General Principles; Schools of thought in Criminal Law (1996) 1} What are the diferent schools o thought or theories in Criminal Law and describe each briey. 2) To what theory does our e!ised "enal Code belong# SUGGESE! "#S$E%& There are two schools o thought in Criminal Law$ Law$ and these are a) the the CL%&& CL%&&'C 'C%L %L T( T(* *+$ +$ whic which h sim,l sim,ly y means means that that the the basi basis s o crim crimin inal al liabil liabilitie ities s is human human ree ree will$ will$ and the ,ur,os ,ur,ose e o the ,enalty ,enalty is retribution which must be ,ro,ortional to the gra!ity o the ofense- and b) the the "*&'T "*&'T' ''& '&T T T(* T(* +$ whic which h cons consid ider ers s man as as a socia sociall bein being g and and his his acts are attributable not /ust to his will but to other orces o society. %s such$ ,unishment is not the solution$ as he is not entirely to be blamedlaw and /uris,rudence should not be the yardstic0 in the im,osition o sanction$ instead the underlying reasons would be inuired into. We ollow the classical school o thought although some ,ro!isions o eminently ,ositi! ,ositi!ist ist in tenden tendencie cies$ s$ li0e li0e ,unish ,unishmen mentt o im,oss im,ossibl ible e crime$ crime$ u!eni u!enile le circumstances$ are incor,orated in our Code.
General Principles; erritorialit' (199) %be$ married to Li3a$ contracted another marriage with Connie in &inga,ore. Thereater$ Thereater$ %be and Connie returned to the "hili,,ines and li!ed as husband and wie in the hometown o %be in Calamba$ Laguna. 1) Can %be be ,rosecuted or bigamy# &455&T6 %7&W8 1) 7o$ %be may not be ,rosecuted or bigamy since the bigamous marriage was contracted or solemni3ed in &inga,ore$ hence such !iolation is not one o those wher where e the the e!is e!ised ed "ena "enall Code Code$$ unde underr %rt. %rt. 2 ther thereo eo$ $ may may be a,,l a,,lie ied d e9traterritorially. The general rule on territoriality territoriality o criminal law go!erns go!erns the situation. •
General Principles; erritorialit'; erritorialit'; uris*iction o+er ,essel (-...) %ter %ter drin0ing drin0ing one :1) case o &an ;iguel ;iguel beer beer and ta0ing ta0ing two ,lates ,lates o <,ulutan<$ =inoy$ a >ili,ino seaman$ stabbed to death &io ;y$ a &inga,orean seaman$ aboard ;? <"rincess o the "aci@c<$ an o!erseas !essel which was sailing in the &outh China &ea. The !essel$ although "anamanian "anamanian registered$ is owned by Lucio &y$ a rich >ili,ino businessman. When ;? <"rincess o the "aci@c< reached a "hili,,ine "ort at Cebu City$ the Ca,tain o the !essel turned o!er the assailant =inoy to the "hili,,ine authorities. %n inormation or homicide was @led against =inoy in the egional Trial Trial Court o Cebu City. (e mo!ed to uash the inormation or lac0 o /urisdiction. ' you were the udge$ will you grant the motion# Why# :AB) •
•
•
&455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ +es$ the ;otion to uash the 'normation should should be granted. The "hili,,ine court has no / urisdiction o!er the crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside o "hili,,ine territory and on board a !essel not registered or licensed in the "hili,,ines :4& !s. >owler$ 1 "hil D1E) 't is the registration o the !essel in accordance with the laws o the "hili,,ines$ not the citi3enshi, o her owner$ which ma0es it a "hili,,ine shi,. The !essel being registered in "anama$ the laws o "anama go!ern while it is in the high seas. •
•
•
Use of "liases; $hen "llowe* (-..6) When can a >ili,ino citi3en residing in this country use an alias legally# 5i!e F instances. :2.AB) SUGGESE! "#S$E%& "seudonym or literary ,ur,oses. 4se o aliases in cinema and tele!ision entertainment. 'n athletics and s,orts acti!ities :%. DGHA). 4nder the witness ,rotection ,rogram a ,erson may ado,t a diferent identity :%. DIH1). •
•
•
•
When he has been ba,ti3ed or customarily 0nown by such alias. When authori3e authori3ed d by a com,etent com,etent court :C%. 7o. 1E2$ as amended amended by %. %. DGHA). When ,ro,erly indicated in a Certi@cate o Candidacy :*mnibus lection Code).
General Principles; erritorialit'; erritorialit'; uris*iction o+er ,essel (-...) %ter %ter drin0ing drin0ing one :1) case o &an ;iguel ;iguel beer beer and ta0ing ta0ing two ,lates ,lates o <,ulutan<$ =inoy$ a >ili,ino seaman$ stabbed to death &io ;y$ a &inga,orean seaman$ aboard ;? <"rincess o the "aci@c<$ an o!erseas !essel which was sailing in the &outh China &ea. The !essel$ although "anamanian "anamanian registered$ is owned by Lucio &y$ a rich >ili,ino businessman. When ;? <"rincess o the "aci@c< reached a "hili,,ine "ort at Cebu City$ the Ca,tain o the !essel turned o!er the assailant =inoy to the "hili,,ine authorities. %n inormation or homicide was @led against =inoy in the egional Trial Trial Court o Cebu City. (e mo!ed to uash the inormation or lac0 o /urisdiction. ' you were the udge$ will you grant the motion# Why# :AB) •
•
•
&455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ +es$ the ;otion to uash the 'normation should should be granted. The "hili,,ine court has no / urisdiction o!er the crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside o "hili,,ine territory and on board a !essel not registered or licensed in the "hili,,ines :4& !s. >owler$ 1 "hil D1E) 't is the registration o the !essel in accordance with the laws o the "hili,,ines$ not the citi3enshi, o her owner$ which ma0es it a "hili,,ine shi,. The !essel being registered in "anama$ the laws o "anama go!ern while it is in the high seas. •
•
•
Use of "liases; $hen "llowe* (-..6) When can a >ili,ino citi3en residing in this country use an alias legally# 5i!e F instances. :2.AB) SUGGESE! "#S$E%& "seudonym or literary ,ur,oses. 4se o aliases in cinema and tele!ision entertainment. 'n athletics and s,orts acti!ities :%. DGHA). 4nder the witness ,rotection ,rogram a ,erson may ado,t a diferent identity :%. DIH1). •
•
•
•
When he has been ba,ti3ed or customarily 0nown by such alias. When authori3e authori3ed d by a com,etent com,etent court :C%. 7o. 1E2$ as amended amended by %. %. DGHA). When ,ro,erly indicated in a Certi@cate o Candidacy :*mnibus lection Code).
/EL0#ES
•
Conspirac' (1992) % had a grudge against >. >. 6eciding 6eciding to 0ill >$ % and his riends$ =$ C$ and 6$ armed themsel!es themsel!es with 0ni!es and ,roceeded to the house o >$ ta0ing a ta9icab or the ,ur,ose. %bout 2G meters rom their destination$ the grou, alighted and ater instructing $ the dri!er$ to wait$ tra!eled on oot to the house o >. = ,ositioned himsel at a distance as the grou,Js loo0out. C and 6 stood guard outside the house. =eore % could enter the house$ 6 let the scene without the 0nowledge o the others. % stealthily entered the house and stabbed >. > ran to the street but was bloc0ed by C$ orcing him to ee towards another direction. 'mmediately ater % had stabbed >$ % also stabbed 5 who was !isiting >. Thereater$ Thereater$ % e9iled rom the house and$ together with = and C$ returned to the waiting ta9icab and motored away. 5 died. > sur!i!ed. Who are liable or the death o 5 and the ,hysical in/uries o ># •
•
The act o &T$ the !ictimJs son$ a,,ears to be a legitimate deense o relati!es- hence$ /usti@ed as a deense o his ather against the unlawul aggression by == and CC. &TJs act to deend his atherJs lie$ cannot be regarded as an e!il inasmuch as it is$ in the eyes o the law$ a lawul act. What %% did was to sto, a lawul deense$ not greater e!il$ to allow == and CC achie!e their criminal ob/ecti!e o stabbing >T.
•
• •
•
SUGGESE! "#S$E%& % alone should be held liable or the death o 5. The ob/ect o the cons,iracy cons,iracy o %. =$ C$ C$ and 6 was to 0ill > only. &ince =$ C$ and 6 did not 0now o the stabbing o 5 by %$ they cannot be held criminally thereor. thereor. $ the dri!er$ cannot be also held liable or the death o 5 since the ormer was com,letely unaware o said 0illing. >or the ,hysical in/uries o >$ %$ = and C. should be held liable thereore. !en i it was only % who actually stabbed and caused ,hysical in/uries to 5$ = and C are nonetheless liable or cons,iring with % and or contributing ,ositi!e acts which led to the reali3ation o a common criminal intent. = ,ositioned himsel as a loo0out$ while C bloc0ed >Js esca,e. esca,e. 6$ howe!er$ although ,art o the cons,iracy$ cannot be held liable because he let the scene beore % could enter the house where the stabbing occurred. %lthough he was earlier ,art o the cons,iracy$ he did not ,ersonally ,artici,ate in the e9ecution o the crime by acts which directly tended toward the same end :"eo,le !s. Tomoro$ et al EE "hil. FH)$ 'n the same breath$ $ the dri!er$ cannot be also held liable or the iniction o ,hysical in/uries u,on > because there is no showing that he had 0nowledge o the ,lan to 0ill >. •
•
•
• •
Conspirac'; Co3Conspirator (1994) uan and %rturo de!ised a ,lan to murder oel. 'n a narrow alley near oelJs house$ uan will hide behindthe big lam,,ost and shoot oel when the latter ,asses through on his way to wor0. %rturo will come rom the other end o the alley and simultaneously shoot oel rom behind. *n the a,,ointed day$ %rturo was a,,rehended by the authorities beore reaching the alley. When uan shot oel as ,lanned$ he was unaware that %rturo was arrested earlier. 6iscuss the criminal liability o %rturo$ i any. any. KAB
•
•
Conspirac'; "+oi*ance of Greater E+il (-..) == and CC$ both armed with 0ni!es$ attac0ed >T. The !ictimJs son$ &T$ u,on seeing the attac0$ drew his gun but was ,re!ented rom shooting the attac0ers by %%$ who gra,,led with him or ,ossession o the gun. >T died rom 0nie wounds. %%$ == and CC were charged with murder. 'n his deense$ %% in!o0ed the /ustiying circumstance o a!oidance o greater e!il or in/ury$ contending that by ,re!enting &T rom shooting == and CC$ he merely a!oided a greater e!il. Will %%Js deense ,ros,er# eason briey. :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ %%Js deense will not ,ros,er because ob!iously there was a cons,iracy among ==$ CC and %%$ such that the ,rinci,le that when there is a cons,iracy$ the act o one is the act o all$ shall
&455&T6 %7&W8 %rturo$ being one o the two who de!ised the ,lan to murder oel$ thereby becomes a coM,rinci,al by direct cons,iracy. cons,iracy. What is needed only is an o!ert act and both will incur criminal liability. %rturoJs liability as a cons,irator arose rom his ,artici,ation in /ointly de!ising the criminal ,lan with uan$ to 0ill ose. %nd it was ,ursuant to that cons,iracy that uan 0illed oel. The cons,iracy here here is actual$ not by inerence inerence only. only. •
• •
The o!ert act was done ,ursuant to that cons,iracy whereo %rturo is coM cons,irator. There being a cons,iracy$ the act o one is the act o all. %rturo$ thereore$ should be liable as a coMcons,irator but the ,enalty on him may be that o an accom,lice only :"eo,le !s. 7ierra$ ID &C% 1- "eo,le us. ;edrano ;edrano$$ 11E &C% &C% FFA) FFA) becaus because e he was not able able to actual actually ly ,artici,ate ,artici,ate in the shooting o oel$ ha!ing been a,,rehen a,,rehended ded beore reaching the ,lace where the crime was committed. •
"LE%#" "LE%#",E ,E "#S$E%& "#S$E%& %rturo %rturo is not not liable liable because because he was not able to ,artici,ate ,artici,ate in the 0illing o oel. oel. Cons,iracy Cons,iracy itsel is not ,unishable ,unishable unless e9,ressly ,ro!ided by law and this is not true in the case o ;urder. % coM cons,irator must ,erorm an o!ert act ,ursuant to the cons,iracy. cons,iracy.
Conspirac'; Common /elonious Purpose (199) %t about I8FG in the e!ening$ while 6ino and afy were wal0ing along "adre >aura &treet$ ;anila. ohnny hit them with a roc0 in/uring 6ino at the bac0. afy a,,roached 6ino$ but suddenly$ =obby$ &te!e$ 6anny and 7onoy surrounded the duo. Then =obby stabbed 6ino. &te!e$ 6anny$ 7onoy and ohnny 0e,t on hitting 6ino and afy with roc0s. %s a result. 6ino died$ =obby$ &te!e$ 6anny$ 7onoy and ohnny were charged with homicide. 's there cons,iracy in this case# SUGGESE! "#S$E%& +es$ +es$ there is cons,iracy among the ofenders$ as maniested by their concerted actions actions against against the !ictims$ !ictims$ demonstra demonstrating ting a common common elonious elonious ,ur,ose o assaulting the !ictims. The e9istence o the cons,iracy can be inerred or deduced rom the manner the ofenders acted in commonly attac0ing 6ino and afy with roc0s$ thereby demonstrating a unity o criminal design to inict harm on their !ictims. •
get away$ ran ater her and @nally caught u, with her in a thic0et somewhat distant rom the house. >ernan >ernando$ do$ beore bringing bringing bac0 the daughter daughter to the house$ ra,ed her @rst. Thereater$ Thereater$ the our carted away the belongings belongings o 6anilo and his amily amily.. a) What crime crime did ose$ 6omingo 6omingo$$ ;anolo and and >ernand >ernando o commit# 9,lain 9,lain.. b) &u,,os &u,,ose$ e$ ater ater the robbe robbery$ ry$ the our too0 turns turns in ra,ing ra,ing the three three daughters o 6anilo inside the latterJs house$ but beore they let$ they 0illed the whole amily to ,re!ent identi@cation$ what crime did the our commit# 9,lain. SUGGESE! "#S$E%& :a) ose$ 6omingo$ and ;anolo committed obbery$ while >ernando committed com,le9 com,le9 crime o obbery obbery with a,e$ Cons,iracy Cons,iracy can be inerred inerred rom the manner the ofenders committed the robbery but the ra,e was committed by >ernando >ernando at a ,lace
ernando >ernando alone should answer or the ra,e$ rendering him liable or the s,ecial com,le9 crime. :"eo,le !s. Canturia et. al$ 5.. 1GHEIG$ 22 une 1IIA} •
b) The crime would be obbe obbery ry with with (omici (omicide de ... :im,li :im,lied8 ed8 there there is still still cons,iracy)
Conspirac'; /light to E+a*e "pprehension (-..) % and =$ both store /anitors$ ,lanned to 0ill their em,loyer C at midnight and ta0e the money 0e,t in the cash register. % and = together drew the s0etch o the store$ where they 0new C would be slee,ing$ and ,lanned the seuence o their attac0. &hortly beore midnight$ % and = were ready to carry out the ,lan.
Conspirac'; Comple5 Crime with %ape (1996) ose$ 6omingo$ ;anolo$ and >ernando$ >ernando$ armed with bolos$ bolos$ at about one oJcloc0 in the morning$ robbed a house at a desolate ,lace where 6anilo$ his wie$ and three daughters were li!ing. While the our were in the ,rocess o ransac0ing 6aniloJs house$ >ernando$ noticing that one o 6aniloJs daughters was trying to
When % was about to lit CJs mosuito net to thrust his dagger$ a ,olice car with sirens blaring ,assed by. &cared$ = ran out o the store and ed$ while % went on to stab C to death$ ,ut the money in the bag$ and ran outside to loo0 or =. The latter was nowhere in sight. 4n0nown to him$ = had already let the ,lace. What was the ,artici,ation and corres,onding criminal liability o each$ i any# easons. HB SUGGESE! "#S$E%& here was an e5presse* conspirac' 7etween " an* 8 to ill C an* tae the latter:s mone' mone' The ,lanned 0illing and ta0ing o the money a,,ears to be intimately related as com,onent crimes$ hence a s,ecial com,le9 crime o robbery with homicide.
The cons,iracy being e9,ressed$ e9,ressed$ not /ust im,lied$ % and = are bound as coMcons,irators ater they ha!e ,lanned and agreed on the seuence o their attac0 e!en beore they committed the crime. crime. Thereore$ Thereore$ the ,rinci,le in law that when there is a cons,iracy$ the act o one is the act o all$ already go!erns them. 'n act$ % and = were already in the store to carry out their criminal ,lan. That = ran out o the store and ed u,on hearing the sirens o the ,olice car$ is not s,ontaneous desistance but ight to e!ade a,,rehension. 't would be diferent i = then tried to sto, % rom continuing with the commission o the crime- he did not. &o the act o % in ,ursuing the commission o the crime which both he and = designed$ ,lanned$ and commenced commenced to commit$ would also be the act o = because o their e9,ressed e9,ressed cons,iracy. cons,iracy. =oth are liable or the com,osite crime o robbery with homicide. "LE%#",E "#S$E%& % shall incur ull criminal liability or the crime o robbery with homicide$ but = shall not incur criminal liability because he desisted. =Js s,ontaneous desistance$ made beore all acts o e9ecution e9ecution are ,erormed$ is e9cul,atory. Cons,iracy to rob and 0ill is not ,er se ,unishable. The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or good moti!e. 't is enough that the discontinuance comes rom the ,erson who has begun the commission o the crime but beore all acts o e9ecution are ,erormed. % ,erson who has began the commission o a crime but desisted$ is absol!ed rom criminal liability as a reward to one$ who ha!ing set oot on the !erge o crime$ heeds the call o his conscience and returns to the ,ath o righteousness. Conspirac'; /light to E+a*e "pprehension (-..) % and =$ both store /anitors$ ,lanned to 0ill their em,loyer C at midnight and ta0e the money 0e,t in the cash register. % and = together drew the s0etch o the store$ where they 0new C would be slee,ing$ and ,lanned the seuence o their attac0. &hortly beore midnight$ % and = were ready to carry out the ,lan. When % was about to lit CJs mosuito net to thrust his dagger$ a ,olice car with sirens blaring ,assed by. &cared$ = ran out o the store and ed$ while % went on to stab C to death$ ,ut the money in the bag$ and ran outside to loo0 or =. The latter was nowhere in sight. 4n0nown to him$ = had already let the ,lace. What was the ,artici,ation and corres,onding criminal liability o each$ i any# easons. HB &455&T6 %7&W8 There was an e9,ressed cons,iracy between % and = to 0ill C and ta0e ta0e the latterJs latterJs money. money. The ,lanned ,lanned 0illing and ta0ing ta0ing o the money money a,,ears to be intimately related as com,onent crimes$ hence a s,ecial com,le9 crime o robbery with homicide. The cons,iracy being e9,ressed$ not /ust im,lied$ % and = are bound as coM cons,irators ater they ha!e ,lanned and agreed on the seuence o their attac0 e!en beore they committed the crime. Thereore$ the ,rinci,le in law that when there is a cons,iracy$ the act o one is the act o all$ already go!erns them. 'n act$ % and = were already in the store to carry out their criminal ,lan. That = ran out o the store and ed u,on hearing the sirens o the ,olice car$ is not s,ontaneous desistance but ight to e!ade a,,rehension. 't would be diferent i = then tried to sto, % rom continuing with the commission o the crime- he did not. &o the act o % in ,ursuing the commission o the crime which both he and = designed$ ,lanned$ and commenced commenced to commit$ would also be the act o = because o their e9,ressed e9,ressed cons,iracy. cons,iracy. =oth are liable or the com,osite crime o robbery with homicide.
%LT7%T' %LT7%T' %7&W 8 % shall incur ull criminal liability or the crime o robbery with homicide$ but = shall not incur criminal liability because he desisted. =Js s,ontaneous desistance$ made beore all acts o e9ecution are ,erormed$ is Criminal Law =ar 9amination N % :1IIEM2GGD) e9cul,atory. Cons,iracy to rob and 0ill is not ,er se ,unishable. The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or good moti!e. 't is enough that the discontinuance comes rom the ,erson who has begun the commission o the crime but beore all acts o e9ecution are ,erormed. % ,erson who has began the commission o a crime but desisted$ is absol!ed rom criminal liability as a reward to one$ who ha!ing set oot on the !erge o crime$ heeds the call o his conscience and returns to the ,ath o righteousness.
Conspirac'; mplie* Conspirac' (1994) $hat is the *octrine of implie* conspirac'< =>? &455&T6 %7&W8 The doctrine o im,lied cons,iracy holds two or more ,ersons ,artici,ating in the commission o a crime collecti!ely res,onsible and liable as coMcons,irators although although absent any agreement agreement to that efect$ when they act in concert$ demonstrating unity o criminal intent and a common ,ur,ose or ob/ecti!e. The e9istence e9istence o a cons,iracy cons,iracy shall be inerred inerred or deduced deduced rom their their criminal criminal ,artici,ation in ,ursuing the crime and thus the act o one shall be deemed the act o all. Cons,iracy- 'm,lied Cons,iracy- fects :2GGF) &tate the conce,t o
Criminal Lia7ilit'& !estructi+e "rson (-...)
%$ =$ C and 6$ all armed with armalites$ ,roceeded to the house o O. +$ a neighbor o O$ who ha,,ened to be ,assing by$ ,ointed to the our cul,rits the room that O occu,ied. The our cul,rits ,e,,ered the room with bullets. 4nsatis@ed$ % e!en threw a hand grenade that totally destroyed OJs room. (owe!er$ un0nown to the our cul,rits$ O was not inside the room and nobody was hit or in/ured during the 'ncident. %re %$ =$ C and 6 liable or any crime# 9,lain. :FB)
danger and in the ,rocess$ sustains in/uries or dies$ the ,erson committing the elonious act is res,onsible or such in/uries or death. :4& !s. alde3$ E1 "hil$ 1EIP- "eo,le !s. %,ra$ 2P &C% 1GFP.)
&455&T6 %7&W8 +es. %$ =. C and 6 are liable or destructi!e arson because o the destruction o the room o O with the use o an e9,losi!e$ the hand grenade. Liability or an im,ossible crime is to be im,osed only i the act committed would not constitute any other crime under the e!ised "enal Code. %lthough the acts in!ol!ed are ,arallel to the case o 'ntod !s. Court o %,,eals :21A &C% A2)$ where it was ruled that the liability o the ofender was or an im,ossible crime$ no hand grenade was used in said case$ which constitutes a more serious crime though diferent rom what was intended$ Criminal Lia7ilit'& /elonious "ct; Pro5imate Cause (1996) icente hac0ed %nacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to ,arry it with his hand$ causing u,on him a twoMinch wound on his right ,alm. icente was not able to hac0 %nacleto urther because three ,olicemen arri!ed and threatened to shoot icente i he did not dro, his bolo. icente was accordingly charged by the ,olice at the ,rosecutorJs oQce or attem,ted homicide. TwentyM@!e days later$ while the ,reliminary in!estigation was in ,rogress$ %nacleto was rushed to the hos,ital because o sym,toms o tetanus i nection on the twoMinch wound inicted by icente. %nacleto died the ollowing day. Can icente be e!entually charged with homicide or the death o %nacleto# 9,lain.
Criminal Lia7ilit'& /elonious "ct of Scaring (1996) %le9ander$ an esca,ed con!ict$ ran amuc0 on board a &u,erlines =us bound or ;anila rom =icol and 0illed ten :1G) ,ersons. Terri@ed by the incident$ Carol and =en/amin who are ,assengers o the bus$ /um,ed out o the window and while lying unconscious ater hitting the ,a!ement o the road$ were ran o!er and crushed to death by a ast mo!ing 6esert >o9 bus tailing the &u,erlines =us. Can %le9ander be held liable or the death o Carol and =en/amin although he was com,letely unaware that the two /um,ed out o the bus# 9,lain. &455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ %le9ander can be held liable or the death o Carol and = en/amin because o elonious act o running was the ,ro9imate cause o the !ictimJs death. The rule is that when a ,erson$ by a elonious act$ generates in the mind o another
&455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ icente may be charged o homicide or the death o %nacleto$ unless the tetanus inection which de!elo,ed twenty @!e days later$ was brought about by an eQcient su,er!ening cause. icenteJs elonious act o causing a twoMinch wound on %nacletoJs right ,alm may still be regarded as the ,ro9imate cause o the latterJs death because without such wound$ no tetanus inection could de!elo, rom the !ictimJs right ,alm$ and without Criminal Law =ar 9amination N % :1IIEM2GGD) such tetanus inection the !ictim would not ha!e died with it.
cul,rit and he was charged with (omicide or CesarJs death. 'n his deense$ >eli,e claimed that he did not 0now about CesarJs wea0 heart and that he only intended to ,lay a ,ractical /o0e on Cesar. 's >eli,e liable or the death o Cesar or will his deense ,ros,er# Why# :AB} Criminal Lia7ilit'& mpossi7le Crimes (-...) $hat is an impossi7le crime< (->) s an impossi7le crime reall' a crime< (->) &455&T6 %7&W8 %n im,ossible crime is an act which would be an ofense against ,erson or ,ro,erty$ were i not or the inherent im,ossibility o its accom,lishment or on account o the em,loyment o inadeuate or inefectual means :%rt. E$ ,ar. 2$ "C) 7o$ an im,ossible crime is not really a crime. 't is only soMcalled because the act gi!es rise to criminal liability. =ut actually$ no elony is committed. The accused is to be ,unished or his criminal tendency or ,ro,ensity although no crime was committed.
&455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ >eli,e is liable or the death o Cesar but he shall be gi!en the bene@t o the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so gra!e a wrong as that which was committed :%rt. 1F$ ,ar. F$ "C). When >eli,e intruded into CesarJs room without the latterJs consent and too0 liberty with the letterJs bac0,ac0 where he ,laced the rubber sna0e. >eli,e was already committing a elony. %nd any act done by him while committing a elony is no less wrongul$ considering that they were ,art o <,lans to get e!en with Cesar<. >eli,eJs claim that he intended only eli,e is not liable because the act o rightening another is not a crime. What he did may be wrong$ but not all wrongs amount to a crime. =ecause the act which caused the death o Cesar is not a crime$ no criminal liability may arise thererom. Criminal Lia7ilit'; /elonious "ct of Scaring (-..@) =elle saw 5aston stealing the ,ri3ed coc0 o a neighbor and re,orted him to the ,olice. Thereater$ 5aston$ while dri!ing a car saw =elle crossing the street. 'ncensed that =elle had re,orted him$ 5aston decided to scare her by trying to ma0e it a,,ear that he was about to run her o!er. (e re!!ed the engine o his car and dro!e towards her but he a,,lied the bra0es. &ince the road was sli,,ery at that time$ the !ehicle s0idded and hit =elle causing her death. Was gaston criminally liable# What is the liability o 5aston# Why# :EB)
Criminal Lia7ilit'; /elonious "ct of Scaring (-..1) ;ary/ane had two suitors M >eli,e and Cesar. &he did not o,enly show her ,reerence but on two occasions$ acce,ted CesarJs in!itation to concerts by egine and "o,s. >eli,e was a wor0ing student and could only as0 ;ary to see a mo!ie which was declined. >eli,e elt insulted and made ,lans to get e!en with Cesar by scaring him of somehow. *ne day$ he entered CesarJs room in their boarding house and ,laced a rubber sna0e which a,,eared to be real in CesarJs bac0,ac0. =ecause Cesar had a wea0 heart$ he sufered a heart attac0 u,on o,ening his bac0,ac0 and seeing the sna0e. Cesar died without regaining
&455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ 5aston is liable or =elleJs death because e!en though 5aston has no intent to 0ill =elle rather /ust to scare =elle.
%LT7%T' %7&W8 +es$ 5aston is liable or =elleJs death because by his acts o re!!ing the engine o his car and dri!ing towards =elle is elonious$ and such elonious act was the ,ro9imate cause o the !ehicle to s0id and hit =elle$ resulting ' the latterJs death. &tated otherwise$ the death o =elle was the direct$ natural and logical conseuence o 5astonJs elonious act. :"eo,le !. %r,a$ 2P &C% 1GFP).
Criminal Lia7ilit'; /elonious "ct; mme*iate Cause (-..) The conduct o wie % aroused the ire o her husband =. 'ncensed with anger almost beyond his control$ = could not hel, but inict ,hysical in/uries on %. ;oments ater = started hitting % with his @sts$ % suddenly com,lained o se!ere chest ,ains. =$ reali3ing that % was indeed in serious trouble$ immediately brought her to the hos,ital. 6es,ite eforts to alle!iate %Js ,ains$ she died o heart attac0. 't turned out that she had been sufering rom a lingering heart ailment. What crime$ i any$ could = be held guilty o# HB &455&T6 %7&W8 = could be held liable or ,arricide because his act o hitting his wie with @st blows and therewith inicting ,hysical in/uries on her$ is elonious. % ,erson committing a elonious act incurs criminal liability although the wrongul conseuence is diferent rom what he intended :%rt. E$ ,ar. 1$ e!ised "enal Code). %lthough % died o heart attac0$ the said attac0 was generated by =Js elonious act o hitting her with his @sts. &uch elonious act was the immediate cause o the heart attac0$ ha!ing materially contributed to and hastened %Js death. !en though = may ha!e acted without intent to 0ill his wie$ lac0 o such intent is o no moment when the !ictim dies. (owe!er$ = may be gi!en the mitigating circumstance o ha!ing acted without intention to commit so gra!e a wrong as that committed :%rt. 1F$ ,ar. F$ e!ised "enal Code).
=hey elo,ed with &cott. Whereu,on$ =heyJs ather$ obin$ and brother$ ustom$ went to &cottJs house. 4,on reaching the house$ ustom inuired rom &cott about his sisterJs whereabouts$ while obin shouted and threatened to 0ill &cott. The latter then went downstairs but ustom held his :&cottJs) waist. ;eanwhile *li!e$ the elder sister o &cott$ carrying her twoMmonth old child$ a,,roached ustom and &cott to ,aciy them. *li!e attem,ted to remo!e ustomJs hand rom &cottJs waist. =ut ustom ,ulled *li!eJs hand causing her to all o!er her baby. The baby then died moments later. 's ustom criminally liable or the death o the child# &455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ ustom i s criminally liable or the death o the child because his elonious act was the ,ro9imate cause o such death. 't was ustomJs act o ,ulling *li!eJs hand which caused the latter to all on her baby. (ad 't not been or said act o ustom$ which is undoubtedly elonious :at least slight coercion) there was no cause or *li!e to all o!er her baby. 'n short$ ustomJs elonious act is the cause o the e!il caused. %ny ,erson ,erorming a elonious act is criminally liable or the direct$ natural and logical conseuence thereo although diferent rom what he intended :%rt. E$ ,ar. 1$ >C- "eo,le !s$ "ugay$ et al$ 5 7o. PEF2E$ 7o!.1H$ 1IHH).
Criminal Lia7ilit'; /elonious "ct; Pro5imate Cause (1992) While the crew o a steamer ,re,ared to raise anchor at the "asig i!er$ %$ e!idently im,atient with the ,rogress o wor0$ began to use abusi!e language against the men. =$ one o the members o the crew$ remonstrated saying that they could wor0 best i they were not insulted. % too0 =Js attitude as a dis,lay o insubordination and$ rising in a rage$ mo!ed towards = wielding a big 0nie and threatening to stab =. %t the instant when % was only a ew eet rom =$ the latter$ a,,arently belie!ing himsel to be in great and immediate ,eril$ threw himsel into the water$ disa,,eared beneath the surace$ and drowned. ;ay % be held criminally liable or the death o =# &455&T6 %7&W8 +es. % can be held criminally liable or the death o =$ %rticle E o the e!ised
,erson committing a elony although the wrongul act done be diferent rom that which he intended. 'n 4.&. !s. alde3 E1 "hil. EIP. where the !ictim who was threatened by the accused with a 0nie$ /um,ed into the ri!er but because o the strong current or because he did not 0now how to swim$ he drowned$ the &u,reme Court aQrmed the con!iction or homicide o the accused because$ i a ,erson against whom a criminal assault is directed belie!es himsel to be in danger o death or great bodily harm and in order to esca,e /um,s into the water$ im,elled by the instinct o selM,reser!ation$ the assailant is res,onsible or the homicide in case death results by drowning.
Criminal Lia7ilit'; /elonious "ct; Pro5imate Cause (1999) 6uring the robbery in a dwelling house$ one o the cul,rits ha,,ened to @re his gun u,ward in the ceiling without meaning to 0ill anyone. The owner o the house who was hiding thereat was hit and 0illed as a result. The deense theori3ed that the 0illing was a mere accident and was not ,er,etrated in connection with$ or or ,ur,oses o$ the robbery. Will you sustain the deense# Why# :EB) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ ' will not sustain the deense. The act being elonious and the ,ro9imate cause o the !ictimJs death$ the ofender is liable thereore although it may not be intended or diferent rom what he intended. The ofender shall be ,rosecuted or the com,osite crime o robbery with homicide$ whether the 0illing was intentional or accidental$ as long as the 0illing was on occasion o the robbery.
Criminal Lia7ilit'; /elonious "ct; Pro5imate Cause (-..1) Luis Cru3 was dee,ly hurt when his ofer o lo!e was re/ected by his girlriend ;ari!ella one aternoon when he !isited her. When he let her house$ he wal0ed as i he was slee,wal0ing so much so that a teenage snatcher was able to grab his cell ,hone and ee without being chased by Luis. %t the ne9t LT station$ he boarded one o the coaches bound or =aclaran. While seated$ he ha,,ened to read a news,a,er let on the seat and noticed that the headlines were about the sin0ing o the &u,er >erry while on its way to Cebu. (e went o!er the list o missing ,assengers who were ,resumed dead and came across the name o his grandather who had raised him rom childhood ater he was or,haned. (e was shoc0ed and his mind went blan0 or a ew minutes$ ater which he ran amuc0 and$ using his balisong$ started stabbing at the ,assengers who then scam,ered away$ with three o them um,ing out o the train and landing on the road below. %ll the three ,assengers died later o their in/uries at the hos,ital. 's Luis liable or the death o the three ,assengers who /um,ed out o the mo!ing train# &tate your reasons. :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ Luis is liable or their deaths because he was committing a elony when he started stabbing at the ,assengers and such wrongul act was the ,ro9imate cause o said ,assengersJ /um,ing out o the train- hence their deaths. 4nder %rticle E$ e!ised "enal Code$ any ,erson committing a elony shall incur criminal liability although the wrongul act done be diferent rom that which he intended. 'n this case$ the death o the three ,assengers was the direct$ natural and logical conseuence o LuisJ elonious act which created an immediate sense o danger in the minds o said ,assengers who tried to a!oid or esca,e rom it by /um,ing out o the train. :"eo,le !s. %r,a$ 2P &C% 1*FP- 4.&. !s. alde3$ E1 "hil. EIP}
Criminal Lia7ilit'; /elonious "ct; Pro5imate Cause (-..) *n his way home rom oQce$ RR rode in a /ee,ney. &ubseuently$ OO boarded the same /ee,ney. 4,on reaching a secluded s,ot in C$ OO ,ulled out a grenade rom his bag and announced a holdMu,. (e told RR to surrender his watch$ wallet and cell,hone. >earing or his lie$ RR /um,ed out o the !ehicle. =ut as he ell$ his head hit the ,a!ement$ causing his instant death . 's OO liable
&455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ OO is liable or RRJs death because his acts o ,ulling out a grenade and announcing a holdMu,$ cou,led with a demand or the watch$ wallet and cell,hone o RR is elonious$ and such elonious act was the ,ro9imate cause o RRJs /um,ing out o the /ee,ney$ resulting in the latterJs death. &tated otherwise$ the death o RR was the direct$ natural and logical conseuence o OOJs elonious act which created an immediate sense o danger in the mind o RR who tried to a!oid such danger by /um,ing out o the /ee,ney :"eo,le !. %r,a$ 2P &C% 1GFP). Criminal Lia7ilit'; mpossi7le Crimes (199) "$ %ries and andal ,lanned to 0ill lsa$ a resident o =arangay "ula$ Laurel$ =atangas. They as0ed the assistance o lla$ who is amiliar with the ,lace. *n %,ril F$ 1II2$ at about 1G8GG in the e!ening$ "$ %ries and andal$ all armed with automatic wea,ons$ went to =arangay "ula. lla$ being the guide$ directed her com,anions to the room in the house o lsa. Whereu,on$ "$ %ries and andal @red their guns at her room. >ortunately$ lsa was not around as she attended a ,rayer meeting that e!ening in another barangay in Laurel. "$ et al$ were charged and con!icted o attem,ted murder by the egional Trial Court at Tanauan$ =atangas. *n a,,eal to the Court o %,,eals$ all the accused ascribed to the trial court the sole error o @nding them guilty o attem,ted murder. ' you were the ,onente$ how will you decide the a,,eal#
Criminal Lia7ilit'; mpossi7le Crime (-..) *R and +* were both courting their coMem,loyee$ &4. =ecause o their bitter ri!alry$ *R decided to get rid o +* by ,oisoning him. *R ,oured a substance into +*Js cofee thin0ing it was arsenic. 't turned out that the substance was white sugar substitute 0nown as ual. 7othing ha,,ened to +* ater he dran0 the cofee. What criminal liability did *R incur$ i any# 9,lain briey. :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 *R incurred criminal liability or an im,ossible crime o murder. Criminal liability shall be incurred by any ,erson ,erorming an act which would be an ofense against ,ersons or ,ro,erty$ were it not or the inherent im,ossibility o its accom,lishment or on account o the em,loyment o inadeuate or inefectual means :%rt. E$ ,ar. 2$ >C). 'n the ,roblem gi!en$ the im,ossibility o accom,lishing the crime o murder$ a crime against ,ersons$ was due to the em,loyment o inefectual means which *R thought was ,oison. The law im,utes criminal liability to the ofender although no crime resulted$ only to su,,ress his criminal ,ro,ensity because sub/ecti!ely$ he is a criminal though ob/ecti!ely$ no crime was committed.
&455&T6 %7&W8 ' ' were the ,onente$ ' will set aside the /udgment con!icting the accused o attem,ted murder and instead @nd them guilty o im,ossible crime under %rt. E$ ,ar. 2$ "C$ in relation to %rt. AI$ "C. Liability or im,ossible crime arises not only when the im,ossibility is legal$ but li0ewise when it is actual or ,hysical im,ossibility$ as in the case at bar. lsaJs absence rom the house is a ,hysical im,ossibility which renders the crime intended 'nherently inca,able o accom,lishment. To con!ict the accused o attem,ted murder would ma0e %rt. E$ ,ar. 2 ,ractically useless as all circumstances which ,re!ented the consummation o the ofense will be treated as an incident inde,endent o the actorJs will which is an element o attem,ted or rustrated elony :'ntod !s. C%$ 21A &C% A2).
=uddy always resented his classmate$ un. *ne day. =uddy ,lanned to 0ill un by mi9ing ,oison in his lunch. 7ot 0nowing where he can get ,oison$ he a,,roached another classmate$ erry to whom he disclosed his e!il ,lan. =ecause he himsel harbored resentment towards un$ erry ga!e =uddy a ,oison$ which =uddy ,laced on unJs ood. (owe!er$ un did not die because$ un0nown to both =uddy and erry$ the ,oison was actually ,owdered mil0. 1$ What crime or crimes$ i any$ did erry and =uddy commit# KFB 2. &u,,ose that$ because o his se!ere allergy to ,owdered mil0$ un had to be hos,itali3ed or 1G days or ingesting it. Would your answer to the @rst uestion be the same# K2B &455&T6 %7&W8 1. erry and =uddy are liable or the soMcalled
Criminal Lia7ilit'; mpossi7le Crimes; Ai*napping (-...) Carla$ E years old$ was 0idna,,ed by nriue$ the tricycle dri!er ,aid by her ,arents to bring and etch her to and rom school. nriue wrote a ransom note demanding "AGG$GGG.GG rom CarlaJs ,arents in e9change or CarlaJs reedom. nriue sent the ransom note by mail. (owe!er$ beore the ransom note was recei!ed by CarlaJs ,arents$ nriueJs hideout was disco!ered by the ,olice. Carla was rescued while nriue was arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was not recei!ed by CarlaJs ,arents$ the in!estigating ,rosecutor merely @led a case o <'m,ossible Crime to Commit Sidna,,ing< against nriue. 's the ,rosecutor correct# Why# :FB) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ the ,rosecutor is not correct in @ling a case or
when ,erormed would be a crime against ,ersons or ,ro,erty. %s 0idna,,ing is a crime against ,ersonal security and not against ,ersons or ,ro,erty$ nriue could not ha!e incurred an
;ala in &e !s. ;ala "rohibita :1IIP) 6istinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala ,rohibita. ;ay an act be malum in se and be$ at the same time$ malum ,rohibitum# &455&T6 %7&W8 Crimes mala in se are elonious acts committed by dolo or cul,a as de@ned in the e!ised "enal Code. Lac0 o criminal intent is a !alid deense$ e9ce,t when the crime results rom criminal negligence. *n the other hand$ crimes mala ,rohibita are those considered wrong only because they are ,rohibited by statute. They constitute !iolations o mere rules o con!enience designed to secure a more orderly regulation o the afairs o society. &455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ an act may be malum in se and malum ,rohibitum at the same time. 'n "eo,le !. &unico$ et aL. :C% AG*5 AHHG) it was held that the omission or ailure o election ins,ectors and ,oll cler0s to include a !oterJs name in the registry list o !oters is wrong ,er se because it disenranchises a !oter o his right to !ote. 'n this regard it is considered as malum in se. &ince it is ,unished under a s,ecial law :&ec. 1G1 and 1GF$ e!ised lection Code)$ it is considered malum ,rohibitum.
'n crimes mala in se$ the acts are by nature wrong$ e!il or bad$ and so generally condemned. The moral trait o the ofender is in!ol!ed- thus$ good aith or lac0 o criminal 'ntent on the ,art o the ofender is a deense$ unless the crime is the result o criminal negligence. Corres,ondingly$ modiying circumstances are considered in ,unishing the ofender. ;ala in &e !s. ;ala "rohibita :1III) 6istinguish < mala in se< rom < mala ,rohibita<:FB) &455&T6 %7&W8 'n
Bala in Se +s Bala Prohi7ita (-..) 6istinguish$ in their res,ecti!e conce,ts and legal im,lications$ between crimes mala in se and crimes mala ,rohibits. EB &455&T6 %7&W8 'n conce,t8 Crimes mala in se are those where the acts or omissions ,enali3ed are inherently bad$ e!il$ or wrong that they are almost uni!ersally condemned. Crimes mala ,rohibita are those where the acts ,enali3ed are not inherently bad$ e!il$ or wrong but ,rohibited by law or ,ublic good$ ,ublic welare or interest and whoe!er !iolates the ,rohibition are ,enali3ed.
Bala in Se +s Bala Prohi7ita (-..1) =riey state what essentially distinguishes a crime mala ,rohibita rom a crime mala in se. :2B) &455&T6 %7&W8 'n crimes mala ,rohibita$ the acts are not by nature wrong$ e!il or bad. They are ,unished only because there is a law ,rohibiting them or ,ublic good$ and thus good aith or lac0 o criminal intent in doing the ,rohibited act is not a deense.
'n legal im,lications8 'n crimes mala in se$ good aith or lac0 o criminal intent? negligence is a deense$ while in crimes mala ,rohibita$ good aith or lac0 o criminal intent or malice is not a deense- it is enough that the ,rohibition was !oluntarily !iolated. %lso$ criminal liability is generally incurred in crimes mala in se e!en when the crime is only attem,ted or rustrated$ while in crimes mala ,rohibita$ criminal liability is generally incurred only when the crime is consummated. %lso in crimes mala in se$ mitigating and aggra!ating circumstances are a,,reciated in im,osing the ,enalties$ while in crimes mala ,rohibita such
circumstances are not a,,reciated unless the s,ecial law has ado,ted the scheme or scale o ,enalties under the e!ised "enal Code.
+es$ the contention o the accused that the crime was not consummated is correct$ %. FG1I is a s,ecial law ,unishing acts mala ,rohibita. %s a rule$ attem,ted !iolation o a s,ecial law is not ,unished. %ctual in/ury is reuired. +es$ both are liable or attem,ted estaa thru alsi@cation o commercial documents$ a com,le9 crime. ...
Balum in Se +s Balum Prohi7itum (-..@) !istinguish malum in se from malum prohi7itum (->) Bala Prohi7ita; "ctual nur' %eDuire* (-...) ;r. Carlos 5abisi$ a customs guard$ and ;r. ico +to$ a ,ri!ate 'ndi!idual$ went to the oQce o ;r. 6iether *cuarto$ a customs bro0er$ and re,resented themsel!es as agents o ;oonglow Commercial Trading$ an 'm,orter o childrenJs clothes and toys. ;r. 5abisi and ;r. +to engaged ;r. *cuarto to ,re,are and @le with the =ureau o Customs the necessary 'm,ort ntry and 'nternal e!enue 6eclaration co!ering ;oonglowJs shi,ment. ;r. 5abisi and ;r. +to submitted to ;r. *cuarto a ,ac0ing list$ a commercial in!oice$ a bill o lading and a &worn 'm,ort 6uty 6eclaration which declared the shi,ment as childrenJs toys$ the ta9es and duties o which were com,uted at "DG$GGG.GG. ;r. *cuarto @led the aorementioned documents with the ;anila 'nternational Container "ort. (owe!er$ beore the shi,ment was released$ a s,ot chec0 was conducted by Customs &enior %gent ames =andido$ who disco!ered that the contents o the !an :shi,ment) were not childrenJs toys as declared in the shi,,ing documents but 1$GGG units o !ideo cassette recorders with ta9es and duties com,uted at "DGG$GGG.GG. % hold order and warrant o sei3ure and detention were then issued by the 6istrict Collector o Customs. >urther in!estigation showed that ;oonglow is none9istent. Conseuently$ ;r. 5abisi and ;r. +to were charged with and con!icted or !iolation o &ection F:e) o .%. FG1I which ma0es it unlawul among others$ or ,ublic oQcers to cause any undue 'n/ury to any ,arty$ including the 5o!ernment. 'n the discharge o oQcial unctions through maniest ,artiality$ e!ident bad aith or gross ine9cusable negligence. 'n their motion or reconsideration$ the accused alleged that the decision was erroneous because the crime was not consummated but was only at an attem,ted stage$ and that in act the 5o!ernment did not sufer any undue in/ury. a) 's the contention o both accused correct# 9,lain. :FB) b) %ssuming that the attem,ted or rustrated stage o the !iolation charged is not ,unishable$ may the accused be ne!ertheless con!icted or an ofense ,unished by the e!ised "enal Code under the acts o the case# 9,lain. :FB) &455&T6 %7&W8
&455&T6 %7&W8 'n crimes malum in se$ an act is by nature wrong$ e!il or bad$ and so generally condemned. The moral trait o the ofender is in!ol!ed- thus$ good aith or lac0 o criminal 'ntent on the ,art o the ofender is a deense$ unless the crime is the result o criminal negligence. Corres,ondingly$ modiying circumstances are considered in ,unishing the ofender. 'n crimes mala ,rohibitum$ an act is not by nature wrong$ e!il or bad. +et$ it is ,unished because there is a law ,rohibiting them or ,ublic good$ and thus good aith or lac0 o criminal intent in doing the ,rohibited act is not a deense.
Boti+e +s ntent (1996) 6istinguish intent rom moti!e i n Criminal Law. ;ay crime be committed without crim inal intent# &455&T6 %7&W8 ;oti!e is the mo!ing ,ower which im,els one to action or a de@nite resultwhereas intent is the ,ur,ose to use a ,articular means to efect such results. ;oti!e is not an essential element o a elony and need not be ,ro!ed or ,ur,ose o con!iction$ while intent is an essential element o elonies by dolo. +es$ a crime may be committed without criminal intent i such is a cul,able elony$ wherein 'ntent is substituted by negligence or im,rudence$ and also in a malum ,rohibitum or i an act is ,unishable by s,ecial law.
Boti+e +s ntent (-..) 6istinguish clearly but briey between intent and moti!e in the commission o an ofense. &455&T6 %7&W8 'ntent is the ,ur,ose or using a ,articular means to achie!e the desired resultwhile moti!e is the mo!ing ,ower which im,els a ,erson to act or a de@nite result. 'ntent is an ingredient o dolo or malice and thus an element o deliberate elonies- while moti!e is not an element o a crime but only considered when the identity o the ofender is in doubt.
Boti+e +s ntent (1999) 6istinguish
Boti+e; Proof thereof; #ot Essential; Con+iction (-..6) ;oti!e is essential in the determination o the commission o a crime and the liabilities o the ,er,etrators. What are the instances where ,roo o moti!e is not essential or reuired to /ustiy con!iction o an accused# 5i!e at least F instances. :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 When there is an eyewitness or ,ositi!e identi@cation o the accused. When the accused admitted or conessed to the commission o the crime. 'n crimes mala ,rohibita. 'n direct assault$ when the !ictim$ who is a ,erson in authority or
duty :%rt. 1EH$ e!ised "enal Code). 'n crimes committed through rec0less im,rudence.
E5empting Circumstances; Binorit' (1994) ohn$ an eightMyear old boy$ is ond o watching the tele!ision ,rogram orthwith$ % bro0e the coconut shell outside o their home in the ,resence o his riends. What is the criminal liability o %$ i any# 9,lain. :FB) 's % e9em,ted rom criminal liability under %rti cle FF2 o the e!ised "enal Code or being a brother o =# 9,lain. :2B) &455&T6 %7&W8 a) % is criminally liable or obbery with orce u,on things..... b) 7o$ % is not e9em,t rom criminal liability under %rt. FF2 because said %rticle a,,lies only to thet$ swindling or malicious mischie. (ere$ the crime committed is robbery.
E5empting; Binorit'; 11 'rs 0l*; "7sence of !iscernment (-...) While they were standing in line awaiting their !accination at the school clinic$ "om,ing re,eatedly ,ulled the ,onytail o Satreena$ his 11 years$ 2 months and 1F days old classmate in 5rade A at the &am,aloc lementary &chool. 'rritated$ Satreena turned around and swung at "om,ing with a ball ,en. The to, o the
had caused. Satreena immediately hel,ed "om,ing. When in!estigated$ she reely admitted to the school ,rinci,al that she was res,onsible or the in/ury to "om,ingJs eye. %ter the incident$ she e9ecuted a statement admitting her cul,ability. 6ue to the in/ury. "om,ing lost his right eye. a) 's Satreena criminally liable# Why# :FB) b) 6iscuss the attendant circumstances and efects thereo. :2B) &455&T6 %7&W8 a) 7o$ Satreena is not criminally liable although she is ci!illy liable. =eing a minor less than @teen :1A) years old although o!er nine :I) years o age$ she is generally e9em,t rom criminal liability. The e9ce,tion is where the ,rosecution ,ro!ed that the act was committed with discernment. The burden is u,on the ,rosecution to ,ro!e that the accused acted with discernment. The ,resum,tion is that such minor acted without discernment$ and this is strengthened by the act that Satreena only reacted with a ball,en which she must be using in class at the time$ and only to sto, "om,ingJs !e9atious act o re,eatedly ,ulling her ,onytail. 'n other words$ the in/ury was accidental. b) The attendant circumstances which may be considered are8 ;inority o the accused as an e9em,ting circumstance under %rticle 12. ,aragra,h F$ e!. "enal Code$ where she shall be e9em,t rom criminal liability$ unless it was ,ro!ed that she acted with discernment. &he is howe!er ci!illy liable' ound criminally liable$ the minority o the accused as a ,ri!ileged mitigating circumstance. % discretionary ,enalty lower by at least two :2) degrees than that ,rescribed or the crime committed shall be im,osed in accordance with %rticle DH. ,aragra,h 1$ e!. "enal Code. The sentence$ howe!er$ should automatically be sus,ended in accordance with &ection A:a) o e,. %ct 7o. HFDI otherwise 0nown as the <>amily Courts %ct o 1IIP<- %lso i ound criminally liable$ the ordinary mitigating circumstance o not 'ntending to commit so gra!e a wrong as that committed$ under %rticle 1F$ ,aragra,h F$ e!. "enal Code- and The ordinary mitigating circumstance o suQcient ,ro!ocation on the ,art o the ofended ,arty immediately ,receded the act.
ustif'ing +s E5empting Circumstances (-..) 6istinguish clearly but briey8 =etween /ustiying and e9em,ting circumstances in criminal law. &455&T6 %7&W8 ustiying circumstance afects the act$ not the actor- while e9em,ting circumstance afects the actor$ not the act. 'n /ustiying circumstance$ no criminal and$ generally$ no ci!il liability is incurred- while in e9em,ting circumstance$ ci!il liability is generally incurred although there is no criminal liability. ustiying !s. 9em,ting Circumstances :1IIH) 6istinguish between /ustiying and e9em,ting circumstances. KFB &455&T6 %7&W8 1. 'n ustiying Circumstances8 The circumstance afects the act$ not the actor- The act is done within legal bounds$ hence considered as not a crime- &ince the act is not a crime$ there is no criminal- There being no crime nor criminal$ there is no criminal nor ci!il liability. Whereas$ in an 9em,ting Circumstances8 The circumstance afects the actor$ not the act- The act is elonious and hence a crime but the actor acted without !oluntariness- %lthough there is a crime$ there is no criminal because the actor is regarded only as an instrument o the crime- There being a wrong done but no crimi nal.
ustif'ing; !efense of onor; %eDuisites (-..-)
When % arri!ed home$ he ound = ra,ing his daughter. 4,on seeing %$ = ran away. % too0 his gun and shot =$ 0illing him. Charged with homicide$ % claimed he acted in deense o his daughterJs honor. 's % correct# ' not$ can % claim the bene@t o any mitigating circumstance or circumstances# :FB) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ % cannot !alidly in!o0e deense o his daughterJs honor in ha!ing 0illed = since the ra,e was already consummated- moreo!er$ = already ran away$ hence$ there was no aggression to deend against and no deense to s,ea0 o. % may$ howe!er$ in!o0e the bene@t o the mitigating circumstance o ha!ing acted in immediate !indication o a gra!e ofense to a descendant$ his daughter$ under ,ar. A$ %rticle 1F o the e!ised "enal Code$ as amended.
ustif'ing; !efense of Stranger (-..-) % chanced u,on three men who were attac0ing = with @st blows. C$ one o the men$ was about to stab = with a 0nie. 7ot 0nowing that = was actually the aggressor because he had earlier challenged the three men to a @ght$ % shot C as the latter was about to stab =. ;ay % in!o0e the deense o a stranger as a /ustiying circumstance in his a!or# Why# :2B) &455&T6 %7&W8 +es. % may in!o0e the /ustiying circumstance o deense o stranger since he was not in!ol!ed in the @ght and he shot C when the latter was about to stab =. There being no indication that % was induced by re!enge$ resentment or any other e!il moti!e in shooting C$ his act is /usti@ed under ,ar F$ %rticle 11 o the e!ised "enal Code$ as amended.
ustif'ing; /ulFllment of !ut'; %eDuisites (-...) Lucresia$ a store owner$ was robbed o her bracelet in her home. The ollowing day$ at about A oJcloc0 in the aternoon$ a neighbor$ 22Myear old unMun$ who had an unsa!ory re,utation$ came to her store to buy bottles o beer. Lucresia noticed her bracelet wound around the right arm o unMun. %s soon as the latter let$ Lucresia went to a nearby ,olice station and sought the hel, o a ,oliceman on duty$ "at. Willie eyes. (e went with Lucresia to the house o unM un to conront the latter. "at. eyes introduced himsel as a ,oliceman and tried to get hold o unMun who resisted and ran away. "at. eyes chased him and @red two warning shots in the air. unMun continued to run and when he was about P meters away$ "at$ eyes shot him in the right leg. unMun was hit and he ell down but he crawled towards a ence$ intending to ,ass through an o,ening underneath. When "at. eyes was about A meters away$ he @red another shot at unMun hitting him at the right lower hi,. "at. eyes brought unMun to the hos,ital$ but because o ,rouse bleeding$ he e!entually died. "at eyes was subseuently charged with homicide. 6uring the trial$ "at eyes raised the deense$ by way o e9oneration$ that he acted in the ul@llment o a duty. 's the deense tenable# 9,lain. :FB) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ the deense o "at. eyes is not tenable. The deense o ha!ing acted in the ul@llment o a duty reuires as a condition$ inter alia$ that the in/ury or ofense committed be the una!oidable or necessary conseuence o the due ,erormance o the duty :"eo,le !s. *anis$ et.al.$ PE "hil. 2AP). 't is not enough that the accused acted in ul@llment o a duty. %ter unMun was shot in the right leg and was already crawling$ there was no need or "at$ eyes to shoot him urther. Clearly$ "at. eyes acted beyond the call o duty which brought about
nraged$ *sang grabbed a balisong rom the wall and stabbed ulio to death. When tried or homicide$ *sang claimed deense o honor. &hould the claim be sustained# Why# :AB)
ustif'ing; S!; !efense of onor; %eDuisites (1994) *ne night$ 4na$ a young married woman$ was sound aslee, in her bedroom when she elt a man on to, o her. Thin0ing it was her husband Tito$ who came home a day early rom his business tri,$ 4na let him ha!e se9 with her. %ter the act$ the man said$ <' ho,e you en/oyed it as much as ' did.< 7ot recogni3ing the !oice$ it dawned u,on Lina that the man was not Tito$ her husband. >urious$ 4na too0 out TitoJs gun and shot the man. Charged with homicide 4na denies cul,ability on the ground o deense o honor. 's her claim tenable# KAB &455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ 4naJs claim that she acted in deense o honor$ is not tenable because the unlawul aggression on her honor had already ceased. 6eense o honor as included in selMdeense$ must ha!e been done to ,re!ent or re,el an unlawul aggression. There is no deense to s,ea0 o where the unlawul aggression no longer e9ists.
&455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ *sang
ustif'ing; S!; !efense of Propert'; %eDuisites (1996) % security guard$ u,on seeing a man scale the wall o a actory com,ound which he was guarding$ shot and 0illed the latter. 4,on in!estigation by the ,olice who thereater arri!ed at the scene o the shooting$ it was disco!ered that the !ictim was unarmed. When ,rosecuted or homicide$ the security guard claimed that he merely acted i n selMdeense o ,ro,erty and in the ,erormance o his duty as a security guard. ' you were the /udge$ would you con!ict him o homicide# 9,lain.
ustif'ing; !efense of onor; Elements (-...) *sang$ a married woman in her early twenties$ was slee,ing on a banig on the oor o their ni,a hut beside the seashore when she was awa0ened by the act o a man mounting her. Thin0ing that it was her husband$ 5ardo$who had returned rom @shing in the sea$ *sang continued her slee, but allowed the man$ who was actually their neighbor$ ulio$ to ha!e se9ual intercourse with her. %ter ulio satis@ed himsel$ he said <&alamat *sang< as he turned to lea!e. *nly then did *sang reali3e that the man was not her husband.
&455&T6 %7&W8 +es. ' would con!ict the security guard or (omicide i ' were the udge$ because his claim o ha!ing acted in deense o ,ro,erty and in ,erormance o a duty cannot ully be /usti@ed. !en assuming that the !ictim was scaling the wall o the actory com,ound to commit a crime inside the same$ shooting him is ne!er /usti@able$ e!en admitting that such act is considered unlawul aggression on ,ro,erty rights. 'n "eo,le !s. 7ar!aes$ 121 &C% F2I$ a ,erson is /usti@ed to deend his ,ro,erty rights$ but all the elements o seldeense under %rt. 11$ must be ,resent. 'n the instant case$ /ust li0e in 7ar!aes$ the second element
:reasonable necessity o the means em,loyed) is absent. (ence$ he should be con!icted o homicide but entitled to incom,lete selMdeense.
ustif'ing; S!; !efense of Propert'; %eDuisites (-..) The accused li!ed with his amily in a neighborhood that oten was the scene o reuent robberies. %t one time$ ,ast midnight$ the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to in!estigate what he thought were ootste,s o an unin!ited guest. %ter seeing what a,,eared to him an armed stranger loo0ing around and out to rob the house$ he @red his gun seriously in/uring the man. When the lights were turned on$ the unortunate !ictim turned out to be a brotherMinMlaw on his way to the 0itchen to get some light snac0s. The accused was indicted or serious ,hysical in/uries. &hould the accused$ gi!en the circumstances$ be con!icted or acuitted# Why# EB &455&T6 %7&W8 The accused should be con!icted because$ e!en assuming the acts to be true in his belie$ his act o shooting a burglar when there is no unlawul aggression on his ,erson is not /usti@ed. 6eense o ,ro,erty or ,ro,erty right does not /ustiy the act o @ring a gun at a burglar unless the lie and limb o the accused is already in imminent and immediate danger. %lthough the accused acted out o a misa,,rehension o the acts$ he is not absol!ed rom criminal liability. %LT7%T' %7&W8 Considering the gi!en circumstances$ namely- the reuent robberies in the neighborhood$ the time was ,ast midnight$ and the !ictim a,,eared to be an armed burglar in the dar0 and inside his house$ the accused could ha!e entertained an honest belie that his lie and limb or those o his amily are already in immediate and imminent danger. (ence$ it may be reasonable to acce,t that he acted out o an honest mista0e o act and thereore without criminal intent. %n honest mista0e o act negati!es criminal intent and thus absol!es the accused rom criminal liability. ualiying- lements o a Crime :2GGF) When would ualiying circumstances be deemed$ i at all$ elements o a crime# EB &455&T6 %7&W8 % ualiying circumstance would be deemed an element o a crime when M it changes the nature o the crime$ bringing about a more serious crime and a hea!ier ,enaltyit is essential to the crime in!ol!ed$ otherwise some other crime is committed- and it is s,eci@cally alleged in the 'normation and ,ro!en during the trial.
% ualiying circumstance is deemed an element o a crime when it is s,eci@cally stated by law as included in the de@nition o a crime$ li0e treachery in the crime o murder.
Bitigating; #on3nto5ication (-...) 6es,ite the massi!e ad!ertising cam,aign in media against @recrac0ers and gunM@ring during the 7ew +earJs celebrations$ onas and a/a bought ten bo9es o su,er lolo and ,laM,la in =ocaue$ =ulacan. =eore midnight o 6ecember F1$ 1III$ onas and a/a started their celebration by ha!ing a drin0ing s,ree at onaJs ,lace by e9,loding their highM,owered @recrac0ers in their neighborhood. 'n the course o their con!ersation$ onas con@ded to a/a that he has been 0ee,ing a longMtime grudge against his neighbor e,oy in !iew o the latterJs reusal to lend him some money. While under the inuence o liuor$ onas started throwing lighted su,er lolos inside e,oyJs ence to irritate him and the same e9,loded inside the latterJs yard. 4,on 0nowing that the throwing o the su,er lolo was deliberate$ e,oy became urious and sternly warned onas to sto, his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. % heated argument between onas and e,oy ensued but a/a tried to calm down his riend. %t midnight$ onas con!inced a/a to lend him his .EA caliber ,istol so that he could use it to 0noc0 down e,oy and to end his arrogance. onas thought that ater all$ e9,losions were e!erywhere and nobody would 0now who shot e,oy. %ter a/a lent his @rearm to onas$ the latter again started started throwing lighted su,er lolos and ,laM,las at e,oyJs yard in order to ,ro!o0e him so that he would come out o his house. When e,oy came out$ onas immediately shot him with a/aJs .EA caliber gun but m issed his target. 'nstead$ the bullet hit e,oyJs @!e year old son who was ollowing behind him$ 0illing the boy instantaneously$ a) What crime or crimes can onas and a/a be charged with# 9,lain. :2B) b) ' you were onasJ and a/aJs lawyer$ what ,ossible deenses would you set u, in a!or o your clients# 9,lain. :2B) c) ' you were the udge$ how would you decide the case# 9,lain. :1B) &455&T6 %7&W8 a) onas and a/a$ can be charged with the com,le9 crime o attem,ted murder with homicide because a single act caused a less gra!e and a gra!e elony :%rt. EH. "C).... b) ' ' were onasJ and a/aJs lawyer$ ' will use the ollowing deenses8 That the accused had no intention to commit so gra!e a wrong as that committed as they merely intended to righten e,oy- That onas committed the crime in a state o into9ication thereby im,airing his will ,ower or ca,acity to understand the wrongulness o his act. 7onMintentional into9ication is a mitigating circumstance :"eo,leus. >ortich$ 2H1 &C% DGG :1IIP)- %rt. 1A$ "C.).
Bitigating; Plea of Guilt'; %eDuisites (1999) 'n order that the ,lea o guilty may be mitigating$ what reuisites must be com,lied with# :2B) &455&T6 %7&W8 >or ,lea o guilty to be mitigating$ the reuisites are8 That the accused s,ontaneously ,leaded guilty to the crime charged That such ,lea was made beore the court com,etent to try the case and render /udgment- and That such ,lea was made ,rior to the ,resentation o e!idence or the ,rosecution.
Bitigating; Plea of Guilt' (1999) %n accused charged with the crime o homicide ,leaded
Bitigating; Plea of Guilt'; ,oluntar' Surren*er (1992) %ter 0illing the !ictim$ the accused absconded. (e succeeded in eluding the ,olice until he suraced and surrendered to the authorities about two years later. Charged with murder$ he ,leaded not guilty but$ ater the ,rosecution had ,resented two witnesses im,licating him to the crime$ he changed his ,lea to that o guilty. &hould the mitigating circumstances o !oluntary surrender and ,lea o guilty be considered in a!or o the accused#
&455&T6 %7&W8 oluntary surrender should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. %ter two years$ the ,olice were still unaware o the whereabouts o the accused and the latter could ha!e continued to elude arrest. %ccordingly$ the surrender o the accused should be considered mitigating because it was done s,ontaneously$ indicati!e o the remorse or re,entance on the ,art o said accused and thereore$ by his surrender$ the accused sa!ed the 5o!ernment e9,enses$ eforts$ and time. %LT7%T' %7&W8 oluntary surrender may not be a,,reciated in a!or o the accused. Two years is too long a time to consider the surrender as s,ontaneous :"eo,le us. %blao$ 1HF &C% DAH). >or sure the go!ernment had already incurred considerable eforts and e9,enses in loo0ing or the accused. "lea o guilty can no longer be a,,reciated as a mitigating circumstance because the ,rosecution had already started with the ,resentation o its e!idence :%rt. 1F$ ,ar. P. e!ised "enal Code).
Bitigating; ,oluntar' Surren*er (1996) (ilario$ u,on seeing his son engaged in a scue with ene$ stabbed and 0illed the latter. %ter the stabbing$ he brought his son home. The Chie o "olice o the town$ accom,anied by se!eral ,olicemen$ went to (ilarioJs house$ (ilario$ u,on seeing the a,,roaching ,olicemen$ came down rom his house to meet them and !oluntarily went with them to the "olice &tation to be in!estigated in connection with the 0illing. When e!entually charged with and con!icted o homicide$ (ilario$ on a,,eal$ aulted the trial court or not a,,reciating in his a!or the mitigating circumstance o !oluntary surrender. 's he entitled to such a mitigating circumstance# 9,lain. &455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ (ilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance o !oluntary surrender. The cru9 o the issue is whether the act that (ilario went home ater the incident$ but came down and met the ,olice oQcers and went with them is considered <oluntary surrender$< The !oluntariness o surrender is tested i the same is s,ontaneous showing the intent o the accused to submit himsel unconditionally to the authorities. This must be either :a) because he ac0nowledges his guilt$ or :b) because he wishes to sa!e them the trouble and e9,enses necessarily
o the accused in hiding ater commission o the crime$ but !oluntarily went with the ,olicemen who had gone to his hiding ,lace to in!estigate$ was held to be mitigating circumstance.:"eo,le !s. 6ayrit$ cited in eyesJ Commentaries$ ,. 2II)
Bitigating; ,oluntar' Surren*er; Elements (1999) When is surrender by an accused considered !oluntary$ and constituti!e o the mitigating circumstance o !oluntary surrender# :FB) &455&T6 %7&W8 % surrender by an ofender is considered !oluntary when it is s,ontaneous$ indicati!e o an intent to submit unconditionally to the authorities. To be mitigating$ the surrender must be8 s,ontaneous$ i.e.$ indicati!e o ac0nowledgment o guilt and not or con!enience nor conditional- made beore the go!ernment incurs e9,enses$ time and efort in trac0ing down the ofenderJs whereabouts- and made to a ,erson in authority or the latterJs agents.
&455&T6 %7&W8 a) ose$ 6omingo$ and ;anolo committed obbery$ while >ernando committed com,le9 crime o obbery with a,e... b) The crime would be obbery with (omicide because the 0illings were by reason :to ,re!ent identi@cation) and on the occasion o the robbery. The multi,le ra,es committed and the act that se!eral ,ersons were 0illed Khomicide)$ would be considered as aggra!ating circumstances. The ra,es are synonymous with 'gnominy and the additional 0illing synonymous with cruelty$ :"eo,le !s. &olis$ 1H2 &C%- "eo,le !s. "laga$ 2G2 &C% AF1) c) The aggra!ating circumstances which may be considered in the ,remises are8 =and because all the our ofenders are armed- 7octumity because e!idently the ofenders too0 ad!antage o nighttime- dwelling- and 4ninhabited ,lace because the house where the crimes were committed was
"ggra+ating Circumstances; Generis +s ualif'ing (1999) 6istinguish generic aggra!ating circumstance rom ualiying aggra!ating circumstance. &455&T6 %7&W8 5eneric %ggra!ating Circumstances8 afects only the im,osition o the ,enalty ,rescribed$ but not the nature o the crime committed- can be ofset by ordinary mitigating circumstances- need not be alleged in the 'normation as long as ,ro!en during the trial$ the same shall be considered in im,osing the sentence.
"ggra+ating Circumstances (1996) ose$ 6omingo$ ;anolo$ and >ernando$ armed with bolos$ at about one oJcloc0 in the morning$ robbed a house at a desolate ,lace where 6anilo$ his wie$ and three daughters were li!ing. While the our were in the ,rocess o ransac0ing 6aniloJs house$ >ernando$ noticing that one o 6aniloJs daughters was trying to get away$ ran ater her and @nally caught u, with her in a thic0et somewhat distant rom the house. >ernando$ beore bringing bac0 the daughter to the house$ ra,ed her @rst. Thereater$ the our carted away the belongings o 6anilo and his amily. What crime did ose$ 6omingo$ ;anolo and >ernando commit# 9,lain. &u,,ose$ ater the robbery$ the our too0 turns in ra,ing the three daughters o 6anilo inside the latterJs house$ but beore they let$ they 0illed the whole amily to ,re!ent identi@cation$ what crime did the our commit# 9,lain. 4nder the acts o the case$ what aggra!ating circumstances may be a,,reciated against the our# 9,lain.
ualiying %ggra!ating Circumstances8 must be alleged in the 'normation and ,ro!en during trial- cannot be ofset by mitigating circumstances- afects the nature o the crime or brings about a ,enalty higher in degree than that ordinarily ,rescribed.
,arty is a descendant :daughter) o the ofender and considering that the crime is one against chastity. "ggra+ating Circumstances; Ain*s H Penalties (1999) 7ame the our :E) 0inds o aggra!ating circumstances and state their efect on the ,enalty o crimes and nature thereo. &455&T6 %7&W8 The our :E) 0inds o aggra!ating circumstances are8 1) 57'C %55%%T'75 or those that can generally a,,ly to all crimes$ and can be ofset by mitigating circumstances$ but i not ofset$ would afect only the ma9imum o the ,enalty ,rescribed by law2) &"C'>'C %55%%T'75 or those that a,,ly only to ,articular crimes and cannot be ofset by mitigating circumstances8 F) 4%L'>+'75 C'C4;&T%7C& or those that change the nature o the crime to a gra!er one$ or brings about a ,enalty ne9t higher in degree$ and cannot be ofset by mitigating circumstancesE) '7(7T %55%%T'75 or those that essentially accom,any the commission o the crime and does not afect the ,enalty whatsoe!er. "ggra+ating; Bust 7e allege* in the information (-...) ico$ a member o the %l,ha ho raternity$ was 0illed by "ocholo$ a member o the ri!al grou,$ &igma "hi *mega. "ocholo was ,rosecuted or homicide beore the egional Trial Court in =inan$ Laguna. 6uring the trial$ the ,rosecution was able to ,ro!e that the 0illing was committed by means o ,oison in consideration o a ,romise or reward and with cruelty. ' you were the udge$ with what crime will you con!ict "ocholo# 9,lain. :2B)
"ggra+ating; Cruelt'; %elationship (199) =en$ a widower$ dri!en by bestial desire$ ,o0ed a gun on his daughter Reny$ orcibly undressed her and tied her legs to the bed. (e also burned her ace with a lighted cigarrete. Li0e a madman$ he laughed while ra,ing her. What aggra!ating circumstances are ,resent in this case# &455&T6 %7&W8 a) Cruelty$ or burning the !ictimJs ace with a lighted cigarrete$ thereby deliberately augmenting the !ictimJs sufering by acts clearly unnecessary to the ra,e$ while the ofender delighted and en/oyed seeing the !ictim sufer in ,ain :"eo,le !s. Lucas$ 1H1 &C% F1D).b) elationshi,$ because the ofended
&455&T6 %7&W8 "ocholo should be con!icted o the crime o homicide only because the aggra!ating circumstances which should ualiy the crime to murder were not alleged in the 'normation. The circumstances o using ,oison$ in consideration o a ,romise or reward$ and cruelty which attended the 0illing o ico could only be a,,reciated as generic aggra!ating circumstances since none o them ha!e been alleged in the inormation to ualiy the 0illing to murder. % ualiying circumstance must be alleged in the 'normation and ,ro!en beyond reasonable doubt during the trial to be a,,reciated as such.
the trial court cannot consider against him a @nding o recidi!ism and$ again$ o habitual delinuency. 's the a,,eal meritorious# 9,lain. :AB)
"ggra+ating; #ighttime; 8an* (199) %t about I8FG in the e!ening$ while 6ino and afy were wal0ing along "adre >aura &treet$ ;anila. ohnny hit them with a roc0 in/uring 6ino at the bac0. afy a,,roached 6ino$ but suddenly$ =obby$ &te!e$ 6anny and 7onoy surrounded the duo. Then =obby stabbed 6ino. &te!e$ 6anny$ 7onoy and ohnny 0e,t on hitting 6ino and afy with roc0s. %s a result. 6ino died$ =obby$ &te!e$ 6anny$ 7onoy and ohnny were charged with homicide. Can the court a,,reciate the aggra!ating circumstances o nighttime and band#
&455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ the a,,eal is not meritorious. ecidi!ism and habitual delinuency are correctly considered in this case because the basis o recidi!ism is diferent rom that o habitual delinuency. uan is a recidi!ist because he had been ,re!iously con!icted by @nal /udgment or thet and again ound guilty or obbery with (omicide$ which are both crimes against ,ro,erty$ embraced under the same Title :Title Ten$ =oo0 Two o the e!ised "enal Code. The im,lication is that he is s,eciali3ing in the commission o crimes against ,ro,erty$ hence aggra!ating in the con!iction or obbery with (omicide. (abitual delinuency$ which brings about an additional ,enalty when an ofender is con!icted a third time or more or s,eci@ed crimes$ is correctly considered ...
&455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ nighttime cannot be a,,reciated as an aggra!ating circumstance because there is no indication that the ofenders deliberately sought the co!er o dar0ness to acilitate the commission o the crime or that they too0 ad!antage o nighttime :"eo,le !s. 6e los eyes$ 2GF &C% PGP). =esides$ /udicial notice can be ta0en o the act that "adre >aura &treet is wellMlighted. (owe!er$ band should be considered as the crime was committed by more than three armed maleactors- in a recent &u,reme Court decision$ stones or roc0s are considered deadly wea,ons. "ggra+ating; %eci*i+ism +s uasi3%eci*i+ism (1994) !istinguish 7etween reci*i+ism an* Duasi3reci*i+ism =->? &455&T6 %7&W8 'n recidi!ism M The con!ictions o the ofender are or crimes embraced in the same Title o the e!ised "enal Code- and This circumstance is generic aggra!ating and thereore can be efect by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
"ggra+ating; %eci*i+ism (-..1) uan de Castro already had three :F) ,re!ious con!ictions by @nal /udgment or thet when he was ound guilty o obbery with (omicide. 'n the last case$ the trial udge considered against the accused both recidi!ism and habitual
Whereas in uasiMrecidi!lsm M The con!ictions are not or crimes embraced in the same Title o the e!ised "enal Code$ ,ro!ided that it is a elony that was committed by the ofender beore ser!ing sentence by @nal /udgment or another crime or while ser!ing sentence or another crime- and This circumstance is a s,ecial aggra!ating circumstance which cannot be ofset by any mitigating circumstance.
which is not the ,ro,er ,lace or entrance into the house e!ised "enal Code$ "eo,le !s. =aruga D1 "hil. F1H). "lternati+e Circumstances; nto5ication (-..-) % was in!ited to a drin0ing s,ree by riends. %ter ha!ing had % and = had a heated argument$ during which % stabbed sufered serious ,hysical in/uries. ;ay the into9ication o aggra!ating or mitigating# :AB)
"ggra+ating; reacher' H Unlawful Entr' (1992) The accused and the !ictim occu,ied ad/acent a,artments$ each being a se,arate dwelling unit o one big house. The accused sus,ected his wie o ha!ing an illicit relation with the !ictim. *ne aternoon$ he saw the !ictim and his wie together on board a !ehicle. 'n the e!ening o that day$ the accused went to bed early and tried to slee,$ but being so annoyed o!er the sus,ected relation between his wie and the !ictim$ he could not slee,. Later in the night$ he resol!ed to 0ill !ictim. (e rose rom bed and too0 hold o a 0nie. (e entered the a,artment o the !ictim through an unloc0ed window. 'nside$ he saw the !ictim soundly aslee,. (e thereu,on stabbed the !ictim$ inicting se!eral wounds$ which caused his death within a ew hours. Would you say that the 0illing was attended by the ualiying or aggra!ating circumstances o e!ident ,remeditation$ treachery$ nighttime and unlawul entry# &455&T6 %7&W8 1. !ident ,remeditation cannot be considered against the accused because he resol!ed to 0ill the !ictim 4L 7T+ may be a,,reciated as an aggra!ating circumstance$
:%rt. 1E. ,ar. 1H.
a drin0 too many$ =. %s a result$ = % be considered
&455&T6 %7&W8 The into9ication o % may be ,rima acie considered mitigating since it was merely incidental to the commission o the crime. 't may not be considered aggra!ating as there is no clear indication rom the acts o the case that it was habitual or intentional on the ,art o %. %ggra!ating circumstances are not to be ,resumed- they should be ,ro!ed beyond reasonable doubt.
"nti3/encing Law; /encing (1996) >lora$ who was engaged in the ,urchase and sale o /ewelry$ was ,rosecuted or the !iolation o ".6. 1D12$ otherwise 0nown as the %ntiM>encing Law$ or ha!ing been ound to be in ,ossession o recently stolen ewelry !alued at "1GG$GGG.GG at her /ewelry sho, at Ra,ote Criminal Law =ar 9amination N % :1IIEM2GGD) oad$ Las "inas$ ;etro ;anila. &he testi@ed during the trial that she merely bought the same rom one named Cecilino and e!en ,roduced a recei,t co!ering the sale. Cecilino$ in the ,ast$ used to deli!er to her /ewelries or sale but is ,resently nowhere to be ound. Con!icted by the trial court or !iolation o the %ntiM>encing Law$ she argued :or her acuittal on a,,eal$ contending that the ,rosecution ailed to ,ro!e that she 0new or should ha!e 0nown that the
&455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ >loraJs deense is not wellMta0en because mere ,ossession o any article o !alue which has been the sub/ect o thet or robbery shall be ,rima acie e!idence o encing :".6.7o. 1D12). The burden is u,on the accused to ,ro!e that she acuired the /ewelry legitimately. (er deense o ha!ing bought the ewelry rom someone whose whereabouts is un0nown$ does not o!ercome the ,resum,tion o encing against her :"amintuan !s "eo,le$ 5. 111E2D$ 11 uly 1IIE). =uying ,ersonal ,ro,erty ,uts the buyer on ca!eat because o the ,hrases that he should ha!e 0nown or ought to 0now that i t is the ,roceed rom robbery or thet. =esides$ she should ha!e ollowed the administrati!e ,rocedure under the decree that o getting a clearance rom the authorities in case the dealer is unlicensed in order to esca,e liability.
"nti3/encing Law; /encing +s heft or %o77er' (199@) What is the diference between a ence and an accessory to thet or robbery# 9,lain. 's there any similarity between them# &455&T6 %7&W8 *ne diference between a ence and an accessory to thet or robbery is the ,enalty in!ol!ed- a ence is ,unished as a ,rinci,al under ".6. 7o. 1D12 and the ,enalty is higher$ whereas an accessory to robbery or thet under the e!ised "enal Code is ,unished two degrees lower than the ,rinci,al$ unless he bought or ,ro@ted rom the ,roceeds o thet or robbery arising rom robbery in "hili,,ine highways under ".6. 7o. AF2 where he is ,unished as an accom,lice$ hence the ,enalty is one degree lower. %lso$ encing is a malum ,rohibitum and thereore there is no need to ,ro!e criminal intent o the accused- this is not so in !iolations o e!ised "enal Code. &455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts o one who is an accessory to the crimes o robbery or thet are included in the acts de@ned as encing. 'n act$ the accessory in the crimes o robbery or thet could be ,rosecuted as such under the e!ised "enal Code or as a ence under ".6. 7o. 1D12. :6i3onM "amintuan !s. "eo,le$ 2FE &C% DF
"nti3/encing Law; /encing; Elements (199@) $hat are the elements of fencing< &455&T6 %7&W8 The elements o encing are8 a. a crime o robbery or thet has been committedaccused$ who is not a ,rinci,al or accom,lice in the crime$ buys$ recei!es$ ,ossesses$ 0ee,s$ acuires$ conceals$ or dis,oses$ or buys and sells$ or in any manner deals in any article$ item $ ob/ect or anything o !alue$ which has been deri!ed rom the ,roceeds o said crime- the accused 0nows or should ha!e 0nown that said article$ item$ ob/ect or anything o !alue has been deri!ed rom the rom the ,roceeds o the crime o robbery or thet- and there is on the ,art o the accused$ intent to gain or himsel or or another.
the efects o such thet by selling the /ewelry 0nowing that the same was ta0en rom Laura. *r ose may be ,rosecuted or encing under the %ntiM>encing Law o 1IPI :"6 7o. 1D12) since the /ewelry was the ,roceeds o thet and with intent to gain$ he recei!ed it rom Sing and sold it.
Criminal Lia7ilit'; #on3E5emption as "ccessor' (-..) 6C=$ the daughter o ;C=$ stole the earrings o O+R$ a stranger. ;C= ,awned the earrings with T=' "awnsho, as a ,ledge or "AGG loan. 6uring the trial$ ;C= raised the deense that being the mother o 6C=$ she cannot be held liable as an accessory. Will ;C=Js deense ,ros,er# eason briey. :AB)
Criminal Lia7ilit'; "ccessories H /ence ( 1994) Sing went to the house o Laura who was alone. Laura ofered him a drin0 and ater consuming three bottles o beer. Sing made ad!ances to her and with orce and !iolence$ ra!ished her. Then Sing 0illed Laura and too0 her /ewelry. 6oming$ SingJs ado,ted brother$ learned about the incident. (e went to LauraJs house$ hid her body$ cleaned e!erything and washed the bloodstains inside the room. Later$ Sing ga!e ose$ his legitimate brother$ one ,iece o /ewelry belonging to Laura. ose 0new that the /ewelry was ta0en rom Laura but nonetheless he sold it or "2$GGG. What crime or crimes did Sing$ 6oming and ose commit# 6iscuss their criminal liabilities. K1GB &455&T6 %7&W8 Sing committed the com,osite crime o a,e with homicide as a single indi!isible ofense$ not a com,le9 crime$ and Thet. 6omingJs acts$ ha!ing been done with 0nowledge o the commission o the crime and ob!iously to conceal the body o the crime to ,re!ent its disco!ery$ ma0es him an accessory to the crime o ra,e with homicide under %rt. 1I$ ,ar. 2 o the e!. "enal Code$ but he is e9em,t rom criminal liability thereor under %rticle 2G o the Code$ being an ado,ted brother o the ,rinci,al. ose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime o thet committed by Sing$ or as ence. %lthough he is a legitimate brother o Sing$ the e9em,tion under
&455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ ;C=Js deense will not ,ros,er because the e9em,tion rom criminal liability o an accessory by !irtue o relationshi, with the ,rinci,al does not co!er accessories who themsel!es ,ro@ted rom or assisted the ofender to ,ro@t by the efects or ,roceeds o the crime. This nonMe9em,tion o an accessory$ though related to the ,rinci,al o the crime$ is e9,ressly ,ro!ided in %rt. 2G o the e!ised "enal Code.
Criminal Lia7ilit'; Principal 7' !irect Participation; Co3Principal 7' n*ispensa7le Cooperation (-...) 6es,ite the massi!e ad!ertising cam,aign in media against @recrac0ers and gunM@ring during the 7ew +earJs celebrations$ onas and a/a bought ten bo9es
1III$ onas and a/a started their celebration by ha!ing a drin0ing s,ree at onaJs ,lace by e9,loding their highM,owered @recrac0ers in their neighborhood. 'n the course o their con!ersation$ onas con@ded to a/a that he has been 0ee,ing a longMtime grudge against his neighbor e,oy in !iew o the latterJs reusal to lend him some money. While under the inuence o liuor$ onas started throwing lighted su,er lolos inside e,oyJs ence to irritate him and the same e9,loded inside the latterJs yard. 4,on 0nowing that the throwing o the su,er lolo was deliberate$ e,oy became urious and sternly warned onas to sto, his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. % heated argument between onas and e,oy ensued but a/a tried to calm down his riend. %t midnight$ onas con!inced a/a to lend him his .EA caliber ,istol so that he could use it to 0noc0 down e,oy and to end his arrogance. onas thought that ater all$ e9,losions were e!erywhere and nobody would 0now who shot e,oy. %ter a/a lent his @rearm to onas$ the latter again started started throwing lighted su,er lolos and ,laM,las at e,oyJs yard in order to ,ro!o0e him so that he would come out o his house. When e,oy came out$ onas immediately shot him with a/aJs .EA caliber gun but missed his target. 'nstead$ the bullet hit e,oyJs @!e year old son who was ollowing behind him$ 0illing the boy instantaneously$ ' you were the udge$ how would you decide the case# 9,lain. &455&T6 %7&W8 ' would con!ict onas as ,rinci,al by direct ,artici,ation and a/a as coM,rinci,al by 'ndis,ensable coo,eration or the com,le9 crime o murder with homicide. a/a should be held liable as coM,rinci,al and not only as an accom,lice because he 0new o onasJ criminal design e!en beore he lent his @rearm to onas and still he concurred in that crimi nal design by ,ro!iding the @rearm.
Criminal Lia7ilit'; Principal 7' n*ucement (-..-) % as0ed = to 0ill C because o a gra!e in/ustice done to % by C. % ,romised = a reward. = was willing to 0ill C$ not so much because o the reward ,romised to him but because he also had his own longMstanding grudge against C$ who had wronged him in the ,ast. ' C is 0illed by =$ would % be liable as a ,rinci,al by inducement# :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o. % would not be liable as a ,rinci,al by inducement because the reward he ,romised = is not the sole im,elling reason which made = to 0ill C. To bring about criminal liability o a coM,rinci,al$ the inducement made by the inducer must be the sole consideration which caused the ,erson induced to commit the crime and without which the crime would not ha!e been committed. The acts o the case indicate that =$ the 0iller su,,osedly induced by %$ had his own reason to 0ill C out o a long standing grudge.
Criminal Lia7ilit'; Principal; n*ucement H Participation (199) Tata owns a threeMstorey building located at 7o. F (erran &treet. "aco$ ;anila. &he wanted to construct a new building but had no money to @nance the construction. &o$ she insured the building or "F$GGG$GGG.GG. &he then urged +oboy and +ongsi$ or monetary consideration$ to burn her building so she could collect the insurance ,roceeds. +oboy and +ongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What is their res,ecti!e criminal liability# &455&T6 %7&W8 Tata is a ,rinci,al by inducement because she directly induced +oboy and +ongsi$ or a ,rice or monetary consideration$ to commit arson which the latter would not ha!e committed were it not or such reason. +oboy and +ongsi are ,rinci,als by direct ,artici,ation :%rt. 1P$ ,ars. 21 and F$ "C).
!estructi+e "rson (199) Tata owns a threeMstorey building located at 7o. F (erran &treet. "aco$ ;anila. &he wanted to construct a new building but had no money to @nance the construction. &o$ she insured the building or "F$GGG$GGG.GG. &he then urged +oboy and +ongsi$ or monetary consideration$ to burn her building so she could collect the insurance ,roceeds. +oboy and +ongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What crime did Tata$ +oboy and +ongsi commit# &455&T6 %7&W8 Tata$ +oboy and +ongsi committed the crime o destructi!e arson because they collecti!ely caused the destruction o ,ro,erty by means o @re under the circumstances which e9,osed to danger the lie or ,ro,erty o others :%rt$ F2G$ ,ar. A$ "C. as amended by % 7o. PDAI).
Penalties Comple5 Crime +s Compoun* Crime (-..) 6istinguish clearly but briey8 =etween com,ound and com,le9 crimes as conce,ts in the "enal Code. &455&T6 %7&W8 C*;"*476 C';& result when the ofender committed only a single elonious act rom which two or more crimes resulted. This is ,ro!ided or in modi@ed orm in the @rst ,art o %rticle EH$ e!ised "enal Code$ limiting the resulting crimes to only gra!e and?or less gra!e elonies. (ence$ light elonies are e9cluded e!en though resulting rom the same single act. C*;"LO C';& result when the ofender has to commit an ofense as a necessary means or committing another ofense. *nly one inormation shall be @led and i ,ro!en$ the ,enalty or the more serious crime shall be im,osed.
being ,unished in one ,ro!ision o the e!ised "enal Code. %s to ,enalties$ s,ecial com,le9 crime$ only one ,enalty is s,eci@cally ,rescribed or all the com,onent crimes which are regarded as one indi!isible ofense. The com,onent crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the ,enalty or the most serious crime is not the ,enalty to be im,osed nor in its ma9imum ,eriod. 't is the ,enalty s,eci@cally ,ro!ided or the s,ecial com,le9 crime that shall be a,,lied according to the rules on im,osition o the ,enalty. 6L'T* C*7T'74%6*$ or C*7T'74*4& C';$ is a term used to denote as only one crime a series o elonious acts arising rom a single criminal resolution$ not susce,tible o di!ision$ which are carried out in the same ,lace and at about the same time$ and !iolating one and the same ,enal ,ro!ision. The acts done must be im,elled by one criminal intent or ,ur,ose$ such that each act merely constitutes a ,artial e9ecution o a ,articular crime$ !iolating one and the same ,enal ,ro!ision. 't in!ol!es a concurrence o elonious acts !iolating a common right$ a common ,enal ,ro!ision$ and 'm,elled by a single criminal im,ulse :"eo,le !s. Ledesma$ PF &C% PP).
Comple5 Crime; "7erratio ictus +s error in personae (199) 6istinguish aberratio ictus rom error i n ,ersonae.
Comple5 Crime +s Special Comple5 Crime +s !elito Continua*o (-..@) 6istinguish the ollowing rom each other8 &455&T6 %7&W8 %n *6'7%+ C*;"LO C'; is made u, o two or more crimes being ,unished in distinct ,ro!isions o the e!ised "enal Code but alleged in one inormation either because they were brought about by a single elonious act or because one ofense is a necessary means or committing the other ofense or ofenses. They are alleged in one inormation so that only one ,enalty shall be im,osed. %s to ,enalties$ ordinary com,le9 crime$ the ,enalty or the most serious crime shall be im,osed and in its ma9imum ,eriod % &"C'%L C*;"LO C';$ on the other hand$ is made u, o two or more
&455&T6 %7&W8 %berratio ictus or mista0e in the blow occurs when a elonious act missed the ,erson against whom it was directed and hit instead somebody who was not the intended !ictim. rror in ,ersonae$ or mista0e in identity occurs when the elonious act was directed at the ,erson intended$ but who turned out to be somebody else. %berratio ictus brings about at least two :2) elonious conseuence$ ie. the attem,ted elony on the intended !ictim who was not hit and the elony on the unintended !ictim who was hit. % com,le9 crime o the @rst orm under %rt. EH$ "C generally result. 'n error in ,ersonae only one crime is committed
Comple5 Crime; "7erratio ctusI Error n Personae H Praeter ntentionem (1999) What do you understand by aberratio ictus8 error in ,ersonae- and ,raeter intentionem# 6o they alter the criminal liability o an accused# 9,lain. :EB) &455&T6 %7&W8 %=%T'* 'CT4& or mista0e in the blow occurs when the ofender deli!ered the blow at his intended !ictim but missed$ and instead such blow landed on an unintended !ictim. The situation generally brings about com,le9 crimes where rom a single act$ two or more gra!e or less gra!e elonies resulted$ namely the attem,t against the intended !ictim and the conseuence on the unintended !ictim. %s com,le9 crimes$ the ,enalty or the more serious crime shall be the one im,osed and in the ma9imum ,eriod. 't is only when the resulting elonies are only light that com,le9 crimes do not result and the ,enalties are to be im,osed distinctly or each resulting crime. * '7 "&*7% or mista0e in identity occurs when the ofender actually hit the ,erson to whom the blow was directed but turned out to be diferent rom and not the !ictim intended. The criminal liability o the ofender is not afected$ unless the mista0e in identity resulted to a crime diferent rom what the ofender intended to commit$ in which case the lesser ,enalty between the crime intended and the crime committed shall be im,osed but in the ma9imum ,eriod :%rt. EI$ >C).
1III$ onas and a/a started their celebration by ha!ing a drin0ing s,ree at onaJs ,lace by e9,loding their highM,owered @recrac0ers in their neighborhood. 'n the course o their con!ersation$ onas con@ded to a/a that he has been 0ee,ing a longtime grudge against his neighbor e,oy in !iew o the latterJs reusal to lend him some money. While under the inuence o liuor$ onas started throwing lighted su,er lolos inside e,oyJs ence to irritate him and the same e9,loded inside the latterJs yard. 4,on 0nowing that the throwing o the su,er lolo was deliberate$ e,oy became urious and sternly warned onas to sto, his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. % heated argument between onas and e,oy ensued but a/a tried to calm down his riend. %t midnight$ onas con!inced a/a to lend him his .EA caliber ,istol so that he could use it to 0noc0 down e,oy and to end his arrogance. onas thought that ater all$ e9,losions were e!erywhere and nobody would 0now who shot e,oy. %ter a/a lent his @rearm to onas$ the latter again started throwing lighted su,er lolos and ,laM,las at e,oyJs yard in order to ,ro!o0e him so that he would come out o his house. When e,oy came out$ onas immediately shot him with a/aJs . EA caliber gun but missed his target. 'nstead$ the bullet hit e,oyJs @!e year old son who was ollowing behind him$ 0illing the boy instantaneously$ a) What crime or crimes can onas and a/a be charged with# 9,lain. :2B) &455&T6 %7&W8 onas and a/a$ can be charged with the com,le9 crime o attem,ted murder with homicide because a single act caused a less gra!e and a gra!e elony :%rt. EH. "C). %ttem,ted murder is a less gra!e elony$ while consummated homicide is a gra!e elony8 both are ,unishable by aicti!e ,enalties.
"%T '7T7T'*7; or where the conseuence went beyond that intended or e9,ected. This is a mitigating circumstance :%rt. 1F. ,ar. F$ "C) when there is a notorious dis,arity between the act or means em,loyed by the ofender and the resulting elony$ i$e.$ the resulting elony could not be reasonably antici,ated or oreseen by the ofender rom the act or means em,loyed by him.
Comple5 Crime; !octrine of "7erratio ctus; #ot "pplica7le (1996) %t the height o an altercation$ "edrito shot "aulo but missed$ hitting Tiburcio instead$ resulting in the death o the latter. "edrito$ in!o0ing the doctrine o aberratio ictus$ claims e9em,tion rom criminal liability. ' you were the /udge$ how would you decide the case#
Comple5 Crime; "7erratio ctus; "ttempte* Bur*er with omici*e (-...) 6es,ite the massi!e ad!ertising cam,aign in media against @recrac0ers and gunM@ring during the 7ew +earJs celebrations$ onas and a/a bought ten bo9es
&455&T6 %7&W8 ' ' were the udge$ ' will con!ict "edrito and @nd him guilty o the com,le9 crime o (omicide with %ttem,ted (omicide. The single act o @ring at "aulo resulted in the commission o two elonies$ one gra!e :homicide) and the other less gra!e :attem,ted homicide) thus alling suarely under %rt. EH$ "C- hence$ the ,enalty would be or the more serious crime :homicide} in its ma9imum ,eriod :1P years E months and 1 day to 2G years). %berratio ictus :mista0e in the blow) could not be used as a deense as it is not
which ma0es a ,erson criminally liable or all the natural and logical conseuences o his elonious act
the same and thus constitute only one crime. 'n this situation$ the two crimes are not distinct and thereore$ may not be ,ro,er to a,,ly %rticle EH o the Code.
Comple5 Crimes; !etermination of the Crime (1999) %$ actuated by malice and with the use o a ully automatic ;M1E subMmachine gun$ shot a grou, o ,ersons who were seated in a coc0,it with one burst o successi!e$ continuous$ automatic @re. >our :E) ,ersons were 0illed thereby$ each ha!ing hit by diferent bullets coming rom the subMmachine gun o %. >our :E) cases o murder were @led against %. The trial court ruled that there was only one crime committed by % or the reason that$ since % ,erormed only one act$ he ha!ing ,ressed the trigger o his gun only once$ the crime committed was murder. Conseuently$ the trial /udge sentenced % to /ust one ,enalty o reclusion ,er,etua. Was the decision o the trial /udge correct# 9,lain. :EB) &455&T6 %7&W8 Comple5 Crimes; Coup *Jetat H re7ellion H se*ition (-..) 1) Can there be a com,le9 crime o cou, dJetat with rebellion# 2B 2) Can there be a com,le9 crime o cou, dJetat with sedition# 2B &455&T6 %7&W8 1) +es$ i there was cons,iracy between the ofender? ofenders committing the cou, dJetat and the ofenders committing the rebellion. =y cons,iracy$ the crime o one would be the crime o the other and !ice !ersa. This is ,ossible because the ofender in cou, dJetat may be any ,erson or ,ersons belonging to the military or the national ,olice or a ,ublic oQcer$ whereas rebellion does not so reuire. ;oreo!er$ the crime o cou, dJetat may be committed singly$ whereas rebellion reuires a ,ublic u,rising and ta0ing u, arms to o!erthrow the duly constituted go!ernment. &ince the two crimes are essentially diferent and ,unished with distinct ,enalties$ there is no legal im,ediment to the a,,lication o %rt. EH o the e!ised "enal Code.
the decision o the trial /udge is not correct. When the ofender made use o an automatic @rearm$ the acts committed are determined by the number o bullets discharged inasmuch as the @rearm being automatic$ the ofender need only ,ress the trigger once and it would @re continually. >or each death caused by a distinct and se,arate bullet$ the accused incurs distinct criminal liability. (ence$ it is not the act o ,ressing the trigger which should be considered as ,roducing the se!eral elonies$ but the number o bullets which actually ,roduced them.
2) +es$ cou, dJetat can be com,le9ed with sedition because the two crimes are essentially diferent and distinctly ,unished under the e!ised "enal Code. &edition may not be directed against the 5o!ernment or nonM,olitical in ob/ecti!e$ whereas cou, dJetat is always ,olitical in ob/ecti!e as it is directed against the 5o!ernment and led by ,ersons or ,ublic oQcer holding ,ublic oQce belonging to the military or national ,olice. %rt. EH o the Code may a,,ly under the conditions therein ,ro!ided.
Comple5 Crimes; #ature H Penalt' n+ol+e* (1999) What constitutes a com,le9 crime# (ow many crimes maybe in!ol!ed in a com,le9 crime# What is the ,enalty thereor#:EB)
%LT7%T' %7&W8 The crime o cou, dJetat cannot be com,le9ed with the crime o rebellion because both crimes are directed against the 5o!ernment or or ,olitical
&455&T6 %7&W8 % com,le9 crime is constituted when a single act caused two or more gra!e or less gra!e elonies or when an ofense is committed as a necessary means to
com,le9 crime- either two or more gra!e or less gra!e elonies resulted rom a single act$ or an ofense is committed as a necessary means or committing another. The ,enalty or the more serious crime shall be im,osed and in its ma9imum ,eriod. :%rt. EH$ "C)
,eriod. 't is the ,enalty s,eci@cally ,ro!ided or the s,ecial com,le9 crime that shall be a,,lied according to the rules on im,osition o the ,enalty.
Continuing 0Kense +s !elito Continua*o (199) !iKerentiate *elito continua*o from a continuing oKense
Comple5 Crimes; 0r*inar' Comple5 Crime +s Special Comple5 Crime (-..) 6istinguish between an ordinary com,le9 crime and a s,ecial com,le9 crime as to their conce,ts and as to the im,osition o ,enalties. 2B &455&T6 %7&W8 '7 C*7C"T M %n *6'7%+ C*;"LO C'; is made u, o two or more crimes being ,unished in distinct ,ro!isions o the e!ised "enal Code but alleged in one 'normation either because they were brought about by a single elonious act or because one ofense is a necessary means or committing the other ofense or ofenses. They are alleged in one 'normation so that only one ,enalty shall be im,osed. % &"C'%L C*;"LO C';$ on the other hand$ is made u, o two or more crimes which are considered only as com,onents o a single indi!isible ofense being ,unished in one ,ro!ision o the e!ised "enal Code. %& T* "7%LT'& M'n *6'7%+ C*;"LO C';$ the ,enalty or the most serious crime shall be im,osed and in its ma9imum ,eriod. 'n &"C'%L C*;"LO C';$ only one ,enalty is s,eci@cally ,rescribed or all the com,onent crimes which are regarded as one indi!isible ofense. The com,onent crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the ,enalty or the most serious crime is not the ,enalty to be im,osed nor in its ma9imum
&455&T6 %7&W8 6L'T* C*7T'74%6*$ or C*7T'74*4& C';$ is a term used to denote as only one crime a series o elonious acts arising rom a single criminal resolution$ not susce,tible o di!ision$ which are carried out in the same ,lace and at about the same time$ and !iolating one and the same ,enal ,ro!ision. The acts done must be im,elled by one criminal intent or ,ur,ose$ such that each act merely constitutes a ,artial e9ecution o a ,articular crime$ !iolating one and the same ,enal ,ro!ision. 't in!ol!es a concurrence o elonious acts !iolating a common right$ a common ,enal ,ro!ision$ and im,elled by a single criminal im,ulse :"eo,le !s. Ledesma$ PF &C% PP). *n the other hand$ a C*7T'74'75 *>>7& is one whose essential ingredients too0 ,lace in more than one munici,ality or city$ so much so that the criminal ,rosecution may be instituted and the case tried in the com,etent court o any one o such munici,ality or city. The term
circumstance no. 1 when the guilty ,erson is at least 1H years o age at the time o the commission o the crime$ the death ,enalty can be im,osed since the ofender is already o legal age when he committed the crime. Circumstance no. F no longer o,erates$ considering the decision o the &u,reme Court in "eo,le !s. ren ;ateo :5.. 1EPDPHMHP$ uly P$ 2GGE) ,ro!iding an intermediate re!iew or such cases where the ,enalty im,osed is death$ reclusion ,er,etua or lie im,risonment beore they are ele!ated to the &u,reme Court. 'n circumtances nos. E N A$ the death ,enalty can be im,osed i ,rescribed by the law !iolated although its e9ecution shall be sus,ended when the con!ict becomes insane beore it could be e9ecuted and while he is insane. Li0ewise$ the death ,enalty can be im,osed u,on a woman but its e9ecution shall be sus,ended during her ,regnancy and or one year ater her deli!ery. %LT7%T' %7&W8 The word <'7>L'CT6< is ound only in %rt. HF to the efect that the death ,enalty may not be <'7>L'CT6< u,on a ,regnant woman$ such ,enalty is to be sus,ended. ' <'7>L'CT6< is to be construed as <OC4T'*7<$ then 7o. A is the choice. !eath Penalt'; ualiFe* %ape; %eDuisites (-..) 5 was con!icted o ra,ing TC$ his niece$ and he was sentenced to death. 't was alleged in the inormation that the !ictim was a minor below se!en years old$ and her mother testi@ed that she was only si9 years and ten months old$ which her aunt corroborated on the witness stand. The inormation also alleged that the accused was the !ictimJs uncle$ a act ,ro!ed by the ,rosecution. *n automatic re!iew beore the &u,reme Court$ accusedMa,,ellant contends that ca,ital ,unishment could not be im,osed on him because o the inadeuacy o the charges and the insuQciency o the e!idence to ,ro!e all the elements o the heinous crime o ra,e beyond reasonable doubt. 's a,,ellantJs contention correct# eason briey. :AB)
!eath Penalt' (-..) The death ,enalty cannot be inicted under which o the ollowing circumstances8 1) When the guilty ,erson is at least 1H years o age at the time o the commission o the crime. 2) When the guilty ,erson is more than PG years o age. F) When$ u,on a,,eal to or automatic re!iew by the &u,reme Court$ the reuired ma/ority or the im,osition o the death ,enalty is not obtained. E) When the ,erson is con!icted o a ca,ital crime but beore e9ecution becomes insane. A) When the accused is a woman while she is ,regnant or within one year ater deli!ery. 9,lain your answer or choice briey. :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 4nderstanding the word
&455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ a,,ellantJs contention is correct insoar as the age o the !ictim is concerned. The age o the !ictim ra,ed has not been ,ro!ed beyond reasonable doubt to constitute the crime as uali@ed ra,e and deser!ing o the death ,enalty. The guidelines in a,,reciating age as a ualiying circumstance in ra,e cases ha!e not been met$ to wit8 1) The ,rimary e!idence o the age o the !ictim is her birth certi@cate2) 'n the absence o the birth certi@cate$ age o the !ictim maybe ,ro!en by authentic document$ such as ba,tismal certi@cate and school recordsF) ' the aoresaid documents are shown to ha!e been lost or destroyed or otherwise una!ailable$ the testimony$ i clear and credible o the !ictimJs mother or any member o the amily$ by consanguinity or aQnity$ who is uali@ed to testiy on matters res,ecting ,edigree such as the e9act age or date o birth o the ofended ,arty ,ursuant to &ection EG$ ule 1FG o the ules on !idence shall be suQcient but only under the ollowing circumstances8 :a) ' the !ictim is alleged to be below F years o age and what is sought to be ,ro!ed is that she is less than P years old:b) ' the !ictim is alleged to be below P years o age and what is sought to be ,ro!ed is that she is less than 12 years old- :c) ' the !ictim is alleged to be below 12 years o age
a certi@cate o li!e birth$ authentic document$ or the testimony o the !ictimJs mother or relati!es concerning the !ictimJs age under the circumstances abo!eMstated$ com,lainantJs sole testimony can suQce$ ,ro!ided that it is e9,ressly and clearly admitted by the accused :"eo,le us. "runa$ FIG &C% APP K2GG2).
a7itual !elinDuenc' H %eci*i+ism (-..1) uan de Castro already had three :F) ,re!ious con!ictions by @nal /udgment or thet when he was ound guilty o obbery with (omicide. 'n the last case$ the trial udge considered against the accused both recidi!ism and habitual delinuency. The accused a,,ealed and contended that in his last con!iction$ the trial court cannot consider against him a @nding o recidi!ism and$ again$ o habitual delinuency. 's the a,,eal meritorious# 9,lain. :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ the a,,eal is not meritorious. ecidi!ism and habitual delinuency are correctly considered in this case because the basis o recidi!ism is diferent rom that o habitual delinuency. uan is a recidi!ist. (abitual delinuency$ which brings about an additional ,enalty when an ofender is con!icted a third time or more or s,eci@ed crimes$ is correctly considered because uan had already three :F) ,re!ious con!ictions by @nal /udgment or thet and again con!icted or obbery With (omicide. %nd the crimes s,eci@ed as basis or habitual delinuency includes$ inter alia$ thet and robbery. n*eterminate Sentence Law (199) 'tos was con!icted o an ofense ,enali3ed by a s,ecial law. The ,enalty ,rescribed is not less than si9 years but not more than twel!e years. 7o modiying circumstance attended the commission o the crime. ' you were the /udge$ will you a,,ly the 'ndeterminate &entence Law# ' so$ how will you a,,ly it# &455&T6 %7&W8 ' ' were the /udge$ ' will a,,ly the ,ro!isions o the 'ndeterminate &entence Law$ as the last sentence o &ection 1 %ct E1GF$ s,eci@cally ,ro!ides the a,,lication thereo or !iolations o s,ecial laws. 4nder the same ,ro!ision$ the minimum must not be less than the minimum ,ro!ided therein :si9 years and one day) and the ma9imum shall not be more than the ma9imum ,ro!ided therein$ i.e. twel!e years. :"eo,le !s. osalina eyes$ 1HD &C% 1HE)
% was con!icted o illegal ,ossession o grease guns and two Thom,son subM machine guns ,unishable under the old law K% 7o$E with im,risonment o rom @!e :A) to ten :1G) years. The trial court sentenced the accused to sufer im,risonment o @!e :A) years and one :1) day. 's the ,enalty thus im,osed correct# 9,lain. :FB)
n*eterminate Sentence Law (1999) %ndres is charged with an ofense de@ned by a s,ecial law. The ,enalty ,rescribed or the ofense is im,risonment o not less than @!e :A) years but not more than ten K1G) years. 4,on arraignment$ he entered a ,lea o guilty. 'n the im,osition o the ,ro,er ,enalty$ should the 'ndeterminate &entence Law be a,,lied# ' you were the udge trying the case$ what ,enalty would you im,ose on %ndres# :EB)
&455&T6 %7&W8 'ndeterminate &entence Law does not a,,ly to8 The ,enalty im,osed$ being only a straight ,enalty$ is not correct because it does not com,ly with the 'ndeterminate &entence Law which a,,lies to this case. &aid law reuires that i the ofense is ,unished by any law other than the e!ised "enal Code$ the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence$ the ma9imum term o which shall not e9ceed the ma9imum ,enalty @9ed by the law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum ,enalty ,rescribed by the same.
&455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ the 'ndeterminate &entence Law should be a,,lied because the minimum im,risonment is more than one :1) year. ' ' were the udge$ ' will im,ose an indeterminate sentence$ the ma9imum o which shall not e9ceed the ma9imum @9ed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum ,enalty ,rescribed by the same. ' ha!e the discretion to im,ose the ,enalty within the said minimum and ma9imum.
n*eterminate Sentence Law (-..-) (ow are the ma9imum and the minimum terms o the indeterminate sentence or ofenses ,unishable under the e!ised "enal Code determined# :FB) &455&T6 %7&W8 >or crimes ,unished under the e!ised "enal Code$ the ma9imum term o the 'ndeterminate sentence shall be the ,enalty ,ro,erly im,osable under the same Code ater considering the attending mitigating and?or aggra!ating circumstances according to %rt$ DE o said Code. The minimum term o the same sentence shall be @9ed within the range o the ,enalty ne9t lower in degree to that ,rescribed or the crime under the said Code. n*eterminate Sentence Law (1999)
4nder the law$ what is the ,ur,ose or @9ing the ma9imum and the minimum
&455&T6 %7&W8 The ,ur,ose o the law in @9ing the minimum term o the sentence is to set the grace ,eriod at which the con!ict may be released on ,arole rom im,risonment$ unless by his conduct he is not deser!ing o ,arole and thus he shall continue ser!ing his ,rison term in ail but in no case to go beyond the ma9imum term @9ed in the sentence.
n*eterminate Sentence Law (-..@) (arold was con!icted o a crime de@ned and ,enali3ed by a s,ecial ,enal law where the im,osable ,enalty is rom D months$ as minimum$ to F years$ as ma9imum. &tate with reasons whether the court may correctly im,ose the ollowing ,enalties8 a) a straight ,enalty o 1G months&455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ because the ,enalty is less than one year$ a straight ,enalty may be im,osed. :"eo,le !. %rellano$ 5..7o$ EDAG1$ *ctober A$ 1IFI) a. a straight ,enalty o 1G months%LT7%T' %7&W8 4nder the 'ndeterminate &entence Law$ the minimum im,osable ,enalty shall be im,osed but the ma9imum shall not e9ceed the ma9imum im,osable by law.
n*eterminate Sentence Law; E5ceptions (1999) 4nder what circumstances is the 'ndeterminate &entence Law not a,,licable# :2B) &455&T6 %7&W8 1)"ersons con!icted o ofenses ,unished with death ,enalty or lie im,risonment2) Those con!icted o treason$ cons,iracy or ,ro,osal to commit treasonF) Those con!icted o mis,rision o treason$ rebellion$ sedition or es,ionageE) Those con!icted o ,iracyA) Those who are habitual delinuentsD) Those who shall ha!e esca,ed rom con@nement or e!aded sentenceP) Those who !iolated the terms o conditional ,ardon granted to them by the Chie 9ecuti!eH) Those whose ma9imum term o im,risonment does not e9ceed one yearI) Those who$ u,on the a,,ro!al o the law :6ecember A$ 1IFF). had been sentenced by @nal udgment1G) Those sentenced to the ,enalty o destierro or sus,ension.
=. D months$ as minimum$ to 11 months$ as ma9imum&455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ because 'ndeterminate &entence Law does not a,,ly when the ,enalty im,osed is less than one year :&ec. 2$ %rt. E1GF$ as amended). C. a straight ,enalty o 2 years. :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ because the 'ndeterminate &entence Law will a,,ly when the minimum o the ,enalty e9ceeds one year. %LT7%T' %7&W. ' the im,osition o straight ,enalty which consists o the minimum ,eriod o the ,enalty ,rescribed by law$ then it may be allowed because it a!ors the accused.
n*eterminate Sentence Law; E5ceptions (-..) When would the 'ndeterminate &entence Law be ina,,licable# EB &455&T6 %7&W8 The 'ndeterminate &entence Law is not a,,licable to8 1) those ,ersons con!icted o ofenses ,unished with death ,enalty or lieM im,risonment or reclusion ,er,etua-
F) those con!icted o mis,rision o treason$ rebellion$ sedition or es,ionageE) those con!icted o ,iracyA) those who are habitual delinuentsD) those who shall ha!e esca,ed rom con@nement or e!aded sentenceP) those who ha!ing been granted conditional ,ardon by the Chie 9ecuti!e shall ha!e !iolated the terms thereoH) those whose ma9imum term o im,risonment does not e9ceed one yearI) those already sentenced by @nal /udgment at the time o a,,ro!al o this %ct- and 1G) those whose sentence im,oses ,enalties which do not in!ol!e im,risonment$ li0e destierro.
Penalties& /ine or mprisonment +s Su7si*iar' mprisonment (-..@) and ; are con!icted o a ,enal law that im,oses a ,enalty o @ne or im,risonment or both @ne and im,risonment. The /udge sentenced them to ,ay the @ne$ /ointly and se!erally$ with subsidiary im,risonment in case o insol!ency. 's the ,enalty ,ro,er# 9,lain. &455&T6 %7&W8 The ,enalty is not ,ro,er. The two accused must se,arately ,ay the @ne$ which is their ,enalty. &olidary liability a,,lies only to ci!il liabilities. %LT7%T' %7&W8 7*$ because in ,enal law when there are se!eral ofenders$ the court in the e9ercise o its discretion shall determine what shall be the share o each ofender de,ending u,on the degree o ,artici,ation U as ,rinci,al$ accom,lice or accessory. ' within each class o ofender$ there are more o them$ such as more than one ,rinci,al or more than one accom,lice or accessory$ the liability in each class o ofender shall be subsidiary. %nyone o the may be reuired to ,ay the ci!il liability ,ertaining to such ofender without ,re/udice to reco!ery rom those whose share ha!e been ,aid by another.
;ay the /udge im,ose an alternati!e ,enalty o @ne or im,risonment# 9,lain. :EB) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o. % @ne$ whether im,osed as a single or as an alternati!e ,enalty$ should not and cannot be reduced or con!erted into a ,rison term. There is no rule or transmutation o the amount o a @ne into a term o im,risonment. :"eo,le !. 6acuycuy$ 5.. 7o. LMEA12P ;ay A$ 1IHI)
Penalties& Pecuniar' Penalties +s Pecuniar' Lia7ilities (-..@) 6istinguish ,ecuniary ,enalties rom ,ecuniary liabilities. :2B) &455&T6 %7&W8
"ecuniary liabilities do not include restitution$ but include re,aration o damages caused$ the indemni@cation or conseuential damages$ as well as @nes and cost o the ,roceedings. "ecuniary ,enalties include @nes and cost o the ,roceedings.
,rision correccional and it is within the range o this ,enalty that the minimum should be ta0en.
Penalties; /actors to Consi*er (1991) 'magine that you are a udge trying a case$ and based on the e!idence ,resented and the a,,licable law$ you ha!e decided on the guilt o two :2) accused. 'ndicate the @!e :A) ste,s you would ollow to determine the e9act ,enalty to be im,osed. &tated diferently$ what are the actors you must consider to arri!e at the correct ,enalty#
Penalties; Comple5 Crime of Estafa (1992) % was con!icted o the com,le9 crime o estaa through alsi@cation o ,ublic document. &ince the amount 'n!ol!ed did not e9ceed "2GG.GG$ the ,enalty ,rescribed by law or estaa is arresto mayor in its medium and ma9imum ,eriods. The ,enalty ,rescribed by law or alsi@cation o ,ublic document is ,rision mayor ,lus @ne not to e9ceed "A$GGG.GG. 'm,ose the ,ro,er ,rison ,enalty. &455&T6 %7&W8 The ,ro,er ,enalty is %7+ %75 W'T('7 ,rision correccional :si9 :D) months and one :1) day to si9 :D) years) as ;'7';4;$ to %7+ %75 within ,rision mayor ma9imum :ten :1G) years and one :1) day to twel!e :12) years) as ;%O';4;. This is in accordance with "eo,le us$ 5on3ales$ PF "hil$ AEI$ where 't was ruled that or the ,ur,ose o determining the ,enalty ne9t lower in degree$ the ,enalty that should be considered as a starting ,oint is the whole o ,rision mayor$ it being the ,enalty ,rescribed by law$ and not ,rision mayor in its ma9imum ,eriod$ which is only the ,enalty actually a,,lied because o %rticle
&455&T6 %7&W8 the crime committed&tage o e9ecution and degree o ,artici,ation6etermine the ,enaltyConsider the modiying circumstances6etermine whether 'ndeterminate &entence Law is a,,licable or not.
Penalties; omici*e w Bo*if'ing Circumstance (199@) (omer was con!icted o homicide. The trial court a,,reciated the ollowing modiying circumstances8 the aggra!ating circumstance o nocturnity$ and the mitigating circumstances o ,assion and obuscation$ no intent to commit so gra!e a wrong$ illiteracy and !oluntary surrender. The im,osable ,enalty or homicide is reclusion tem,oral the range o which is twel!e :12) years and one :1) day to twenty :2G) years. Ta0ing into account the attendant aggra!ating and mitigating circumstances$ and a,,lying the 'ndeterminate &entence Law$ determine the ,ro,er ,enalty to be im,osed on the accused. &455&T6 %7&W8 't a,,ears that there is one aggra!ating circumstance :nocturnity)$ and our mitigating circumstances :,assion and obuscation$ no intent to commit so gra!e a wrong as that committed and !oluntary surrender). "ar. E$ %rt. DE should be a,,lied. (ence there will be ofMsetting o modiying circumstances$ which will now result in the e9cess o three mitigating circumstances. This will thereore /ustiy in reducing the ,enalty to the minimum ,eriod. The e9istence o an aggra!ating circumstance$ albeit there are our aggra!ating$ will not /ustiy the lowering o the ,enalty to the ne9t lower degree under ,aragra,h A o said %rticle$ as this is a,,licable only i T( '& 7* %55%%T'75 C'C4;&T%7C ,resent. &ince the crime committed is (omicide and the ,enalty thereor is reclusion tem,oral$ the ;%O';4; sentence under the 'ndeterminate &entence Law should be the minimum o the ,enalty$ which is 12 years and 1 day to 1E years and H months. The ;'7';4; ,enalty will thus be the ,enalty ne9t lower in degree$ which is ,rision mayor in its ull e9tent :D years and 1 day to 12 years). rgo$ the ,ro,er ,enalty would be D years and 1 day$ as minimum$ to 12 years and 1 day$ as ma9imum. ' belie!e that because o the remaining mitigating circumstances ater the ofMsetting it would be !ery logical to im,ose the minimum o the ;'7';4; sentence under the '&L and the minimum o the ;%O';4; sentence.
Penalties; Bitigating Circumstances wout "ggra+ating Circumstance (1992) %ssume in the ,receding ,roblem that there were two mitigating circumstances and no aggra!ating circumstance. 'm,ose the ,ro,er ,rison ,enalty. &455&T6 %7&W8 There being two :2) mitigating circumstances without any aggra!ating circumstance$ the ,ro,er ,rison ,enalty is arresto mayor :in any o its ,eriods$ ie. ranging rom one :1) month and one :1) day to si9 :D) months) as ;'7';4;
to ,rision correccional in its ma9imum ,eriod our :E) years$ two :2) months$ and one :1) day to si9 :D) years as ;%O';4;. 4nder %rt. DE$ ,ar. A o the e!ised "enal Code$ when a ,enalty contains three ,eriods$ each one o which orms a ,eriod in accordance with %rticle PD and PP o the same Code$ and there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggra!ating circumstances$ the ,enalty ne9t lower in degree should be im,osed. >or ,ur,oses o the 'ndeterminate &entence Law$ the ,enalty ne9t lower in degree should be determined without regard as to whether the basic ,enalty ,ro!ided by the e!ised "enal Code should be a,,lied in its ma9imum or minimum ,eriod as circumstances modiying liability may reuire. The ,enalty ne9t lower in degree to ,rision correccional. Thereore$ as ,re!iously stated$ the minimum should be within the range o arresto mayor and the ma9imum is within the range o ,rision correctional in its ma9imum ,eriod.
Penalties; Parrici*e w Bitigating Circumstance (1992) % and = ,leaded guilty to the crime o ,arricide. The court ound three mitigating circumstances$ namely$ ,lea o guilty$ lac0 o 'nstruction and lac0 o intent to commit so gra!e a wrong as that committed. The ,rescribed ,enalty or ,arricide is reclusion ,er,etua to death. 'm,ose the ,ro,er ,rinci,al ,enalty. &455&T6 %7&W8 The ,ro,er ,enalty is reclusion ,er,etua. !en i there are two or more mitigating circumstances$ a court cannot lower the ,enalty by one degree :%rt. DF. ,ar. F$ e!ised "enal Code- "eo,le !s. >ormigones$ HP "hil. DHA). 'n 4.&. !s. elador DG "hil. AIF$ where the crime committed was ,arricide with the two :2) mitigating circumstances o illiteracy and lac0 o intention to commit so gra!e a wrong$ and with no aggra!ating circumstance$ the &u,reme Court held that the ,ro,er$ ,enalty to be im,osed is reclusion ,er,etua.
4nder %rticle 2P o the e!ised "enal Code$ as amended by e,ublic %ct :%) 7o. PIAI$ reclusion ,er,etua shall be rom 2G years and 1 day to EG years. 6oes this mean that reclusion ,er,etua is now a di!isible ,enalty# 9,lain. :2B)
Penalties; Pre+enti+e mprisonment (199) When is there ,re!enti!e im,risonment# 2) When is the accused credited with the ull time o his ,re!enti!e im,risonment$ and when is he credited with E?A thereo# &455&T6 %7&W8 1) There is ,re!enti!e im,risonment when Ka) an ofender is detained while the criminal case against him is being heard$ either because the crime committed is a ca,ital ofense and not bailable$ or e!en i the crime committed was bailable$ the ofender could not ,ost the reuired bail or his ,ro!isional liberty. 2) %n accused is credited with the ull time o his ,re!enti!e im,risonment i he !oluntarily agreed in writing to abide by the rules o the institution im,osed u,on its ,risoners$ ,ro!ided that8 a) the ,enalty im,osed on him or the crime committed consists o a de,ri!ation o libertyb) he is not disuali@ed rom such credit or being a recidi!ist$ or or ha!ing been ,re!iously con!icted or two or more times o any crime$ or or ha!ing ailed to surrender !oluntarily or the e9ecution o the sentence u,on being so summoned :%rt. 2I$ "C). Where the accused howe!er did not agree he would only be credited with E?A o the time he had undergone ,re!enti!e im,risonment.
&455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ because the &u,reme Court has re,eatedly called the attention o the =ench and the =ar to the act that the ,enalties o reclusion ,er,etua and lie im,risonment are not synonymous and should be a,,lied correctly and as may be s,eci@ed by the a,,licable law. eclusion ,er,etua has a s,eci@c duration o 2G years and 1 day to EG years :%rt. 2P) and accessory ,enalties :%rt. E1)$ while lie im,risonment has no de@nite term or accessory ,enalties. %lso$ lie im,risonment is im,osable on crimes ,unished by s,ecial laws$ and not on elonies in the Code :"eo,le !s. 6e 5u3man$ 5.. 7os. A1FHAMHD$ an. 22$ 1IIF"eo,le !s. strella$ 5.. 7os. I2AGDMGP$ %,ril 2H$ 1IIF- "eo,le !s. %l!ero$ 5.. 7o. P2F1I$ une FG$1IIF- "eo,le !s. La,iroso$ 5.. 7o. 122AGP$ >eb. 2A$ 1III). Ksee Criminal Law Cons,ectus$ ,age 1AD
Penalties; %eclusion Perpetua +s Life mprisonment (199) 6iferentiate reclusion ,er,etua rom lie im,risonment. &455&T6 %7&W8 CL4&'*7 ""T4% is that ,enalty ,ro!ided or in the e!ised "enal Code or crimes de@ned in and ,enali3ed therein e9ce,t or some crimes de@ned by s,ecial laws which im,ose reclusion ,er,etua$ such as !iolations o e,ublic %ct DE2A$ as amended by e,ublic %ct PDAI or o "6 1HDGwhile L'> ';"'&*7;7T is a ,enalty usually ,ro!ided or in s,ecial laws. eclusion ,er,etua has a duration o twenty :2G) years and one :1) day to orty KEG years under e,ublic %ct PDAI$ while lie im,risonment has no durationreclusion ,er,etua may be reduced by one or two degrees- reclusion ,er,etuates accessory ,enalties while lie im,risonment does not ha!e any
accessory ,enalties :"eo,le !s. =aguio$ 1ID &C% EAI$ "eo,le !s. "anellos$ 2GA &C% AED).
Penalties; %eclusion Perpetua +s Life mprisonment (-..1) %ter trial$ udge uan Laya o the ;anila TC ound =en/amin 5arcia guilty o ;urder$ the !ictim ha!ing sustained se!eral bullet wounds in his body so that he died des,ite medical assistance gi!en in the *s,ital ng ;anila. =ecause the wea,on used by =en/amin was unlicensed and the ualiying circumstance o treachery was ound to be ,resent. udge Laya rendered his decision con!icting =en/amin and sentencing him to
Pro7ation Law& Proper Perio* (-..@) ;aganda was charged with !iolation o the =ouncing Chec0s Law :=" 22) ,unishable by im,risonment o not less than FG days but not more than 1 year or a @ne o not less than but not more than double the amount o the chec0$ which @ne shall not e9ceed "2GG$GGG.GG$ or both. The court con!icted her o the crime and sentenced her to ,ay a @ne o "AG$GGG.GG with subsidiary im,risonment in case o insol!ency$ and to ,ay the ,ri!ate com,lainant the amount o the chec0. ;aganda was unable to ,ay the @ne but @led a ,etition or ,robation The court granted the ,etition sub/ect to the condition among
others$ that she should not change her residence without the courtVs ,rior a,,ro!al. a) What is the ,ro,er ,eriod o ,robation# &455&T6 %7&W8 The ,eriod shall not be l ess than twice the total number o days o subsidiary im,risonment. 4nder %ct 7o. 1PF2$ subsidiary im,risonment or !iolations o s,ecial laws shall not e9ceed D months at the rate o one day o im,risonment or e!ery >2.AG. (ence$ the ,ro,er ,eriod o ,robation should not be less than :D months nor more than 12 months. &ince "AG$GGG.GG @ne is more than the ma9imum subsidiary im,risonment o D months at "2.AG a day. b) &u,,osing beore the *rder o 6ischarge was issued by the court but ater the la,se o the ,eriod o ,robation$ ;aganda transerred residence without ,rior a,,ro!al o the court. ;ay the court re!o0e the *rder o "robation and order her to ser!e the subsidiary im,risonment# 9,lain. &455&T6 %7&W8 +es. The Court may re!o0e her ,robation. "robation is not coterminous with its ,eriod. There must @rst be issued by the court an order o @nal discharge based on the re,ort and recommendation o the ,robation oQcer. *nly then can the case o the ,robationer be terminated. :=ala !. ;artine3$ 5.. 7o. DPFG1$ anuary 2I$ 1IIG$ citing &ec. 1D o ".6. 7o. IDH)
Pro7ation Law; 8arre* 7' "ppeal (199) *n >ebruary F$ 1IHD$ oberto was con!icted o arson through rec0less im,rudence and sentenced to ,ay a @ne o "1A$GGG.GG$ with subsidiary im,risonment in case o insol!ency by the egional Trial Court o ue3on City. *n >ebruary 1G$ 1IHD$ he a,,ealed to the Court o %,,eals. &e!eral months later$ he @led a motion to withdraw the a,,eal on the ground that he is a,,lying or ,robation. *n ;ay P$ 1IHP$ the Court o %,,eals granted the motion and considered the a,,eal withdrawn. *n une 1G$ 1IHP$ the records o the case were remanded to the trial court. oberto @led a <;otion or "robation< ,raying that e9ecution o his sentence be sus,ended$ and that a ,robation oQcer be ordered to conduct an 'n!estigation and to submit a re,ort on his ,robation. The /udge denied the motion on the ground that ,ursuant to "residential 6ecree 7o. 1IIG$ which too0 efect on uly 1D$1IHD$ no a,,lication or ,robation shall be entertained or granted i the deendant has ,erected an a,,eal rom the /udgment o con!iction. 's the denial o obertoJs motion correct# &455&T6 %7&W8 +es. !en i at the time o his con!iction oberto was uali@ed or ,robation but that at the time o his a,,lication or ,robation$ he is no longer uali@ed$ he is
not entitled to ,robation. The uali@cation or,robation must be determined as o the time the a,,lication is @led in Court : "robation Law- =arred by %,,eal :2GG1) %$ a subdi!ision de!elo,er$ was con!icted by the TC o ;a0ati or ailure to issue the subdi!ision title to a lot buyer des,ite ull ,ayment o the lot$ and sentenced to sufer one year 'm,risonment. % a,,ealed the decision o the TC to the Court o %,,eals but his a,,eal was dismissed. ;ay % still a,,ly or ,robation# 9,lain. :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ % is no longer uali@ed to a,,ly or ,robation ater he a,,ealed rom the /udgment o con!iction by the TC. The ,robation law :"6 IDH$ as amended by "61IIG) now ,ro!ides that no a,,lication or ,robation shall be entertained or granted i the accused has ,erected an a,,eal rom the / udgment o con!iction :&ec. E$ "6 IDH). Pro7ation Law; Ba5imum erm +s otal erm (1992) The accused was ound guilty o gra!e oral deamation in si9teen :1D) inormations which were tried /ointly and was sentenced in one decision to sufer in each case a ,rison term o one :1) year and one :1) day to one :1) year and eight :H) months o ,rision correccional. Within the ,eriod to a,,eal$ he @led an a,,lication or ,robation under the "robation Law o 1IPD$ as amended. Could he ,ossibly ualiy or ,robation# &455&T6 %7&W8 +es. 'n >rancisco !s. Court o % ,,eals$ 2EF &C% FHE$ the &u,reme Court held that in case o one decision im,osing multi,le ,rison terms$ the totality o the ,rison terms should not be ta0en into account or the ,ur,oses o determining the eligibility o the accused or the ,robation. The law uses the word
Pro7ation Law; 0r*er !en'ing Pro7ation; #ot "ppeala7le (-..-) % was charged with homicide. %ter trial$ he was ound guilty and sentenced to si9 :D) years and one :1) day in ,rision mayor$ as mi nimum$ to twel!e :12) years and one :1) day o reclusion tem,oral$ as ma9imum. "rior to his con!iction$ he had been ound guilty o !agrancy and im,risoned or ten :1G) days o arresto manor and @ned @ty ,esos :"AG.GG). 's he eligible or ,robation# Why# :FB) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ he is not entitled to the bene@ts o the "robation Law :"6 IDH$ as amended) does not e9tend to those sentenced to ser!e a ma9imum term o im,risonment o more than si9 years :&ec. Ia). 't is o no moment that in his ,re!ious con!iction % was gi!en a ,enalty o only ten :1G) days o arresto mayor and a @ne o "AG.GG. =. ;ay a ,robationer a,,eal rom the decision re!o0ing the grant o ,robation or modiying the terms and conditions thereo# :2B) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o. 4nder &ection E o the "robation Law$ as amended$ an order granting or denying ,robation is not a,,ealable.
Pro7ation Law; Perio* Co+ere* (-..) "O was con!icted and sentenced to im,risonment o thirty days and a @ne o one hundred ,esos. "re!iously$ "O was con!icted o another crime or which the ,enalty im,osed on him was thirty days only. 's "O entitled to ,robation# 9,lain briey. :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ "O may a,,ly or ,robation. (is ,re!ious con!iction or another crime with a ,enalty o thirty days im,risonment or not e9ceeding one :1) month does not disualiy him rom a,,lying or ,robation- the ,enalty or his ,resent con!iction does not disualiy him either rom a,,lying or ,robation$ since the im,risonment does not e9ceed si9 :D) years :&ec. I$ "res. 6ecree 7o. IDH).
Pro7ation Law; %ight; 8arre* 7' "ppeal (199@) 'n a case or !iolation o &ec. H$ % DE2A$ otherwise 0nown as the 6angerous 6rugs %ct$ accused incent was gi!en the bene@t o the mitigating circumstances o !oluntary ,lea o guilt and drun0enness not otherwise habitual. (e was sentenced to sufer a ,enalty o si9 :D) years and one :1) day and to ,ay a @ne o "D$GGG.GG with the accessory ,enalties ,ro!ided by law$ ,lus costs. incent a,,lied or ,robation. The ,robation oQcer a!orably recommended his a,,lication. ' you were the udge$ what action will you ta0e on the a,,lication# 6iscuss ully. &u,,ose that incent was con!icted o a crime or which he was sentenced to a ma9imum ,enalty o ten :1G) years. 4nder the law$ he is not eligible or ,robation. (e seasonably a,,ealed his con!iction. While aQrming the /udgment o con!iction$ the a,,ellate court reduced the ,enalty to a ma9imum o our :E) years and our :E) months ta0ing into consideration certain modiying circumstances. incent now a,,lies or ,robation. (ow will you rule on his a,,lication# 6iscuss ully. &455&T6 %7&W8 1. ' ' were the /udge$ ' will deny the a,,lication or ,robation. The accused is not entitled to ,robation as &ec. I o the "robation Law$ "6 7*. IDH$ as amended$ s,eci@cally mentions that those who rancisco !s. C%8 Llamado !s. C%- 6e la Cru3 !s. udge Calle/o$ C% case). This is the second consecuti!e year that this uestion was as0ed. 't is the sincere belie o the Committeethat there is a need to reMe9amine the doctrine. >irstly$ much as the accused wanted to a,,ly or ,robation he is ,roscribed rom doing so as the ma9imum ,enalty is 7*T "*=%T'*7%=L. &econdly$ when the ma9imum ,enalty was reduced to one which allows ,robation it is but air and /ust to grant him that right because it is a,,arent that the trial /udge committed an error and or which the accused should not be made to sufer. udicial tribunals in this /urisdiction are not only courts o law but also o euity. Thirdly$ the /udgment o the a,,ellate court should be considered a new decision as the trial courtJs decision was !acatedhence$ he could ta0e ad!antage o the law when the decision is remanded to the trial court or e9ecution :"lease see 6issenting o,inion in >rancisco !s. C%). 't is suggested$ thereore$ that an e9aminee answering in this tenor should be credited with some ,oints.
Pro7ation Law; %ight; 8arre* 7' "ppeal (-..) uan was con!icted o the egional Trial Court o a crime and sentenced to sufer the ,enalty o im,risonment or a minimum o eight years. (e a,,ealed both his con!iction and the ,enalty im,osed u,on him to the Court o %,,eals. The a,,ellate court ultimately sustained uanJs con!iction but reduced his sentence to a ma9imum o our years and eight months im,risonment. Could uan orthwith @le an a,,lication or ,robation# 9,lain. HB &455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ uan can no longer a!ail o the ,robation because he a,,ealed rom the /udgment o con!iction o the trial court$ and thereore$ cannot a,,ly or ,robation anymore. &ection E o the "robation Law$ as amended$ mandates that no a,,lication or ,robation shall be entertained or granted i the accused has ,erected an a,,eal rom the /udgment o con!iction.
Suspension of Sentence; "*ultsBinors (-..6) There are at least P instances or situations in criminal cases wherein the accused$ either as an adult or as a minor$ can a,,ly or and?or be granted a sus,ended sentence. numerate at least A o them. :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 1. &us,ension o sentence o minor under ".6. DGF as amended by .%. IFEE. 2. &us,ension o sentence o minor abo!e 1A but below 1H years o age at the time o trial under .%. IFEE. F. &us,ension o sentence o minor abo!e 1A but below 1H years o age at the commission o the ofense$ while acting with discernment. E. &us,ension o sentence by reason o insanity :%rt. PI$ e!ised "enal Code). A. &us,ension o sentence or @rst ofense o a minor !iolating . I1DA. :&ec. F2) D. &us,ension o sentence under the ,robation law. :".6. IDH) P. &us,ension o death sentence o a ,regnant woman. :%rt. HF$ e!ised "enal Code) :7*T% =78 .%. IFEE is outside the co!erage o the e9amination)
Suspension of Sentence; Binors (-..) % was 2 months below 1H years o age when he committed the crime. (e was charged with the crime F months later. (e was 2F when he was @nally con!icted and sentenced. 'nstead o ,re,aring to ser!e a /ail term$ he sought a sus,ension o the sentence on the ground that he was a /u!enile ofender &hould he be entitled to a sus,ension o sentence# easons. EB &455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ % is not entitled to a sus,ension o the sentence because he is no longer a minor at the time o ,romulgation o the sentence. >or ,ur,oses o sus,ension o sentence$ the ofenderJs age at the time o ,romulgation o the sentence is the one considered$ not his age when he committed the crime. &o although % was below 1H years old when he committed the crime$ but he was already 2F years old when sentenced$ he is no longer eligible or sus,ension o the sentence. Can /u!enile ofenders$ who are recidi!ists$ !alidly as0 or sus,ension o sentence# 9,lain. EB &455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ so long as the ofender is still a minor at the time o the ,romulgation o the sentence. The law establishing >amily Courts$ e,. %ct HFDI$ ,ro!ides to this efect8 that i the minor is ound guilty$ the court should ,romulgate the sentence and ascertain any ci!il liability which the accused may ha!e incurred. (owe!er$ the sentence shall be sus,ended without the need o a,,lication ,ursuant to "6 DGF$ otherwise 0nown as the
Suspension of Sentence; Mouthful 0Ken*er (199@)
ictor$ ic0y$ od and onnie went to the store o ;ang "andoy. ictor and ic0y entered the store while od and onnie ,osted themsel!es at the door. %ter ordering beer ic0y com,lained that he was shortchanged although ;ang "andoy !ehemently denied it. &uddenly ic0y whi,,ed out a 0nie as he announced <(oldMu, ito< and stabbed ;ang "andoy to death. od bo9ed the storeJs salesgirl Lucy to ,re!ent her rom hel,ing ;ang "andoy. When Lucy ran out o the store to see0 hel, rom ,eo,le ne9t door she was chased by onnie. %s soon as ic0y had stabbed ;ang "andoy$ ictor scoo,ed u, the money rom the cash bo9. Then ictor and ic0y dashed to the street and shouted$ C K"eo,le !s. 5alit. 2FG &C% EHD).
E5tinction of Criminal Lia7ilit' "mnest' +s P! 116. (-..6) Can ormer 6&W6 &ecretary 6in0y &oliman a,,ly or amnesty# (ow about columnist andy 6a!id# :+ou are su,,osed to 0now the crimes or ofenses ascribed to them as ,ublished in almost all news,a,ers or the ,ast se!eral months.) :2.AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 "roclamation 11DG$ which amended "roclamation P2E$ a,,lies only to ofenses committed ,rior to 1III. Thus$ their a,,lications shall be inefectual and useless. 5eneral Lim and 5eneral uerubin o the &cout angers and "hili,,ine ;arines$ res,ecti!ely$ were changed with conduct unbecoming an oQcer and a gentleman under the %rticles o War. Can they a,,ly or amnesty# :2.AB)
"mnest'; Crimes Co+ere* (-..6) 4nder "residential "roclamation 7o. P2E$ amending "residential "roclamation 7o. FEP$ certain crimes are co!ered by the grant o amnesty. 7ame at least A o these crimes. :2.AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 Crimes co!ered under "residential "roclamation 7o. P2E8 1. Cou, dJetat$ 2. ebellion or insurrectionF. 6isloyalty o ,ublic oQcers or em,loyeesE. 'nciting to rebellion or insurrectionA. Cons,iracy to commit rebellion or insurrectionD. "ro,osal to commit rebellion or insurrectionP. &editionH. Cons,iracy to commit seditionI. 'nciting to sedition1G. 'llegal %ssembly11. 'llegal %ssociation12. 6irect %ssault1F. 'ndirect %ssault1E. esistance and disobedience to a ,erson in authority1A. Tumults and other disturbances1D. 4nlawul use o means o ,ublications and unlawul utterrances1P. %larm and scandal1H. 'llegal "ossession o @rearms.
&455&T6 %7&W8 "roclamation 11DG$ which amended "roclamation P2E$ a,,lies only to ofenses committed ,rior to 1III. Thus$ their a,,lications shall be inefectual and useless. E5tinction; Criminal H Ci+il Lia7ilities; EKects; !eath of accuse* pen*ing appeal (-..) %O was con!icted o rec0less im,rudence resulting in homicide. The trial court sentenced him to a ,rison term as well as to ,ay "1AG$GGG as ci!il indemnity and damages. While his a,,eal was ,ending$ %O met a atal accident. (e let a young widow$ 2 children$ and a millionM,eso estate. What is the efect$ i any$ o his death on his criminal as well as ci!il liability# 9,lain briey. :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 The death o %O while his a,,eal rom the /udgment o the trial court is ,ending$ e9tinguishes his criminal liability. The ci!il liability insoar as it arises rom the
indemnity and damages may be reco!ered in a ci!il action i ,redicated on a source o obligation under %rt. 11AP$ Ci!il Code$ such as law$ contracts$ uasiM contracts and uasiMdelicts$ but not on the basis o delicts. :"eo,le !. =ayotas$ 2FD &C% 2FI ). Ci!il indemnity and damages under the e!ised "enal Code are reco!erable only i the accused had been con!icted with @nality beore he died.
Par*on +s "mnest' (-..6) numerate the diferences between ,ardon and amnesty. :2.AB)
E5tinction; Criminal H Ci+il Lia7ilities; EKects; !eath of 0Ken*e* Part' (-...) >or derauding Lorna$ %lma was charged beore the ;unici,al Trial Court o ;alolos$ =ulacan. %ter a ,rotracted trial$ %lma was con!icted. While the case was ,ending a,,eal in the egional Trial Court o the same ,ro!ince$ Lorna who was then sufering rom breast cancer$ died. %lma maniested to the court that with LornaJs death$ her :%lmaJs) criminal and ci!il liabilities are now e9tinguished. 's %lmaJs contention correct# What i it were %lma who died$ would it afect her criminal and ci!il liabilities# 9,lain. :FB) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o. %lmaJs contention is not correct. The death o the ofended ,arty does not e9tinguish the criminal liability o the ofender$ because the ofense is committed against the &tate K"eo,le !s. ;isola$ HP "hil. HFG$ HFF). (ence$ it ollows that the ci!il liability o %lma based on the ofense committed by her is not e9tinguished. The estate o Lorna can continue the case. *n the other hand$ i it were %lma who died ,ending a,,eal o her con!iction$ her criminal liability shall be e9tinguished and therewith the ci!il liability under the e!ised "enal Code :%rt. HI$ ,ar. 1$ "C). (owe!er$ the claim or ci!il indemnity may be instituted under the Ci!il Code :%rt. 11AP) i ,redicated on a source o obligation other than delict$ such as law$ contracts$ uasiMcontracts and uasiMdelicts.
&455&T6 %7&W8 a) "%6*7 includes any crime and is e9ercised indi!idually by the "resident$ while %;7&T+ a,,lies to classes o ,ersons or communities who may be guilty o ,olitical ofenses. b) "%6*7 is e9ercised when the ,erson is already con!icted$ while %;7&T+ may be e9ercised e!en beore trial or in!estigation. c) "%6*7 loo0s orward and relie!es the ofender o the ,enalty o the ofense or which he has been con!icted- it does not wor0 or the restoration o the rights to hold ,ublic oQce$ or the right o sufrage$ unless such rights are e9,ressly restored by means o ,ardon$ while %;7&T+ loo0s bac0ward and abolishes the ofense and its efects$ as i the ,erson had committed no ofense. d) "%6*7 does not alter the act that the accused is criminally liable as it ,roduces only the e9tinction o the ,enalty$ while %;7&T+ remo!es the criminal liability o the ofender because it obliterates e!ery !estige o the crime. e) "%6*7 being a ,ri!ate act by the "resident$ must be ,leaded and ,ro!ed by the ,erson ,ardoned$ while %;7&T+ which is a "roclamation o the Chie 9ecuti!e with the concurrence o Congress is a ,ublic act o which the courts should ta0e /udicial notice.
Par*on; EKect; Ci+il nter*iction (-..) T+ was sentenced to death by @nal /udgment. =ut subseuently he was granted ,ardon by the "resident. The ,ardon was silent on the ,er,etual disuali@cation o T+ to hold any ,ublic oQce. %ter his ,ardon$ T+ ran or oQce as ;ayor o %""$ his hometown. (is o,,onent sought to disualiy him.
T+ contended he is not disuali@ed because he was already ,ardoned by the "resident unconditionally. 's T+J& contention correct# eason briey. :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ T+Js contention is not correct. %rticle EG o the e!ised "enal Code e9,ressly ,ro!ides that when the death ,enalty is not e9ecuted by reason o commutation or ,ardon$ the accessory ,enalties o ,er,etual absolute disuali@cation and ci!il interdiction during thirty :FG) years rom the date o the sentence shall remain as efects thereo$ unless such accessory ,enalties ha!e been e9,ressly remitted in the ,ardon. This is because ,ardon only e9cuses the con!ict rom ser!ing the sentence but does not relie!e him o the efects o the con!iction unless e9,ressly remitted in the ,ardon.
Par*on; EKect; %einstatement (199) Linda was con!icted by the &andiganbayan o estaa$ through alsi@cation o ,ublic document. &he was sentenced accordingly and ordered to ,ay$ among others$ "A$GGG.GG re,resenting the balance o the amount derauded. The case reached the &u,reme Court which aQrmed the /udgment o con!iction. 6uring the ,endency o LindaJs motion or reconsideration in the said Court$ the "resident e9tended to her an absolute ,ardon which she acce,ted. =y reason o such ,ardon$ she wrote the 6e,artment o >inance reuesting that she be restored to her ormer ,ost as assistant treasurer$ which is still !acant. The 6e,artment ruled that Linda may be reinstated to her ormer ,osition without the necessity o a new a,,ointment and directed the City Treasurer to see to it that the sum o "A$GGG.GG be satis@ed. Claiming that she should not be made to ,ay "A$GGG.GG$ Linda a,,ealed to the *Qce o the "resident. The *Qce o the "resident dismissed the a,,eal and held that acuittal$ not absolute ,ardon. 's the only ground or reinstatement to oneJs ormer ,osition and that the absolute ,ardon does not e9em,t the cul,rit rom ,ayment o ci!il liability. 's Linda entitled to reinstatement#
&455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to her ormer ,osition inasmuch as her right thereto had been relinuished or oreited by reason o her con!iction. The absolute ,ardon merely e9tinguished her criminal liability$ remo!ed her disuali@cation$ and restored her eligibility or a,,ointment to that oQce. &he has to reMa,,ly or such ,osition and under the usual ,rocedure reuired or a new a,,ointment. ;oreo!er$ the ,ardon does not e9tinguish the ci!il liability arising rom the crime. :;onsanto !s.>actoran$ r.$ 1PG &C% 1I1)- see %rt. FD$ "C)
oe and ;arcy were married in =atanes in 1IAA. %ter two years$ oe let ;arcy and settled in ;indanao where he later met and married Linda on 12 une 1IDG. The second marriage was registered in the ci!il registry o 6a!ao City three days ater its celebration. *n 1G *ctober 1IPA ;arcy who remained in =atanes disco!ered the marriage o oe to Linda. *n 1 ;arch 1IPD ;arcy @led a com,laint or bigamy against oe. The crime o bigamy ,rescribed in @teen years com,uted rom the day the crime is disco!ered by the ofended ,arty$ the authorities or their agents. oe raised the deense o ,rescri,tion o the crime$ more than @teen years ha!ing ela,sed rom the celebration o the bigamous marriage u, to the @ling o ;arcyJs com,laint. (e contended that the registration o his second marriage in the ci!il registry o 6a!ao City was constructi!e notice to the whole world o the celebration thereo thus binding u,on ;arcy. (as the crime o bigamy charged against oe already ,rescribed# 6iscuss ully$ &455&T6 %7&W8 7o. The ,rescri,ti!e ,eriod or the crime o bigamy is com,uted rom the time the crime was disco!ered by the ofended ,arty$ the authorities or their agents. The ,rinci,le o constructi!e notice which ordinarily a,,lies to land or ,ro,erty dis,utes should not be a,,lied to the crime o bigamy$ as marriage is not ,ro,erty. Thus when ;arcy @led a com,laint or bigamy on P ;arch 1IPD$ it was well within the reglamentary ,eriod as it was barely a ew months rom the time o disco!ery on 1G *ctober 1IPA.
Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (-...) *ne ateul night in anuary 1IIG$ while AMyear old %lbert was urinating at the bac0 o their house$ he heard a strange noise coming rom the 0itchen o their neighbor and ,laymate$ %ra. When he ,ee,ed inside$ he saw ;ina$ %raJs ste,mother$ !ery angry and strangling the AMyear old %ra to death. %lbert saw ;ina carry the dead body o %ra$ ,lace it inside the trun0 o her car and dri!e away. The dead body o %ra was ne!er ound. ;ina s,read the news in the neighborhood that %ra went to li!e with her grand,arents in *rmoc City. >or ear o his lie$ %lbert did not tell anyone$ e!en his ,arents and relati!es$ about what he witnessed. Twenty and a hal :2G N 1?2) years ater the incident$ and right ater his graduation in Criminology$ %lbert re,orted the crime to 7=' authorities. The
crime o homicide ,rescribes in 2G years. Can the state still ,rosecute ;ina or the death o %ra des,ite the la,se o 2G N 1?2 years# 9,lain$ :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ the &tate can still ,rosecute ;ina or the death o %ra des,ite the la,se o 2G N 1?2 years. 4nder %rticle I1$ "C$ the ,eriod o ,rescri,tion commences to run rom the day on which the crime is disco!ered by the ofended ,arty$ the authorities or their agents. 'n the case at bar$ the commission o the crime was 0nown only to %lbert$ who was not the ofended ,arty nor an authority or an agent o an authority. 't was disco!ered by the 7=' authorities only when %lbert re!ealed to them the commission o the crime. (ence$ the ,eriod o ,rescri,tion o 2G years or homicide commenced to run only rom the time %lbert re!ealed the same to the 7=' authorities.
Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (-..) *W is a ,ri!ate ,erson engaged in cattle ranching. *ne night$ he saw %; stab C treacherously$ then throw the dead manJs body into a ra!ine. >or 2A years$ Cs body was ne!er seen nor ound- and *W told no one what he had witnessed. +esterday ater consulting the ,arish ,riest$ *W decided to tell the authorities what he witnessed$ and re!ealed that %; had 0illed C 2A years ago. Can %; be ,rosecuted or murder des,ite the la,se o 2A years# eason briey. :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ %; can be ,rosecuted or murder des,ite the la,se o 2A years$ because the crime has not yet ,rescribed and legally$ its ,rescri,ti!e ,eriod has not e!en commenced to run. The ,eriod o ,rescri,tion o a crime shall commence to run only rom the day on which the crime has been disco!ered by the ofended ,arty$ the authorities or their agents :%rt. I1$ e!ised "enal Code). *W$ a ,ri!ate ,erson who saw the 0illing but ne!er disclosed it$ is not the ofended ,arty nor has the crime been disco!ered by the authorities or their agents.
time he testi@ed that his @rst testimony was alse and the truth was he was abroad when the crime too0 ,lace. The /udge immediately ordered the ,rosecution o %ndrew or gi!ing a alse testimony a!orable to the deendant in a criminal case. Will the case against %ndrew ,ros,er# "aolo was acuitted. The decision became @nal on anuary 1G$ 1IHP. *n une 1H$ 1IIE a case o gi!ing alse testimony was @led against %ndrew. %s his lawyer$ what legal ste, will you ta0e# Prescription of Crimes; Concu7inage (-..1) *n une 1$ 1IHH$ a com,laint or concubinage committed in >ebruary 1IHP was @led against oberto in the ;unici,al Trial Court o Tan3a$ Ca!ite or ,ur,oses o ,reliminary in!estigation. >or !arious reasons$ it was only on uly F$ 1IIH when the udge o said court decided the case by dismissing it or lac0 o /urisdiction since the crime was committed in ;anila. The case was subseuently @led with the City >iscal o ;anila but it was dismissed on the ground that the crime had already ,rescribed. The law ,ro!ides that the crime o concubinage ,rescribes in ten :1G) years. Was the dismissal by the @scal correct# 9,lain$ :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 7o$ the >iscalJs dismissal o the case on alleged ,rescri,tion is not correct. The @ling o the com,laint with the ;unici,al Trial Court$ although only or ,reliminary in!estigation$ interru,ted and sus,ended the ,eriod o ,rescri,tion in as much as the /urisdiction o a court in a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the com,laint or inormation$ not by the result o ,roo. :"eo,le !s. 5alano. PA &C% 1IF)
Prescription of Crimes; /alse estimon' (199) "aolo was charged with homicide beore the egional Trial Court o ;anila. %ndrew$ a ,rosecution witness$ testi@ed that he saw "aolo shoot %bby during their heated argument. While the case is still ,ending$ the City (all o ;anila burned down and the entire records o the case were destroyed. Later$ the
&455&T6 %7&W8 1) +es. ... 2) %s lawyer o %ndrew$ ' will @le a motion to uash the 'normation on the ground o ,rescri,tion. The crime o alse testimony under %rt. 1HG has ,rescribed because "aolo$ the accused in the ,rinci,al case$ was acuitted on anuary 1G$ 1IHP and thereore the ,enalty ,rescribed or such crime is arresto mayor under %rt. 1HG$ ,ar. E$ "C. Crimes ,unishable by arresto mayor ,rescribes in @!e :A) years :%rt. IG$ ,ar. F$ "C). =ut the case against %ndrew was @led only on une 1H$ 1IIE$ whereas the ,rinci,al criminal case was decided with @nality on anuary 1G$ 1IHP and$ thence the ,rescri,ti!e ,eriod o the crime commenced to run. >rom anuary 1G$ 1IHP to une 1H$ 1IIE is more than @!e :A) years.
Prescription of Crimes; Simple Slan*er (1992) % was charged in an inormation with the crime o gra!e oral deamation but ater trial$ the court ound him guilty only o the ofense o sim,le slander. (e @led a motion or reconsideration contending that$ under the law$ the crime o sim,le slander would ha!e ,rescribed in two months rom commission$ and since the inormation against him was @led more than our months ater the alleged commission o the crime$ the same had already ,rescribed. The &olicitor 5eneral o,,osed the motion on two grounds8 @rst$ in determining the ,rescri,ti!e ,eriod$ the nature o the ofense charged in the 'normation should be considered$ not the crime ,ro!ed- second$ assuming that the ofense had already ,rescribed$ the deense was wai!ed by the ailure o % to raise it in a motion to uash. esol!e the motion or reconsideration. &455&T6 %7&W8 The motion or reconsideration should be granted.M a) The accused cannot be con!icted o the ofense o sim,le slander although it
inormation$ because$ the lesser ofense had already ,rescribed at the time the inormation was @led :"eo,le us. arang$ :C%) D2 *.5. DEDH- >rancisco !s. C%$ 122 &C% AFH- ;agat !s. "eo,le. 2G1 &C% 21) otherwise ,rosecutors can easily circum!ent the rule o ,rescri,tion in light ofenses by the sim,le e9,ediment o @ling a gra!er ofense which includes such light ofense. b) While the general rule is the ailure o an accused to @le a motion to uash beore he ,leads to the com,laint or inormation$ shall be deemed a wai!er o the grounds o a motion to uash$ the e9ce,tions to this are8 :1) no ofense was charged in the com,laint or inormation- :2) lac0 o urisdiction- :F) e9tinction o the ofense or ,enalty- and :E) double /eo,ardy. &ince the ground in!o0ed by the accused in his motion or reconsideration is e9tinction o the ofense$ then it can be raised e!en ater ,lea. 'n act$ it may e!en be in!o0ed on a,,eal :"eo,le !s. =alagtas)
Ci+il lia7ilit'; EKect of "cDuittal (-...) 7ame at least two e9ce,tions to the general rule that in case o acuittal o the accused in a criminal case$ his ci!il liability is li0ewise e9tinguished. :2B) &455&T6 %7&W8 9ce,tions to the rule that acuittal rom a criminal case e9tinguishes ci!il liability$ are8 1) When the ci!il action is based on obligations not arising rom the act com,lained o as a elony2) When acuittal is based on reasonable doubt or acuittal is on the ground that guilt has not been ,ro!en beyond reasonable doubt :%rt. 2I$ 7ew Ci!il Code)F) %cuittal due to an e9em,ting circumstance$ li0e 'nsanityE) Where the court states in its udgment that 1. the case merely in!ol!es a ci!il obligationA) Where there was a ,ro,er reser!ation or the @ling o a se,arate ci!il actionD) 'n cases o inde,endent ci!il actions ,ro!ided or in %rts. F1$ F2$ FF and FE o the 7ew Ci!il CodeP) When the /udgment o acuittal includes a declaration that the act rom which the ci!il liability might arise did not e9ist H) Where the ci!il liability is not deri!ed or based on the criminal act o which the accused is acuitted
Ci+il lia7ilit'; EKect of "cDuittal (-...) % was a 1PMyear old wor0ing student who was earning his 0ee, as a cigarette !endor. = was dri!ing a car along busy s,ana &treet at about P8GG ,.m. =eside = was C. The car sto,,ed at an intersection because o the red signal o the traQc light. While waiting or the green signal$ C bec0oned % to buy some cigarettes. % a,,roached the car and handed two stic0s o cigarettes to C. While the transaction was ta0ing ,lace$ the traQc light changed to green and the car immediately s,ed of. %s the car continued to s,eed towards uia,o$ % clung to the window o the car but lost his gri, and ell down on the ,a!ement. The car did not sto,. % sufered serious in/uries which e!entually caused his death. C was charged with *==+ with (*;'C'6. 'n the end$ the Court was not con!inced with moral certainty that the guilt o C has been established beyond reasonable doubt and$ thus$ acuitted him on the ground o reasonable doubt. Can the amily o the !ictim still reco!er ci!il damages in !iew o the acuittal o C# 9,lain. :AB) &455&T6 %7&W8 +es$ as against C$ %Js amily can still reco!er ci!il damages des,ite CJs acuittal. When the accused in a criminal ,rosecution is acuitted on the ground that his guilt has not been ,ro!ed beyond reasonable doubt$ a ci!il action or damages or the same act or omission may be instituted. &uch action reuires only a ,re,onderance o e!idence X%rt. 2I$ CC). ' %Js amily can ,ro!e the negligence o = by ,re,onderance o e!idence$ the ci!il action or damages against = will ,ros,er based on uasiMdelict. Whoe!er by act or omission causes damage to another$ there being ault or negligence$ is obliged to ,ay or the damage done. &uch ault or negligence$ about ,ree9isting contractual relation between the ,arties$ is called a uasiMdelict K%rt. 21PD$ CC). This is entirely se,arate and distinct rom ci!il liability arising rom negligence under the "enal Code K%rts$ F1$ 21PD$ 21PP$ CC}.
Ci+il Lia7ilit'; Su7si*iar'; Emplo'ers (1994) 5uy$ while dri!ing a ,assenger /ee,ney owned and o,erated by ;a9$ bum,ed 6emy$ a ,edestrian crossing the street. 6emy sustained in/uries which reuired medical attendance or three months. 5uy was charged with rec0less im,rudence resulting to ,hysical in/uries. Con!icted by the ;etro,olitan Trial Court. 5uy was sentenced to sufer a straight ,enalty o three months o arresto
