Criminal Law Book 1 Articles 1 – 10 Criminal Law – A branch of municipal law which denes crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment.
Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws (ON) 1.
Must be general in application.
2.
Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law. facto law.
3.
Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder.
4.
Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or ecessive nes.
Characteristics of Criminal Law: 1. General General ! ! the law is binding to all persons who reside in the "hilippines erritorial ! ! the law is binding to all crimes committed within the #ational $erritor% 2. erritorial of the "hilippines
Exception to Territorial Application Applicat ion&& 'nstances enumerated under Article 2. 3. !rospecti"e ! the law does not have an% retroactive e(ect. Exception to Prospective Application& Application& when new statute is favorable to the accused.
#$ect of repeal of penal law to lia%ilit& of o$en'er Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal. — As to the eect of repeal of penal law to the liability of oender, qualify your answer by saying whether the the repeal is absolute or total or whether the repeal is partial or relative only. A repeal is absolute or total when when the crie punished under the repealed law has been decriinali!ed by the repeal. "ecause of the repeal, repeal, the act or oission which used to be a crie is no longer a crie. An exaple is #epublic Act $o. %&'&, which decriinali!ed subversion. A repeal is partial or relative when the crie punished under the repealed law continues to be a crie inspite of the repeal. This eans that the repeal erely odi(ed the conditions aecting the crie under the repealed law. law. The odi(cation ay be pre)udicial or bene(cial to the oender. oender. *ence, the following rule+
Conseences if repeal of penal law is total or a%solte -
'f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law , the
sae shall be disissed, even though the accused ay be a habitual delinquent. /
'f a case is alread% decided and the accused is alread% serving sentence b%
nal )udgment, if )udgment, if the convict is not a habitual delin*uent, delin*uent, then he will be entitled to a release unless there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to those serving sentence at the tie of the repeal. +ut if there is no reservation, reservation, those
who are not habitual delinquents even if they are already serving their sentence will receive the bene(t bene(t of the repealing law. law. They are entitled to release. 'f the% are not discharged from connement connement,, a petition for habeas corpus should be (led to test the legality of their continued con(neent in )ail. 'f the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delin*uent , he will continue serving the sentence in spite of the fact that the law under which he was convicted has already been absolutely repealed. This is so because because penal laws should be given retroactive retroactive application to favor only those who are not habitual delinquents.
Conseences if repeal of penal law is partial or relati"e -
'f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and
the repealing law is more favorable to the accused, it i t shall be the one applied to hi. 0o whether he is a habitual delinquent or not, if the case is still pending in court, the repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of action. 2-
'f a case is alread% decided and the accused is alread% serving sentence b%
nal )udgment,even )udgment,even if the repealing law is partial or relative, the crie still reains to be a crie. $hose who are not habitual delin*uents will benet on the e(ect of that repeal, so that if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that will henceforth appl% to them. 1nder Article //, even if the oender is already convicted and serving sentence, a law which is bene(cial shall be applied to hi unless he is a habitual delinquent in accordance with #ule 2 of Article '/.
Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied -
'f a penal law is impliedl% repealed, the repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing
law will revive the original law. law. 0o the act or oission which was punished as a crie under the original law will be revived and the sae shall again be cries although during the iplied repeal they ay not be punishable. /
'f the repeal is epress, epress , the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the (rst
law, so the act or oission will no longer be penali!ed. These eects of repeal do not apply to self3repealing laws or those which have autoatic terination. An exaple is the #ent 4ontrol 5aw which is revived by 4ongress every two years.
heories of Criminal Law 1. Classical heor& ! heor& ! Man is essentiall% a moral creature with an absolute free will to choose between good and evil and therefore more stress is placed upon the result of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself. heor& ! Man is subdued occasionall% b% a strange and morbid 1. !ositi"ist heor& ! phenomenon which conditions him to do wrong in spite of or contrar% to his volition.
#clectic or *i+e' !hilosoph& This cobines both positivist and classical thin6ing. 4ries that are econoic and social and nature should be dealt with in a positivist anner7 thus, the law is ore
copassionate. *einous cries should be dealt with in a classical anner7 thus, capital punishen
BA,-C *A.-*, -N C/-*-NAL LA octrine of !ro /eo 8henever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law adits of two interpretations 9 one lenient to the oender and one strict to the oender 9 that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the oender will be adopted.
Nllm crimen2 nlla poena sine lege There is no crie when there is no law punishing the sae. This is true to civil law countries, but not to coon law countries. "ecause of this axi, there is no coon law crie in the Philippines. $o atter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law de(ning the act, the sae is not considered a crie.
Acts non facit rem2 nisi mens sit rea The act cannot be criinal where the ind is not criinal. This is true to a felony characteri!ed by dolo, but not a felony resulting fro culpa. This axi is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or those that result fro negligence.
3tilitarian heor& or !rotecti"e heor& The priary purpose of the punishent under criinal law is the protection of society fro actual and potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society, should direct the punishent to potential or actual wrongdoers, since criinal law is directed against acts and oissions which the society does not approve. 4onsistent with this theory, the ala prohibita principle which punishes an oense regardless of alice or criinal intent, should not be utili!ed to apply the full harshness of the special law.
,orces of Criminal Law 1. $he evised "enal /ode 2. 0pecial "enal aws ! Acts enacted of the "hilippine egislature punishing o(enses or omissions.
Constrction of !enal Laws 1. /riminal 0tatutes are liberall% construed in favor of the o(ender. $his means that no person shall be brought within their terms who is not clearl% within them, nor should an% act be pronounced criminal which is not clearl% made so b% statute. 2. $he original tet in which a penal law is approved in case of a conict with an ocial translation. 3. 'nterpretation b% analog% has no place in criminal law
*ALA -N ,# AN *ALA !/O4-B-A
:iolations of the #evised Penal 4ode are referred to as malum in se, which literall% means, that the act is inherentl% evil or bad or per se wrongful. n the other hand, violations of special laws are generall% referred to as malum prohibitum. #ote, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. 5hile intentional felonies are alwa%s mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are alwa%s mala prohibita. 6ven if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherentl% wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense7 unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa. ikewise when the special laws re*uires that the punished act be committed knowingl% and willfull%, criminal intent is re*uired to be proved before criminal liabilit% ma% arise. 5hen the act penali8ed is not inherentl% wrong, it is wrong onl% because a law punishes the same.
istinction %etween crimes pnishe' n'er the /e"ise' !enal Co'e an' crimes pnishe' n'er special laws 15
As to moral trait of the oender
'n crimes punished under the evised "enal /ode, the moral trait of the o(ender is considered. $his is wh% liabilit% would onl% arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act. 'n crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the o(ender is not considered7 it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntaril% done.
65
As to use of good faith as defense
'n crimes punished under the evised "enal /ode, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense7 unless the crime is the result of culpa 'n crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense
75
As to degree of accomplishment of the crime
'n crimes punished under the evised "enal /ode, the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the o(ender7 thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in the commission of the crime. 'n crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime onl% when it is consummated7 there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law epressl% penali8e the mere attempt or frustration of the crime.
85
As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances
'n crimes punished under the evised "enal /ode, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in imposing the penalt% since the moral trait of the o(ender is considered. 'n crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalt%.
95
As to degree of participation
'n crimes punished under the evised "enal /ode, when there is more than one o(ender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing the penalt%7 thus, o(enders are classied as principal, accomplice and accessor%. 'n crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the o(enders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penali8ed to the same etent. $here is no principal or accomplice or accessor% to consider.
est to 'etermine if "iolation of special law is malm prohi%itm or malm in se Analy!e the violation+ ;s it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such< ;f you reove the law, will the act still be wrong< ;f the wording of the law punishing the crie uses the word =willfully>, then alice ust be proven. 8here alice is a factor, good faith is a defense. ;n violation of special law, the act constituting the crie is a prohibited act. Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability, unless the special law punishes an oission. 8hen given a proble, ta6e note if the crie is a violation of the #evised Penal 4ode or a special law.
Art5 15 his Co'e shall take e$ect on anar& 12 1;765 Art5 65 #+cept as pro"i'e' in the treaties an' laws of preferential application2 the pro"isions of this Co'e shall %e enforce' not onl& within the !hilippine Archipelago incl'ing its atmosphere2 its interior waters an' *aritime 65 ,hol' forge or conterfeit an& coin or crrenc& note of the !hilippine -slan's or o%ligations an' secrities isse' %& the Go"ernment of the !hilippine -slan's> 75 ,hol' %e lia%le for acts connecte' with the intro'ction into these islan's of the o%ligations an' secrities mentione' in the prece'ing nm%er>
85 hile %eing p%lic o?cers or emplo&ees2 shol' commit an o$ense in the e+ercise of their fnctions> or 0oe of these cries are bribery, fraud against national treasury, alversation of public funds or property, and illegal use of public funds7 e.g., A )udge who accepts a bribe while in ?apan.
95 ,hol' commit an& crimes against the national secrit& an' the law of nations2 'e@ne' in itle One of Book wo of this Co'e5 These cries include treason, espionage, piracy, utiny, and violation of neutrality Rules as to crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels & 1. rench /le ! 0uch crimes are not triable in the courts of that countr%, unless their commission a(ects the peace and securit% of the territor% or the safet% of the state is endangered. 1. #nglish /le ! 0uch crimes are triable in that countr%, unless the% merel% a(ect things within the vessel or the% refer to the internal management thereof. $his is applicable in the "hilippines•
two situations where the foreign country ay not apply its criinal law even if a crie was coitted on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are+ -
8hen the crie is coitted in a war vessel of a foreign country, because
war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong7 /
8hen the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crie was coitted
adopts the French Rule, which applies only to erchant vessels, except when the crie coitted aects the national security or public order of such foreign country. Requirements of an oense committed while on a !hilippine "hip or Airship9 1. egistered with the "hilippine +ureau of /ustoms 2. 0hip must be in the high seas or the airship must be in international airspace. •
1nder international law rule, a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any country is considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crie against huanity in general, such that wherever the pirates ay go, they can be prosecuted.
3, "5 Bll A crime which occurred on board of a foreign vessel, which began when the ship was in a foreign territor% and continued when it entered into "hilippine waters, is considered a continuing crime. :ence within the )urisdiction of the local courts. As a general rule, the #evised Penal 4ode governs only when the crie coitted pertains to the exercise of the public o@cials functions, those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country. The functions conteplated are those, which are, under the law, to be perfored by the public o@cer in the Boreign 0ervice of the Philippine governent in a foreign country.
Exception+ The #evised Penal 4ode governs if the crie was coitted within the Philippine Ebassy or within the ebassy grounds in a foreign country. This is because ebassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty. Paragraph 2 of Article /, use the phrase =as de(ned in Title Cne of "oo6 Two of this 4ode.> This is a very iportant part of the exception, because Title ; of "oo6 / cries against national security does not include rebellion.
Art 75 Acts an' omissions pnisha%le %& law are felonies5 • •
Acts ! an overt or eternal act #mission ! failure to perform a dut% re*uired b% law. Exaple of an oission& failure to render assistance to an%one who is in danger of d%ing or is in an uninhabited place
• •
or is wounded ! abandonment. Felonies ! acts and omissions punishable b% the evised "enal /ode Crime ; acts and omissions punishable b% an% law
5hat re*uisites must concur before a felon% ma% be committed< There ust be - an act or oission7 / punishable by the #evised Penal 4ode7 and & the act is perfored or the oission incurred by eans of dolo or culpa. $ow felonies are committed & 1. %& means of 'eceit (dolo) ! $here is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent. •
Requisites% 1. freedom 2. intelligence 3. intent Exaples& murder, treason, and robber%
Criminal intent is not necessar& in these cases% -
8hen the crie is the product of culpa or negligence, rec6less iprudence,
lac6 of foresight or lac6 of s6ill7 /
8hen the crie is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called
alu prohibitu.
'n criminal law, intent is categori(ed into two% -
Deneral criinal intent7 and
/
0peci(c criinal intent.
)eneral criminal intent is presued fro the ere doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criinal intent.
"peci*c criminal intent is not presued because it is an ingredient or eleent of a crie, li6e intent to 6ill in the cries of attepted or frustrated hoicideparricideurder. The prosecution has the burden of proving the sae.
+istinction between intent and discernment
'ntent is the deterination to do a certain thing, an ai or purpose of the ind. ;t is the design to resolve or deterination by which a person acts. Cn the other hand, discernment is the ental capacity to tell right fro wrong. ;t relates to the oral signi(cance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an eleent of dolo, distinct fro intent.
+istinction between intent and motive 'ntent is deonstrated by the use of a particular eans to bring about a desired result 9 it is not a state of ind or a reason for coitting a crie. Cn the other hand, motive iplies otion. ;t is the oving power which ipels one to do an act. 8hen there is otive in the coission of a crie, it always coes before the intent. "ut a crie ay be coitted without otive. ;f the crie is intentional, it cannot be coitted without intent. ;ntent is anifested by the instruent used by the oender. The speci(c criinal intent becoes aterial if the crie is to be distinguished fro the attepted or frustrated stage. 1. b& means of fault culpa- ! $here is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. 1. 'mprudence ! decienc% of action7 e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. :e hit + because it was raining ! reckless imprudence. 2. egligence / decienc% of perception7 failure to foresee impending danger, usuall% involves lack of foresight 3. c. Requisites% 1. =reedom 2. 'ntelligence 'mprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight 3. 4. ack of intent The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lac6 of precaution on the part of the person perforing or failing to perfor an act. ;f the danger ipending fro that situation is clearly anifest, you have a case of rec0less imprudence. "ut if the danger that would result fro such iprudence is not clear, not anifest nor iediate you have only a case of simple negligence . *istake of fact ! is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused •
in)ur% to another. :e is not criminall% liable.
a. Requisites & 1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be7 2. intention of the accused is lawful7 3. mistake must be without fault of carelessness.
#+ample% 1nited "tates v. Ah Chong. Ah /hong being afraid of bad elements, locked himself in his room b% placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened b% somebod% who was tr%ing to open the door. :e asked the identit% of the person, but he did not receive a
response. =earing that this intruder was a robber, he leaped out of bed and said that he will kill the intruder should he attempt to enter. At that moment, the chair struck him. +elieving that he was attacked, he sei8ed a knife and fatall% wounded the intruder. Fista6e of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through dolo, but not when the felony is a result of culpa. 8hen the felony is a product of culpa, do not discuss ista6e of fact.
Art5 85 Criminal lia%ilit& shall %e incrre': 15 B& an& person committing a felon&2 althogh the wrongfl act 'one %e 'i$erent from that which he inten'e'5 Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proimate cause of the resulting felon%. 't must be the direct, natural, and logical conse*uence of the felonious act. •
Cases which pro'ce a 'i$erent reslt:
1.
2ista0e in identit& of the victim ! in)uring one person who is mistaken for another this is a comple crime under Art. 4>- e.g., A intended to shoot +, but he instead shot / because he A- mistook / for +.
;n error in personae, the intended victi was not at the scene of the crie. ;t was the actual victi upon who the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victi. *ow does error in personae aect criinal liability of the oender< Error in personae is itigating if the crie coitted is dierent fro that which was intended. ;f the crie coitted is the sae as that which was intended, error in personae does not aect the criinal liability of the oender. ;n ista6e of identity, if the crie coitted was the sae as the crie intended, but on a dierent victi, error in persona does not aect the criinal liability of the oender. "ut if the crie coitted was dierent fro the crie intended, Article GH will apply and the penalty for the lesser crie will be applied. ;n a way, ista6e in identity is a itigating circustance where Article GH applies. 8here the crie intended is ore serious than the crie coitted, the error in persona is not a itigating circustance 2. 2ista0e in blow ! hitting somebod% other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous instances this is a comple crime under Art. 4>- e.g., + and / were walking together. A wanted to shoot +, but he instead in)ured /. ;n aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victi, but because of poor ai, that blow landed on soebody else. ;n aberratio ictus, the intended victi as well as the actual victi are both at the scene of the crie. aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a coplex crie.
This being so, the penalty
for the ore serious crie is iposed in the axiu period.
3.
'n3urious result is greater than that intended ! causing in)ur% graver than intended or epected this is a mitigating circumstance due to lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong under Art. 13- e.g., A wanted to in)ure +. :owever, + died.
praeter intentione is itigating, particularly covered by paragraph & of Article -&. ;n order however, that the situation ay qualify as praeter intentione, there ust be a notable disparity between the eans eployed and the resulting felony 'n all these instances the o(ender can still be held criminall% liable, since he is •
motivated b% criminal intent.
Requisites & 1. the felon% was intentionall% committed 2. the felon% is the proimate cause of the wrong done +octrine of !roximate Cause ! such ade*uate and ecient cause as, in the
•
natural order of events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, which would necessaril% produce the event.
Requisites & 1. the direct, natural, and logical cause 2. produces the in)ur% or damage 3. unbroken b% an% sucient intervening cause 4. without which the result would not have occurred •
!roximate Cause is negated b&%
1.
Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutel% foreign from the felonious act of the
accused, which serves as a sucient intervening cause. 2. esulting in)ur% or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.
proxiate cause does not require that the oender needs to actually touch the body of the oended party. ;t is enough that the oender generated in the ind of the oended party the belief that ade hi ris6 hiself. #equisite for Presuption blow was cause of the death ! 5here there has been an •
in)ur% inicted sucient to produce death followed b% the demise of the person, the presumption arises that the in)ur% was the cause of the death. "rovided& 1. victim was in normal health
2.
death ensued within a reasonable time
The one who caused the proxiate cause is the one liable. The one who caused the iediate cause is also liable, but erely contributory or soeties totally not liable.
65 B& an& person performing an act which wol' %e an o$ense against persons or propert&2 were it not for the inherent impossi%ilit& of its accomplishment or on accont of the emplo&ment of ina'eate or ine$ectal means5 •
/eisites: (-*!O,,-BL# C/-*#)
1. 2.
Act would have been an o(ense against persons or propert% Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the /ode or of a special penal
law 3. $here was criminal intent
4. •
1.
Accomplishment was inherentl% impossible7 or inade*uate or ine(ectual means were emplo%ed. Notes: (ender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing
another who he knew was alread% dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime. 2. $he law intends to punish the criminal intent. 3. $here is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. Belonies against persons& parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, ph%sical in)uries, •
• •
etc. Belonies against property+ robber%, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc. ;nherent ipossibility & A thought that + was )ust sleeping. + was alread% dead. A shot +. A is liable. 'f A knew that + is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.
8hen we say inherent ipossibility, this eans that under any and all circustances, the crie could not have ateriali!ed. ;f the crie could have ateriali!ed under a dierent set of facts, eploying the sae ean or the sae act, it is not an ipossible crie7 it would be an attepted felony. Eployent of inadequate eans& A used poison to kill +. :owever, + survived •
•
because A used small *uantities of poison ! frustrated murder. ;neectual eans& A aimed his gun at +. 5hen he red the gun, no bullet came out because the gun was empt%. A is liable.
8henever you are confronted with a proble where the facts suggest that an ipossible crie was coitted, be careful about the question as6ed. ;f the question as6ed is+ =;s an ipossible crie coitted<>, then you )udge that question on the basis of the facts. ;f really the facts constitute an ipossible crie, then you suggest than an ipossible crie is coitted, then you state the reason for the inherent ipossibility. ;f the question as6ed is =;s he liable for an ipossible crie<>, this is a catching question. Even though the facts constitute an ipossible crie, if the act done by the oender constitutes soe other cries under the #evised Penal 4ode, he will not be liable for an ipossible crie. *e will be prosecuted for the crie constituted so far by the act done by hi. this idea of an ipossible crie is a one of last resort, )ust to teach the oender a lesson because of his criinal perversity. ;f he could be taught of the sae lesson by charging hi with soe other crie constituted by his act, then that will be the proper way. ;f you want to play safe, you state there that although an ipossible crie is constituted, yet it is a principle of criinal law that he will only be penali!ed for an ipossible crie if he cannot be punished under soe other provision of the #evised Penal 4ode. Art ?. 5henever a court has knowledge of an% act which it ma% deem proper to repress and which is not punishable b% law, it shall render the proper decision and shall report
to the /hief 6ecutive, through the @epartment of ustice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made sub)ect of legislation.
-n the same wa& the cort shall s%mit to the Chief #+ecti"e2 throgh the epartment of stice2 sch statement as ma& %e 'eeme' proper2 withot sspen'ing the e+ection of the sentence2 when a strict enforcement of the pro"isions of this Co'e wol' reslt in the imposition of a clearl& e+cessi"e penalt&2 taking into consi'eration the 'egree of malice an' the in=r& case' %& the o$ense5 8hen a person is charged in court, and the court (nds that there is no law applicable, the court will acquit the accused and the )udge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished. "aragraph 2 does not appl% to crimes punishable b% special law, including proteering, and illegal possession of rearms or drugs. $here can be no eecutive clemenc% for these crimes. •
Art. B. /onsummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felon& is consmmate' when all the elements necessar& for its e+ection an' accomplishment are present> an' it is frstrate' when the o$en'er performs all the acts of e+ection which wol' pro'ce the felon& as a conseence %t which2 ne"ertheless2 'o not pro'ce it %& reason of cases in'epen'ent of the will of the perpetrator5 here is an attempt when the o$en'er commences the commission of a felon& 'irectl& %& o"ert acts2 an' 'oes not perform all the acts of e+ection which shol' pro'ce the felon& %& reason of some case or acci'ent other than his own spontaneos 'esistance5 •
+evelopment of a crime
1. 2.
'nternal acts ! intent and plans7 usuall% not punishable 6ternal acts
1. 2.
"reparator% Acts ! acts tending toward the crime Acts of 6ecution ! acts directl% connected the crime
"tages of Commission of a Crime Attempt •
vert acts of
•
eecution are started #ot all acts of
•
eecution are present @ue to reasons
Frustrated
Consummated
other than the spontaneous desistance of the •
perpetrator All acts of eecution
•
are present /rime sought to be
•
committed is not achieved @ue to intervening
•
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator All the acts of
•
eecution are present $he result sought is achieved
•
1. 2. 3. 4.
"tages of a Crime does not appl& in : (enses punishable b% 0pecial "enal aws, unless the otherwise is provided for. =ormal crimes e.g., slander, adulter%, etc.'mpossible /rimes /rimes consummated b% mere attempt. Exaples+ attempt to ee to an enem%
countr%, treason, corruption of minors. ?. =elonies b% omission B. /rimes committed b% mere agreement. Exaples+
betting in sports endings in
basketball-, corruption of public ocers.
esistance Iesistance on the part of the oender negates criinal liability in the attepted stage. Iesistance is true only in the attepted stage of the felony. ;f under the de(nition of the felony, the act done is already in the frustrated stage, no aount of desistance will negate criinal liability. The spontaneous desistance of the oender negates only the attepted stage but not necessarily all criinal liability. Even though there was desistance on the part of the oender, if the desistance was ade when acts done by hi already resulted to a felony, that oender will still be criinally liable for the felony brought about his act ;n deciding whether a felony is attepted or frustrated or consuated, there are three criteria involved+ -
The anner of coitting the crie7
/
The eleents of the crie7 and
&
The nature of the crie itself. Applications% 1. A put poison in +Cs food. + threw awa% his food. A is liable ! attepted urder .D1E •
2. 3.
A stole +Cs car, but he returned it. A is liable ! consuated theft. A aimed his gun at +. / held ACs hand and prevented him from shooting +
! attepted urder . 4. A inicted a mortal wound on +. + managed to survive ! frustrated urder . ?. A intended to kill + b% shooting him. A missed ! attepted urder . B. A doused +Cs house with kerosene. +ut before he could light the match, he was caught ! attepted arson. F. A cause a bla8e, but did not burn the house of + ! frustrated arson. >. +Cs house was set on re b% A ! consuated arson. G. A tried to rape +. + managed to escape. $here was no penetration ! attepted rape. 1H. A got hold of +Cs painting. A was caught before he could leave +Cs house ! frustrated robbery. 456
The attepted stage is said to be within the sub)ective phase of execution of a felony. Cn the sub)ective phase, it is that point in tie when the oender begins the coission of an overt act until that point where he loses control of the coission of the crie already. ;f he has reached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence, the crie has already passed the sub)ective phase and, therefore, it is no longer attepted. The oent the execution of the crie has already gone to that point where the felony should follow as a consequence, it is either already frustrated or consuated. ;f the felony does not follow as a consequence, it is already frustrated. ;f the felony follows as a consequence, it is consuated. although the oender ay not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence, if he could have continued coitting those acts but he hiself did not proceed because he believed that he had done enough to consuate the crie, 0upree 4ourt said the sub)ective phase has passed
#T7" # AR"#8 The weight of the authority is that the crie of arson cannot be coitted in the frustrated stage. The reason is because we can hardly deterine whether the oender has perfored all the acts of execution that would result in arson, as a consequence, unless a part of the preises has started to burn. Cn the other hand, the oent a particle or a olecule of the preises has blac6ened, in law, arson is consuated. This is because consuated arson does not require that the whole of the preises be burned. ;t is enough that any part of the preises, no atter how sall, has begun to burn.
7"TAFA 9". T$7FT ;n estafa, the oender receives the property7 he does not ta6e it. "ut in receiving the property, the recipient ay be coitting theft, not estafa, if what was transferred to hi was only the physical or aterial possession of the ob)ect. ;t can only be estafa if what was transferred to hi is not only aterial or physical possession but )uridical possession as well.
8hen you are discussing estafa, do not tal6 about intent to gain. ;n the sae anner that when you are discussing the crie of theft, do not tal6 of daage.
Natre of the crime itself ;n cries involving the ta6ing of huan life 9 parricide, hoicide, and urder 9 in the de(nition of the frustrated stage, it is indispensable that the victi be ortally wounded. 1nder the de(nition of the frustrated stage, to consider the oender as having perfored all the acts of execution, the acts already done by hi ust produce or be capable of producing a felony as a consequence. The general rule is that there ust be a fatal in)ury inJicted, because it is only then that death will follow. ;f the wound is not ortal, the crie is only attepted. The reason is that the wound inJicted is not capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide, urder or hoicide as a consequence7 it cannot be said that the oender has perfored all the acts of execution which would produce parricide, hoicide or urder as a result. An exception to the general rule is the so3called sub)ective phase. The 0upree 4ourt has decided cases which applied the sub)ective standard that when the oender hiself believed that he had perfored all the acts of execution, even though no ortal wound was inJicted, the act is already in the frustrated stage. The coon notion is that when there is conspiracy involved, the participants are punished as principals. This notion is no longer absolute. ;n the case of !eople v.
ierra, the 0upree 4ourt ruled that even though there was conspiracy, if a co3 conspirator erely cooperated in the coission of the crie with insigni(cant or inial acts, such that even without his cooperation, the crie could be carried out as well, such co3conspirator should be punished as an accoplice only. Art. F. ight felonies are punishable onl% when the% have been consummated with the eception of those committed against persons or propert%. •
•
Exaples of light felonies& slight ph%sical in)uries7 theft7 alteration of boundar% marks7 malicious mischief7 and intriguing against honor. 'n commission of crimes against properties and persons, ever% stage of eecution is punishable but onl% the principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies, accessories are not.
Art. >. /onspirac% and proposal to commit felon% are punishable onl% in the cases in which the law speciall% provides a penalt% therefore.
A conspirac& e+ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felon& an' 'eci'e to commit it5 here is proposal when the person who has 'eci'e' to commit a felon& proposes its e+ection to some other person or persons5 •
4onspiracy is punishable in the following cases & treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, and monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.
•
4onspiracy to coit a crie is not to be confused with conspiracy as a eans of coitting a crie. 'n both cases there is an agreement but mere conspirac% to commit a crime is not punished 6I/6"$ in treason, rebellion, or sedition. 6ven then, if the treason is actuall% committed, the conspirac% will be considered as a means of committing it and the accused will all be charged for treason and not for conspirac% to commit treason.
Conspirac& an' !roposal to Commit a Crime Conspirac&
6lemen ts
•
Agreement among 2 or
•
more persons to commit a crime $he% decide to commit
•
it A person has decided to
•
commit a crime :e proposes its
!roposal
commission to another
1.
/onspirac% to commit
sedition 2. /onspirac% to commit rebellion 3. /onspirac% to commit treason 4. "roposal to commit treason ?. "roposal to commit /rimes •
rebellion
Mere conspirac% in combination in restraint of trade Art. 1>B-, and brigandage Art. 3HB-.
Two wa&s for conspirac& to exist% -
There is an agreeent.
/
The participants acted in concert or siultaneously which is indicative of a
eeting of the inds towards a coon criinal goal or criinal ob)ective. 8hen several oenders act in a synchroni!ed, coordinated anner, the fact that their acts copliented each other is indicative of the eeting of the inds. There is an iplied agreeent.
Two 0inds of conspirac&% -
4onspiracy as a crie7 and
/
4onspiracy as a anner of incurring criinal liability
8hen conspiracy itself is a crie, no overt act is necessary to bring about the criinal liability. The ere conspiracy is the crie itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the ere conspiracy7 otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the coission of the crie because conspiracy is not an overt act but a ere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup detat are the only cries where the conspiracy and proposal to coit to the are punishable. 8hen the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criinal liability, there ust be an overt act done before the co3conspirators becoe criinally liable. Bor as long as none of the conspirators has coitted an overt act, there is no crie yet. "ut when one of the coits any overt act, all of the shall be held liable, unless a co3conspirator was absent fro the scene of the crie or he showed up, but he tried to prevent the coission of the crie. As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to coit a crie in a particular place, anyone who did not appear shall be presued to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the asterind. Bor as long as none of the conspirators has coitted an overt act, there is no crie yet. "ut when one of the coits any overt act, all of the shall be held liable, unless a co3conspirator was absent fro the scene of the crie or he showed up, but he tried to prevent the coission of the crie As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to coit a crie in a particular place, anyone who did not appear shall be presued to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the asterind. 8hen the conspiracy itself is a crie, this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. All that there is the agreeent. Cn the other hand, if the co3 conspirator or any of the would execute an overt act, the crie would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself. conspiracy as a crie, ust have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. Every crie ust be proved beyond reasonable doubt. it ust be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not by con)ectures or speculations. 8hen the conspiracy is )ust a basis of incurring criinal liability, however, the sae ay be deduced or inferred fro the acts of several oenders in carrying out the coission of the crie. The existence of a conspiracy ay be reasonably inferred fro the acts of the oenders when such acts disclose or show a coon pursuit of the criinal ob)ective. ere 6nowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without cooperation or at least, agreeent to cooperate, is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. There ust be an intentional participation in the crie with a view to further the coon felonious ob)ective. 8hen several persons who do not 6now each other siultaneously attac6 the victi, the act of one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of in)ury inJicted by any one of the. All will be liable for the consequences. A conspiracy is possible even
when participants are not 6nown to each other. Io not thin6 that participants are always 6nown to each other.
Conspirac& is a atter of substance which ust be alleged in the inforation,
otherwise, the court will not consider the sae.
!roposal is true only up to the point where the party to who the proposal was
ade has not yet accepted the proposal. Cnce the proposal was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is unilateral, one party a6es a proposition to the other7 conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two parties.
,#--ON> Proposal to coit sedition is not a crie. "ut if 1nion " accepts the proposal, there will be conspiracy to coit sedition which is a crie under the #evised Penal 4ode.
Composite crimes 4oposite cries are cries which, in substance, consist of ore than one crie but in the eyes of the law, there is only one crie. Bor exaple, the cries of robbery with hoicide, robbery with rape, robbery with physical in)uries. ;n case the crie coitted is a coposite crie, the conspirator will be liable for all the acts coitted during the coission of the crie agreed upon. This is because, in the eyes of the law, all those acts done in pursuance of the crie agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crie. As a general rule, when there is conspiracy, the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. This principle applies only to the crie agreed upon. The exception is if any of the co3conspirator would coit a crie not agreed upon. This happens when the crie agreed upon and the crie coitted by one of the co3conspirators are distinct cries. Exception to the exception+ ;n acts constituting a single indivisible oense, even though the co3conspirator perfored dierent acts bringing about the coposite crie, all will be liable for such crie. They can only evade responsibility for any other crie outside of that agreed upon if it is proved that the particular conspirator had tried to prevent the coission of such other act. Art. G. Jrave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in an% of their are aKictive, in accordance with Article 2? of this /ode.
Less gra"e felonies are those which the law pnishes with penalties which in their ma+imm perio' are correctional2 in accor'ance with the a%o"e mentione' article5 Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which he penalt& of arresto ma&or or a @ne not e+cee'ing 600 pesos2 or %oth is pro"i'e'5 •
/apital punishment ! death penalt%.
•
"enalties imprisonment-& Jrave ! si %ears and one da% to reclusion perpetua life-7 ess grave ! one month and one da% to si %ears7 ight ! arresto enor one da% to 3H da%s-.
CLA,,--CA-ON O #LON-#, This question was as6ed in the bar exaination+ *ow do you classify felonies or how are felonies classi(ed< 8hat the exainer had in ind was Articles &, ' and H. Io not write the classi(cation of felonies under "oo6 / of the #evised Penal 4ode. That was not what the exainer had in ind because the question does not require the candidate to classify but also to de(ne. Therefore, the exainer was after the classi(cations under Articles &, ' and H.
elonies are classi@e' as follows: (1)
According to the manner of their commission
1nder Article &, they are classi(ed as, intentional felonies or those coitted with deliberate intent7 and culpable felonies or those resulting fro negligence, rec6less iprudence, lac6 of foresight or lac6 of s6ill.
5-
According to the stages of their execution
1nder Article '., felonies are classi(ed as attepted felony when the oender coences the coission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perfor all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of soe cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance7 frustrated felony when the oender coences the coission of a felony as a consequence but which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator7 and, consuated felony when all the eleents necessary for its execution are present.
(7)
According to their gravit&
1nder Article H, felonies are classi(ed as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishent or penalties which in any of their periods are aKictive7 less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their axiu period was correccional7 and light felonies or those infractions of law for the coission of which the penalty is arresto enor. 8hy is it necessary to deterine whether the crie is grave, less grave or light< To deterine whether these felonies can be coplexed or not, and to deterine the prescription of the crie and the prescription of the penalty. ;n other words, these are felonies classi(ed according to their gravity, stages and the penalty attached to the. Ta6e note that when the #evised Penal 4ode spea6s of grave and less grave felonies, the de(nition a6es a reference speci(cally to Article /2 of the #evised Penal 4ode. Io not oit the phrase =;n accordance with Article /2> because there is also a classi(cation of penalties under Article /' that was not applied. ;f the penalty is (ne and exactly P/LL.LL, it is only considered a light felony under Article H.
;f the (ne is iposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the (ne of P/LL.LL is considered a correctional penalty under Article /'. ;f the penalty is exactly P/LL.LL, apply Article /'. ;t is considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes in -L years. ;f the oender is apprehended at any tie within ten years, he can be ade to suer the (ne. This classi(cation of felony according to gravity is iportant with respect to the question of prescription of cries. ;n the case of light felonies, cries prescribe in two onths.
;f the crie is
correctional, it prescribes in ten years, except arresto ayor, which prescribes in (ve years.
Art5 105 O$enses which are or in the ftre ma& %e pnisha%le n'er special laws are not s%=ect to the pro"isions of this Co'e5 his Co'e shall %e spplementar& to sch laws2 nless the latter shol' speciall& pro"i'e the contrar&5 •
=or 0pecial aws& "enalties should be imprisonment, and not reclusion perpetua, etc.
•
(enses that are attempted or frustrated are not punishable, unless otherwise
• • •
•
stated. "lea of guilt% is not mitigating for o(enses punishable b% special laws. #o minimum, medium, and maimum periods for penalties. #o penalt% for an accessor% or accomplice, unless otherwise stated. !rovisions of R!C applicable to special laws%
1. Art. 1B "articipation of Accomplices 2. Art. 22 etroactivit% of "enal laws if favorable to the accused 3. Art. 4? /onscation of instruments used in the crime ,3!!L#O/ A!!L-CA-ON O 4# /#D-,# !#NAL CO# ;n Article -L, there is a reservation =provision of the #evised Penal 4ode ay be applied suppletorily to special laws>. Mou will only apply the provisions of the #evised Penal 4ode as a suppleent to the special law, or siply correlate the violated special law, if needed to avoid an in)ustice. ;f no )ustice would result, do not give suppletorily application of the #evised Penal 4ode to that of special law. Bor exaple, a special law punishes a certain act as a crie. The special law is silent as to the civil liability of one who violates the sae. *ere is a person who violated the special law and he was prosecuted. *is violation caused daage or in)ury to a private party. Fay the court pronounce that he is civilly liable to the oended party, considering that the special law is silent on this point< Mes, because Article -LL of the #evised Penal 4ode ay be given suppletory application to prevent an in)ustice fro being done to the oended party. Article -LL states that every person criinally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. That article shall be applied suppletory to avoid an in)ustice that would be caused to the private oended party, if he would not be indeni(ed for the daages or in)uries sustained by hi.
;n !eople v. Rodrigue(, it was held that the use of ars is an eleent of rebellion, so a rebel cannot be further prosecuted for possession of (rears. A violation of a special law can never absorb a crie punishable under the #evised Penal 4ode, because violations of the #evised Penal 4ode are ore serious than a violation of a special law. "ut a crie in the #evised Penal 4ode can absorb a crie punishable by a special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crie in the #evised Penal 4ode ;n the crie of sedition, the use of (rears is not an ingredient of the crie. *ence, two prosecutions can be had+ - sedition7 and / illegal possession of (rears. "ut do not thin6 that when a crie is punished outside of the #evised Penal 4ode, it is already a special law. Bor exaple, the crie of cattle3rustling is not a ala prohibitu but a odi(cation of the crie theft of large cattle. 0o Presidential Iecree $o. 2&&, punishing cattle3rustling, is not a special law. ;t can absorb the crie of urder. ;f in the course of cattle rustling, urder was coitted, the oender cannot be prosecuted for urder. Furder would be a qualifying circustance in the crie of quali(ed cattle rustling. This was the ruling in!eople v. 2artinada. The aendents of Presidential Iecree $o. 'G/2 The Iangerous Irugs Act of -H%/ by #epublic Act $o. %'2H, which adopted the scale of penalties in the #evised Penal 4ode, eans that itigating and aggravating circustances can now be considered in iposing penalties. Presidential Iecree $o. 'G/2 does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the #evised Penal 4ode. The stages of the coission of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed.
Circmstances a$ecting criminal lia%ilit& $here are ve circumstances a(ecting criminal liabilit%& 1-
ustif%ing circumstances7
2-
6empting circumstances7
3-
Mitigating circumstances7
4-
Aggravating circumstances7 and
?-
Alternative circumstances.
here are two others which are fon' elsewhere in the pro"isions of the /e"ise' !enal Co'e: 1-
Absolutor% cause7 and
2-
6tenuating circumstances.
;n )ustifying and exepting circustances, there is no criinal liability. 8hen an accused invo6es the, he in eect adits the coission of a crie but tries to avoid the liability thereof. The burden is upon hi to establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to )ustify or exept his acts fro criinal liability. 8hat is shifted is only the burden of evidence, not the burden of proof. ?ustifying circustances conteplate intentional acts and, hence, are incopatible with dolo. Exepting circustances ay be invo6ed in culpable felonies.
A%soltor& case The eect of this is to absolve the oender fro criinal liability, although not fro civil liability. ;t has the sae eect as an exepting circustance, but you do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with the circustances under Article -/. Article /L provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be iposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitiate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by a@nity within the sae degrees with the exception of accessories who pro(ted theselves or assisting the oender to pro(t by the eects of the crie. Then, Article NH provides how criinal liability is extinguished+ Ieath of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished if death occurs before (nal )udgent7 0ervice of the sentence7 Anesty7 Absolute pardon7 Prescription of the crie7 Prescription of the penalty7 and Farriage of the oended woan as provided in Article &GG. 1nder Article /G%, a legally arried person who 6ills or inJicts physical in)uries upon his or her spouse who he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paraour or istress in not criinally liable. 1nder Article /-H, discovering secrets through sei!ure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not penali!ed. 1nder Article &&/, in the case of theft, swindling and alicious ischief, there is no criinal liability but only civil liability, when the oender and the oended party are related as spouse, ascendant, descendant, brother and sister3in3law living together or where in case the widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the deceased spouse, before such property had passed on to the possession of third parties. 1nder Article &GG, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the arriage of the oended party shall extinguish the criinal action. Absolutory cause has the eect of an exepting circustance and they are predicated on lac6 of voluntariness li6e instigation. ;nstigation is associated with criinal intent. Io not consider culpa in connection with instigation. ;f the crie is culpable, do not tal6
of instigation. ;n instigation, the crie is coitted with dolo. ;t is confused with entrapent. Entrapent is not an absolutory cause. Entrapent does not exept the oender or itigate his criinal liability. "ut instigation absolves the oender fro criinal liability because in instigation, the oender siply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting without criinal intent because without the instigation, he would not have done the criinal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers.
i$erence %etween instigation an' entrapment ;n instigation, the criinal plan or design exists in the ind of the law enforcer with who the person instigated cooperated so it is said that the person instigated is acting only as a ere instruent or tool of the law enforcer in the perforance of his duties. Cn the other hand, in entrapment , a criinal design is already in the ind of the person entrapped. ;t did not eanate fro the ind of the law enforcer entrapping hi. Entrapent involves only ways and eans which are laid down or resorted to facilitate the apprehension of the culprit. The eleent which a6es instigation an absolutory cause is the lac6 of criinal intent as an eleent of voluntariness. ;f the instigator is a law enforcer, the person instigated cannot be criinally liable, because it is the law enforcer who planted that criinal ind in hi to coit the crie, without which he would not have been a criinal. ;f the instigator is not a law enforcer, both will be criinally liable, you cannot have a case of instigation. ;n instigation, the private citi!en only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when the private citi!en upon instigation of the law enforcer incriinates hiself. ;t would be contrary to public policy to prosecute a citi!en who only cooperated with the law enforcer. The private citi!en believes that he is a law enforcer and that is why when the law enforcer tells hi, he believes that it is a civil duty to cooperate. ;f the person instigated does not 6now that the person is instigating hi is a law enforcer or he 6nows hi to be not a law enforcer, this is not a case of instigation. This is a case of induceent, both will be criinally liable. ;n entrapent, the person entrapped should not 6now that the person trying to entrap hi was a law enforcer. The idea is incopatible with each other because in entrapent, the person entrapped is actually coitting a crie. The o@cer who entrapped hi only lays down ways and eans to have evidence of the coission of the crie, but even without those ways and eans, the person entrapped is actually engaged in a violation of the law. ;nstigation absolves the person instigated fro criinal liability. This is based on the rule that a person cannot be a criinal if his ind is not criinal. Cn the other hand, entrapent is not an absolutory cause. ;t is not even itigating. ;n case of sonabulis or one who acts while sleeping, the person involved is de(nitely acting without freedo and without su@cient intelligence, because he is asleep. *e is oving li6e a robot, unaware of what he is doing. 0o the eleent of
voluntariness which is necessary in dolo and culpa is not present. 0onabulis is an absolutory cause. ;f eleent of voluntariness is absent, there is no criinal liability, although there is civil liability, and if the circustance is not aong those enuerated in Article -/, refer to the circustance as an absolutory cause. Fista6e of fact is an absolutory cause. The oender is acting without criinal intent. 0o in ista6e of fact, it is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed the to be, this act is )usti(ed. ;f not, there is criinal liability, because there is no ista6e of fact anyore. The oender ust believe he is perforing a lawful act.
6tenuating circumstances The eect of this is to itigate the criinal liability of the oender. ;n other words, this has the sae eect as itigating circustances, only you do not call it itigating because this is not found in Article -&.
'llustrations% An unwed other 6illed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. The concealent of dishonor is an extenuating circustance insofar as the unwed other or the aternal grandparents is concerned, but not insofar as the father of the child is concerned. Fother 6illing her new born child to conceal her dishonor, penalty is lowered by two degrees. 0ince there is a aterial lowering of the penalty or itigating the penalty, this is an extenuating circustance. The concealent of honor by other in the crie of infanticide is an extenuating circustance but not in the case of parricide when the age of the victi is three days old and above. ;n the crie of adultery on the part of a arried woan abandoned by her husband, at the tie she was abandoned by her husband, is it necessary for her to see6 the copany of another an. Abandonent by the husband does not )ustify the act of the woan. ;t only extenuates or reduces criinal liability. 8hen the eect of the circustance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circustance. A 6leptoaniac is one who cannot resist the teptation of stealing things which appeal to his desire. This is not exepting. Cne who is a 6leptoaniac and who would steal ob)ects of his desire is criinally liable. "ut he would be given the bene(t of a itigating circustance analogous to paragraph H of Article -&, that of suering fro an illness which diinishes the exercise of his will power without, however, depriving hi of the consciousness of his act. 0o this is an extenuating circustance. The eect is to itigate the criinal liability.
istinctions %etween =stif&ing circmstances an' e+empting circmstances 'n 3ustif&ing circumstances : -
The circustance aects the act, not the actor7
/
The act coplained of is considered to have been done within the bounds
of law7 hence, it is legitiate and lawful in the eyes of the law7 &
0ince the act is considered lawful, there is no crie, and because there is
no crie, there is no criinal7 G
0ince there is no crie or criinal, there is no criinal liability as well as
civil liability.
'n exempting circumstances : -
The circustances aect the actor, not the act7
/
The act coplained of is actually wrongful, but the actor acted without
voluntariness. *e is a ere tool or instruent of the crie7 &
0ince the act coplained of is actually wrongful, there is a crie. "ut
because the actor acted without voluntariness, there is absence of dolo or culpa. There is no criinal7 G
0ince there is a crie coitted but there is no criinal, there is civil
liability for the wrong done. "ut there is no criinal liability. *owever, in paragraphs G and % of Article -/, there is neither criinal nor civil liability. 8hen you apply for )ustifying or exepting circustances, it is confession and avoidance and burden of proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on wea6ness of prosecutions evidence.
D1E$he di(erence between murder and homicide will be discussed in /riminal aw ''. $hese crimes are found in Articles 24> and 24G, +ook '' of the evised "enal /ode. D2E $he di(erence between theft and robber% will be discussed in /riminal aw ''. $hese crimes are found in $itle $en, /hapters ne and $hree, +ook '' of the evised "enal /ode.
