am+dg Dear fellow student, hello. This reviewer is sourced from Boado’s book, some stuff from Reyes, Glenn Tuazon’s notes, Justice Callejo’s lectures and recitations, and case doctrines. Enjoy. And no stamping please!
•
•
• • •
•
Fundamental Principles Criminal law is that branch of public law which defines criminal offenses and prescribes specific punishments for them. o Penal law: acts of the legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations; or those that define crimes, treat of their nature and provide for their punishment All felonies in the RPC are public wrongs, as distinguished from private wrongs, the latter is just a breach of duty or contract of 2 private parties. o While the State has the power to prosecute persons for private crimes, the law gives the victim the privilege of not instituting actions for private crimes (adultery, seduction, abduction,etc) to protect the latter from shame and humiliation. There must be a complaint initiated by the offended party. Rape no longer a private crime. It’s a crime against persons. Ex post facto law is a penal law which is given retroactive application to the prejudice of the accused. o Makes an act or omission criminal which when committed was not yet so Bill of attainder: law/act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial Characteristics of penal law o Generality Refers to the persons covered Binding on all person who reside or sojourn in the Philippines, whether citizens or not • Ex: those who are covered by treaties and laws of preferential application (example: Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, see discussion on immunities) o Territoriality Refers to the situs of the act or the place where the penal law is applicable Applicable to all crimes committed within the limits of the Philippine territory • Ex: treaties, laws of preferential application, and Article 2 o Prospectivity Penal laws have prospective application unless they are favorable to the offender who is not a habitual delinquent Covers also penal circulars Immunities from criminal prosecution by certain individuals By international comity/law/relations o Heads of diplomatic missions (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations): Ambassadors or nuncios Envoys, ministers or internuncios Charges d’ affairs o Staff of the mission are comprised of: Diplomatic Administrative, technical, and administrative staff o Important: Immunity is granted only to the “diplomatic agents” which are made up of the heads of the diplomatic missions and the diplomatic staff. (Minucher v CA – test: does he perform duties of a diplomatic nature?) o Not subject to local penal laws. Immune from arrest and prosecution for local laws. But they may be temporarily restrained if they do stuff that threaten public order. o Varying degrees of immunity depending on the status of the person (based on the enlightened discussion of the esteemed Justice Puno in Liang v People): Diplomatic agent: inviolable, not liable to any form of arrest or detention; blanket immunity Consular officials: immune for acts performed in the exercise of consular functions; not liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime Officials of specialized agencies/international officials: immune only for acts performed by them in their official capacity (functional immunities) • Compared to diplomats, international officials are granted less immunity. Why? Because the privileges and immunities of diplomats and those of international officials rest upon different legal foundations.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
1
am+dg
•
•
• Diplomatic agents: based on customary international law • International agents: based on treaties, legislation, or both o In Minucher v CA, Scalzo, the DEA agent, was not considered a diplomatic agent. But, he was still immune because he was acting within the directive of the United States which placed him under state immunity from suit, following the doctrine of State Immunity from Suit. A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit but only as long as it can be established that he is acting within the directives of the sending state. o The DFA initially determines immunity, but the final determination is still with the Courts. (although in the WHO case, the Court said it was bound.) o In the VFA, before the American accused is convicted, he is under the custody of the Americans. However, once convicted, he will be detained by the Philippine authorities, with the Americans having visitation rights. Hence, detention in the US embassy after conviction was held violative of the VFA. (Nicolas v Romulo) By local legislation o Transactional immunity (Tanchangco v Sandiganbayan) o Omnibus Election Code: one who reports to the Comelec any incident of vote buying/selling and testifies is immune, even if he took part in the crime o PD 749: immunity granted to those furnishing information regarding bribery, indirect bribery, corruption o Parliamentary/Presidential immunity Is there any law which does not care for immunity? Is there any law which is immune from immunity statutes? o Yes. RA 9851, or The Law against Crimes against Humanity/Genocide. o It says that the law applies equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. It, however, makes exceptions.1 What about members of the AFP, who has jurisdiction over them? o Who are the members and officers of the AFP Members of the AFP Those subject to military law Members of the CAFGU o GR: Civilian courts have jurisdiction over crimes (RPC, SPL, ordinances) committed by members of the AFP EXCEPT: when it comes to service-connected offenses (like conduct unbecoming an officer, disrespect towards superior officer, etc), courts martial have jurisdiction over them • EXCEPTION to the EXCEPTION (when can a service oriented crime be tried by the civilan court?): the president, before arraignment, in the interest of justice, may refer the crime to a civilian court as long as it is covered by the RPC or any other SPL2 (Gonzales v Abaya, Navales v Abaya) o Justice Callejo: Service-oriented offenses are not absorbed by rebellion or coup d’etat because the former are disciplinary in nature. Hence, erring military men can be tried separately and independently under the RPC for the same act. Justice Tinga does not agree with this. o Justice Tinga: The civilian court is required to make a determination, independent of that of the court-martial, that the acts charged constitute a service-oriented offense. Why? The general purpose of RA 7055 is to deprive the court-martial of jurisdiction to try cases which are properly cognizable before the civilian courts.
1
Section 9. Irrelevance of Official Capacity. - This Act shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a head of state or government, a member of a government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Act, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence. However: (a) Immunities or special procedural rules that may be attached to the official capacity of a person under Philippine law other than the established constitutional immunity from suit of the Philippine President during his/her tenure, shall not bar the court from exercising jurisdiction over such a person; and (b) Immunities that may be attached to the official capacity of a person under international law may limit the application of this Act, nut only within the bounds established under international law. 2 xxx provided, that the President of the Philippines may, in the interest of justice, order or direct at any time before arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
2
am+dg
• •
•
• • •
•
•
How about members of the PNP, which entity of the government has jurisdiction over them? o The civilian courts since PNP is civilian in character. (And because of RA 6975 3) Four schools of thought/philosophies: o Classical/juristic Basis of criminal liability: human free will – man has the capacity to choose good and evil Purpose of penalty: retribution Determination of penalty: specific and predetermined Emphasis of the law: on the offense and not on the offender o Positivist/realistic Basis of criminal liability: man inherently good, but offender is socially sick; influenced by society Purpose of penalty: reformation Determination of penalty: arrived after an examination of the offender Emphasis of the law: on the offender and not on the offense • Samples of the influence of the positivist theory to our criminal laws: o ISL Modifying Circumstances Probation o Habitual delinquency law Extenuating/Absolutory Circumstances o 3-fold rule 40-year max limit for penalty Pardon Impossible crimes o Eclectic – combines both o Utilitarian – primary function of punishment in criminal law is to protect society from potential and actual wrongdoers Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime when there is no law that defines and punishes it. o We follow this here, so we don’t have common law crimes. All laws must be interpreted liberally in favor of the accused and strictly against the state. Equipoise rule: if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then no conviction. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – the act cannot be criminal unless the mind is criminal. o Applies only to intentional felonies. Not to culpable felonies or mala prohibita where good faith or lack of intent are immaterial. Sources of criminal law (Perez v NPG Refillers): o RPC o SPL o Municipal ordinances o Admin regulations/IRRs Violation of admin regulation must be made a crime by the delegating statute Penalty for violation must be provided by the statute itself Regulation must be published o What about decisions of the SC interpreting criminal statutes? Not penal laws per se, merely interpretative. What happened in Bayan Muna v Romulo (Feb 1, 2011)? o Bayan Muna was assailing the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement. The Agreement basically said that persons found in the territory of the other will not be surrendered to any international tribunal without the consent of the other State. Bayan Muna claim that the Agreement violated the Rome Statute which created the International Criminal Court which had jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern. o Issue 1: Was the President GADLEJ for signing it, even if the Rome Statute has not yet been ratified by the Senate? No. o Issue 2: Is the Agreement void for being immoral and against recognized principles of IL? No. o Issue 3: Was the Agreement valid even without concurrence of Senate? Yes. It’s not a treaty. o The Agreement is but a form of affirmance and confirmance 4 of the Philippines’ national criminal jurisdiction. National criminal jurisdiction being primary, it is always the responsibility and within the prerogative of the RP either to prosecute criminal offenses equally covered by the Rome Statute or to accede to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Thus, the Philippines may decide to try "persons" of the US, as the term is understood in the Agreement, under our national criminal
3
Section 46. Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases. – Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, criminal cases involving PNP members shall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts… xxx 4 Should be “affirmation and conformation” Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
3
am+dg
o o
justice system. Or it may opt not to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over its erring citizens or over US "persons" committing high crimes in the country and defer to the secondary criminal jurisdiction of the ICC over them. As to "persons" of the US whom the Philippines refuses to prosecute, the country would, in effect, accord discretion to the US to exercise either its national criminal jurisdiction over the "person" concerned or to give its consent to the referral of the matter to the ICC for trial. In the same breath, the US must extend the same privilege to the Philippines with respect to "persons" of the RP committing high crimes within US territorial jurisdiction. With respect to RA 9851 (Crimes against Humanity), the jurisdiction of the ICC is clearly and unmistakably complementary to the national jurisdiction of the signatory states. Further, the Rome Statute itself rejects the concept of universal jurisdiction over the crimes enumerated therein as evidenced by it requiring State consent.
Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. — This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two. Art. 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who: 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands; 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number; 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
•
•
•
This article gives the exceptions to the territoriality principle of criminal law. Hence, the following acts can be prosecuted in the country, even if done abroad: o Offenses committed while on a Philippine ship or airship o Forgery or counterfeit of any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippines o Connection with the introduction into the country of the obligations and securities mentioned o Offenses committed by public employees or officers in the exercise of their functions o Crimes of national security and the law of nations defined in Title One of Book 2 Can there be crimes committed here but can not be prosecuted? o Yes, those provided in treaties and laws of preferential application. o See immunity discussion above. How about terrorism? What does the law say about that? o Terrorism is the commission of the enumerated acts in the law which sow and create a condition of widespread and extradordinary fear and panic among the people, in order to coerce the government to give in to a lawful demand. o The Human Security Act (RA 9372) says that even if committed abroad, the individual can still be prosecuted here if: He commits, conspires or pots to commit terrorism inside the Philippines Commit said crimes against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor to the commission of the crime Commit crimes directly against the Philippine government5 o Also, prosecution under the Human Security Act is a bar to another prosecution under the RPC or any SPLs o The provisions of Book 1 of the RPC is also applicable to the Human Security Act.
5
SEC. 58. Extra-Territorial Application of this Act. - Subject to the provision of an existing treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary provision of any law of preferential application, the provisions of this Act shall apply: (1) to individual persons who commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act within the terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime zone, and airspace of the Philippines; (2) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit, conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act inside the territorial limits of the Philippines; (3) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the said crimes on board Philippine ship or Philippine airship; (4) to individual persons who commit any of said crimes within any embassy, consulate, or diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity; (5) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippines descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime; and (6) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes directly against the Philippine government. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
4
am+dg
•
•
• • •
• •
How about crimes against humanity, genocide? o In RA 9851, the law provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction in the following cases: Where the accused is a Filipino The accused, regardless of citizenship and residence, is present in the Philippines, or The accused ahs committed the said crime against a Filipino citizen. o See footnote for the options of the Philippine government. 6 o It also says that the RPC have a suppletory application to the Act and that in interpreting the act, the Philippine courts can be guided by the judicial decisions of international courts and tribunals, among others. (Sec 15 – Justice Callejo asked this in recit.) 7 Territory of the Philippines: within Philippine archipelago, atmosphere, interior waters, maritime zone o Territorial sea: 12 nm; Contiguous zone: 24 nm; EEZ: 200 nm o In the contiguous zone, the State may enforce laws which relate to customs, immigration, taxes, sanitary laws English rule: territorial State has jurisdiction, except when it merely concerns internal management of the vessel (ET – English-territory) French rule: flag of registry has jurisdiction, as long as it does not disturb the peace of the country (French-flag) We follow the English rule. o Hence, when the accused was caught smoking opium in a English vessel in Philippine waters, the Courts have jurisdiction over him. Drugs disturb the peace of the country. o What if he did not smoke the opium or sell it, does it still disturb the peace? Suggested answer from Glenn’s reviewer: In the DDA, mere attempt to transport marijuana is a crime. If a commercial vessel passes by the territorial sea, the general rule under UNCLOS is that the ship cannot be boarded. The criminal law of a State may not be enforced on board the vessel to prosecute indidivuals except if measures are necessary to suppress illegal traffic of drugs. Hence, if mere passing through the territorial sea can lead to boarding and prosecution, what more if the ship is docked? o But the Courts can disregard the rule if they want. In a CA case (P v Toboto), a person in a Philippine ship in Vietnamese waters got drunk and shot three people. He was not prosecuted in Vietnam. CA: There is nothing preventing the Philippines from deviating from English rule. (me: either way, it was on a Philippine ship, so we had jurisidiction) Register your ship in the Philippine Maritime Authority. High seas, free for all. Do what you want. (except be a pirate) o Is it possible that a crime be committed beyond the territorial sea, but prosecuted here? Yes, if it is a continuing crime. If it began in the high seas and continued here. (US v Bull, kalabaws weren’t secured properly. Began in Taiwan, I think, and ended here) o Does the Philippines have ability to legislate on crimes applying to the high seas?
6
Section 17. Jurisdiction.- The State shall exercise jurisdiction over persons, whether military or civilian, suspected or accused of a crime defined and penalized in this Act, regardless of where the crime is committed, provided, any one of the following conditions is met: (a) The accused is a Filipino citizen; (b) The accused, regardless of citizenship or residence, is present in the Philippines; or (c) The accused has committed the said crime against a Filipino citizen. In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable under this Act if another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime. Instead, the authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international court, if any, or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties. No criminal proceedings shall be initiated against foreign nationals suspected or accused of having committed the crimes defined and penalized in this Act if they have been tried by a competent court outside the Philippines in respect of the same offense and acquitted, or having been convicted, already served their sentence. 7 Section 15. Applicability of International Law.- In the application and interpretation of this Act, Philippine courts shall be guided by the following sources: (a) The 1948 Genocide Convention; (b) The 1949 Genava Conventions I-IV, their 1977 Additional Protocols I and II and their 2005 Additional Protocol III; (c) The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, its First Protocol and its 1999 Second Protocol; (d) The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and its 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict; (e) The rules and principles of customary international law; (f) The judicial decisions of international courts and tribunals; (g) Relevant and applicable international human rights instruments; (h) Other relevant international treaties and conventions ratified or acceded to by the Republic of the Philippines; and (i) Teachings of the most highly qualified publicists and authoritative commentaries on the foregoing sources as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
5
am+dg
Yes. PD 532 on piracy. In People v Tulin, the pirates boarded a ship within the Philippines and brought the ship to Singapore waters. Justice Callejo, who was still a young and dashing RTC judge, said the attack was committed here in our waters, hence the court had jurisdiction. The SC affirmed him and added that either way, piracy is an exception to the territoriality in criminal law. o Same was applied in People v Lol-lo where the piracy was committed outside the Philippines. The purpose of penal laws involving national security is to protect the domestic order and economic security of the Philippines. Hence, it should extend beyond the territory of the Philippines, to the perpetrators wherever they may be found. (Dillars v US) o
•
Title One FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY Chapter One FELONIES Art. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
• • • •
Felonies are committed by dolo or culpa. Deceit when act is performed by deliberate intent. Fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. In both cases, it is necessary that there is voluntariness. Dolo Freedom of action Intelligence Intent
•
Culpa Freedom of action Intelligence Negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight, lack of skill
In a felony by dolo, there must be a confluence of the act/omission punishable by law and the mens rea (physical act + act of the mind) o A felony by dolo is a voluntary act. It is a free, voluntary and intentional act; one acts with intelligence if he can distinguish right from wrong, moral from not, licit fro not o For felonies by dolo, one is not criminally liable if there is no criminal intent o Intent refers to the use of a particular means to bring about the desired result. It is manifested by the overt acts of a person. GR: criminal intent is presumed (general intent) • EX: if intent an element of the crime (specific criminal intent: intent to kill, intent to gain), intent cannot be presumed and must be established o Specific intent is important for the attempted and frustrated stages, to find out what crime to peg the guy with It’ll be the difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness. o But when the crime has been done, specific intent becomes general intent, which is now presumed. Hence, when someone dies (even when the wound inflicted is not a mortal wound), the accused is presumed to have intent to kill. When the thief has possession of the stolen material, he is presumed to have intent to gain. Justice Callejo actually said that the intent to kill is conclusively presumed. (I’m not sure about this generalization because there are some cases where the victim died yet the Court said no intent to kill, that’s why only Art 365 was applied.) In specific intent felonies (where intent is essential), the prosecution must allege in the information and prove beyond a reasonable doubt the specific intent. (P v Delim) o Motive is the moving power of force which impels a person to commit acts. GR: Immaterial in incurring criminal liability, not an essential element of crime
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
6
am+dg
•
EX:
in cases of political crimes, where common crimes are absorbed by the political crime if it were done in pursuance of the political motive o when the husband catches the wife making love with a paramour. Not criminally liable for homicide if motive was to avenge his dishonor. But if he killed the wife for some other motive, liable. o For evidentiary issues In a felony by culpa, culpa is a mode of committing a crime. o It is the mental attitude which is benig penalized. o In Art 365 (Reckless Imprudence), culpa is itself the crime punished. The crime is properly denominated as “reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.” “Homicide” does not refer to Art 249, but merely indicates that the victim died. There is no intent to kill. This was applied in P v Carmen, where the faith healers tried to cure a boy by beating him up and other folksy stuff. Boy died, but Court said no intent to kill, so just reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. o Can there be a crime of reckless imprudence resulting into frustrated homicide? Uh, no. frustrated homicide requires intent to kill. This is incompatible with recklessness, negligence or imprudence. Kalokohan yan. o Cant here be conspiracy resulting from negligence? No. Conspiracy is the product of intent. Ay talaga naman. o Can more than one person be liable for killing the same person, one by dolo and one by culpa? Yezzir. Remember P v Pugay. A poured gasoline on mental retardate. B lit him up with a match. SC: A liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (he should’ve foreseen that someone will light the guy up). B liable for homicide (victim died, so intent to kill presumed, but he was given a MC here) o What about mistake in the identity of the victim, does this constitute reckless imprudence? No. Dolo, the killing was deliberate. Mistake in identity is not culpa. It was an unlawful act willfully done. (P v Oanis – policeman shot a man sleeping, without ascertaining first if it was the escapee they were looking for.) Malum in se, or malum prohibitum, how can we tell? o Is lack of criminal intent a defense on SPL? Depends if mala in se, or mala prohibitum. o In answering whether plunder was malum in se or prohibitum, the Court used the following questions: Is the crime inherently immoral and wrong? Are the predicate crimes/felonies mala in se? Do the penalties imposed follow the nomenclature of the RPC? (Boado doesn’t agree with this one because of the old DDA which applied RPC penalties to drugs which are malum prohibitum) • Court answered yes to all 3 questions and thus categorized plunder (under Art 9372) as mala in se. o A member of the BEI tampers with election results. Mala in se or prohibitum? In se, even if the crime is defined by SPL. It is inherently immoral and wrong to tamper with election results. o Is genocide malum in se? Yes. It is inherently wrong and immoral. o How about possession of unlicensed firearms? Prohibitum. Interestingly, the intent considered here is the intent to possess the firearm (intent to perpetrate the act versus intent to commit a crime). Fajardo v People (2011). 8 o
•
•
8
When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be distinguished. A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself. In the first (intent to commit the crime), there must be criminal intent; in the second (intent to perpetrate the act) it is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously. In the present case, a distinction should be made between criminal intent and intent to possess. While mere possession, without criminal intent, is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a firearm, it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the part of the accused. Such intent to possess is, however, without regard to any other criminal or felonious intent which the accused may have harbored in possessing the firearm. Criminal intent here refers to the intention of the accused to commit an offense with the use of an unlicensed firearm. This is not Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
7
am+dg
o o o o
o
o
Hence, transient/temporary possession of an illegal firearm is not a violation of the law. Trust Receipts Law? Prohibitum. BP 22? Prohibitum. Can one be liable for both a felony and a SPL for one delictual act? Yes. BP22 and Estafa. Illegal recruitment and estafa. Can one be liable for a crime defined by SPL and a felony under a special complex crime? Yes. Anti-carnapping Law. if the offender kills the driver or occupant to take the car, guilty of special complex crime of carnapping with murder. May a felony by dolo or culpa absorb a crime which is malum prohibitum? No. A felony by dolo or cupla cannot absorb a malum prohibitum crime. (Loney v People. But what about illegal firearms?) Can there be a conspiracy to commit malum prohibitum? Yes. In Tigoy v People, the accused were charged with violation of a malum prohibitum (Forestry Code) because they cut some timber and transported it. Court applied conspiracy. The all-knowing Justice does not agree. Art 8 states that conspiracy must be to commit a felony which is RPC crimes.
Basis of liability Modifying circumstances Degree of participation Stage of accomplishme nt Moral turp? Where can we find them?
In se Moral trait
Prohibitum Offender’s voluntariness
Taken into account
Not considered
Taken into account
Not considered
Taken into account
Only when consummated
Generally involve moral turpitude Generally in the RPC
Generally no moral turpitude Generally in SPL
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
•
• •
•
•
Who are liable for felonies? o Those who commit a felony, although the wrongful act done is different from that intended o Those commit impossible crimes First paragraph Boado says applies to both dolo and culpa (since “felony” is used) But the brilliant Justice Callejo says it applies to only dolo (since “intended” is used). Follow Justice Callejo, it’s his test. o Accused was attacked by assailant with a bolo. He managed to wrestle the bolo away from the assailant but as he yanked it away, it hit his wife. Accused not liable, his act of wrestling the bolo away was not a felony, it was a legal act. (P v Bindoy) A person is liable for the natural and logical consequences of his criminal act o Natural – occurrence in ordinary course of things o Logical – there must be a reasonable connection between the act done and the consequence In other words, the act must be the proximate cause of the effect.
important in convicting a person under Presidential Decree No. 1866. Hence, in order that one may be found guilty of a violation of the decree, it is sufficient that the accused had no authority or license to possess a firearm, and that he intended to possess the same, even if such possession was made in good faith and without criminal intent. Concomitantly, a temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless possession or control of a firearm cannot be considered a violation of a statute prohibiting the possession of this kind of weapon, such as Presidential Decree No. 1866. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
8
am+dg
Proximate cause – the cause, which in its natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred Accused is deemed to know the consequences of his criminal act. (P v Moldes) o Neglect of the wound or its unskillful and improper treatment are deemed to have been among those which were in contemplation of the guilty party. Even if the resulting wrongful act was different from the offender’s intention, he is liable for that resulting act. Praeter intentionem – so grave a wrong caused that that intended Aberratio ictus – mistake in the blow o Examples: o Inserting vibrator in anal orifice of victim and victim died because it was rusty. (P v Buyco, considered complex crime of sexual assault with homicide under RA 8353) o Accused threw a grenade at person. It killed target and the accused’s wife and SPI 3 childern. (P v Magalone, complex crime of murder and parricide) o Accused robbed a store and shoved a pandesal into old lady’s mouth to keep her quiet. Old lady died. (P v Ofero, robbery with homicide) o Accused threatened victim with a knife. They were in a boat. Victim got scared and jumped off. He drowned. Accused guilty since he created a sense of fear in the mind of the victim. (US v Valdez)9 o Accused wanted to rape the victim, so she jumped out of the window and died. Accused guilty even fro r the death. Rape with homicide. (P v Castromero) o Accused stabbed the victim so doctor put a drainage on the wound. Victim was in pain and because of his state of nervousness removed the drainage. Victim died. Accused liable. (P v Quianzon) Even if the doctor is negligent, so long as the accused inflicted mortal wounds on the victim, the negligence of the doctor is not an active intervening force that exculpates the accused. o But in some cases the doctor’s acts are exculpatory for the accused. Like when doctor is so drunk that he gave the victim poison, instead of medicine. Cause and effect between act of the accused and the resulting injury is not altered by: o Pre-existing conditions of the victim (pathological) o Predispositions of victim If victim likes drinking and its part of his culture, and then after being stabbed, the doctor told him not to drink anymore, but still he drinks, the stabber is liable. (US v Bayutas) o Physical condition of the victim Punching Steve Rogers before he becomes Captain America. And then he dies. His scrawniness can not be taken against him. o Incompetence of the doctor o Refusal of the victim to get medical help o Infection of the wound But the infection should not be due to the malicious act of the offended party (US v delos Santos) Hence, act is not the proximate cause if: o There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the death of the victim; active force must be foreign to the act of the perpetrator o Resulting injury or damage is the intentional act of the victim o Fault of the doctor (not sure, Sir just mentioned it) So, what applies for culpa? o Art 365. Offender is liable for whatever damage or injury caused by him. o Can there be reckless imprudence resulting to double homicide if two people died? May reckless imprudence result into a complex crime under Art 48? Yes, because reckless imprudence is a felony under Art 3 and Art 48 talks about felonies as component crimes. A person is presumed to contemplate the ordinary consequences of his acts. (Rule 131, Sec 5c) o
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 9
"If a man creates in another man's mind an immediate sense of danger which causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing he injuries himself, the person who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the injuries which result. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
9
am+dg
Mistak e of Fact
Aberr atio Ictus
Error in perso nae
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
Factors which affect the intent and criminal liability of the offenders Definiti Notes Effect on on intent Had Ah No the Chong. criminal facts Accused intent been must not true to be the negligent belief in of the ascertaini offende ng facts. r, his act would have been justifie d; Mistak e in the situatio n Mistak A shoots Intende e in B. He d result the instead falls on blow; hits C another offende who was person, r standing or may intends by B. be in the (three addition injury persons to the on one present – injury person, actual on the but the victim, intende harm intended d victim fell on victim, anothe and r accused) Treachery can be appreciat ed. Mistak A wants Intende e in to kill B. d result the He falls on identity instead another of the kills C, due to victim who was error in his father the and who identity he of the thought victim was B. (two persons involved – actual
Effect on liability No criminal liability
Increas es criminal liability which may result to a comple x crime
Extenua ting if the resultin g crime is greater than intende d (parrici de when what was
10
am+dg
& unintende d victim and accused)
Praete r intenti onem
Proxi mate cause
So grave a wrong that what was intende d; need for a great disparit y betwee n the intende d felony and actual felony commit ted Cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused
A punched B. B died.
Actual crime is greater than intende d
Results in crime althoug h was not intende d
intende d was homicid e); no effect if the resultin g crime is the same as that intende d Mitigati ng under Art 13
Results in criminal liability whether acting with intent (Art 4) or neglige nce (Art 365)
Impossible crimes 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
• • •
Impossible crimes won’t apply if another crime had been committed by the acts of the offender Not a crime, it would have been a crime Elements: o Offender performed an act which would be an offense against persons or property o Act done with criminal intent
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
11
am+dg
Accomplishment of the act is Inherently impossible Means employed were inadequate or ineffectual (Intod v CA) There is intent, but actually no crime committed Impossibility may be: o Legal impossibility Elements: • motive, desire and expectation was to violate the law • intention to perform the act • actual performance of the act • Consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime Example: killing a dead person, stealing something that it is yours pala o Factual or physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act The factual condition must be unknown to the offender An extraneous circumstance prevented the consummation of the crime Example: offender bribes someone who he thinks is Pnoy, it’s not Pnoy, just a look-alike; pointed a gun to victim, but empty pala; • accused fired guns into the empty bedroom of the intended victim, but the victim was out of town, sipping margaritas in a beach with his homies (Intod v CA); • stealing a check which was subsequently dishonored because of lack of funds (Jacinto v P – although sir does not agree with this since intent to gain (with momentary possession) will suffice in theft/robbery) • compare with P v Balmores where the accused made a really really really bad falsification of a sweepstakes ticket. SC convicted him of falsification. But Paras dissented and said that the falisification was so bad that it was inherently inadequate in the means employed. No one in their right mind would have thought it was a real sweepstakes ticket. Rape can now be an impossible crime since crime against persons. Is conspiracy applicable to impossible crimes? No. Is art 6 applicable to impossible crimes? No. Justice Regalado: Under Art 59, the imposable penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor. If I saw a person on a bed, thought he was my bitter rival and I punched him, and because of my weak arms, he only sustained slight PI, I would’ve been sentenced to arresto menor. o But if he turns out that he was already dead, my penalty would be arresto mayor because of the impossible crime. o How odd! Just like how salmon swim up the current, and not downward. (Sabaw man.) o
• •
• • • •
Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation. In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
• •
• •
If no law punishing act, court should dismiss the case (because of Art 21 and 22) Art 5 does not apply to crimes defined by SPL because of the use of the words “degree of malice” o This brings to mind BP 22, in relation to AC 12-2000, as clarified by AC 13-2001: SC noticed that people are using the courts as collection agencies and are clogging up the dockets So the SC issued a circular dissuading people from filing BP 22 and for judges to just impose fines For libel, even if imposable penalty is imprisonment or fine, the SC prefers fine over imprisonment. (Brillante v CA) If the penalty is too excessive, remedy is executive clemency. But judge should still impose the penalty. (P v Veneracion)
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
12
am+dg Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
• •
•
•
•
Applies only to dolo, since intent is essential for this article Consummated o All acts necessary for the felony’s accomplishment and execution are present o Formal crimes are always consummated because the offender cannot perform all the acts necessary to consummate the offense without consummating it Physical injuries, slander Stages: o Subjective – accused still has control of his acts o Objective – all the acts of execution are already there Frustrated o Offender performs all the acts which would produce the felony as a consequence, BUT the felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator • If the cause of the frustration is due to the will of the offender, crime is not frustrated, but could be another crime o Example: Scott gives Jean poison. Jean drinks it. However, before Jean dies, Scott feels bad and gives Jean the antidote. Not frustrated murder, but consummated physical injuries. o Reached the objective stage of the offense because no further action is required on his part. o Crimes with no frustrated stage: Rape • As long as the penis enters/penetrates the labia majoria, already consummated. (bombardment of the drawbridge doctrine) o Penis must be erect (P v Brioso) • But touching not enough, the touching must be in relation with the intent to have carnal knowledge of the woman and there must have been penetration, however slight. Hence, grazing and mere stroking not enough. 10 (P v Campuhan) o If just in the mons pubis – merely attempted, (mere strafing of the citadel of passion doctrine) Arson Corruption of public officers Adultery Theft/Robbery • One is liable for consummated robbery if one takes possession of the personal property of the other, however brief it may be. • Dude goes into lot of the owner, and steals three cows. He is still in the lot when the owner catches him with the three cows in tow. Consummated theft. Felonies by omission (no attempted and frustrated) Falsification of public document (no attempted and frustrated) unless falsification is so imperfect Attempted o Offender commences the commission of an offense directly by overt acts, and o Does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. o Still in subjective phase o Elements:
10
Touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagina, or the mons pubis – there must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
13
am+dg
Offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts Does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony Offender’s act not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance Non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance (P v Lizada, penned by the good justice Callejo himself) “Directly by overt acts” Elements: • There must be external acts • Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed There should be an immediate and necessary connection between the overt acts and the crime intended to be committed. It can be the first of a series of acts that would produce the intended crime, as long as the intended crime is established or known. • In P v Lamahang, the police caught a man entering a house through a hole in the wall. His body was halfway inside the house. Charged with attempted robbery. SC: Wrong. Guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling. His act of making a hole in the wall was not reasonably connected to robbery. You can’t really tell what he was going to do inside the house, he could’ve raped or murdered someone. • In P v Lizada, the accused was caught by the brother of the victim without his shirt on. The accused was on top of the victim, held her hands and was mashing her breasts and touching her vajayjay. The victim was naked. Acts of lasciviousness or attempted rape? SC: Attempted rape. By the series of acts committed by the accused, he had commenced the execution of rape, which, if for the arrival of the brother, would have produced the rape. • In P v Campuhan, the citadel was merely strafed. Only attempted. Overt acts are different from preparatory acts. • Overt acts: external acts which if continued will logically result in a felony • Preparatory acts: acts which still require another act so that a felony will result; not punishable unless the act itself is a crime o Example of a preparatory act: buying poison, buying a gun, surveillance of a store which you will rob “Offender did not perform all the acts of execution” Still at the subjective phase of the commission of the crime. Still has full control of acts, and has not completed the needed acts yet. “Due to cause or accident other than spontaneous desistance.” Desistance has legal effect only in the attempted stage. If the person desists on his own, he is not guilty of the attempted crime. • Hence, as long as you desist while still in the subjective phase, you are not liable for the crime. • The desistance can be for whatever reason (fear, conscience, hunger, needed to go poop). As long as you desist voluntarily, no liability for the attempted crime. o BUT: you can be liable for any other felony already committed. o Example: Emma aimed gun at Johnny and fired, missed. Emma aimed again but Johnny pleaded for his life, so Emma felt sorry for him and desisted from firing. Emma liable for first shot, but not liable for the second act of aiming. Take note that in RA 9851, a person is criminally liable for a crime defined and penalized therin if he/she attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances lindependept of the person’s intention. (Sec 8)
o
o
o
o
Acts of execution Cause of nonaccomplis Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
Frustrated All acts have been performed
Attempted Not all acts had been done
Cause independent of the will of the perpetrator
Cause or accident other than offender’s spontaneous desistance
14
am+dg
•
hment Phase Included?
Objective
Intent Homicide/ murder
Wound fatal
Subjective Necessarily included in the frustrated stage Inherent Wound not fatal
Does the subjective and objective phase apply to crimes against persons (specifically, homicide/murder)?11 o No. The august Justice Callejo suggests a different test: First: Was there intent to kill? Second: Was the wound serious, less serious, fatal? • If there was intent to kill and wound inflicted was fatal: frustrated • If there was intent to kill and wound inflicted was not mortal/fatal: attempted o A non-fatal/slight wound can’t possibly produce death. o Why isn’t the subjective/objective phase used? Because even if the accused had lost control of all his acts (bumaril na siya eh!), the determination is still with the nature of the wound. (Rivera v People) o There were old rulings before (P v Eduave, P v Borinaga 12) where the test was the belief of the offender. If he believed that the wound was mortal, frustrated. No longer the rule. Now, even if the accused believed that he inflicted a mortal wound, but he did not, it is merely attempted, not frustrated. The nature of the wound controls, not the belief of the person. o Justice Callejo warns not to be in a hurry in categorizing if mortal/fatal wound or not, wait for the results. He said this in critique of a case wherein a doctor removed the feeding tube of the victim. The SC only considered it attempted homicide.
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable.— Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property
• • •
Light felonies – penalty not exceeding arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both GR: Punishable only when consummated o EX: crimes against persons or property (all stages) Only principals and accomplices are liable
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
• •
• •
• •
11 12
There is conspiracy where two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Must proven beyond reasonable doubt. o But no need for direct proof. May be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, all o which point to or indicate a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest. Art 8 does not define a penalty! Requirements for conspiracy: o Singularity of intent, and o Unity in the execution of the unlawful objective (P v Pagalasan) There must be criminal intent. No such thing as conspiracy as a product of negligence. No conspiracy to commit an unintentional act. Conspiracy does not apply to crimes defined in SPL o Unless the SPL provides that conspiracy to commit a crime under that law is a crime in itself.
Test should be limited to homicide/murder. Because rape is now a crime against persons and the “nature of the wound” test does not apply to rape. dude stabbed the chair where his victim was sitting. He ended up stabbing the back of the chair, but he thought he dealt the blow and then ran away
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
15
am+dg
•
•
DDA – conspiracy to commit acts like sale, importation, distribution of drugs 13 Access Devise Regulations (RA 8484) – conspiracy to commit access devise fraud 14 Anti-terrorism Law (RA 9372)15 o What if no provision in SPL? Can Art 8 still be a mode to commit a crime (not a crime in itself)? In Andan v People, SC held that 2 or more persons who conspire to commit a crime of BP 22 are liable for such crime, applying Art 8 of the RPC. In Tigoy v CA, accused were guilty of violating the Forestry Code. SC applied Art 8 to the accused. So, apparently, yes, it can be applied as a mode to commit a crime. There are two concepts of conspiracy: o Conspiracy as a crime by itself (conspiracy statutes) Conspiracy to commit treason, conspiracy to commit rebellion (and the SPLs above) • In these two conspiracy crimes, one the traitors/rebels actually commit treason/rebellion, conspiracy loses its juridical personality and it becomes a mere mode to commit a crime. (Remember this!) o Conspiracy as a mode of committing a crime or mode of incurring criminal liability Pre-arranged conspiracy (there was actual planning), or Implied conspiracy (implied from the concerted acts of the offenders) Pre-arranged conspiracy o The conspiracy that we are all familiar with - there was planning, prior agreement on how to commit the crime o GR: as long as he appeared in the scene of the crime, he is liable as co-conspirator EXCEPT: • if he is a mastermind, he doesn’t have to be in the scene of the crime to be a coconspirator (Boado) • if he performs an overt act in performance of the conspiracy, even if it is not in the scene of the crime per se (Justice Callejo – like the driver of a get-away car who planned the crime as well, or the man who pressed the button of a remote control bomb and the bomb exploded a few streets away) o Unless he is the mastermind, the conspirator must have committed or performed some over act as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed. The overt act may be: (not exclusive list) Active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself (held the hands of a guy who was shot), Moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime (cheering them on), or By exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators (Mayor lording over his minions while they chop the head off of some poor fellow) o Is Art 4, paragraph 1 applicable to conspiracy? (Justice Callejo) Yes. Each conspirator is responsible for everything fone by his confederates, which follow incidentally in the execution of the common design, as one of its probable and natural consequences even though not intended as part of the original design. Conspirators are held to have intended the consequences of their act by engaging in conspiracy. Conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator unless such act differs radically and substantively from that which they intended to commit. (P v Bisda)
13
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. – Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act: (a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; (b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; (c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form; (d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; and (e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs. 14 Section 11. Conspiracy to commit access device fraud. – If two (2) or more persons conspire to commit any of the offenses listed in Section 9 and one or more of such persons does any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as in the case of the doing of the act, the accomplishment of which is the object of such conspiracy. 15 SEC. 4. Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. – Persons who conspire to commit the crime of terrorism shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism as defined in Section 3 hereof and decide to commit the same. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
16
am+dg
•
o
o
o
It extends to collateral acts incident to and growing out of the conspiracy. o Example: Scott and Emma agreed to kidnap Magneto. They pointed a rubber gun at him. He suffered a heart attack and died. Scott and Emma are both liable for kidnapping with homicide. (Even if they only agreed to kidnpap Magneto) o Example: Kitty and Logan agreed to rob Jean. Jean resisted, so Kitty shot and killed her. Kitty and Logan both guilty of robbery with homicide. (Same will apply with robbery with rape) • Why? Well, the resistance of the victim is expected. It’s a necessary consequence of the crime they agreed upon. o But the conspirators are not liable for the acts of the other conspirators which are products of afterthought or extraneous to the conspiracy. (robbery was finished, then one of the robbers went back to rape the maid) Who should be liable for a second unplanned crime committed by one or some of the perpetrators? (Boado) Only the actual perpetrator, not the other conspirators. GR: conspirators’ liability only for the crime agreed upon. • EXCEPT: o Other crime was committed in their presence and they did not prevent its commission indicating their approval thereof o When the other crime is the natural consequence of the crime planned (Art 4) homicide resulting from physical injuries inflicted o Resulting crime was a composite crime because a composite crime or special complex crime is indivisible Robbery with homicide, robbery with rape • In these 3 exceptions, although there was a crime committed which is not part of the plan or prior agreement, all the conspirators are liable therefor. In other cases, an unplanned crime committed will be the liability only of the one who committed it. • Remember: Conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator unless such act differs radically and substantively from that which they intended to commit. (P v Bisda) Examples: • If one of the robbers prevented the others from committing the extra act of homicide or rape, then he is only liable for robbery, and not robbery with rape/homicide. It does not matter if he succeeds in preventing them or not. (P v de Jesus) • One of the conspirators who committed robbery, after they all escaped, saw a car and carnapped it. Only he was liable for carnapping. (P v Mapalit) • Agreed to rob victim. After the robbery, one of the conspirators went back to the house to rape the maid. Only the rapist is liable for the rape. (P v Angeles) Conspiracy continues until the object of the conspiracy is attained. It is a continuing event, unless in the meantime, they abandon the conspiracy or the conspirators are arrested. For a conspirator to escape liability from the planned crime, he must perform an overt act to disassociate himself before the crime is actually committed. • Example: trying to prevent the crime, even if unsuccessful. • Example: agreement to commit robbery. One conspirator stabbed the victim and ran. The accused did not run and was caught. He claimed he was not guilty since he desisted when did not run. SC held that the mere failure or refusal to flee after the commission of the crime does not amount to a disavowal of the conspiracy. There must be an overt act to disassociate himself from the liability. In other words, for a conspirator to disclaim liability, he must, before the crime occurs: • Disassociate by an overt act, or • Try to prevent the crime. Not necessary for the co-conspirators to perform equally each and every part of the acts constituting the offense.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
17
am+dg
As long as the parts played by each of the principals in the conspiracy contribute to the realization of the common design, they are all liable equally. The act of one becomes the act of all. o A co-conspirator may be acquitted while others are convicted. Conspiracy is only a means by which a crime is committed. The mere act of conspiring is not by itself punishable. The acquittal of a conspirator does not absolve the other co-conspirators from criminal liability. If the prosecution fails to prove conspiracy, the alleged conspirators should be individually responsible for their respective acts. Remember, mere knowledge, acquiescence or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one as a conspirator (unless mastermind), absent any active participation in the commission of the crime, pursuant to the common design and purpose. Mere fact that he knew of the criminal design does not ipso facto make him a coconspirator (unless mastermind nga). Implied conspiracy o Deduced from the acts of the offenders o No planning, they acted in concert during the commission of the crime o The agreement to pursue a common design and united purpose was instantaneous o GR: accused must have participated in the commission of the crime to be considered a coconspirator Mere presence or approval of the crime without more will not make the alleged conspirator liable because there would be no basis for deducing conspiracy as to him as there is absent criminis particeps (criminal participation) Three kinds of conspiracy according to Estrada v Sandiganbayan: o Wheel conspiracy – one person is the hub and his underlings are the spokes This was used against Jinggoy. SC said that the hub was Erap while the spokes are all the accused, and the rim that enclosed the spokes was the common goal in the overall conspiracy (the amassing of wealth). Jinggoy was a spoke. o Chain conspiracy – involving the distribution of drugs in a way that there is successive communication and cooperation in the same way as with legit businesses conduct their business with suppliers, etc o Enterprise conspiracy – usually seen in organized crime, involves racketeering Is evident premeditation automatic in conspiracy? o No. it depends on what kind of conspiracy. If pre-arranged conspiracy, it can be appreciated. Planned eh. If implied conspiracy, generally, it cannot be appreciated, absent any proof showing how and when the plan to kill the victim was hatched or the time that elapsed when it was carried out. How about price or reward? o Not sure. Original case of P v Tiguman (GR 130144, May 24, 2001) was malabo. See footnote for decision.16 Boado and the Arias doctrine o The head of office may be found liable for the acts of his subordinates either due to conspiracy or by an act of reckless impurdence which allowed the commission of estafa thru falsification or malversation through falsification, without such act of negligence the crime could not have been accomplished. But since negligence cannot co-exist with conspiracy, his liability shall be thru culpa but that of his subordinates thru dolo, if there is no conspiracy. o When, however, the infraction consists in the reliance in good faith, albeit misplace by a head of office on a subordinate upon whom the primary responsibility rests, absent a clear case of conspiracy, the head of office must be exculpated. o There has to be some added reason why the head must be compelled to examine each voucher/paper that comes his way. There are so much to sign and go over, he can’t be expected to go through all the paperwork.17 (Arias v Sandiganbayan, Arias was acquitted.)
•
•
•
•
•
16
As to the circumstance of price or reward, it can only be appreciated against appellant Tiguman since it was he who committed the felonious act for money. the same evidence on price established conspiracy between the appellants. Consequently the act of one is the act of all. 17
There has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail. Any executive head of even small government agencies or commissions can attest to the volume of papers that must be signed. There are hundreds of document , letters and supporting paper that routinely pass Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
18
am+dg
Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. — Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Art.. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided.
•
•
•
•
Grave felonies o Capital punishment or afflictive penalties in any of its periods (as long as min, med, max is within the afflictive penalty, grave!) PM, dq, RT and RP Less grave o Maximum period is correctional, the max period of the penalty must be correctional o Destierro, suspension, AMayor, PC Example: penalty imposed by law is AMenor Max to AMayor Min, less grave since max period of the penalty is within the penalty of Amayor Light felonies o Amenor or fine not exceeding P200 Compare with Art 26 where a fine of P200 is correctional. See Art 26 for reconciliation Use this article to determine: o Whether a complex crime was committed (Art 48, requires grave or less grave felonies) o Duration of the subsidiary penalty to be imposed (Art 39, 2) where the subsidiary penalty is based on the severity of the penalty o Duration of the detention in case of failure to post the bond to keep the peace (Art 35) o Whether the crime has prescribed (Art 90) o Whether the person in authority or his agents have committed delay in the delivery of detained persons (Art 125) o The proper penalty for quasi-offenses (Art 365) How do you categorize reckless imprudence resulting into slight PI? • Light felony since only punishable by public censure. (Riodica v CA)
Offenses not subject to the provisions of the Code Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. — Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
•
GR: SPLs are not subject to the provisions of the RPC. o EX: when it uses the nomenclature of the RPC • Like in Child Abuse Act (RA 7610) – when victim is 12 years old, penalty shall be RP • VAWC – follow RPC in certain cases18 EX to EX: when it specially provides that the RPC will not be supplementary to the SPL. • Examples: o DDA – RPC shall not apply to violations of DDA, except in case of minors19 o Anti-hazing law – mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong not applicable o Anti-terrorism – conviction under this law is a bar to prosecution of that
through his hands. 18 (a) Acts falling under Section 5(a) constituting attempted, frustrated or consummated parricide or murder or homicide shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. If these acts resulted in mutilation, it shall be punishable in accordance with the Revised Penal Code; those constituting serious physical injuries shall have the penalty of prison mayor; those constituting less serious physical injuries shall be punished by prision correccional; and those constituting slight physical injuries shall be punished by arresto mayor. Acts falling under Section 5(b) shall be punished by imprisonment of two degrees lower than the prescribed penalty for the consummated crime as specified in the preceding paragraph but shall in no case be lower than arresto mayor. 19
Section 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. – Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
19
am+dg
•
When o o o
person under the RPC or another SPL for the predicate crime 20 supplementary, the following shall apply: ISL Art 11 to 15 Conspiracy (at least for BP 22, in Ladonga v P)
Justifying Circumstances • Acts of the actor are in accordance with law and hence, he incurs no criminal liability • No civil liability on the actor either Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability: 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: First. Unlawful aggression. Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
• •
•
•
Rule now: Stand ground when in the right. No longer “retreat to the wall.” (US v Domen) Requisites: o Unlawful aggression o Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it o Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person defending himself Unlawful aggression must always be there. Without it, nothing to prevent or repel. No unlawful aggression? No self-defense. o Actual and real peril, or at least an imminent threat to one’s: Life Limbs Honor/Chastity Property Liberty o Can’t be simply imagined. Nor should it be a mere threatening or intimidating attitude. o If there is an agreement to fight, no unlawful aggression, hence no self-defense. Unless one attacked ahead of time. The one who attacked ahead of time: unlawful aggression. o Slapping held to be unlawful aggression. Against honor since the face of a person is akin to his dignity and honor. (P v Sabio) o When the aggression has ceased to exist, no more necessity for self-defense. The aggression must continue up to the point where the aggressor is killed. The right to self-defense begins where the necessity exists, and ends when necessity ends. It is limited by that necessity. (P v Adlawan) Like when the aggressor ran away after the attack, accused can no longer run after him and kill him and then invoke self-defense. Retaliation is not self-defense. (P v Decena) • Here, the retaliation becomes the unlawful aggression. Hence, the original aggressor can invoke self-defense (at least partial since there will be sufficient provocation on his part for initially attacking) When the attacker was already disarmed, unlawful aggression has ceased. (Gusto v CA) Reasonable necessity of the means employed o Depends upon the circumstances surrounding the aggression, the state of mind of the aggressor and the available weapon at the defender’s disposal o Law requires rational equivalence, not material commensurability Look at sex, size, circumstances, weapons Hence, when a big, strong, and powerful American negro attacked a Filipino, and the Filipino shot him 4 times, the SC stated that the Filipino employed reasonable means. (US v Paras)
20
SEC. 49. Prosecution Under This Act Shall Be a Bar to Another Prosecution Under the Revised Penal Code or Any Special Penal Laws. – When a person has been prosecuted under a provision of this Act, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for any offense or felony which is necessarily included in the offense charged under this Act. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
20
am+dg
•
•
•
•
•
• • • •
Self-preservation is the paramount consideration sufficient provocation There can be provocation on the part of the accused, but it should not be suffient Sufficient provocation is unjust or improper conduct/act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating anyone. It must be adequate enough to excite a person to commit a wrong. Defense of property rights o In P v Ignacio, the dissent said that there must be an attack on the person in possession of property as well, and not just the property for self-defense to be invoked. Follow this. o The person may use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful physical invasion of his property. This does not seem to involve the taking of human life. o The preservation of human life and limb is of more importance to society than the protection of property. (State v Green) o Fencing of a person’s land which will cut him off to the highway is unlawful aggression. (P v Narvaez) Can there be self-defense in libel? o Apparently, yes. (P v Hiong, the person libel may hit back with another libel which, if adequate, will be justified) Defense of honor/chastity o Girl stabbed man who embraced her in a dark alley. Self-defense! (P v dela Cruz) o Girl stabbed man who touched her thigh in a well-lit church. No self-defense. (P v Jaurige) Relate with Art 24721 o Art 247 is an absolutory circumstance. The penalty imposed is only destierro, and it’s more for the protection of the accused more than it is a punishment. o For instance, the accused arrived and saw his wife in the act of sexual intercourse. The paramour and the wife ran away. Accused went out. He heard rustling of leaves and saw his wife putting on her panties. He stabbed his wife. SC: Can’t invoke 247 because at that time, the wife was already putting on her panties. Dissent (follow this): it’s asking too much to actually catch them in the act of actual sexual congress. What else can you deduce when you see your wife putting on her panties and her paramour is right there? o Accused saw his wife making lust with someone else. He told her to leave. But in a rage she rushed and attacked the husband with a knife. In defense, husband stabbed the wife. Art 11 should be applied, not Art 247. o So when should you invoke Art 11, Art 247? Can you invoke both at the same time? (Justice Calljejo likes asking this raw) Husband has the right to invoke his honor and defend it, so he can invoke Art 11. He can also invoke 247 if he discovers his wife and some dude making love. If you were the husband, invoke 11 over 247. • 247 will get you banished, 11 will bring you home scot-free. • Moreover, no civil liability under 11. Not sure about 247. o Can mistake of fact be invoked under Art 247? (Misled by movement of buttocks, but no penetration; or woman/spouse forced by another) Yes. Apply Ah Chong by analogy. o If the brother-in-law catches his sister-in-law, Art 247 won’t apply. If self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused. Burden of proof never shifts. If the accused pleads self-defense, it is not a judicial confession, merely a judicial admission. He does not penal liability, merely that he killed the victim. Mistake of fact available in self-defense. Relate with VAWC, Battered Woman Syndrome o Lack of o o
21
Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. — Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment. These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents. Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
21
am+dg
o
o o
o o o
In Genosa, the BWS was not considered justifying because the elements of self-defense were not present. VAWC was not yet enacted then. She was granted passion/obfuscation and diminished will power. However, now, women who suffer from BWS are not criminally or civilly liable even if the elements are not present.22 Cycle of violence in BWS Tension-building phase Acute battering incident Tranquil, loving, nonviolent phase Women suffering from BWS are under the mental impression that their lives are at risk of harm. Hence, still a defense even if no imminent unlawful aggression. Applies only to women. In the US, even men can avail of it. it’s called “battering and its effects” Does not amend Art 11, but simply adds a new element/defense
Defense of Relatives 2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
•
•
•
Elements: o Unlawful aggression o Reasonable necessity of the means employed o In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the person defending had no part therein Relatives included: o Spouse o Ascendants/descendants o Legit, natural or adopted bros or sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees o Consanguinity within 4th civil degree What if your spouse has died, will SD still be applicable to your inlaws? o Yes. relationship by affinity between surviving spouse and kindred of deceased continues regardless if there is offspring or not. Defense of Strangers
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
•
Elements o Unlawful aggression o Reasonable necessity of the means employed o Person defending is not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motives State of necessity
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present; First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
•
Elements o Evil sought to be avoided actually exists o Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it o No other practical and less harmful means of preventing it
22
SECTION 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. – Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code. In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
22
am+dg
• • • •
•
Civil liability on the person who benefited (Art 101) If incomplete, see Art 69. The state of necessity must not be brought about by the intentional provocation of the party invoking the same. (P v Retubado) The evil should not have been created by the accused or his own negligence. o For example, you drive recklessly, you swerve to avoid a child, but end up killing someone else. You are still liable for Art 365. Invoked in a BP 22 case wherein the accused said that she was forced to issue bouncing checks to save her mother from the harsh treatment of the hospital she was confined in. SC said the predicament was brought about by her own failure to pay the hospital bills. Lawful exercise of right or duty
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
•
• •
•
Elements: o Acted out of duty or office o Injury caused is consequence of that duty or right Judgment and discretion of public officers in the performance of duties must be exercised neither capriciously nor oppressively but within reasonable limits. In the absence of clear legal provisions, they must act in conformity with exercise of sound discretion. When the victim was a deranged man who was already subdued as he was lying on the ground, and the policeman walks up to him, and unloads a bullet on the man’s forehead, causing his brains to splatter all over the wet pavement and on the policeman’s shoe, there is no lawful exercise. There was no need for such. (P v Pule) Police can use force to prevent the escape of the victim who snatched their armalite. (Cabanlig v Sandiganbayan) o If the victim pointed the gun at the policeman, the policeman can invoke both self-defense and lawful exercise of duty.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
•
•
Elements: o Order issued by superior o Order is for a legal purpose o Means used to carry out such order is lawful If the order is illegal but is apparently legal and the subordinate is not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable. (Tabuena v Sandiganbayan, Tabuena disbursed money of Marcos) (But aren’t we all presumed to know the law?)
Exempting Circumstances • While crime is still criminal, the law exempts the actor from liability. o But not from CIVIL LIABILITY. Except in accident and insuperable cause which strictly are not criminal. Justifying Act legal No crime, no criminal No civil liability Emphasis of the law is on the act
Exempting Act criminal There’s a crime and a criminal Civil liability Emphasis of the law is on the actor
Insanity/Imbecility Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — the following are exempt from criminal liability: 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
•
Insanity: complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, deprived of rason, total deprivation of freedom of will o Exempt, unless acted during a lucid interval
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
23
am+dg
Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability Must relate to period immediately before or at the precise moment of doing the act which is the subject of the inquiry If sane when act was done, but insane during trial, he can still be criminally liable o Distinguish between lack of reason (insanity) and failure to use good judgment due to anger (passion) o Burden of proof: accused (because of presumption of sanity) But if already known that he was insane at that time: prosecution must prove he was sane at time of commission o Quantum of proof to overthrow presumption of sanity: beyond reasonable doubt Imbecile: mental development to that of children between 2-7 years of age o Always exempt Two tests to determine complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act: o Cognition test – deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act (awareness of right or wrong) Usually applied here o Volition test – deprivation of the freedom of will (control over acts) Not appreciated in P v Valledor, where accused killed people (but didn’t harm others) in a room, and after said, “I’ve had my revenge.” o o
• •
•
Minority • Amended by Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, RA 9344 • 15 and under: exempt o they’ll be subject to intervention • over 15 – under 18: exempt unless acted with discernment o those who acted with discernment are entitled to privileged mitigating circumstance of minority they will undergo diversion programs • Exemption does not include exemption from civil liability. • Applied retroactively (May 20, 2006). Hence, minors convicted at that time were ordered released or their cases were dismissed or they were brought to diversion programs o 13-year old accused raped 6-year old girl before the law was passed. Once law was passed, he was ordered released and referred to the local DSWD unit. (Ortega v people) • Applies even to heinous crimes, since the law did not make a distinction. • Reckoning point is the age of the child when the offense was allegedly committed. • What if the act was done while still a minor but the promulgation of the sentence was after he reached 21? o He will be sent to an agricultural camp.23 The promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict with the law should extend even to one who has exceeded the age limit of twenty-one (21) years, so long as he/she committed the crime when he/she was still a child. The offender shall be entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration. The age of the child in conflict with the law at the time of the promulgation of the judgment of conviction is not material. What matters is that the offender committed the offense when he/she was still of tender age. (P v Jacinto, 2011, accused was a minor who, with discernment, raped a 5-year old child. He was convicted and sentenced to an agricultural camp for a period of reclusion perpetua. Sir likes this case) o Same ruling was applied in the earlier case of Sarcia. There, the accused was 31 when the SC decision came out. They sent him to an agricultural camp. • If the minor is convicted, can the sentence be suspended? o Yes. Even if the minor is above 18 he is convicted. But the maximum age to suspend the sentence is only until 21 years old. 24 23
Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and Other Training Facilities. – A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD. 24 SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
24
am+dg
•
• •
•
•
2 presumptions under RA 9344: o presumption of minority o presumption of no discernment (if 15-18) applies even in: • conspiracy with adults (P v Estefano) • reckless imprudence (say, a 15 ½ year old boy drives a car and hits someone) A child under 9 is conclusively presumed to have no discernment. (Jarco Marketing v CA) o With RA 9344, it’s now 15 What is discernment? o The mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. o Prove by evidence of physical appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and during the trial. The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. o Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor’s cunning and shrewdness. (Llave v P, where the minor was deemed with discernment because he was an honor student and made sure that his rape of another minor was in a secluded area; see also P v Doquena where the minor was the brightest of his class. Tsk tsk to the smarties!) o Intelligence, on the other hand, is the power necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act. Offenses not applicable to children: o Vagrancy and prostitution o Mendicancy o Sniffing of rugby Read codal na lang for stuff on diversion, etc. Accident
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
• •
• • • • •
Accident: happens outside the sway of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences Elements: o Performance of a lawful act with due care o Injury to another was by accident o Without intent or negligence/no fault or no intent Appreciated in Pomoy v People. Pomoy was a policeman who struggled with the victim who was under investigation. Gun accidentally went off during the struggle. The accident must not be foreseeable or else there will be fault or criminal negligence Accident and negligence are mutually exclusive o Negligence presupposes some degree of fault or foreseeableness in the fault of the person No such thing as accidental self-defense. NO SUCH THING. (Tamboong v People) No civil liability Irresistible Force
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
•
Elements: o Force must be physical, come from an outside force and accust must act not only without a will but even against his will o Actor reduced to a mere instrument, no more freedom o Duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded fear of death or serious bodily injury
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various chcumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment. If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
25
am+dg
•
Accused must have had no opportunity to leave or escape or self-defense Uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
•
• • • •
Elements o Fear of an evil greater than or at least equal to that which the accused was required to commit o Evil was os such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it Founded on duress or lack of voluntairness on the part of the actor Same rule with irresistible force, if accused had chance to run away or escape, this EC won’t be appreciated (P v Morales, where the accused, in a kidnapping case, were a good kilometer from where the co-accused were. They could’ve just ran away) Not appreciated when one of two rapists claimed he was under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear from the other, but yet he raped the victim while the other was no longer there. (P v Tami) Civil liability on the principal Insuperable cause
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
• •
Applies in felonies by omission (like Art 125 and then holidays pala!) No civil liability
Anymore? Yes. Relatives in theft, swindling, malicious mischief. 25 Spontaneous desistance in the attempted stage (unless overt act was a crime in itself) Attempted/frustrated light felonies (except those against persons or property) Accessories in light felonies Relatives who are accessories under Art 20 Physical injuries under Art 247 (nahuli yung misis!) Somnambulism (sleep walkers) Mistake of fact Repeal of a penal law Zombies Also, those victims of instigation. They are exempt from liability. Entrapment Instigation Mens rea originated from accused who was merely Evil idea originated from peace officer who induced trapped by police in flagrante delicto the accused to commit the act Not absolutory Absolutory Consistent with public policy Contrary to public policy Trap for unwary criminals Trap for unwary innocent Peace officer not liable Peace officer is principal by inducement • • • • • • • • • • •
Mitigating Circumstances • Show the lesser perversity of the offender and thus considered to lower the penalty prescribed for the offense • Matters of defense which do not have to be alleged in the information • Analogous circumstances are allowed under Art 13 • There are other circumstances which also reduce the penalty but are not under Art 13 o These are the extenuating circumstances like concealment of dishonor on the part of the mother in infanticide • Classifications of mitigating circumstances 25
Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. — No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons: 1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line. 2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and 3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together. The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
26
am+dg
Ordinary Lowering penalty to the minimum period o Privileged Effect of lowering the imposable penalty (divisible or indivisible) by one or more degrees Can’t be offset o Specific Applies to a specific felony like concealment of dishonor in case of abortion by the preggy woman herself Not applicable to Art 365 since it’s culpa, no intent. Application of MCs and ACs to SPLs will depend on the SPL. o If it uses the nomenclature of penalties of the RPC, then they will apply. Unless, they specifically state that they won’t apply. o
• •
Ordinary Can be offset by a generic AC Lowered to minimum period (except if 2 or more MCs and no AC, then lower degree by one) Not considered in single indivisible penalties
Privileged Can’t be offset Penalty lowered by one or two degrees Always considered no matter the penalty imposed
Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating circumstances: 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
•
•
Incomplete justification of defense o Must always have unlawful aggression Without unlawful aggression, no complete nor incomplete defense o Becomes a privileged mitigating circumstance if unlawful aggression is present with another element of self-defense Only unlawful aggression: ordinary Unlawful aggression + another element: privileged (see Art 69) Accident o Due care and lack of fault are indispensable without which negligence will be present giving rise to culpable felony o If lawful act and lack of intention of causing the injury are absent, an intentional act results taking the case out of the benefit of this mitigating circumstance
Minority/Oldies 2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
• • • • •
RA 9344 did not repeal Art 68. It merely amended it. If the minor is between 15-18 and acted with discernment, he is still entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance under Art 68 (2). Minority is always a privileged MC. Personal to the an accused and can’t be extended to other co-accused. o 16-year old and 30-year old killed someone. Minority only appreciated to 16-year old. What about old age? o Accused was charged with rape. He was 83 years old. Convicted but old age considered as MC. Praeter Intentionem
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
• • • •
Lack of intention to commit so grave as tthat committed Disparity between intent and consequences Appreciated when accused had no intent to kill but only to inflict injuries, but the victim died. Not appreciated: o when acts are sufficient to bring the result intended, o when the means employed would naturally result to the felony committed, like when the accused hit the victim in the eyebrow with a LEAD PIPE. SC did not apply
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
27
am+dg
•
•
•
•
•
this MC because of the brute force used and the part of the body where the blow was struck. (Oriente v P) o hazing incidents26 under the Anti-Hazing Law (RA 8049), or o culpa or to crimes not involving intent. Intentionem nga eh. Usually applied to physical acts o Accused poured gasoline on a mental retardate, and latter burned to death. (P v Pugay, accused only meant to burn the clothes of the guy, not the guy himself) o Husband punched wife. Wife broke her ribs and died. (P v Ulep) But has been applied in malversation. o Petitioner was a municipal treasurer and the audit team discovered he was short P72k in funds. After a few months, he returned the money he “borrowed.” SC gave him two MCs: voluntary surrender and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. Intent is determined at the time of the commission of the crime. o Intent determined by weapons, words, conduct before, during, and after (immediately?) the incident. What if 2 persons conspired to commit a felony, and one intended to commit the grave wrong, but the other did not, what happens? o Conspirator who did not indeed to commit so grave a wrong as that committed CAN NOT invoke the MC. (Act of one, act of all!) But if both of them did not intend to commit so grave a wrong, they both can invoke the MC. Can both treachery and praeter intentionem coexist? Can they hold hands and skip? o Yes. They may coexist. reachery refers to the manner or method used to kill the victim. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed refers to the state of mind of the person. (P v Flores) Sufficient Provocation
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
•
• • •
•
Provocation must: o Be sufficient o Be immediate to the commission of the crime (no interval of time elapsed between provocation and commission of the crime) o Originate from the offended party Sufficient provocation is unjust or improper conduct/act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating anyone. It must be adequate enough to excite a person to commit a wrong. (Licayo v P, Oriente v P) Offended shouted and told the accused to leave. Accused killed him. No MC. Even if the act of the victim may not constitute unlawful aggression to invoke SD, the same act may still be invoked by the offended as sufficient provocation on the part of the victim. (Gotis v P) o Deceased struck accused then ran away like a scared dog. Accused caught up with him and killed him. Accused actually could have two MCs in his favor: sufficient provocation and passion/obfuscation. But he can’t be entitled to both, since both are based from the same facts. o Same rule applies when same facts give rise to vindication of grave offense and sufficient provocation. Only entitled to one MC. Provocation need not be in words, but can also be in action. When the victim entered the accused person’s property and started gathering crops, this constituted sufficient provocation. (P v Arquiza)
Immediate vindication of grave offense 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
•
•
26
“Immediate” in this case means proximate and allows for a lapse of time o As long as the offender is still suffereing from the mental agony brought about by the “offense” to him “Grave offense” is not the grave offense in Art 9. Here, it might not even be a felony at all. It can be an assault to one’s honor. Any person charged under this provision shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
28
am+dg
• •
•
• •
•
o Includes insult – “You’re just living out of the pockets of your wife!” Committed against spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees Test if the assault is grave depends on: o Social standing of parties o Time and place and occasion when offense committed Can not be appreciated if sufficient time had lapsed for the accused to recover his serenity. o 30 mins? Pwede pa. o 1 day lapse? No na. (P v Palabrica) o Hours? Pwede pa. (P v Ignas) Lesson? All depends on the facts. Not appreciated when offended party hit the accused with a bamboo stick and the accused killed him. (Bacabac v P) Interesting case of P v Diokno. Daughter eloped with a Chinaman. When father found the daughter, the Chinaman didn’t mind him and went up the stairs to his house. Diokno stabbed the Chinaman. o Immediate vindication – elopement deemed continuous. o Passion/obfuscation – because Chinaman didn’t mind him, nabastos, pumatay! Both were appreciated together because based on different facts. o Still applicable today? Probably not, but the fact that some families are still conservative should not be discounted so easily. What if your spouse has died, will this MC still be applicable to your inlaws? o Yes. relationship by affinity between surviving spouse and kindred of deceased continues regardless if there is offspring or not.
Passion and Obfuscation 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
•
•
• • •
Must arise from lawful sentiments o Must not be based on an illegitimate relationship (P v Hicks and P v Salazar) EXCEPTION in case of P v Bello (1964) Accused had a common law wife who worked as a hostess/GRO. He told her to stop her job, she refused. She also refused to stay with Bello because she wanted to continue her work of dancing scantily clad in front of drunk people. SC held that passion/obfuscation present, saying, “We can not see how the accused's insistence that she live with him again, and his rage at her rejection of the proposal, can be properly qualified as arising from immoral and unworthy passions. Even without benefit of wedlock, a monogamous liaison appears morally of a higher level than gainful promiscuity.” o Exercise of a lawful right by the offended party cannot be a proper source of passion/obfuscation. o As when the offended party came to regain his land. (P v Lopez) Act which produced the passion/obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time during which the accused might have regained his normal equanimity o Lapse of 1 week? No, accused was already expected to recover his equanimity. (P v Ventura where he found out that his wife had an affair with her amo) o 3 days? No, same reason. (P v Caber, offended allegedly raped wife of accused 3 days before the stabbing) Appreciated in case where the husband killed a witch who cast a spell on the accused’s wife. (P v Tubadeza, Longbottom v Lestrange) Treachery cannot exist with passion and obfuscation. In the latter, the accused loses his reason and selfcontrol. It’s inconsistent with treachery. Sufficient provocation, immediate vindication, passion/obfuscation cannot be credited separately, must only appreciate one of them. Unless arising from different factual bases. Voluntary Surrender, Plea of Guilty
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
•
Elements: o Surrendered to a person in authority or his agent
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
29
am+dg
•
• •
•
o Surrendered before arrest is effected o Surrendered must be voluntary (spontaneous and unconditional) GR: doesn’t matter whether there was an arrest warrant or not. As long as he voluntarily surrenders, MC will be appreciated. o Except if the arrest is imminent. If that’s the case, voluntary surrender not appreciated. Not necessary to surrender to authorities where the incident happened. (P v Diva, crime happened in place A, but surrendered in nearby barrio) Not appreciated when: o Surrender was to disclaim liability. (P v Luces) o Merely to escape the wrath of relatives who wanted to extract revenge (P v Basite, but see Boado p 140) o Surrender was to clear their names. (P v Abella, where deaths occurred after a basketball game) o No surrender but merely reported that a crime occurred (P v Rogales) Appreciated when before being charged of malversation, the accused returned the amount before he was even charged. He was deemed to have voluntarily surrendered. The return of the money must be spontaneous. (Perez v P) o Compare to Davalos v P, where the MC was not appreciated because the return of the money was 7 years later.
Plea of Guilt • Must be: o In open court o Spontaneously and unconditionally o Prior to the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution • Accepted plea to a lesser offense counted as MC (no need to amend information) • Voluntary plea of guilty and voluntary surrender can be both appreciated in one case Physical defects 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
• • • •
Defect must relate to the offense committed Illness or defect must have moved him to commit the offnse Not automatic that he should be credited with this MC. Must show that it restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with fellow beings, Accused had one hand, but stabbed the victim. No MC. Illness
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
• •
If illness deprives the offender of his consciousness of his acts, he will be exempt from liability. Illnesses considered: o Psychosis (P v Antonio) o Schizophrenia
Analogous circumstances 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
• • •
Restitution of malversed funds considered analogous Voluntary return of a stolen cow Mere membership in a cultural minority not considered analogous
• • •
Mistake in identity MC? No. Neither exempting nor mitigating. Error in personae MC? No. Neither exempting nor mitigating. Abberatio ictus MC? No. Neither exempting nor mitigating. (P v Genoya, wherein a girl was hit by an arrow)
Aggravating Circumstances • Unlike mitigating circumstances, the list in Article 14 is exclusive. No analogous circumstances. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
30
am+dg
• •
• • •
•
• •
Must be alleged in the information. Different kinds of aggravating circumstances (AC) o Generic Apply generally to all crimes Can be offset by an ordinary mitigating Increase the penalty to the MAX period Must be alleged in the information o Qualifying Cannot be offset Changes the nature of the crime and the designation of the offense Must be alleged in the information Must be proved beyond reasonable doubt The penalty does not per se increase, but the nature of the crime is changed (along with the corresponding penalty) • Hence, from homicide (r.t.) it becomes murder (r.p.) o Special or specific aggravating Apply to particular felonies Found elsewhere than art 14 Do not change the character of the offense charged but guides the court in imposing the proper penalty Can’t be offset either o Inherent circumstance Element of the felony committed thus no longer considered against the offender in the determination of the penalty (Art 62) • “abuse of public position” inherent in crime of falsification of document by public authority, and also in malversation (and other crimes committed by public officers). Accused must have used his influence or prestige of his office to commit the crime. The ones in Article 14 are generally generic, but some are qualifying and even special No law providing that additional rapes/homicides are considered as aggravating because list is exclusive Where of the aggravating circumstances has been used as a qualifying circumstance, the others will be deemed as generic. o Hence, treachery qualifies homicide into murder. Evident premeditation becomes a generic circumstance na lang. RA 7659 added a new aggravating circumstance of “organized/syndicated group” in Art 62 (1a). o It’s a special aggravating circumstance because Art 14 (which are generally generic) was not correspondingly amended. o An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of 2 or more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime (not exclusive to robbery – as long as there is profit, so estafa, kidnapping for ransom, etc). Conspiracy is not an aggravating circumstance. Not applicable to Art 365 since it’s culpa, no intent.
Abuse of official position Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating circumstances: 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
• • • •
•
Test: did the accused abuse his office in order to commit the crime? Public official must use the influence, prestige, and ascendancy which his office gives him in realizing his purpose. There must be an intimate connection between the offense and office of the accused. The offender’s being a public officer does not ipso facto make it aggravating. If the public officer could have committed the crime without the use of public position, it is not aggravating. o Using one’s service firearm in shooting someone does not fall under this AC. In P v Villamor, accused used a gun officially issued to him by virtue of office. Court said he could have shot him even without a gun from the police. When a policeman keeps quiet while his other police officers were robbing a polio guy and his sister, the quiet policeman is guilty of abuse of public position. He could have prevented the others from robbing
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
31
am+dg
•
•
the victim, but he didn’t. His silence made him liable. (Fortuna v People, a beautiful case.) Does not apply if inherent in crime. o Example: Falsification by a public officer of a public document. Considered special aggravating because of RA 7659, Sec 23. 27 See Art 62 of RPC. Can’t be offset!
Insult to Public Authorities 2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.
• •
• • • • •
•
Covers only persons in authority, not agents of persons in authority and other public officers o One vested with jurisdiction or authority to maintain peace and order Elements: o Public authority is engaged in the discharge of his duties o Not the person against whom the crime is committed o Offender knows that he is a public authority If public authority is the victim, then crime is direct assault (AC deemed absorbed). Barangay captain is a person-in-authority. He was playing cards, then accused shot him. Insult to public authorities? No. Barangay captain was the victim, and he was not performing his duty at that time time. He was playing tong-its. (P v. De Mesa) If crime committed in the presence of an agent of a person in authority, the provision doesn’t apply. (P v. Siojo, but Boado says the opposite) If in the presence of a policeman, not aggravating because the policeman is only an agent of a person in authority. (P v Magbueno) What if crime committed in the presence of a professor while the latter was teaching? o Not aggravated. A teacher or professor is only a person in authority for purposes of Art 148 (direct assault) and Art 151 (resistance and disobedience). EXCEPT under the Dangerous Drugs Act. A teacher of professor is a person in authority for the purpose of the enforcement of the DDA. If you smoke weed in the presence of a professor, the professor is a person in a authority. What if you’re confined in the National Penitentiary, and you kill each someone? Aggravating. Yes. Talaga naman! (P v Mendoza, contempt of public authority)
Age, sex, rank, dwelling 3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
• • •
• •
•
•
Common factor: disrespect to the offended Rationale: need for respect Need for proof that offender deliberately intended to offend or insult the offended o There must be deliberate intent to insult or show manifest disregard for the age, rank, sex. Not merely because the victim is a female or has a rank. (P v. Reyes, killing of spinster case) Can NOT co-exist with passion or obfuscation where the offended lost his control or reason. AGE, SEX, RANK: considered in crimes against persons, security or honor; but NOT in crimes against property o Hence, not applicable to complex crime of robbery with homicide (P v. Cabiles) Sex: not considered in crimes where being a woman is an element (rape, etc) o Mere fact that victim is woman does not give rise to the AC of sex. Must be some specific insult or disrespect shown to her womanhood. Rank: high social position/standing o Teacher, judge, consul, general, etc o Charge should not include rank as an inherent element thereof So if charge is complex crime of murder with assault against an agent of a person in authority, AC can’t be appreciated. (If charge only murder, than AC can be appreciated) o Accused was conversing with the barangays captain and then suddenly killed him. AC? No. mere fact that victim was a person with a rank, such as a barangays captain does not necessarily
27
1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
32
am+dg
• •
•
•
mean it’s aggravating, absent evidence that the killing was deliberately intended to disregard or insult or threaten to insult the rank of the victim. (P v Samudio) o Accused raped a 70-year old woman, his teacher in grade 1. The victim was already retired when the dude raped her. SC held that the fact that the offended party was already retired did not diminish the respect due her rank as his former teacher in grade 1. (P v. Nerio) Age: includes tender age Dwelling: includes dependencies, staircase, and enclosures under the house. o Must be a building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort Hence, a combination of video store and dwelling is not a “dwelling” for purposes of this AC (P v. Tano) Not necessarily owned by the offended. Home is that which the law seeks to protect or uphold whether the dweller is a lessee, a boarder or a bed spacer Held to include: • room in a boarding house (P v Daniel) • room of stay-in laundrywoman in house of amo (P v. Sapinoso, compare with P v. Punzalan, where no AC appreciated because accused and victim lived together) • house of a squatter since law does not distinguish validity of title • little rooms separated by curtains (sir’s example of his dorm with his brothers) o Appreciated when: Victim stood in the terrace of his house (P v. Rios) Victim was stepping on the first rung of the stairs connected to his house • But if he has yet to step, no AC. (P v. Sespene) o Offended must not have given any provocation (sufficient and immediate) o Not necessary that the accused actually entered the house. Enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house. (P v. Villanueva) o Not appreciated when: Both the offended and the offender live in the dwelling • EXCEPT in ADULTERY, and the bad spouse did the deed in the conjugal dwelling (P v. Ibanez) • See case of P. v. Punzalan where the house and the servants’ quarters were separate but within the same compound. The houseboy went to the house of the amo and killed him there. SC said no AC because the servants quarters located in the same compound, hence part of the dwelling of the offended party. (Sir doesn’t agree with this. Basta separate and distinct places, dapat separate dwellings.) Inherent in the crime (trespass, robbery with force upon things, destructive arson) • Does dwelling apply in robbery? o Depends. If robbery with homicide or robbery with intimidation of persons, yes, appreciated. But if robbery with force upon things, dwelling is inherent. • Inherent also in destructive arson Offended has given provocation Can’t be absorbed by treachery. Treachery pertains to manner of commission. Age, sex, rank, refers to relationship. (P v. Lopez) o But see P v. Malolot, where accused hacked to death an 11-month old child and the SC considered age absorbed by treachery. Sir doesn’t agree with this case, but it’s the latter case, so it shold prevail. All 4 can be appreciated separately from treachery. o Accused killed a 3-day old child. SC considered treachery and age of victim separately. (P v Lora) o Dwelling and treachery treated separately, appreciated together in the same case. (P v. Almohera) Abuse of Confidence or obvious ungratefulness
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
•
Requisites: o Offended had trusted the offender
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
33
am+dg
•
•
•
o Offender abused such trust (P v. Ostia) o Such abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime Essential that the confidence is IMMEDIATE and PERSONAl such that it gives the accused some advantage and makes it easier to commit the crime (P v. Arojado, where accused was the first cousin of the victim) o Also applied in P v. Villanueva, where common-law husband (whom the victim called “papa”) raped the victim. Inherent in: o Qualified theft o Estafa For obvious ungratefulness, the offended received favors from the victim but still committed the crime (e.g. kupal) Palace of Chief Executive/Worship
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
• • •
Only in the third circumstance (public authorities engaged in the discharge) is performance of function necessary. If done in the palace of the President, in his presence, or in a place dedicated to religious worship, performance of function not necessary. Must show that offender sought the above places for the commission of the crime (lack of respect!) o That’s why it wasn’t appreciated in P. v. Jaurige, where the young lass stabbed the dude’s neck in church after he placed his hand precariously on her thigh Night time, uninhabited place, by a band
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense. Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
•
•
• • • • • • •
If all three are present, are these separate ACs or only one? o GR: Only one. EXCEPT: when the three can be distinctly perceived and can subsist independently of each other, revealing greater perversity. (P v. Librando) Night time (Nocturnity) Becomes an AC only (requisites) o when sought by the offender, o taken advantage by him to facilitate the commission of the crime, o ensured his immunity from capture, and o place where the crime was committed was not illuminated Objective test: did it facilitate the commission of the crime? Subjective test: was it purposely sought out by the accused to afford impunity? o Yes to either question will suffice to appreciate night time. Nighttime: sunset to sunrise o Crime must have been committed exclusively at nighttime There must be evidence that night time was sought for, or the nocturnity facilitated the commission of the offense. (P v. Dela Cruz) Absorbed in treachery if it is part of the treacherous means to insure execution of crime Uninhabited Place (Despoblado) Test: whether or not in the place of the commission of the offense, there was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help It is not the distance, but the possibility or impossibility of immediate aid to be obtained. (P v. Ostia, P v. Cabiles) o The more important consideration is if the commission of the crime makes it possible for the victim to receive aid. If the distance is not so great, but you have to climb a hill to reach the house to render
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
34
am+dg
•
•
• •
•
• • • •
aid, despobado is considered. Casual encounter at night in an uninhabited bukid? Not AC. The prosecution must show that the remoteness of the place was chosen by the accused to facilitate the crime, or conceal it. Band Consists of: o Four or more persons o Armed malefactors (at least four must be armed) o Shall have acted together in the commission of an offense “Armed”: any weapon which by reason of its intrinsic nature or purpose is capable of inflicting serious injuries (bolo, club, guns, grenades, cupcake.) Must prove that 4 or more persons had weapons. o If proven that only 2 had weapons, not AC (P v. Oco) o Weird case: P v Estante – 4 accused. 1 acquitted. 1 jumped bail. But SC still considered band as AC. Justices Aquino and Abad Santos said NO AC. 4 – 2 = 2. Art 14: generic aggravating o Generic aggravating in robbery with homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, PY resulting in insanity, impotency, blindness. (Art 294) But remember Art 226-B: Rape committed by 2 or more persons, offender is sentenced to RP (to death). Art 295, with relation to 2,3,4 of Art 294: qualifying circumstance 28 Destructive arson by 2 or more people (Art 320, amended by PD 1744): qualifying circumstance 29 When conspiracy is proved, band can be appreciated. It is not absorbed by conspiracy, since the latter is only a means to commit a crime. Calamity or misfortune
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
• • • • •
Does not refer to acts of men Refers to the occasion of the crime, not the means (which is Par 12) Rationale: instead of helping, you took advantage pa! Accused must take advantage of the calamity to ensure success of the crime. (People v Arpa 27 SCRA 1037) Dude who burned down his own house and others considered guilty of arson with AC of on occasion of conflagration. (?) (People v Sing) Aid of armed men
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
•
•
• •
Elements: o Armed men took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly, o Accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed Not appreciated when: o all the accused acted under the same plan and for the same purpose. If so, they are all principals in the commission of the crime. o principal was not aided o not taken advantage of. The armed men are accomplices who take part in a minor capacity, directly or indirectly. o Minimal participation as compared to accomplices. There should not be any conspiracy nor should the armed men be principals. (People v Berayon)
28
Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of firearm on a street, road or alley. — If the offenses mentioned in subdivisions three, four, and five of the next preceding article shall have been committed in an uninhabited place or by a band, or by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering the passenger's compartments in a train or, in any manner, taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances, or on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the proper penalties. In the same cases, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon the leader of the band. 29 Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying circumstances, the penalty of death shall likewise be imposed when the arson is perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more persons or by a group of persons, regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in the commission or another violation of law. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
35
am+dg
• •
Absorbed by band Aggravating in kidnapping. Men also means “women.” (People v. Licop) Band
Liability
All principal s
Number
4 or more Crime not specified Generic
Specificit y Nature
Organize d Crime Syndicat e (Art 62) All principal s 2 or more Crime for GAIN Special aggravat ing Can’t be offset
Aid of Armed Men Armed men are accompli ces 2 or more Crime not specified Generic
Habituality 9. That the accused is a recidivist. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code. 10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
•
Different forms of habitiluality o Recidivist is one who At the time of his trial for one crime Shall have been previously convicted By final judgment, Of another crime embraced in the same title of the Code • Hence, there’s a need for two convictions (first by final judgment, and must take place prior to the second convication) o What if 3 separate informations, but only one judgment, recidivist? No. No prior judgment in that case. (People v Rivera) • No requirement that it be consummated. Can be attempted or frustrated. Law does not distinguish. • Generic aggravating circumstance • No time limit either. • What if pardoned for first crime? o Recidivist still. Effects still remain. But if amnesty? • Not recidivist, since amnesty extinguishes entire crime. (Monsanto v Factoran) • What if judgment is suspended because of RA 9344, and then accused commits another crime under the same title, recidivist? No. Decision not promulgated, hence no final judgment. • Accused committed robbery on December 23. He then committed theft on December 30. He was convicted for theft. After, he was charged for robbery. Recividist? No. Second crime must be committed after the first conviction. (P v. Baldera) o Reiteracion Offender has previously served sentence First offense must have been punished with an equal or greater penalty, or
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
36
am+dg
He has committed two or more crimes previously to which the law attaches a lighter penalty (penalty imposed by law, not penalty which judge eventually metes out) Does not require that the offenses be covered under the same title of the Code • Generic aggravating circumstance • Reiteracion is concerned with the penalty imposed by law, and not the nature of the crime
A O P
o
Recidivism Previous conviction by final judgment Under the same Title of the Code No requirement as to penalty imposed in the prior conviction
Habitual delinquency Within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction, Of the crimes of falsification, robbery, estafa, theft, serious or less serious physical injuries (FRETSeL) Found guilty of said crimes a third time or oftener. • Special aggravating circumstance for which an additional penalty is imposed which escalates with increase in the number of convictions (Art 62) o Boado says in effect a crime by itself because it has its own penalty. • Need for 3 convictions. Third conviction must be committed within 10 years from the second conviction. • An offender can be a recidivist and habitual delinquent at the same time. (RET are all under the same title; so with SeL) Recidivism Convictions
Two are enough
Crimes covered
Must be both under the same Title of the Code None as no time limit given by law between the 1st and 2nd convictions
Prescription
Nature Penalty
o
Reitreacion Service of sentence Need not be under the same Title Prior crime must have been penalized with an equal or greater penalty or 2 or more crimes with lighter penalty
Generic, can be offset Increase is to the max period
Habitual Delinquency Three are required FRETSeL Prescribes if the 10-year limit between the second and third convictions are exceeded Special, can not be offset Entails additional penalty which increases with the number of convictions
Quasi-redivisim (Art 160) Offender has been previously convicted by final judgment Before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same,
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
37
am+dg
He commits a felony. • Special aggravating, can not be offset • Penalizes the convict with the max period for the new felony committed. • Recidivism inherent in quasi-recidivism. • Accused is serving sentence for homicide. Then kills someone in prison. He’ll get the max period for his second homicide.
Price, Promise, Reward (yeay!) 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
• • • • • •
• •
Equally affects the offeror (principal by inducement) and the acceptor (principal by direct participation). (People v. Alincastre, Mayor Gordon case) Those who did not benefit from the PPR will not have his penalty increased because this AC is personal to the giver and the receiver. Inducement must be the primary consideration in the commission of the crime for it to be aggravating. Need not be money. Services pwede! Mere promise will suffice, as long as it induced! Dude tells accused to kill X for P5. Accused kills B. (Error in personae) What happens? o Offeror no AC, acceptor AC. o Person different from intended! (People v. dela Serna) Dude gives money after the crime. No promise before crime. No AC. (US v Flores) Qualifies homicide to Mordor, em, murder. Inundation, Fire, etc
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
•
• •
When is it arson, murder, or both? (People v. Malngan) o If intent to burn the building and death is a result, just arson. Resulting homicide is absorbed. o If intent to kill and fire resorted to as means to kill, murder only. o If intent to kill (and he has done so) then fire used to cover up the killing, then two distinct crimes, homicide/murder and arson. o No such thing as complex crime of arson with multiple homicide. Intent PIVOTAL. See discussion of Comadre case in the special penal laws part. Evident premeditation
13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.
•
• •
•
Elements: o Time when the offender determined to commit the crime o An overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination o Sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act (People v. Annibong) Connotes adherence to a plant to commit a crime Essence: execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection of the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive a calm judgment. o Must show when the plan to execute the crime was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out How much times must elapse? • Law does not give formula. Case to case basis. (P v Rodas) Not appreciated when: o Inherent part of the crime (since already considered by the law – Art 62) Generally, inherent in specific intent felony. o Why? These crimes are not really decided at the sput of the moment. Iisipin mo yan eh! • Kidnapping • Robbery • Estafa (intent to gain)
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
38
am+dg
•
•
•
•
• Piracy in Philippine waters o Attack was made in the heat of anger, or in a chance encounter Is there evident premeditation when he wanted to kill President Roxas, threw a grenade but he ended up killing someone else? (Error in personae) No, because he did not intend to kill the other guy. (P v. Guillen) o But if one decided to kill a class of persons (like any Ilocano) or anybody he encounters, and he does, then this AC applies. If in addition to the crime of robbery, the accused intended to kill a person (robbery with homicide), evident premeditation is aggravating. o But if he had no plan to kill a person, but ends up killing a person in the house who put up some form of resistance, no evident premeditation. (P v Curachia) Hiding things for one’s escape under a tree does not prove evident premeditation in the crime of murder and kidnapping because of the possibility that the things could have been used for something other than the murder or kidnapping. (P v. Baldogo, where Court said that they could have just hid the stuff to facilitate their escape from the penal colony. It did not prove that they coolly thought of murdering and kidnapping the victims.) Proof of conspiracy does not imply the existence of evident premeditation. o Evident premeditation can be presumed only where conspiracy is directly established (prearranged), not where, conspiracy is merely implied (instant). If two or more persons conspire to commit a crime, and they decide to commit it, there may be evident premeditation if the conspiracy allowed the conspirators to ponder upon and reflect on their decision to commit a felony. Craft, Fraud, Disguise
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
• • • • •
• •
Craft: cunning or intellectual trickery or chicanery resorted to by the accused to carry out his evil design o Assuming position of authority to gain entry in a house Fraud: deceit, manifested by insidious words or machinations Disguise: resorted to conceal one’s identity o If disguise sucked and offender was still recognized, cannot be aggravating These cannot be AC if did not facilitate the commission of the crime, or not take advantage of by the offender in the course of the assault If they were used to insure the commission of the crime against persons without risk to offender, absorbed by treachery (usually absorbed by treachery) o But can be appreciated separately if based on different facts. For example, guy pretends to hire a jeep because he wants to rob it. Jeepney driver gets loko. While on the jeep, accused kills accused by hitting him behind the head. SC considered craft in the plan in the robbery scheme. Treachery in the killing of the driver. (P v San Pedro, 1980). Posing as customers of a restaurant, and the robbing it = craft. (P v. Empacis) Aggravating in robbery with homicide. o Inducing a buyer of cows to a visit a pen of cows, and then killing him = craft. Intellectual trickery. (P v. Labaguen) Abuse of superior strength or means taken to weaken the defense
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.
•
Abuse of superior strength: where offenders intentionally employ excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the victim. o Must be a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor. Consider the relative strength versus the victim. o Superiority in number does not necessarily mean this AC will be appreciated Must still be proved that the attackers cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from superiority of strength There must be proof of deliberate intent to take advantage of superior strength (P v Alarcon [three guys raped a girl], but SC here did not consider the AC because was not alleged in the information of the two other accused)
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
39
am+dg
•
• • •
Not appreciated when: o Assault characterized with passion or obfuscation o Made during a quarrel o When the attack was made on the victim alternately and not simultaneously o Inherent in crime (parricide, rape by force) Generally accepted that the husband is physically stronger than the wife (P v Galapia, where horny husband couldn’t get some from his estranged wife, so he killed her.) An attack made by an armed man upon a woman, who died as a result, is murder because his sex and weapon gave him superiority of strength. (P v Olivio, where an Igorot woman was killed) Absorbs band Absorbed by treachery (P v. Demo, P v. Suyum [2 people killed a guy with a bolo G.R. No. 137518, 2002]) o If an AC is absorbed by another, then it loses its juridical existence. Treachery
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
•
• •
•
•
•
Conditions: o Employment of means, manner, method or execution that would ensure the safety of the offender from any defense or retaliation of the offended party, and o The means, manner, and form were consciously and deliberately chosen. Shown through prior conduct, motive/relationship of the parties, or nature of the killing (dissent in People v. Antonio) The attack must be intended to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk to the offender from a defense that the other party might offer. Essence: swiftness and the unexpectedness of the attack o However, the suddenness of the attack must be preconceived by the accused, unexpected by the victim and without provocation on the part of the latter. o Mere suddenness does not by itself suggest treachery. (P v. Antonio, when accused suddenly shot victim after a game of pusoy-dos) That’s why chance encounters, impulse killings, or those preceded by heated altercations are generally not attended by treachery May treachery be considered in carnapping with killing of a person? Before, no. (P v. Lovitania, because it’s a crime against property). o Now, yes. Because of P v. Escote (hold-up in bus, holduppers shot passenger-policeman with his own gun). In this case, J Callejo, using Spanish decisions, said that treachery is not an element of robbery with homicide. It is neither inherent in the said crime, and thus should be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. The law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is a crime against persons, and not at the constituent crime of robbery which is a crime against property. Reason? When robbery is coupled with crimes against persons, the crime is not only an assault of the property, but also of the victims themselves. It is not qualifying because crime of robbery with homicide is a unique crime. There is no robbery with murder. Homicide is used as a generic term, even if the second component is actually murder. o This was reiterated in P v. Ancheta (GR 143935), where the six accused robbed palay and then murdered the victims using guns and a grenade. (generic!) Can treachery be considered as qualifying in rape with homicide (to make it rape with murder)? o No. Homicide used in generic sense. Treachery only considered as generic aggravating. No such crime as rape with murder. Examples: o Killing a guy who was drunk and sleeping. (P v. Vallespin) o The accused shooting the major as the former hid in his house as the latter proceeded to effect a warrant of arrest on him. (P v. Garcia)
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
40
am+dg
Victim hogtied before he was stabbed with icepicks (P v. Ong, mahjong case, ala Chinese mafia movie, yu don’t want pay me mah maney, ay kill u) o Attacking an unconscious victim o Victim a child of tender age May treachery be considered if the wrongful act done be different from that intended by the offender? o Yes. Treachery is present even if the victim killed is different than the one intended to be killed. (P v. Castillo, where the victim was killed because he was wearing the target’s shirt. Compare with P v. Hilario, where the court said that evident premeditation can not be appreciated) Does it have to be consummated to appreciate treachery? o No. treachery doesn’t depend on success. It can be considered even if not consummated. Sufficient that it tends to this end. (People v. Abendan) No treachery if attack is an impulse, or due to passion, or when accused did not do any preparations Treachery may be appreciated even when the victim is warned of the danger to his person, for what is decisive is that the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate The retaliation, if ever, must come from the victim, not from anyone else In a continuous aggression, treachery must be shown present at the inception of the attack, not in some subsequent stage of the attack. o Treachery must be present and preceded the commencement of the act which caused the injury complained of o After the commencement of such an attack, and before its termination, an accused person may have employed means or methods which were of a treacherous character, and yet such would not constitute treachery. One continuous attack cannot be broken up into parts and made to constitute separate, distinct attacks so that that treachery may be injected therein Seen in P v. Dela Cruz, where a commotion occured before the stabbing. Treachery may not be assumed from the mere fact that the fatal wounds were found at the back of the deceased. Treachery must be proven, and cannot be presumed. GR: Frontal attack, no treachery. o EX: when attack is sudden and made in such a manner that insures its execution free from danger and without risk to oneself on account of what the victim might make to defend himself (P v. Base, where barangay captain was suddenly shot in the head after opening the door of his residence to the accused) Generic only for crimes other than killing. o Special aggravating in serious physical injuries because it increases the penalty. o Generic in less serious physical injuries. o Generic in parricide and infanticide. (?) o Special qualifying in serious physical injuries. (higher degree given!) o Primordial qualifying circumstance: qualifies homicide into murder. o Special in the sense that applies only to crimes against persons. Treachery absorbs: o Nighttime o Superior strength (P v Go-od, where victim was ganged up by accused while looking for his goat) o Evident premeditation. o Superior strength o Craft o Band But can they be considered separately? • Yes! If based on different factual settings. • For example, accused took victim at night, walked all night in the mountains, then tied victim to the tree in morning, and then killed him. Consider night time and treachery separately. (People v Bernidad) Treachery inherent in murder by poisoning. o
•
•
• • • •
• •
•
•
•
Ignominy 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
•
Moral attribute, adds disgrace to the material injury caused by the crime
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
41
am+dg
• • •
•
Relates to moral suffering (whereas cruelty refers to physical suffering) Circumstance pertaining to a moral order which adds disgrace to the material injury caused to the offended party; makes crime more humiliating Victim must still be alive (P v. Fuertes, where accused sliced off flesh of the victim after the death. But should have been discussed in cruelty. But either way, won’t be appreciated, patay na eh) o Same ruling in P v. Cachola, where victim’s privates were severed off after he was shot. Examples: o Lighting a cigarette on the pubic area of an 8-year old victim (P v. Valla) o Raping doggy-style (People v Saylan, and in the sick twisted case of P v Siao) Rape before father or spouse (this has been amended by RA 8353, which made it a special qualifying circumstance, see discussion below) Forcing victim to exhibit herself in her full nakedness before the rape Raping a preggy victim (this has also been amended by RA 8353, which made it a special qualifying circumstance) Tying a banana fiber around his junk before raping the victim (enumerated in P v. Bacule, where sodomy, to appreciate ignominy, was not proven by the prosecution) o Note: Glenn’s notes state that Art 266-A has changed the rulings of the doggy-style cases from rape to sexual assault. However, sexual assault talks of inserting one’s penis into another’s mouth or anal orifice. In the two doggy-style cases, the penis was inserted into the vagina of the victims. Hence, it should still be covered under rape, not sexual assault. Unlawful entry/breaking of wall
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken. 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
• • •
Qualifies theft into robbery Inherent in trespass and robbery with force upon things Par 18 will not apply when ingress is made by breaking; it will go under Par 19. Aid of minors/use of motor vehicles
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438).
• •
Use of o Use of o
minor: minor is under 15 years old Conspiracy with minor? Minor exempt, adult punished with AC. motor vehicles: motor vehicles facilitated the commission of the crime Using a get-away car in a bank robbery: no, because crime already committed Cruelty
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commissions.
•
•
• • •
Must be done while victim was alive and the offender delighted in the suffering of the victim o Offender enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act Test: whether accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission or inhumanly increased the victim’s suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse (P v. Sitchon, where bad common-law dad beat to death his 2-year old son for spreading his poo around the floor. The Court did not consider cruelty because no proof that commonlaw dad enjoyed the beating) Multiple wounds not per se cruelty Chopping off head of victim – cruelty In robbery with homicide, can the extra (2nd or 3rd) killing be counted as an aggravating circumstance analogous to cruelty? (Keep in mind that there’s no such thing as robbery with multiple homicide/rape) o P v. Abdul (1999), robbery which resulted to 2 dead and 3 mortally wounded, Court said yes, extra killings should be appreciated as an AC, to avoid the anomalous situation where from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one killing would be on the same level as robbery with multiple killings. o P v. Regala (2000), robbery occasioned with 2 rapes, Court said no. Enumeration of Art 14
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
42
am+dg
o
exclusive. Additional rapes absorbed by robbery with rape. Remedy to the anomalous situation lies with legislature. [en banc decision!] P v. De Jesus (2004), robbery with 2 dead (hold-up cases, tapos P5000 lang nakuha), no, additional killing not an aggravating circumstance. Weird case: accused robbed victim, raped her and then killed her. Court convicted him of robbery with homicide, and counted the rape as ignominy. WRONG. Should not prevail over P. v Regala. It was only a division ruling. Special Laws Relating to Aggravating Circumstances Dangerous Drugs Act
Section 25. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by an Offender Under the Influence of Dangerous Drugs. – Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the application of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable.
• • • •
Qualifying aggravating. Used in P v. Belgar, rape of mental 12-year old mental retardate Not used in P v. Sitchon, because prosecution used drugs under intoxication. It was not considered. Teacher considered a person-in-authority under DDA Illegal/Unlawful Possession of Firearms and Explosives
Section 1. Sec. 1 Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "Sec. 1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition or instruments used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition. — The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was committed. "The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm is classified as high powered firearm which includes those with bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms but considered powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and other firearms with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of two or three: Provided, however, That no other crime was committed by the person arrested. "If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. "If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat. "The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or knowingly allow any of them to use unlicensed firearms or firearms without any legal authority to be carried outside of their residence in the course of their employment. "The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal authority therefor." Sec. 2. Sec. 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "Sec. 3. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of explosives. — The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose or possess hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), and other explosives, including but not limited to 'pillbox,' 'molotov cocktail bombs,' 'fire bombs,' or other incendiary devices capable of producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any person. "When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or special laws with the use of the aforementioned explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices, which results in the death of any person or persons, the use of such explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
43
am+dg
"If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crimes of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'etat. "The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the explosives owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity, to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs."
•
•
•
•
•
• •
What happens? Unlicensed Firearms Homicide or Special AC murder Political crimes Absorbed Used in other Not AC, not even crime separate offense For unlicensed explosives, becomes a special AC only when: o Used to commit ANY crime (RPC or SPL), and o Someone dies. What if no one dies? • Mickey Note: This was the ruling before RA 9516. Now, RA 9516 has removed any mentioned of explosives being absorbed by political crimes or being aggravating only when death arises. Intent to possess firearm essential (P. v Dela Rosa) o Temporary possession not covered. o So if you grabbed the gun from an assailant to protect yourself, you’re not guilty of illegal possession. In P v. Comadre, the Court said that 8294 amended Art 14 (12) by adding the use of unlicensed explosives as an aggravating circumstance. o Dissent: Absurd. If illegally possessed, only aggravating. But if legally possessed, qualified to murder. Use of an unlicensed explosives is aggravating, because it says any crime in the RPC. So that should include murder, it shouldn’t be qualifying. Take note that if unlicensed firearm is used to commit murder or homicide, it is merely an aggravating circumstance. o The murder or homicide must be consummated. If crime merely attempted or frustrated, this AC does not apply. o Take note of the phrase “that no other crime was committed.” This means that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime (not murder or homicide since it has its own paragraph), there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the crime was direct assault and multiple attempted homicide, the accused can no longer be charged with the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms, even if its penalty is heavier than direct assault. (P v Ladjaalam) Nor can use of an unlicensed firearm be used as an AC against him (since it only pertains to murder and homicide). But the use of arms can be used against him homicide with use of weapon. (P v Ladjaalam) Moreover, an accused may evade conviction for illegal possession by using such weapons in committing an even lighter offense, like alarm and scandal or slight physical injuries. Remedy is with Congress. o Note that the person must first be convicted for that other crime, before this anomaly in the law can be used by the accused. o “Murder or homicide” includes parricide or infanticide. (P v. Mendoza, where husband shot wife. But can be argued that the broad interpretation is wrong. Interpretation of doubts must be always for the accused.) It is a special AC, not merely generic. Can’t be offset.(P v. de Leon, P. v Palaganas) What if robbery with homicide? The use of illegal firearms is not an AC. Only considered if murder or homicide. That’s it. (P v. Sabadao) o But in People v. Abdul (2000), the SC 1st division affirmed the RTC ruling which considered it as an AC. This is wrong.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
44
am+dg
In People v. Domacyong (2003), the SC ruled that that the AC of illegal possession can be considered in robbery with homicide. This is wrong. (The Court was right though for acquitting them of the separate charge of illegal possession) Security agency has license to possess firearm, guard does not. Guard uses gun to commit murder. AC? Yes, guard has no license to possess that firearm, only the employer. (Catalina v Decano, “Pursuant to Section 1 in relation to Section 5, the firearm used in an unauthorized manner shall be considered an aggravating circumstance. We are in agreement that even if the firearm used was properly licensed to the security agency, its unauthorized use by the appellant aggravated his offense.”) o Compare to Cuenca v People (1970), where security guard was charged for illegal possession. He did not know that agency did not have the proper license. He was acquitted. Does the firearm have to be presented during trial? o No! The corpus delicti is the possession of the firearm. Not the firearm. You just have to prove possession without license. You can do this through a certification from the PNP that accused did not have a license. Are paltiks covered? Yes. You have a license, but no permit to bring it out of your house, and then you bring it out. What happens? Liable ka boy. (Pastrano v CA) Accused in possession of two guns, one high-powered and the other low-powered. Can he be charged for 2 crimes? Yes! Different penalty for high-powered and low-powered eh! o What if he has 3 high-powered guns, can he be charge for 3 crimes? No, just 1 crime. Since it only has one penalty! Gun ban during election, right? Accused brings out his unlicensed firearm. Solve. o Not AC (not murder or homicide) and not even considered separate (used in other crime eh!) o Guilty of violating the gun ban. o
•
•
• • •
•
Anti-Rape Law Article 266-B. Penalties. Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution; When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity; When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime; When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old; When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV) Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim; When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines of para-military units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime; When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime; and When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of crime. Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prison mayor. Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed , the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/qualifying Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
45
am+dg circumstances mentioned in this article.
• •
RA 8353 is found in Art 266-B of the RPC. Crime of simple rape becomes qualified, becomes RP to death. Did RA 8353 amend Art 14? o In sense, RA 8353 amended Art 14. o In 266-B, the use of a deadly weapon to commit rape is a special qualifying circumstance. It is not anymore an AC under Art 14, but is under 266-B. Alternative Circumstances
Art. 15. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender. The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender. The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstances when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
• • •
Always generic Denominated as AC or MC, as the case may be Relationship o Exclusively: (SADBRoSA) Spouse Ascendant Descendant Legit, natural or adopted Brother or Sistah Relative by affinity in the same degrees • Stepparents and stepchildren included by analogy o But the step spouse and the parent of the child must be legally married. Do they always have to be married for relationship to be considered aggravating? • No. See 266-B, where even the common-law spouse is included. However, this is considered a special qualifying circumstance. • Uncles and nieces: NO. • No other relatives by consanguinity included. (hence first cousins not included) o GR: in crimes against chastity, relationship AGGRAVATING, whether the offender is a higher or a lower degree relative of the offended party. What about rape, since it’s now crime against persons? • Since Art 15 does not say when relationship is an AC and when it’s an MC, and rape was punishable by death, relationship should not be deemed an AC. In case of doubt, you must favor the accused, hence, it should not be considered an AC. (discussion academic since no more death penalty and because of 266-B) o But see Art 266-B which now makes relationship in rape cases a special qualifying circumstance. • However, for civil liability, consider it as an AC. o GR: in crimes against persons, relationship AGGRAVATING. In sexual assault, relationship aggravating. (People v Abello, 2009) But see People v Velarde (36 Phil 991), where dude struck his brother in law. Court considered it mitigating since it was for a laudible purpose. (exceptional case!) o In crimes against property, it depends. If robbery with homicide, aggravating. (P v. Larosa) If theft, estafa, malicious mischief, exempting because of Art 332. o In Child Abuse cases, relationship AGGRAVATING, because of Sec 31 (c) of RA 7610. 30
30
The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity, or a manager or owner of an establishment which has no license to operate or its license has Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
46
am+dg
When does relationship become exempting? Art 20 (accessories exempted) Art 247 (legally married spouse catching spouse having sex with another) Art 332 (theft, swindling, or malicious mischief by relatives, see codal) Sec 6, RA 9372 (relatives who are accessories in the Human Securities Act except those who profited)31 What about if theft with falsification? ABANGAN! o When should relationship not be considered? If inherent in the crime. Like parricide. Intoxication o To be mitigating: Actually intoxicated/drunk (self-control diminished), and Not a habitual drinker and did not take the alcoholic drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime o To be aggravating: Habitual drunk Drank to strengthen resolve o What about in VAWC (Art 9262), can you use intoxication as a defense? Hell no.32 But can you use it as mitigating? Dandandan! Degree of instruction or education o If crime is basically wrong, like parricide, robbery or rape, it is immaterial whether the offender is schooled or not. It’s not mitigating. But see People v Limaco (83 Phil 85) where dude butchered his kids and he only finished grade 1. Court considered mitigating. Also People v. Ramos where robbers killed a 96 year old man. Court considered lack of education mitigating. Both are unusual cases. o It is not illiteracy alone but the lack of intelligence of the offender that is considered. o The high degree of learning should be taken in relation to the crime committed whether his education puts him into a better position than the ordinary offenders. Like estafa or malversation committed by a lawyer should be considered aggravating. Slander by a medical student? AC according to P. v. Roque (40 OG 1710). Don’t know how the crime committed put him in a better position to commit the slander though. • High degree of instruction was considered AC when a judge was smoking opium. Again, don’t know how that put him in a better position. (P v. Gabud, old case!) But if a lawyer punches an annoying person, high degree of learning should not be considered aggravating. Walang kinalaman eh. o High degree of learning should also not be considered aggravating for abortion practiced by a physician or midwife, since their skills are already inherent in that crime. o GR: Low degree of learning may be mitigating, never aggravating. o GR: High degree of learning may be aggravating, never mitigating. o
•
•
Title Two PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: 1. Principals. 2. Accomplices. 3. Accessories. expired or has been revoked 31 Any person who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, and without having participated therein, either as principal or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18 of the Revised Penal Code, takes part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner: (a) by profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime; (b) by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects, or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery; (c) by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal or conspirator of the crime, shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment. Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of subparagraph (a). 32 SECTION 27. Prohibited Defense. – Being under the influence of alcohol, any illicit drug, or any other mind-altering substance shall not be a defense under this Act. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
47
am+dg The following are criminally liable for light felonies: 1. Principals 2. Accomplices.
•
•
•
•
•
For light felonies, accessories are not liable because the light felonies are punished with arresto menor. Accessories are given the penalty two degrees lower than the principals. There is nothing two degrees below arresto menor. Special stuff for special students First off, may a private corporation, partnership or association or other juridical entity be criminally liable? o Yes, if the law provides a penalty for the corporation. Or even if the crime is committed by a corporation, but prescribes a penalty on the officers or directors or employees. The state is not prevented from penalizing a corporation for violation of a penal law, even if the crime is committed by its agents. (P. v Chow Duri and Ching v Sec of Justice) o Principle applied in the Trust Receipts Law, and the Labor Code (where the license of one found to be an illegal recruiter can be revoked). o Also applied in the Dangerous Drugs Act (Sec 30). Officers liable. 33 What about in the Anti-Hazing Law (RA 8049), what are the rules? o Principals: Those who actually participated in the hazing Parent of a frat/sorority member who owned the place where the hazing occurred, knew of it but still did not do anything to stop it Officers, former officers, alumni who planned it, even if they weren’t there Frat/sorority advisor who was present but didn’t stop it Anyone there who did not prevent it o Accessory Owner of the place where the hazing occurred and who knew of the hazing and did not stop it School authorities who actually knew and consented to it Is there command-responsibility in Philippine Law? o GR: No. EXCEPT: in the Genocide Law (RA 9851), the superiors are liable for the acts of their subordinates.34 Keep in mind that this only applies to RA 9851. Also in the Anti-Torture Act. See Sec 13. In the Anti-Torture Act of 2009, senior officers who give orders to their minions to torture people are liable as principals.35
33
Section 30. Criminal Liability of Officers of Partnerships, Corporations, Associations or Other Juridical Entities. – In case any violation of this Act is committed by a partnership, corporation, association or any juridical entity, the partner, president, director, manager, trustee, estate administrator, or officer who consents to or knowingly tolerates such violation shall be held criminally liable as a co-principal. The penalty provided for the offense under this Act shall be imposed upon the partner, president, director, manager, trustee, estate administrator, or officer who knowingly authorizes, tolerates or consents to the use of a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment or other facility, as an instrument in the importation, sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, transportation or manufacture of dangerous drugs, or chemical diversion, if such vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment or other instrument is owned by or under the control or supervision of the partnership, corporation, association or juridical entity to which they are affiliated. 34 Section 10. Responsibility of Superiors. - In addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility for crimes defined and penalized under this Act, a superior shall be criminally responsible as a principal for such crimes committed by subordinates under his/her effective command and control, or effective authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his/her failure to properly exercise control over such subordinates, where: (a) That superior either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes; (b) That superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his/her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. 35
Section 13. Who are Criminally Liable. - Any person who actually participated Or induced another in the commission of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment or who cooperated in the execution of the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment by previous or simultaneous acts shall be liable as principal Any superior military, police or law enforcement officer or senior government official who issued an order to any lower ranking personnel to commit torture for whatever purpose shall be held equally liable as principals. The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the AFP or the immediate senior public official of the PNP and other law enforcement agencies shall be held liable as a principal to the crime of torture or other cruel or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment for any act or omission, or negligence committed by him/her that shall have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the commission thereof by his/her subordinates. If he/she has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his/her subordinates or by others within his/her area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not take preventive or corrective action either before, during or immediately after its commission, when Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
48
am+dg
Art. 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it; 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.
•
Direct participation (PDP) o Those who materially execute the crime o Those who carried out the plan and directly participated in the execution of the crime o Usually, there’s consiparcy. But can there be PDP without conspiracy? • Yes! Two guys, who don’t know each other, get pissed at some dude at a bar. They shot him at the same time. Nagkataon lang. Both are liable as PDP. (P. v. Figueroa) What about the mastermind, does he have to commit an overt act in the execution of the planned conspiracy? • No. enough to be held as co-principal through conspiracy, as long as there is involvement in the planning and commission. What do you mean by an overt act, or an act which materially executes the crime? • Active participation (dude shot the other guy), • Moral assistance to the other conspirators (other dudes cheered him on). Also, moral support or exercising moral ascendancy. o But keep in mind that mere presence doesn’t make him PDP unless he gave moral assistance or exercised moral ascendancy. (P. v. Flores) Can someone not be in the scene of the crime and still be a principal? • Opowz koyah/ateh. • The general rule is that the PDP must be at the place of the commission of the crime. However, the law does not require that PDP is there in the scene of the crime (locus ciminis). • For as long as the conspirators perform specific acts that were coordinated pursuant to the conspiracy, they are all principals. Even if their acts are performed in different places. • Masterminds are principals even if they’re not actually there. Look-outs who are conspirators are also principals are also principals even if they just stand outside the scene of the crime. Must conspirator know every single detail of the crime? • No. As long as he knows his role. (P. v. Masagnay) Three guys killed a victim by all stabbing him. Is it a complex crime? • No. Only one crime of homicide. Number of crimes committed is not dependent on the number of conspirators, but on number of victims. (P. v. Verayon) Rape committed by 2 or more persons, what happens? • Qualifying circumstance. If husband rapes the victim, while sick wife holds the victim’s arms, husband PDP, wife PIC. (P. v. Hofilenia) Is it possible that 2 persons are conspirators but are liable for different crimes? i.e. same over act, but different liabilities. • Yes. o Private individual liable for delivery of prisoner, while escapee liable for evasion of sentence. o Husband and friend killed wife. Husband parricide. Friend homicide. Can a private person be liable for malversation? • Yes. By conspiring with a public official. Review of conspiracy doctrines for complex crimes. • GR: in robbery with homicide, when persons conspire to commit robbery, they expect that it can be attended by violence. o EX: one desisted before the homicide was committed. (P. v. Napalit). Hence, it’s possible that one is liable for robbery only, while the others
he/she has the authority to prevent or investigate allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment but failed to prevent or investigate allegations of such act, whether deliberately or due to negligence shall also be liable as principals. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
49
am+dg
are liable for robbery with homicide. Same rule with robbery with rape. All are liable for robbery with rape, even those who didn’t put their peepees in the victim’s vajayjays. (P v Verseles, P v Punsalan) o EX: those who endeavored to prevent the rape by overt acts will not be liable for the rape, just robbery. Mere silence is not enough, nor is running away. But totally different when they robbed, went on their merry way, but horny robber went back to rape the victim. Only horny robber guilty of robbery with rape. (gulo ng crim putek.) May one be a PDP on the basis of a presumption? Yes. One caught in possession of recently stolen property is presumed to be author of the theft or robbery. Inducement (PDI) Difference between PDP and PDI: in the former, the PDP does an overt act. In PDI, the PDI induces, doesn’t really do the overt act. Two ways of becoming a PDI: By directly forcing another to commit a crime • Though irresistible force or causing uncontrollable fear By directly inducing another to commit a crime • By giving a price, offering a reward or promise • By using words of command Requisites: Inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime, and Inducement be the determining cause of the commission othe crime by the material execution. As to the first requisite, the PDI must intend that his inducement should be obeyed. Mere careless comment made by one who does not possess dominance or moral ascendancy over the offender will not make the former a PDI. The one who made the careless comment is not even criminally liable. Masama bang magcomment? It is essential that the inducement must be the sole cause that the crime was committed. A offered B P50 to kill C. B accepted it, but in truth, he had been wanting to kill C ever since. B killed C. B was not paid. Is A a PDI? • No. A’s offer was not the determining cause. B had two motives – money and revenge. Inducement must be the sole cause. (P. v. Laohas) • If PDP does it for his own reason, PDI not liable. What if the PDP is not paid by the PDI after the inducement? What if PDI reneged on his promise? Doesn’t matter, as long as he was induced in the first place. Remember price, reward or promise? It’s a qualifying circumstance in murder. It’s imputed both on the PDI and the PDP. The use or words must have actually moved the hands of the PDP, such that the PDP has no other recourse but to obey the command. PDI must have moral dominance over the PDP. Moral ascendancy, however, is not enough. (P v. Dumanacas 320 SCRA 600). Does PDI have to be in the scene of the crime to be liable? No. they are liable even if they did not appear in the scene. The reason they induce people to do their dirty work is so that they don’t have to be there in the first place. Can the PDP be exempt, while the PDI/PIC still held liable? Yes! Under Article 332. (P v Po, PDP exempt, PIC liable.) Also when a guy lies about this details to a clerk to get his residence permit. Clerk is not liable because he was in good faith, but liar liable as a PDI. Also when the PDP can make use of exempting circumstances. (bad dude induces 8-year old kid to do some crime.) How does error in personae affect the PDI? A induced B to kill C. B killed D by mistake. • A not PDI in the killing of D. B is PDP for death of D. • Crime committed must be the crime A induced B to do. •
o •
Direct o o
o
o
o
o
o o
o
o
o
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
50
am+dg
How does Art 4 affect the PDI? A told B to punch C in the back. C dies. • A is PDI in the death of C. Article 4 applies. o Can love be used to induce? Yes. A has a paramour B, who loved C. A told D to kill B with the promise that if he does, “ako ay sa iyo na, buong buo.” D killed B. A is PDI. (P v Ramos, 91 Phil 678).36 • What if A does not give herself buong buo to D? Indispensable cooperation (PIC) o Difference from PDP: PIC’s act is different from the overt act of the PDP o Direct participation in the criminal design by another act which the crime could not have been committed. o The PIC need not be a party in the planning stage of a conspiracy for he may become a principal at the moment of the execution of the crime with the other principals, if his act was indispensable to the crime. Hence, even if he wasn’t there while the others were planning, if his act showed that it was indispensable to the criminal design of the PDPs, he will be liable as a PDI. o Does the PIC have to be in the scene of the crime? No. A, who lives in the US, gives B poison to kill C. B used the poison to kill C here in the Philippines. A is PIC. B is PDP. o Can a PIC commit a crime different from the PDP? Yes. Malversation through falsification of public documents committed by a public offier in conspiracy with a private individual. Private individual may be liable for malversation. (P v. Sandaydiego). Husband gives poison to friend to kill wife. Friend homicide. Husband parricide. o Can the PDP be liable by dolo, yet the PIC by culpa? Yes. (Andan v People, People v Samson, People v Magsuci) A made check payable to “X.” A went to the drawee bank, talked to employee B, and convinced B that she was “X.” B allowed without verifying the identity. A got to encash the check. • A liable for dolo. B by culpa. A would not have been able to achieve his criminal scheme were it not for B’s negligence. A convinced B to give him a check worth P500. B gave it to him, telling him that he didn’t have any money it that account. A said, “ako bahala sa iyo pre.” A negotiated the check to C for P1m. Both are liable for estafa. A as PDP. B as PIC, even if he was only negligent. o
•
Art. 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
•
•
•
•
•
An accomplice is one who: o Not being a principal o Cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts o Role in perpetration of the crime is of a minor character To be an accomplice: o Offender should take part in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts, and o Intends to take part in the commission of the crime Conspiracy not needed for he is not a principal but he supplies material or moral aid to the principal in an efficacious way o If there’s conspiracy, he becomes a principal His cooperation is not indispensable to the commission of the crime o His prior or simultaneous acts not indispensable for commission of crime, not over acts for commission An accomplice agrees to contribute or to assist. His acts must have a relation to the crime of the principal. o A killed B. C was the lookout. But while B was being stabbed by A, C stole from B. What’s the
36
"Ahas na kung ahas, mali na rin kung mali. Pero sinunod ko lang ang puso ko. Mali ba un?" - Angelu de Leon, Wala Na Bang Pag-ibig? (1997) @PinoyMovieQuotes Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
51
am+dg
•
liability of C? Accomplice to the murder of B. Principal of the robbery of B. o A and B agreed to rob C. B killed C. Liabilities? A – robbery with homicide. B – robbery with homicide. When does the accomplice acquire knowledge of the commission of the crime by the PDP? o Accomplices come to know of the criminal resolution of the principals after the latter have reached a decision to commit a crime. The accomplice does not decide the commission of a crime. The accomplice just agrees after the criminal resolution is accomplished, he does not conspire. But if the accomplice commits an act of execution, he becomes a PDP. As to… Inducement
Cooperation When acts are committed Conspiracy
• • •
•
Principals Without such inducement, crime would not be committed
Accomplices Inducement or utterance is not indispensable; with or without such, the crime would still be committed (since principal already determined to commit the crime) Indispensable Minor Both act before or during the commission of the crime Decide that the Merely concur it crime should be in and cooperate committed in the accomplishment Authors of the Mere crime instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration
Mere knowledge and participation therefore do not suffice to make one a conspirator, for such are elements also of an accomplice, especially if even without his participation (like a look-out), the crime could have been accomplished. However, where the acts of the accused show that he shared in the community of purpose with the principals and their acts collectively demonstrate the existence of a common design, conspiracy becomes evident and all will be liable as principals. Principals and accomplices both know and agree with the criminal design. They have that in common. o Difference lies in the fact that conspirators know the criminal intention because they themselves have decided to commit the crime; accomplices just come to know about it after. May one be charged and convicted as accomplice/accessory even before the principal is charged or convicted? Should the PDP first be convicted before the accomplice/accessory be charged or convicted? o As long as the commission of the crime is proven beyond reasonable doubt, determination of criminal responsibility of accessory/accomplice may be determined independently of and separately from liability of PDP. (P v. Rafael) But if the case is dismissed against the PDP, the case against the accessory/accomplice must also be dismissed because the liability of the accomplice/accessory is subordinate to that of the PDP. The accomplice/accessory is like a shadow that follows the PDP and not the other way around. (PCGG v Desierto) • BUT if the PDP is exempted from the crime, it does not follow that the accomplice/accessory is exempted, or that the case against the accomplice/accessory should be dismissed as well.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
52
am+dg
•
• • • • •
AND dismissal of the case against the accomplice/accessory does not result to the dismissal of the case against the PDP. o PDP acquitted because crime was not committed at all. What happens to accomplice/accessory? They can’t be charged. Crime was not committed. o PDP is dead. Can accomplice/accessory still be charged? Yes, they can still be prosecuted. In PD 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law), anyone who aids or abets piracy or robbery in the highway is considered an accomplice, not an accessory. 37 In Human Securities Act (RA 9372), an accomplice basically follows the same definition of the RPC. 38 In the Genocide Law (RA 9851), an accomplice is one who facilitates the commission of the crime. 39 In the Anti-Torture Act (RA 9745), there is no definition of an accomplice. (So I guess follow the RPC definition? Since suppletory?) Are there accomplices in bigamy? o A, a married man, marries B who knew of A’s subsisting marriage. One case (P v. Arcilla) said A is a PDP, while B is an accomplice. Another case (P v. Nepomuceno) said A is a PDP, while B is a PIC.
Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners: 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery. 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
•
•
Accessories are those who: o Have knowledge of the commission of the crime o Without having participated therein o Take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners: Profiting or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the crime Concealing the body of the crime or effects or the instruments thereof to prevent its discovery Harboring, concealing or assisting the escape of the principal (see two kinds below) • By a public officer who acts with abuse of public functions, he is liable whatever crime may have been committed by the offender • By a private individual and only when the author of the crime is guilty of treason, attempt on the life of the Chief Exec, murder, parricide or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime o So a private individual will only be liable as an accessory for harboring the escape of the offender for those crimes enumerated. Compare this to the public officer who is guilty for whatever crime. o Take note that in the second instance, the principal must have been adjudged guilty. Profiting or assisting the offender to profit o Intent to gain not enough, there must have been some gain or material benefit.
37
Section 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway robbery/brigandage. Any person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the movement of police or other peace officers of the government, or acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or any person who directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway robbery or brigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this Section has performed knowingly, unless the contrary is proven. 38 Section 5. Any person who, not being a principal under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code or a conspirator as defined in Section 4 hereof, cooperates in the execution of either the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous or simultaneous acts shall suffer the penalty of from seventeen (17) years, four (4) months one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment. 39 Section 8 (b) A person shall be criminally liable as accomplice for facilitating the commission of a crime defined and penalized in this Act if he/she aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
53
am+dg
A person who received any property from another and used it, knowing the property was stolen, is guilty as an accessory by profiting. o If the crime is robbery/theft and one bought, sold, possessed, or profited from the goods stolen, what is he guilty of? Principal for crime of fencing.40 (SPL) Accessory to the principals in the crime of robbery or theft. • Prosecution has option of choosing what to charge. o One who receives part of the ransom/loot from kidnapper/robbery with homicide is an accessory to the crime of kidnapping/robbery with homicide. Concealing the body of the crime/effects/instruments thereof to prevent its discovery o Body of the crime/corpus delicti is the substance of the crime. The fact that a crime has actually been committed. Made up of 2 things: Existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, (criminal event) and Existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result. (criminal responsibility) Harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal o See notes above o The offender to be assisted must be the principal. No assisting of an accomplice. o Accused policemen witnessed the killing of the victim by co-accused. Policeman failed to arrest culprit and even told co-accused not to tell the other policeman. Was policeman an accessory? Damn right he was, under 3rd paragraph. It was his duty to arrest culprit and not to conceal commission of crime by silence or misleading authorities that accused was really culprit. By his acts, he abused his public position. (P v. Antonio, July 2000) o Policeman helps Leviste (serving time for murder) escape. Liabilities? Policeman principal for infidelity. Leviste principal for evasion of sentence. Is the policeman accessory to murder or evasion? • Justice Callejo: evasion! o But isn’t the policeman a PDP or PIC? Leviste couldn’t have escaped were it not for the actions of the policeman. (ewan.) • Boado: those who assist the principal to escape maybe prosecuted under PD 1829 on obstruction of justice not as accessory but as a principal, provided that a separate information shall be prepared for the crime of obstruction. o
•
•
Participation Knowledge Acts
Liability
Penalty
Accomplice Before or during the commission of the offense Knows the criminal design of the principal Provides material or moral aid in an efficacious way but not in a manner indispensable to the offense No exemption
1 degree lower than principal’s
Accessory Subsequent to the commission of the offense Knows the commission of the offense Acts in the 3 ways in Art 19
Exempted under Art 20 and for light felonies (Art 16) 2 degrees lower than principals’
40
Elements of Fencing: robbery or theft committed, accused does not participate in the robbery or theft, accused acquires proceeds of robbery or theft, has actual knowledge or should have known subject is from robbery or theft, intent to acquire. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
54
am+dg
Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. — The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
•
• • •
•
•
•
Who are exempt? (SADBroSA) o Spouse o Ascendant o Descendant o Legitimate, natural, and adopted bros and sis o Relatives by affinity within the same degrees Why? Natural affection for the offender. Exempt for acts in art 19 EXCEPT if they profit or assist the offender to profit (because no longer natural affection, but because of greed). A killed B, told sister C to hide body of B. A and C buried B. SC: Sister exempt. Got to preserve the cleanliness of one’s name. it compels one to conceal crimes by relatives. o Justice Callejo: I don’t agree with that shiznit. What if policeman furnishes means for his brother to escape with abuse of public position? Is the policeman exempt? o Pacheco: Yes, ties of blood constitute a more powerful incentive than call of duty (modern warfare). o Law does not distinguish between private individuals and public officers either. o Justice Callejo: I agree with that shiznit. Does the pari delicto rule apply in criminal cases? o No. if two people agree to fight, and one gets beaten up. He can sue the other for physical injuries. Does estoppel apply? o No. Estoppel does not apply against the State. Penalties
Title Three PENALTIES Chapter One PENALTIES IN GENERAL Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
• • • • •
Only penalties prescribed by law prior to its commission can be imposed on the offender. No imprisonment at the discretion of the court. There must be limits imposed by law. In BP22 and libel, the SC issued admin orders giving preference to fine over imprisonment. This doesn’t mean that the SC abolished imprisonment. The favorable judgment by the appellate court on an accused will be applied to his co-accused if it is favorable and applicable to the latter. Court can impose either fine or imprisonment. But it can never imposed “fine and/or imprisonment.” Accused can’t choose how he wants to serve his sentence.
Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
•
RA 9346 which prevents the imposition of the death penalty could be apply retroactively because it favors the accused. o Even if no more death penalty, the classification of heinous crimes still remains because of the possibility that it will once again be revived. Moreover, civil liability is still dependent on the nature of heinous crimes. (P v Bon) o Even if the offender is a habitual delinquent, RA 9346 will still benefit him. Congress intended it
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
55
am+dg
•
• •
•
to benefit even the habitual delinquent. This article applies equally to the RPC and to SPLs. o See Juvenile Justice Act (RA 9344) which was applied retroactively to kids who were below 18 at the commission of the crime o Sir also mentioned VAWC (RA 9262), I don’t know why. Court can apply even if not invoked by the accused. What is the effect of an absolute repeal of penal laws? o Extinguishes liability of accused, EXCEPT Saving clause in the repealing statute When repealing statute re-enacts the former statute and punishes the act previously penalized under the old law What if implied repeal or repeal by re-enactment? o The first law will govern if the accused is a habitual delinquent or the favorable second law prohibits retroactivity. o While the second law will govern if favorable to the offender who is not a habitual delinquent or the law is silent as to its retroactivity.
Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. — A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver.
• •
Amended by RA 8353 See Art 89
Art. 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are nor considered penalties. — The following shall not be considered as penalties: 1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital. 2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for the purposes specified therein. (repealed! See Art 9344) 3. Suspension from the employment of public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings. 4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their administrative disciplinary powers, superior officials may impose upon their subordinates. 5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form.
• • •
Not imposed after trial but mere preventive measures Paragraph 2 has been repealed by the Juvenile Justice Act. Not a penalty but a measure to enhance the person of a minor. Other relevant special laws: o PNP Act (RA 6975) – preventive suspension of policemen during criminal trials (Sec 41 and 47) o Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) – suspension of public official after filing of a valid information o Plunder Act (RA 7080) - suspension of public official after filing of a valid information o VAWC (RA 9262) – offended party entitled to protection orders, or accused must file a bond to keep the peace
Chapter Two CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. — The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and their different classes, are those included in the following: Scale Principal Penalties Capital punishment: Death. Afflictive penalties: Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion temporal, Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Prision mayor. Correctional penalties: Prision correccional, Arresto mayor, Suspension, Destierro. Light penalties: Arresto menor, Public censure. Penalties common to the three preceding classes: Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
56
am+dg Fine, and Bond to keep the peace. Accessory Penalties Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling. Civil interdiction, Indemnification, Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense, Payment of costs.
•
•
•
•
•
•
General characteristics of penalties in the RPC: o Graduated according to ceverity o Divided into periods (except RP) o Classified into principal or accessory o Deemed imposed for consummated crimes o Imposed against the principal offenders o Max imposable for the particular crime to which they are respectively prescribed o Understood to be a degree for purposes of lowering the penalty under the ISL, privileged mitigating, and for applying Art 50-57 Death penalty o Can no longer be imposed, but RA 9346 did not abolish it since the Constitution allows it to be imposed in heinous crimes Reclusion perpetua o Court should use proper RPC nomenclature o Indivisible penalty (RP, Perpetual absolute or special DQ, public censure) Not affected by mitigating or aggravating circumstances Impose penalty in its entirety, even if there is special aggravating or two mitigating, it will not be affected • But if PRIVILEGED mitigating, it may be reduced by 1 or 2 degrees o After imprisonment of 30 years, eligible for pardon. Court may not impose “30 years of RP”, they should just impose RP. There 30 years doesn’t refer to the duration of RP, but to the eligibility of parole and for purposes of computing the 3-fold rule. o Different from life imprisonment Except in PD 818 Syndicated Estafa: max of 30 years, with accessory penalties provided by RP for 30 years Life Imprisonment Reclusion Perpetua SPL RPC No fixed duration (through lifetime of Fixed duration (20 years, 1 day to 40 convict) years) No accessory penalties With accessory penalties o In P v Canales, court imposed 40 years of RP, with accessory penalties of death and cannot be pardoned until after 40 years. How come? Under Art 309, theft is punishable by RT. But for qualified theft, penalty is 2 degress higher, which is death. But under Art 74, if the next higher penalty is death, then it becomes RP, with accessory penalty of death. This is also the reason why he can’t be pardoned before 40 years, instead of the usual 30 years. Dual personality of disqualification and suspension o It can be a principal penalty Temporary DQ – 6 years, 1 day to 12 years Suspension – 6 months, 1 day to 6 years o It can also be an accessory penalty Follow the period of the principal penalty. Court can not extend the DQ or suspension if it merely follows the principal penalty, can’t extend beyond principal penalty. Suspension o All prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence, cannot practice their profession or engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention. Bond to keep the peace is a principal penalty yet there is no crime in Book II which imposes it. No occasion to mete this penalty on a convict. o Compare with bond for good behavior (Art 248 for grave and light threats only). Failure to post
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
57
am+dg
•
What o o o
bond for good behavior means destierro for accused. Failure to post bond to keep the peace means detention for accused. are some instances when a lesser offense absorbs the graver offense? Rebellion (RT) absorbs murder (RP) Forcible abduction (RT) absorbs illegal detention of a woman (RP) Slavery involving kidnapping of a person (PM) absorbs kidnapping (RP)
Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. — A fine, whether imposed as a single of as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it less than 200 pesos.
• • • • •
Read in conjunction with Art 38 (order of payment of pecuniary liabilities) Fine is not given to the complainant, it is given to the State. Fine is for vindication! Accused can use his cash bail bond to pay his fine, if he is convicted. Law does not prohibit him from using his cash bail bond to pay his fine. It is only meant to ensure his attendance during the process. Fine is not a substitute for imprisonment. It’s completely independent. What if exactly P200, how do you reconcile Art 9 and Art 26? o Art 9 should prevail when the issue is prescription of crime. It’s considered a light felony and prescribes in 2 months. o But Art 26 should prevail when the issue is prescription of penalty. It’s considered correctional, and prescribes in 10 years.
Chapter Three DURATION AND EFFECTS OF PENALTIES Section One. — Duration of Penalties Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. — Any person sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years, unless such person by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon. Reclusion temporal. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years and one day to twenty years. Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. — The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. — The duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty. Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six months. Arresto menor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days. Bond to keep the peace. — The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as the court may determine. Art. 28. Computation of penalties. — If the offender shall be in prison, the term of the duration of the temporary penalties shall be computed from the day on which the judgment of conviction shall have become final. If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration of the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty shall be computed from the day that the offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities for the enforcement of the penalty. The duration of the other penalties shall be computed only from the day on which the defendant commences to serve his sentence.
• •
How do you compute the penalty if the accused is not in jail during trial? o If absent during trial, time from arrest What if he was in prison? o From finality of date of conviction. If he appeals, he has to wait until the finality of conviction.
Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. — Offenders who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases: 1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
58
am+dg 2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily. If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment. (As amended by Republic Act 6127, June 17, 1970). Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. (As amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988).
• •
• • • • •
Preventive imprisonment is not a penalty. It usually occurs if the accused is unable to post bond, or the crime charged is not bailable. If accused is preventively detained during trial, he can get full credit for the time he spent there if he voluntarily agrees in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed on convicts. o He can’t get full credit if: He’s a recidivist or a habitual delinquent (P v Gana) He fails to surrender voluntarily upon being summoned for the execution of the sentence. • In these cases, he’ll only be credited 4/5 of the time spent. If he’s served the max time, file a petition for habeas corpus. Preventive imprisonment applies to destierro. If the convict is sentenced to life imprisonment, rp or death, he is still entitled to benefit from this provision. What if the accused is detained, then sentenced to imprisonment and fine, and he has already served his sentence but has not yet paid the fine, may he be released? No. He has to pay the fine first. See Juvenile Justice Act, Sec 41 – Any form of physical restraint imposed on a child in conflict with the law including his community service or commitment to a rehab center shall be considered as preventive imprisonment. o If the minor juvy is imprisoned pending trial, he shall be credited with the service of the sentence with the full time in which the child was preventively imprisoned. o If the child has served the full time, director can determine if child still has to stay in rehab.
Section Two. — Effects of the penalties according to their respective nature Art. 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. — The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification for public office shall produce the following effects: 1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the offender may have held even if conferred by popular election. 2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular office or to be elected to such office. 3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned. In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article shall last during the term of the sentence. 4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held. Art. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification. — The penalties of perpetual or temporal special disqualification for public office, profession or calling shall produce the following effects: 1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected; 2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments either perpetually or during the term of the sentence according to the extent of such disqualification. Art. 32. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage. — The perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage shall deprive the offender perpetually or during the term of the sentence, according to the nature of said penalty, of the right to vote in any popular election for any public office or to be elected to such office. Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to hold any public office during the period of his disqualification. Art. 33. Effects of the penalties of suspension from any public office, profession or calling, or the right of suffrage. — The suspension from public office, profession or calling, and the exercise of the right of suffrage shall disqualify the offender from holding such office or exercising such profession or calling or right of Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
59
am+dg suffrage during the term of the sentence. The person suspended from holding public office shall not hold another having similar functions during the period of his suspension. Art. 34. Civil interdiction. — Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence of the rights of parental authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage his property and of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos.
• •
Convict can prepare a will since it’s not a donation inter vivos Read codal na lang.
Art. 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace. — It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond to keep the peace, to present two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such offense be committed they will pay the amount determined by the court in the judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said undertaking. The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the period of duration of the bond. Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required he shall be detained for a period which shall in no case exceed six months, is he shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed thirty days, if for a light felony. Art. 37. Cost; What are included. — Costs shall include fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable amounts previously determined by law or regulations in force, or amounts not subject to schedule. Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. — In case the property of the offender should not be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the following order: 1. The reparation of the damage caused. 2. Indemnification of consequential damages. 3. The fine. 4. The cost of the proceedings.
• • • •
Order for pecuniary liability: reparation, indemnification, fine, costs. First to the offended (reparation and indemnification), and then to the government (fine and costs) If guilty of several offenses, follow the chronological order of the dates of final judgment rendered against the convict, beginning with the first final judgment. Fine is actually a pecuniary penalty, according to Art 25.
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. — If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following rules: 1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner. 2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony. 3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit. 4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists. 5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve. (As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).
• •
• •
Subsidiary imprisonment can only be imposed if the accused is penalized with a fine (either fine only, or fine and imprisonment) and because of insolvency, he cannot pay it. Since it is a penalty, Court must EXPRESSLY state that subsidiary imprisonment shall be served in case of insolvency. o It is not an accessory penalty that follows the principal penalty as a matter of course. He can’t be ordered to serve subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay pecuniary liability (reparations), but he can serve for pecuniary penalty (fine). Subsidiary penalty not proper in the following cases: o Principal penalty imposed is more than PC (6 years and 1 day or more) o Principal penalty is other than prison sentence which is not of fixed duration
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
60
am+dg
• •
• •
o Subsidiary penalty is not expressly stated in the sentence o Sentence imposed does not include fine o Convict has the means to pay the fine Follow the actual penalty meted out in determining whether subsidiary imprisonment can be applied. Not the penalty prescribed by law. Can the accused, who has money, choose not to pay the fine and go to jail instead? No. He has no choice but to pay the fine. o But see P v Subido where the court allowed him to choose. Justice Callejo doesn’t agree with that. Subsidiary imprisonment also applies to SPL, like BP 22 or possession of illegal firearms. Supposing the accused is charged with 2 or more offenses and there was just 1 decision which convicted him of all the charges. How do we determine the 6-year limit? o The 6-year period shall be based on the total duration of the penalties imposed by court (after joint trial) based on the 3-fold rule under Art 70. Hence, if the total of the penalties exceed 6 years, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed, even if the penalty for each of the crimes is less than 6 years.
Section Three. — Penalties in which other accessory penalties are inherent Art. 40. Death; Its accessory penalties. — The death penalty, when it is not executed by reason of commutation or pardon shall carry with it that of perpetual absolute disqualification and that of civil interdiction during thirty years following the date sentence, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon. Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal; Their accessory penalties. — The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
•
When the penalty imposed is RP as a penalty next higher in degree, the accessory penalty shall be that under Art 40 but the offender shall not be given the benefit of the provision of Art 27 until 40 years have elapsed, otherwise, there could be no difference at all between RP when imposed as apenalty next higher in degree and when it is imposed as a penalty fixed by law. (P v Bago)
Art. 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision mayor, shall carry with it that of temporary absolute disqualification and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage which the offender shall suffer although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. Art. 43. Prision correccional; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision correccional shall carry with it that of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in the article although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension of the right too hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime. — Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed. Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.
•
•
Only the trial court who convicted the accused may order the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools used in the crime. o But before the court may do so, the tools/instruments must be presented to the court as evidence. Otherwise, the court has no jd to order the forfeiture or destruction of such. (P v Singson) o In case of bribery, the money used may be forfeited in favor of the state. The tool/instrument must belong to the accused himself. If it belongs to someone else and he has no
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
61
am+dg
• • •
involvement in the crime, there can be no such declaration. (P v. Elona) Applicable also to SPL. The court may order destruction nonetheless if the items are contraband. Dangerous Drugs Act, Sec 20 – those subject of the crime, including proceeds derived from drug trafficking and even money and assets acquired in violation of the DDA, can be ordered forfeited in favor of the government, unless belonging to the third persons without involvement of the crime. o EXCEPTION to the third person rule – if the items are beyond lawful commerce, still forfeited o Proceeds of sale or disposition of the property forfeited must be used to pay the expenses incurred in the proceedings including cost of the proceedings
Chapter Four APPLICATION OF PENALTIES Section One. — Rules for the application of penalties to the persons criminally liable and for the graduation of the same. Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general. — The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony. Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to the consummated felony. Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed. — The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except in the following cases: 1. When the guilty person be more than seventy years of age. 2. When upon appeal or revision of the case by the Supreme court, all the members thereof are not unanimous in their voting as to the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty. For the imposition of said penalty or for the confirmation of a judgment of the inferior court imposing the death sentence, the Supreme Court shall render its decision per curiam, which shall be signed by all justices of said court, unless some member or members thereof shall have been disqualified from taking part in the consideration of the case, in which even the unanimous vote and signature of only the remaining justices shall be required.
•
RA 9346 has proscribed the imposition of the death penalty and in its steal shall be RP or life imprisonment as the case may be without any right of the offender to avail of the benefit of parole under Act 4103, the ISL.
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
•
•
•
•
There are two kinds of complex crimes under Art 48 o Compound crimes, or delito compuesto: when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies o Complex crime proper, or delito complejo: when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other Art 48 is actually for the benefit of the offender under the pro reo principle. o Since even if two crimes are committed, the law only punished the offender for one, although it is in the maximum. In the eyes of the law, the two crimes stem from one criminal intent – this is less perverse in the crimes of the law compared to punishing him for two crimes. This applies to both compound crimes and complex crime proper. o The reason for the single penalty is that the basis of the felony is the singularity of the act. Only one information must be filed charging the complex felony. o If you want to charge someone with forcible abduction with rape, you have to allege the elements of both forcible abduction and rape. Compound crimes (delito compuesto) o Committed when a single act results to two or more grave or less grave felonies Either two or more grave felonies Two or more less grave felonies One or more grave and one or more less grave If a light felony likewise resulted, the light felony shall be treated as a separate offense. A separate information must be filed for them. o Take note of the word ‘felonies.’ This precludes application to ordinances and SPLs. The felonies resulting from the single act must be felonies in the RPC.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
62
am+dg
If punishable under the RPC and an SPL (or an ordinance), Art 48 will not apply. The offender may be charged and convicted for both crimes, separately without double jeopardy. • Estafa and illegal recruitment • Estafa and BP 22 • Rape and sexual assault (SPL) (P v Abay) o Accused inserted his fingers, and then his penis to victim’s vagina. NOT complex crime. One count rape, one count sexual assault. Not a complex crime. (P v Nequia) Can be either dolo or culpa Person was convicted for reckless imprudence resulting into homicide and destruction of property (P v de los Santos) • Reckless imprudence is a felony, so Art 48 will apply to it. Examples: Man threw a grenade, killed two people. Complex crime of double murder. (P v Comadre) Man threw a pillbox, killed some people, injured others. Complex crime of murder with attempted murder. (P v. dela Rosa) • Can it be two different crimes, and still complex? Yes. Man threw a grenade, killed his father and his father’s friend. Complex crime of parricide with murder. Does it have to be consummated? No. Man threw hand grenade to a group of people. Some died, some didn’t. Complex crime of multiple murder with double frustrated murder and double attempted murder. (P v Magalona) What if only one victim, will Art 48 apply? Yes. Governor was performing duties and was killed by accused. Complex crime of direct assault with homicide. Supposing one wants to kill another with treachery, but there abberatio ictus or error in personae, can the crime committed by the accused be a complex crime? Yes. Homicide with attempted homicide. Dude stabbed victim with a bolo, the bolo hit both the victim and the person behind him. Complex rime of murder and serious physical injuries. (P v Patrolla) Accused forcibly inserted his penis into the vagina of the woman. She sustained less serious physical injuries in her vagina. Complex crime of rape with less serious physical injuries. (P v. Andaya) What if there was no intent to kill, but two people died because of the acts of the accused, will Art 48 apply? Yes. Art 48 applies even to praeter intentionem. Example: dude stabbed wife who was 7 months pregnant. Both wife and baby died. Complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. (P v Paycana, Jr) BUT remember: NO COMPLEX CRIME of ARSON with MURDER (P v Malngan, look at intent) What is the test to determine whether Art 48 will apply – single criminal act or single criminal intent/impulse? Law is clear: SINGLE ACT. • The SC, however, has applied the single impulse test in some cases, as in the following: o Stealing of 13 cows (P v Tulos) o Taking two roosters on one occasion (P v de Leon, convicted of just one theft) o Raped niece at 10 am, 11 am, 12 pm at same grassy area. (P v Obrique. This is a unique case) For cases of RAPE, SC has used the single act test. Hence, when accused inserted private organ and raped the victim, and then inserted his finger twice into the vagina at the same place and same occasion. SC said no complex crime. Accused guilty of one count of rape and two counts of sexual assault, even if same place and same occasiln. (P v Intong) Hence, when the accused inserted his penis into the vagina of the victim and made several push and pull movements but without removing his organ until he reached orgams, the accused is guilty of only one count of rape. (P v Avaron wherein the prosecutor argued that there should be as many crimes of rape as to the number of pushes and pulls) [don’t remove it!]
o
o
o
o o
o
o o
o
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
63
am+dg
•
o
o
o
o
One count of rape = putting it in. if you take it out, then put it back in, how many counts of rape? Accused raped his niece once a day, inserting his finger once a day, for 16 consecutive days in different locations. SC held as many crimes of rape and sexual assault equal to how many times he inserted his organ and finger. • No single criminal intent because each time he committed the crime was on different days, he was animated by separate criminal intents on each occasion. (P v. Sollano) Accused raped his daughter every day for a week against the wishes of his wife. SC held 7 counts of rape. (P v Gorbida) Accused raped victim 5 times in the same place and on the same night. Convicted of 5 counts of rape. (P v Escoton) For cases of KIDNAPPING, SC has used the single act test. Even if the persons were kidnapped on the same occasion and place, there was as many crimes of kidnapping as there were persons. (P v Laranaga) • Hence, if accused kidnaps 5 kids, he is liable for 5 counts of kidnapping. Not a complex crime. • Kidnapping with murder, kidnapping with rape, kidnapping with homicide – these are all special complex crimes, and not complex crimes under Art 48. Even if the homicide or rape was a mere afterthought, this would still be the name of the crime. o For example, kidnapped victim was raped. How many special complex crimes? As many as the number of persons kidnapped and raped. (P v Rimurin [?]) o Strange case: 7 persons kidnapped and two died. SC DIVISION said only 1 crime of kidnapping with homicide. (Justice Calljo does not agree with this, naturally.) • Same rule for kidnapping for ransom. Even if it is in the same situs, the number of crimes of kidnapping will depend on the number of persons kidnapped. What test will you apply to BP 22? Single act. Can’t apply criminal intent test because it’s mala prohibita and a SPL. Hence, number of bouncing checks equals number of violations of BP 22. For cases of FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS, SC has used the single act test. There as many crimes as the vouchers falsified. (P v Gonzales) Accused falsified three money orders separately. Each constitutes separate crimes. (P v Villanueva) Accused falsified the roll of attorneys by including 3 names. Each constitutes separate crimes. (P v Segovia) Important case: relatives died leaving 3 parcels of land. Accused executed three separate deeds of sale on the same day, making it appear that the relatives-vendors were still alive at time of sale. Convicted of 3 charges of falsification because 3 documents falsified. (Lastrilla v Granda) • Accused did it by antedating, forging and making it appear that the relatives were still alive. In other words, he falsified each document in 3 modes. Is he guilty of 3 counts of falsification per document? NO. Only one crime of falsification of public document even if there were multiple modes. Accused committed estafa by withdrawing from account. Number of counts of estafa = number of withdrawals. Not continuing. Moment that withdrawal was made, the crime was committed. Accused did not intend to commit just one crime. (Gamboa v CA) In Ilagan v CA, the accused swindled both the lot buyers and the corporation he was working for. • As far as the lot buyers were concerned, there were as many crimes of estafa as the number of times the accused fraudulently collected from the victims. • As far as the corporation is concerned, it depends on the obligation to account. If he is obliged to account everyday and he fails to do so, there are as many crimes of estafa as the number of days he failed to account. If he is obliged to account every month, he is guilty for every month he fails to account. There are as many crimes of estafa through forgery as there are acts. For cases of LIBEL, SC has used the single act test.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
64
am+dg
One count of libel doesn’t depend on persons damaged, but on the number of publications. Even if two or more persons were subject to libel, if there was only one publication, there is only one crime of libel. (P v Aquino) o For crimes against persons, the court has applied both, but the correct test is the single act test. When the constabulary officers killed around 50 Maranaws with guns, the Court convicted them all under the complex crime of multiple murder, using the single impulse test. But the Court only did this because it was impossible to determine who killed who. (P v Lawas) When there were several killings inside Bilibid prison, the Court held the accused guilty for multiple murder with multiple frustrated/attempted murder, applying the single impulse test (P v Pingcalin) • J Makasiar dissented, saying it should be single act. • On MR, the Court reneged, followed J Makasiar. In P v Pineda, wherein the accused shot once and killed two people with one bullet, the SC finally said that Art 48 talks of a single act. Do not apply the single impulse test. Hence, when with one thrust of a knife, two people get hurt, Art 48 will apply. So with the use of one bomb and lots get injured, Art 48 will apply. o For automatic weapons, what is the rule? According to Boado and Reyes, in view of the special characteristic or mechanism of automatic machine guns, there are as many offenses as the numbers of victims of the bullets fired. So, single act of pulling trigger, but lots of bullets fired, Art 48 won’t apply, separate crimes for each victim. • This was also the case of P v Pacificador, Dalmacio [2002, division], et al, where the victims were killed after a series of gunshots (armalites fired successively). The accused were guilty of as many crimes as how many people were injured. According to Justice Callejo, the single act of pulling the trigger, even if lots of bullets are fired, will place it under Art 48. • See P v Sanidad [2003 en banc]. In that case, the accused ambushed a jeepney with their armalites and other guns. The accused showed a single criminal impulse when he said “oh my gosh, we were not able to kill all of them.” 85 empty armalite shells were recovered in the scene of the crime. The court applied Art 48 for two reasons. First, it was impossible to determine who killed the victim. And there was a single criminal impulse which showed a conspiracy to kill, hence, it was seen as a single act.41 • Justice Callejo also cited the cases of Manghoy and Mision, but I can’t find it. o For cases of malversation If there are different kinds of property malversed in one occasion, there’s only one crime • Accused malversed money and personal property in one occasion If on different occasions, then different counts of malversation Complex crimes proper (delito complejo) o These are felonies where one offense is necessary to commit another, the two crimes comprise one complex crime o The first crime must be a necessary means to commit the other The first is committed to insure and facilitate the commission of the next crime The first is necessary but not indispensable (because if indispensable, element na siya) • Hence, the following are not complex crimes: o A crime to conceal another because such is not to commit but to conceal the other crime o A crime which is an element of the other for in that case, the former shall
•
41
We fully agree with the lower court that the instant case comes within the purview of Art. 48 of The Revised Penal Code which, speaking of complex crimes, provides that when “a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.” In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. Although several independent acts were performed by the accused in firing separate shots from their individual firearms, it was not possible to determine who among them actually killed victim Rolando Tugadi. Moreover, there is no evidence that accused-appellants intended to fire at each and every one of the victims separately and distinctly from each other. On the contrary, the evidence clearly shows a single criminal impulse to kill Marlon Tugadi’s group as a whole. Thus, one of accused-appellants exclaimed in frustration after the ambush: “My gosh, we were not able to kill all of them.” Where a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose, their individual acts done in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act, the act of execution, giving rise to a single complex offense Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
65
am+dg
o
o
be absorbed by the latter (like trespassing which is an element of robbery) o A crime which has the same element as the other crime committed Estafa and falisfication of private documents have the same element of damage. One damage cannot give rise to two crimes. Hence, there is no complex crime of estafa thru falsification of private documents. • But in falsification of public, official or commercial documents does not have the element of damage. Hence, you can have a complex crime of estafa through falsification of public, official, or commercial documents. o Where the intent is really to commit the second crime but the first act although also a crime is incidental to the commission of the second crime. (Taking away a woman to rape here. The taking is merely incidental. No complex crime of abduction with rape but only simple rape) o Special complex crimes Is it possible that one crime is dolo and the other is culpa? Yes. accused cashed check on behalf of an impostor. The employee of the bank did not bother to check since they were friends. The employee’s failure to ascertain the identity of payee was falsification by culpa. It was the means to commit estafa. Hence, estafa, through falsification by culpa. (Samson v CA) Is there falsification through culpa of private documents? No, because as stated earlier, damage is already an element of falsification of private documents, hence you can’t have a complex crime. More on forcible abduction with rape vs simple rape: If the intent was to rape, and the victim was brought to a place to rape her, no complex crime. Only rape. Abduction is absorbed by rape. (P v Almanzor) • Victim was abducted and brought to a grassy area near her house. She was raped. Abduction was absorbed. (P v Mojerada) • Victim brought 600m from her house where she was raped. Abduction still absorbed by rape. (P v Godinez) But when is it not absorbed?! • Abducted to place 100m from her house. Court said forcible abduction with rape. (P v Abarquez) Main determinant is the specific intention of the offender, and not the distance. What if there was abduction (which was necessary to commit the rape) and then there were three rapes done after? • The moment the first rape was committed, then forcible abduction with rape was consummated. The second and third rapes were separate crimes. Hence, one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, and then two separate simple crimes of rape. (P v Garcia, P v Caraang) • But isn’t abduction a continuing crime? Dandan! If accused abducted two women at the same time, and then raped both, how’s that? • He’s guilty of two counts of forcible abduction with rape. • It depends on the number of women he abducted. Compare with kidnapping with rape which is a special complex crime (not a complex crime under Art 48). (P v Laranaga) Can there be forcible abduction with acts of lasciviousness? • Before, no. Now, yes. (Justice Callejo) Boado breaks it down: • Intent to rape: simple rape. Taking incidental. • Intent to take woman against her will with lewd designs: forcible abduction with rape (information must allege lewd designs) o If multiple rapes, complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, then other rapes file separately. • Intent was to kidnap for ransom, but after rape was committed as an afterthought: special complex crime of kidnapping with rape
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
66
am+dg
Give examples of crimes that look complex, but are not complex under Art 48: Usurpation of private property with violence • Art 48 won’t apply because the law provides a penalty for it already. Malicious procurement of search warrant through perjury • Art 48 won’t apply because Art 129 already provides a penalty for it. Trespass to dwelling with murder • Art 48 won’t apply because trespass already absorbed Political crimes with common crimes • Art 48, you ain’t gonna be bringin yo shiznat to these crimes. Common crimes are absorbed in political crimes. (P v Hernandez) • Even SPLs are absorbed in political crimes. • Important to know the motive to determine if absorbed or not. May torture by persons-in-authority be absorbed? • NEVER. Always a separate crime. • It can’t absorb other crimes either.42 • Art 48 won’t apply. Robbery with homicide/rape/intentional mutilation, kidnapping with murder/rape/homicide (special complex crimes) Kidnapping and torture • Torture considered special aggravating (torture here done by kidnappers, not by persons-in-authority, so Anti-Torture Law won’t apply) Stuff under 266-B • They have their own penalties • For rape with homicide, if 2 people raped victim, but only one killed her, both will still be liable for rape with homicide (even if only one killed the victim) Special complex crimes under the Anti-Torture Act • Torture with homicide • Torture with rape • Torture with mutilation • Torture with sexual abuse • Torture against kids Plunder • Art 48 won’t apply. Other crimes are merely predicate crimes. Only one crime is committed. o Will Art 332 (exempting relatives from certain crimes) still lie in complex crimes? No. If the accused swindles her brother-in-law by falsifying a public document, she can be guilty of estafa through falsification of a public document. The exemption will not lie. If constitutive of a complex crime, Art 332 will no longer apply. Hence the relative will be liable of estafa through falsification of a public document. Break muna. Okay, besides complex crimes and compound crimes, what are the other kinds of plurality of crimes where a single penalty is imposed? (Take note that these aren’t covered by Art 48, but only bear a semblance to complex crimes, hence commentators usually discuss them together) o Composite crimes or special complex crimes o Continued crime or delito continuado o Continuing crimes or transitory crimes NOTE: Justice Callejo did not distinguish between continued crimes and continuing crimes, he lumped them together as delito continuado. Boado, however, distinguished between the two. The distinction it seems is academic, the effect being the same – that only one crime is considered committed. Composite crimes o those which in the eyes of the law are treated as single indivisible offenses although in reality are made up of more than one crime. Composite Complex o
• •
•
42
Section 15. Torture as a Separate and Independent Crime. - Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed by any other crime or felony committed as a consequence, or as a means in the conduct or commission thereof. In which case, torture shall be treated as a separate and independent criminal act whose penalties shall be imposable without prejudice to any other criminal liability provided for by domestic and international laws. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
67
am+dg
Combo of offenses is fixed by law Penalty is specific Even if there are more than one count of the component crime (like several rapes), still just one composite crime to be charged
•
•
Combo is not specified but generalized Not specific, but for the most serious offense in the max period If more than one count of the crime forming part of the complex crime, the first shall be complexed, while the other counts are treated as separate crimes (forcible abduction with rape, with subsequent rapes charged separately) Light felonies are not absorbed, they have to be filed separately
If light felony accompanies the commission of the composite offence, such is absorbed Continued crimes (delito continuado) o Impelled by a single criminal impulse but commited by a series of overt acts at about the same time in about the same place and all the overt acts violate one and the same provision of law o Apparently, this is where the single criminal impulse test applies o Single larceny rule: taking of several things belonging to the same or different owners at the same time and place constitutes but one larceny. o Applied in: Theft of 13 cows at same place and time Theft of 6 roosters belonging to 2 different owners from the same coop and at the same time Mallari v People. Mallari wanted to borrow P300k, but the lender only wanted to give him P150k. he mortgaged two lots to secure the debt, went to the aunt to borrow instead, and mortgaged the same two lots. The titles were falsified. (Not sure about the facts, just copied from Glenn). There was delito continuado even if there were two transactions because there was a single criminal resolution leading to a single crime of estafa throught falsification of public document. o Does NOT apply to formal/instantaneous crimes. Adultery is not a delito continuado. Each sexual act is an offense. It is consummated and exhausted (like the accuseds) at the time of carnal union. Continuing Crime o One where any of the elements of the offense was committed in different localities such that the accused may be indicted in any of those localities o Only considered as one crime. o May also refer to any offense which is continuing in time Rebellion Squatting Violation of BP 22 Abduction, kidnapping, illegal detention o Applicable to SPL? Yes. See Santiago v Garchitorena, where Court said that Miriam’s signing the order to allow 32 aliens to stay was a continuing crime. She was charged only once.
Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that intended. — In cases in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed: 1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period. 2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period. 3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.
•
•
Applies to error in personae only. o If intended crime was homicide but due to error in personae, parricide was committed, the lower penalty for homicide will be imposed. Same if vice versa. It’s an extenuating circumstance. Doesn’t apply to pareter inentionem (covered by Art 13).
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
68
am+dg
•
Doesn’t apply to abberatio ictus (covered by Art 48)
Art. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony. Art. 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes. — A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony. Art. 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in consummated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a consummated felony. Art. 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a consummated felony. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a consummated felony. Art. 54. Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a frustrated felony. Art. 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated crime. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a frustrated felony. Art. 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for an attempt to commit a felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in an attempt to commit the felony. Art. 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted crime. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the attempted felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt to commit a felony. Art. 58. Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain accessories. — Those accessories falling within the terms of paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code who should act with abuse of their public functions, shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal offender shall be guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of a less grave felony. Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime because the means employed or the aims sought are impossible. — When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos. Art. 60. Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57. — The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.
How to apply, in degrees Principal
•
• •
Consummate d
Frustrated
Attempted
As provide by -1 -2 law Accomplice -1 -2 -3 Accessory -2 -3 -4 Sample: simple rape, penalty is reclusion perpetua. o If accomplice and consummated, -1, hence reclusion temporal. o If accomplice and attempted, -3, prison correccional. For Art 59 (impossible crimes), it does not apply if the intended crime is a light felony. So death penalty cannot be imposed anymore, right? If the penalty prescribed by law is death, where do we start counting from, death or rp? o In People v Bon (2003), court counted from RP.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
69
am+dg
o
HOWEVER, in P v Sarcia (2009) and P v Jacinto (2011), both cases were for qualified rape by a minor on a minor, in appreciating the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority (Art 68) court counted from DEATH.43 So start counting from DEATH. Sarcia was en banc. Jacinto was by division.
Art. 61. Rules for graduating penalties. — For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to the provisions of Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall be observed: 1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code. 2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale. 3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective graduated scale. 4. when the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned respective graduated scale. 5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not especially provided for in the four preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and upon accomplices and accessories.
• •
Just read the codal for the rules. Sir didn’t really discuss this anyway. Read with Art 71.
Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules: 1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. 1 (a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances. The maximum penalty shall be imposed it the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group. An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of 2 or more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another for puposes of gain in the commission of any crime. 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof. 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. 4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein. 5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects: (a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods; (b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and (c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years. 43
Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. However, for purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still the penalty to be reckoned with. Thus, the proper imposable penalty for the accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
70
am+dg For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
•
•
•
•
This article gives the rules on when not to consider stuff as aggravating: o If element of the crime (included by the law in defining the crime and prescribing its penalty) o Inherent in the crime Additional rule: those which are caused by the moral attributes of the offender or his relations with the offended or any other personal causes will only affect the offender having such attribute. o Passion and obfuscation will only apply to the one who was actually enraged; so with relationship Take note that this article made the following SPECIAL aggravating circumstances: o Abuse of public position o Committed by organized/syndicated crime group CAN NOT BE OFFSET by generic mitigating If policeman uses his gun to murder someone, the use of his gun is a special aggravating circumstance under the Illegal Firearms Law, but can his abuse of position be appreciated as well?
Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. 3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.
• •
Inoperative because of RA 9346. Now, only RP is indivisible. o Cannot be affected by generic mitigating circumstances. o However, it can be affected by privileged mitigating circumstances (like Art 68, 69). Privileged mitigating always considered whether divisible or indivisible penalty.
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. — In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances: 1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period. 2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period. 3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period. 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against the other according to their relative weight. 5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances. 6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period. 7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
•
Rules when penalty is divisible: o No aggravating and no mitigating – medium o Mitigating only – minimum o Aggravating only – maximum o Some of both – offset, then apply the above rules
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
71
am+dg
Two or more mitigating with no aggravating – lower the penalty one degree but always in the proper period If there are a lot of aggravating but no mitigating, can the courts increase the penalty to one greater than that prescribed by law? NO. If after offsetting (meaning there was aggravating and mitigating), there are 2 mitigating left, can the penalty be lowered by one degree? NO. as long as there was aggravating, can’t lower penalty by degree. If there are four mitigating circumstances, you use two to lower the penalty by one degree. The remaining two are used to find the period. You can’t use the remaining two to lower the penalty by another degree. o Imposed by law: RT. 4 mitigating. Lower to PM. Then use the 2 remaining mitigating to find the period. So PM minimum. Art 64 is important in the ISL because the modifying circumstances are first considered in the determination of the maximum penalty in the ISL. (sir won’t ask to compute ISL) o Art 64 is not considered in the determination of the minimum penalty in the ISL. The minimum penalty in the ISL must be within the whole range of the penalty next lower in degree. If the accused is sentenced to RP and has two generic mitigating circumstances (and no AC), penalty can NOT be lowered by one degree since it’s an indivisible penalty. (Only a privileged mitigating can give a penalty lower for an indivisible penalty) This article doesn’t apply to Art 365 because modifying circumstances don’t apply to quasi-offfenses. o
• • •
•
• •
Art. 65. Rule in cases in which the penalty is not composed of three periods. — In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three portions.
•
This is applied when the law prescribes a penalty not composed of three periods (like robbery in an uninhabited place whose penalty is PC in medium to maximum.) o Just divide the period given by 3 to get the min, med and max.
Art. 66. Imposition of fines. — In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law; in fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit.
• •
• • • • • • •
Study with Art 75. The LAW can prescribe the following: o Fine only o Fine AND imprisonment o Fine OR imprisonment The court can’t give the accused a penalty of fine OR imprisonment. The court has to make a choice, it can’t leave to the accused the choice on what penalty he wants to serve. If the law states “fine of P50k to 150k”, the court can choose between those bounds. If the law states “fine of P15k”, that’s it, court must impose the definite fine. If the law states “fine not less than P15k”, court must be judicious. They can’t just fine the accused for P1m. Increase or reduction in the degree of the fine. (See Art 75) Fine cannot be used as substitute penalty to imprisonment. Penalty of fine is independent from penalty of imprisonment. If the accused drew and issued a check but it bounced, and during trial he pays the value of the check, should he still be convicted for a fine? Yes. Penalty of the fine goes to the State, not the offended party.
Art. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of exemption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12 are present.— When all the conditions required in circumstances Number 4 of Article 12 of this Code to exempt from criminal liability are not present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit if he shall have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave felony.
•
Lack of requisites in performance of lawful act – AM max to PC minimum (if grave), AM min to med (if less grave)
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. — When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraphs next to the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed: Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
72
am+dg 1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed. 2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.
• •
•
• • • •
Paragraph 1 implied repealed by Juvenile Justice Act. o As long as below 15 or 18 (without discernment), criminally exempt. Paragraph 2 modified. o If between 15-18 and acted with discernment, criminally liable. If child is determined to be criminally liable and the diversion program is not consented to, the case shall proved. The child shall enjoy the privileged mitigating circumstance under Art 68 but shall nevertheless be entitled to suspension of sentence whether or not he is no longer a minor. As long as child was under 18 when he did the crime, suspension of sentence will apply. o Suspension can apply until he’s 21 (discretion of court). 44 After the suspension, child may serve his sentence in agricultural camps or other training facilities.45 After the suspension, he can also be granted probation. 46 Remember: even if minor criminally exempt, he is still civilly liable. Even if minor is charged with a heinous crime, he is still entitled to suspension of conviction. RA 9344 does not distinguish. (P v Garcia) What if SPL which does not follow nomenclature of RPC? Minor not entitled to privileged MC. o Like life imprisonment in illegal recruitment. Can’t be lowered by 1 or 2 degrees. Recommendation of social worked not binding on the court. (P v Candelario)
Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable. — A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the period which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of the conditions of exemption present or lacking.
• • •
• •
Art 69 applies when the majority of requisites for justifying and exempting circumstances are present. Art 69 makes it privileged mitigating because the penalty is lowered by one or two degrees. o Hence, incomplete self-defense (for example) can’t be offset by any aggravating circumstances. Remember, however, that for incomplete self-defense to be privileged mitigating, there must be unlawful aggression for Art 69 to apply. o Unlawful aggression in self-defense is a condition sine qua non to justify the act. What if not majority of requisites, like isa lang? Ordinary mitigating only. Lower to minimum period. Example: guilty of homicide, RT. But incomplete self-defense, plus two generic mitigating circumstances. o Lower by two degrees (don’t know why 2, but basta lowered degree) to PC. o Then since there are 2 generic mitigating, lower by another degree (Art 64) to AM. (People v Narvaez)
Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. — When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed: In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty 44
SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment. If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. 45 SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and other Training Facilities. - A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD. 46 SEC. 42. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. - The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended accordingly Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
73
am+dg or penalties first imposed, or should they have been served out. For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the respective severity of the penalties shall be determined in accordance with the following scale: 1. Death, 2. Reclusion perpetua, 3. Reclusion temporal, 4. Prision mayor, 5. Prision correccional, 6. Arresto mayor, 7. Arresto menor, 8. Destierro, 9. Perpetual absolute disqualification, 10 Temporal absolute disqualification. 11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and 12. Public censure. Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period. Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years. In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years. (As amended).
• •
•
•
• • • •
• •
When a convict is given multiple sentences, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties permits simultaneous service of sentence. Otherwise, the penalties shall be served successively in the order of severity as prescribed above. o You can’t serve 3 reclusion perpetuas simultaneously. Hence they should be served successively, starting from the most severe, if penalties of different degrees of severity are imposed. Limitations on the service of sentence: o 3-fold rule: maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than 3-fold of the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. i.e. the maximum penalty is three times the most severe or the total of the penalties imposed, whichever is lower. o Such max period shall not exceed 40 years. Whatever is lower between the total penalties and 3x the most sever, it shall not be more than 40 years. How to compute: o Step 1: get the most severe penalty meted out as listed in Art 70 o Step 2: Multiply the duration of that by 3 o Step 3: Add the duration of all the different sentences o Step 4: Compare the results of 2 and 3 o Step 5: Accused to serve the lesser period, unless it is in excess of 40 years in which case the culprit shall serve only 40 years. Do not include subsidiary imprisonment penalty in the computation of the 40 years because subsidiary liability is uncertain if it will even happen. (Director v Bagtas) If the penalty is complex, the three-fold penalty is three times the indeterminate sentence also. (see boado for example) If ISL is imposed, use the max period in computing because the max period is the most severe. What are the penalties that can be served simultaneously with penalty of imprisonment? o Perpetual absolute DQ o Perpetual special DQ o Temporary absolute DQ o Temporary special DQ o Suspension o Public censure o Fine o Bond to keep the peace o Civil interdiction o Confiscation and payment of costs Destierro can NOT be served simultaneously with imprisonment. The imputation of the 30-year duration to reclusion perpetua in this article is only to
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
74
am+dg
•
•
• •
o serve as a basis for determining the convict’s eligibility for pardon or o for the application of the three-fold rule in the service of multiple penalties. The judge should NOT refrain from imposing the correct penalties even if these would exceed the limitation of penalties in this article. o This article deals with SERVICE of sentence, not with imposition. o The court should impose the correct penalties even if these will amount to more than the lifetime of the prisoner. o Why? Because when the convict is pardoned, he should still serve the other sentences meted on him. Accused is convicted for 10 counts of rape, all RP. How long should he remain in jail? 40 years. o What sentence should accuse serve first? Parepareho lang naman eh. Justice Callejo: Follow order of docket numbers. Article 70 doesn’t strictly apply. (P v Conte) The second sentence should only commence after the 1 st. Successive nga eh. Does Art 70 apply to SPL?
Art. 71. Graduated scales. — In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty. The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty. The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales: SCALE NO. 1 1. Death, 2. Reclusion perpetua, 3. Reclusion temporal, 4. Prision mayor, 5. Prision correccional, 6. Arresto mayor, 7. Destierro, 8. Arresto menor, 9. Public censure, 10. Fine. SCALE NO. 2 1. Perpetual absolute disqualification, 2. Temporal absolute disqualification 3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, 4. Public censure, 5. Fine.
•
Note that in Art 71, the penalty next lower than arresto mayor is destierro, not arresto menor. But in Art 70, destierro follows arresto menor in the degree of severity. Why? o Arresto mayor is imprisonment or complete deprivation of liberty. Destierro means banishment for a specified length of time. They must not be judged by the duration of each of these penalties, but by degree of deprivation of liberty involved. Destierro is considered lighter than arresto mayor.
Art. 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities. — The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of two or more offenses shall be satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates of the judgments rendered against him, beginning with the first in order of time. Section Three. — Provisions common in the last two preceding sections Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory penalties. — Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty which, by provision of law, carries with it other penalties, according to the provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of this Code, it must be understood that the accessory penalties are also imposed upon the convict.
•
The accessory penalties are automatically imposed because of this article, even if not indicated in the decision. o Compare this with subsidiary imprisonment, which must be in the decision for it to be imposed.
Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases. — In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty higher than another given penalty, without specially designating the name of the former, if such Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
75
am+dg higher penalty should be that of death, the same penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be considered as the next higher penalty. (REPEALED) Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees. — Whenever it may be necessary to increase or reduce the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law, without however, changing the minimum. The same rules shall be observed with regard of fines that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made proportional.
• • •
•
This deals with the reduction of fines when the felony is attempted or frustrated or when imposed upon the accessory or the accomplice. For each degree, ¼ of the max amount is taken. In no case shall the penalty computed be lower than the minimum prescribed by law. o Fine by law is 200-600. o Example, it has to be reduced by two degrees. (So get ¼ of 600, then subtract it twice from 600, that’ll be your penalty.) o You’ll end up with 200-300, that’s the range of the fine. Sir said he won’t ask this.
Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. — The legal period of duration of divisible penalties shall be considered as divided into three parts, forming three periods, the minimum, the medium, and the maximum in the manner shown in the following table: TABLE SHOWING THE DURATION OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES AND THE TIME INCLUDED IN EACH OF THEIR PERIODS Pen altie s Recl usio n Tem por al
Prision mayor, absolute disqualification and special temporary disqualification
Prision correccional, suspension and destierro
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
Full Peri od 12 year s and 1 day to 20 year s
Mini mu m 12 year s and 1 day to 14 year s and 8 mon ths
6 year s and 1 day to 12 year s. 6 mon ths and 1 day to 6 year s.
6 year s and 1 day to 8 year s. 6 mon ths and 1 day to 2 year s and 4 mon
Med ium
Max
14 year s, 8 mon ths, 1 day to 17 year s and 4 mon ths 8 year s and 1 day to 10 year s. 2 year s, 4 mon ths and 1 day to 4 year s and
17 year s, 4 mon ths and 1 day to 20 year s
10 year s and 1 day to 12 year s. 4 year s, 2 mon ths and 1 day to 6 year s.
76
am+dg ths. Arre sto may or
Arre sto men or
•
1 mon th and 1 day to 6 mon ths. Fro m1 to 30 day s.
1 to 2 mon ths.
1 to 10 day s.
2 mon ths. 2 mon ths and 1 day to 4 mon ths. 11 to 20 day s.
4 mon ths and 1 day to 6 mon ths. 21 to 30 days .
If you forget the periods, just follow the steps: o Step 1: get the duration of each period o Step 2: divide that by 3 o Step 3: add the quotient to the beginning of each period starting with the minimum
Art. 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties. — In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of three distinct penalties, each one shall form a period; the lightest of them shall be the minimum the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum period. Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms specially provided for in this Code, the periods shall be distributed, applying by analogy the prescribed rules.
•
For example, law says penalty is RT, PM, and PC. RT will be max, PM medium, PC minimum.
Chapter Five EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES Section One. — General Provisions Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. — No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment. A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances or incidents than those expressly authorized thereby. In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations prescribed for the government of the institutions in which the penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to the character of the work to be performed, the time of its performance, and other incidents connected therewith, the relations of the convicts among themselves and other persons, the relief which they may receive, and their diet. The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in different institutions, or at least into different departments and also for the correction and reform of the convicts.
• • •
No penalty to be executed except by virtue of final judgment If the person is acquitted, he can’t be subjected to public censure (P v. Abellera) If the judge sentence accused to 25 years of RP, he can not be compelled to serve sentence because no such thing as 25 years of RP. Remedy is writ of habeas corpus.
Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in case of insanity. — When a convict shall become insane or an imbecile after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the personal penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of circumstance number 1 of Article 12 being observed in the corresponding cases. If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this Code. The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is serving his sentence.
• •
If the convict becomes insane or an imbecile: suspend service of sentence and send to hospital for treatment But civil liability shall still be enforced in spite of insanity and imbecility. o Guardian can be appointed to administer the property, so civil liability can be imposed. Art 80 – repealed.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
77
am+dg
Section Two. — Execution of principal penalties. Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. — The death sentence shall be executed with reference to any other and shall consist in putting the person under sentence to death by electrocution. The death sentence shall be executed under the authority of the Director of Prisons, endeavoring so far as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under sentence during electrocution as well as during the proceedings prior to the execution. If the person under sentence so desires, he shall be anaesthetized at the moment of the electrocution. Art. 82. Notification and execution of the sentence and assistance to the culprit. — The court shall designate a working day for the execution but not the hour thereof; and such designation shall not be communicated to the offender before sunrise of said day, and the execution shall not take place until after the expiration of at least eight hours following the notification, but before sunset. During the interval between the notification and the execution, the culprit shall, in so far as possible, be furnished such assistance as he may request in order to be attended in his last moments by priests or ministers of the religion he professes and to consult lawyers, as well as in order to make a will and confer with members of his family or persons in charge of the management of his business, of the administration of his property, or of the care of his descendants. Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. — The death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a woman within the three years next following the date of the sentence or while she is pregnant, nor upon any person over seventy years of age. In this last case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40. Art. 84. Place of execution and persons who may witness the same. — The execution shall take place in the penitentiary of Bilibid in a space closed to the public view and shall be witnessed only by the priests assisting the offender and by his lawyers, and by his relatives, not exceeding six, if he so request, by the physician and the necessary personnel of the penal establishment, and by such persons as the Director of Prisons may authorize. Art. 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of the person executed and its burial. — Unless claimed by his family, the corpse of the culprit shall, upon the completion of the legal proceedings subsequent to the execution, be turned over to the institute of learning or scientific research first applying for it, for the purpose of study and investigation, provided that such institute shall take charge of the decent burial of the remains. Otherwise, the Director of Prisons shall order the burial of the body of the culprit at government expense, granting permission to be present thereat to the members of the family of the culprit and the friends of the latter. In no case shall the burial of the body of a person sentenced to death be held with pomp. Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor. — The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor, shall be executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the future.
•
Consti policy: no excessive fines or cruel or inhuman punishment shall be imposed.
Art. 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
• • •
Memorize this. Destierro is a correctional penalty (6 months – 6 years) Violation of destierro will give rise to evasion of sentence (Art 156-159).
Art. 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house of the defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so provides in its decision, taking into consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which may seem satisfactory to it.
Extinction of Criminal Liability Title Four EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Chapter One TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally extinguished: Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
78
am+dg 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. 2. By service of the sentence; 3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects; 4. By absolute pardon; 5. By prescription of the crime; 6. By prescription of the penalty; 7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code. Art. 36. Pardon; its effect. — A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence. Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. — A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver.
•
•
•
•
Crim liability is extinguished by: o Death of convict (pecuniary liability extinguished if death occurs before final judgment) o Service of sentence o Absolute pardon o Amnesty o Prescription of crime o Prescription of penalty o Marriage of the offended woman under 266-C and 344 o Express repeal of penal law Death of convict extinguishes criminal liability at any stage of the proceeding. Nobody will be there to serve the penalty. o But to extinguish civil liability, death must be before final judgment. o The civil liability extinguished by death before final judgment includes duty to restitute the proceeds of the crime. (P v Bayotas) Whether asserted in a criminal action or in a separate civil action, civil liability ex-delicto is extinguished by the death of the accused while is his conviction is on appeal. o But if civil liability predicated on a source other than the delict, then it survives. It can be executed against the estate. (de Guzman v People) Final judgment – judgment beyond recall. Service of sentence o Period during which convict was not inside prison walls cannot be regarded as service of sentence. Service of sentence must be in a penal institution. Pardon o Does not look back, looks to the future and is not retrospective Civil liability NOT extingiushed o Pardon by offended party does not extinguish criminal liability. EX: Art 266-C (valid marriage between offender and victim in rape), and Art 344 (seduction, acts of lasciviousness, adultery, concubinage, abduction) • Art 266-C: VALID marriage between offender and offended party in rape or sexual assault will extinguish o criminal liability and o even the penalty already imposed. So even if the convict is already serving sentence, marriage with the victim will extinguish his criminal liability. o If there are 3 accused: PDP, PIC, and an accomplice, will the marriage between the victim and the PDP extinguish the liability of the other accused? Yes. This was the intent of the Senate when they removed the original proviso stating that the co-principal, etc are not benefited, as manifested by Senator Enrile’s statement in SB 950. o Marriage must be valid. If void, no extinguishment of crim liability. (Upon
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
79
am+dg
o
declaration of the court that it was void, does the accused go back to prison?) o In rape cases, is the pardon of the parents of the victim without the concurrence of the minor victim herself effective? Boado says no. Offended minor must also give her express pardon. • Art 344: Offended party may pardon before institution of criminal case (filing of complaint) • Can the President pardon even if it’s a private crime? Yes. • What is the effect of an affidavit of desistance? Simply an additional ground to buttress the accused’s defenses, not the sole consideration that can result in acquittal. Pardon by the President Private act of the President and must be proved by the accused Must be done after final judgment Does not extend to cases of impeachment Absolute pardon by the President restores all civil rights, EXCEPT • Right to suffrage • Right to hold public office o These two rights must be specifically granted by the pardon of the President Pardon by General rule
When Civil liability
•
Offended Party Can’t pardon, except in Art 266-C and Art 344 Before institution of criminal action GR: doesn’t extinguish but can be waived by offended party
President Any crime
After final judgment Doesn’t extinguish civil liability
Amnesty o Act of grace, relieves the offender not only from suffering the penalty but obliterates the effects of the conviction as if the act were not criminal o Usually given to political offenders o Looks backward, abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, as if no offense ever happened o Public act, must be concurred to by the Congress o Ramos issued a proclamation granting amnesty to Honasan, Kapunan, etc. Does the amnest cover other members of the AFP (“any person who may have been involved in the rebellion?”) Yes. But the amnesty does not include any crime not covered by the proclamation itself. The latter msut specify the crimes to which amnesty is extended.
Application Effect
Congress Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
Amnesty Generally to political crimes and offenders Obliterates the effects of conviction as if the act were not criminal Concurrence
Pardon Generally to ordinary crimes and offenders Relieves the offender of penalty but the effects of conviction stay Concurrence not
80
am+dg
When given To whom given Nature
•
• •
•
required Even before conviction Class of persons Public act of the President, courts can take judicial notice
needed After final conviction Specific individual Private act of the President, no judicial notice
Suppose an accused made perjurious statements in petition for naturalization, and it’s discovered. He withdraws the petition for naturalization. Does this extinguish liability? o No. crime already committed. Application is the only one extinguished. (Chua v People) Take note of BP 22: there’s an amnesty period of 5 days from notice of dishonor for the issuer to pay. If he pays within this period, he has no liability. What if accused returns property in malversation? o Not extinguished. It can be mitigating if done before the institution of the criminal complaint (analogous to voluntary surrender) (Sajop v People) Public officer charged with Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), but returns money. What happens? o Crim liability remains. But civil liability extinguished.
Art. 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years. Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years. Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years. The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year. The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months. Light offenses prescribe in two months. When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this article. (As amended by RA 4661, approved June 19, 1966). Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him. The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.
• • • •
•
•
When a crime has prescribed, the State loses its right to prosecute. If the penalty imposed on the convict is a compound one, the basis for prescription is the highest penalty. Destierro is correctional, so it prescribes in 10 years. Consider the following to determine if a crime has prescribed: o Period of the offense charged o Period when it begins to run o Period when it is interrupted When does the period begin to run? o Upon discovery of the crime by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents How do you “discover” a crime? By learning of the corpus delicti, even if you don’t know who did it. (Domingo v Sandiganbayan) For a continuing crime, when does it start? Prescription period runs after the occurrence of the last act. See the Ad Hoc Commission v Ombudsman Desierto, where the court said that the crimes could not have been discovered because of the unique situation of the Marcos era. When is the period interrupted? o Upon filing of the complaint for filing of preliminary investigation with the public prosecutor or Ombudsman.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
81
am+dg
•
• •
•
•
•
When does it resume again? o When the proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or o When the proceedings terminate for any reason not imputable to the accused o Duration of the resumed period should be the unexpended portion only for to give the period a fresh start every time it is interrupted is prejudicial to the offender. When does it not run? o When the offender is absent from the Philippines Supposing a real estate document is executed (like a REM, deed of sale) and it is falsified. When does the period run? o For documents required to be filed with the Register of Deeds, the period begins to run upon filing with the RD. Why? Because PD 1529 says that filing with the RD is constructive notice to all persons. (P v Reyes) Can the period start earlier? • Yes. If the falsification is discovered before filing with the RD. (P v. Pacifacador) Does this apply to marriages for bigamy? Since The marriage certificate is registered with the civil registrar anyway. o No. The prescriptive period should begin to run from when the offended party, State or its agents, acquired actual knowledge of the second marriage. There is no counterpart provision in the Civil Register Act which states that filing with the civ register is constructive notice. Moreover, bigamous marriages are usually done in a concealed manner. Hence, the period will only begin to run upon discovery of the bigamous marriage. For SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, ACT 3326 will apply.47 o But there are some SPLs which provide for their own prescription rules. Omnibus Election Code – 5 years Genocide Law (RA 9851) – never prescribes48 Human Security Act (RA 9372) – RPC to apply suppletorily (RPC prescription will apply) o In Act 3326, what does “proceedings” mean? It includes judicial proceedings, and It also includes executive proceedings. This means investigation by the executive department. • Hence, when a criminal complaint is filed in SEC for the investigation of a crime, the period is interrupted. (SEC V Interport, wherein the Court said that the investigation of the SEC for a crime under the Revised Securities Act interrupted the period. See footnote on exact words of SC.49) • Hence, in a complaint under the Intellectual Property Law, the prescription period is interrupted when the complaint is filed with the DOJ for preliminary investigation. • See also Panaguiton v DOJ (2008) which said the same thing. For cases under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the prescriptive period is interrupted when the information is filed in the MTC (no preliminary investigation eh.)
Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows: 1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years; 47
Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (b) after four years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for any other offense punished by imprisonment for six years or more, except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe after twenty years. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months. Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. 48 Section 11. Non-prescription. - The crimes defined and penalized under this Act, their prosecution, and the execution of sentences imposed on their account, shall not be subject to any prescription. 49 “Indubitably, the prescription period is interrupted by commencing the proceedings for the prosecution of the accused. In criminal cases, this is accomplished by initiating the preliminary investigation. The prosecution of offenses punishable under the Revised Securities Act and the Securities Regulations Code is initiated by the filing of a complaint with the SEC or by an investigation conducted by the SEC motu proprio. Only after a finding of probable cause is made by the SEC can the DOJ instigate a preliminary investigation. Thus, the investigation that was commenced by the SEC in 1995, soon after it discovered the questionable acts of the respondents, effectively interrupted the prescription period. Given the nature and purpose of the investigation conducted by the SEC, which is equivalent to the preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal cases, such investigation would surely interrupt the prescription period.” Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
82
am+dg 2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years; 3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years; 4. Light penalties, in one year. Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. — The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription.
• • •
•
Loss of the State of the right to make the convict serve his sentence by the lapse of time. When does it start? o When the culprit evades the service of his sentence When is it interrupted? o Convict gives himself up o He’s captured o Goes to a country which has no extradition treaty If it has an extradition treaty, but does not cover the said crime, period is interrupted o Commits another crime (other than evasion of sentence) before the expiration of the period of prescription o Acceptance of conditional pardon (Pontillas) Applicable to destierro Prescription of Crime Loss of right to proscute Prosecution has yet to begin Convict may not have been under custody Begins when corpus delicti discovered
Prescription of Penalty Loss of right to enforce the penalty Trial on the merits already concluded Convict already was in custody Begins when crime of evasion of service of sentence is done
Chapter Two PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is extinguished partially: 1. By conditional pardon; 2. By commutation of the sentence; and 3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence.
•
Causes o o o o o o
of partial extinction: Conditional pardon Commutation Good conduct allowances Parole under the ISL Probation Partial repeal of a penal law
Art. 95. Obligation incurred by person granted conditional pardon. — Any person who has been granted conditional pardon shall incur the obligation of complying strictly with the conditions imposed therein otherwise, his non-compliance with any of the conditions specified shall result in the revocation of the pardon and the provisions of Article 159 shall be applied to him.
• • •
•
Must be given after final judgment and must be accepted by accused Does not extinguish civil liability If one violates his conditional pardon, two things can happen: o President orders his rearrest and incarceration (no need for judicial determination of guilt), and o Prosecuted under 159 of the RPC Suppose dude was given conditional pardon. Condition, he shouldn’t kill no more. He kills an annoying person. What are his liabilities? o Article 159 o Homicide Not complex crime! Different crimes!
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
83
am+dg
Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. — The commutation of the original sentence for another of a different length and nature shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former. Art. 97. Allowance for good conduct. — The good conduct of any prisoner in any penal institution shall entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his sentence: 1. During the first two years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of five days for each month of good behavior; 2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of eight days for each month of good behavior; 3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of ten days for each month of good behavior; and 4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of fifteen days for each month of good behavior. Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. — A deduction of one-fifth of the period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded the service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in Article 58 of this Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe to in said article. Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. — Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.
•
• • •
Good conduct allowance given when: o There was an occurrence of a disorder/calamity which the prisoner did not participate o Convict escapes o He gives himself up 48 hours after proclamation that no more calamity He gets 1/5 deduction of his service! He must escape and then return. If he doesn’t escape, just stays put in the prison, he doesn’t get any good conduct allowance. Lesson: escape, but return. If he escapes for good, but gets captured, or doesn’t return within 2 days, he will get 1/5 addition to the remaining sentence which shouldn’t be more than 6 months. Indeterminate Sentence Law
ACT NO. 4103 (As Amended by Act No. 4225 and Republic Act No. 4203 [June 19, 1965]) AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND PAROLE FOR ALL PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES BY THE COURTS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; TO CREATE A BOARD OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND TO PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. . Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or lifeimprisonment; to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual delinquents; to those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof.
• • • • •
•
The venerable Justice won’t ask us to compute. The ISL is for the benefit of the convict, and to increase his economic contribution. It stems from the positivist theory. It looks at the convict as private individual and a member of society as a whole. The state is interest in redeeming the individual for economic usefulness and other social ends. Court must determine the max of the indeterminate penalty first, and then the minimum. o With the minimum the court has unlimited discretion within the range of the minimum of the penalty one degree lower than the penalty imposed by law. The following can NOT avail of the benefits of the ISL:
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
84
am+dg
Based on Penalties Convicted and punished with death, LI, RP (for purposes of ISL: LI and RP are synonymous) Maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year Non-prison sentences of fine, destierro, disqualification, etc o Based on Offenses Convicted of treason, misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage, piracy o Based on Offenders Habitual delinquents Those who escaped from confinement or evaded sentence Committed crimes while on parole Violated conditional pardon Those already sentenced upon passage of Act If the court imposes a penalty of fine (if alternative between imprisonment and fine), the ISL does not apply because it applies only to penalty of imprisonment with divisible penalty. There are some laws which expressly provide that the convict is not entitled to the benefits of the ISL and parole (like the anti-terrorism law) Offenders who commit crimes while on parole are disqualified from the ISL. When the penalty is originally exempt from the ISL and after the lowering due to privileged mitigating circumstances it becomes within the law, the law should apply. What controls is the penalty imposed, not what is imposable. If crime is a complex one, to determine the penalty next lower in degree, the full range of the penalty prescribed by law for the offense must be the starting point, not merely the imposable penalty. The reason is the complex nature of the offense. When can a court impose a straight penalty? o When both the minimum and maximum durations of imprisonment are less than 1 year. In one case, the maximum was 4 months and a day. The court can impose a straight penalty of 60 days. o
• • • • • •
• • •
Parole50 When the person serves the minimum of the ISL, he may apply for parole. He will be allowed to leave the penal institution under certain conditions. Parole lasts for a certain period of time. If he complies with the conditions of the parole, the Board of Pardons and Parole will give out final release and discharge.
50
Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Board of Indeterminate Sentence to look into the physical, mental and moral record of the prisoners who shall be eligible to parole and to determine the proper time of release of such prisoners. Whenever any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him, and it shall appear to the Board of Indeterminate Sentence, from the reports of the prisoner's work and conduct which may be received in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed, and from the study and investigation made by the Board itself, that such prisoner is fitted by his training for release, that there is a reasonable probability that such prisoner will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that such release will not be incompatible with the welfare of society, said Board of Indeterminate Sentence may, in its discretion, and in accordance with the rules and regulations adopted hereunder, authorize the release of such prisoner on parole, upon such terms and conditions as are herein prescribed and as may be prescribed by the Board. The said Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall also examine the records and status of prisoners who shall have been convicted of any offense other than those named in Section 2 hereof, and have been sentenced for more than one year by final judgment prior to the date on which this Act shall take effect, and shall make recommendation in all such cases to the Governor-General with regard to the parole of such prisoners as they shall deem qualified for parole as herein provided, after they shall have served a period of imprisonment not less than the minimum period for which they might have been sentenced under this Act for the same offense. Sec. 6. Every prisoner released from confinement on parole by virtue of this Act shall, at such times and in such manner as may be required by the conditions of his parole, as may be designated by the said Board for such purpose, report personally to such government officials or other parole officers hereafter appointed by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence for a period of surveillance equivalent to the remaining portion of the maximum sentence imposed upon him or until final release and discharge by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence as herein provided. The officials so designated shall keep such records and make such reports and perform such other duties hereunder as may be required by said Board. The limits of residence of such paroled prisoner during his parole may be fixed and from time to time changed by the said Board in its discretion. If during the period of surveillance such paroled prisoner shall show himself to be a law-abiding citizen and shall not violate any of the laws of the Philippine Islands, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may issue a final certificate of release in his favor, which shall entitle him to final release and discharge Sec. 7. The Board shall file with the court which passed judgment on the case, and with the Chief of Constabulary, a certified copy of each order of conditional or final release and discharge issued in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding two sections. Sec. 8. Whenever any prisoner released on parole by virtue of this Act shall, during the period of surveillance, violate any of the conditions of his parole, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may issue an order for his re-arrest which may be served in any part of the Philippine Islands by any police officer. In such case the prisoner so re-arrested shall serve the remaining unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for which he was originally committed to prison, unless the Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall, in its discretion, grant a new parole to the said prisoner Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
85
am+dg
Parole Minimum sentence must be served Granted by law
Pardon Service not required for grant By Pres
Probation Law Section 1. Title and Scope of the Decree. — This Decree shall be known as the Probation Law of 1976. It shall apply to all offenders except those entitled to the benefits under the provisions of Presidential Decree numbered Six Hundred and three and similar laws. Sec. 2. Purpose. — This Decree shall be interpreted so as to: (a) promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment; (b) provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; and (c) prevent the commission of offenses Sec. 3. Meaning of Terms. — As used in this Decree, the following shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed thus: (a) "Probation" is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. (b) "Probationer" means a person placed on probation. (c) "Probation Officer" means one who investigates for the court a referral for probation or supervises a probationer or both. Sec. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant and upon application at any time of said defendant, suspend the execution of said sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best. Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. An application for probation shall be filed with the trial court, with notice to the appellate court if an appeal has been taken from the sentence of conviction. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waver of the right to appeal, or the automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal. An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable. Sec. 5. Post-sentence Investigation. — No person shall be placed on probation except upon prior investigation by the probation officer and a determination by the court that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as well as that of the defendant will be served thereby. Sec. 8. Criteria for Placing an Offender on Probation. — In determining whether an offender may be placed on probation, the court shall consider all information relative, to the character, antecedents, environment, mental and physical condition of the offender, and available institutional and community resources. Probation shall be denied if the court finds that: (a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; or (b) there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime; or (c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed. Sec. 9. Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those: (a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years; (b) convicted of any offense against the security of the State; (c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos; (d) who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and (e) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof. Sec. 10. Conditions of Probation. — Every probation order issued by the court shall contain conditions requiring that the probationer shall: (a) present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at such place as may be specified in the order within seventy-two hours from receipt of said order; (b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time and place as specified by said officer. The court may also require the probationer to: (a) cooperate with a program of supervision; (b) meet his family responsibilities; (c) devote himself to a specific employment and not to change said employment without the prior written approval of the probation officer; (d) undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric examination and treatment and enter and remain in a specified institution, when required for that purpose; (e) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training; (f) attend or reside in a facility established for instruction, recreation or residence of persons on probation; (g) refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute; (h) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to excess; Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
86
am+dg (i) permit the probation officer or an authorized social worker to visit his home and place of work; (j) reside at premises approved by it and not to change his residence without its prior written approval; or (k) satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly restrictive of his liberty or incompatible with his freedom of conscience. Sec. 11. Effectivity of Probation Order. — A probation order shall take effect upon its issuance, at which time the court shall inform the offender of the consequences thereof and explain that upon his failure to comply with any of the conditions prescribed in the said order or his commission of another offense, he shall serve the penalty imposed for the offense under which he was placed on probation. Sec. 14. Period of Probation. — (a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than one year shall not exceed two years, and in all other cases, said period shall not exceed six years. (b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, the period of probation shall not be less than nor to be more than twice the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment as computed at the rate established, in Article thirty-nine of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Sec. 15. Arrest of Probationer; Subsequent Disposition. — At any time during probation, the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a probationer for violation of any of the conditions of probation. The probationer, once arrested and detained, shall immediately be brought before the court for a hearing, which may be informal and summary, of the violation charged. The defendant may be admitted to bail pending such hearing. In such a case, the provisions regarding release on bail of persons charged with a crime shall be applicable to probationers arrested under this provision. If the violation is established, the court may revoke or continue his probation and modify the conditions thereof. If revoked, the court shall order the probationer to serve the sentence originally imposed. An order revoking the grant of probation or modifying the terms and conditions thereof shall not be appealable. Sec. 16. Termination of Probation. — After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is deemed terminated. The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspend as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was granted. The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished with a copy of such order.
• •
•
•
•
•
Probation is a mere privilege, not a right. REMEMBER: if you file an appeal, you lose probation. If you file for probation, you cannot appeal. o Appeal and probation are mutually exclusive. Except under RA 9344, which allows probation even if you appeal. If you apply for probation, judgment is suspended, the accessory penalty included. o But the civil liability is NOT suspended. Even when the probation is granted, a writ of execution for the civil liability can still be enforced. Civil liability is not extinguished by a grant of probation. Following are disqualified from applying for probation: o Sentenced to a max term of more than 6 years imprisonment o Convicted of subversion or any crime against national security or the public order o Previously convicted by fj of offense punished by imprisonment of not less than 1 month and 1 day and/or fine of not less than P200 o Once been on probation (you can do probation once) o Convicted of drug pushing (DDA) o Convicted of terrorism (Anti-Terrorism Act) o Already serving sentence upon the effectivity of the law o Those who already perfected appeals 6 years lang, right? What if he was sentenced for 3 crimes tried jointly, each having less than a 6 year penalty, but if you add them, the penalties exceed 6 years. o Accused still entitled to probation. Consider the penalty for each crime, not the aggregate. (Pablo Francisco v CA) What if on appeal, the CA reduces the penalty? o Can’t apply for probation. You already appealed. Even if purpose of appeal is to reduce the penalty, the moment one appeals, you lose probation. o If you file for probation, judgment is deemed final. o If you file for appeal, it forecloses application to probation. You can’t have your red velvet cake and eat it too. o The “appeal” here is the appeal from the trial court to the CA. (P v Evangelista)
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
87
am+dg
• • •
• •
•
What if you withdrew the appeal within 15 days, pwede pa ba? Pwede! Should be a perfected appeal. (Llamado v CA) If the application for probation is sufficient in form, the convict may be allowed to post bail. o But the court cannot extend beyond the period beyond the period to study the application. Court can give conditions for the probation. (Mandatory conditions are to present himself to probation officer and report to prob officer once a month) o Condition was to submit a program for payment of the civil liability. Accused didn’t pay and his probation was revoked. He claimed he was being imprisoned for nonpayment of debt. SC: Mali ka boy. Imprisoned for not complying with condition, not for nonpayment. (Salgado v CA) o But a condition which prohibits a teacher from teaching again is wrong. Court must think of the accused. (Baclayon v Mutia) If the court approves/denies the application, is it appealable? No. it’s an order. So, go for Rule 65. Can court grant shorter periods of probation? o Yes. but they cannot extend it. o Imprisonment of not more than one year, probation shall not exceed two years. o More than one year, probation period shall not exceed 6 years. o Fine only (with subsidiary imprisonment), probation shall be twice the number of days of subsidiary imprisonment. Mere expiry of probation period does NOT automatically terminate probation. (Bala v Martinez) o Court must still determine if accused complied with the conditions of the probation. Need for a final discharge from the court. o Once discharged, ok na! he can’t be compelled to do the conditions or go back to jail. Moreover, he recovers whatever he lost due to his accessory penalties.
Sent ence Penal ty Dispo sition Violat ion Appe al Avail abilit y Natur e
Probation Must not be more than 6 years Imprisonment or fine
ISL Max must be more than 1 year
Sentence is suspended
Minimum to be served
Entire sentence shall be served Forecloses privilege of probation Only once
Unexpired portion only to be served No effect on the operation of the law Everytime as long as the offender is not dq’d
Mere privilege, must be applied for by the convict
Mandatory, need not be applied for by the convict
Imprisonment only
Civil Liability Title Five CIVIL LIABILITY Chapter One PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
• • • •
Civil liability can be incurred whether the act is punishable by law or not (since it can be based on felonies or quasi-delicts/torts) The moment the criminal action is instituted, the civil action is instituted along with it. o Remember torts principles and independent civil actions. Possible that there’s a crime but no civil liability, like in victimless crimes. o But if the state is the one aggrieved, the state can recover civil liability. (Malversation) Also possible that there’s no crime, but there’s still civil liability. (Art 332 – swindling relatives)
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
88
am+dg
•
•
•
•
•
•
What if the accused is acquitted? 51 o If based on the ground that accused was not the author of the act/omission complained of: no civil liability based on delict o If based on reasonable doubt: civil liability still possible by a preponderance of evidence If SPL, is there civil liabilities? o Yes. there must be evidence that a party including the government sustained substantial injury so that the accused may be civilly liable. BP 22 Anti-Fencing (PD 1612) – Sec 3(a) includes accessory penalty of RPC (hence, civil liability under Art 104 [restitution])52 VAWC (RA 9262) – accused liable to battered woman. If crime is absorbed by another crime, can there be civil liability in the absorbed crime? o Yes. For example, you murder someone in furtherance of rebellion. You will still be civilly liable for the murder, even if it lost its juridical existence. Liable for civil indemnity and moral damages. (P v Hernandez) o Also when homicide is absorbed by arson. Still liable for civil indemnity and moral damages for the homicide. (P v Malngan) If a check bounces, accused can be liable for BP22 and estafa. Will the accused pay the value of the check twice, or just once? o Although there are two crimes, there is only one check. Thus, there should only be one payment of the payment. (Rodriguez v Pomferada) If there is a complex crime (2 crimes), can there be more than 1 civil liability? o Yes. Number of civil liabilities for as many victims. Dude shot one bullet, killed two people. Civilly liable to both victims. If two crimes (one SPL and one RPC), can there be more than 1 civil liability? o No. See BP22/estafa example. o Same when estafa and illegal recruitment, just one civil liability.
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules: First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law. Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable. When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have been caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations. Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution.
•
If justifying circumstance, no civil liability o EXCEPT Art 11, Par 4 (person who avoided a greater evil or injury): primary liability is on the one who benefited from such avoidance. If there were several benefited, they will all bear the liability proportionately.
51
Civil Code Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground. 52
a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
89
am+dg
•
If exempting circumstance o Insane person, imbecile, or under 18 with no discernment 53 (Art 12, Par 1-3): primary liability on the person who has control or authority over them, unless he is without fault or negligence If no fault or negligence, then property of minor or insane (except property exempt from liability) o Acting because of an irresistible force or uncontrollable fear (Art 12, Par 5-6): primary liability on the person employing the force or causing the fear Secondary liability is on the person doing the act, save for their property exempt from execution o Doing a lawful act, failure to do an act because of some lawful insuperable cause (Art 12, Par 4 and 7): no civil liability! The great Justice Regalado says these are actually justifying circumstances and should’ve been under Art 11.
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. — In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees. Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.
•
•
•
Elements under Par 1: o Innkeeper, tavernkeeper or proprietor of establishment or his employee committed a violation of municipal ordinance or some general or special police regulation o Crime committed in such tavern, inn, establishment o Person criminally liable is insolvent All three present? Then keepers/props civilly liable. Elements under Par 2: o Guests notified in advance the innkeeper or the person representing him of the deposit of their goods within the inn or house o Guests followed the directions of the innkeeper or his representative with respect to the care of and vigilance over such goods o Such goods were taken by robbery with force upon things or theft committed within the inn or house All three present? Innkeeper subsidiarily liable. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. o EXCEPT when committed by the innkeeper’s employees.
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
• •
•
Is the adopter civilly liable for the damage caused by the adopted minor? Yes. Requirements for subsidiary civil liability of the employer: o EE-ER Relationship o ER engaged in some kind of industry “engaged in some kind of industry”: capital and labor are habitually employed for the purpose of gain/profit o EE guilty of the wrongful act and found to have committed the offense in the discharge of his duties (not necessarily any offense he commits while in the discharge of such duties) o EE is insolvent as shown by the non-satisfaction of the execution against him o Conviction attained finality No need for court to pronounce subsidiary liability of the employee. It is deemed written into the
53
RA 9344: The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
90
am+dg
• • •
•
•
•
judgments of the cases. Can the ER challenge the sheriff’s return which showed non-satisfaction? Yes! He must do it upon submission of the sheriff’s return. Is teacher liable for student’s acts? Only when engaged in industry. (Compare with 2180 which talks of quasi-delicts) Visiting doctor left gauze in stomach of patient. Patient died. Are hospitals liable for consulting/visiting doctors? (Ramos v CA/Pro Services v Agana) o Yes, because of: Control in hiring and firing of these consultants/doctors Performance of duties within hospital premises. Consultants’ acts subject to review by hospital Hospital controlled staff of consultants. o Moreover, private corporation who owned the hospital was subsidiarily liable under corporate responsibility. Important doctrines from the Philippine Rabbit Bus case: o Filing of criminal action necessarily includes subsidiary liability of employer. He may not be a party but in effect, he is bound by the judgment. ER may assist in the defense of his employee, but he may not actually participate in the criminal case. o The judgment binds the ER. Except if there’s collusion between the offended and the erring EE. o Extent of liability of ER: only in terms of civil liability (he can’t be jailed) and the amount of the civil liability. His civil liability can’t be separated from his EE. If the employee is acquitted based on reasonable doubt, is there civil liability for the employer? o Yes. Only time when no civil liability is when the court says that he did not actually commit the acts on which the charge is based on. Regardless as to who the actual owner of the car is, the registered owner is the operator of the same with respect to the public or 3rd persons. o Registered owner liable, but can recover from the actual owner. (transpo cases)
Chapter Two WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. — The civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes: 1. Restitution; 2. Reparation of the damage caused; 3. Indemnification for consequential damages. Art. 105. Restitution; How made. — The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the court. The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person, who may be liable to him. This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been acquired by the third person in the manner and under the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery. Art. 106. Reparation; How made. — The court shall determine the amount of damage, taking into consideration the price of the thing, whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to the injured party, and reparation shall be made accordingly. Art. 107. Indemnification; What is included. — Indemnification for consequential damages shall include not only those caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the crime.
•
•
Civil liability includes: o Restitution (return of the thing itself) o If restitution not possible, reparation of the damage caused o Indemnification for consequential damages (based on Civil Code) Restitution o Includes return of ransom in kidnapping with ransom o What if a third person acquired property subject of crime? Can still recover the item from that person
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
91
am+dg
•
•
• •
•
• But the buyer in good faith is entitled to reimbursement from thief or criminal If stolen property cannot be returned anymore, the value of the thing taken will do • What is basis for the value? Value at the time of the commission of the crime. In illegal recruitment, money paid by the applicant must be returned (P v Billaber) • With 12% interest from the time of filing of the case until amount has been paid. In BP 22, 6% from filing of information until finality of decision, then get the whole amount then 12% until amount was paid (Palana v P)
Damages o Actual, moral, exemplary, temperate, nominal o In crimes and quasi-delicts, liable for all natural and probable consequences of act or omission 54 o May be increased or decreased depending on aggravating or mitigating circumstances 55 o Also includes lost profits, not only value lost56 Civil indemnity o As long as the crime results to death, civil indemnity will be awarded o Also been granted in rape Actual damages o Must be proved Moral damages o Because of physical suffering, besmirched repuration, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings o Recovered in: Crimes leading to physical injuries (includes DEATH) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries (includes DEATH) Seduction, abduction, rape (even attempted rape), lascivious acts • Parents may also recover moral damages Adultery, concubinage Illegal/arbitrary detention/arrests Illegal search Libel, slander, defamation Malicious prosecution Others are based on civil code na o If raped three times, there must be a separate award for each crime. Can’t be lumped together. o In the cases enumerated, no need to allege emotional suffering in the information. Given na yon. However, there are some cases which say that heirs must prove that they suffered emotional pain, etc. But basta ikaw yung victim, you can get moral damages. Exemplary damages o Imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. o To serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings and vindication o No need for proof of actual loss o Distinct and separate from penalty of fine. o When a crime has one or more ACs, exemplary damages may be imposed (Civ Code, 2230) o What if the AC was not alleged in the information (hence, can’t be used against accused for his penalty), but proved during trial, can exemplary damages still be imposed? Yes. even if not alleged in the complaint or information, as long as proven. o “Aggravating” should be applied in its generic sense, includes specific, qualifying, general, etc. Hence, even if treachery is qualifying in Art 248, it can still be treated as aggravating for imposing exemplary damages. • Same with kidnapping with ransom (demand for ransom is qualifying), exemplary may still be imposed.
54
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendan 55
Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. 56
Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
92
am+dg
Also, relationship may be a basis for granting exemplary damages even if it is an inherent element of the crime. (parricide) o Does set-off apply in terms of exemplary damages? No. As long as there’s an AC, exemplary may be imposed. o Can exemplary damages be awarded in arson? Yes. It’s an anti-social act. To correct the behavior. o Two separate crimes of rape, but same victim, how many exemplary? As many as the number of crimes committed, even if the victim was the same. o In reckless imprudence, exemplary damages may be imposed if shown to have had gross negligence. Temperate damages o More than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty o Must be reasonable o For example, the heirs of a deceased in homicide, murder, parricide are entitled to actual damages. But if they can’t prove actual damages, the court may give temperate damages. Attorney’s fees o Must be reasonable o Discretionary upon the court Interest o 12% from date of final judgment
•
•
•
•
Even with RA 9346, the classification of crimes as heinous (death) and quasi-heinous (RP) still remains. It is important in determining the civil indemnity and moral damages of the crime. o Heinous: Indemnity: P75k Moral damages: P50k o Quasi-heinous: Indemnity: P50k Moral damages: P50k Crime Indemnity Moral Others Damages Rape with 100k 50k homicide Qualified 75k 50k rape Simple rape 50k 50k If a child is born out of the rape, also liable for support (except if woman is already married.) This exception is dissented to by the omniscient Justice Regalado. He claims that the offender must still
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
93
am+dg
pay, provided that the paternity is established. But the offender cannot be obliged to acknowledge offspring in adultery and concubinage when the offended party is married and paternity cannot be determined. Sexual assault (fingered) Attempted rape Acts of lasciviousnes s (for each count) Murder Parricide
30k
30k
30K
25k
None
5k
75k 50k
75k 50k
Homicide Frustrated homicide Attempted homicide
50k None, no one died None
50k 30k
Robbery with homicide
75k (if death) 50k (if RP) 75k
Forcible abduction with rape (for each count)
Kidnapping with rape Kidnapping with homicide Kidnapped was 8 years old (Kidnap Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
10k exemplary 2k exemplary
Shouldn’t there be exemplary here?
30k (one case 10k, depends talaga!) 75k (death) 50k (RP) 50k
75k
75k
75k
75k
50k
200k
If multiple rape, extra P50k indemnity and 50k moral damages, per extra rape
100k exemplary (because of
94
am+dg
for ransom) Qualified carnapping RA 7610
Zombie apocalypse
ransom) 75k
50k
20k
15k
0k
0k
Not sure, just got this from J. Callejo Eow powz.
Art. 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or indemnification for consequential damages and actions to demand the same; Upon whom it devolves. — The obligation to make restoration or reparation for damages and indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of the person liable. The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person injured. Art. 109. Share of each person civilly liable. — If there are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts shall determine the amount for which each must respond. Art. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices and accessories of a felony; Preference in payment. — Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within their respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other persons liable. The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of the principals; next, against that of the accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the accessories. Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person by whom payment has been made shall have a right of action against the others for the amount of their respective shares. Art. 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. — Any person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012 Justice Callejo
95
