dente pro dente.

The following are the characteristics of the classical theory:

a. The basis of criminal liability is human free will. The purpose of the penalty is retribution.b. Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil.

Emphasis is given upon the effect or result of the felonious act than upon the man, the criminalhimself.

c. It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty.d. There is scant regard to the human element.

In sum, the Classical Theory propounds that the purpose of penalty is retribution. The offender is made tosuffer for the wrong he has done. There is scant regard for the human element of the crime. The law does

not look into why the offender committed the crime. Capital punishment is a product of the kind ofschool of thought. Man is regarded as a moral creature who understands right from wrong. Thus, whenhe commits a wrong, he must be prepared to accept the human punishment therefore.

Positivist or Realistic Theory


8/116



The characteristics of the positivist theory are:

a. Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to dowrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition.

b. Crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon. As such, it cannot be treated and checkedby the application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence or by the imposition of apunishment, fixed and determined a priori, but rather through enforcement of individualmeasures in each particular case after a thorough, personal and individual investigation conducted

by a competent body of psychiatrists and social scientists.

The purpose nof penalty is reformation. There is great respect for the human element because the

offender is regarded as socially sick needing treatment and not pinishment. Cages are like asylums, jailslike hospitals. They segregate the offenders from the good members of the society.

From this philosophy came the jury system, where the penalty is imposed on a case to case basis after

examination of the offender by a panel of social scientists which do not include lawyers, as the panelwould not want the law to influence their consideration.

Crimes are regarded as social phenomena which constrain a person to do wrong athough not of his ownvolition. A tendency towards crime is the product of ones environment. Ther is no such thing as a

natural born killer.

This philosophy is described as being lenient.

Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy

This combines both positivist and classical thinking. Crimes that are economic and social in natureshould be dealt in a positive manner. Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner, i.e.

capital punishment.

Since the RPC was adopted from the Spanish Codigo Penal which was copied from the French Code of1810 which is classical in character, it is said that our code is also classical. This is no longer true

because with the American occupation of the Philippines, many provisions of common law have been

engrafted into our penal laws. The RPC today follows the mixed or eclectic philosophy.

For example, intoxication of the offender is considered to mitigate his criminal liability, unless it isintentional or habitual. The age of the offender is also considered. The woman who killed her child toconceal her dishonor has in her favor a mitigating circumstance too.


9/116



THE REVISED PENAL CODE

(Act No. 3815 as Amended)

AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Legislature assembled and by the

authority of the same:

Preliminary Article.This law shall be known as The Revised Penal Code.

Book One

GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE DATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND

APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE, AND REGARDING THE OFFENSES,

THE PERSONS LIABLE AND PENALTIES

Preliminary Title

DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE

ARTICLE 1. Time when Act takes effect. This Code shall take effect on the First day of

January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.

Date of effectivity: January 1, 1932.

ARTICLE 2. Application of its provisions. Except as provided in the treaties and laws ofpreferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the PhilippineArchipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its

jurisdiction, against those who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations

and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligationsand securities mentioned in the preceding number;

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of theirfunctions; or

5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined inTitle One of Book Two of this Code.

SCOPE OF APLLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE (Art. 2)

Under Article 2, the provisions of the RPC embraces two scope of applications intraterritorial and

extraterritorial.


10/116



Intraterritorial refers to the apllication of the RPC within the Philippine territory. Extraterritorialmeans the application of the RPC outside the Philippine territory.

Intraterritorial applicationArticle 2 states that the provisions of the RPC shall be enforced not only within the Philippine land area

but also includes the atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone. In instances when the crime is

committed on maritime zones or interior waters, the Archipelagic Rule shall be observed. Thus, anycrime committed in interior waters comprising the Philippine archipelago shall be subject to our laws.

Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential applicationAs a general rule,the provisions of the RPC shall be enforced against any person who violated any of its provisions whileliving or sojourning in the Philippines. Exceptions to that rule may be provided by the treaties and laws

of preferential applications. Examples are Bases Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines andthe USA and the provisions of RA 75.

Crimes committed on board a foreign merchant ship or airship As a general rule, an

offense committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while on Philippine waters is triable before ourcourt.

French Rule and English Rule There are two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committedaboard merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country. The Philippines adopts the

English Rule.

a. French Rule Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless theircommission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state isendangered.

b. English Rule Such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect thingswithin the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof.

Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board foreign warships in

territorial waters. Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belongand cannot be subjected to the laws of another state.

Extraterritorial application

In the following cases, the provisions of the RPC shall be applicable even if the felony is committedoutside the Philippines:

1. When the offender should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship2. When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or

obligations and securities issued by the government

3. When the offender should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippinesof the obligations and securities mentionedin the preceding number

4. When the offender, while being a public officer or employee should commit an offense in theexercise of his functions

5. When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national security and the law ofnations.

Philippine ship or airshipIt is the registration of the vessel or in accordance with the laws ofthe Philippines, not the citizenship of its owner, which makes it a Philippine ship or airship


11/116



Public officer or employee committing crimes in the exercise of his public functions Thecrimes covered are only those involving the exercise of their official functions. Thus, the following are

the crimes which may be committed in the exercise of public functions:

1. Direct Bribery (Art. 210)2. Indirect Bribery (Art. 211)3. Frauds against the public treasurey (Art. 213)4. Possesion of prohibeted interest (Art 216)5. Malversation of public funds or property (Art. 217)6. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218)7. Illegal use of public funds or property (Art 220)8. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art 221)9. Falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official position (Art

171).

Offender commits any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations It is

not enough that the crime be against national security or the law of nations, it must be part or defined inTitle I, Book 2 of the RPC, to wit:

1. Treason (Art. 114)2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115)3. Espionage (Art. 117)4. Inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118)5. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119)6. Correspondence with hostile country (Art. 120)7. Flight to enemys country (Art. 121)8. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122)

Take note that Rebellion is not a crime against national security.


12/116



Title One

FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH

AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Chapter One

FELONIES

Article 3.Definitions.Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the

wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

FELONYA felony is an act or omission punishable by the Revised Penal Code (RPC). It may be

committed by deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa). Thus, a felony may arise not only when it is intended but also

when it is the product of criminal negligence.

CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES

1. According to the manner of their commission1a. Intentional felony

b. Culpable felony2. According to the stages of execution2

a. Attempted felonyb. Frustrated felonyc. Consummated felony

3. According to their gravity3a. Grave felonies

b. Less Grave feloniesc. Light felonies

CLASSIFICATION OF FELONY ACCORDING TO THEIR COMMISSION:

INTENTIONAL FELONY OR CULPABLE FELONY

Elements of a felony:a. There must be an act or omission

b. The act or omission must be punishable by the RPCc. The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpaDOLODolo is equivalent to malice, which is the deliberate intent to do an injury to another.

1 Article 32 Article 63 Article 9


13/116



Requisites of Dolo:1. He must have freedom while doing an act or omitting to do an act.2. He must have intelligence while doing an act or omitting to do an act.3. He must have intent while doing an act or omitting to do an act.

If any of these requisites is absent, there is no dolo. If there is no dolo, there is no intentional felony.

CULPA

Requisites of Culpa:1. He must have freedom while doing an act or omitting to do an act.

4. He must have intelligence while doing an act or omitting to do an act.5. He is imprudent, negligent or lacks foresight or skill while doing an act or omitting to do

an act.

In culpable felonies, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply theincident of another act performed without malice. In order that an act may be qualified as imprudence, it

is necessary that neither malice nor intention to cause injury should intervene. Where such intentionexists, the act should be qualified by the felony it has produced even though it may not have been theintention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced. (Viadas comment on the Penal

Code, Vol. 7, 5th ed.., page 7)

Culpa is just a mode incurring criminal liability. It is not a crime. Under Article 3 of the

RPC, it is beyond question that culpa or criminal negligence is just a mode by which a fellony may arise.A felony may be committed or incurred through dolo or culpa.

Voluntariness in Criminal LawVoluntariness in crininal law does not mean acting in ones own violation. It comprehends the

concurrence of freedom of action, intelligence and intent to make it dolo, or freedom of action,

intelligence and imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill to make it culpa. Withoutvoluntariness, there can be no dolo or culpa. Without dolo or culpa, there can be no felony.

Criminal IntentIn crime s committed by dolo, criminal intent is necessary because of the legal maxims, Actus non facitreum ni si mens sit reaor the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so, and Actus

me invito f actus non est meus actusor an act done by me against my will is not my act.

Thus, when the accused is charged with intentional felony, absence of criminal intent is a defense.

However, in the following instances, criminal intent is not necessary:

a. When the crime is the product of culpa;

b. When the crime is a prohibited act under a special law (malum prohibitum)

In criminal law, intent is categorized into two, General criminal intent and Specific criminal intent.General Criminal Intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof.

The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent. SpecificCriminal Intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime. Examples are intent tokill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder or intent to gain in crimes against

property.


14/116



Intent is not the state of mind. It is the means resorted to commit the crime. For example: a husbandcomes home and finds his wife in a pleasant conversation with a former suitor. Thereupon, he got a knife.

The moving force or motive is jealousy. The intent is to resort to the knife. That means, he is desirous tokill the former suitor. Even if the offender states that he had no reason to kill the victim, this is notcriminal intent. Criminal intent is the means resorted by him that brought about the killing. If we equateintent as a state of mind, many would escape criminal liability. Look into motive to determine the proper

crime which can be imputed.

Mistake of FactMistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He isnot, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent. This is absolutory if the crimeinvolved dolo.

Requisites:1. The act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be.2. The intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.

3. The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.

Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through dolo, butnot when the felony is a result of culpa. When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense.

Example: People v. Oanis (74 Phil. 257)Chief of Police Oanis and his co-accused, Corporal Galanta,were under instructions to arrest one Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and ifoverpowered, to get himdead or alive. Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a room and on

seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door, simultaneously fired at him with their revolvers,without first making any reasonable inquiry as to his identity. The victim turned out to be an innocent

man, Tecson, and not the wanted criminal. Held: Both accused are guilty of murder. They were carelessin not verifying first the identity of the victim.

Crimes or Offenses under Special Laws

Criminal intent is not required. It is enough that the prohibited act is done freely. The act alone,irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense. When the doing of an act is prohibited by a speciallaw, it is considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is thecrime itself. Thus, good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes punished by

special laws.

Crimes MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA

Crimes Mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous

condemnation of its members. In acts mala in se, the intent governs. The term mala in se refers generallyto felonies defined and penalized by the RPC. When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se,

even if punished by special laws.

Crimes Mala prohibita are vioaltions of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderlyregulation of the affairs of society. They refer generally to acts made criminal by special laws. In actsmala prohibita, intent is immaterial. The only inquiry is whether or not the law has been violated.

Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy.


15/116



Article 4.Criminal liability.Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be differentfrom that which he intended.

2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property,were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the

employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturallyand logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not. When a person commits a felony

with malice, he intends the consequences of his felonious act. Thus, in committing a felony, he iscriminally liable although the consequences of his felonious acts are not intended by him.

Requisites of paragraph 1: In order that a person may be held criminally liable for a felony differentfrom that which he intended to commit, the following requisites must be present:

(1) There be an intentional felony;(2) The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony

committed by the offender.

This article is applicable only when the person is committing a felony. When a person has notcommitted a felony, he is not criminally liable for the result which is not intended. No felony iscommitted when the act or omission is not punishable by the RPC, or when the act is covered by any ofthe justifying circumstances enumerated in Article 11.

Proximate Cause; Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the feloniousactArticle 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting felony.

It must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felonious act. Proximate cause is that causewhich sets into motion other causes and which unbroken by an efficient supervening cause produces afelony without which such felony could not have resulted.

As a general rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the consequences of his felonious act,

although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the felony or resulting felony.

The proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate cause. This may be a cause which is far and

remote from the conseuence which sets into motion other causes which resulted in the felony. However,the person who was the immediate cause would still be liable with the felony if he acted with dolo or

culpa.

Example: People v. IlaganA and B were walking along a sidewalk, X, Y and Z

were also walking on the opposite side of the sidewalk. Because A and B were joking each otherwhen they passed by X, Y and Z, A bumped Z. Y immediately boxed him. B happened

to be carrying a rusty bolo with him. He struck Y on the forehead. Y went down the sidewalk notmindful that a motor vehicle was coming. He was bumped by that car and was eventually run over. Hisskull was crushed. The medico-legal certificate states that the cause of death was massive cerebralhemorrhage resulting from vehicular accident. B capitalized on this and said that he should only beliable for physical injuries and not for the death of the victim and should not be liable for homicide. The

medico-legal testified favorably to the accused, thst the wound produced by the blow on the forehead ofthe deceased was only superficial because the bolo was not really sharp enough. It was more of a bluntinstrument. Nevertheless, B was convicted for the crime of homicide. He questioned the proprietary offinding him guilty for the death of the victim. The SC applied the rule of proximate cause, that although


16/116



the immediate cause or direct cause of the death was the victims be ing run over the vehicle. Yet, theproximate cause of that death was the act of the accused of delivering a blow on the forehead of the

victim.

Any person who creates in anothers mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to

do something resulting in the latters injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries. Thus, proximate

cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended party. It isenough that he generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that made him risk himself. Forexample: The accused was an officer of a motor launch. The victim was working on the cargo beingloaded on that motor launch. Because the victim was slow worker, the accused berated him until the

point was reached were the victim demonstrated and replied back. The accused resented that and so hecame down from the bridge of the vessel to approach the victim with a cutlass. The victim started to run.

The accused kept on walking towards the victim until the victim reached the end of the port. There wasnowhere for him to retreat so he jumped into the water. He drowned. The causse of death was

asphyxiation due to drowning. The SC found the accused guilty of homicide for the death of the person.(People v. Toling, 62 SCRA 17)

The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury in the following instances.

(1) When there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and theresulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the

felonious act of the accused; or(2) When the resulting injury is due to the intentional act or carelessness of the victim.

Wrongful act done be different from what intendedThe causes which may produce a result differentfrom that which the offended intended are:

(1)Error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim(2)Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow(3)Praeter intentionem or the consequence exceeded the intention

Aberratio ictus, error in personae, and praeter intentionem are all products of an intentional felony.

ERROR IN PERSONAE (Mistake in the identity of the victim)

In error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. It was the actual victim uponwhom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim. Thus, there is a mistake inidentity.

How does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender?As mandated by Article 49,error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different and less serious from that which was

intended. However, if the crime intended is more serious than that committed, it is not mitigating. If the

crime committed is the same as that which was intended, error in personae does not affect the criminalliability of the offender.

Example: A though of killing B. He positioned himself at one corner where B would usually

pass. When a figure resembling B was approaching, A hid. When that figure was near him, he suddenlyhit him with a piece of wood on the nape, killing him. It turns out that it was his own father. Thus, thecrime committed is parricide, although what was intended was homicide. Article 49 will apply becauseout of a mistake in identity, a crime was committed, although different from that which was intended.


17/116



ABERRATIO ICTUS

In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at the intended victim. However, because of poor aim, thatblow landed on somebody else. Thus, the intended victim and as well as the actual victim are both at thescene of the crime.

In aberratio ictus, the result is generally a complex crime, unless it is not a grave or less grave felony.There is a single act against the intended victim which also gives rise to another felony as against theactual victim. Example: A and B are enemies. As sonn as A saw B at a distance, he shot B. However,

because of poor aim, it was C who was hit. In this case, there is a single actthe act of firing at B. In sofar as B is concerned, the crime is attempted homicide or attempted murder (if there is a qualifyingcircumstance). As for C, the crime is serious or less serious physical injuries because there is no intent to

kill. If the resulting physical injuries are only slight, there is no complex crime. A will be persecutedtwice, for attempted homicide or murder, and for slight physical physical injuries.

PRAETER INTENTIONEM

In praeter intentionem, ther must be a notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting

felony. The resulting felony could not have been anticipated or reasonably foreseen from the meansemployed by the offender. Article 13, paragraph 3 states that when the offender had no intention tocommit so grave a wrong as that committed, his liability is mitigated. However, if from the means

employed by the offender the resulting felony could have been anticipated or foreseen, this mitigatingcircumstance would not apply. As such, the situation is not one of praeter intentionem.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES(Art. 4, paragraph 2)

Criminal liability shall also be incurred by any person performing an act which would be an offenseagainst persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on accountof the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Reason: The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of criminal propensity or criminaltendency on the part of the actor.

Requisites:(a) That the act performed would be an offens against persons or property;(b) That the act was done with an evil intent;(c) That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate

or ineffectual;(d) That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.

Crime against persons or propertyIn committing an impossible crime, the offender intends

to commit a felony against persons or a felony against property, and the act performed would have been

an offense against persons or property.

Felonies against persons:(1) Parricide (Art. 246)(2) Murder (Art. 248)(3) Homicide (Art. 249)(4) Infanticide (Art. 255)(5) Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258, and 259)(6) Duel (Arts. 260 nad 261)


18/116



(7) Physical Injuries (Arts. 262-266)(8) Rape (Arts. 266-A)

Felonies against property:(1) Robbery (Arts. 294,297-300, 302, and 303)(2) Brigandage (Arts. 306 and 307)(3) Theft (Arts. 308, 310, and 311)(4) Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313)(5) Culpable insolvence (Art. 314)(6) Swindling and other deceits (Arts. 315-318)(7) Chattel Mortgage (Art. 319)(8) Arson and other crimes involving destruction (Arts. 320-326)(9) Malicious mischief (Arts. 327-331)

The act must be done with evil intent. He must have an intent to do an injury to another. Example: Awanted to kill B. He looked for him. When A saw B, he found out that B was already dead. To satisfy

his grudge, A stabbed B in his breast three times with a knife. Is this an impossible crime? No. A knewthat B was already dead when he stabbed the lifeless body. Ther wasa no evil intent on the part of A

because he knew that he could not cause an injury to B.

Inherent impossibility of its accomplishmentThe person intending to commit an offense has already

performed the acts for the execution of the same. Nevertheless, the crime was not produced by reason ofthe fact that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment. Examples: When onetries to kill another by putting in his soup a substance which he believes to be arsenic when in fact it is

common salt; or when one tries to murder a corpse.

Impossibility refers to both legal and factual impossibility.

Employment of inadequate or ineffectual means The person intending to commit an offense has

already performed the acts for the execution of the same. Nevertheless, the crime was not produced

because he employed inadequate or ineffectual means. Example: A, determined to poison B, uses a smallquantity of arsenic by mixing it with the food given to B. He believed that the quantity employed by hisis sufficient. However, since it is not, B is not killed. Take note that where the means employed is

adequate and the result expected is not produced, it is not an impossible crime, but a frustrated

felony.

In impossible crime, the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of theRPC. It is a principle of criminal law that the offender shall be punished for an impossible crime onlywhen his act cannot be punished under some other provision of the RPC.

Penalty for impossible crimes (Art. 59)Penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500

pesos. The basis for imposition of the proper penalty is the social danger involved and the degree of

criminality shown by the offender.


19/116


Joseph Brian Torres Perez Article 5-6

Article 5.Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are notcovered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties.Whenever a court has knowledge of any act

which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the properdecision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons whichinduce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.

In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice,

such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strictenforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty,taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.

Article 5.Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are notcovered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties.

When a person is charged in court and the court finds that ther is no law applicable, the court will acquit

the accused and the judge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished.

The court cannot convict the accused if his acts do not constitute a crime. The proper judgment isacquittal. However, the court is masdated to report to the Chief Executive that the said act be made

subject of penal legislation and why.

Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime to be too harsh considering the conditions

surrounding the commission of the crime, the judge should impose the law. The most that he could do isto recommend to the Chief Executive to grant executive clemency.

CLASSIFICATION OF FELONY ACCORDING TO THEIR STAGES OF EXECUTION:

ATTEMPTED, FRUSTRATED, & CONSUMMATED FELONIES

Article 6.Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.Consummated felonies as well asthose which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishmentare present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce

the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent ofthe will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overtacts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of somecause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY

The classification of stages of a felony in Article 6 are true only to crimes under the RPC. This does notapply to crimes under special laws. However, ther are certain crimes under the RPC which do not admitof these stages.

Development of a crimeFrom the moment the culprit conceives the idea of committing a crime up tothe realization of the same, his act passes through certain stages. These stages are called internal acts andexternal acts.


20/116



Internal acts, such as mere ideas in the mind of a person, are not punishable. Mere intention producingno effect is no more a crime than a mere effect without the intention is acrime.

External acts cover both preparatory acts and acts of execution. Preparatory acts are ordinarily notpunishable, except when the law provides for their punishment in certain felonies (i.e., possession ofpicklocks under Art. 304). Acts of execution are punishable under the RPC. They are divided into 3

stagesattempted, frustrated, and consummated stage.

ATTEMPTED FELONYThere is an attempt 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.4

Elements:(1) The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts;(2) He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;(3) The offenders act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;(4) The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause or accident other than his

spontaneous desistance.

The offender has commenced the commission of the felony by overt acts. An overt act is that point inthe acts of the offender where it is manifest that he would pursue the act, which in its logical sequencewould bring about a felony. The overt acts contemplated by law are acts of execution which have a

DIRECT connection with the crime intended to be committed . The word directly emphasizes therequirement that the attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the overt act performed by the

offender and not the felony which he had in mind. It must not be preparatory acts. The overt act may notbe by physical activity. For example: a proposal consisting in making an offer of mony to a public officerfor the purpose of corrupting him is the overt act in the crime of corruption of public office.

In criminal law, the attempted stage is only that overt act which is directly linked to the felony intended tobe committed. Take not that ther are some acts which are ingredients of a certain crime, but which are, bythemselves, already criminal offense.

The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts executed by him, and not

from his admission.

Does not perform all the acts of execution If the offender has performed all the acts of execution,nothing more is left to be done. The stage of execution is that of a frustrated felony, if the felony is not

produced; or consummated felony, if the felony is produced.

Other than his own apontaneous desistanceDesistance on the part of the offender negates criminal

liability in the attempted stage. Desistance is true only in the attempted stage of the felony. If under thedefinition of the felony, the act done is already in the frustrated stagem no amount of desistance willnegate criminal liability.

If the actor does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of his own spontaneous desistance, ther isno attempted felony. The law does not punish him. The desistance should be made before all the acts ofexecution are performed. The desistance which exempts from criminal liability has reference to the crime

4 Paragraph 3, Article 6, RPC


21/116



intended to be committed and has no reference to the crime actually committed by the offender before hisdesistance. Thus, where the felony is already beyond the attempted stage, and even though ther was

desistance, do not consider this desistance anymaore. Example: A, with intent to kill, fired a pistol at B,but did not hit him. B cried and asked A not to shoot him. A desisted from firing his pistol against B. Ais criminally liable, not for attempted homicide because he desisted before he could perform all the acrtsof execution, but for grave threats which was already committed by him when he desisted.

FRUSTRATED FELONYIt is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the

felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of thewill of the perpetrator5.

Elements:(1) The offender performs all the acts of execution;(2) All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence;(3) But the felony is not produced;(4) By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.6

The offender must have performed all the acts of execution and these could have produced the felony as aconsequence.

Independent of the will of the perpetratorEven if all the acts of execution have been performed,the crime may not be consummated, because certain causes mayprevent its consummation. These certaincauses may prevent its consummation. These certain causes may be the intervention of third persons who

prevented the consummation of offense, or may be due to the perpetrators own will.

If the crime is not produced because of the timely intervention of a third person, it is frustrated.

If the crime is not produced because the offender himself prevented its commission, there is no

frustrated felony for the 4th

elementBy reason of causes independent of the wil l of the perpetrator

it is not present.

CONSUMMATED FELONYA felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment

are present.

In determining the stages in the commission of a felony, the following must be considered:(1) Manner of committing the crime;(2) Elements of the crime;(3)Nature of the crime itself.

Frustrated felony distinguished from attempted felony:

1. In both, the offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose;2. In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce

the felony as a consequence. In attempted felony, the offender merely commences the

commission of felony drectly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution.

5 Paragraph 2, Article 6, RPC6 Code or shortcut: IWP


22/116



3. In frustrated felony, there is no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency betweenthe beginning of the consummation of the crime and the moment when all of the acts have been

performed which should result in the consummated. In attempted felony, ther is suchintervention and the offender does not arrive at the point of performing all the acts which should

produce the crime.

Attempted or frustrated felony distinguished from impossible crime

1. In attempted or frustrated felony and impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender is notaccomplished.

2. In impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot be accomplished. In attempted orfrustrated felony, the evil intent of the offender is possible of accomplishment.

3. In impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot be accomplished because it isinherently impossible of accomplishment or because the means employed by the offender is

inadequate or ineffectual. In attempted or frustrated felony, what prevented itsaccomplishment is the intervention of certain cause or accident in which the offender had no part.

MANNER OF COMMITTING THE CRIME

A. Formal CrimesFormal crimes are crimes consummated in one instance. Ther is no attempt. For example: oral

defamation or frustrated oral defamation. As a rule, ther can be no attempt at a formal crime, becausebetween the thought and the deed, ther is no chain of acts that can be severed in any link.

B. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt acts(1) Flight to enemys country (Art. 121) In this felony, the mere attempt to flee to an enemy

country is a consummated felony.(2) Corruption of minors (Art. 340)A mere proposal to the minor to satisfy the lust of another will

consummate the offense.

C. Felony by omissionThere can be no attempted stage when the felony is by omission, because in this kind of felony, theoffender does not execute acts. He omits to perform an act which the law requires him to do.

D. Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them are consummated by mere

agreementIn crimes like betti ng in sport contests (Art. 197)and corr uption of public off icer (Ar t. 212), whichrequire the intervention of two persons to commit them, the same are consummated by mere agreement.

E. Material crimesThese are the crimes which require 3 stages of execution.

NO ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

In impossible crime, the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts ofexecution, but nevertheless the crime is not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended is by its

nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are essentiallyinadequate or ineffectual to produce the result desired by him. Thus, since the offender in an impossiblecrime has already performed the acts for the execution of the same, ther could be no attempted orfrustrated impossible crime.


23/116


Joseph Brian Torres Perez Article 7-8

Article 7.When light felonies are punishable.Light felonies are punishable only when they

have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property.

Article 8.Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.Conspiracy and proposal to commitfelony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commissionof a felony and decide to commit it.

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution tosome other person or persons.

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY7

CONSPIRACYA conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of afelony and decide to commit it. The requisites of conspiracy are:

1. Two or more persons come to an agreement;2. The agreement concerned the commission of a felony;3. They decide upon the execution of the felony.

There are two kinds of conspiracy, conspiracy as a crime, and conspiracy as a manner of incurringcriminal liability. When conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, it is not punishable asa separate offense.

Conspiracy as a means of incurring criminal liabilityConspiracy to commit a felony is not a crime

except when the law specifically provides a penalty therefor, as in the cases ofsedition, treason,rebellion, and coup detat. Thus, except in these four felonies, conspiracy to commit a crime is only a

preparatory act. The conspirators should not actually commit treason, rebellion, sedition, or coup detat.

It is sufficient that two or more persons agree and decide to commit treason, rebellion, or sedition. If and

when they indeed commit the felony, the conspiracy will only be a means of incurring criminal liability.

Indications of Conspiracy: Unity of Purpose and Unity in the ExecutionWhen the defendants bytheir acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another part so as to

complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparentlyindependent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association,concerted action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be justified in concluding that saiddefendants were engaged in a conspiracy.

Period of time to afford an opportunity for meditation and reflection is not required in conspiracyConspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and

forthwith decide to pursue it.

As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone

who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. This rule does not include the mastermind.

Thus, if the mastermind did not appear in the said particular place, he shall still be liable.

Conspiracy is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information. Otherwise, the court willnot consider the same.

7 Article 8, RPC


24/116



Mere knowledge, acquiescence to or approval of the act, without cooperation8

or agreement to

cooperate does not constitute a conspiracy. There must be an intentional participation in the crime witha view to further the common felonious objective. A conspiracy is possible even when the participantsare not known to each other.

Rule regarding composite crimesComposite crimes9 consists of more than one crime but in the eyesof the law, there is only one crime. For example: robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, and robberywith physical injuries. In case the crime committed is a composite crime, the conspirator will be liable forall the acts committed during the commission of the crime agreed upon. In the eyes of the law, all thoseacts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime.

In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. They have equal criminal liability. This applies only tothe crime agreed upon. However, if any of the co-conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon,

they would not have equal liability. The exception to this exception is if the act brings about a compositecrime. In such a case, all will be liable for such crime. They can only evade responsibility or any other

crime outside of that agreed upon if it is proved that the particular conspirator had tried to prevent thecommission of such other act.

Example: A, B,and C agreed to kill D. After killing D, A and B ran into different directions. C inspectedthe pocket of the victim and found that the victim was wearing a ring. He took it. The crimes committed

are homicide and theft. As far as the homicide is concerned, A, B, and C are liable because that wasagreed upon. Theft is not an integral part of homicide. Insofar as theft is concerned, only C will beliable.

A conspirator should necessarily be liable for the acts of another conspirator eventhough such act differ

radically and substantially from that which they intended to commit, provided that the act is a necessaryor logical consequence thereof.

A conspirator is not liable for anothers crime which is not an object of the conspiracy or which is no t a

necessary and logical consequence thereof.

A person in conspiracy with others, who had desisted before the crime was committed by the others, isnot criminally liable. Conspiracy alone, without the execution of its purpose is not a crime punishable by

law, except in special instance.

There could be no conspiracy to commit an offense through negligence. Furthermore, in cases of criminalnegligence or crimes punishable by special law, allowing or failing to prevent an act to be prfomed byanother makes one a co-principal.

PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY

Requisites:(1) A person has decided to commit a felony;(2) He proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

8 actual participation9 see also discussion of complex crimes on Art. 48, RPC


25/116



Proposal is true only up to the point where the party to who the proposal was made has not yet acceptedthe proposal. Once the proposal was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is unilateral. It requires one

party making a proposition to another. Conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two parties.

There is no criminal proposal when the person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony;when ther is no decided, concrete and formal proposal; and when what is being proposed is not the

execution of the felony.

Proposal as a means of incurring criminal liabilityProposal to commit a felony is not a crime exceptwhen the law specifically provides a penalty thereof, as in the cases of Treason and Rebellion. Thus,except in these felonies, proposal to commit a crime is only a preparatory act.

CLASSIFICATION OF FELONY ACCORDING TO THEIR GRAVITY:

GRAVE, LESS GRAVE, AND LIGHT FELONIES

Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. Grave felonies are those towhich the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, inaccordance with article 25 of this Code.

Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximumperiod are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned article.

Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto

menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided.

GRAVE FELONIESGrave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in

any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with article 25 of this Code.10

The following are liable for grave felonies: principals, accomplices, and accessories.

Under Article 25, death is capital punishment. Furthermore, the following are afflictive penalties:

reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, perpetual orabsolute special disqualification,prision mayor.

LESS GRAVE FELONIESLess grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum

period are correctional.11

The following are liable for less grave felonies: principals, accomplices, and accessories.

Under Article 25, the following are correctional penalties: prision correccional, arresto mayor,suspension, and destierro.

10 paragraph 1, Article 9, RPC11 paragraph 2, Article 9, RPC


26/116



LIGHT FELONIESLight felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto

menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided.12

Rules regarding light felonies:(1) When punishableLight felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with

the exception of those committed against persons or property.

The light felonies punished by the Revised Penal Code are the following:(a) Slight physical injuries (Art. 266)(b) Theft (Art. 309, pars. 7 and 8)(c) Alteration of boundary marks (Art. 313)(d) Malicious mischief (Art. 328, par. 3, Art. 329, par. 3)(e) Intriguing against honor (Art. 364)(2) Only principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies. (Art. 16)(3) Accessories are not liable for light felonies, even if they are committed against persons or

property. (Art. 16)

Importance of distinction between grave, less grave or light felonies The distinction is important todetermine the following:

1. Whether or not these felonies can be complexed;2. Prescription of the crime;3. Prescription of the felony.

SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

Article 10.Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. Offenses which are or in the

future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code

shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.

In People v. Rodriguez, it was held that a violation of a special law can never absorb a crime punishable

under the RPC, because violations of the RPC are more serious than a violation of a special law. But acrime in the RPC can absorb a crime punishable by a special law if it is necessary ingredient of the crimein the RPC.

Example: Rebellion the use of arms is an element of rebellion. Therefore, a rebel cannot be further

prosecuted for possession of firearms. Seditionthe use of firearms is not an ingredient of sedition.Thus, two prosecutions can be had: (!) sedition; and (2) illegal possession of firearms.

12 paragraph 3, Article 9, RPC


27/116



Chapter Two

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM

CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Circumstances which affect criminal liability:1. Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)2. Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12) and other Absolutory causes (Art. 20; 124 last

paragraph; 280, last paragraph; 332, 344, etc.)3. Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)4. Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)5. Alternative Circumstances (Art. 15)

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

Article 11.Justifying circumstances.The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstancesconcur;

First. Unlawful aggression;

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or

legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and

those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisitesprescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case theprovocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first andsecond requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the persondefending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to

another, provided that the following requisites are present;

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actual exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;

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

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

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


28/116


29/116


Joseph Brian Torres Perez Article 11, par. 1

injury shall have been made. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to justify thecommission of an act which is punishable per se, and allow claim to justificcation on the ground that it

was committed in self-defense.

There are two kinds of aggression lawful and unlawful. The fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of aright in a more or less violent manner is an example of a lawful aggression. Thus, the act of a policeman

who, after firing 5 cautionary shots in the air, aimed directly at the escaping detainee when he had alreadyreasons to fear that the latter would be able to elude him and his pursuing companions. (Valconza v.

people, L-28129, October 31, 1969). Another example of lawful aggression is Article 249 of the NewCivil Code which states: The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person

from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonablynecessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his

property. The property owner is not an unlawful aggressor because he is merely exercising a right.

Peril to ones life must be actual or imminentThere is actual peril when the danger is present oractually in existence. There is imminent danger when it is on the point of happening. It is not required

that the attack already begins, for it may be too late.

Peril to ones limb must be actual or imminentWhen a person is attacked, he is in imminent dangerof death or bodily harm. The blow with a deadly weapon may be aimed at the vital parts of his body, inwhich case ther is danger to his life, or with a less deadly weapon or any other weapon that can cause

minor physical injuries only, aimed at other parts of the body, in which case, ther is danger only to hislimb. Peril to ones limb includes peril to the safety of ones person from physical injuries.

Ther must be actual physical force or actual use of weaponThe person defending himself must havebeen attacked with actual physical force oractual use of weapon. Thus, insulting words addressed to

the accused, no matter how objectionable they may have been, without physical assault, could notconstitute unlawful aggression.

Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights Defense of property: Defense of property can be

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

Retaliation is not self-defenseIn retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already

ceased to exist when the accused attacked him. In self-defense, the aggression was still existing when theaggressor was injured or disabled by the person making a defense.

A strong retaliation for an injury or threat may amount to an unlawful aggression When a personwho was insulted, slightly injured or threatened, made a strong retaliation by attacking the one who gave

the insult, caused the slight injury or made the threat, the former became the offender, and the insult,injury or threat should be considered only as a provocation mitigating his liability. In this case, there is

no self-defense.

The attack made by the deceased and the killing of the deceased by the defendant should succeed

each other without appreciable interval of time. thus, when the killing of the deceased by theaccused was after the attack made by the deceased, the accused must have no time nor occasion for

deliberation and cool thinking.

When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists. When the aggressor flees, the onemaking a defense has no more right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor.


30/116



There is no unlawful aggression when there is an agreement to fight. The challenge to fightmust beaccepted. When the fight is agreed upon, each of the protagonists is at once assailant and assaulted. It is

immaterial who attacks or receives the wound first. The first act of force is an incident of the fight itselfand in no wise is it an unwarranted and unexpected aggression which alone can legalize self-defense.

Neither can invoke the right of self-defense, because aggression which is an incident in the fight is boundto arise from one or the other of the combatants. However, even if there was a mutual agreement to fight

but the aggression was committed ahead of the stipulated time and place, it is not considered as unlawful.

Belief of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of unlawful aggression. Thus,there is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy pistol, provided the accused believed that it was areal gun.

Query: May a paramour who was surprised in the act of adultery invoke self-defense if he killed theoffended husband who was assaulting him?

Answer: No, the paramour may not invoke self-defense. In U.S. v. Merced(39 Phil. 198), the Supreme

Court, in denying the paramours plea of self-defense said: Even though it were true and even if thedeceased did succeed in entering the room in which the accused (the paramour and the wife of the

deceased) were lying, and did immediately thereupon assault the paramour, giving him several blows withthe bolo which he carried, that assault was natural and lawful, for the reason that it was made by adeceived and offended husband in order to defend his honor and right by punishing the offender of the

honor, and if he had killed his wife and the paramour, he would have exercised a lawful right and suchacts would have fallen within the sanction of Article 24715of the RPC The paramour well knew that bymaintaining unlawful relations with the deceaseds wife, he was performing an unlawful and criminal act

and exposed himself to the vengeance of the offended husband, and their meeting each other in the saidhouse, he was running the danger of the latters surprising them there as in fact it did occur.

Query: Is a slap on the face unlawful aggression?

Answer: Yes, a slap on the face constitutes the use of force qualifying an unlawful aggression (People v.

Roxas, 58 Phil. 733). Since the face represents a person and his dignity, slapping it is a serious physicalattack. It is a physical assault coupled with a willful disregard, nay, a defiance, of an individuals

personality. It may therefore be frequently regarded as placing in real danger a persons dignity, rights,and safety (People v. Sabio, G.R. No. L-23734, April 27, 1967).

Second Requisite: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.16

This second requisite presupposes the existence of unlawful aggression, which is either imminent oractual. One prevents an imminent aggression or repels an actual aggression.

ConditionsThe second requisite of defense means that:

(a) There be a reasonable necessity of the course of action taken by the person making the defense; and

(b) There be a reasonable necessity of the means used.

The reasonableness of the necessity of the course of action and the means used depends on theexistence of unlawful aggression and the nature and extent of the aggression. If there was no

unlawful aggression or, if there was, but it ceased to exist, there would be no necessity for any course ofaction to take as there is nothing to prevent or repel.

15 Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances.16 Article 11, no. 1, second requisite


31/116



Test of Reasonableness of the means used Whether or not the means employed is reasonable will

depend upon the following:

(a) Nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor;(b) Physical condition, character, size, and other circumstances of the aggressor vis--vis the person

defending himself; and(c) Place and occasion of the assault.

Take note that perfect equality between the weapon used by the one defending himself and that of theaggressor is not required, because the person assaulted does not have sufficient tranquility of mind tothink, to calculate, and to choose which weapon to use.

Test of Reasonableness with regard to a Peace OfficerThe peace officer, in the performance of his

duty, represents the law that he must uphold. While the law on self-defense allows a private individual toprevent or repel an aggression, the duty of a peace officer requires him to overcome his opponent. He is

not required to afford a person attaching him the opportunity for a fair and equal struggle.

Third Requisite: Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.17

ConditionsThe third requisite is present when:

(a) No provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself;(b) Even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient; or(c) Even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself; or

(d) Even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not proximate and immediateto the act of aggression.

There was provocation, but not sufficient The exercise of a right cannot give rise to a sufficientprovocation. For example, A discovered that B had built a part of his fence on his land. He asked B why

he had done so. This question angered B who immediately attacked A. if A would kill B to defend

himself, the third requisite of self-defense would still be present, because even if it is true that thequestion of A angered B, thereby making B attack A, such provocation is not sufficient. A had a right todemand explanation why B had built the fence on As property.

How to determine the sufficient of pro

notes in crim law

Documents