Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER I.
Histor His tory y of the the Revi Revised sed Pena Penall Law Law
A.
Codific ation Move ment -- sought to have all laws codiied or written in a single bod! o aw.
B.
!anish Codi"o Penal
"he ro!al order dated #ecember 1$% 1&&'% directing the eecution o the ro!al decree o e*tember +% 1&&+% wherein it was ordered that the Penal Code in orce in the Peninsula% as amended in accordance with the recommendations o the code committee% be *ublished and a**lied in the Phili**ine ,slands% as well as the Provisional Law o Criminal Procedure which accom*anied it. "hese two laws% having been *ublished in the Oicial aette o /anila on /arch 10 and 1+% 1&&$% became eective in ul! 1+% 1&$'. #$. vs. %am!aron"& C.
Codi"o Penal n" P ili!inas 2 modiied the *anish Penal Code.
D.
$ Peri P eriod od 2 the! tried to translate the Penal code but certain areas were deectivel! translated
II. 'efin 'efinition ition of Penal Penal Law Law and Criminal Criminal Law Law
A. B. C. D. E. F.
Penal laws 2 laws which relates to *enalties Criminal laws 2 laws which relates to crimes 3elon! -- 4 crime under the Revised Penal Code is reerred to as a elon!. elon!. #o not use this term in reerence to a violation o s*ecial law. Oense -- 4 crimes *unished under a s*ecial law is called as statutor! oense. /isdemeanor --4 minor inraction o the law% such as a violation o an ordinance% is reerred to as a misdemeanor. misdemeanor. Crime -- 5hether the wrongdoing is *unished under the Revised Penal Code or under a s*ecial law% the generic word crime can be used.
which% without e*ressl! *rohibiting certain acts% im*ose a *enalt! on their commission. Note6 Non-*a!ment o taes is merel! a civil liabilit!7indemnit! liabilit!7indemnit!.. "he ta code as it eists eists toda! toda! which which carrie carries s *unish *unishmen ments ts ma! ma! be consid considere ered d *enal *enal *rovisions. Peo!le vs. Moran 3acts6 "he accused violated the election code code and was sentenced b! the lower court.
% 1>99. ,ssue6 57N *enal laws *rovide or not onl! *enalt! but also *rescri*tion. *rescri*tion. #ecision6 ?es. #ecision6 "he court ound the crime to have *rescribed (in accordance with the new law) and set aside aside the decisi decision. on. "he @lectio @lection n law contai contained ned in the 4dministrative 4dministrative Code and 4ct 0808 which amended and modiied the ormer% it is evident that the *rovision declaring that oenses resulting rom the violations o said said 4ct shall shall *rescr *rescribe ibe one !ear !ear ater ater their their commis commissio sion n must must have have retroactive eect% the same being avorable to the accused. 4n ece*tion- to give them retroactive eect when avorable to accused. "he ece*tion a**lies to a law dealing with *rescri*tion o crime6 4rt 99 a**lies to a law dealing with *rescri*ti *rescri*tion on o an oense which is intimatel! intimatel! connected connected with that o the *enalt!% or the length o time or *rescri*tion de*ends u*on the gravit! o the oense. Penal laws not onl! *rovide *rovide or *enalties but also *rescri*tions. *rescri*tions. III. Rationale of Penal Penal Laws $ vs. otto 3acts6 Vicente otto is the director% director% editor% editor% *ublisher and *rinter *rinter o a wee=l! *a*er. *a*er. On /a! 1>1A% he edited the *a*er with the intention o attac=ing them re*utation o Lo*e B. antos and two other *rinci*als o a labor grou*. grou*.
Loren(o vs. Posadas
,ssue6 57N otto was guilt!
,ssue6 ,ssue6 57N 4rt. 4rt. 0'8' o a ta law is a *enal *enal law thus can be a**lied a**lied retroactivel! in conormit! with the *rovisions o 4rt. 99 o RPC.
#ecision6 ?es. Penalties are used used to deter *eo*le rom rom doing the same same crime. 4 deterrent eect u*on others is one o the *ur*oses o the inliction o a *enalt! or the violation o the criminal law (@em*larit!).
#ecision6 #ecision6 4 statute is *enal *enal when it im*oses *unishmen *unishmentt or an oense committed against the state. :Penal tatutes; are statutes% which command command or *rohibit certain acts and establish *enalties or their violation% and even those%
+vvver"a
Peo!le vs. Carillo and Ra)*enio
Pa"e , of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 3acts6 3acts6 Carillo Carillo was sentenced with death *enalt! *enalt! or the crimes o robber!% robber!% attem*ted ra*e and and homicide. '% which was a**roved a**roved 1$ une 1>+&% *rovides *rovides that or a *enalt! o death is im*osed% all ustices o the u*reme Court must irst concur. concur. aid law is *rocedural *rocedural thus can be a**lied to cases *ending at the time o its a**roval.
Vena V. Verga
,ssue6 ,ssue6 57N the charge charge agains againstt Revil Revilla la is *ro*or *ro*ortio tionat nate e to the act act he committed. #ecision6 No.
Peo!le vs. /alano 3acts6 alano was accused o alsiication o one *eso bill% which he used to *urcha *urchase se our eggs.
,ssue6 57N ?oung should be charged with the crime o murder. ,ssue6 57N the *enalt! i too harsh #ecision6 One o the ustices dissented% thus death *enalt! was not im*osed. "he =illing in Duestion was attended b! evident *remeditation which Dualiied the crime as murder6 (a) it was committed in consideration o a *rice reward or *romis *romise e and (b) with treacher treacher! !. "his "his case case also also *rovi *rovides des the notion notion o aggravating circumstances (acts that would *rovide or higher *enalties 2 art 1+) and mitigating mitigating circumstan circumstances ces (*rovides (*rovides or lighter *enalties *enalties 2 art 10). #eath *enalt! was im*osed to rationalie the conce*t o @em*larit!6 ma=ing a *erson eam*le to serve as a deterrent) Peo!le vs. Revilla 3acts6 "he accused was charged or the crime o inidelit! inidelit! in the custod! o the *risoners. Nicasio unio% the *risoner *risoner%% was onl! sentenced to suer si da!s o arresto menor only % a *enalt! that ma! be served in the house o the oender because o the condition o his health. "he munici*alit! also could not eed him Nicasio or lac= o a**ro*riation% Revilla then believed that this act in *ermitting Nicasio to slee* in his own house was not grave in nature% being at most a mere relaation o the rules *rescribed or the care and custod! o munici*al *risoners. Revilla was charged under 4rt 990 or his actions.
+vvver"a
#ecisions6 #ecisions6 "he *unishment *unishment is too harsh and it ma! not actuall! actuall! serve the *ur*ose o the legislator. ,m*risonment ma! change change an individual but it can also e*ose the *erson to hardened hardened criminal. "hus% *unishments should should be a**lied with care. 4 co*! o the decision was sent to the *resident or the eercise o eecutive clemenc!. IV. %wo theories theories in Crimin Criminal al Law A.
1. 9. 0.
+.
Classical "heor! Easis Easis o crimin criminal al liabil liabilit! it! is human human ree ree will will and *ur*os *ur*ose e o *enalt *enalt! ! is retribution :4n e!e e!e or or an an e!e% e!e% a toot tooth h or or a too tooth th..; 2 Ocu Oculo lo *ro *ro ocu oculo lo%% dent dente e *ro dente.F /an /an is a mora morall crea creatu ture re wit with h abso absolu lute te re ree e will will to to choo choose se bet betwe ween en good and evil% thereb! *lacing *lacing more stress u*on the eect eect or result o elonious act than u*on the man. @nde av avored to establish a mechanical and direct *ro*ortion between crime and *enalt!
Pa"e 0 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) A.
"he "he *ur* *ur*os ose e o *ena *enallt! is is retr retrib ibut utio ion. n. "he "he oe oend nder er is is made made to to suer suer or the wrong he has done. "here is scant scant regard regard to the human element.
B.
Positivist theor! 1. /an /an is occ occas asio iona nall ll! ! subd subdue ued d b! a str stran ange ge and and mor morbi bid d *heno *henome mena nall which *ushes him to do wrong in s*ite or contrar! to his volition 9. Crim Crime e is a soci social al and and nat natur ural al *he *heno nome meno non% n% it it cann cannot ot be be crea create ted d and chec=e chec=ed d b! a**lic a**licati ation on o abstra abstract ct *rinci *rinci*le *le o law and uris*rudence nor b! im*osition im*osition o *enalties% ied and determined determined a *riori. 0. Reha Rehabi bili lita tati tion on b! b! mean means s o ind indiv ivid idua uall meas measur ures es on on case case to to case case basis. 4dvocates *ersonal and individual investigation% conducted b! com*etent bod! o *s!chiatrist and social scientist. V.
A.
Crimes Crimes 'efinition 1. 3elon! 9. Oense 0. ,nraction o o Or Ordinance (a) 5hen *enalt! im*osed is not an eercise o sovereign *ower to deine crimes and *rovide *unishment.
'e /*(man vs. *1ido 3acts6 3acts6 de uman uman who is a civil service eligible eligible or *assing *assing the civil service eam was disDualiied rom an! a**ointment or having violated the a!wal=ing laws and ordinance concerning cocheros% which according to the lower court constitutes a crime. ,ssue6 57N said acts constitute a crime crime #ecision6 No. 4 *enalt! im*osed im*osed or breach breach o a munici*al munici*al regulation regulation does not necessaril! constitute a criminal criminal oense. 4 violation o a munici*al ordinance ordinance to Duali! as a crime crime must involve involve a least a certain degree degree o evil doing% immoral conduct% corru*tion% malice or want o *rinci*les reasonabl! related to the reDuirements o the *ublic oice. oice. 4 crime is an act committed committed or omitted in violation o *ublic laws. Ordinances are are not *ublic laws. Criminal acts% acts% in its commission% have some immoral intention. Conde vs. Mamenta 3acts6 3acts6 Petitione Petitionerr reused to *a! the new rates rates o the stall she was holding holding stating stating that the increased increased rate was ecessive. ecessive. "he increase increase is based on the
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
*rovisions o a munici*al munici*al ordinance. "he *etitioner was criminall! criminall! convicted b! the trial court or not *a!ing the surcharge. ,ssue6 57N the *etitioner can be *rosecuted *rosecuted criminall! criminall! o her non-*a!ment o the rental. #ecision6 No. "he surcharge or non-*a!ment non-*a!ment i not a *enalt! under criminal law but but onl! onl! an amoun amountt added to the usual usual charge. charge. ,t is more o an administrative administrative *enalt!% which can be recovered onl! b! civil action. VI. Common Law Crimes A.
B. C.
deinition6 bod! o *rinci*les% usages and rules o action which do not rest or their authorit! u*on an! e*ress or *ositive declaration o the will o the legislature common law crimes are not recognied in the countr! the codiication movement *rovided or all crimes to be codiied% thus% a crime not *unishable b! law is not a crime at all.
VII.Power to define and !*nish crimes
Peo!le vs. antia"o 3acts6 #eendant was ound guilt! o =illing a seven-!ear-old seven-!ear-old bo!. bo!.
Pa"e 2 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) #ecision6 ,n the Phili**ines% there there eist no crimes called :common :common law crimes; No act constitutes a crime crime here unless it is made made so b! law. law. Libel is made a crime here b! 4ct 9$$ o the G Phili**ine Phili**ine Commission.
Vena V. Verga
#ecision6 "he *rosecution violated the Phili**ines Eill and 4ct No. &> which embod! the *rinci*le that no *erson shall be twice *ut in eo*ard! or the same oense because this rule covers as nearl! as *ossible ever! single criminal act born o a single criminal intent even though more than one crime is committed b! said act.
Peo!le vs. Pomar
Peo!le vs. Chon" Hon"
3acts6 3acts6 "he manager manager o La 3lor granted granted a maternit! maternit! leave to /acaria /acaria but reused to *a! Ph* &8.88 to which the em*lo!ee is entitled as her regular wage as stated in ec. 10 o 4ct 08$1.
3acts6 "he deendants were convicted or or violation o Ordinance Ordinance No. 0>+% which *rohibits *rohibits the *la!ing *la!ing o ueteng. "he court ordered ordered or the dismissal dismissal o the case on the ground that said ordinance is null and void or it conlicts with 4rt 1>A o the RPC% which *rovides or lesser *enalties than the ordinance.
,ssue6 57N 4ct 08$1 us unlawul eercise o *olice *ower. ,ssue 57N Ordinance 0>+ conlicts with the law. #ecision6 "he *olice *ower is the *ower vested in the legislature o the state to ma=e% ordain% and establish all manner o wholesome and reasonable laws% statutes% statutes% and ordinance ordinances% s% either either with *enalties *enalties or without% without% which are not re*ugnant to the constitution as the! shall udge to be or the good and welare o the commonwealth% and o the subects o the state $ vs. Pa1lo 3acts6 4ndres Pablo% a *oliceman% *oliceman% re*orted that he saw Rodrigo and /alicsi /alicsi in the ueteng arena and then testiied on on the contrar! during the trial. trial. $ which was said to have re*ealed articles 01& and 09+ o the *enal code. ,ssue6 Can the deendant deendant be *unishedJ *unishedJ #ecision6 "he right o *rosecution and *unishment or a crime is one o the attributes that b! a natural law belongs to the sovereign *ower instinctivel! charged b! the common will o the members o societ! to loo= ater% guard and deend deend the interests interests o the communit! communit! as well as rights o each individual individual.. ,m*osing ,m*osing *unishmen *unishments ts should be the last resort6 resort6 our laws do not merel! *rovide or retribution but it also *rovides or laws that are in avor o the oender.
#ecision6 ,t is admitted that ueteng is alread! *rohibited and *enalied in article 1>A o the Revised Penal Code. Eut the act that an act is alread! *rohibited and *enalied b! a general law does not *reclude the enactment o a munici*al ordinance covering the same matter. "he rule is well settled that the same act ma! constitute constitute an oense against both the state state and a *olitica *oliticall subdivisio subdivision n thereo thereo and both urisdic urisdictions tions ma! *unish *unish the act% without. inringing an! constitutional *rinci*le. 4s a general rule% additional regulation to that o the state law does not constitute a conlict therewith. "he act that an ordinance enlarges u*on the *rovisions o a statute b! reDuiring more than the statute statute reDuires reDuires creates no conlict conlict therewith% therewith% unless unless the statute statute limits limits the reDuirement or all cases cases to its own *rescri*tion. *rescri*tion. Eoth the ordinance and RPC *rohibit and *enalie the same act and the distinction in *enalties is necessar! because o the *eculiar conditions o the localit!.
N"o ao %it and Chia En" Chen" vs. heriff of Manila 3acts6 3acts6 Eeore Eeore the court is an a**licati a**lication on or the writ o habeas habeas cor*us. cor*us. Petitioners were charged o visiting a house where o*ium was smo=ed. "he! now claimed that the court erred in their decision because it does not have urisdiction over over the case.
$ vs. /*stillo
,ssue6 57N the court has urisdiction urisdiction to tr! the case.
3acts6 3acts6 ustillo ustillo was alread! alread! convicted convicted o a crime or illegal *ossessi *ossession on o irearms.
#ecision6 ,t is not a urisdictional deect and one which de*rives de*rives the trial court o its authorit! to tr!% convict% and *ass sentence% that a criminal action is brought in the name o the cit! o /anila instead o the Gnited tates. "hat act constitutes a mere deect or error curable at an! stage o the action does not de*rive the court o the *ower to *ronounce a valid udgment and im*ose a valid sentence. Oenses committed in the Phili**ines are are crimes against against the *eo*le o the Phili**ines.
,ssue6 ,ssue6 57N ustillo ustillo ma! be *rosecuted *rosecuted or the second time or the same violation.
+vvver"a
Pa"e 3 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga 1.
(a) (a)
VIII.Characteristics of criminal law
(b) (b) A.
/EN ERAL -- criminal law is binding on all *ersons who live or soourn /ENERAL in Phili**ine territor! (art 1+% New Civil Code).
( c) c) ( d) d) (e) (e) ( ) (g) (g)
Peo!le vs. /alac"ac 3acts6 3acts6 @nriDue @nriDue alacgac alacgac was a naturali naturalied ed G citien. citien.
9. (a) (a) (b)
,ssue6 57N alagcac eno!s etra-territorialit! etra-territorialit! rights rights #ecision6 No. No oreigner eno!s in this countr! countr! etra-territorial etra-territorial right to be eem*ted rom its laws and urisdiction% with ece*tion o heads o states and di*lomatic re*resentatives who% b! virtue o customar! law o nations% are not subect to the Phili**ine territorial urisdiction. urisdiction.
(c) (c) 0.
Note6 4s a general rule% the urisdiction o the civil courts is not aected b! the militar! character o the accused
,ssue6 57N Phili**ine courts have have urisdiction to tr! weet #ecision6 4n assault assault committed committed b! a militar! em*lo!ee u*on a *risoner o war is a violation o the general *enal law% and as such it im*oses criminal res*onsibilit!. res*onsibilit!. urisdiction o the civil tribunals is unaected unaected b! the militar! or other s*ecial character character o the *erson *erson brought brought beore them or trial% trial% unless unless controlled b! e*ress legislation to the contrar!. contrar!. E4em!tions to the Princi!le of /enerality
+vvver"a
4s *rovid *rovided ed in the treati treaties es and laws laws o o *re *reere erenti ntial al a**lic a**licati ation. on. @am*le6 Ease Eases s agre agreem emen ents ts bet betwe ween en G G and and Phil Phili* i**i *ine nes s and and RP-G RP-G Visiting 3orces 4ccord. R4 No. $A 2 law o *reeren ttiial a**lication in avor o di*lomat di*lomatic ic re*resenta re*resentatives tives.. ,t etends etends the di*lomati di*lomatic c *rivilege *rivilege to the members o the household and domestic domestic servants that were registered with the #34 "he "he cons consti titu tuti tion on is a law law o *re *reer eren enti tial al o*er o*erat atio ion n E! vir virtu tue e o *ri *rinc nci* i*le les s o Pub Pubic ic int inter erna nati tion onal al law law 2 the these se *eo *eo*l *le e *ossess immunit! rom the criminal urisdiction o the countr! o their soourn and cannot be sued% arrested or *unished b! the law o that countr!6
A1sol*te E4em!tions ( a) a) o ov ve re re ig ign s an d o th the r c hi hi e e s o s ta tat e (b) (b) 4mba 4mbass ssad ador ors% s% mini minist ster ers s *leni *leni*o *ote tent ntia iar! r!%% minis ministe ters rs resi reside dent nt%% and charges dIaaires% ambassadors etraordinar! (Vienna Convention on #i*lomatic Relations and Protocol) Relative E4em!tions (c) (c) cons consul uls s and and vice vice cons consul uls6 s6 hono honora rar! r! cons consul uls s not not eem eem*t *ted ed..
$ vs. weet 3acts6 weet was an em*lo!ee em*lo!ee o the G 4rm! in the Phili**ines. Phili**ines.
Pers Person ons s sub subec ectt to /il /ilit itar ar! ! Law Law (4rt (4rt.. 9 o the the Com Commo monw nwea ealt lth h 4ct 4ct No. +8&% article articles s o war) are not immun immune e rom rom suit suit but are covered b! the articles o war. Oi Oice cers rs%% memb member ers s o nurs nurse e cor* cor*s s and and sold soldie iers rs bel belon ongi ging ng to to the regular orces o the Phili**ine 4rm! 4ll 4ll rese reserv rvis istt rom rom the the dat date e o the theor or cal calll to act activ ive e dut! dut! and and while on such active dut! 4 llll tr trai ne ne es es un un de de rg rgo in in g m iilli ta tar ! d ut ut ! 4 llll *e *e rs rso ns ns la la w w ul ul l! l! ca ca lllle d7 d7d ra ra te te d Cade Cades. s. 3l!i 3l!ing ng cade cadets ts and and *ro *roba bati tion onar ar! ! thi third rd lieu lieute tena nant nts s Retainers to the cam* 4ll 4ll *ers *erson ons s und under er sent senten ence ce adu adudg dged ed b! cour courts ts mart martia iall
Note5 a) b)
Public Public ,nternatio ,nternational nal Law and and treaties treaties are deemed deemed *art *art o the law o the land. 3or a *erson *erson to be immune% immune% he7she he7she must be be able to invo=e invo=e a *rovisio *rovision n o *ublic *ublic internati international onal law7treat!K law7treat!K law o *reerenti *reerential al a**licat a**lication ion or customar! international law.
chnec6en1*r"er vs. Moran 3acts6 3acts6 Petitioners Petitioners is a honorar! honorar! consul o Grugua! Grugua! in manila manila charged charged with alsiication o *rivate *rivate documents.
Pa"e 7 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) o 3irst ,nstance on the ground that under the Phili**ine an G constitution% lower courts have no urisdiction to tr! him ,ssue6 57N the lower courts have urisdiction urisdiction to tr! the consul. #ecision6 ,t is well settled that a consul is not entitled to the *rivileges and immunitie immunities s o an ambassad ambassador or or minister minister% but is subect subect to the laws and regulations o the countr! to which he is accredited. 4 consul is not eem*t rom criminal *rosecution or violations o the laws o the countr! where he resides. Courts o 3irst ,nstance were vested with original urisdiction over all criminal cases in which a *enalt! o more than si months im*risonment or a ine eceeding one hundred hundred dollars dollars might be im*osed. im*osed. uch urisdict urisdiction ion included the trial o criminal actions brought against consuls.
Vena V. Verga
the eecutive branch o the government% and where the *lea o di*lomatic immunit! is recognied and airmed b! the eecutive branch o government as% in the case at bar% it is then the dut! o the courts to acce*t the claim o immunit! immunit! u*on a**ro*ri a**ro*riate ate suggestio suggestion n b! the *rinci*a *rinci*all law oicer oicer o the government% the olicitor eneral in this case% or other oicer acting under his direction.
%ime Inc. vs. Reyes 3acts6 @nrile and Villegas iled a suit against against "ime ,nc or an article regarding corru*tion in 4sia where the two were eatured. R4 +0'0 *rovides that that *ublic oicials should ile their *etitions in the *lace where the! are rendering their service. Villegas iled his *etition in Rial and and not in /anila. ,ssue6 57N the case will *ros*er and and 57N cor*orations cor*orations ma! be sued #ecision6 "he rule is that where a statute creates a right and *rovides a remed! or its enorcement% the remed! is eclusiveK and where it coners urisdiction u*on a *articular court% that urisdiction is li=ewise eclusive% unless otherwise *rovided. *rovided.
1. 9. 0. +.
PRINCIPLE 89 %ERRI%8RIALI% -- 4s a rule. Penal laws o the Phili**ines are are enorceable onl! within its territor!. territor!. , the *ower to deine crimes is the *ower o the sovereign% it must be ollowed that such such sove sovere reig ign n can can onl! onl! eer eerci cise se such such *owe *owerr with within in its its urisdiction7territor!. urisdiction7territor!. "erritor! 4tmos*here ,nterior 5aters /aritime one
Note6 Limits Limits o the territorial territorial sea (b! GNCLO) GNCLO) is onl! onl! 0 miles miles rom the seashore. 5hat is ollowed now is the 19-mile rule *lus the 19-mile contiguous contiguous one. Eut or *ur*oses *ur*oses o criminal criminal law% law% our urisdic urisdiction tion onl! etends etends to the territorial sea. Classification of Vessels5 1.
3oreign 3oreign *ublic *ublic vessels vessels 2 war vessels7war vessels7war shi*s shi*s (e. Lawton Lawton hi* hi* in G vs. 3owler). 3owler). 5ar vessels vessels are considere considered d to be an etension etension o the nationalit! o the owner o said vessel and cannot be subected to the laws o the state #a&
9orei"n P*1lic Ve ss ssels
WH8 vs. A)*ino
$ vs. 9owler
3acts6 Res*ondent udge issued a search search warrant or the search and seiure o the *ersona *ersonall eect eects s o the *etitio *etitioner ner% an oicial oicial o the 5
3acts6 "het was committed on board board a trans*ort trans*ort while navigating the high seas. "he accused accused were brought to trial and deendan deendants ts contends contends that the Court Court o 3irst ,nstance ,nstance have no urisdiction urisdiction over the case because because the crime was committed in a oreign *ublic vessel and on high seas.
,ssue6 57N the action o the udge is a violation o R4 $A and thus an abuse o discretion.
,ssue6 57N the court has urisdiction to tr! the case.
#ecision6 ?es. ,t is a recognied recognied *rinci*le o international international law and under under our s!stem s!stem o se*aratio se*aration n o *owers *owers that di*lomatic di*lomatic immunit! immunit! is essentiall! essentiall! a *olitical Duestion and courts should reuse to loo= be!ond a determination b!
+vvver"a
#ecision6 No. Courts o 3irst ,nstance o the Phili**ines Phili**ines have no urisdiction urisdiction to ta=e cogniance o crimes committed on the high seas on board o a tr ans*ort or other vessel not registered registered or licensed licensed in the Phili**ine Phili**ines. s. 5arshi* 5arshi*s s are
Pa"e : of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) alwa!s re*uted to be the territor! o the countr! to which the! belong an cannot be subected to the laws o another state. 4 G 4rm! trans*ort is considered a warshi*.
9.
3oreign merchant vessels 2 more or less subected to the territorial laws.
Note6 "he state is not obligated to give immunit! on crimes done in oreign *ublic vessels. "his is ust a matter o comit!. R*les as to ;*risdiction over crimes committed a1oard forei"n merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another co*ntry 1.
3rench Rule 2 such crimes are not triable in the courts o that countr!% unless their commission aects the *eace and securit! o the territor! or the saet! o the state is endangered. 3rench courts thereore claim eclusive urisdiction over crimes committed on board 3rench merchant vessels in oreign *orts b! one member o the crew against another. (G vs. Eull) @nglish Rule 2"he @nglish onl! eercise their urisdiction on issues that involve the internal management o vessel% otherwise% such crimes are triable in that countr! where the! were committed. (G vs. Eull)
A.
Note6 ,n the Phili**ines% we observe the @nglish rule #a&
9orei"n Merchant Vessels
Vena V. Verga
$ vs. Loo6 Chaw 3acts6 "he deendant was charged with unlawul *ossession and sale o o*ium.
9orei"n Merchant Vessels not in transit
$ vs. Ah in" 3acts6 #eendant is a ireman o the steamshi* hun Chang% a oreign steamer% which doc=ed at the *ort o Cebu. #eendant brought eight cans o o*ium and u*on ins*ection% authorities ound said substances. 4 charge o illegal im*ortation was served against him. ,ssue6 57N the crime o illegal im*ortation o o*ium in to the Phili**ines was *roven.
$ vs. <*ll 3acts6 <.N Eull% who was the master o a vessel trans*orting cattle% carabao and other animals rom 3ormosa to /anila% ailed to *rovide suitable means or securing animas while the! are in transit. uch neglect was a violation o 4ct. No. 9$A o the Phili**ine Commission. Eull contends that the Phili**ine courts have no urisdiction over his oense.
#ecision6 5hen a oreign merchant vessel is not in transit because the Phili**ines is its terminal *ort% the *erson in *ossession o o*ium on board the vessel is liable% because he ma! be held guilt! o illegal im*ortation o o*ium. ,m*ortation is com*lete when the shi* anchored in the Phili**ine *ort. ,t is not necessar! that the o*ium be discharged or ta=en rom the shi* (G vs. ose).
,ssue6 57N the Phili**ines has urisdiction over this case. E4em!tions to the territorial a!!lication of criminal law #ecision6 5hen a vessel comes within 0 miles rom the headland which embrace the entrance o /anila Ea!% the vessel is within the territorial waters and thus% the laws o the Phili**ines shall a**l!. 4 continuing crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel sailing to the Phili**ines is within the urisdiction o the courts o the Phili**ine when the orbidden conditions eisted during the time the shi* was within the territorial waters% regardless o the act that the same conditions eisted when the shi* sailed rom the oreign *ort and while it was on the high seas. #1&
+vvver"a
9orei"n Merchant Vessel In %ransit
4rticle 9 o RPC *rovides that its *rovisions shall be orced outside o the urisdiction o the Phili**ines against those who6 1)
hould commit an oense while on a Phili**ine shi* or airshi*.
Note6 4 Phili**ine vessel or aircrat must be understood as that which is registered in the Phili**ine Eureau o Customs. ,t is the registration o the vessel or aircrat in accordance with the laws o the Phili**ines% not the citienshi* o its owner% which ma=es it a Phili**ine shi* or airshi*.
Pa"e = of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
9)
5hen the oender should orge or countereit an! coin or currenc! note o the Phili**ines or obligations and securities b! the overnment.
Note6 Countereiting or orging Phili**ine coins or ban= notes in a oreign countr! ma! be *rosecuted beore Phili**ine civil courts. 0)
5hen the oender should be liable or acts connected with the introduction to the Phili**ines o the obligations and securities mentioned in the *receding number.
Note6 ,ntroducing a=e currenc! in the Phili**ine is as dangerous as orging or countereiting o the same% to the economical interest o the countr!. +)
5hen the oender% while being a *ublic oicer or em*lo!ee% should commit an oense in the eercise o his unctions.
Note6 crimes that ma! be committed% even in abroad% in the eercise o *ublic unctions are6 a) b) c) d) e) ) g) h) i)
A)
direct briber! indirect briber! rauds against the *ublic treasur! *ossession o *rohibited interest malversation o *ublic unds or *ro*ert! ailure o accountable oicer to render accounts illegal use o *ublic unds or *ro*ert! ailure to ma=e deliver! o *ublic unds or *ro*ert! alsiication b! a *ublic oicer or em*lo!ee committed with abuse o his oicial *osition.
5hen the oender should commit an! o the crimes against the national securit! and law o nations.
Note6 "his include% treason% cons*irac! and *ro*osal to commit treason% es*ionage% inciting was and giving motives or re*risals% violation o neutralit!% corres*ondence with hostile countr!% light to enem!Is countr!% *irac! and mutin! on the high seas.
Vena V. Verga
#ecision6 ?es. E! virtue o the "reat! o Paris% *ain ceded the Phili**ine ,slands to the G. ,t is but a logical construction that wherever M*ainM is mentioned in the Penal Code% it should be substituted b! the words MGnited tatesM and wherever M*aniardsM are mentioned% the word should be substituted b! the e*ression% Mcitiens o the Gnited tates and citiens o the Phili**ine ,slands.M Pirac! is a crime not against an! *articular tate but against all man=ind. ,t ma! be *unished in the com*etent tribunal o an! countr! where the oender ma! be ound or into which lie ma! be carried. "he urisdiction o *irac! unli=e all other crimes has no territorial limits. Note6 "his case is an ece*tion to the ece*tion.
C.
PRINCIPLE 89 IRRE%R8PEC%IVI% 8R PR8PEC%IVI% ? *enal law cannot ma=e an act *unishable in a manner in which it was not *unishable when it was not committed. 4t 0'' o RPC *rovide that crimes are *unished under the laws in orce at the time o their commission. ,t is logical or laws to loo= orward and not bac=ward.
N*ll*m crimen@ n*lla !oena sine le"e -- "here is no crime when there is no law *unishing the same. "his is true to civil law countries% but not to common law countries. $ vs. Macasaet 3acts6 "he deendant was *roven guilt! o selling native wine at retail without the license reDuired b! law.
Peo!le vs. L8L>L8 and ARAW
E4 !ost facto laws
3acts6 "he deendants were charged o the crime o *irac! or *irating two #utch boats as well as ra*ing two o the women. #eendants contend that the *rovisions o the *enal code dealing with *irac! are no longer in orce.
Rule6 No e *ost acto laws shall be enacted.
,ssue6 57N the *rovisions o the *enal code dealing with the crime o *irac! are still in orce.
+vvver"a
4n e *ost acto law is one which6 (1) ma=es criminal in act done beore the *assage o the law and which was innocent when done% and *unishes such in act. (9) aggravates a crime% or ma=es it greater than it was% when co mmittedK
Pa"e of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (0) changes the *unishment and inlicts a greater *unishment than the law anneed to the crime when committedK (+) alters the legal rules o evidence% and authories conviction u*on less or dierent testimon! than the law reDuired at the time o the commission o the oenseK (A) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies onl!% in eect im*oses *enalt! or de*rivation o a right or something which when done was lawulK and (') de*rives a *erson accused o a crime o some lawul *rotection to which he has become entitled% such as the *rotection o a ormer conviction or acDuittal% or a *roclamation o amnest!. In re5 Bay Ville"as Bami@ Inc. 3acts6 "he *etitioners are assailing the constitutionalit! o ec. & (a) and 1& o R4 No. '109 sa!ing that it is an e *ost acto law. "he said law *rohibits the *etitionerIs nominee to be nominated in the constitutional convention since he re*resents a *art. ,ssue6 57N the said law is an e *ost acto law and thus unconstitutional. #ecision6 No. "he *rohibition against e *ost acto laws a**lies onl! to criminal or *enal matters% not to laws% which concern civil matters. 4lthough section 1& *enalies a violation o an! o the *rovision o R4 1'09% the *enalt! is im*osed onl! or acts committed ater the a**roval o the law and not those *er*etuated *rior thereto. A$% are *unished. E4ce!tions to the !ros!ective a!!lication of criminal laws #When !enal law a!!ly retroactively& ,.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
Peo!le vs. Macasaet Escalante vs. antos 3acts6 Petitioner was convicted or the crime o estaa and was sentenced to serve or 9 !ears and 11 months im*risonment to indemni! the oended *art!. 4ter 0 !ears% he has not !et been released.
# eg re e o , m*o sa ble Pe nal t! is re duc ed
Peo!le vs. *1ido 3acts6 C3, o /anila ound the accused guilt! o libel and is hereb! sentenced to 0 months o arresto ma!or with accessor! *enalties o the law% to *a! a ine o A88 *esos% to indemni! the oended *art!% /a!or 4rsenio Lacson in the sum o 18%888 *esos with subsidiar! im*risonment in case o insolvenc!. 4**ealed to the Court o 4**eals. "he C4 ordered the accused to *a! a ine o A88 *esos and indemnit! is reduced to A%888 *esos onl!. 4**ellant said that he could not be reDuired to serve the amount o ine and indemnit! in the orm o subsidiar! im*risonment because said udgment did not e*ressl! *rovide that. "his was denied. heri then attached whatever rights% interest o accused in the twostore! building% but the same was registered in the name o 4ga*ito ubido% and so he iled a third *art! claim enoining the sheri to *roceed with the sale. Lower court issued a writ o inunction. Lower court states that he should suer subsidiar! im*risonment% even i the same was not stated in the decision o C4. ,ssue6 57N ubido be reDuired to suer subsidiar! im*risonment% in case o insolvenc! to *a! his civil liabilit!. #ecision6 No. 4ccused-a**ellant is avored b! the retroactive orce o 4rt. 0> o the RPC% as amended b! R.4. A+'A which eem*ts an accused *erson rom subsidiar! im*risonment in case o insolvenc! to *a! his civil liabilit!. Considering that 4rt. 0>% as amended is avorable to the accused% the same should be made a**licable to him. ,t is so *rovided in 4rt. 99 o the RPC. 4**l!ing 4rt. 0> as amended% he cannot also be reDuired to serve his civil liabilit! to the oended *art! in orm o subsidiar! im*risonment because this is no longer reDuired b! the aoresaid article.
Whe n favora1le to the acc*sed
Pa"e of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Note6 Removal o subsidiar! im*risonment to *a! civil liabilit! (b)
Prescribing rounds or /itigation or @tinction o Criminal Liabilit!
Laceste vs. antos 3acts6 "he *etitioner% Clemente Laceste% *ra!s the court to set him at libert! through the writ o habeas corpus% *leading that there is no suicient legal ground or continuing his im*risonment an! longer. 5ith Nicolas Lachica% he had been *rosecuted% ound guilt!% and sentenced to commitment or the crime o ra*e. Nicola Lachica married the victim% /agdalena de Ocam*o% and was accordingl! relieved rom the criminal *rosecution b! virtue o section 9% 4ct No. 1$$0% and article ++& o the Penal Code then in orce% which *rovided that such a marriage etinguished *enal liabilit!% and hence% the *enalt!. Eut the *etitioner herein continued serving his sentence% which was not aected b! the marriage o his coaccused and t he oended *art!.
3acts6 "he accused was charged with oense o inurias graves under articles o the RPC. ,ssue6 57N the new law can a**l! to the accused. #ecision6 No. ection 10 o the new act *rovides as ollows6 M4ll laws and *arts o laws now in orce% so ar as the same ma! be in conlict herewith% are hereb! re*ealed6 Provided% "hat nothing herein contained shall o*erate as a re*eal o eisting laws in so ar as the! are a**licable to *ending actions or eisting causes o action% but as to such causes o action or *ending actions eisting laws shall remain in ull orce and eect.M "he general rule that *enal laws shall be retroactive in so ar as the! avor the accused has no a**lication where the later law is e*ressl! made ina**licable to *ending actions or eisting causes o action. D.
PRINCIPLE 89 LE/ALI% 5 N*ll*m crimen@ n*lla !oena sine le"e -- "here is no crime when there is no law *unishing the same. "his is true to civil law countries% but not to common law countriesK all crimes must be so deined and *enalied under the law (art. 91)
E.
PER8NAL 2 Penal laws does not allow an!one to assume anotherIs criminal liabilit!
F.
PRINCIPLE 89 CER% AIN% 2 ever! act made *unishable b! law must be so deined as to leave no *enumbra o doubt or uncertaint! as to its a**licabilit! to a given case.
,ssue6 57N Laceste should be reed. #ecision6 ,t is believed that the Revised Penal Code% 4ct No. 0&1A% article 0++% last *aragra*h% a**lies to the case o the herein *etitioner% and that he should be discharged rom *rison. 4ll *enal laws have been declared retroactive b! the
ID. 8ther f*ndamental Ass*m!tions of Penal Law A. B.
E4ce!tions to retroactivity of laws #a& Acc*sed is a ha1it*al criminal #Art. 00& #1& Acc*sed 'isre"ards Later law and invo6es !rior stat*te *nder which he was !rosec*ted. #c& Later tat*te Precl*des A!!lication to E4istin" Actions or Pendin" Cases
3ree-will or reedom to choose between right and wrongK no liabilit! i elonious act is committed without ree will ,gnorance o the law ecuses no one rom com*liance therewith
D.
Limitations on the !ower of the lawma6in" 1ody to enact !enal le"islation
A.
No e *ost acto law or bill o attainder shall be enacted No *erson shall be held to answer or criminal oenses without due *rocess o law 2 criminal laws must be o general a**lication and must clearl! deine the acts and omissions *unished as crimes.
P ro vi di ng o r P re scr i* tio n o o e ns es
Peo!le vs. Moran
Vena V. Verga
B.
DI.
%avera vs. Valde( A.
+vvver"a
Princi!le of Pro Reo -- 5henever a *enal law is to be construed or a**lied and the law admits o two inter*retations 2 one lenient to the
Pa"e ,- of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
oender and one strict to the oender 2 that inter*retation which is lenient or avorable to the oender will be ado*ted. DII.Constr*ction of !enal laws Peo!le vs. Al(a"a 3acts6 Ro! 4laga was ound guilt! b! the R"C or the crime o murder. "he accused maintained his innocence sa!ing that tit was the victim who accidentall! shot himsel while the! were battling or the gun. "here were two witnesses with contradicting testimonies. "here were also testimonies which were inconsistent to the guilt o the accused.
A.
#a& Reason Note6 4mbiguit! 2 occurs when an act alls under more than one law or when the law is susce*tible to more than one inter*retation Peo!le vs. P*risima
,ssue6 57N the 4laga should be charged be!ond reasonable doubt.
3acts6 "went! si *etitions or review were iled b! the Peo*le o the Phili**ines involving the inormation iled charging the res*ective accused with violation o P# No. >. "he courts o irst instances issued an order Duashing the in ormations iled alleging that the acts ailed to state one essential element o the crime
#ecision6 No. 5here incul*ator! acts are susce*tible o two inter*retations% one consistent and another inconsistent with the guilt o the accused% the accused should be acDuitted since evidence ailed to ulill the test o moral certaint! to su**ort a conviction. "he court agrees with the accused that where acts are susce*tible o two inter*retations% then we have to sustain the inter*retation% which leads to acDuittal. Proo o guilt must convince be!ond reasonable doubt.
,ssue6 57N the inormations iled b! the *eo*le were suicient in orm and substance to constitute an oence o Hillegal *ossession o deadl! wea*onI *enalied under P# No. >.
Peo!le vs. N"
#ecision6 No. "he inormations merel! contained the irst element 2 that is% carr!ing outside oneIs residence o an! bladed% blunt or *ointed wea*on 2 but it ailed to include the second element% which is the intention or motivation behind it. "his =ind o construction is ver! much o*en to *olice etortion thus must be avoided. Penal statues must be construed strictl! against the state and liberall! in avor o the accused. "he reason or this is the :tenderness o the law o the rights o individualsK the obect is to establish a certain rule b! conormit! to which man=ind would be sae% and the discretion o the court limited. "he *ur*ose is not to enable the guilt! *erson to esca*e *unishment through technicalit! but to *rovide *recise deinition o orbidden acts. Penal laws should be construed strictl!. No *erson should be brought within their terms who is not clearl! within them nor should an! act be *ronounced criminal which is not made clearl! so be a statute.
3acts6 "he deendant was charged with the crime o orcible abduction with ra*e. #uring arraignment% accused *leaded not guilt!. R"C convicted the deendant but he a**ealed contending that evidences were not enough to warrant a conviction. ,ssue6 57N the evidences were enough to warrant a charge o guilt! be!ond reasonable doubt. #ecision6 No. Charge o ra*e based u*on the sole testimon! o the one who com*lains o ra*e should be regarded with utmost caution and that the *erson charged with the oense should not be convicted unless the com*lainants testimon! is im*eccable and rings true throughout. "he case at bar alls short to the Duantum o evidence reDuired to sustain a conviction o ra*e thereb! creating reasonable doubt as to a**ellants guilt. "he rule is that reasonable doubt in criminal cases must be resolved in avor o the accused. "he reDuirement o *roo be!ond reasonable doubt calls or moral certaint! o guilt -- a certaint! that convinces and satisies the reason and the conscience o those who are to act u*on it.
B.
Act*s non facit re*m@ nisi mens sit rea -- "he act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. "his is true to a elon! characteried b! dolo% but not a elon! resulting rom cul*a. "his maim is not an absolute one because it is not a**lied to cul*able elonies% or those that result rom negligence.
+vvver"a
Li1eral Constr*ction In 9avor of the 8ffender
ee5 Princi!le of Pro>reo
B.
Penal laws are strictly constr*ed a"ainst the /overnment and li1erally in favor of the acc*sed #$ vs. A1ad antos&. %his r*le may 1e invo6ed only where the law is am1i"*o*s and there is do*1t as to its inter!retation. Where the law is clear and *nam1i"*o*s@ there is no room for the a!!lication of this r*le #Peo!le vs. /atchalian&.
Pa"e ,, of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) #a&
# 1&
When the law is clear@ there is no room for inter!retation. %he tas6 of the co*rt is to a!!ly the law. Will not also a!!ly when strict constr*ction will defeat the intent@ !olicy and !*r!ose. I f the l aw i s am 1i "*o *s @ th e ta s6 o f th e co *rt o f to 6now the meanin" and intention of the law.
Ramire( vs. Co*rt of A!!eals 3acts6 Petitioner iled a case against *rivate res*ondent% arcia or allegedl! veing and humiliating her. ,n su**ort o her allegations% she *resented a transcri*t o her conversation with the res*ondent. 4s a result o her actions% res*ondent iled a case against her or violation o Re*ublic 4ct +988% entitled 4n 4ct to *rohibit and *enalie wire-ta**ing and other related violations o *rivate communication% and other *ur*oses. Petitioner also alleged that *rivate conversation% which she and the res*ondent had% is not the same with *rivate communication.
Vena V. Verga
the statute itsel e*licitl! mentions the unauthoried MrecordingM o *rivate communications with the use o ta*e-recorders; as among the acts *unishable. $ vs. %ori1io 3acts6 #eendant was charged or violation o 4rt. 08 and 00 o 4ct 11+$% which regulates the registration% branding and slaughtering o large cattle without a license. "here are two constructions o these *rohibitions6 (c)
(d)
"he *hrase Hat the munici*al slaughter houseI ma! be ta=en as limiting and restricting both the word HslaughteredI and :=illed or ood; in section 08 and :=illing or ood; in section 00. "he *hrase : at the munici*al slaughterhouse; ma! bet ta=en as limiting and restricting the words :=illed or ood;
4**ellant contends that since in his town% there are no slaughterhouses% the *rohibitions o 4ct 11+$ does not a**l!. ,ssue6 57N the deendant incurred liabilit!.
,ssue6 57N there is ambiguit! in the meaning o *rivate conversation and *rivate communication. #ecision6 "here is no ambiguit!. Legislative intent is determined *rinci*all! rom the language o a statute. 5here the language o a statute is clear and unambiguous% the law is a**lied according to its e*ress terms% and inter*retation would be resorted to onl! where a literal inter*retation would be either im*ossible or absurd or would lead to an inustice. "he aore stated *rovision clearl! and uneDuivocall! ma=es it illegal or an! *erson% not authoried b! all the *arties to an! *rivate communication to secretl! record such communication b! means o an! gadget.
#ecision6 ?es. "he act *rimaril! see=s to *rotect large cattle rom thetK thus% the latter construction should be ado*ted. 5hen the language i a statute is susce*tible o more than one construction% that construction should be ado*ted which will most tend to give eect to the maniest intent o the legislature. ec. 08 and 00 o the act *rohibit and *enalie the slaughtering or causing to be slaughtered or human consum*tion o large cattle at an! *lace without the *ermit *rovided or in sec. 08. $ vs. Chico
3acts6 "his case involves an act o overhearing a conversation b! use o an etension line.
3acts6 #eendant was charged or violating sec. 1 o 4ct. No. 1'>' o the Phili**ine commission which *rohibits the dis*la! o an! lag% banner or device used during the insurrections in the Phili**ines.
,ssue6 57N there is ambiguit! in the *hrase Mdevice(s) or arrangement(s)M
,ssue6 57N the accused should be held liable or the violation.
#ecision6 "he use o a tele*hone etension or the *ur*ose o overhearing a *rivate conversation without authoriation did not violate R.4. +988 because a tele*hone etension device was neither among those devices enumerated in ection 1 o the law nor was it similar to those Mdevice(s) or arrangement(s)M enumerated therein. "he *hrase is ambiguous and the *rinci*le that M*enal statutes must be construed strictl! in avor o the accused.M /ust be ollowed. "he case o Ramire turns on a dierent note% because the a**licable acts and circumstances *ointing to a violation o R.4. +988 suer rom no ambiguit!% and
#ecision6 ?es. "he contention is nonsense. ,n cases li=e this% the court shall resort to the *rinci*le that the s*irit o the law controls the letter. "he intention o the legislature and obect aimed at are to control the literal inter*retation o a *articular language in a statute. Language ca*able o more than one meaning is to be ta=en in the sense% which will harmonie the intention and obect. 5hen there is ambiguit!% and there is doubt as to the subect matter to which the law is to be a**lied% the *reamble ma! be used.
/aanan vs. Intermediate A!!ellate Co*rt #in contrast with Ramire( vs. CA&
+vvver"a
Pa"e ,0 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) C.
C*lt*ral environment 1y which the le"islat*re is o!eratin" can also 1e a so*rce of the meanin" as well as the intention of the law.
Le"amia vs. Intermediate A!!ellate Co*rt 3acts6 Petitioner has been living with a married man or 98 !ears and the relationshi* ended with the death o the man. 4ter the death o husband @milio% Coraon iled or su**ort or their son. "his came to the =nowledge o the real s*ouse thus she iled a com*laint against Coraon or using the name Re!es although she was not married to @milio. ,ssue6 57N Coraon violated the 4nti-4lias Law. #ecision6 ,t is in the light o our cultural environment that the law must be construed. Our societ! is a tolerant one and surel!% the lawma=ers could not have meant to criminalie what Coraon had done es*eciall! because some o them *robabl! had their own Coraons. D.
In the constr*ction or inter!retation of the !rovisions of the RPC@ the !anish te4t is controllin".
$ o the RPC. ,ssue6 57N 4rt >$ o the RP is a**licable to detention *risoners or *risoners who are ust serving *reventive im*risonment. #ecision6 "he term Man! *risonerM in the @nglish tet o 4rt. >$ regarding good conduct allowance is% in the *anish tet% Mel *enado%M who is a convict or a *erson alread! sentenced b! inal udgment. "here is no doubt that 4rticle >$ does not embrace detention *risoners within its reach. Eecause it s*ea=s o the buena conducta observada *or el *enado - not one under M*rison *reventiva.M "he allowance or good conduct Mor each month o good behaviorM then unDuestionabl! reers to good behavior o a *risoner while he is serving his term as a convict and not otherwise. ,nasmuch as the Revised Penal Code was originall! a**roved and enacted in *anish% the *anish tet governs.
Peo!le vs. Mana1a 3acts6 /anaba was charged with ra*e. "he irst com*laint was made b! the chie o *olice o #umagete. "he accused was tried and convicted% but the udgment was set aside and the case dismissed on the ground that the court
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
had no urisdiction over the *erson o the deendant or the subect matter o the action% because the com*laint had not been iled b! the oended *art!% but b! the chie o *olice. "he victim then iled the same com*laint. "his time% /anaba iled a motion to dismiss on the ground o eo*ard! or the same oense. ,ssue6 57N the *lea or double eo*ard! should be granted. #ecision6 "he third *aragra*h o article 0++ o the Revised Penal Code *rovides that6 "he oenses o seduction% abduction% ra*e or acts o lasciviousness% shall not be *rosecuted ece*t u*on a com*laint iled b! the oended *art!..; ,t will be observed that the *anish eDuivalent o the word MiledM is not ound in the *anish tet% which is controlling% as it was the *anish tet o the Revised Penal Code that was a**roved b! the Legislature. ince the irst com*laint iled was not the com*laint o the oended *art!% it was not a valid com*laint in accordance with the law. "he udgment o the court was thereore void or lac= o urisdiction over the subect matter% and the deendant was never in eo*ard!.
Peo!le vs. Mesias 3acts6 "he deendant was accused o robbing seven sac=s o rice and beore arraignment% he contended that the term rice does not onl! mean hulled rice but also includes *ala!. , the word rice includes the grain in its original state without the hull being ta=en awa!% then Mrice is included under the term semilla alimenticia or cereal seed. "hereore% the thing stolen was reall! hulled rice (arro) but there is nothing in the com*laint which shows that act. "he com*laint merel! alleges that the obect stolen was seven sac=s o rice. ,t ma! be hulled rice (arro) or it ma! be rice seeds (*ala!). Gnder the circumstances% the deendant submits that the doubt should alwa!s be resolved in avor o the accused. ,ssue6 57N the *hrase Mhulled riceM was within the meaning o Msemilla alimenticiaM as used in the *anish tet. #ecision6 "he @nglish word McerealM% into which was translated the *hrase Msemilla alimenticiaM% used in the *anish tet o article 080 o the Revised Penal Code% is incorrect. ,nasmuch as hulled rice (arro) cannot be considered as seedling (semilla alimenticia)% the oense with which the a**ellee is charged in the inormation does not all under article 080 o the Revised Penal Code but under the second to the last *aragra*h o article 089 where the oense therein deined is *enalied with arresto ma!or in its maimum degree to *rision correccional. ,n cases o doubt in the inter*retation o the Revised Penal Code% the *anish tet should *revail. Note6 "here are alread! amendments that use @nglish terms. 3or these amendments% there is no need to go bac= to the *anish tet. Eut or those% which remained in their original orm% the *anish tet is controlling.
Pa"e ,2 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Peo!le vs.
Vena V. Verga
#ecision6 "he re*eal is absolute. 5here the re*eal is absolute and not a reenactment or re*eal b! im*lication% the oense ceases to be criminal. "he deendant must be acDuitted.
'avid vs. 'ancel 3acts6 Petitioner is assailing the *romotion o 4ngel #ancel to Chie o "a Registration a *osition to which he claims to be lawull! entitled.
,ssue6 57N the accused is still liable or his actions. #ecision6 ,n this case% *anish tet is given more weight. MCualDuier otro miembroM is more accuratel! translated Man! other memberM% meaning an! other member than an e!e% a hand% a oot% an arm% or a leg resulting to M#eormeM or MdisiguredM. uch is the case at bar. "he accused is not relieved o liabilit! rom the reDuisite :deorme; even i the victim can lessen the deormit! through artiicial means. One who unlawull! wounds another is res*onsible or the conseDuences o his act.
DIII.Re!eals
A.
'iffer ent effec ts of re!eal of !enal law 1)
9) 0)
, re*eal ma=es the *enalt! lighter in the new law% the new law shall be a**lied% ece*t when the oender is a habitual delinDuent or when the new law is made not a**licable to *ending action or eisting causes o action. , the new law im*oses a heavier *enalt!% the law in orce at the time o the commission o the oense shall be a**lied , the new law totall! re*eals the eisting law so that the act% which was *enalied under the old law% is no longer *unishable% the crime is obliterated.
Peo!le vs. %amayo 3acts6 "he accused was *rosecuted or and convicted o a violation o an ordinance. 5hile the case was *ending a**eal% the ordinance was re*ealed b! eliminating the section under which the accused was being *rosecuted. ,ssue6 57N the absolute re*eal obliterated the criminal liabilit!.
+vvver"a
,ssue6 57N @O A80 was re*ealed b! Com*ilation o Civil ervice Laws and Rules% an 4dministrative Com*ilation. #ecision. No. "he Com*ilation o Civil ervice Laws and Rules was *re*ared merel! b! the Eureau o Civil ervice and could not *ossibl! have re*ealed @ecutive Order No. A80% series o 1>0+ since under 4rticle $ o the Civil Code% Mlaws are re*ealed onl! b! subseDuent ones and their violation or nonobservance shall not be ecused b! disuse% or custom or *ractice to the contrar!.M Peo!le vs. Alm*ete 3acts6 "he deendant su**osedl! violated ec 0> o he 4gricultural "enanc! Law which is *remised on the eistence o the rice share tenanc! s!stem. "he act o *re-rea*ing and *re-treshing without notice to the landlord% which was an oense under the 4gricultural "enanc!% has ceased to be an oense under the subseDuent law% the Code o 4grarian Reorms. "o *rosecute it as an oense when the Code o 4grarian Reorms is alread! in orce would be re*ugnant to the *olic! and s*irit o that Code and would subvert the maniest legislative intent not to *unish an!more *re-rea*ing sod *re-threshing without notice to the landholder. ,ssue6 57N 4lmuete violated a law. #ecision6 "he 4gricultural Land Reorm Code su*erseded the 4gricultural "enanc! Law (ece*t as Dualiied in sections + and 0A o the Code). "he Code instituted the leasehold s!stem and abolished share tenanc! subect to certain conditions indicated in section + thereo. ,t is signiicant that section 0> is not re*roduced in the 4gricultural Land Reorm Code whose section 1$9 re*eals Mall laws or *art o an! law inconsistent withM its *rovisions. "he *rohibition against *re-threshing has no more raison detre because the lessee is obligated to *a! a ied rental as *rescribed in section 0+ o the 4gricultural Land Reorm Code% or the Code o 4grarian Reorms% as redesignated in Re*ublic 4ct No. '0&> which too= eect on e*tember 18% 1>$1. "hus% the legal maim cessante ratione legis% cessat i*sa le (the reason or the law ceasing% the law itsel also ceases)% a**lies to the case at bar.
Pa"e ,3 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
B.
Conse)*ences if re!eal of !enal law is !artial or relative
(1)
, a case is *ending in court involving the violation o the re*ealed law% and the re*ealing law is more avorable to the accused% it shall be the one a**lied to him. o whether he is a habitual delinDuent or not% i the case is still *ending in court% the re*ealing law will be the one to a**l! unless there is a saving clause in the re*ealing law that it shall not a**l! to *ending causes o action.
(9)
, a case is alread! decided and the accused is alread! serving sentence b! inal udgment% even i the re*ealing law is *artial or relative% the crime still remains to be a crime. "hose who are not habitual delinDuents will beneit on the eect o that re*eal% so that i the re*eal is more lenient to them% it will be the re*ealing law that will henceorth a**l! to them.
C.
E4!ress or im!lied re!eal 2 @*ress or im*lied re*eal reers to the manner the re*eal is done.
,.
An im!lied re!eal will ta6e !lace when there is a law on a !artic*lar s*1;ect matter and a s*1se)*ent law is !assed also on the same s*1;ect matter 1*t is inconsistent with the first law@ s*ch that the two laws cannot stand to"ether@ one of the two laws m*st "ive way. It is the earlier that will "ive way to the later law 1eca*se the later law e4!resses the recent le"islative sentiment. # a& # 1&
R e! eal 1y im! li cat io n is no t f av or ed % he re i s i m!l ie d r e! ea l i f t he re a re i rr ec on ci la1 le inconsistencies.
Peo!le vs. Castro 3acts6 "he deendant was charged with inuries graves or sending letter to a medical health oicer which contained insults and accusations. "he a**ellant contends (a) that the evidence adduced during the trial did not show that he was guilt! o the crime o inurias graves as deined under the Penal Code% and (b) that even though the evidence did show that he had violated the *rovisions o the Penal Code *roviding a *unishment or inurias graves% he could not be *unished% or the reason that said *rovisions o the Penal Code had been re*ealed b! the Libel Law (4ct No. 9$$). ,ssue6 57N the *enal code *rovisions were alread! re*ealed b! the Libel Law.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
#ecision6 Provisions o the Penal Code% which deine and *unish grave insults% when those crimes are e*ressed *ublicl! in writing% are re*ealed b! 4ct No. 9$$-the Libel Law. 4 *enal law% li=e an! other statute% ma! be re*ealed either e*ressl! or b! necessar! im*licationK and such statute or law is re*ealed b! im*lication i the later statute is so re*ugnant to the earlier one that the two cannot stand together or i the whole subect o the earlier statute is covered b! the latter one having the same obect% and which was clearl! intended to *rescribe the onl! rule a**licable to the subect. , a criminal law deals with the same subect as a *rior law and is inconsistent with and re*ugnant to the *rior law% the ormer is thereb! re*ealed. 5here the latter or revising statute clearl! covers the whole subect matter o antecedent acts% and it *lainl! a**ears to have been the *ur*ose o the Legislature to give e*ression in it to the whole law on the subect% the latter is held to be re*ealed b! necessar! im*lication. #eendant was acDuitted. Peo!le vs. Perfecto 3acts6 regorio Perecto% editor o La Nacion was ound guilt! o violating 4rt. 9A$ o the Penal Code or attac=ing the virtue o the members o the enate. 4rt 9A' o the Penal Code *rovides that an! *erson who b! writing% shall deame% abuse or insult an! minister o the Crown or other *erson shall be *unished. #eendant Duestions whether this article is still in orce or whether the Libel law alread! re*ealed it. ,ssue6 57N 4rt 9A' is still in orce. #ecision6 "he Phili**ine Libel Law% 4ct No. 9$$% has had the eect o re*ealing so much o article 9A' o the Penal Code as related to written deamation% abuse% or insult. 4rticle 9A' o the *anish Penal Code is not now in orce because abrogated b! the change rom *anish to 4merican sovereignt! over the Phili**ines and because inconsistent with democratic *rinci*les o government. 5here the later statute clearl! covers the old subect-matter o antecedent acts% and it *lainl! a**ears to have been the *ur*ose o the Legislature to give e*ression in it to the whole law on the subect% *revious laws are held to be re*ealed b! necessar! im*lication. c. Effects (1)
Pending Cr iminal 4ction is not dismissed
<*scayno vs. Military Commissions No. ,@ 0@ : and 07 3acts6 "he *etitioners were accused o rebellion or having allegedl! *artici*ated in *ublic u*rising to overthrow the government. "he! were accused o subversion under R4 1$88 (4nti-ubversion Law). ometime o 1>$'% P# No. &&A which re*ealed R4 1$88 too= eect. One o the *etitioners contends that her criminal liabilit! was etinguished b! the re*eal.
Pa"e ,7 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) ,ssue6 57N in re*ealing R4 1$88% P# No. &&A etinguished the criminal liabilities o *ersons charged with violation o the older law. #ecision6 No. "hat decree% which is the Revised 4nti-ubversion Law% in re*ealing or su*erseding Re*ublic 4ct No. 1$88% e*ressl! *rovides in its ection $ that Macts committed in violationM o the ormer law beore the eectivit! o the said decree Mshall be *rosecuted and *unished in accordance with the *rovisions o the ormer 4rtM and that nothing in the said decree Mshall *revent *rosecution o cases *ending or violation oM Re*ublic 4ct No. 1$88. "hat saving or transitor! clause is reenacted in section 1+(i) o the National ecurit! Code. ,t is similar to article 0'' o the Revised Penal Code which *rovides that elonies and misdemeanors committed *rior to the eectivit! o the Revised Penal Code shall be *unished in accordance with the old Penal Code and the laws in orce at the time o their commission. "he act that Presidential #ecree No. &&A does not mention the CPP does not mean that the *art! is no longer regarded as a subversive organiation. "he *ur*ose o the *art! is the decisive actor in determining whether it is a subversive organiation.
( 9)
0.
E ut *e nal t! un de r s ec on d l aw wil l be a** lie d i avo rab le to accused.
E4!ress re!eal ta6es !lace when a s*1se)*ent law contains a !rovision that s*ch law re!eals an earlier enactment.
Vena V. Verga (1) , a *enal law is im*liedl! re*ealed% the subseDuent re*eal o the re*ealing law will revive the original law. o the act or omission which was *unished as a crime under the original law will be revived and the same shall again be crimes although during the im*lied re*eal the! ma! not be *unishable. (9) , the re*eal is e*ress% the re*eal o the re*ealing law will not revive the irst law% so the act or omission will no longer be *enalied. (0) @ects o nullit! o re*ealing laws
Cr*( vs. o*n"1er" 3acts6 Petitioner attac=ed the constitutionalit! o 4ct No. 01AA which *rohibits the im*ortation o cattle rom oreign countries to the Phili**ines. Res*ondent demurred that even id 4ct No. 01AA was declared unconstitutional% the *etitioner would still be *rohibited rom im*orting because 4ct. No. 08A9 which was re*ealed b! 4ct. No 01AA will be revived. ,ssue6 57N 4ct. No 01AA is constitutional. #ecision6 ?es. 4n unconstitutional statute can have no eect to re*eal ormer laws or *arts o laws b! im*lication% since being voidK it is not inconsistent with such ormer law. ,t is entirel! unnecessar! to *ass u*on the validit! o the statute attac=ed because even i it were declared unconstitutional% the *etitioner would not be entitled to relie because o 4ct. No. 08A9.
Peo!le vs. oliman 3acts6 #eendant was accused o *erur! under 4rt 1'>$. 5hile he was serving his sentence% 4ct. No. 1'>$ was e*ressl! re*ealed b! a ection in the administrative code. 4ccused contends that his criminal liabilit! should be etinguished because o the re*eal.
DIV.'istinction 1etween crimes !*nished *nder the Revised Penal Code and crimes !*nished *nder s!ecial laws 1. 4 s t o m ora l t rai t o t he o en de r
,n crimes *unished under the Revised Penal Code% the moral trait o the oender is considered. "his is wh! liabilit! would onl! arise when there is dolo or cul*a in the commission o the *unishable act.
,ssue6 57N the criminal liabilit! was etinguished because o the re*eal. #ecision6 ection 19 o the administrative code *rovides that a law% which e*ressl! re*ealed a *rior law% is itsel re*ealedK the irst law re*ealed shall not be revived unless e*ressl! *rovided. "hereore% the old rule continues in orce where a law% which re*eals a *rior law% is not e*ressl!% but b! im*lication% is itsel re*ealed. 4ct no. 1'>$ im*liedl! re*eals 4rt. 01> o the *enal code% which also deines and *enalies *erur!. 4ct. No. 9'A$ e*ressl! re*ealed 4ct no. 1'>$% thus% the *rovisions o the *enal code is revived. D.
Conse)*ences if re!eal of !enal law is e4!ress or im!lied
,n crimes *unished under s*ecial laws% the moral trait o the oender is not consideredK it is enough that the *rohibited act was voluntaril! done. 9.
4s to use o good aith as deense ,n crimes *unished under the Revised Penal Code% good aith or lac= o criminal intent is a valid deenseK unless the crime is the result o cul*a ,n crimes *unished under s*ecial laws% good aith is n ot a deense
+vvver"a
Pa"e ,: of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
0.
+.
,n crimes *unished under the Revised Penal Code% the degree o accom*lishment o the crime is ta=en into account in *unishing the oenderK thus% there are attem*ted% rustrated% and consummated stages in the commission o the crime.
the most advantageous to the munici*alit!. "he losing bidder challenged the validit! o the contract% but the trial court sustained its validit!. "he case goes to the andiganba!an and the ma!or gets convicted or violation o Re*ublic 4ct No. 081> (4nti-rat and Corru*t Practices 4ct).
,n crimes *unished under s*ecial laws% the act gives rise to a crime onl! when it is consummatedK there are no attem*ted or rustrated stages% unless the s*ecial law e*ressl! *enalie the mere attem*t or rustration o the crime.
!udgment affirmed. The contention of the mayor that he did not profit anything from the transaction, that the contract was advantageous to the municipality, and that he did not act with intent to gain, is not a defense. The crime involved is malum prohibitum.
4s to degree o accom*lishment o the crime
4s to mitigating and aggravating circumstances ,n crimes *unished under the Revised Penal Code% mitigating and aggravating circumstances are ta=en into account in im*osing the *enalt! since the moral trait o the oender is considered. ,n crimes *unished under s*ecial laws% mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not ta=en into account in im*osing the *enalt!.
A.
Vena V. Verga
4s to degree o *artici*at ion ,n crimes *unished under the Revised Penal Code% when there is more than one oender% the degree o *artici*ation o each in the commission o the crime is ta=en into account in im*osing the *enalt!K thus% oenders are classiied as *rinci*al% accom*lice and accessor!. ,n crimes *unished under s*ecial laws% the degree o *artici*ation o the oenders is not considered. 4ll who *er*etrated the *rohibited act are *enalied to the same etent. "here is no *rinci*al or accom*lice or accessor! to consider.
n the case of People v. Sunico, an election registrar was prosecuted for having failed to include in the voter#s register the name of a certain voter. There is a provision in the election law which proscribes any person from preventing or disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote. n trial, the election registrar raised as good faith as a defense. The trial court convicted him saying that good faith is not a defense in violation of special laws. $n appeal, it was held by he %upreme Court that disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote is not wrong because there is a provision of law declaring it as a crime, but because with or without a law, that act is wrong. n other words, it is malum in se. Conse&uently, good faith is a defense. %ince the prosecution failed to prove that the accused acted with malice, he was ac&uitted.
%est to determine if violation of s!ecial law is mal*m !rohi1it*m or mal*m in se 'nalye the violation( s it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such) f you remove the law, will the act still be wrong) f the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word *willfully+, then malice must be proven. here malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.
*estions F Answers 1. " hre e hi ac =e rs a cco st ed t he * ilo t o a n a ir* la ne . " he ! com*elled the *ilot to change destination% but beore the same could be accom*lished% the militar! was alerted. 5hat was the crime committedJ Grave coercion. There is no such thing as attempted hijacking. Under special laws, the penalty is not imposed unless the act is consummated. Crimes committed against the provisions of a special law are penalied only when the pernicious effects, which such law seeks to prevent, arise.
9. 4 ma!or awarded a concession to his daughter. he was also the highest bidder. "he award was even endorsed b! the munici*al council as
+vvver"a
n violation of special law, the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability, unless the special law punishes an omission. hen given a problem, take note if the crime is a violation of the -evised enal Code or a special law.
DV. Article 0 A.
ource o RPC (1) Raae l del PanIs Correctional Code o 1>1' (9) Code o /aruecos
Pa"e ,= of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
B. C.
(0) Original #rat o erman Pena l Code o 1>10 5here oense *unishable under RPC is also *unished under militar! law Pirac! is triable an!where (see Lo-Lol and araw)
C8PE 89 APPLICA%I8N 89 %HE PR8VII8N 89 %HE REVIE' PENAL C8'E
Vena V. Verga
(1)
5hen the crime is committed in a war vessel o a oreign countr!% because war vessels are *art o the sovereignt! o the countr! to whose naval orce the! belongK
(9)
5hen the oreign countr! in whose territorial waters the crime was committed ado*ts the 3rench Rule% which a**lies onl! to merchant vessels% ece*t when the crime committed aects the national securit! or *ublic order o such oreign countr!.
"he *rovision in 4rticle 9 embraces two sco*es o a**lications6 (1)
,ntraterritorial 2 reers to the a**lication o the Revised Penal Code within the Phili**ine territor!K
(9)
@traterritorial 2 reers to the a**lication o the Revised Penal Code outside the Phili**ine territor!.
Intraterritorial a!!lication ,n the intraterritorial a**lication o the Revised Penal Code% 4rticle 9 ma=es it clear that it does not reer onl! to Phili**ine archi*elago but it also includes the atmos*here% interior waters and maritime one. o whenever !ou use the word territor!% do not limit this to land area onl!.
%he 9rench R*le "he 3rench Rule *rovides that the nationalit! o the vessel ollows the lag which the vessel lies% unless the crime committed endangers the national securit! o a oreign countr! where the vessel is within urisdiction in which case such oreign countr! will never lose urisdiction over such vessel.
%he American or An"lo>a4on R*le "his rule strictl! enorces the territorialit! o criminal law. "he law o the oreign countr! where a oreign vessel is within its urisdiction is strictl! a**lied% ece*t i the crime aects onl! the internal management o the vessel in which case it is subect to the *enal law o the countr! where it is registered.
4s ar as urisdiction or a**lication o the Revised Penal Code over crimes committed on maritime ones or interior waters% the 4rchi*elagic Rule shall be observed. o the three-mile limit on our shoreline has been modiied b! the rule. 4n! crime committed in interior waters com*rising the Phili**ine archi*elago shall be subect to our laws although committed on board a oreign merchant vessel.
Eoth the rules a**l! onl! to a oreign merchant vessel i a crime was committed aboard that vessel while it was in the territorial waters o another countr!. , that vessel is in the high seas or o*en seas% there is no occasion to a**l! the two rules. , it is not within the urisdiction o an! countr!% these rules will not a**l!.
4 vessel is considered a Phili**ine shi* onl! when it is registered in accordance with Phili**ine laws. Gnder international law% as long as such vessel is not within the territorial waters o a oreign countr!% Phili**ine laws shall govern.
*estion F Answer
E4traterritorial a!!lication @traterritorial a**lication o the Revised Penal Code on crime committed on board Phili**ine shi* or airshi* reers onl! to a situation where the Phili**ine shi* or airshi* is not within the territorial waters or atmos*here o a oreign countr!. Otherwise% it is the oreign countr!Is criminal law that will a**l!.
+vvver"a
4 vessel is not registered in the Phili**ines. 4 crime is committed outside Phili**ine territorial waters. "hen the vessel entered our territor!. 5ill the Revised Penal Code a**l!J ?es. Gnder the old Rules o Criminal Procedure% or our courts to ta=e cogniance o an! crime committed on board a vessel during its vo!age% the vessel must be registered in the Phili**ines in accordance with Phili**ine laws. Gnder the Revised Rules o Criminal Procedure% however% the reDuirement that the vessel must be licensed and registered in accordance with Phili**ine laws has been deleted rom ection 9A% *aragra*h c o Rule 118 o the Rules o Court. "he intention is to do awa! with that reDuirement so that as long as the vessel is not registered under the laws o an! countr!% our courts can ta=e cogniance o the crime committed in such vessel.
Pa"e , of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
/ore than this% the revised *rovision added the *hrase :in accordance with generall! acce*ted *rinci*les o ,nternational Law;. o the intention is clear to ado*t generall! acce*ted *rinci*les o international law in the matter o eercising urisdiction over crimes committed in a vessel while in the course o its vo!age. Gnder international law rule% a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws o an! countr! is considered a *irate vessel and *irac! is a crime against humanit! in general% such that wherever the *irates ma! go% the! can be *rosecuted. Prior to the revision% the crime would not have been *rosecutable in our court. 5ith the revision% registration is not an!more a reDuirement and re*laced with generall! acce*ted *rinci*les o international law. Pirac! is considered a crime against the law o nations. ,n !our answer% reerence should be made to the *rovision o *aragra*h c o ection1A o the Revised Rules o Criminal Procedure. "he crime ma! be regarded as an act o *irac! as long as it is done with :intent to gain;.
When !*1lic officers or em!loyees commit an offense in the e4ercise of their f*nctions "he most common subect o bar *roblems in 4rticle 9 is *aragra*h +6 :5hile being *ublic oicers or em*lo!ees% the!F should commit an oense in the eercise o their unctions6; 4s a general rule% the Revised Penal Code governs onl! when the crime committed *ertains to the eercise o the *ublic oicialIs unctions% those having to do with the discharge o their duties in a oreign countr!. "he unctions contem*lated are those% which are% under the law% to be *erormed b! the *ublic oicer in the 3oreign ervice o the Phili**ine government in a oreign countr!. @ce*tion6 "he Revised Penal Code governs i the crime was committed within the Phili**ine @mbass! or within the embass! grounds in a oreign countr!. "his is because embass! grounds are considered an e tension o sovereignt!. ,llustration6 4 Phili**ine consulate oicial who is validl! married here in the Phili**ines and who marries again in a oreign countr! cannot be *rosecuted here or bigam! because this is a crime not connected with his oicial duties.
Vena V. Verga *estion F Answer
4 consul was to ta=e a de*osition in a hotel in inga*ore. 4ter the de*osition% the de*onent a**roached the consulIs daughter and reDuested that certain *arts o the de*osition be changed in consideration or Q18%888.88. "he daughter *ersuaded the consul and the latter agreed. 5ill the crime be subect to the Revised Penal CodeJ , so% what crime or crimes have been committedJ ?es. 3alsiication. Normall!% the ta=ing o the de*osition is not the unction o the consul% his unction being the *romotion o trade and commerce with another countr!. Gnder the Rules o Court% however% a consul can ta=e de*ositions or letters rogator!. "here is% thereore% a deinite *rovision o the law ma=ing it the consulIs unction to ta=e de*ositions. 5hen he agreed to the alsiication o the de*osition% he was doing so as a *ublic oicer in the service o the Phili**ine government. Paragra*h A o 4rticle 9% use the *hrase :as deined in "itle One o Eoo= "wo o this Code.; "his is a ver! im*ortant *art o the ece*tion% because "itle , o Eoo= 9 (crimes against national securit!) does not include rebellion. o i acts o rebellion were *er*etrated b! 3ili*inos who were in a oreign countr!% !ou cannot give territorial a**lication to the Revised Penal Code% because "itle , o Eoo= 9 does not include rebellion. ,llustration6 5hen a 3ili*ino who is alread! married in the Phili**ines% contracts another marriage abroad% the crime committed is bigam!. Eut the 3ili*ino can not be *rosecuted when he comes bac= to the Phili**ines% because the bigam! was committed in a oreign countr! and the crime is not covered b! *aragra*h A o 4rticle 9.
DVI.Article 25 9elonies H8W A 9EL8N MA ARIE
+vvver"a
Pa"e , of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
P*nisha1le 1y the Revised Penal Code "he term elon! is limited onl! to violations o the Revised Penal Code. 5hen the crime is *unishable under a s*ecial law !ou do not reer to this as a elon!. o whenever !ou encounter the term elon!% it is to be understood as reerring to crimes under the Revised Penal Code . "his is im*ortant because there are certain *rovisions in the Revised Penal Code where the term :elon!; is used% which means that the *rovision is not etended to crimes under s*ecial laws. 4 s*eciic instance is ound in 4rticle 1'8 2 uasi-Recidivism% which reads6 4 *erson who shall commit a elon! ater having been convicted b! inal udgment% beore beginning to serve sentence or while serving the same% shall be *unished under the maimum *eriod o the *enalt!. Note that the word Melon!M is used. A.
#einition6 3elonies are acts and omissions *unishable b! the law.
Note6 "he *hrase :*unishable b! law; is not onl! constrained to those acts that are *unishable b! the RPC. Crimes can also be *unishable b! s*ecial laws.
Vena V. Verga
#ecision6 No. /ere *assive *resence at the scene o anotherIs crime% mere silence and ailure to give alarm% without evidence o agreement or cons*irac! is not *unishable. Romana was acDuitted. B.
Classiication o 3elonies ,ntentional 3elonies (a) 4ct or omission o oender is maliciousK act committed b! means o dolo (b) 4ct is *erormed with deliberate intent. 9. Cul*able 3elonies 2 *erormed without maliceK act committed b! means o cul*a (a) Negligence 2 lac= o ores ight (b) ,m*rudence 2 lac= o s=ill 1.
PER8N CA$IN/ ING$R@ WI%H8$% EVIL IN%EN%I8N@ MA
@lements6 1.
Nullum crimen% nulla *oena sine lege. , there is no law that deines an act as a crime and *rovides or its *enalt!% such act is not a crime.
9.
4cts ma! be omissions or commissionsK onl! eternal acts are *unished
0.
Omission is s!non!mous to inaction% the ailure to *erorm a *ositive dut! which one is bound to do. "here must be a low reDuiring the *erormance o such act.
Peo!le vs. ilvestre and Atien(a 3acts6 /artin and Romana were both convicted o the crime o arson b! the Court o 3irst ,nstance. "he case o Romana was a**ealed because there is no strong evidence that can *rove that she was an accom*lice o /artin. ,ssue6 57N RomanaIs act o omission is *unishable.
#ecision6 One who% not being regular *ractitioner% underta=es to render medical assistance to another *erson% is liable or an! inuries resulting% rom such treatment% and the act that he acted in good aith and according to the best o his abilit! does not relieve him rom res*onsibilit!% although his ignorance ma! be considered as a mitigating circumstance. #ivino was held liable or cul*able elon! because the acts he committed were out o ignorance with the intent to bring about remed! instead o harm.
Note6 Rec=less Negligence means voluntar! act without malice. WHEN %HERE I NEI%HER MALICE 8R 9A$L% Peo!le vs. Catan"ay 3acts6 Catanga! was ound guilt! o homicide through rec=less negligence. On the night o the crime% Catanga! was tas=ed to negotiate the distance. Eut as he was nearing the Duarr!% he accidentall! stumbled onan emban=ment and two shots were discharged% one =illing his com*anion. ,ssue6 57N Catanga! was guilt! o rec=less negligence
+vvver"a
Pa"e 0- of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) #ecision6 No. "he discharge o a irearm that caused the% victims death having been *urel! accidental and wholl! involuntar! on the *art o the accused% his action lac=s the element essential or holding that it was *erormed with rec=less negligence% which reDuires that the damage be inlicted without malice but through a voluntar! act. ,n this case% there was no intent because Catanga! had a ver! good relationshi* with the victim. "here was no negligence either because o*ening the latch while a**roaching the Duarr! is ver! usual or hunters. "he emban=ment cannot also be antici*ated. $ vs. Ramire( 3acts6 Pedro Ramire went on hunting together with two other com*anions.
Vena V. Verga
Code Dualiies as negligence% or rec=less negligence. 3elonies are committed not onl! b! means o deceit (dolo) but also b! means o ault (cul*a). Note6 Reason or *unishing acts o negligence6 4 man must use common sense% and eercise due relection in all his actsK it is his dut! to be cautious% careul% and *rudent% i not rom instinct% then through ear o incurring *unishment.
Crimes *unished under s*ecial laws. ,.
,ssue6 57N there is rec=less im*rudence on this case. #ecision6 ?es.
+vvver"a
0.
R*le5 %here is no need for the !attern analysis for acts that involve !*1lic !olicy #stat*tory law& no dolo is re)*ired #$. vs. /o Chico& Ac t a lo ne co ns ti t*t es th e o ff en se
$ vs. iy Con"
Mala Prohi1ita and Mala in e Mala in e
Mala Prohi1ita
Pa"e 0, of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 4cts that are wrong rom their nature.
'efinition
Intent
,ntent governs.
Violates Minim*m re)*ired for a !erson to inc*r criminal lia1ility
RPC Criminal ,ntent
3.
4cts that are wrong merel! because it is *rohibited b! a statute. ,ntent is not im*ortant. *ecial *enal laws ,ntent to *er*etuate a crime
/ood faith can 1e invo6ed as defense for violation of the RPC #Mala in e&
%imoner vs. Peo!le 3acts6 "he Court o 4**eals ound the *etitioner guilt! be!ond reasonable doubt o the crime o rave Coercion *enalied under 4rt. 9&' o the Revised Penal Code. "he *etitioner was the ma!or o a town and b! the recommendation o the /unici*al
/ood 9aith and a1sence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes !*nished 1y s!ecial laws #Mala Prohi1ita&
Vena V. Verga
Peo!le vs. 8r)*i;o and 8n"sod 3acts6 OrDuio and Ongsod were guilt! o the crime o robber!% in addition% Ongsod was also ound guilt! o the crime o illegal *ossession o irearms. "he testimon! o the witnesses were credible and accurate% enough to call or a conviction. Ongsod contends that it was OrDuio who owned the gun and it was merel! in his *ossession when the Phili**ine constabular! seied it.
E4ce!tio ns to the "oo d f aith r*le in crimes of Mala Prohi1ita. Intent to !er!et*ate the act is re)*ired.
Peo!le vs. Mallari 3acts6 /allari was ound guilt! o illegal *ossession o irearms. #es*ite his *lea that he alread! a**lied or the renewal o his license% which e*ired some 0 months beore he was arrested% a act corroborated b! an oice o the constabular!% he was still sentence b! the lower court. ,ssue6 57N the lower court was correct in their decision. #ecision6 "he accused was absolved. ,n statutor! oenses% it is enough that the statue has been violated and that it is not necessar! to inDuire whether there was intent to violate it.
Peo!le vs. Ma!a 3acts6 "he accused is a secret agent contending that being suchK he should be eem*ted rom the law *rohibiting illegal *ossession o irearm. ,ssue6 57N /a*a should be eem*ted rom com*l!ing with the law.
+vvver"a
Pa"e 00 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
#ecision6 4s secret agent is not included in the enumeration in ection &$> o the Revised 4dministrative Code o *ersons who are not *rohibited in ection &$&% Revised 4dministrative Code% as amended b! Re*ublic 4ct No. +% rom *ossessing an! irearm. 4**ellant is not also eem*ted rom the reDuirement o license. "he irst and undamental dut! o courts is to a**l! the law. Construction and inter*retation come onl! ater it has been demonstrated that a**lication is im*ossible or inadeDuate without them. D.
1. 9. E.
Pattern o anal!sis in determining criminal liabilit! 5a s t he re cr im in al int ent (do lo )J Or was the act done b! means o cul*a (im*rudence7negligence)J #elito #eloso and #elito Cul*osa Elements 'elito 'eloso #dolo& 3reedom ,ntelligence ,ntent (a)
'elito c*l!osa #c*l!a& 3reedom ,ntelligence Negligence7,m*rudence
,ntent #eined distinguished rom discernment
Vena V. Verga
desired o ones act while the latter relates to the moral signiicance that *erson ascribes to the said act.
(c)
Binds o ,ntent ge ne ral no tio n o in te nt 2 mo ti ve is no t e sse nt ia l in establishing this notion o criminal intent s*e ci i c no tio n o in te nt 2 the re is no gre at di er en ce between s*eciic criminal intent ad motive. #istinguished rom /otive
/*evarra vs. Hon. I"nacio Almodovar
WHEN M8%IVE I RELEVAN%
3acts6 Petitioner ohn Phili* uevarra% 11 !ears old% was *la!ing with his best riend. "he! were target-shooting a bottle ca* *laced with an air rile borrowed rom a neighbor. ,n the course o their game% "eodoro was hit b! a *ellet on his let collar bone which caused his death. 3iscal ecul*ated *etitioner due to his age and because the unortunate occurrence a**eared to be an accident. "he victims *arents a**ealed to the /inistr! o ustice% which ordered the 3iscal to ile a case against *etitioner or
Peo!le vs. 'orico
,ssue6 1. 9.
57N an eleven (11) !ear old bo! could be charged with the crime o homicide thru rec=less im*rudence. 57N the term MdiscernmentM% as used in 4rticle 19(0) o the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is s!non!mous with Mintent.M
#ecision6 "he two terms should not be conused. ,t is clear that the terms MintentM and MdiscernmentM conve! two distinct thoughts. 5hile both are *roducts o the mental *rocesses within a *erson% the ormer reers to the
+vvver"a
3acts6 Romualdo #orico% #ionisio Eallonico and 3ernando #orico were all ound guilt! be!ond reasonable doubt or murdering ervacio #a*ulag and was sentenced each with death *enalt!. "he three were said to have =illed the accused because he insisted on iling a criminal com*laint against Romualdo or the =illing o his ne*hew. #ionisio said that he was merel! a b!stander and did not *artici*ate in the crime ,ssue6 57N motive is relevant to establish guilt #ecision6 ,t is true that no motive has been shown wh! he would =ill ervacio #a*ulag% but this Court has re*eatedl! held that motive is *ertinent onl! when there is doubt as to the identit! o the cul*rit. "his not a situation which alls under Hwho had done itI since #,ON,,O E4LLON,CO was *ositivel! identiied b! credible witnesses as one o the assailants o the victim. Proo o motive is not essential or conviction. "here was no reason shown wh! the witnesses or the *rosecution would oist a crime on #,ON,,O E4LLON,CO i he did not reall! commit it. 'isclos*re of motive is an aid in com!letin" the !roof of the commission of the crime.
Pa"e 02 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Note6 Circumstantial @vidences deined6 indirect evidenceK act that was seen in the vicinit! o the crimeK an aid to the *rosecutionK *roo o crime $ vs. /o 9oo *y 3acts6 3ire bro=e out in house no. 08. 4ter some time% ire also bro=e out in
Vena V. Verga
4n etreme moral *erversion ma! lead a man to commit a crime with a real motive but ust or the sa=e o committing it. Or% he a**arent lac= o a motive or committing a criminal act does not necessaril! mean that there are none% but that sim*l! the! are not =nown to us% or we cannot *robe into the de*ths o ones conscience where the! ma! be ound% bidden awa! and inaccessible to our observation. WHEN M8%IVE I IRRELEVAN% When assailant is !ositively identified Peo!le vs. 'iva
#ecision6 "he accused were ound guilt! o the crime. "he act that the deendants owned a stoc= o goods% that it was insured or three times its value% and that their business o*erations over a *eriod a**roimatel! eighteen months ust *rior to the ire had resulted in a considerable loss% urnishes a *owerul motive or the commission o the crime (circumstantial evidence). "he a**ellants had been conducting their business at a loss or nearl! 1& months. "he success o their crime meant that the! would receive about twice the value o their stoc= o goods and thus converting a losing investment into a *roitable one.
3acts6 /aimo #iva and his wie were accused o murdering 4nanias Eano. "heir dis*ute was regarding boundaries o the adoining lands the! own. On the da! the crime was committed% /aimo and Cesaria #iva cons*ired to attac= the victim. Eeore the victimIs lie e*ired% he was able to tell his wie who his attac=ers were. /aimo and Cesaria contended that it was 4nanias who irst attac=ed them and that /aimo merel! deended himsel. /aimo also contended that the trial court erred in sa!ing that the motive o the =illing was a land case because he has no interest therein since it was his ather who was the *lainti in the said case. @ven i there is such motive% it is not a suicient ground or him to ambush% attac= and =ill 4nanias. ince the *rosecution was not able to establish the motive% /aimo claims that he should not be convicted o the crime.
Lac6 of motive may 1e an aid in showin" the innocence of the acc*sed
,ssue6 57N the motive is needed to convict the deendants.
,ssue6 57N the accused was guilt! o arson.
Peo!le vs. %aneo 3acts6 Potenciano "aneo was accused o *arricide or =illing his wie% and wounding his ather in law and two o their guests. ,t a**ears rom the evidence that that the da! beore the commission o the crime% the accused had a ight with @nriDue Collantes and Valentin 4badilla% who invited him to come down and ight% and when he was about to go down% he was sto**ed b! his wie and his mother. On the da! o the commission o the crime% it was noted that the deendant was not eeling well% thus% he went to bed and sle*t. "he deendant states that when he ell aslee*% he dreamed that Collantes was tr!ing to stab him with a bolo while 4badilla held his eet% b! reason o which he got u*K and as it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down% he armed himsel with a bolo and let the room.
#ecision6 No. /otive is not im*ortant to have a conviction. "he Duestion o what motive is suicient to im*el one to commit a *articular act is alwa!s relative and no ied norm o conduct can be said to be decisive o ever! imaginable case. Eut motive is unessential to conviction in murder cases when there is no doubt as to the identit! o the cul*rit or where the oender had admitted the deedK and the ailure o the *rosecution to establish motive is com*letel! inconseDuential. 5here% as in this case% the identit! o the a**ellant as the author o the =illing is not dis*uted as he admitted having =illed the deceased% his motive in committing the act becomes irrelevant to his conviction and the ailure o the tate to establish his motive is o no moment. Note5 When assailant is !ositively identified@ motive need not 1e esta1lished
,ssue6 57N the deendant is guilt! o the crime o *arricide. H8W M8%IVE I PR8VE' M8%IVE AL8NE I N8% PR889 89 CRIME #ecision6 No. "he deendant was not held liable or the crime. 4 *erson who suddenl! hot u* in his slee* let the room with a bolo in his hand% and u*on meeting with his wie who tried to sto* him% wounded her abdomen and attac=ed other% or having acted in a dreamK he had no criminal intent.
+vvver"a
$ vs. Ramire(
Pa"e 03 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) ,t must be noted that there could be no motive in this case because Ramire and the victim were good riends. "he act could not have been done deliberatel!.
PR889 89 M8%IVE C8NVIC%I8N
AL8NE
I
N8%
$99ICIEN%
%8
$PP8R%
Vena V. Verga
etremel! disa**ointed in President Roas or his alleged ailure to redeem his *romises made b! him during the *residential election.
Peo!le vs. Marcos ,ssue6 57N ulio uillen is guilt! o the crime charge considering that it was the *resident which he intended to =ill and not imeon Varela. 3acts6 /ariano /arcos% his son 3erdinand /arcos and brother in law% uirino Liardo were accused or the murder o ulio Nalundasan% /arianoIs archrival. #uring the 1>0A elections% ulio won over /ariano or the oice o re*resentative o ,locos Norte. #uring the victor! *arade% ulioIs men were said to have *assed over /arianoIs house to humiliate the deeated candidate. "he ollowing night% ulio was ound dead. "he /arcoses and Liardo became the sus*ects. "he *rimar! witness o the *rosecution was LiardoIs bod!guard who said that he was there when the crime was committed and the motive was said to be the v ictor! *arade beore ulioIs death. ,ssue6 57N the *arade was a suicient motive to warrant a sentence. #ecision6 No. 5hile the deeat o /arcos ollowed b! such insulting *arade% might have irritated the herein deendants% the eistence o a motive alone% though *erha*s an im*ortant consideration% is not *roo o the commission o a crime% much less o the guilt o the deendants-a**ellants. E! and large% the court ound the testimon! o 4guinaldo to be inherentl! im*robable and ull o contradictions in im*ortant details% thus it shall be discredited. ,t is neither necessar! nor *roitable to eamine the corroborative evidence *resented b! the *rosecution. 5here the *rinci*al and basic evidence u*on which the *rosecution rests its case ails% all evidence intended to su**ort or corroborate it must li=ewise ail. (d)
5hen crimes ma! be committed without criminal intent
9EL8NIE C8MMI%E' < MEAN 89 C$LPA
#ecision6 ?es. ,n throwing a hand grenade at the President with the intention o =illing him% the a**ellant acted with malice.
ee5 $ vs. 'ivino 899ENE P$NIHA
,ntentional and Cul*able 3elonies #istinguished
Peo!le vs. /*illen /R No. L>,3== Gan*ary ,@ ,73acts6 ulio uillen was ound guilt! be!ond reasonable doubt o the crime o murder and multi*le rustrated murder. 4ccording to the accused% he was
+vvver"a
#ecision6 ?es. "he accused having had no intention to commit so serious an evil as that which resulted% the crime committed b! him cannot be that o homicide through rec=less im*rudence% because he did have the intention to do some evil unlawull! (maltreating the deceased)% and this intention% although it was not that o =illing% is inconsistent with rec=less im*rudence. () (g) (h)
in both% acts are voluntar! (Peo*le vs. Ramire) 4cts that are negligentl! eecuted are voluntar! ,ntent is shown b! overt acts
Pa"e 07 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
Peo!le vs. Ma1*">at
,ssue6 57N the accused was guilt! o the said crime considering that his actions were not contrar! to law.
3acts6 "he accused and uana Euralo were sweethearts. One da!% the accused invited uana to ta=e a wal= with him% but the latter reused on account o the accused having reDuentl! visited the house o a certain Carmen. Later on% the accused went to a house where uana had gone to ta=e *art in some devotion. "hereater% the accused threatened that i uana reuses to see him% he will enter the house% get the gild and =ill an!one who would sto* him. 4ter the devotion% the accused ollowed the girl and her niece on their wa! home. 5hen the! were about to go u* their house% the accused ired a shot intended or uana but which wounded Perecta instead.
#ecision6 "hat act o the accused% in *ermitting the sums de*osited with him to be attached in the satisaction o the udgment rendered b! him% was not unlawul. @ver!thing he did was in good aith under the belie that he was acting udiciousl! and correctl!. "he act committed% so ar as a**ears orm the record% at most a *ure mista=e o udgment% an error o the mind o*erating u*on a state o acts. 4 crime is not committed i the mind i the *erson *erorming the act com*lained o be innocent (actus non acit reum% nisi mes sit rea). ood aith is a deense and in this case% there is good aith. ood aith negates intent. 5hen there is no intent% there is no crime.
,ssues6 57N the accused is guilt! o rustrated murder.
Note6 ,t is a *rima acie evidence in /alversation that such missing unds or *ro*ert! have been *ut to *ersonal use or used or *ersonal ends b! such *erson. ,n this case% it was not *roven that the accused ustice o *eace used the mone! or *ersonal use.
#ecision6 ?es. 4lthough the mere act o iring at a *erson is not *roo *er se o intent to =ill% !et when the surrounding circumstances o the act are such that the! leave no room or doubt that the intention was to =ill the *erson ired u*on% the crime is not sim*l! Mdischarge o irearm%M but homicide or murder as the case ma! be. "he Duali!ing circumstance o treacher! ma! *ro*erl! be considered% even when the victim o the attac= was not the one whom the deendant intended to =ill% i it a**ears rom the evidence that neither o the two *ersons could in an! manner *ut u* a deense against the attac=% or become aware o it. (i)
Criminal ,ntent Presumed rom Commission o the crime
Mista6e of fact 2 while ignorance o the law ecuses no one (ignorantia legis non ecusat)% ignorance or mista=e o act relieves tha accused rom criminal liabilit! (ignoratia acti ecusat) MI%ABE 89 9AC% A A 'E9ENE Peo!le vs. Catolico /R No. :3: -0 March ,,,
3acts6 "he deendant% a ustice o *eace% was charged o malversation o *ublic unds.
+vvver"a
$ vs. Ah Chon" 3acts6 #eendant was a coo= and the deceased was a house bo!% and both were em*lo!ed in the same *lace and usuall! sle*t in the same room. One night% ater the deendant had gone to bed% he was awa=ened b! some one tr!ing to o*en the door% and called out twice. Eelieving that he was being attac=ed% he seied a =itchen =nie% struc= and atall! wounded the intruder% who turned out to be his roommate. ,ssue6 57N 4h Chong should be acDuitted because o mista=e o act. #ecision6 Gnder such circumstances% there is no criminal liabilit!% *rovided that the ignorance or mista=e o act was not due to negligence or bad aith. ,n other words% i such ignorance or mista=e o acts is suicient to negate a *articular intent which% under the law% is a necessar! ingredient o the oense charged it destro!s the *resum*tion o intent and wor=s an acDuittalK ece*t in those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under the *enal *rovisions governing negligence% and in cases where% under the *rovisions o article 1 o the Penal Code% a *erson voluntaril! committing an act incurs criminal liabilit! even though the act be dierent rom that which he intended to commit. "he circumstances *roved that in 4h ChongIs mind% he was being attac=ed% regardless o the circumstances outside him. 5ould the acts been as he though them to be% there would have been no crime. /ista=e o act indicates good aith. ood aith negates intent. 5ithout intent% there is no crime.
Note6
Pa"e 0: of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 9.
9. 0. +.
Lac= o intent to =ill the deceased% because the intention was to =ill another% does not relieve the accused rom criminal res*onsibilit! (Peo*le vs. ona). ,n mista=e o act% the intention o the accused in *erorming the act should be lawul. "here is no crime o resistance when there is a mista=e o act (G vs. Eautista) 5hen the accused is negligent% mista=e o act is not a deense. (Peo*le vs. 3ernando)
/ood faith has many so*rces #a& Mista6e of fact #1& Act is lawf*l %he !oint is5 when "ood faith is esta1lished@ it ne"ates criminal intent. No criminal intent@ no crime. Peo!le vs. 9ormaran No. ,0->CR 3acts6 3ormaran was accused o a crime o *erur! or having sworn to a Civil ervice 3orm No. 1 beore a notar! *ublic that he was never accused o a violation o an! law beore an! court or tribunal% when the truth and in act he had been charged with the oense o unust veation in a criminal case beore the ustice o the Peace Court. 5hen he testiied in his deense% the deendant claimed that he answered :No; to the Duestion whether he had been accused o a violation o an! law% because he relied on the o*inion o the *rovincial iscal that unust veation does not involve moral tur*itude and he thought it was not necessar! to mention it in Civil ervice 3orm No. 1. ,t a**eared that he was *reviousl! *rosecuted twice or *erur! or answering HNOI to the same Duestion but he was acDuitted on the irst case and the second case was dismissed. ,ssue6 57N 3ormaran was unustl! *rosecuted on the case at bar. #ecision6 No. it was held that in view o the actual bac=ground o the case% the act o the deendant in answering :no; to the Duestion can be considered onl! as an error o udgment and did not indicate an intention to commit the crime o *erur!. "he deendant was not liable or the crime because he had no intent to commit the crime. Note6 Lac= o intent to commit a crime ma! be inerred rom the acts o the case.
Peo!le vs. Penalosa /R No 303 G an*ary 0=@ ,-0 3acts6 4 minor married without *arental consent% in violation o 4rt +$A o he old Penal Code which *unished an! minor who shall contract marriage without
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
the consent o his or her *arents. "he women believed that she was born in 1&$>K that so her *arents gave her to understand ever since she was !oungK and she did not as= them concerning her age. ,n the same instance% the husband relied on the statement o his wie that she is o age when the! got married. ,ssue6 57N the husband and the wie violated the said *rovision o the Penal code #ecision6 4 minor who marries without *arental consent in the alse belie that she is o age is not criminall! res*onsible. ,t is not criminal negligence or a husband to rel! u*on his wies statement o her age nor or the wie to rel! u*on that o her ather. ,n eect it suices to remember the irst article% which states that where there is no intent there is no crime. ,n order to assert without ear o mista=e that in our Code the substance o a crime does not eist i there is not a deed% an act that alls within the s*here o ethics i there is not a moral wrong. One cannot be convicted under 4rt. +$A when b! reason o a mista=e o acts there does not eist the intention to commit the crime. /ista=e o act establishes good aith because have the acts been as she thought them to be% the act would have been lawul. ood aith negates intent. 5hen there is no intention% there is no crime. ood aith is transerable (in this case% to the husband). Note6 "here is no elon! b! dolo i there is no intent. Peo!le vs. Cochin" 3acts6 Coching and several others were accused o alsiication o *ublic document and violation o the election code. Conching and the others sincerel! believed that boo=lets +188 to +198 were sam*le ballots because three ballots rom the boo=let were detached and two ballots were used to cover the o*enings o the boes that was given to them beore the election. "he! have no wa! o chec=ing since the recei*t co*! signed b! Coching when he received the ballots were not given to them. "hus% the! did not include in the counting boo=lets +188 to +198. ,ssue6 57N Coching and the others are guilt! o the crime charges. #ecision6 No. "he lower court was in agreement that the deendants did not intend to *er*etuate the act. Eut according to them% since the act is malum *rohibitum 2 against a law7statute% intention is immaterial. "he Court is in disagreement with this notion. "he act% according to the court% being an act mala *rohibita has no bearing on the case because this is not a case o willul or conscious violation o a *enal statue% nor o ignorance o the law. "he case at bar is a case o ignorance o the act. "he deendants are in honest belie that the series o unused ballots were not oicial but sam*le ballots. G*holding the maim ignorantia acti ecusat as established in Peo*le vs. Oanis. "he courts should udge the accused not b! the acts as the! later tur ned out to be
Pa"e 0= of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) but what the! believed to be as acts at the time o the oense and the conditions obtaining them (G vs. 4h Chong). #eendants were acDuitted. MI%ABE 89 9AC% N8% A 'E9ENE ee5 Peo!le vs. 8anis Peo!le vs. de 9ernando /R No 03= 0= March ,0: 3acts6 "he accused% a *oliceman% was inormed that three convicts had esca*ed. "he residents o the barrio were alarmed o the news. 5hile doing rounds in the barrio% he was called b! the daughter o a certain #elgado to inorm him that three un=nown *ersons were *rowling around their house. 4ter some time% the! saw a *erson going u* the stairs dressed in dar= clothes and carr!ing a bolo. 4ccused called out to the *erson to identi! himsel. "he *erson% did not answer thus% de 3ernando ired a shot in the air. 4s the un=nown *erson continued to ascend the stairs and believing that he was one o the esca*ed convicts% the accused ired directl! at the man who turned our to be the ne*hew o the house.
Vena V. Verga
P@OPL@ vs. E,N#O? 3acts6 "he accused was charged o the crime o homicide or wounding with his bolo @migdio who was merel! a s*ectator o the ight% which ensued between the deendant and a certain Pacas. ,ssue6 57N Eindo! should be charged or =illing @migdio #ecision6 "he a**ellant should be acDuitted since there is no evidence% which shows that @migdio too= *art in the ight. Neither was there an! indication that the accused was aware o the victimIs *resence.
(1)
5hen act is lawul
P@OPL@ vs. 4L,N4 '9 O.. 01&'
,ssue6 57N de 3ernando was guilt! o homicide through rec=less negligence. #ecision6 ?es. 4n agent o the law% to whom notice had been given o the *resence o sus*icious loo=ing *ersons% who might be esca*ed *risoners rom a nearb! *enitentiar!% *rowling around the vicinit!% and who enters a house to =ee* watch% and later in the evening sees a *erson with a bolo in hand a**roaching the house in the -attitude o going u* the stairs% who does not answer the challenge o the oicer o the law% and continues his advance notwithstanding that the latter had ired a shot into the air% and the said agent o the law considering that the said stranger has not been recognied b! an! *erson in the household% and thin=ing him to be an evil-doer% shoots and =ills him% is not guilt! o murder or homicide.
3acts6 Crisanto alinas was charged or the death o aime "ibule. aime died ater alling rom his motherIs hold while the mother was reeing his ather rom CrisantoIs hold. Crisanto was holding the victimIs grandather in order to *revent him rom ighting with the deendantIs ather. ,ssue6 57N Crisanto should be liable or the death o the bab! #ecision6 No. "he acce*ted rule is that an oender is alwa!s liable or the conseDuence o his criminal action even though the result be dierent rom what he intended. Gnder the circumstances% it cannot be held that the accused was committing a crime and it cannot be said that the death o the child was a direct result o a crime. "he act being lawul% there could have been no crime committed. "he deendant was acDuitted. (b)
5rong done is direct% natural% logical conseDuence o elon! committed
G vs. V4L#@S
DVII.Article 35 Criminal Lia1ility
A.
1.
Committing a elon! even i the conseDuences are unintended @lements6 (a) 3elon! is committed
+vvver"a
3acts6 "he accused was not satisied with the slow raising o the anchor which caused him to abuse his men with oensive language. One o the crew remonstrated that the! would be able to wor= better i the accused sto*s insulting them. ,nuriated% the accused moved towards the victim with big =nie threatening to stab him. "he victim% believing that he is going to be =illed% threw himsel in water and never resurace. ,ssue6 57N the deendant should be liable or his crewIs death
Pa"e 0 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
'1 P<,L. 0+1 #ecision6 ?es. "he crewIs death was a conseDuence o the deendantIs action. , a *erson against whom% a criminal assault is directed reasonabl! believes himsel to be in danger o death or great bodil! harm% a d in order to esca*e um*s into water% im*elled b! the instincts o sel-*reservation% the assailant us res*onsible or homicide in case death results b! drowning.
3acts6 "he a**ellant and victim were having an illicit relationshi*. 5hen the victim tried to end their aair% the a**ellant dragged the deceased towards the streets and stabbed her in the chest with the an =nie. "he victim was said to have died rom shoc=.
P@OPL@ vs. G,4NON '9 P<,L. 1'9
,ssue6 57N the a**ellant should be acDuitted considering the act that the wound was onl! a slight one
3acts6 "he deendant% was convicted o a crime o homicide or the death o 4ndres 4ribuabo% a deranged *erson who constantl! as=ed or ood rom the ormer. "he deendant too= hold o a irebrand and a**lied it to the abdomen o the man who *estered him. Victim was treated in the hos*ital but died. #eendant contends that the victim would have survived i he did not remove the drainage *laced to isolate the inection.
#ecision6 No. ,n this urisdiction% it is a well settled that such is not the law. 4 *erson is res*onsible or the conseDuences o his criminal act even o the deceased have been shown to be suering rom a deceased heart (which was not shown). 4**ellantIs assault being the *roimate cause o the death% he should be res*onsible. "he girl died rom shoc= as a result o the wound inlicted b! the deendant.
,ssue6 57N uianson should be held liable or the death o the victim
"here is intention in the commission o the crime because when a *erson who stabs another with a lethal wea*on% death could reasonable be antici*ated. "he accused is *resumed to have intended the natural conseDuences o the wrongul act.
#ecision6 One who inlicts an inur! on another is deemed b! law to be guilt! o homicide i the inur! contributes mediatel! or immediatel! to the death o the victim. "he act that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the actor o res*onsibilit!. 4s the wound% which the a**ellant inlicted u*on the deceased% was the cause% which determined his death% it is evident that the act in Duestion should be Dualiied as homicide. (1)
3acts6 "he deendant% who was in charged in ma=ing sure that the roasted *ig will not be consumed beore the end o the *arade gave a blow to uan /agsino who tried getting a *iece o the *ig. uan died o internal hemorrhage and contusion on the liver. ,ssue6 57N the deendant should be held liable or the death o the victim. #ecision6 ?es. ,t was the deendantIs blow in the right h!*ocondrium% which bruised the liver and *roduced internal hemorrhage. "hat the victim had a delicate condition and suered rom inci*ient tuberculosis does not aect criminal liabilit! o the deendant who gave him a severe blow% which was the cause o the deathK even o the wea=ened condition made the blow more atal% the eicient cause o the death remains the same. "here was no intent but this does not etinguish the crime. (9) Elow was *roimate cause o death
+vvver"a
V#4. #@ E4"4CL4N% @" 4L. vs. /@#,N4 189 P<,L. 1&1
Elow was eicient cause o death
P@OPL@ vs. ,LLG"R@ A+ P<,L. A++
P@OPL@ vs. R@?@
(i)
3acts6 "he victim% husband o the *etitioner% died rom the e*losion o the bus o which he was a *assenger. Eeore the e*losion% the vehicle ig-agged into a canal% causing said bus to overturn. #ue to overturning o the bus% the gasoline lea=ed soa=ing the soil underneath thus% when the rescuers came with torches came near the busK the bus was set on ire. ,ssue6 57N the overturning o the bus was the *roimate cause o the death. #ecision6 ?es. "he reason that when the vehicle turned% the lea=ing o the gasoline was the natural conseDuence. ,t was also natural that the rescuers would innocentl! a**roach the bus to etend aid. "hus% the burning o the bus was a natural cause and should be attributed to the negligence o the driver and the conductor. (ii) #einition GRE4NO vs. ,N"@R/@#,4"@ 4PP@LL4"@ COGR" 1A$ CR4 1 3acts6 Grbano was charged or the crime o homicide or the death o /arcelo avier. 4 ight ensued between the two when Grbano learned that avier
Pa"e 0 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) o*ened the loodgates thereb! causing his *ala! to be looded. /arcelo was onl! hit in the *alm and while the wound was healing% the victim continued wor=ing. 4ter 99 da!s% he died rom tetanus.
Vena V. Verga
obe! thus% deendant struc= him on the thighs with a sli**er. "wo da!s later% the child died. ,ssue6 57N the deendant should be held liable or the death o the child.
,ssue6 57N the hac=ing incident can be considered a *roimate cause o /arceloIs death. #ecision6 No. Proimate cause it the case% which in natural and continuous seDuence% unbro=en b! an! eicient intervening cause% *roduces inur!% and without which% the result would not have occurred. "he hac=ing incident could not have been the cause o the victimIs death since the tetanus a**eared onl! on the 99 nd da! ater the hac=ing incident. ,t is *ossible that the victim ma! have been inlicted with a mild tetanus but since avier died onl! two or three da!s rom the onset% it is logical to assume that there ma! be other causes other than the hac=ing incident. ,t is a rule that in criminal conviction% the *roo that the accused caused the victimIs death must convince a rational mind be!ond reasonable doubt. ince there ma! be other eicient causes o the death% the accused should be acDuitted. (iii) 5hen elon! committed not *roimate cause6 (0)
,ntervening active orce% which is distinct and absolutel! oreign to elonious act o accused (i) Resulting inur! is due to intentional act o victim (ii) #eath attributable to ever *revalent in localit!
P@OPL@ vs. P4L4LON +> P<,L. 1$$ 3acts6 4**ellant was ound guilt! o the crime o homicide or the death o a child whom he sla**ed ater answering insolentl!. "he child ell but continued to wor=. "hat same aternoon% the child was brought home sic= b! his ather. One-hal da!s later% the child died. "he doctor testiied it was the blow which was the cause o the death. ,ssue6 57N the deendant should be held liable or the death o the child. #ecision6 No. ,t a**ears that the eamination o the bod! was incom*lete and the conclusion o the doctor have been much more than mere guesses. 3urthermore% it was *roven that ever was *revalent among the children in the localit! thus% there is reasonable doubt as to the true cause o the death. 4**ellant thereore should be acDuitted. (iii) Cause o death not *roved G vs. @/E4"@ 3acts6 "he child has been seriousl! ill or three wee=s. One da!% as the child lain on a dam* loor% deendant ordered said child to transer. "he child did not
+vvver"a
#ecision6 No. ince the cause o the death was un=nown% the deendant cannot be held liable or said death. @mbate was acDuitted. (iv) #eath attributable to tetanus GRE4NO vs. ,N"@R/@#,4"@ 4PP@LL4"@ COGR" (+)
Elow accelerated death
P@OPL@ vs. RO#R,G@S 3acts6 "he deendant was charged with having dealt with /anciano /agno with two blows which =noc=ed the victim down. ,t was ound that /agno *rovo=ed the deendant. #ecision6 5hen the act is well established that the accused struc= the victim twice with his ist% in the abdomen and in the bac=% whereore the latter ell to the ground and had hardl! risen and started to wal= when he again ell down dead% the crime committed is rightl! classiied as homicide and the accused is res*onsible thereore. @ven though a blow with the ist or a =ic= does not cause an! eternal wound it ma! easil! *roduce inlammation o the s*leen and *eritonitis and cause death% and even though the victim ma! have been *reviousl! aected b! some internal malad!% !et i a blow with the ist or oot accelerated death% he who caused such acceleration is res*onsible or the death as the result o an inur! willull! and unlawull! inlicted. (c) 5hen there is an intervening cause G vs. P4L4LON The defendant was convicted of homicide largely on the testimony of a young physician who stated, in substance, that he e/amined the body of the deceased on the day after the commission of the crime and found ecchymosis on the body from which he concluded that hard blows had been inflicted on the deceased and that as a result thereof, there was a congestion of the right lung which was the principal cause of the death. 0o autopsy of the body was made and the physician admitted that his conclusions were partly based upon the statements of the members of the family of the deceased. 1eld( That the testimony of the physician was not conclusive and that the ecchymosis described by him might have been nothing, but suggillations or "death spots" formed after the death. n case of death under suspicious circumstances, it is the duty of the physician performing the post mortem. e/amination to e/ercise the utmost care and not draw unwarranted conclusions from e/ternal appearances susceptible of different interpretations.
(1)
,nstances not constituting eicient intervening cause6
Pa"e 2- of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (i) 5ea= or diseased *h!sical condition o victim P@OPL@ vs. ,LLG"R@% GPR4 P@OPL@ vs. R@?@% GPR4 (ii) Nervousness or tem*erament o victim P@OPL@ vs. 4L/ON"@ hen a person dies in conse&uence of an internal hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor2s orders, not because of carelessness or a desire to increase the criminal liability of his assailant, but because of his nervous condition due to the wound inflicted by said assailant, the crime is homicide and not merely slight physical injuries, simply because the doctor was of opinion that the wound might have healed in seven days. The accused is then liable for all acts contrary to law and their natural and logical conse&uences.
P@OPL@ vs. G,4NON 5here it does not a**ear that the victim% in removing the drainage rom his wound% had acted voluntaril! and with the =nowledge that he was *erorming an act *reudicial to his health% as this should be attributed to his *athological condition and to his state o nervousness and restlessness on account o the *h!sical *ain caused b! the *eritonitis rom which he was suering% such act o the victim does not have the eect o altering the natural uridical conseDuences o the *unishable act o the accused all the more because% as the deense itsel claims% the victim was mentall! deranged. (iii) Causes inherent in victim6 (1) 4ddiction to tuba drin=ing G vs. E4?G"4 The fact that the victim was addicted to the habit of drinking tuba, on account of which it is admitted that his constitution and physical condition retarded the healing of his wounds, according to the opinion of the physician who attended him, beyond the time that it should have taken, cannot lessen the assailant2s responsibility, because he is responsible for all the conse&uences of the personal injury which was produced by the act that he had willfully performed in violation of a prohibitive law, and because his responsibility cannot be lessened on account of the bad state of health and the weakened constitution of the victim.
(9) Victim did no =now how to swim G vs. V4L#@S% GPR4 (iv) Neglect o victim or third *erson6 (1) Victim reused medical attendance or surgical o*eration G vs. /4R4,4N 5here it a**ears rom the evidence in the case that the a**ellant inlicted a wound u*on the com*laining witness which destro!ed the use o one o the
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
ingers o the let hand% a motion or a new trial will be denied when based u*on the allegation that a**ellant would be able to *rove% i o**ortunit! were given% that the inger% although useless at *resent% could be restored to substantiall! its normal condition b! a surgical o*eration. 4 *erson inured in an assault is not obliged to submit to a surgical o*eration to relieve the *erson who assaulted him rom the results o his crime. (d) @ven i unintended. ( 1) @r ro r i n *e rs on ae 6 mist a= e in i de nt it ! o v ic ti m P@OPL@ vs. O4N, P@OPL@ vs. ON4 "here can be no doubt that the deendant =illed /a*udul and that he is guilt! o the crime charged% but his attorne! argues that in view o the act that said deendant had no intention to =ill the deceased and committed the crime b! mista=e% he should have been ound guilt! o homicide through negligence under *aragra*h 1 o article A'& o the Penal Code and not o the graver crime o intentional homicide. "his contention is contrar! to earlier decisions o this court. ,n the case o Gnited tates vs. /endieta (0+ Phil.% 9+9)% the court said6 M@ven admitting that the deendant intended to inure
Prater intentionem6 inurious result is greater than that intended
P@OPL@ vs. C4OCO Be!words6 3ell bac=wards #ecision6 Gnder the circumstances o this case the deendant is liable or the =illing o the deceased because his death was the direct conseDuence o deendants elonious act o stri=ing him on the head. , the deendant had not committed the assault in a treacherous manner% he would nevertheless have been guilt! o homicide% although he did not intend to =ill the deceased% and since the deendant did commit the crime with treacher!% he is guilt! o murder because o the *resence o the Duali!ing circumstance o treacher!.
9.
Cause o the cause is the cause o the evil caused
P@OPL@ vs. 4R#ON
Pa"e 2, of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) , a *erson against whom a criminal assault is directed reasonabl! believes himsel to be in danger o death or great bodil! harm and in order to esca*e um*s into the water% im*elled b! the instinct o sel *reservation% the assailant is res*onsible or homicide in case death results b! drowning 'ppellant should likewise be chargeable with 1omicide. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated in appellant2s favor. The determined resolution to do the victim wrong was evident when, even after the victim had disappeared beneath the surface of the sea, he cruelly asked "are you already dead)" 'ppellant2s bid for ac&uittal in his si/th assignment of error, therefore, deserves no consideration. ,,. ,/PO,EL@ CR,/@ ReDuisites6 act performed is against property 1. 9. That the act was done with evil intent 0. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible or the means employed is either inade&uate or ineffectual +. The act performed should not constitute a violation f another provision of the -C ,N"O# vs. C4 ,n our urisdiction% im*ossible crimes are recognied. "he im*ossibilit! o accom*lishing the criminal intent is not merel! a deense% but an act *enalied b! itsel. 3urthermore% the *hrase Minherent im*ossibilit!M that is ound in 4rticle +(9) o the Revised Penal Code ma=es no distinction between actual or *h!sical im*ossibilit! and legal im*ossibilit!. Gbi le non distinguit nee nos distinguiere debemos. "he actual situation in the case at bar *resents a *h!sical im*ossibilit! which rendered the intended crime im*ossible o accom*lishment. 4nd under 4rticle +% *aragra*h 9 o the Revised Penal Code% such is suicient to ma=e the act an im*ossible crime. 1. "o u*hold the contention o res*ondent that the oense was 4ttem*ted /urder because the absence o Palang*angan was a su*ervening cause inde*endent o the actors will% will render useless the *rovision in 4rticle +% which ma=es a *erson criminall! liable or an act Mwhich would be an oense against *ersons or *ro*ert!% were it not or the inherent im*ossibilit! o its accom*lishment .M ,n that case% all circumstances which *revented the consummation o the oense will be treated as an accident inde*endent o the actors will which is an element o attem*ted and rustrated elonies. ,m*ossible crime 4n im*ossible crime is an act which would be an oense against *erson or *ro*ert! were it not or the inherent im*ossibilit! o its accom*lishment or on account o the em*lo!ment o inadeDuate or ineectual means.
Vena V. Verga *estion F Answer
1. 4ccused was a housebo! in a house where onl! a s*inster resides. ,t is customar! or the s*inster to slee* nude because her room was warm. ,t was also the habit o the housebo! that whenever she enters her room% the housebo! would ollow and *ee= into the =e!hole. 3inall!% when the housebo! could no longer resist the urge% he climbed into the ceiling% went inside the room o his master% *laced himsel on to* o her and abused her% not =nowing that she was alread! dead ive minutes earlier. ,s an im*ossible crime committedJ ?es. Eeore% the act *erormed b! the oender could not have been a crime against *erson or *ro*ert!. "he act *erormed would have been constituted a crime against chastit!. 4n im*ossible crime is true onl! i the act done b! the oender constitutes a crime against *erson or *ro*ert!.
+vvver"a
Pa"e 20 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) thereore% im*ortant to =now what are the crimes under "itle V,,,% against *ersons and those against *ro*ert! under "itle T. 4n im*ossible crime is true onl! to an! o those crimes. 0. 4 entered a de*artment store at about midnight% when it was alread! closed.
Vena V. Verga
electric outlet. "he idea was that% when cott comes home to o*en the door =nob% he would be electrocuted. Gn=nown to Charles% cott is wor=ing in an electronic sho* where he received a dail! dosage o electric shoc=. 5hen cott o*ened the door=nob% nothing ha**ened to him.
#o not conuse an im*ossible crime with the attem*ted or rustrated stage. A. cot t a nd C har le s a re r oo mma te in a bo ar di ng h o us e. @ver!da!% cott leaves or wor= but beore leaving he would loc= the ood cabinet where he =e*t his ood. Charles resented this. One da!% he got an electric cord tied the one end to the door =nob and *lugged the other end to an
+vvver"a
$. 4 and E are neighbors. "he! are ealous o each otherIs social status. 4 thought o =illing E so 4 climbed the house o E through the window and stabbed E on the heart% not =nowing that E died a ew minutes ago o bangungot. ,s 4 liable or an im*ossible crimeJ
Pa"e 22 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) No. 4 shall be liable or Dualiied tres*ass to dwelling. 4lthough the act done b! 4 against E constitutes an im*ossible crime% it is the *rinci*le o criminal law that the oender shall be *unished or an im*ossible crime onl! when his act cannot be *unished under some other *rovisions in the Revised Penal Code. ,n other words% this idea o an im*ossible crime is a one o last resort% ust to teach the oender a lesson because o his criminal *erversit!. , he could be taught o the same lesson b! charging him with some other crime constituted b! his act% then that will be the *ro*er wa!. , !ou want to *la! sae% !ou state there that although an im*ossible crime is constituted% !et it is a *rinci*le o criminal law that he will onl! be *enalied or an im*ossible crime i he cannot be *unished under some other *rovision o the Revised Penal Code. , the Duestion is :,s an im*ossible crime is committedJ;% the answer is !es% because on the basis o the acts stated% an im*ossible crime is committed. Eut to *la! sae% add another *aragra*h6
Modified conce!t of im!ossi1le crime5 ,n a wa!% the conce*t o im*ossible crime has been modiied b! the decision o the u*reme Court in the case o Intod v. CA@ et al.@ 0,7 CRA 70. ,n this case% our cul*rits% all armed with irearms and with intent to =ill% went to the intended victimIs house and ater having *in*ointed the latterIs bedroom% all our ired at and riddled said room with bullets% thin=ing that the intended victim was alread! there as it was about 18688 in the evening. ,t so ha**ened that the intended victim did not come home on the evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. @ventuall! the cul*rits were *rosecuted and convicted b! the trial court or attem*ted murder. "he Court o 4**eals airmed the udgment but the u*reme Court modiied the same and held the *etitioner liable onl! or the so-called im*ossible crime. 4s a result% *etitioneraccused was sentenced to im*risonment o onl! si months o arresto ma!or or the elonious act he committed with intent to =ill6 this des*ite the destruction done to the intended victimIs house. omehow% the decision de*reciated the seriousness o the act committed% considering the lawlessness b! which the cul*rits carried out the intended crime% and so some members o the bench and bar s*o=e out against the soundness o the ruling. ome as=ed Duestions6 5as it reall! the im*ossibilit! o accom*lishing the =illing that brought about its non-accom*lishmentJ 5as it not *urel! accidental that the intended victim did not come home that evening and% thus% un=nown to the cul*rits% she was not in her bedroom at the time it was shot and riddled with bulletsJ u**ose% instead o using irearms% the cul*rits set ire on the intended victimIs house% believing she was there when in act she was not% would the criminal liabilit! be or an im*ossible crimeJ
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
Gntil the ,ntod case% the *revailing attitude was that the *rovision o the Revised Penal Code on im*ossible crime would onl! a**l! when the wrongul act% which would have constituted a crime against *ersons or *ro*ert!% could not and did not constitute another elon!. Otherwise% i such act constituted an! other elon! although dierent rom what the oender intended% the criminal liabilit! should be or such other elon! and not or an im*ossible crime. "he attitude was so because 4rticle + o the Code *rovides two situations where criminal liabilit! shall be incurred% to wit6 4rt +. incurred6
Criminal liabilit! 2 Criminal liabilit! shall be
1.
E! an! *erson committing a elon! (delito) although the wrongul act be dierent rom that which he intended.
9.
E! an! *erson *erorming an act which would be an oense against *ersons or *ro*ert!% were it not or the inherent im*ossibilit! o its accom*lishment or on account o the em*lo!ment o inadeDuate or ineectual means.
Paragra*h 1 reers to a situation where the wrongul act done constituted a elon! although it ma! be dierent rom what he intended. Paragra*h 9 reers to a situation where the wrongul act done did not constitute an! elon!% but because the act would have given rise to a crime against *ersons or against *ro*ert!% the same is *enalied to re*ress criminal tendencies to curtail their reDuenc!. Eecause criminal liabilit! or im*ossible crime *resu**oses that no elon! resulted rom the wrongul act done% the *enalt! is ied at arresto ma!or or a ine rom P988.88 to PA88.88% de*ending on the :social danger and degree o criminalit! shown b! the oender; (4rticle A>)% regardless o whether the wrongul act was an im*ossible crime against *ersons or against *ro*ert!. "here is no logic in a**l!ing *aragra*h 9 o 4rticle + to a situation governed b! *aragra*h 1 o the same 4rticle% that is% where a elon! resulted. Otherwise% a redundanc! and du*licit! would be *er*etrated. ,n the ,ntod case% the wrongul acts o the cul*rits caused destruction to the house o the intended victimK this elonious act negates the idea o an im*ossible crime. Eut whether we agree or not% the u*reme Court has s*o=en% we have to res*ect its ruling.
N8 CRIME $NLE %HERE I A LAW P$NIHIN/ I% 5hen a *erson is charged in court% and the court inds that there is no law a**licable% the court will acDuit the accused and the udge will give his o*inion that the said act should be *unished.
Pa"e 23 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
4rticle A covers two situations6 (1)
(9)
"he court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not constitute a crime. "he *ro*er udgment is acDuittal% but the court is mandated to re*ort to the Chie @ecutive that said act be made subect o *enal legislation and wh!. 5here the court inds the *enalt! *rescribed or the crime too harsh considering the conditions surrounding the commission o he crime% the udge should im*ose the law. "he most that he could do is to recommend to the Chie @ecutive to grant eecutive clemenc!.
%A/E IN %HE C8MMII8N 89 9EL8N "he classiication o stages o a elon! in 4rticle ' are true onl! to crimes under the Revised Penal Code. "his does not a**l! to crimes *unished under s*ecial laws. Eut even certain crimes which are *unished under the Revised Penal Code do not admit o these stages. "he *ur*ose o classi!ing *enalties is to bring about a *ro*ortionate *enalt! and eDuitable *unishment. "he *enalties are graduated according to their degree o severit!. "he stages ma! not a**l! to all =inds o elonies. "here are elonies which do not admit o division.
9ormal crimes 3ormal crimes are crimes which are consummated in one instance. 3or eam*le% in oral deamation% there is no attem*ted oral deamation or rustrated oral deamationK it is alwa!s in the consummated stage. o also% in illegal eaction under 4rticle 910 is a crime committed when a *ublic oicer who is authoried to collect taes% licenses or im*ose or the government% shall demand an amount bigger than or dierent rom what the law authories him to collect. Gnder sub-*aragra*h a o 4rticle 910 on ,llegal eaction% the law uses the word :demanding;. /ere demanding o an amount dierent rom what the law authories him to collect will alread! consummate a crime% whether the ta*a!er *a!s the amount being demanded or not. Pa!ment o the amount being demanded is not essential to the consummation o the crime. "he dierence between the attem*ted stage and the rustrated stage lies on whether the oender has *erormed all the acts o eecution or the accom*lishment o a elon!. Literall!% under the article% i the oender has *erormed all the acts o eecution which should *roduce the elon! as a conseDuence but the elon! was not realied% then the crime is alread! in the rustrated stage. , the oender has not !et *erormed all the acts o eecution
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
2 there is !et something to be *erormed 2 but he was not able to *erorm all the acts o eecution due to some cause or accident other than his own s*ontaneous desistance% then !ou have an attem*ted elon!. ?ou will notice that the elon! begins when the oender *erorms an overt act. Not an! act will mar= the beginning o a elon!% and thereore% i the act so ar being done does not begin a elon!% criminal liabilit! corres*ondingl! does not begin. ,n criminal law% there is such a thing as *re*arator! act. "hese acts do not give rise to criminal liabilit!.
*estion F Answer 4 and E are husband and wie. 4 met C who was willing to marr! him% but he is alread! married. 4 thought o eliminating E and to *oison her. o% he went to the drugstore and bought arsenic *oison. On the wa! out% he met #. # as=ed him who was sic= in the amil!% 4 conided to # that he bought the *oison to *oison his wie in order to marr! C. 4ter that% the! *arted wa!s. # went directl! to the *olice and re*orted that 4 is going to =ill his wie. o the *olicemen went to 4Is house and ound 4 still unwra**ing the arsenic *oison. "he *olicemen as=ed 4 i he was *lanning to *oison E and 4 said !es. Police arrested him and charged him with attem*ted *arricide. ,s the charge correctJ No. Overt act begins when the husband mied the *oison with the ood his wie is going to ta=e. Eeore this% there is no attem*ted stage !et. 4n overt act is that act which i allowed to continue in its natural course would deinitel! result into a elon!. ,n the attem*ted stage% the deinition uses the word :directl!;. "his is signiicant. ,n the attem*ted stage% the acts so ar *erormed ma! alread! be a crime or it ma! be ust an ingredient o another crime. "he word Mdirectl!IM em*hasies the reDuirement that the attem*ted elon! is that which is directl! lin=ed to the overt act *erormed b! the oender% not the elon! he has in his mind. ,n criminal law% !ou are not allowed to s*eculate% not to imagine what crime is intended% but a**l! the *rovisions o the law o the acts given. 5hen a *erson starts entering the dwelling o another% that act is alread! tres*assing. Eut the act o entering is an ingredient o robber! with orce u*on things. ?ou could onl! hold him liable or attem*ted robber! when he has alread! com*leted all acts *erormed b! him directl! leading to robber!. "he act o entering alone is not !et indicative o robber! although that ma! be what he ma! have *lanned to commit. ,n law% the attem*ted stage is onl! that overt act which is directl! lin=ed to the elon! intended to be committed.
Pa"e 27 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) ,n $ v. Nama;a@ the accused was arrested while he was detaching some o the wood *anels o a store.
*estion F Answer 4 awa=ened one morning with a man slee*ing in his soa. Eeside the man was a bag containing *ic=loc=s and similar tools.
Vena V. Verga
elon! brought about his act. 5hat is negated is onl! the attem*ted stage% but there ma! be other elon! constituting his act.
,llustrations6 4 ired at E and E was hit on the shoulder. Eut Es wound was not mortal. 5hat 4 then did was to a**roach E% and told E% :Now !ou are dead% , will =ill !ou.; Eut 4 too= *it! and =e*t the revolver and let. "he crime committed is attem*ted homicide and not *h!sical inuries% because there was an intention to =ill. "he desistance was with the second shot and would not aect the irst shot because the irst shot had alread! hit E. "he second attem*t has nothing to do with the irst. ,n another instance% 4 has a ver! seductive neighbor in the *erson o E. 4 had alwa!s been loo=ing at E and had wanted to *ossess her but their status were not the same. One evening% ater 4 saw E at her house and thought that E was alread! aslee*% he entered the house o E through the window to abuse her.
'esistance
(1)
#esistance on the *art o the oender negates criminal liabilit! in the attem*ted stage. #esistance is true onl! in the attem*ted stage o the elon!. , under the deinition o the elon!% the act done is alread! in the rustrated stage% no amount o desistance will negate criminal liabilit!.
( 9)
" he el eme nt s o the cr ime K a nd
( 0)
" he nat ure o th e c ri me it se l.
"he s*ontaneous desistance o the oender negates onl! the attem*ted stage but not necessaril! all criminal liabilit!. @ven though there was desistance on the *art o the oender% i the desistance was made when acts done b! him alread! resulted to a elon!% that oender will still be criminall! liable or the
Manner of committin" a crime
+vvver"a
"he manner o committing the crimeK
3or eam*le% let us ta=e the crime o briber!. Can the crime o rustrated briber! be committedJ No. (,ncidentall!% the common conce*t o briber! is that
Pa"e 2: of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) it is the act o one who corru*ts a *ublic oicer. 4ctuall!% briber! is the crime o the receiver not the giver. "he crime o the giver is corru*tion o *ublic oicial. Eriber! is the crime o the *ublic oicer who in consideration o an act having to do with his oicial duties would receive something% or acce*t an! *romise or *resent in consideration thereo.) "he conusion arises rom the act that this crime reDuires two to commit -- the giver and the receiver. "he law called the crime o the giver as corru*tion o *ublic oicial and the receiver as briber!. iving the idea that these are inde*endent crimes% but actuall!% the! cannot arise without the other.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
is consummatedK i such lin= is absent% there is onl! an attem*ted adulter!. "here is no middle ground when the lin= is there and when the lin= is absent. "here are instances where an intended elon! could alread! result rom the acts o eecution alread! done. Eecause o this% there are elonies where the oender can onl! be determined to have *erormed all the acts o eecution when the resulting elon! is alread! accom*lished. 5ithout the resulting elon!% there is no wa! o determining whether the oender has alread! *erormed all the acts or not. ,t is in such elonies that the rustrated stage does not eist because without the elon! being accom*lished% there is no wa! o stating that the oender has alread! *erormed all the acts o eecution. 4n eam*le o this is the crime o ra*e. "he essence o the crime is carnal =nowledge. No matter what the oender ma! do to accom*lish a *enetration% i there was no *enetration !et% it cannot be said that the oender has *erormed all the acts o eecution. 5e can onl! sa! that the oender in ra*e has *erormed all the acts o eecution when he has eected a *enetration. Once there is *enetration alread!% no matter how slight% the oense is consummated. 3or this reason% ra*e admits onl! o the attem*ted and consummated stages% no rustrated stage. "his was the ruling in the case o Peo!le v. 8rita. ,n ra*e% it reDuires the connection o the oender and the oended *art!. No *enetration at all% there is onl! an attem*ted stage. lightest *enetration or slightest connection% consummated. ?ou will notice this rom the nature o the crime reDuiring two *artici*ants. "his is also true in the crime o arson. ,t does not admit o the rustrated stage. ,n arson% the moment an! *article o the *remises intended to be burned is blac=ened% that is alread! an indication that the *remises have begun to burn. ,t does not reDuire that the entire *remises be burned to consummate arson. Eecause o that% the rustrated stage o arson has been eased out. "he reasoning is that one cannot sa! that the oender% in the crime o arson% has alread! *erormed all the acts o eecution which could *roduce the destruction o the *remises through the use o ire% unless a *art o the *remises has begun to burn. , it has not begun to burn% that means that the oender has not !et *erormed all the acts o eecution. On the other hand% the moment it begins to burn% the crime is consummated. 4ctuall!% the rustrated stage is alread! standing on the consummated stage ece*t that the outcome did not result. 4s ar as the stage is concerned% the rustrated stage overla*s the consummated stage. Eecause o this reasoning b! the Court o 4**eals in Peo!le v. /arcia@ the u*reme Court ollowed the anal!sis that one cannot sa! that the oender in the crime o arson has alread! *erormed all the acts o eecution which would *roduce the arson as a conseDuence% unless and until a *art o the *remises had begun to burn. ,n $ v. Valde(@ the oender had tried to burn the *remises b! gathering ute sac=s la!ing these inside the room.
Pa"e 2= of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) sac=s began to burn% he ran awa!. "he occu*ants o the room *ut out the ire. "he court held that what was committed was rustrated arson. "his case was much the wa! beore the decision in the case o Peo!le v. /arcia was handed down and the Court o 4**eals ruled that there is no rustrated arson. Eut even then% the anal!sis in the case o $ v. Valde( is correct. "his is because% in determining whether the elon! is attem*ted% rustrated or consummated% the court does not onl! consider the deinition under 4rticle ' o the Revised Penal Code% or the stages o eecution o the elon!. 5hen the oender has alread! *assed the subective stage o the elon!% it is be!ond the attem*ted stage. ,t is alread! on the consummated or rustrated stage de*ending on whether a elon! resulted. , the elon! did not result% rustrated. "he attem*ted stage is said to be within the subective *hase o eecution o a elon!. On the subective *hase% it is that *oint in time when the oender begins the commission o an overt act until that *oint where he loses control o the commission o the crime alread!. , he has reached that *oint where he can no longer control the ensuing conseDuence% the crime has alread! *assed the subective *hase and% thereore% it is no longer attem*ted. "he moment the eecution o the crime has alread! gone to that *oint where the elon! should ollow as a conseDuence% it is either alread! rustrated or consummated. , the elon! does not ollow as a conseDuence% it is alread! rustrated. , the elon! ollows as a conseDuence% it is consummated. %he tro*1le is that@ in the ;*ris!r*dence reco"ni(in" the o1;ective !hase and the s*1;ective !hase@ the *!reme Co*rt considered not only the acts of the offender@ 1*t also his 1elief. %hat altho*"h the offender may not have done the act to 1rin" a1o*t the felony as a conse)*ence@ if he co*ld have contin*ed committin" those acts 1*t he himself did not !roceed 1eca*se he 1elieved that he had done eno*"h to cons*mmate the crime@ *!reme Co*rt said the s*1;ective !hase has !assed. %his was a!!lied in the case of G v. Valde% where the offender@ havin" already !*t 6erosene on the ;*te sac6s@ li"hted the same@ he had no reason not to 1elieve that the fire wo*ld s!read@ so he ran away. %hat act demonstrated that in his mind@ he 1elieved that he has !erformed all the acts of e4ec*tion and that it is only a matter of time that the !remises will 1*rn. %he fact that the occ*!ant of the other room came o*t and !*t o*t the fire is a ca*se inde!endent of the will of the !er!etrator. "he ruling in the case o $ v. Valde( is still correct. Eut in the case o Peo!le v. /arcia@ the situation is dierent.
Vena V. Verga
,n that case% !ou cannot sa! that the oender believed that he had *erormed all the acts o eecution. "here was not even a single burn o an! instrument or agenc! o the crime. "he anal!sis made b! the Court o 4**eals is still correct6 that the! could not demonstrate a situation where the oender has *erormed all the acts o eecution to bring about the crime o arson and the situation where he has not !et *erormed all the acts o eecution. "he weight o the authorit! is that the crime o arson cannot be committed in the rustrated stage. "he reason is because we can hardl! determine whether the oender has *erormed all the acts o eecution that would result in arson% as a conseDuence% unless a *art o the *remises has started to burn. On the other hand% the moment a *article or a molecule o the *remises has blac=ened% in law% arson is consummated. "his is because consummated arson does not reDuire that the whole o the *remises be burned. ,t is enough that an! *art o the *remises% no matter how small% has begun to burn. "here are also certain crimes that do not admit o the attem*ted or rustrated stage% li=e *h!sical inuries. One o the =nown commentators in criminal law has advanced the view that the crime o *h!sical inuries can be committed in the attem*ted as well as the rustrated stage.
*estions F Answers 1.
+vvver"a
,s there an attem*ted slight *h!sical inuriesJ
Pa"e 2 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) , there is no result% !ou do not =now. Criminal law cannot stand on an! s*eculation or ambiguit!K otherwise% the *resum*tion o innocence would be sacriiced. "hereore% the commentatorIs o*inion cannot stand because !ou cannot tell what *articular *h!sical inuries was attem*ted or rustrated unless the conseDuence is there. ?ou cannot classi! the *h!sical inuries. 9. 4 threw muriatic acid on the ace o E. "he inuries would have resulted in deormit! were it not or timel! *lastic surger!. 4ter the surger!% E became more handsome. 5hat crime is committedJ ,s it attem*ted% rustrated or consummatedJ "he crime committed here is serious *h!sical inuries because o the deormit!. 5hen there is deormit!% !ou disregard the healing duration o the wound or the medical treatment reDuired b! the wound. ,n order that in law% a deormit! can be said to eist% three actors must concur6 (1)
"he inur! should bring about the uglinessK
(9)
"he ugliness must be visibleK
(0)
"he ugliness would not disa**ear through natural healing *rocess.
4long this conce*t o deormit! in law% the *lastic surger! a**lied to E is beside the *oint. ,n law% what is considered is not the artiicial or the scientiic treatment but the natural healing o the inur!. o the act that there was *lastic surger! a**lied to E does not relieve the oender rom the liabilit! or the *h!sical inuries inlicted. "he crime committed is serious *h!sical inuries. ,t is consummated. ,n determining whether a elon! is attem*ted% rustrated or consummated% !ou have to consider the manner o committing the elon!% the element o the elon! and the nature o the elon! itsel. "here is no real hard and ast rule.
Elements of the crime ,n the crime o estaa% the element o damage is essential beore the crime could be consummated. , there is no damage% even i the oender succeeded in carting awa! the *ersonal *ro*ert! involved% estaa cannot be considered as consummated. 3or the crime o estaa to be consummated% there must be misa**ro*riation alread! done% so that there is damage alread! suered b! the oended *art!. , there is no damage !et% the estaa can onl! be rustrated or attem*ted. On the other hand% i it were a crime o thet% damage or intent to cause damage is not an element o thet. 5hat is necessar! onl! is intent to gain% not even gain is im*ortant. "he mere intent to derive some *roit is enough but the thin=ing must be com*lete beore a crime o thet shall be consummated. "hat is wh! we made that distinction between thet and estaa.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
, the *ersonal *ro*ert! was received b! the oender% this is where !ou have to decide whether what was transerred to the oender is uridical *ossession or *h!sical *ossession onl!. , the oender did not receive the *ersonal *ro*ert!% but too= the same rom the *ossession o the owner without the latterIs consent% then there is no *roblem. "hat cannot be estaaK this is onl! thet or none at all. ,n estaa% the oender receives the *ro*ert!K he does not ta=e it. Eut in receiving the *ro*ert!% the reci*ient ma! be committing thet% not estaa% i what was transerred to him was onl! the *h!sical or material *ossession o the obect. ,t can onl! be estaa i what was transerred to him is not onl! material or *h!sical *ossession but uridical *ossession as we ll. 5hen !ou are discussing estaa% do not tal= about intent to gain. ,n the same manner that when !ou are discussing the crime o thet% do not tal= o damage. "he crime o thet is the one commonl! given under 4rticle '. "his is so because the conce*t o thet under the Revised Penal Code diers rom the conce*t o larcen! under 4merican common law. Gnder 4merican common law% the crime o larcen! which is eDuivalent to our crime o thet here reDuires that the oender must be able to carr! awa! or trans*ort the thing being stolen. 5ithout that carr!ing awa!% the larcen! cannot be consummated. ,n our conce*t o thet% the oender need not move an inch rom where he was. ,t is not a matter o carr!ing awa!. ,t is a matter o whether he has alread! acDuired com*lete control o the *ersonal *ro*ert! involved. "hat com*lete control sim*l! means that the oender has alread! su**lanted his will rom the will o the *ossessor or owner o the *ersonal *ro*ert! involved% such that he could eercise his own control on the thing. ,llustration6 , *laced a wallet on a table inside a room. 4 stranger comes inside the room% gets the wallet and *uts it in his *oc=et. , suddenl! started searching him and , ound the wallet inside his *oc=et. "he crime o thet is alread! consummated because he alread! acDuired com*lete control o m! wallet. "his is so true when he removed the wallet rom the conines o the table.
Pa"e 2 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) ,t is onl! rustrated because as ar as the table is concern% it is the conines o this room that is the container. 4s long as he has not ta=en this table out o the our walls o this room% the ta=ing is not com*lete. 4 man entered a room and ound a chest on the table.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
no longer aect his criminal liabilit!. ,t will onl! aect the civil liabilit! o the crime because he will no longer be reDuired to *a! the obect. 4s ar as the crime committed is concerned% the oender is criminall! liable and the crime is consummated thet. ,llustration6 4 and E are neighbors. One evening% 4 entered the !ard o E and o*ened the chic=en coo* where E =ee*s his ighting coc=s.
Nat*re of the crime itself ,n crimes involving the ta=ing o human lie 2 *arricide% homicide% and murder 2 in the deinition o the rustrated stage% it is indis*ensable that the victim be mortall! wounded. Gnder the deinition o the rustrated stage% to consider the oender as having *erormed all the acts o eecution% the acts alread! done b! him must *roduce or be ca*able o *roducing a elon! as a conseDuence. "he general rule is that there must be a atal inur! inlicted% because it is onl! then that death will ollow. , the wound is not mortal% the crime is onl! attem*ted. "he reason is that the wound inlicted is not ca*able o bringing about the desired elon! o *arricide% murder or homicide as a conseDuenceK it cannot be said that the oender has *erormed all the acts o eecution which would *roduce *arricide% homicide or murder as a result. 4n ece*tion to the general rule is the so-called subective *hase. "he u*reme Court has decided cases which a**lied the subective standard that when the oender himsel believed that he had *erormed all the acts o eecution% even though no mortal wound was inlicted% the act is alread! in the rustrated stage.
C8NPIRAC AN' PR8P8AL %8 C8MMI%E A 9EL8N
Pa"e 3- of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
"wo wa!s or cons*irac! to eist6 (1)
"here is an agreement.
(9)
"he *artici*ants acted in concert or simultaneousl! which is indicative o a meeting o the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal obective. 5hen several oenders act in a s!nchronied% coordinated manner% the act that their acts com*limented each other is indicative o the meeting o the minds. "here is an im*lied agreement.
"wo =inds o cons*irac!6 (1) (9)
Cons*irac! as a crimeK and Cons*irac! as a manner o incurring criminal liabilit!
5hen cons*irac! itsel is a crime% no overt act is necessar! to bring about the criminal liabilit!. "he mere cons*irac! is the crime itsel. "his is onl! true when the law e*ressl! *unishes the mere cons*irac!K otherwise% the cons*irac! does not bring about the commission o the crime because cons*irac! is not an overt act but a mere *re*arator! act. "reason% rebellion% sedition% and cou* dIetat are the onl! crimes where the cons*irac! and *ro*osal to commit to them are *unishable. A.
1.
eneral Rule6 cons*iracies and *ro*osals to commit a elon! are not *unishable N ot in di ct abl e in the Ph ili* *i ne s
G vs. L,/ EG4NCO 3acts6 #eendants are being accused o estaa or derauding @l Eanco @s*anol3ili*ino. Lim Euanco had an account with the said ban= and drew large sums o mone! thererom b! means o chec=s that were signed b! him and endorsed b! Re!es.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
*rovides that a cons*irac! to commit a crime is *unishable onl! in the cases in which the law s*eciicall! ma=es them so. "he inormation in this case charges the deendants with the crime o estaa% and does not attem*t to charge them with the crime o cons*irac! (a)
Eut o *ivotal im*ortance *er*etuators o crime
in
determining
liabilit!
o
P@OPL@ vs. P@R4L"4 3acts6 "he accused were OTO members and were charged or multi*le murder or =illing three members7s!m*athiers o the igue-igue gang during a *rison riot. "he *rison riot was an oshoot o the long standing clashes between the warring grou*s. igue-sigueIs members are *redominantl! "agalogs while OTOIs members came rom Visa!as and / indanao6 ,ssue6 57N there is cons*irac! in this case #ecision6 4 cons*irac! eists when two or more *ersons come to an agreement concerning the commission o a elon! and decide to commit it. enerall!% cons*irac! is not a crime ece*t when the law s*eciicall! *rovides or a *enalt! thereore as in treason% rebellion and sedition. "he crime o cons*irac! =nown to the common law is not an indictable oense in the Phili**ines. 4n agreement to commit a crime is a re*rehensible act rom the view*oint o moralit!% but as long as the cons*irators do not *erorm overt acts in urtherance o their malevolent design% the sovereignt! o the tate is not outraged and the tranDuilit! o the *ublic remains undisturbed.
@ce*tion6 4s *rovided b! Law 9. cons*iracies *unished b! RPC ( a) c on s*i rac ! t o c om mi t t re as on (4 rt 11 A) (b) cons*irac! to commit rebellion (4rt 10') ( c) c on s*i rac ! t o c om mi t s ed it io n (4 rt 1+ 1) 0. Pro*osals *unished in the code ( a) *r o* os al to comm it tr eas on (4 rt 11 A) ( b) P ro *os al to comm it re be lli on (4 rt 10 ') +. cons*iracies *unished b! s*ecial laws (a) commonw ealth act no '1' sec. A (b) R4 1$88 ,,. A. B. C.
/@R@ CONP,R4C? 4 CON","G",N CO//,,ON O3 CR,/@ Combinations in restrain o "rade (4rt 1&') Erigandage (4rt 08') Certain violations o the dangerous drugs act
Pa"e 3, of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
,,,.
/@R@ PROPO4L 4 OV@R" 4C" PGN,<@# E? L456 ER,ER NO" 4CC@P"@# (4rt. 919% RPC)
G vs. LOR,4 3acts6 loria was an unsuccessul candidate or election as *resident o his town. G*on iling a *rotest% he a**roached the treasurer o said treasurer o said *rovince% a member o said board% and oered and *romised to give him the sum o 988 *esos i he would Mlend his aid and su**ort to the said *rotest. #eendant was charged with :attem*tM to commit the crime o briber!; ,ssue6 57N the act is *unishable b! the RPC.
an agreement concerning the commission o a elon! and decide to commit it. "he obective then on the *art o the cons*irators is to *erorm an act or omission *unishable b! law. 5hat is reDuired is assent to the *er*etration o such a misdeed. "hat must be their intent. "here is need in the language o ustice /a*a in the earl! leading case o Gnited tates v. /agcomot% a 1>8> decision% or concurrence o wills or unit! o action and *ur*ose. "he usual *hraseolog! em*lo!ed in man! o the later cases is common and oint *ur*ose and design.I "hus a cons*irac! need not be *roved be direct evidenceK it ma! be deduced rom the mode and manner in which the oense was *er*etrated. "he conditions attending its commission and the acts eecuted ma! be indicative o a common design to accom*lish a criminal *ur*ose and obective. , such be the case then% the act o one is the act o all the others involved and each is to be held to the same degree o liabilit! as the others. A. B.
#ecision6 ,t is urged that the said oer was a mere *ro*osal to commit a crime% and that under the *rovisions o article + such *ro*osals can onl! be *unished in cases where s*eciic authorit! thereor is to be ound in the Penal Code% and that there is nothing in said code which *enalies a *ro*osal to commit the crime o briber!. ,n the case in Duestion the *ro*osal was in act an Mattem*tM as deined in article 0 o said code% wherein it is said that Mthere is an attem*t when the guilt! *erson ma=es a beginning in the commission o a crime b! direct% overt acts and does not *erorm all o the acts o eecution which constitute the crime% b! reason o some cause or action other than his own voluntar! desistanceKM the accused% having made an oer o mone! or the *ur*ose o briber!% can not be said to have made a mere *ro*osition% as the oer o mone! is an overt act in a crime o this nature% and its reusal on the *art o the oicial whom it was *ro*osed to bribe alone *revented the consummation o the crime. , V.
@L @/ @N " O3 C ON P, R4 C?
P@OPL@ vs. O4P4? 3acts6 "he deendants was said to have cons*ired to =ill Oga*a!% the godson o one o the deendants. 4 conlict arose between the victim and one o the deendants when the ormer accused the latter o land-grabbing lands owned b! the ormerIs grandather. /oreover% the victim did not su**ort the deendant during the elections. "hus the deendant% with several others had the victim =illed. ,ssue6 57N there is cons*irac! in the case at bar. #ecision6 "here is no cons*irac! in this case. 4ccording to Peo*le v. /alila! and Peo*le v. Pud*ud 6 M4 cons*irac! eists when two or more *ersons come to
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
C.
V. A. B.
V ,.
"wo or more *ersons come to an agreement (G vs. Vi llarino) 4greement concerns commission o elon! (G vs. 3igueras) "he! decide to commit it. @L@/@N" O3 PROPO4L 4 *erson has decided to commit a crime
3 RO /
Note6 5hen cons*irac! relates to crime actuall! committed% not a elon! but onl! a means o incurring criminal liabilit!. V,,. A. B.
L,4E,L,"? O3 CONP,R4"OR determination to commit elon! ta=ing *art in ever! detail is not essential
P@OPL@ vs. C4E,L,N 3acts6 "he victim was a driver o a truc= that was to deliver a truc=load o rice to /anila. "heir truc= bro=e down while in the highwa! causing them to sto*. uddenl!% three men% who *reviousl! had a conrontation with one the truc= *assengers% came and attac=ed the *ersons inside the truc= =illing the victim. uido died rom traumatic inuries in the head. Cabiling contends that he could not have =illed uido since he was not the one with the lead *i*e. ,ssue6 57N Cabiling is as guilt! as his other com*anions or the murder o uido. #ecision6 ?es. ,t is not essential that each cons*irator shall ta=e *art in ever! act% or that one should =now the eact *art to be *erormed b! the other cons*irator in the eecution o the cons*irac!. Cons*irac! im*lies concert o
Pa"e 30 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
design and not *artici*ation in ever! detail o eecution. , it is *roved that two or more *ersons aimed% b! their acts% at the accom*lishment o some unlawul obect% each doing a *art so that their acts% through a**arentl!% were in act connected and coo*erative% indicating a closeness o *ersonal association and a concurrence o sentiments% cons*irac! ma! be inerred although no actual meeting between them to cons*ire is *roved% or the *rosecution need not establish that all the *arties thereto agreed to ever! detail in the eecution o the crime or that the! were actuall! together at all stages o the cons*irac!. ,t is enough that rom the individual acts o each accused% it ma! be reasonabl! deduced that the! had a common *lan to commit the elon!.
and although he did not directl! *artici*ate in the robber! he gave moral encouragement to them with his *resence and shared in the loot in the amount o Ph* .A8% he should be criminall! res*onsible as an accom*lice or the crime o robber!.
@ver! one o the cons*irators who too= active *art in its eecution is thereore res*onsible or all he acts o the others done in the urtherance o the common design.
P@OPL@ vs. G,N"O
Cons*irators need not all oin in the agreement at the same time Collective criminal res*onsibilit!6 4ct o one% act o all (Peo*le vs. 4lono) olidar! indemnit! or victimIs indemnit!
C. D. E.
B. C.
,T. A.
#@R@@ O3 PROO3 R@G,R@# "O @"4EL,< CONP,R4C? ame #egree o *roo reDuired to establish crime 1. /ere com*anionshi* does not establish cons*irac! 9. /ere *resence at crime scene does not establish cons*irac! Positive and convincing 3ounded on acts and not mere conectures% inerences *resum*tions
or
L,4E,L,"? ,N 4E@NC@ O3 CONP,R4C? ,ndividual liabilit!
P@OPL@ vs. "OL,N 3acts6 "he deendants were all ound guilt! or the crime o Robber! in Eand with
+vvver"a
3acts6 "he deendants were charged o murder or hitting and inlicting u*on the vital *arts o Patrolman EutawaIs bod! mortal gunshot wounds% which caused his untimel! death. ,t was said that uinto and his com*anions% who were at that time alread! drun=% had a heated encounter with the victims in to*side ca.
V,,,. A.
4n accom*lice is one who coo*erates in the eecution o the crime b! *revious or simultaneous acts% *rovided that he has not ta=en direct *art in the eecution o the crime or orced or induced others to eecute it% or coo*erated in its *er*etuation b! an indis*ensable act.
#ecision6 ,t is signiicant that in the instant case% there is no evidence tending to show cons*irac!. ,n the absence o cons*irac!% it is necessar! to *rove who shot and =illed the victim% as mere Presence o the accused at the scene o the crime% in the com*an! o others% among whom could have been the cul*rits% does not establish criminal liabilit!. ,t is settled that where cons*irac! is absent% each o the accused is res*onsible onl! or the conseDuences o his own act. ,n the instant case% the nature and etent o a**ellants *artici*ation% i an!% in the acts leading to the commission o the elon! has not been established b! the evidence or the *rosecution. uintoIs guilt was not *roved be!ond reasonable doubt thus he was acDuitted.
*estion F Answer Gnion 4 *ro*osed acts o sedition to Gnion E. ,s there a crime committedJ 4ssuming Gnion E acce*ts the *ro*osal% will !our answer be dierentJ "here is no crime committed. Pro*osal to commit sedition is not a crime. Eut i Gnion E acce*ts the *ro*osal% there will be cons*irac! to commit sedition which is a crime under the Revised Penal Code. 5hen the cons*irac! is onl! a basis o incurring criminal liabilit!% there must be an overt act done beore the co-cons*irators become criminall! liable.
Pa"e 32 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 5hen the cons*irac! itsel is a crime% this cannot be inerred or deduced because there is no overt act. 4ll that there is the agreement. On the other hand% i the co-cons*irator or an! o them would eecute an overt act% the crime would no longer be the cons*irac! but the overt act itsel. ,llustration6 4% E% C and # came to an agreement to commit rebellion. "heir agreement was to bring about the rebellion on a certain date. @ven i none o them has *erormed the act o rebellion% there is alread! criminal liabilit! arising rom the cons*irac! to commit the rebellion. Eut i an!one o them has committed the overt act o rebellion% the crime o all is no longer cons*irac! to commit rebellion but rebellion itsel. "his subsists even though the other co-cons*irator does not =now that one o them had alread! done the act o rebellion. "his legal conseDuence is not true i the cons*irac! is not a crime. , the cons*irac! is onl! a basis o criminal liabilit!% none o the co-cons*irators would be liable% unless there is an overt act. o% or as long as an!one shall desist beore an overt act in urtherance o the crime was committed% such a desistance would negate criminal liabilit!.
Vena V. Verga
=ind can be inerred or deduced even though the! have not met as long as the! acted in concert or simultaneousl!% indicative o a meeting o the minds toward a common goal or obective. Cons*irac! is a matter o substance which must be alleged in the inormation% otherwise% the court will not consider the same. ,n Peo!le v. La*rio@ 0-- CRA 3@ it was held that it must be established b! *ositive and conclusive evidence% not b! conectures or s*eculations. ,n %aer v. CA@ ,: CRA 7-@ it was held that mere =nowledge% acDuiescence to% or a**roval o the act% without coo*eration or at least% agreement to coo*erate% is not enough to constitute a cons*irac!. "here must be an intentional *artici*ation in the crime with a view to urther the common elonious obective. 5hen several *ersons who do not =now each other simultaneousl! attac= the victim% the act o one is the act o all% regardless o the degree o inur! inlicted b! an! one o them. 4ll will be liable or the conseDuences. 4 cons*irac! is *ossible even when *artici*ants are not =nown to each other. #o not thin= that *artici*ants are alwa!s =nown to e ach other.
,llustration6 ,llustrations6 "hree *ersons *lan to rob a ban=. 3or as long as none o the cons*irators has committed an overt act% there is no crime !et. Eut when one o them commits an! overt act% all o them shall be held liable% unless a co-cons*irator was absent rom the scene o the crime or he showed u*% but he tried to *revent the commission o the crime 4s a general rule% i there has been a cons*irac! to commit a crime in a *articular *lace% an!one who did not a**ear shall be *resumed to have desisted. "he ece*tion to this is i such *erson who did not a**ear was the mastermind. 5e have to observe the distinction between the two because cons*irac! as a crime% must have a clear and convincing evidence o its eistence. @ver! crime must be *roved be!ond reasonable doubt. 5hen the cons*irac! is ust a basis o incurring criminal liabilit!% however% the same ma! be deduced or inerred rom the acts o several oenders in carr!ing out the commission o the crime. "he eistence o a cons*irac! ma! be reasonabl! inerred rom the acts o the oenders when such acts disclose or show a common *ursuit o the criminal obective. "his was the ruling in Peo!le v. Pinto@ 0-3 CRA . 4lthough cons*irac! is deined as two or more *erson coming to an agreement regarding the commission o a elon! and deciding to commit it% the word :*erson; here should not be understood to reDuire a meeting o the cocons*irator regarding the commission o the elon!. 4 cons*irac! o the second
+vvver"a
4 thought o having her husband =illed because the latter was maltreating her. he hired some *ersons to =ill him and *ointed at her husband. "he goons got hold o her husband and started mauling him. "he wie too= *it! and shouted or them to sto* but the goons continued. "he wie ran awa!. "he wie was *rosecuted or *arricide. Eut the u*reme Court said that there was desistance so she is not criminall! liable. 4 law student resented the act that his brother was =illed b! 4.
Pa"e 33 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 4s *ointed out earlier% desistance is true onl! in the attem*ted stage. Eeore this stage% there is onl! a *re*arator! stage. Cons*irac! is onl! in the *re*arator! stage. "he u*reme Court has ruled that one who desisted is not criminall! liable. :5hen a *erson has set oot to the *ath o wic=edness and brings bac= his oot to the *ath o righteousness% the law shall reward him or doing so.; 5here there are several *ersons who *artici*ated% li=e in a =illing% and the! attac=ed the victim simultaneousl!% so much so that it cannot be =nown what *artici*ation each one had% all these *artici*ants shall be considered as having acted in cons*irac! and the! will be held collectivel! res*onsible. #o not search or an agreement among the *artici*ants. , the! acted simultaneousl! to bring about their common intention% cons*irac! eists. 4nd when cons*irac! eists% do not consider the degree o *artici*ation o each cons*irator because the act o one is the act o all. 4s a general rule% the! have eDual criminal res*onsibilit!.
Vena V. Verga
the crime could be carried out as well% such co-cons*irator should be *unished as an accom*lice onl!. "he reason given is that *enal laws alwa!s avor a milder orm o res*onsibilit! u*on an oender. o it is no longer accurate to thin= that when there is a cons*irac!% all are *rinci*als. Notwithstanding that there is cons*irac!% a co-cons*irator ma! be held liable onl! as an accom*lice. "hat means the *enalt! which shall be im*osed u*on him is one degree lower. 3or eam*le% there was a *lanned robber!% and the tai driver was *resent during the *lanning. "here% the cons*irators told the tai driver that the! are going to use his taicab in going to the *lace o robber!. "he tai driver agreed but said% :, will bring !ou there% and ater committing the robber! , will return later;. "he tai driver brought the cons*irators where the robber! would be committed. 4ter the robber! was inished% he too= the cons*irators bac= to his tai and brought them awa!. ,t was held that the tai driver was liable onl! as an accom*lice.
*estion F Answer "here are several oenders who acted simultaneousl!. 5hen the! led% a victim was ound dead. 5ho should be liable or the =illing i who actuall! =illed the victim is not =nownJ "here is collective res*onsibilit! here. 5ithout the *rinci*le o cons*irac!% nobod! would be *rosecutedK hence% there is the rule on collective res*onsibilit! since it cannot be ascertained who actuall! =illed the victim. "here is cons*irac! when the oenders acted simultaneousl! *ursuing a common criminal designK thus% acting out a common criminal intent.
4% E% and C% under the inluence o mariuana% bro=e into a house because the! learned that the occu*ants have gone on an ecursion. "he! ransac=ed the house. 4 got a colored "V% E saw a camera and too= that% and C ound a can o salmon and too= that. ,n the crime o robber! with orce u*on things% the *enalt! is based on the totalit! o the value o the *ersonal *ro*ert! ta=en and not on the individual *ro*ert! ta=en b! him. ,n iton v. CA@ it was held that the idea o a cons*irac! is incom*atible with the idea o a ree or all. "here is no deinite o**onent or deinite intent as when a bas=etball crowd beats a reeree t o death.
,llustration6
Com!osite crimes
A@ < and C have 1een co*rtin" the same lady for several years. 8n several occasions@ they even visited the lady on intervenin" ho*rs.
Com*osite crimes are crimes which% in substance% consist o more than one crime but in the e!es o the law% there is onl! one crime. 3or eam*le% the crimes o robber! with homicide% robber! with ra*e% robber! with *h!sical inuries.
"he common notion is that when there is cons*irac! involved% the *artici*ants are *unished as *rinci*als. "his notion is no longer absolute. ,n the case o Peo!le v. Nierra@ the u*reme Court ruled that even though there was cons*irac!% i a co-cons*irator merel! coo*erated in the commission o the crime with insigniicant or minimal acts% such that even without his coo*eration%
,llustrations6
+vvver"a
,n case the crime committed is a com*osite crime% the cons*irator will be liable or all the acts committed during the commission o the crime agreed u*on. "his is because% in the e!es o the law% all those acts done in *ursuance o the crime agreed u*on are acts which constitute a single crime.
4% E% and C decided to commit robber! in the house o #. Pursuant to their agreement% 4 would ransac= the second loor% E was to wait outside% and C would sta! on the irst loor. Gn=nown to E and C% 4 ra*ed the girl u*stairs. 4ll
Pa"e 37 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
o them will be liable or robber! with ra*e. "he crime committed is robber! with ra*e% which is not a com*le crime% but an indivisible elon! under the 4rticle 9>+ o the Revised Penal Code. @ven i E and C did not =now that ra*e was being committed and the! agreed onl! and cons*ired to rob% !et ra*e was *art o robber!. Ra*e can not be se*arated rom robber!.
5hat the eaminer had in mind was 4rticles 0% ' and >. #o not write the classiication o elonies under Eoo= 9 o the Revised Penal Code. "hat was not what the eaminer had in mind because the Duestion does not reDuire the candidate to classi! but also to deine. "hereore% the eaminer was ater the classiications under 4rticles 0% ' and >.
4% E and C agreed to rob the house o #. ,t was agreed that 4 would go the second loor% E would sta! in the irst loor% and C stands guard outside. 4ll went to their designated areas in *ursuit o the *lan. 5hile 4 was ransac=ing the second loor% the owner was awa=ened. 4 =illed him. 4% E and C will be liable or robber! with homicide. "his is because% it is well settled that an! =illing ta=ing *lace while robber! is being committed shall be treated as a single indivisible oense.
3elonies are classiied as ollows6
4s a general rule% when there is cons*irac!% the rule is that the act o one is the act o all. "his *rinci*le a**lies onl! to the crime agreed u*on.
(1)
Gnder 4rticle 0% the! are classiied as% intentional elonies or those committed with deliberate intentK and cul*able elonies or those resulting rom negligence% rec=less im*rudence% lac= o oresight or lac= o s=ill. (9)
"he ece*tion is i an! o the co-cons*irator would commit a crime not agreed u*on. "his ha**ens when the crime agreed u*on and the crime committed b! one o the co-cons*irators are distinct crimes.
,llustration6 4% E and C agreed to =ill #. 5hen the! saw the o**ortunit!% 4% E and C =illed # and ater that% 4 and E ran into dierent directions. C ins*ected the *oc=et o the victim and ound that the victim was wearing a ring 2 a diamond ring 2 and he too= it. "he crimes committed are homicide and thet. 4s ar as the homicide is concerned% 4% E and C are liable because that was agreed u*on and thet was not an integral *art o homicide. "his is a distinct crime so the rule will not a**l! because it was not the crime agreed u*on. ,nsoar as the crime o thet is concerned% C will be the onl! one liable. o C will be liable or homicide and thet.
CLAI9ICA%I8N 89 9EL8NIE "his Duestion was as=ed in the bar eamination6
+vvver"a
4ccording to the stages o their eecution Gnder 4rticle '.% elonies are classiied as attem*ted elon! when the oender commences the commission o a elon! directl! b! overt acts% and does not *erorm all the acts o eecution which should *roduce the elon! b! reason o some cause or accident other than his own s*ontaneous desistanceK rustrated elon! when the oender commences the commission o a elon! as a conseDuence but which would *roduce the elon! as a conseDuence but which nevertheless do not *roduce the elon! b! reason o causes inde*endent o the *er*etratorK and% consummated elon! when all the elements necessar! or its eecution are *resent.
@ce*tion to the ece*tion6 ,n acts constituting a single indivisible oense% even though the co-cons*irator *erormed dierent acts bringing about the com*osite crime% all will be liable or such crime. "he! can onl! evade res*onsibilit! or an! other crime outside o that agreed u*on i it is *roved that the *articular cons*irator had tried to *revent the commission o such other act. "he rule would be dierent i the crime committed was not a com*osite crime.
4ccording to the manner o their commission
( 0)
4 cco rd in g t o t he ir gra vit ! Gnder 4rticle >% elonies are classiied as grave elonies or those to which attaches the ca*ital *unishment or *enalties which in an! o their *eriods are alictiveK less grave elonies or those to which the law *unishes with *enalties which in their maimum *eriod was correccionalK and light elonies or those inractions o law or the commission o which the *enalt! is arresto menor.
5h! is it necessar! to determine whether the crime is grave% less grave or lightJ "o determine whether these elonies can be com*leed or not% and to determine the *rescri*tion o the crime and the *rescri*tion o the *enalt!. ,n other words% these are elonies classiied according to their gravit!% stages and the *enalt! attached to them. "a=e note that when the Revised Penal Code s*ea=s o grave and less grave elonies% the deinition ma=es a reerence s*eciicall! to 4rticle 9A o the Revised Penal Code. #o not omit the *hrase :,n accordance with 4rticle 9A; because there is also a classiication o *enalties under 4rticle 9' that was not a**lied.
Pa"e 3: of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) , the *enalt! is ine and eactl! P988.88% it is onl! considered a light elon! under 4rticle >. , the ine is im*osed as an alternative *enalt! or as a single *enalt!% the ine o P988.88 is considered a correctional *enalt! under 4rticle 9'. , the *enalt! is eactl! P988.88% a**l! 4rticle 9'. ,t is considered as correctional *enalt! and it *rescribes in 18 !ears. , the oender is a**rehended at an! time within ten !ears% he can be made to suer the ine. "his classiication o elon! according to gravit! is im*ortant with res*ect to the Duestion o *rescri*tion o crimes. ,n the case o light elonies% crimes *rescribe in two months. 4ter two months% the state loses the right to *rosecute unless the running *eriod is sus*ended. , the oender esca*es while in detention ater he has been loose% i there was alread! udgment that was *assed% it can be *romulgated even i absent under the New Rules on Criminal Procedure. , the crime is correctional% it *rescribes in ten !ears% ece*t arresto ma!or% which *rescribes in ive !ears.
$PPLE%8R APPLICA%I8N 89 %HE REVIE' PENAL C8'E 4rticle 18 is the conseDuence o the legal reDuirement that !ou have to distinguish those *unished under s*ecial laws and those under the Revised Penal Code. 5ith regard to 4rticle 18% observe the distinction.
Vena V. Verga
Revised Penal Code% because violations o the Revised Penal Code are more serious than a violation o a s*ecial law. Eut a crime in the Revised Penal Code can absorb a crime *unishable b! a s*ecial law i it is a necessar! ingredient o the crime in the Revised Penal Code. ,n the crime o sedition% the use o irearms is not an ingredient o the crime. $9) b! Re*ublic 4ct No. $'A>% which ado*ted the scale o *enalties in the Revised Penal Code% means that mitigating and aggravating circumstances can now be considered in im*osing *enalties. Presidential #ecree No. '+9A does not e*ressl! *rohibit the su**letor! a**lication o the Revised Penal Code. "he stages o the commission o elonies will also a**l! since su**letor! a**lication is now allowed.
Circ*mstances affectin" criminal lia1ility ,n 4rticle 18% there is a reservation :*rovision o the Revised Penal Code ma! be a**lied su**letoril! to s*ecial laws;. ?ou will onl! a**l! the *rovisions o the Revised Penal Code as a su**lement to the s*ecial law% or sim*l! correlate the violated s*ecial law% i needed to avoid an inustice. , no ustice would result% do not give su**letoril! a**lication o the Revised Penal Code to that o s*ecial law. 3or eam*le% a s*ecial law *unishes a certain act as a crime. "he s*ecial law is silent as to the civil liabilit! o one who violates the same.
+vvver"a
"here are ive circumstances aecting criminal liabilit!6 ( 1)
ust i !i ng ci rc ums tan ce sK
( 9)
@ e m*t in g c ir cu ms tan ce sK
( 0)
/ it igat in g c ir cu ms tan ce sK
(+)
4ggravating circumstancesK and
( A)
4 lt ern at ive c irc ums tan ce s.
"here are two others which are ound elsewhere in the *rovisions o the Revised Penal Code6 (1)
4bsolutor! causeK and
( 9)
@ t enu at in g cir cu ms tan ce s.
,n usti!ing and eem*ting circumstances% there is no criminal liabilit!. 5hen an accused invo=es them% he in eect admits the commission o a crime but
Pa"e 3= of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
tries to avoid the liabilit! thereo. "he burden is u*on him to establish be!ond reasonable doubt the reDuired conditions to usti! or eem*t his acts rom criminal liabilit!. 5hat is shited is onl! the burden o evidence% not the burden o *roo.
*art! are related as s*ouse% ascendant% descendant% brother and sister-in-law living together or where in case the widowed s*ouse and the *ro*ert! involved is that o the deceased s*ouse% beore such *ro*ert! had *assed on to the *ossession o third *arties.
usti!ing circumstances contem*late intentional acts and% hence% are incom*atible with dolo. @em*ting circumstances ma! be invo=ed in cul*able elonies.
Gnder 4rticle 0++% in cases o seduction% abduction% acts o lasciviousness% and ra*e% the marriage o the oended *art! shall etinguish the criminal action.
A1sol*tory ca*se %he effect of this is to a1solve the offender from criminal lia1ility@ altho*"h not from civil lia1ility. It has the same effect as an e4em!tin" circ*mstance@ 1*t yo* do not call it as s*ch in order not to conf*se it with the circ*mstances *nder Article ,0. 4rticle 98 *rovides that the *enalties *rescribed or accessories shall not be im*osed u*on those who are such with res*ect to their s*ouses% ascendants% descendants% legitimate% natural and ado*ted brothers and sisters% or relatives b! ainit! within the same degrees with the ece*tion o accessories who *roited themselves or assisting the oender to *roit b! the eects o the crime. "hen% 4rticle &> *rovides how criminal liabilit! is etinguished6 #eath o the convict as to the *ersonal *enalties% and as to *ecuniar! *enalties% liabilit! thereor is etinguished i death occurs beore inal udgmentK ervice o the sentenceK 4mnest!K
4bsolutor! cause has the eect o an eem*ting circumstance and the! are *redicated on lac= o voluntariness li=e instigation. ,nstigation is associated with criminal intent. #o not consider cul*a in connection with instigation. , the crime is cul*able% do not tal= o instigation. ,n instigation% the crime is committed with dolo. ,t is conused with entra*ment. @ntra*ment is not an absolutor! cause. @ntra*ment does not eem*t the oender or mitigate his criminal liabilit!. Eut instigation absolves the oender rom criminal liabilit! because in instigation% the oender sim*l! acts as a tool o the law enorcers and% thereore% he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation% he would not have done the criminal act which he did u*on instigation o the law enorcers. 'ifference 1etween insti"ation and entra!ment ,n instigation% the criminal *lan or design eists in the mind o the law enorcer with whom the *erson instigated coo*erated so it is said that the *erson instigated is acting onl! as a mere instrument or tool o the law enorcer in the *erormance o his duties. On the other hand% in entra*ment% a criminal design is alread! in the mind o the *erson entra**ed. ,t did not emanate rom the mind o the law enorcer entra**ing him. @ntra*ment involves onl! wa!s and means which are laid down or resorted to acilitate the a**rehension o the cul*rit.
4bsolute *ardonK ,llustrations6 Prescri*tion o the crimeK Prescri*tion o the *enalt!K and /arriage o the oended woman as *rovided in 4rticle 0++. Gnder 4rticle 9+$% a legall! married *erson who =ills or inlicts *h!sical inuries u*on his or her s*ouse whom he sur*rised having seual intercourse with his or her *aramour or mistress in not criminall! liable. Gnder 4rticle 91>% discovering secrets through seiure o corres*ondence o the ward b! their guardian is not *enalied. Gnder 4rticle 009% in the case o thet% swindling and malicious mischie% there is no criminal liabilit! but onl! civil liabilit!% when the oender and the oended
+vvver"a
4n agent o the narcotics command had been ti**ed o that a certain house is being used as an o*ium den b! *rominent members o the societ!. "he law enorcers cannot themselves *enetrate the house because the! do not belong to that circle so what the! did was to convince a *rominent member o societ! to visit such house to ind out what is reall! ha**ening inside and that so man! cars were congregating there. "he law enorcers told the undercover man that i he is oered a cigarette% then he should tr! it to ind out whether it is loaded with dangerous drugs or not. "his ellow went to the *lace and mingled there. "he time came when he was oered a stic= o cigarette and he tried it to see i the cigarette would aect him. Gnortunatel!% the raid was conducted and he was among those *rosecuted or violation o the #angerous #rugs 4ct. ,s he criminall! liableJ No.
Pa"e 3 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
, the law enorcer were able to enter the house and mingle there% nobod! would oer him a cigarette because he is un=nown. 5hen he saw somebod!% he *leaded to s*are him a smo=e so this ellow handed to him the cigarette he was smo=ing and ound out that it was loaded with a dangerous drug.
Vena V. Verga
a citien who onl! coo*erated with the law enorcer. "he *rivate citien believes that he is a law enorcer and that is wh! when the law enorcer tells him% he believes that it is a civil dut! to coo*erate. , the *erson instigated does not =now that the *erson is instigating him is a law enorcer or he =nows him to be not a law enorcer% this is not a case o instigation. "his is a case o inducement% both will be criminall! liable. ,n entra*ment% the *erson entra**ed should not =now that the *erson tr!ing to entra* him was a law enorcer. "he idea is incom*atible with each other because in entra*ment% the *erson entra**ed is actuall! committing a crime. "he oicer who entra**ed him onl! la!s down wa!s and means to have evidence o the commission o the crime% but even without those wa!s and means% the *erson entra**ed is actuall! engaged in a violation o the law. ,nstigation absolves the *erson instigated rom criminal liabilit!. "his is based on the rule that a *erson cannot be a criminal i his mind is not criminal. On the other hand% entra*ment is not an absolutor! cause. ,t is not even mitigating. ,n case o somnambulism or one who acts while slee*ing% the *erson involved is deinitel! acting without reedom and without suicient intelligence% because he is aslee*.
, the instigator is a law enorcer% the *erson instigated cannot be criminall! liable% because it is the law enorcer who *lanted that criminal mind in him to commit the crime% without which he would not have been a criminal. , the instigator is not a law enorcer% both will be criminall! liable% !ou cannot have a case o instigation. ,n instigation% the *rivate citien onl! coo*erates with the law enorcer to a *oint when the *rivate citien u*on instigation o the law enorcer incriminates himsel. ,t would be contrar! to *ublic *olic! to *rosecute
+vvver"a
4n unwed mother =illed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. "he concealment o dishonor is an etenuating circumstance insoar as the unwed mother or the maternal grand*arents is concerned% but not insoar as the ather o the child is concerned. /other =illing her new born child to conceal her dishonor% *enalt! is lowered b! two degrees. ince there is a material
Pa"e 3 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) lowering o the *enalt! or mitigating the *enalt!% this is an etenuating circumstance. "he concealment o honor b! mother in the crime o inanticide is an etenuating circumstance but not in the case o *arricide when the age o the victim is three da!s old and above. ,n the crime o adulter! on the *art o a married woman abandoned b! her husband% at the time she was abandoned b! her husband% is it necessar! or her to see= the com*an! o another man. 4bandonment b! the husband does not usti! the act o the woman. ,t onl! etenuates or reduces criminal liabilit!. 5hen the eect o the circumstance is to lower the *enalt! there is an etenuating circumstance. 4 =le*tomaniac is one who cannot resist the tem*tation o stealing things which a**eal to his desire. "his is not eem*ting. One who is a =le*tomaniac and who would steal obects o his desire is criminall! liable. Eut he would be given the beneit o a mitigating circumstance analogous to *aragra*h > o 4rticle 10% that o suering rom an illness which diminishes the eercise o his will *ower without% however% de*riving him o the consciousness o his act. o this is an etenuating circumstance. "he eect is to mitigate the criminal liabilit!.
(+)
Vena V. Verga
ince there is a crime committed but there is no criminal% there is civil liabilit! or the wrong done. Eut there is no criminal liabilit!.
5hen !ou a**l! or usti!ing or eem*ting circumstances% it is conession and avoidance and burden o *roo shits to the accused and he can no longer rel! on wea=ness o *rosecutionIs evidence
G*stifyin" circ*mstances ince the usti!ing circumstances are in the nature o deensive acts% there must be alwa!s unlawul aggression. "he reasonableness o the means em*lo!ed de*ends on the gravit! o the aggression. , the unlawul aggressor was =illed% this can onl! be ustiied i it was done to save the lie o the *erson deending or the *erson being deended. "he eDuation is :lie was ta=en to save lie.;
elf 'efense 'istinctions 1etween circ*mstances
;*stifyin"
circ*mstances
and
e4em!tin"
,n usti!ing circumstances% the most im*ortant is sel-deense. 5hen this is given in the bar% it is the element o unlawul aggression that is in issue. Never conuse unlawul aggression with *rovocation. /ere *rovocation is not enough.
,n usti!ing circumstances 2 ,llustration6 (1)
"he circumstance aects the act% not the actorK
(9)
"he act com*lained o is considered to have been done within the bounds o lawK hence% it is legitimate and lawul in the e!es o the lawK
(0)
ince the act is considered lawul% there is no crime% and because there is no crime% there is no criminalK
(+)
ince there is no crime or criminal% there is no criminal liabilit! as well as civil liabilit!.
,n eem*ting circumstances 2 (1)
"he circumstances aect the actor% not the actK
(9)
"he act com*lained o is actuall! wrongul% but the actor acted without voluntariness.
(0)
ince the act com*lained o is actuall! wrongul% there is a crime. Eut because the actor acted without voluntariness% there is absence o dolo or cul*a. "here is no criminalK
+vvver"a
4 and E are long standing enemies. Eecause o their continuous Duarrel over the boundaries o their adoining *ro*erties% when 4 saw E one aternoon% he a**roached the latter in a menacing manner with a bolo in his hand. 5hen he was about ive eet awa! rom E% E *ulled out a revolver and shot 4 on the chest% =illing him. ,s E criminall! liableJ 5hat crime was committed% i an!J "he act o 4 is nothing but a *rovocation. ,t cannot be characteried as an unlawul aggression because in criminal law% an unlawul aggression is an attac= or a threatened attac= which *roduces an imminent danger to the lie and limb o the one resorting to sel-deense. ,n the acts o the *roblem given above% what was said was that 4 was holding a bolo. "hat bolo does not *roduce an! real or imminent danger unless a raises his arm with the bolo. 4s long as that arm o 4 was down holding the bolo% there is no imminent danger to the lie or limb o E. "hereore% the act o E in shooting 4 is not ustiied. 'efense of ri"hts is incl*ded in the circ*mstances of defense and so is defense of honor. ,n $ v. Mateo@ while a woman was slee*ing% her sister and brother-in-law went to see a movie and came home late that evening. "he accused was
Pa"e 7- of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) alread! aslee*. "he brother-in-law came u* irst while his wie was still in the staircase.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
ustiied. 4ctuall!% when she =illed the su**osed unlawul aggressor% her lie and limb were no longer in imminent danger. "hat is the ocal *oint. 4t the time the accused =illed the su**osed unlawul aggressor% was her lie in dangerJ , the answer is no% there is no sel-deense. Eut while there ma! be no usti!ing circumstance% do not orget the incom*lete sel-deense. "his is a mitigating circumstance under *aragra*h 1 o 4rticle 10. "his mitigating circumstance is either *rivileged or ordinar!. , ordinar!% it has the eect o reducing the im*osable *enalt! to the minimum *eriod. Eut i it is *rivileged% it has the eect o lowering the *enalt! b! one to two degrees% de*ending on how the court will regard the absence or *resence o conditions to usti! the act.
'efense of !ro!erty ri"hts "his can onl! be invo=ed i the lie and limb o the *erson ma=ing the deense is also the subect o unlawul aggression. Lie cannot be eDual to *ro*ert!. 'efense of stran"er , the *erson being deended is alread! a second cousin% !ou do not invo=e deense o relative an!more. ,t will be deense o stranger. "his is vital because i the *erson ma=ing the deense acted out or revenge% resentment or some evil motive in =illing the aggressor% he cannot invo=e the usti!ing circumstance i the relative deended is alread! a stranger in the e!es o the law. On the other hand% i the relative deended is still within the coverage o deense o relative% even though he acted out o some evil motive% it would still a**l!. ,t is enough that there was unlawul aggression against the relative deended% and that the *erson deending did not contribute to the unlawul aggression.
*estion F Answer "he *erson being deended was a relative 2 a irst cousin. Eut the ellow who =illed the aggressor had some score to settle with the aggressor. ,s he entitled to a usti!ing circumstanceJ ?es. ,n law% the condition that a *erson ma=ing the deense did not act out o revenge% resentment or evil motive is not a reDuirement in deense o relative. "his is onl! reDuired in deense o strangers.
,ncom*lete sel-deense or incom*lete usti!ing circumstance or incom*lete eem*ting circumstances 5hen !ou sa! incom*lete usti!ing circumstance% it means that not all the reDuisites to usti! the act are *resent or not the reDuisites to eem*t rom criminal liabilit! are *resent.
Pa"e 7, of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
tate of necessity "he state o necessit! must not have been created b! the one invo=ing the usti!ing circumstances. 3or eam*le% 4 drove his car be!ond the s*eed limit so much so that when he reached the curve% his vehicle s=idded towards a ravine.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
Civil liabilit! reerred to in a state o necessit! is based not on the act committed but on the beneit derived rom the state o necessit!. o the accused will not be civill! liable i he did not receive an! beneit out o the state o necessit!. On the other hand% *ersons who did not *artici*ate in the damage or inur! would be *ro tanto civill! liable i the! derived beneit out o the state o necessit!. Civil liabilit! is based on the beneit derived and not on the act% damage or inur! caused. ,t is wrong to treat this as an ece*tion to the rule that in usti!ing circumstances% there is no criminal nor civil liabilit!% on the *rinci*le that :no one should enrich himsel at the e*ense o another;. ,llustration6 4 and E are owners o adoining lands. 4 owns the land or *lanting certain cro*s. E owns the land or raising certain goats. C used another land or a vegetable garden. "here was heav! rain and loods. #am was o*ened. C drove all the goats o E to the land o 4. "he goats rushed to the land o 4 to be saved% but the land o 4 was destro!ed. "he author o the act is C% but C is not civill! liable because he did not receive beneits. ,t was E who was beneited% although he was not the actor.
"he elon! was committed while the oender was in the ulillment o a dut! or in the lawul eercise o a right or oiceK and
(9)
"he resulting elon! is the unavoidable conseDuence o the due ulillment o the dut! or the lawul eercise o the right or oice.
,nvariabl!% when !ou are given a *roblem on this *remise% and the irst condition is *resent% but the second is not because the oender acted with cul*a% the oender will be entitled to a *rivelege mitigating circumstance. "his is what !ou call incom*lete ustiication o ulillment o dut! or incom*lete ustiication o eercise o a right. ,n that case% the *enalt! would be reduced b! one or two degrees. ,n Peo!le v. 8anis and Callanta@ the accused Chie o Police and the constabular! soldier were sent out to arrest a certain Ealagtas% su**osedl! a notorious bandit. "here was an order to =ill Ealagtas i he would resist. "he accused arrived at the house o a dancer who was su**osedl! the girlriend o Ealagtas. 5hen the! were there% the! saw a certain *erson who resembled Ealagtas in all his bodil! a**earance slee*ing on a bamboo bed but acing the
Pa"e 70 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) other direction. "he accused% without going around the house% started iring at the man. "he! ound out later on that the man was not reall! Ealagtas. "he! tried to invo=e the usti!ing circumstance o having acted in ulillment o a dut!. "he second reDuisite is absent because the! acted with negligence. "here was nothing that *revented them rom loo=ing around the house and loo=ing at the ace o the ellow who was slee*ing. "here could not be an! danger on their lie and limb.
Vena V. Verga
Im1ecility and insanity "here is com*lete absence o intelligence. ,mbecile has an , o $. "he intellectual deicienc! is *ermanent. "here is no lucid interval unli=e in insanit!. "he insanit! that is eem*ting is limited onl! to mental aberration or disease o the mind and must com*letel! im*air the intelligence o the accused. Gnder common law countries% emotional or s*iritual insanit! are eem*ting circumstances unli=e in this urisdiction because the Revised 4dministrative Code% as deined is limited to mental aberration o the mind. "his was the ruling in Peo!le v. '*n"o. ,n Peo!le v. Rafanan@ decided on Novem1er 0,@ ,,@ the ollowing are the two tests or eem*tion on grounds o insanit!6
,llustration6 4% a *oliceman% while waiting or his wie to go home% was suddenl! stabbed at the bac= b! E% a hoodlum% who mistoo= him or someone else. 5hen 4 saw E% he drew his revolver and went ater E. 4ter iring a shot in the air% E did not sto* so 4 shot E who was hit at a vital *art o the bod!. E died. ,s the act o 4 ustiiedJ ?es. "he usti!ing circumstance o sel-deense cannot be invo=ed because the unlawul aggression had alread! ceased b! the time 4 shot E. 5hen the unlawul aggressor started leeing% the unlawul aggression ceased. , the *erson attac=ed runs ater him% in the e!es o the law% he becomes the unlawul aggressor. el-deense cannot be invo=ed. ?ou a**l! *aragra*h A on ulillment o dut!. "he oender was not onl! deending himsel but was acting in ulillment o a dut!% to bring the criminal to the authorities. 4s long as he was not acting out o malice when he ired at the leeing criminal% he cannot be made criminall! liable.
E4em!tin" circ*mstances ,n eem*ting circumstances% the reason or the eem*tion lies on the involuntariness o the act 2 one or some o the ingredients o voluntariness such as criminal intent% intelligence% or reedom o action on the *art o the oender is missing. ,n case it is a cul*able elon!% there is absence o reedom o action or intelligence% or absence o negligence% im*rudence% lac= o oresight or lac= o s=ill.
+vvver"a
(1)
"he test o cognition% or whether the accused acted with com*lete de*rivation o intelligence in committing said crimeK and
(9)
"he test o volition% or whether the accused acted in total de*rivation o reedom o will.
chio*renia (dementia *raeco) can onl! be considered a mitigating circumstance because it does not com*letel! de*rive the oender o consciousness o his acts.
Minority ,n eem*ting circumstances% the most im*ortant issue is how the minorit! o the oender aected his criminal liabilit!. ,t seems that the view o man! is that when the oender is a !outhul oender% he must necessaril! be conined in a reormator!. "his is wrong. 4 !outhul oender can onl! be conined in a reormator! u*on order o the court. Gnder the amendment to Presidential #ecree No. '80% Presidential #ecree No. 11$> reDuires that beore a !outhul oender ma! be given the beneit i a sus*ension o sentence% there must be an a**lication iled with the court which should *ronounce sentence. Note that the commitment o the oender in a reormator! is ust a conseDuence o the sus*ension o the sentence. , the sentence is not sus*ended% there is no commitment in a reormator!. "he commitment is in a *enitentiar!% since sus*ension o sentence reDuires certain conditions6 (1)
"he crime committed should not be *unishable b! reclusion *er*etua or death *enalt!K
(9)
"he oender should not have been given the beneit o a sus*ended sentence beore. "his means he is a irst timerK
Pa"e 72 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (0)
5hen the oender is over nine but below 1A% the *enalt! to be im*osed is discretionar! on the court% but lowered b! at least two degrees. ,t ma! be lowered b! three or our degrees% de*ending u*on whether the court deems best or the interest o the oender. "he limitation that it should be lowered b! at least two degrees is ust a limitation on the *ower o the court to reduce the *enalt!. ,t cannot be less than two degrees.
Note that the age o maorit! has been reduced to 1&. "here is no more brac=et where the oender is a minor !et no longer entitled to a mitigating circumstance. 4n oender below 1& is alwa!s entitled to a mitigating or eem*ting circumstance.
, the oender is within the brac=et o nine !ears old eactl! or less% he is eem*t rom criminal liabilit! but not rom civil liabilit!. "his t!*e o oenders are absolutel! eem*t. @ven i the oender nine !ears or below acted with discernment% this should not be ta=en against him because in this age brac=et% the eem*tion is absolute.
(9)
, over nine but below 1A% a distinction has to be made whether the oender acted with or without discernment. "he burden is u*on the *rosecution to *rove that the oender acted with discernment. ,t is not or the minor to *rove that he acted without discernment. 4ll that the minor has to show is that he is within the age brac=et. , the *rosecution would want to *in criminal liabilit! on him% it has to *rove that the crime was committed with discernment.
us*ension o sentence is not automatic. , the !outhul oender has iled an a**lication thereor. (0)
, at the time the udgment is to be *romulgated he is alread! above 1&% he cannot avail o a sus*ended sentence. "he reason is because i the sentence were to be sus*ended% he would be committed in a reormator!. ince he cannot be committed to a reormator! an!more because he is not less than 1& !ears old% he would have to be committed to a *enitentiar!. "hat means *romulgation o the sentence shall not be sus*ended. , the sentence should not be sus*ended% although the minor ma! be Dualiied% the court will *romulgate the sentence but the minor shall be entitled to the reduction o the *enalt! b! at least two degrees.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
(+)
, the oender is 1A !ears old and above but below 1&% there is no eem*tion an!more but he is also given the beneit o a sus*ended sentence under the conditions stated earlier and i at the time the sentence is *romulgated% he is not 1& !ears old or over !et. , the sentence is *romulgated% the court will im*ose a *enalt! one degree lower. "his time it is ied. ,t is to be im*osed one degree lower and in the *ro*er *eriods subect to the rules in 4rticle '+.
'amn*m a1s)*e in;*ria Gnder 4rticle 19% *aragra*h +% the oender is eem*t not onl! rom criminal but also rom civil liabilit!. "his *aragra*h embodies the Latin maim :damnum absDue inuria;. ,llustration6 4 *erson who is driving his car within the s*eed limit% while considering the condition o the traic and the *edestrians at that time% tri**ed on a stone with one o his car tires. "he stone lew hitting a *edestrian on the head. "he *edestrian suered *rouse bleeding. 5hat is the liabilit! o the driverJ "here is no civil liabilit! under *aragra*h + o 4rticle 19. 4lthough% this is ust an eem*ting circumstance% where generall! there is civil liabilit!% !et% in *aragra*h + o 4rticle 19% there is no civil liabilit! as well as criminal liabilit!. "he driver is not under obligation to dera! the medical e*enses.
Pa"e 73 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) criminal or civil liabilit!% but the *erson who caused the inur! is dut! bound to attend to the *erson who was inured. , he would abandon him% it is in that abandonment that the crime arises which is *unished under the second *aragra*h o 4rticle 9$A.
Com!*lsion of irresisti1le force *ncontrolla1le fear
and
*nder
the
im!*lse
of an
"he oender must be totall! de*rived o reedom. , the oender has still reedom o choice% whether to act or not% even i orce was em*lo!ed on him or even i he is suering rom uncontrollable ear% he is not eem*t rom criminal liabilit! because he is still *ossessed with voluntariness. ,n eem*ting circumstances% the oender must act without voluntariness. ,n a situation where the oender would otherwise be eem*t% but the reDuisites or eem*tion are not all *resent% the oender is still entitled to a mitigating circumstance o incom*lete eem*tion under *aragra*h 1 o 4rticle 10. 4**l! the rule i maorit! o the reDuisites to eem*t rom criminal liabilit! are *resent. "he oender shall be given the beneit o *rivelege mitigating circumstances. "hat means that the *enalt! *rescribed o the crime committed shall be reduced b! one or two degrees in accordance with 4rticle '> o the Revised Penal Code. , less than a maorit! o the reDuisites or eem*tion are *resent% the oender shall be given onl! the beneit o ordinar! mitigating circumstances. "hat means the *enalt! shall be reduced to the minimum *eriod o the *rescribed *enalt!% unless the mitigating circumstance is oset b! an aggravating circumstance.
Miti"atin" circ*mstances #istinctions between ordinar! mitigating circumstances (1)
mitigating
circumstances
and
*rivileged
Privilege mitigating circumstances o*erate to reduce the *enalt! b! one or two degrees% de*ending u*on what the law *rovides. ?ou can easil! detect whether the circumstance which mitigates the liabilit! o the oender is *rivilege or not% that is% i the *enalt! is reduced b! degree. , the *enalt! is lowered b! one or two degrees% it is *rivilegeK thereore% even i there is an aggravating circumstance% do not com*ensate because that would be violating the rules. "he circumstances under 4rticle 10 are generall! ordinar! mitigating% ece*t in *aragra*h 1% where it is *rivilege% 4rticle '> would a**l!. o also% *aragra*h 9% in cases where the oender is below 1& !ears old% such an oender i criminall! liable is entitled to the lowering o *enalt! b! one degree. Eut i over nine but under 1A% he is entitled to a discretionar! *enalt! o at least two degrees lower. 5hen there is a lowering o *enalties b! degrees% it is a *rivilege. ,t cannot be oset b! an aggravating circumstance. 4lthough the bul= o the circumstances in 4rticle 10 are ordinar! mitigating circumstances% !et% when the crime committed is *unishable b! a divisible *enalt!% two or more o this ordinar! mitigating circumstances shall have the eect o a *rivilege mitigating circumstances i there is no aggravating circumstance at all. Correlate 4rticle 10 with 4rticles '0 and '+. 4rticle 10 is meaningless without =nowing the rules o im*osing the *enalties under 4rticles '0 and '+. ,n bar *roblems% when !ou are given indeterminate sentences% these articles are ver! im*ortant. 5hen the circumstance which mitigates criminal liabilit! is *rivileged% !ou give eect to it above all considerations. ,n other words% beore !ou go into an! circumstance% lower irst the *enalt! to the *ro*er degree. "hat is *recisel! wh! this circumstance is considered *rivileged. ,t ta=es *reerence over all other circumstances.
4s to the nature o the circumstances Ordinar! mitigating circumstances can be oset b! aggravating circumstances.
*estion F Answer
never be oset b! an!
4 1$ !ear old bo! committed *arricide. 5ill he be given the beneit o ,ndeterminate entence LawJ "hen% the acts state% *enalt! or *arricide is reclusion *er*etua to death.
Ordinar! mitigating circumstances% i not oset% will o*erate to reduce the *enalt! to the minimum *eriod% *rovided the *enalt! is a divisible one.
?ou have learned that the ,ndeterminate entence Law does not a**l!% among other situations% when the *enalt! im*osed is death or lie im*risonment. Eut then in the *roblem given% the oender is a 1$-!ear old bo!. "hat circumstance is *rivileged. o beore !ou go in the ,ndeterminate entence Law% !ou have to a**l! that circumstance irst. Eeing a 1$-!ear old bo!% thereore% the *enalt! would go one degree lower and th e *enalt! or *arricide which now stands at reclusion *er*etua will go down to reclusion
Privilege mitigating circumstance can aggravating circumstance. (9)
Vena V. Verga
4s to eect
+vvver"a
Pa"e 77 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) tem*oral. Reclusion tem*oral is alread! governed b! the ,ndeterminate entence Law. "he answer% thereore% is !es.
Praeter intentionem "he common circumstance given in the bar o *raeter intentionem% under *aragra*h 0% means that there must be a notable dis*ro*ortion between the means em*lo!ed b! the oender com*ared to that o the resulting elon!. , the resulting elon! could be e*ected rom the means em*lo!ed% this circumstance does not avail. "his circumstance does not a**l! when the crime results rom criminal negligence or cul*a. 5hen the crime is the *roduct o rec=less im*rudence or sim*le negligence% mitigating circumstances does not a**l!. "his is one o the three instances where the oender has *erormed a elon! dierent rom that which he intended. "hereore% this is the *roduct o intentional elon!% not a cul*able one.
*fficient threat or !rovocation "his is mitigating onl! i the crime was committed on the ver! *erson who made the threat or *rovocation. "he common set-u* given in a bar *roblem is
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
that o *rovocation was given b! somebod!. "he *erson *rovo=ed cannot retaliate against himK thus% the *erson *rovo=ed retaliated on a !ounger brother or on an elder ather. 4lthough in act% there is suicient *rovocation% it is not mitigating because the one who gives the *rovocation is not the one against whom the crime was committed.
*estion F Answer 4 was wal=ing in ront o the house o E. E at that time was with his brother C. C told E that sometime in the *ast% 4 boed him% and because he was small% he did not ight bac=. E a**roached 4 and boed him% but 4 cannot hit bac= at E because E is bigger% so 4 boed C. Can 4 invo=e suicient *rovocation to mitigate criminal liabilit!J No. uicient *rovocation must come rom the oended *art!. "here ma! actuall! be suicient *rovocation which immediatel! *receded the act% but i *rovocation did not come rom the *erson oended% *aragra*h +% 4rticle 10 will not a**l!.
"he commission o the elon! must be immediate to the threat or *rovocation in order that this circumstance be mitigating. , there is suicient brea= o time beore the *rovocation or threat and the conseDuent commission o the crime% the law *resu**oses that during that interval% whatever anger or diminished sel control ma! have emerged rom the oender had alread! vanished or disa**eared. ,n a**l!ing this mitigating circumstance% the courts are generall! considering that there must be no brea= between the *rovocation or threat and the commission o the elon!. ,n other words% the elon! was committed *recisel! because he was then and there *rovo=ed.
Pa"e 7: of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
"he u*reme Court gave him the beneit o this mitigating circumstance. "he reason stated b! the u*reme Court or allowing the accused to be beneited b! this mitigating circumstance is that the eect o the humiliation and outrage emitted b! the oended *art! as a *rovocation u*on the accused was still *resent when he committed the crime and% thereore% the reason or *aragra*h + still a**lies. "he accused was still acting under a diminished sel control because he was thin=ing o the humiliation he suered in the hands o the oended *art!. "he outrage was so serious unless vindicated.
"he word :immediate; here does not carr! the same meaning as that under *aragra*h +. "he word :immediate; here is an erroneous *anish translation because the *anish word is :*roima; and not :immediatementa.; "hereore% it is enough that the oender committed the crime with the grave oense done to him% his s*ouse% his ascendant or descendant or to his brother or sister% whether natural% ado*ted or legitimate and that is the *roimate cause o the commission o the crime.
"his is the correct inter*retation o *aragra*h +% 4rticle 10. 4s long as the oender at the time he committed the elon! was still under the inluence o the outrage caused b! the *rovocation or threat% he is acting under a diminished sel control. "his is the reason wh! it is mitigating.
Passion or o1f*scation
?ou have to loo= at two criteria6 (1)
(9)
, rom the element o time% there is a material la*se o time stated in the *roblem and there is nothing stated in the *roblem that the eect o the threat or *rovocation had *rolonged and aected the oender at the time he committed the crime% then !ou use the criterion based on the time element.
,n Peo!le v. 'io6no@ a Chinaman elo*ed with a woman. 4ctuall!% it almost three da!s beore accused was able to locate the house where Chinaman brought the woman.
was the the the
Vindication of a "rave offense "he word :oense; should not be ta=en as a crime. ,t is enough i what was im*uted or what was done was wrong. ,n considering whether the wrong is a grave one u*on the *erson who committed the crime% his age% education and social status will be considered.
"his stands on the *remise or *ro*osition that the oender is suering rom a diminished sel control because o the *assion or obuscation. "he same is true with the circumstances under *aragra*hs + and A. o% there is a ruling to the eect that i the oender is given the beneit o *aragra*h +% he cannot be given the beneit o *aragra*h A or '% or vice-versa. Onl! one o the three mitigating circumstances should be given in avor o the oender.
+vvver"a
Pa"e 7= of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) the irst *lace% the oender must have sur*rised his7her s*ouse actuall! committing seual intercourse should be *resent. , the sur*rising was done not in the actual act o seual intercourse but beore or ater it% then 4rticle 9+$ does not a**l!. 4lthough this is the ruling% still% the accused will be given the beneit o suicient *rovocation i the intercourse was done in his dwelling. , this act was done somewhere else and the accused =ills the *aramour or the s*ouse% this ma! be considered as mitigation o a grave oense to him or otherwise as a situation suicient to create *assion or obuscation. "hereore% when a married man u*on coming home% sur*rises his wie who was nude and l!ing with another man who was also nude% 4rticle 9+$ does not a**l!. , he =ills them% vindication o a grave oense will be mitigating in avor o the oender. Ill*strations5 4 is courting E% a rece*tionist in a beerhouse. C danced with E. 4 saw this and stabbed C. ,t was held that ealous! is an ac=nowledged basis o *assion. 4% a male classmate is escorting E% a emale classmate. On the wa! out% some men whistled lustull!. "he male classmate stabbed said men. "his was held to be obuscation. 5hen a man saw a woman bathing% almost na=ed% or which reason he ra*ed her% such man cannot claim *assion as a mitigating circumstance. 4 man and a woman were living together or 1A !ears. "he man let the village where the! were living and never returned home. "he common law wie learned that he was getting married to a classmate. On the scheduled wedding da!% she stabbed the groom in the chest% instantl! =illing him. he conessed and e*lained that an! woman cannot tolerate what he did to her. he gave him the best !ears o her lie. he *racticall! waited or him da! and night. ,t was held that *assion and obuscation were considered mitigating. ,ngratitude was shown here.
Vol*ntary s*rrender "he essence o voluntar! surrender reDuires that the oender% ater having committed the crime% had evaded the law enorcers and the law enorcers do not =now o his whereabouts. ,n short% he continues to elude arrest. ,% under this circumstance% the oender would come out in the o*en and he gives himsel u*% his act o doing so will be considered as indicative o re*entance and he also saves the government the time and the e*ense o loo=ing or him. 4s a general rule% i ater committing the crime% the oender did not lee and he went with the res*onding law enorcers mee=l!% voluntar! surrender is not a**licable.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
Physical defect "he *h!sical deect that a *erson ma! have must have a relation to the commission o the crime. ,n a case where the oender is dea and dumb% *ersonal *ro*ert! was entrusted to him and he misa**ro*riated the same. "he crime committed was estaa. "he act that he was dea and dumb is not mitigating because that does not bear an! relation to the crime committed. Not an! *h!sical deect will aect the crime. ,t will onl! do so i it has some relation to the crime committed. , a *erson is dea and dumb and he has been
Pa"e 7 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
slandered% he cannot tal= so what he did was% he got a *iece o wood and struc= the ellow on the head. "he crime committed was *h!sical inuries. "he u*reme Court held that being a dea and dumb is mitigating because the onl! wa! is to use his orce because he cannot stri=e bac=.
because there is no Duali!ing circumstance that is not aggravating. "o sa! Duali!ing aggravating circumstance is redundant. ,n the eamination% i !ou ind Duali!ing circumstances% !ou have to thin= about these as aggravating circumstances which are the ingredients o the crime.
, the oender is blind in one e!e% as long as his means o action% deense or communication with others are not restricted% such circumstance is not mitigating. "his circumstance must also have a bearing on the crime committed and must de*end on how the crime was committed.
'istinctions 1etween a""ravatin" and )*alifyin" circ*mstances5 ,n aggravating circumstances 2 ( 1)
" he c ir cums tan ce circumstanceK
c an
be
o se t
b!
an
o rd in ar !
m it ig at ing
(9)
No need to allege this circumstance in the inormation% as long as it is *roven during trial. , it is *roved during trial% the court would consider the same in im*osing the *enalt!K
(0)
,t is not an ingredient o a crime. ,t onl! aects the *enalt! to be im*osed but the crime remains the same.
Analo"o*s cases "he act o the oender o leading the law enorcers to the *lace where he buried the instrument o the crime has been considered as eDuivalent to voluntar! surrender. "he act o a thie in leading the authorities to the *lace where he dis*osed o the loot has been considered as analogous or eDuivalent to voluntar! surrender. tealing b! a *erson who is driven to do so out o etreme *overt! is considered as analogous to incom*lete state o necessit!.
,n Duali!ing circumstance 2 (1)
"he circumstance aects the nature o the crime itsel such that the oender shall be liable or a more serious crime. "he circumstance is actuall! an ingredient o the crimeK
(9)
Eeing an ingredient o the crime% it cannot be oset b! an! mitigating circumstanceK
( 0)
ual i !i ng c ir cu ms tan ce s t o be a** re ci ate d as su ch mu st b e s*eciicall! alleged in the com*laint or inormation. , not alleged but *roven during the trial% it will be considered onl! as generic aggravating circumstance. , this ha**ens% the! are susce*tible o being oset b! a mitigating circumstance.
A""ravatin" circ*mstances Binds o aggravating circumstances6 (1)
eneric or those that can generall! a**l! to all crimeK
(9)
*eciic or those that a**l! onl! to a *articular crimeK
(0)
uali!ing or those that change the nature o the crimeK
(+)
,nherent or those that must o necessit! accom*an! the commission o the crime.
"he aggravating circumstances must be established with moral certaint!% with the same degree o *roo reDuired to establish the crime itsel. /ost im*ortant o the classiication o aggravating circumstances are the Duali!ing and the generic aggravating circumstances. ,n *ractice% the so-called generic aggravating circumstances are reerred to sim*l! as aggravating circumstances. "he so-called Duali!ing aggravating circumstances are sim*l! reerred to as Duali!ing circumstances. "his is so
+vvver"a
4n aggravating circumstance is Duali!ing when it is an ingredient o the crime. "hereore it is included in the *rovision o law deining the crime. , it is not so included% it is not Duali!ing. ,n 4rticle 9+&% in the crime o murder% the law s*eciicall! mentions thereunder several circumstances which are aggravating under 4rticle 1+. 4ll o these will Duali! a =illing rom homicide to murderK however% !ou understand that onl! one is Duali!ing. , let us sa!% the accused was charged with murder. "hree o these circumstances6 treacher!% evident *remeditation and act was done in consideration o a *rice% reward or *romise were alleged as aggravating. Onl! one o these is Duali!ing. , an! one o the three circumstances was *roven% the crime was alread! murder. , the other two are also *roven% even i the! are alleged in the inormation or com*laint% the! are onl! to be ta=en as
Pa"e 7 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
generic. , there is an! mitigating circumstance in avor o the oender% the two other circumstances which are otherwise Duali!ing could be oset b! the mitigating% *rovided the mitigating circumstance is not a *rivileged mitigating circumstance. "hereore% i there are three o the Duali!ing circumstances alleged in the com*laint or inormation% onl! one will Duali! the crime. "he others will merel! be considered as generic. "hus% i there is an! ordinar! mitigating circumstance in avor o the accused% such will be wi*ed out b! these circumstances% although initiall! the! are considered as Duali!ing. #o not hesitate to oset on the *rinci*le that a Duali!ing circumstance cannot be oset b! an ordinar! mitigating circumstance because onl! one is necessar!.
circumstance. , not alleged in the inormation% however% but *roven during the trial% it is onl! a**reciated as a generic aggravating circumstance.
@ven i an! o the Duali!ing circumstances under 4rticle 9+& on murder was *roven% i that is not the circumstance alleged in the inormation% it cannot Duali! the crime. Let us sa!% what was alleged in the inormation was treacher!. #uring the trial% what was *roven was the *rice% reward or *romise as a consideration or =illing. "he treacher! was not *roved. ust the same% the accused cannot be convicted o murder because the circumstance *roven is not Duali!ing but merel! generic. ,t is generic because it is not alleged in the inormation at all. , an! o these Duali!ing circumstances is not alleged in the inormation% it cannot be considered Duali!ing because a Duali!ing is an ingredient o the crime and it cannot be ta=en as such without having alleged in the inormation because it will violate the right o the accused to be inormed o the nature o the accusation against him.
4ggravating onl! in crimes against *ersons and honor% not against *ro*ert! li=e Robber! with homicide (Peo!le v. /a@ ,7: CRA =- ).
Correlate 4rticle 1+ with 4rticle '9. 4rticle '9 gives !ou the dierent rules regarding aggravating circumstances. 4ggravating circumstances will not be considered when it is the crime itsel. , the crime charged is Dualiied tres*ass to dwelling% dwelling is no longer aggravating. 5hen the aggravating circumstance reers to the material eecution o the crime% li=e treacher!% it will onl! aggravate the criminal liabilit! o those who em*lo!ed the same. Ill*stration5 4 *erson induced another to =ill somebod!. "hat ellow = illed the other gu! and em*lo!ed treacher!. 4s ar as the =illing is concerned% the treacher! will Duali! onl! the criminal liabilit! o the actual eecutioner. "he ellow who induced him becomes a co-*rinci*al and thereore% he is liable or the same crime committed.
"he mitigating circumstance reerred to in the amendment as not aecting the im*osition o the *enalt! in the maimum are onl! ordinar! mitigating circumstances. Privileged mitigating circumstances alwa!s lower the *enalt! accordingl!.
'isres!ect d*e to ran6@ a"e@ se4
"eachers% *roessors% su*ervisors o *ublic and dul! recognied *rivate schools% colleges and universities% as well as law!ers are *ersons in authorit! onl! or *ur*oses o direct assault and sim*le resistance% but not or *ur*oses o aggravating circumstances in *aragra*h 9% 4rticle 1+. ( Peo!le v. %aoan@ ,0 CRA :-,).
A1*se of confidence #o not conuse this with mere betra!al o trust. "his is aggravating onl! when the ver! oended *art! is the one who re*osed the conidence. , the conidence is re*osed b! another% the oended *art! is dierent rom the ellow who re*osed the conidence and abuse o conidence in this case is not aggravating. ,llustrations6 4 mother let her !oung daughter with the accused because she had nobod! to leave the child with while she had to go on an errand. "he accused abused the child. ,t was held that the abuse o conidence is not aggravating. 5hat is *resent is betra!al o trust and that is not aggravating. ,n a case where the oender is a servant% the oended *art! is one o the members o the amil!. "he servant *oisoned the child. ,t was held that abuse o conidence is aggravating. "his is onl! true however% i the servant was still in the service o the amil! when he did the =illing. , he was driven b! the master alread! out o the house or some time and he came bac= and *oisoned the child% abuse o conidence is no longer aggravating. "he reason is because that conidence has alread! been terminated when the oender was driven out o the house.
%a6in" advanta"e of !*1lic !osition 4rticle '9 was also amended b! the Re*ublic 4ct No. $'A>. "he legal im*ort o this amendment is that the subect circumstance has been made a Duali!ing or s*ecial aggravating that shall not be oset or com*ensated b! a mitigating
+vvver"a
Pa"e :- of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 'wellin" #welling will onl! be aggravating i it is the dwelling o the oended *art!. ,t should also not be the dwelling o the oender. , the dwelling is both that o the oended *art! and the oender% dwelling is not aggravating. #welling need not be owned b! the oended *art!. ,t is enough that he used the *lace or his *eace o mind% rest% comort and *rivac!. "he rule that dwelling% in order to be aggravating must be owned b! the oended *art! is no longer absolute. #welling can be aggravating even i it is not owned b! the oended *art!% *rovided that the oended *art! is considered a member o the amil! who owns the dwelling and eDuall! eno!s *eace o mind% *rivac! and comort. Ill*stration5
Vena V. Verga
@ven a room in a hotel i rented as a dwelling% li=e what the salesmen do when the! are assigned in the *rovinces and the! rent rooms% is considered a dwelling. 4 room in a hotel or motel will be considered dwelling i it is used with a certain degree o *ermanence% where the oended *art! see=s *rivac!% rest% *eace o mind and comort.
4 man was iing something on the roo o his house when he was shot. ,t was held that dwelling is aggravating. Roo still *art o the house.
, a !oung man brought a woman in a motel or a short time and there he was =illed% dwelling is not aggravating.
,n the *rovinces where the comort rooms are usuall! ar rom the house *ro*er% i the oended *art! while answering the call o nature is =illed% then dwelling is aggravating because the comort room is a necessar! de*endenc! o the house *ro*er.
4 man was =illed in the house o his common law wie. #welling is aggravating in this case because the house was *rovided b! the man.
A !erson while in the room of his ho*se@ maintainin" the room@ was shot. 'wellin" is a""ravatin".
#welling should not be understood in the conce*t o a domicile. 4 *erson has more than one dwelling. o% i a man has so man! wives and he gave them a *laces o their own% each one is his own dwelling. , he is =illed there% dwelling will be aggravating% *rovided that he also sta!s there once in a while. 5hen he is onl! a visitor there% dwelling is not aggravating.
, the oender entered the house and the oended *art! um*ed out o the house% even i the oender caught u* with him alread! out o the house% dwelling is still aggravating. "he reason is because he could not have let his dwelling were it not or the act that the attac=er entered the house.
"he crime o adulter! was committed. #welling was considered aggravating on the *art o the *aramour. "he *aramour is not a resident o the same dwelling.
+vvver"a
, the oended *art! was inside the house and the oender was outside and the latter shot the ormer inside the house while he was still ou tside. #welling is still aggravating even i the oender did not enter the house.
Pa"e :, of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
4 garage is *art o the dwelling when connected with an interior *assage to the house *ro*er. , not connected% it is not considered *art o the dwelling. One-hal o the house is used as a store and the other hal is used or dwelling but there is onl! one entrance. , the dwelling *ortion is attac=ed% dwelling is not aggravating because whenever a store is o*en or business% it is a *ublic *lace and as such is not ca*able o being the subect o tres*ass. , the dwelling *ortion is attac=ed where even i the store is o*en% there is another se*arate entrance to the *ortion used or dwelling% the circumstance is aggravating.
Vena V. Verga
4 is on board a banca% not so ar awa!. E and C also are on board on their res*ective bancas. uddenl!% # showed u* rom underwater and stabbed E. ,s there an aggravating circumstance o uninhabited *lace hereJ ?es% considering the act that 4 and C beore being able to give assistance still have to um* into the water and swim towards E and the time it would ta=e them to do that% the chances o E receiving some hel* was ver! little% des*ite the act that there were other *ersons not so ar rom the scene. @vidence tending to *rove that the oender too= advantage o the *lace and *ur*osel! availed o it is to ma=e it easier to commit the crime% shall be necessar!.
Ealcon! is *art o the dwelling because it is a**urtenant to the house
Ni"httime
#welling is aggravating in robber! with homicide because the crime can be committed without necessaril! transgressing the sanctit! o the home ( Peo!le v. 'e Los Reyes@ decided 8cto1er 00@ ,0).
5hat i the crime started during the da!time and continued all the wa! to nighttimeJ "his is not aggravating.
#welling is aggravating where the *lace is% even or a brie moment% a :home;% although he is not the owner thereo as when victim was shot in the house o his *arents.
4s a rule% the crime must begin and end during the nighttime. Crime began at da! and ended at night% as well as crime began at night and ended at da! is not aggravated b! the circumstance o nighttime. #ar=ness is what ma=es this circumstance aggravating.
One evening% a crime was committed near the lam* *ost. "he u*reme Court held that there is no aggravating circumstance o nighttime. @ven i the crime was committed at night% but there was light% hence% dar=ness was not *resent% no aggravating circumstance ust b! the act o nighttime alone. @ven i there was dar=ness but the nighttime was onl! an incident o a chance meeting% there is no aggravating circumstance here. ,t must be shown that the oender deliberatel! sought the cover o dar=ness and the oender *ur*osel! too= advantage o nighttime to acilitate the commission o the oense. Nocturnit! is the *eriod o time ater sunset to sunrise% rom dus= to dawn.
Recidivism under 4rticle 1+ (>) 2 "he oender at the time o his trial or one crime shall have been *reviousl! convicted b! inal udgment o another embraced in the same title o the Revised Penal Code.
(9)
Re*etition or reiteracion under 4rticle 1+ (18) 2 "he oender has been *reviousl! *unished or an oense which the law attac hes an eDual or
,t is determined not b! the distance o the nearest house to the scene o the crime but whether or not in the *lace o the commission o the oense % there was a reasonable *ossibilit! o the victim receiving some hel*. Ill*stration5
+vvver"a
Pa"e :0 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) greater *enalt! or or two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter *enalt!. (0)
(+)
Vena V. Verga *enalt! shall be im*osed de*ending u*on whether it is alread! the third conviction% the ourth% the ith and so on . . .
(A)
uasi-recidivism under 4rticle 1'8 2 4n! *erson who shall commit a elon! ater having been convicted b! inal udgment beore beginning to serve such sentence or while serving such sentence shall be *unished b! the maimum *eriod *rescribed b! law or the new elon!.
,n recidivism% the em*hasis is on the act that the oender was *reviousl! convicted b! inal udgement o a elon! and subseDuentl! ound guilt! o another elon! embraced in the same title o the Revised Penal Code. "he law considers this aggravating when a *erson has been committing elonies embraced in the same title because the im*lication is that he is s*ecialiing on such =ind o crime and the law wants to *revent an! s*ecialiation.
'istinctions 1etween recidivism and ha1it*al delin)*ency ,n recidivism 2 ( 1)
"w o c on vic ti ons ar e eno ugh .
(9)
"he crimes are not s*eciiedK it is enough that the! ma! be embraced under the same title o th e Revised Penal Code.
"he circumstance must be alleged in the inormationK otherwise the court cannot acDuire urisdiction to im*ose additional *enalt!.
Recidivism
Ill*stration5
(0)
"here is no time limit between the irst conviction and the subseDuent conviction. Recidivism is im*rescri*tible.
(+)
,t is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be oset b! an ordinar! mitigating circumstance. , not oset% it would onl! increase the *enalt! *rescribed b! law or the crime committed to its maimum *eriod.
(A)
"he circumstance need not be alleged in the inormation.
,n 1>&8% 4 committed robber!. 5hile the case was being tried% he committed thet in 1>&0. &0. "he conviction became inal because he did not a**eal an!more and the trial or his earlier crime which was robber! ended in 1>&+ where he was also convicted.
,n habitual delinDuenc! 2 (1)
4t least three convictions are reDuired.
(9)
"he crimes are limited and s*eciied to6 (a) serious *h!sical inuries% (b) less serious *h!sical inuries% (c) robber!% (d) thet% (e) estaa or swindling and () alsiication.
(0)
(+)
"here is a time limit o not more than 18 !ears between ever! convictions com*uted rom the irst conviction or release rom *unishment thereo to conviction com*uted rom the second conviction or release thererom to the third conviction and so on . . .
+vvver"a
Recidivism does not *rescribe. No matter how long ago the oender was convicted% i he is subseDuentl! convicted o a crime embraced in the same title o the Revised Penal Code% it is ta=en into account as aggravating in im*osing the *enalt!. Pardon does not erase recidivism% even i it is absolute because onl! ecuses the service o the *enalt!% but not the conviction. , the oender has alread! served his sentence and he was etended an absolute *ardon% the *ardon shall erase the conviction including recidivism because there is no more *enalt! so it shall be understood as reerring to the conviction or the eects o the crime. Recidivism ma! be considered even though not alleged in the inormation because this is onl! a generic aggravating circumstance.
Pa"e :2 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
,t is necessar! to allege recidivism in the inormation% but i the deense does not obect to the *resentation o evidence during the trial and the same was *roven% the court shall consider such aggravating circumstance because it is onl! generic. ,n recidivism% although the law deines it as a circumstance where a *erson having been convicted b! inal udgement was *reviousl! convicted also b! inal udgement or a crime embraced in the same title in the Revised Penal Code% it is necessar! that the conviction must come in the order in which the! are committed.
*estion F Answer ,n 1>$A% the oender committed robber!. 5hile the same was being tried in 1>$&% he committed thet. ,n 1>&8% he was convicted o thet and he did not a**eal this decision. "he trial or robber! ended in 1>&1. /a! the udge in im*osing the *enalt! or robber! consider the accused a recidivist considering that he was alread! convicted in 1>&8 or the crime o thet which is under the same title o the Revised Penal Code as that o robber!J No% because the robber! which was committed earlier would be decided later. ,t must be the other wa! around. "his is because in 1>$A when he committed the robber!% there was no crime committed !et. "hus% even though in im*osing the *enalt! or the robber!% there was alread! a *revious conviction% i that conviction is subseDuent to the commission o the robber!% he is not a recidivist. , !ou will inter*ret the deinition o recidivism% this would seem to be covered but that is not so.
Ha1it*al delin)*ency 5e have to consider the crimes in it and ta=e note o the titles o crimes in the Revised Penal Code. , the oender had committed and was convicted o each o the crimes under each categor! so that no two crimes all under the same title o the Revised Penal Code% !ou have a situation where the oender is a habitual delinDuent but not a recidivist because no two crimes all under the same title o the Code. , the irst conviction is or serious *h!sical inuries or less serious *h!sical inuries and the second conviction is or robber!% thet or estaa and the third is or alsiication% then the moment the habitual delinDuent is on his ourth conviction alread!% !ou cannot avoid that he is a habitual delinDuent and at the same time a recidivist because at least% the ourth time will have to all under an! o the three categories.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
5hen the oender is a recidivist and at the same time a habitual delinDuent% the *enalt! or the crime or which he will be convicted will be increased to the maimum *eriod unless oset b! a mitigating circumstance. 4ter determining the correct *enalt! or the last crime committed% an added *enalt! will be im*osed in accordance with 4rticle '9.
Pa"e :3 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Reiteracion "his has nothing to do with the classiication o the elonies. ,n reiteracion% the oender has alread! tasted the bitterness o the *unishment. "his is the *hiloso*h! on which the circumstance becomes aggravating. ,t is necessar! in order that there be reiteracion that the oender has alread! served out the *enalt!. , the oender had not !et served out his *enalt!% orget about reiteracion. "hat means he has not !et tasted the bitterness o lie but i he had alread! served out the *enalt!% the law e*ects that since he has alread! tasted *unishment% he will more or less rerain rom committing crimes again. "hat is wh! i the oender committed a subseDuent elon! which carries with it a *enalt! lighter than what he had served% reiteracion is not aggravating because the law considers that somehow% this ellow was corrected because instead o committing a serious crime% he committed a lesser one. , he committed another lesser one% then he becomes a re*eater. o% in reiteracion% the *enalt! attached to the crime subseDuentl! committed should be higher or at least eDual to the *enalt! that he has alread! served. , that is the situation% that means that the oender was never reormed b! the act that he alread! served the *enalt! im*osed on him on the irst conviction.
*asi>recidivism "his is ound in 4rticle 1'8. "he oender must alread! be convicted b! inal udgement and thereore to have served the *enalt! alread!% but even at this stage% he committed a elon! beore beginning to serve sentence or while serving sentence. ,llustration6
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
Oender had alread! been convicted b! inal udgement. entence was *romulgated and he was under custod! in /untinlu*a. 5hile he was in /untinlu*a% he esca*ed rom his guard and in the course o his esca*e% he =illed someone. "he =illing was committed beore serving sentence but convicted b! inal udgement.
In consideration of a !rice@ reward or !romise "he u*reme Court rulings beore indicate that this circumstance aggravates onl! the criminal liabilit! o the *erson who committed the crime in consideration o the *rice% *romise% or reward but not the criminal liabilit! o the *erson who gave the *rice% reward or consideration.
Pa"e :7 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
circumstance aects or aggravates not onl! the criminal liabilit! o the receiver o the *rice% reward or *romise but also the criminal liabilit! o the one giving the oer.
(0)
Ill*stration5
3ire is not aggravating in the crime o arson.
4% on /onda!% thought o =illing E on 3rida!. 4 =new that E is coming home onl! on 3rida! so 4 decided to =ill E on 3rida! evening when he comes home. On "hursda!% 4 met E and =illed him. ,s there evident *remeditationJ None but there is treacher! as the attac= was sudden.
5henever a =illing is done with the use o ire% as when to =ill someone% !ou burn down his house while the latter is inside% this is murder. "here is no such crime as murder with arson or arson with homicide. "he crime committed is onl! murder. , the victim is alread! dead and the house is burned% the crime is arson. ,t is either arson or murder. , the intent is to destro! *ro*ert!% the crime is arson even i someone dies as a conseDuence. , the intent is to =ill% there is murder even i the house is burned in the *rocess. ,llustration6 4 and E were arguing about something. One argument led to another until 4 struc= E to death with a bolo. 4 did not =now that C% the son o E was also in their house and who was *ee*ing through the door and saw what 4 did. 4raid that 4 might =ill him% too% he hid somewhere in the house. 4 then dragged Es bod! and *oured gasoline on it and burned the house altogether. 4s a conseDuence% C was burned and eventuall! died too. 4s ar as the =illing o E is concerned% it is homicide since it is noted that the! were arguing. ,t could not be murder. 4s ar as the =illing o C is concerned% the crime is arson since he intended to burn the house onl!. No such crime as arson with homicide. Law enorcers onl! use this to indicate that a =illing occurred while arson was being committed. 4t the most% !ou could designate it as :death as a conseDuence o arson.;
Evident !remeditation 3or evident *remeditation to be aggravating% the ollowing conditions must concur6 (1)
"he time when the accused determined to commit the crimeK
(9)
4n act maniestl! indicating that the accused has clung to his determinationK
+vvver"a
uicient la*se o time between such determination and eecution% to allow him to relect u*on the conseDuences o his act.
Can there be evident *remeditation when the =illing is accidentalJ No. ,n evident *remeditation% there must be a clear relection on the *art o the oender.
Pa"e :: of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
4 and E are enemies. "he! ought on /onda! and *arted wa!s. 4 decided to see= revenge.
4ggravating in a case where the oenders *retended to be bona ide *assengers o a ee*ne! in order not to arouse sus*icion% but once inside the ee*ne!% robbed the *assengers and the driver ( Peo!le v. Lee@ decided on 'ecem1er 0-@ ,,).
"his is one aggravating circumstance where the oender who *remeditated% the law sa!s evident. ,t is not enough that there is some *remeditation. Premeditation must be clear. ,t is reDuired that there be evidence showing meditation between the time when the oender determined to commit the crime and the time when the oender eecuted the act. ,t must a**ear that the oender clung to his determination to commit the crime. "he act that the oender *remeditated is not *rima acie indicative o evident *remeditation as the meeting or encounter between the oender and the oended *art! was onl! b! chance or accident.
"here must be evidence o notorious ineDualit! o orces between the oender and the oended *art! in their age% sie and strength% and that the oender too= advantage o such su*erior strength in committing the crime. "he mere act that there were two *ersons who attac=ed the victim does not *er se constitute abuse o su*erior strength (Peo!le v. Car!io@ ,, CRA ,0 ).
A1*se of s*!erior stren"th
%reachery
,n order or evident *remeditation to be considered% the ver! *erson7oended *art! *remeditated against must be the one who is the victim o the crime. ,t is not necessar! that the victim is identiied. ,t is enough that the victim is determined so he or she belongs to a grou* or class who ma! be *remeditated against. "his is a circumstance that will Duali! a =illing rom homicide to murder.
"reacher! reers to the em*lo!ment o means% method and orm in the commission o the crime which tend directl! and s*eciall! to insure its eecution without ris= to himsel arising rom the deense which the oended *art! might ma=e. "he means% method or orm em*lo!ed m! be an aggravating circumstance which li=e availing o total dar=ness in nighttime or availing o su*erior strength ta=en advantage o b! the oender% em*lo!ing means to wea=en the deense.
Ill*stration5
Ill*stration5
4 *erson who has been courting a lad! or several !ears now has been ilted. Eecause o this% he thought o =illing somebod!.
4 and E have been Duarreling or some time. One da!% 4 a**roached E and beriended him. E acce*ted. 4 *ro*osed that to celebrate their renewed riendshi*% the! were going to drin=. E was having too much to drin=. 4 was ust waiting or him to get intoicated and ater which% he stabbed E. 4 *retended to beriend E% ust to intoicate the latter. ,ntoication is the means deliberatel! em*lo!ed b! the oender to wea=en the deense o the oended *art!. , this was the ver! means em*lo!ed% the circumstance ma! be treacher! and not abuse o su*erior strength or means to wea=en the deense. 5hat is the essence o treacher!J
"here are some crimes which cannot be aggravated b! evident *remeditation because the! reDuire some *lanning beore the! can be committed. @vident *remeditation is *art o the crime li=e =idna**ing or ransom% robber! with orce u*on things where there is entr! into the *remises o the oended *art!% and estaa through alse *retenses where the oender em*lo!s insidious means which cannot ha**en accidentall!.
"he essence o treacher! is that b! virtue o the means% method or orm em*lo!ed b! the oender% the oended *art! was not able to *ut u* an! deense. , the oended *art! was able to *ut u* a deense% even onl! a to=en one% there is no treacher! an!more. ,nstead some other aggravating circumstance ma! be *resent but not treacher! an!more. Ill*stration5
Craft 4 and E Duarreled.
+vvver"a
Pa"e := of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
o the latters sie. o% 4 thought o committing a crime at nighttime with the cover o dar=ness. 4 *ositioned himsel in the dar=est *art o the street where E *asses on his wa! home. One evening% 4 waited or E and stabbed E.
oender to render the oended *art! deenseless ( Peo!le v. Ila"an@ ,, CRA :32).
%he crime is only homicide 1eca*se the a""ravatin" circ*mstance is only noct*rnity and noct*rnity is not a )*alifyin" circ*mstance. %he reason why treachery cannot 1e considered as !resent here is 1eca*se the offended !arty was a1le to !*t *! a defense and that ne"ates treachery. In treachery@ the offended !arty@ d*e to the means@ method or form em!loyed 1y the offender@ the offended !arty was denied the chance to defend himself. If 1eca*se of the cover of dar6ness@ < was not a1le to !*t *! a defense and A was a1le to flee while < died@ the crime is m*rder 1eca*se there is already treachery. In the first sit*ation@ the crime was homicide only@ the ni"httime is "eneric a""ravatin" circ*mstance.
,n Peo!le v. La!an@ decided on G*ly :@ ,0@ the accused was *rosecuted or robber! with homicide. Robber! was not *roven be!ond reasonable doubt. 4ccused held liable onl! or the =illings. 4lthough one o the victims was barel! si !ears old% the accused was convicted onl! or homicide% aggravated b! dwelling and in disregard o age.
,n the eam*le where 4 *retended to beriend E and invited him to celebrate their riendshi*% i E des*ite intoication was able to *ut u* some ight against 4 but eventuall!% E died% then the attendant circumstance is no longer treacher! but means em*lo!ed to wea=en the deense. Eut in murder% this is also a Duali!ing circumstance. "he crime committed is murder but then the correct circumstance is not treacher! but means em*lo!ed to wea=en the deense. ,n the same manner% i the oender avails o the services o men and in the commission o the crime% the! too= advantage o su*erior strength but somehow% the oended *art! ought bac=% the crime is still murder i the victim is =illed. 4lthough the Duali!ing circumstance is abuse o su*erior strength and not treacher!% which is also a Duali!ing circumstance o murder under 4rticle 9+&. "reacher! is out when the attac= was merel! incidental or accidental because in the deinition o treacher!% the im*lication is that the oender had consciousl! and deliberatel! ado*ted the method% means and orm used or em*lo!ed b! him. o% i 4 and E casuall! met and there and then 4 stabbed E% although stabbing ma! be sudden since 4 was not shown to have the intention o =illing E% treacher! cannot be considered *resent. "here must be evidenced on how the crime was committed. ,t is not enough to show that the victim sustained treacherous wound. @am*le6 4 had a gunshot wound at the bac= o his head. "he C ruled this is onl! homicide because treacher! must be *roven. ,t must be shown that the victim was totall! deenseless. uddenness o the attac= does not b! itsel constitute treacher! in the absence o evidence that the manner o the attac= was consciousl! ado*ted b! the
+vvver"a
Eut where children o tender !ears were =illed% being one !ear old and 19 !ears old% the =illing is murder even i the manner o attac= was not shown ( Peo!le v. /ahon@ decided on A!ril 2-@ ,, ).
"reacher! not a**reciated where Duarrel and heated discussion *receded a =illing% because the victim would be *ut on guard ( Peo!le v. /*!o). Eut although a Duarrel *receded the =illing where the victim was ato* a coconut tree% treacher! was considered as the victim was not in a *osition to deend himsel (Peo!le v. %ori1io).
'istinction 1etween i"nominy and cr*elty ,gnomin! shoc=s the moral conscience o man while cruelt! is *h!sical. ,gnomin! reers to the moral eect o a crime and it *ertains to the moral order% whether or not the victim is dead or alive. Cruelt! *ertains to *h!sical suering o the victim so the victim has to be alive. ,n * lain language% ignomin! is adding insult to inur!. 4 clear eam*le is a married woman being ra*ed beore the e!es o her husband. ,n a case where the crime committed is ra*e and the accused abused the victims rom behind% the u*reme Court considered the crime as aggravated b! ignomin!.
Pa"e : of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) No% there is cruelt! onl! when there are evidence that the oender inlicted the stab wounds while eno!ing or delighted to see the victim in *ain. 3or cruelt! to eist as an aggravating circumstance% there must be evidence showing that the accused inlicted the alleged cruel wounds slowl! and graduall! and that he is delighted seeing the victim suer in *ain. ,n the absence o evidence to this eect% there is no cruelt!. it! stab wounds do not i*so acto ma=e them aggravating circumstances o cruelt!. "he crime is murder i '8 wounds were inlicted graduall!K absence o this evidence means the crime committed is onl! homicide. Cruelt! is aggravating in ra*e where the oender tied the victim to a bed and burnt her ace with a lighted cigarette while ra*ing her laughing all the wa! (Peo!le v. L*cas@ ,, CRA 2,7 ).
$nlawf*l entry Gnlawul entr! is inherent in the crime o robber! with orce u*on things but aggravating in the crime o robber! with violence against or intimidation o *ersons.
Vena V. Verga
4n organied or s!ndicated crime grou* means a grou* o two or more *ersons collaborating% conederating or mutuall! hel*ing one another or *ur*oses o gain in the commission o a crime. 5ith this *rovision% the circumstance o an organied or s!ndicated crime grou* having committed the crime has been added in the Code as a s*ecial aggravating circumstance. "he circumstance being s*ecial or Duali!ing% it must be alleged in the inormation and *roved during the trial. Otherwise% i not alleged in the inormation% even though *roven during the trial% the court cannot validl! consider the circumstances because it is not among those enumerated under 4rticle 1+ o the Code as aggravating. ,t is noteworth!% however% that there is an organied or s!ndicated grou* even when onl! two *ersons collaborated% conederated% or mutuall! hel*ed one another in the commission o a crime% which acts are inherent in a cons*irac!. 5here thereore% cons*irac! in the commission o the crime is alleged in the inormation% the allegation ma! be considered as *rocedurall! suicient to warrant receiving evidence on the matter during trial and conseDuentl!% the said s*ecial aggravating circumstance can be a**reciated i *roven.
Alternative circ*mstances Motor vehicle
9o*r alternative circ*mstances
"he u*reme Court considers strictl! the use o the word :committed;% that the crime is committed with the use o a motor vehicle% motoried means o trans*ortation or motoried watercrat. "here is a decision b! the Court o 4**eals that a motoried bic!cle is a motor vehicle even i the oender used onl! the oot *edal because he does not =now how to o*erate the motor so i a bic!cle is used in the commission o the crime% motor vehicle becomes aggravating i the bic!cle is motoried.
(1)
Relationshi*K
(9)
,ntoicationK
( 0)
# eg re e o in st ru ct io nK an d
(+)
@ducation.
"his circumstance is aggravating onl! when used in the commission o the oense. , motor vehicle is used onl! in the esca*e o the oender% motor vehicle is not aggravating. "o be aggravating% it must have been used to acilitate the commission o the crime.
Gse onl! the term alternative circumstance or as long as the *articular circumstance is not involved in an! case or *roblem. "he moment it is given in a *roblem% do not use alternative circumstance% reer to it as aggravating or mitigating de*ending on whether the same is considered as such or the other. , relationshi* is aggravating% reer to it as aggravating. , mitigating% then reer to it as such.
4ggravating when a motoried tric!cle was used to commit the crime
8r"ani(ed or syndicated crime "ro*! ,n the same amendment to 4rticle '9 o the Revised Penal Code% *aragra*hs were added which *rovide that the maimum *enalt! shall be im*osed i the oense was committed b! an! *erson who belongs to an organied or s!ndicated crime grou*.
+vvver"a
@ce*t or the circumstance o intoication% the other circumstances in 4rticle 1A ma! not be ta=en into account at all when the circumstance has no bearing on the crime committed. o the court will not consider this as aggravating or mitigating sim*l! because the circumstance has no relevance to the crime that was committed. #o not thin= that because the article sa!s that these circumstances are mitigating or aggravating% that i the circumstance is *resent% the court will have to ta=e it as mitigating% i not mitigating% aggravating. "hat is wrong. ,t is onl! the circumstance o intoication which i not mitigating% is automaticall!
Pa"e : of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) aggravating. Eut the other circumstances% even i the! are *resent% but i the! do not inluence the crime% the court will not consider it at all. Relationshi* ma! not be considered at all% es*eciall! i it is not inherent in the commission o the crime. #egree o instruction also will not be considered i the crime is something which does not reDuire an educated *erson to understand.
Relationshi! Relationshi* is not sim*l! mitigating or aggravating. "here are s*eciic circumstances where relationshi* is eem*ting. 4mong such circumstances are6 (1)
,n the case o an accessor! who is related to the *rinci*al within the relationshi* *rescribed in 4rticle 98K
(9)
4lso in 4rticle 9+$% a s*ouse does not incur criminal liabilit! or a crime o less serious *h!sical inuries or serious *h!sical inuries i this was inlicted ater having sur*rised the oended s*ouse or *aramour or mistress committing actual seual intercourse.
(0)
"hose commonl! given in 4rticle 009 when the crime o thet% malicious mischie and swindling or estaa. "here is no criminal liabilit! but onl! civil liabilit! i the oender is related to the oended *art! as s*ouse% ascendant% or descendant or i the oender is a brother or sister or brother in law or sister in law o the oended *art! and the! are living together. @em*ting circumstance is the relationshi*. "his is an absolutor! cause.
ometimes% relationshi* is a Duali!ing and not onl! a generic aggravating circumstance. ,n the crime o Dualiied seduction% the oended woman must be a virgin and less than 1& !rs old. Eut i the oender is a brother o the oended woman or an ascendant o the oended woman% regardless o whether the woman is o bad re*utation% even i the woman is '8 !ears old or more% crime is Dualiied seduction. ,n such a case% relationshi* is Duali!ing.
Into4ication "his circumstance is i*so acto mitigating% so that i the *rosecution wants to den! the oender the beneit o this mitigation% the! should *rove that it is habitual and that it is intentional. "he moment it is shown to be habitual or intentional to the commission o the crime% the same will immediatel! aggravate% regardless o the crime committed. ,ntoication to be considered mitigating% reDuires that the oender has reached that degree o intoication where he has no control o himsel an!more. "he idea is the oender% because o the intoication is alread! acting under diminished sel control. "his is the rational wh! intoication is mitigating. o i
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
this reason is not *resent% intoication will not be considered mitigating. o the mere act that the oender has ta=en one or more cases o beer o itsel does not warrant a conclusion that intoication is mitigating. "here must be indication that because o the alcoholic inta=e o the oender% he is suering rom diminished sel control. "here is diminished voluntariness insoar as his intelligence or reedom o action is concerned. ,t is not the Duantit! o alcoholic drin=. Rather it is the eect o the alcohol u*on the oender which shall be the basis o the mitigating circumstance. Ill*stration5 ,n a case% there were two laborers who were the best o riends. ince it was *a!da!% the! decided to have some good time and ordered beer. 5hen the! dran= two cases o beer the! became more tal=ative until the! engaged in an argument. One *ulled out a =nie and stabbed the other. 5hen arraigned he invo=ed intoication as a mitigating circumstance. ,ntoication does not sim*l! mean that the oender has *arta=en o so much alcoholic beverages. "he intoication in law reDuires that because o the Dualit! o the alcoholic drin= ta=en% the oender had *racticall! lost sel control. o although the oender ma! have *arta=en o two cases o beer% but ater stabbing the victim he hailed a tric!cle and even instructed the driver to the *lace where he is slee*ing and the tric!cle could not reach his house and so he has to alight and wal= to his house% then there is no diminished sel control. "he u*reme Court did not give the mitigating circumstance because o the number o wounds inlicted u*on the victim. "here were 11 stab wounds and this% the u*reme Court said% is incom*atible with the idea that the oender is alread! suering rom diminished sel control. On the contrar!% the indication is that the oender gained strength out o the drin=s he had ta=en. ,t is not the Duantit! o drin= that will determine whether the oender can legall! invo=e intoication. "he conduct o the oender% the manner o committing the crime% his behavior ater committing the crime must show the behavior o a man who has alread! lost control o himsel. Otherwise intoication cannot legall! be considered.
'e"ree of instr*ction and ed*cation "hese are two distinct circumstances. One ma! not have an! degree o instruction but is nevertheless educated. @am*le6 4 has been living with *roessionals or sometime.
Pa"e =- of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) education because he came rom a amil! where brothers are all *roessionals. o he understands what is right and wrong. "he act that the oender did not have schooling and is illiterate does not mitigate his liabilit! i the crime committed is one which he inherentl! understands as wrong such as *arricide. , a child or son or daughter would =ill a *arent% illiterac! will not mitigate because the low degree o instruction has no bearing on the crime. ,n the same manner% the oender ma! be a law!er who committed ra*e. "he act that he has =nowledge o the law will not aggravate his liabilit!% because his =nowledge has nothing to do with the commission o the crime. Eut i he committed alsiication% that will aggravate his criminal liabilit!% where he used his s*ecial =nowledge as a law!er.
CAE 98R G$%I9IN/@ MI%/A%IN/ AN' A//RAVA%IN/ CIRC$M%ANCE
I.
E L9> 'E 9E N E # PR 8PI A ' E9E N A& .
Vena V. Verga (a)
P,CB,N GP BN,3@ O3 R 4P," PR@P4R,N "O L,@ 5,"< 4CCG@# 4N# "4EE,N <,/).
P@OPL@ vs. LG4G@ Be!word6 5oman about to be ra*ed while her husband was at wor=. Victim% um*ing rom the window ell on some stones. Iss*e5 W+N the defendant is entitled on "ro*nds of le"itimate self> defense. #ecision6 ?es. "he deendantIs act constitutes a usti!ing circumstance since6 4side rom the right to lie on which rests the legitimate deense o our *erson% we have the right to *ro*ert! acDuired b! us% and the right to honor which is not the least *ried o our *atrimon!. 4ll the reDuisites o eem*ting circumstance are *resent and should be ta=en into consideration. (9) 5<@N B,LL,N <@L# GNG",3,@#. /@R@ "OGC<,N OR R4P,N O3 4R/% 5,"
PE8PLE vs. NARVAEJ Be!words6 encing% :gaddemitW;% land dis*ute% sel-deense
PE8PLE vs. APE/8
,ssue6 Can the deendant% ater admitting having shot the deceased rom the window o his house with a shotgun under the oregoing circumstances claim that he did so in deense o his *erson and his rights and thereore he should be eem*ted rom criminal liabilit!.
Be!word6 Paranoid sister% cou*le coming rom Nasugbu% husband stabbed at the vital organ b! the sister with an =nie and ",N C4N.
#ecision6 No. deense o oneIs *erson or rights is treated as a usti!ing circumstance under 4rticle 11 % *aragra*h 1 o the RPC% but in order or it to be a**reciated% the ollowing reDuisite should be *resent6 unlawul aggression% reasonable necessit! o the means em*lo!ed to *revent or re*el it and lac= o suicient *rovocation on the *art o the *erson deending himsel. "here is no Duestion that there was aggression on the *art o the victims6 one o the deceased ordering while the other actuall! *artici*ating in the encing. "he third element is also *resent.
#ecision6 5hen a slee*ing woman is awa=ened at night b! some one touching her or gras*ing her arm% and she% believing that some *erson is attem*ting to abuse her as=s who the intruder is and receives no re*l!% attac=s the said *erson with a *oc=et=nie% and the nature o the wound shows that she was either standing u* or sitting u* at the time% it is concluded that% notwithstanding the womans belie in the su**osed attem*t% there was not suicient *rovocation to usti! her in using a deadl! wea*onK although she actuall! believed it to be the beginning o an attem*t against her% she was not warranted in ma=ing such a deadl! assault% as the inured *erson did not insist or re*eat an! act which could be considered as an attem*t against her honor. "he accused eceeded her right o sel-deense since there was reall! no need o wounding the victim. "here was no reasonable cause or stri=ing a blow in the center o the bod! where the vital *arts are located. "hus% in the commission o the crime% there was *resent the circumstance o incom*lete eem*tion rom res*onsibilit! since the second reDuisite is missing.
(1) 5<@N B,LL,N 3OR
+vvver"a
,ssue6 57N the deendant can *lead com*lete sel-deense.
B,LL,N O3 P4R4/OGR NO" 4""R,EG"4EL@ "O 4""@/P" "O R4P@ 4CCG@# 5
Pa"e =, of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
P@OPL@ vs. /O,C4 PE8PLE vs. P8%E%A Beywords5 Consta1*lary vers*s Police. threatened 1y the consta1*lary. Be!words6 5oman =ills her *aramour who was not her live-in *artner sa!ing that the latter tried to ra*e her. ,ssue6 57N the woman can *lead sel-deense considering that the man seems to be aslee* when he was =illed. #ecision6 5hen it is *roven that the deceased had or some time maintained illicit relations with the accused% being accustomed to *ass the night in her house% it cannot be believed that it was necessar! or him to resort to violence% and thereore a statement alleging such violence is im*robable and inadmissible as a basis or an eem*tion rom liabilit!% u*on the ground that the accused in committing the homicide acted in sel-deense. "he crime having been committed b! the owner o the house against the *erson who had b! mutual consent reDuented the house% and at a time when the! were both in bed% the circumstance o nocturnit! cannot be considered because the nighttime was not *ur*osel! selected b! the accused. i. $nlawf*l A""ression 5hen *resent 4ttem*t to ra*e a woman PE8PLE V. L$A/$E@ $PRA $ vs. '8MEN Be!word6 3ight over a carabao% stri=ing with a :a*anese wood; and inlicting with a tuba =nie causing the victimIs death. ,ssue6 57N there is a reasonable necessit! or the means em*lo!ed to re*el the attac=. 'ecision5 es. %here was reasona1le necessity for the means em!loyed 1y D to re!el the attac6. %he ancient common law r*le in homicide was denominated Kretreat to the wall. %his doctrine ma6e it the d*ty of a !erson assailed to retreat as far as he can 1efore he is ;*stified in meetin" force with force. %his !rinci!le has now "iven way in the $ to Kstand "ro*nd when in the ri"ht r*le. Acc*sed did not !rovo6e the assa*lt. %he law did not re)*ire the acc*sed to retreat. %he element of !ractica1ility made it im!ossi1le for him to determine d*rin" the heat of a s*dden attac6 whether he wo*ld increase or diminish the ris6 to which e4!osed 1y standin" his "ro*nd or ste!!in" aside. %he resistance was not disa!!ro!riate to the assa*lt th*s the acc*sed is e4em!ted from criminal lia1ility 1eca*se he acted in le"itimate defense of his !erson.
+vvver"a
'efendant was a !olice
Iss*e5 W+N the defendant can maintain that he 6illed the victim in self>defense and that he is e4em!t from criminal lia1ility. 'ecision5 es. %here was no !rovocation on the defendants !art. A !oliceman in the !erformance of his d*ty m*st stand his "ro*nd and cannot ta6e ref*"e in fli"ht when attac6ed. His d*ty re)*ires him to overcome his o!!onent and the force he may e4ert therefore differs somewhat from that which ordinarily may 1e offered in self>defense. $nder the circ*mstances@ the force em!loyed 1y the defendant was reasona1ly necessary and that he acted in le"itimate self>defense. P@OPL@ vs. 4LCON4 Beywords5 /am1lin"@ defendant cheated the victim. Victim 1ecame so an"ry and threatened to inflict harm on the defendant. /*ards. Iss*e5 W+N the defendant is entitled to ac)*ittal for havin" 6illed the victim in the e4ercise of his ri"ht of self>defense. 'ecision5 No. %here were two sta"es in the fi"ht. In the initial sta"e@ the deceased assa*lted the defendant 1*t the latter was a1le to resist the a""ression. When the deceased retreated@ there was no lon"er any dan"er to the life of the acc*sed 1*t the latter !*rs*ed him and inflicted many additional wo*nds. An acc*sed was no lon"er actin" in self>defense when he !*rs*ed and 6illed a fleein" adversary@ tho*"h ori"inally the *nlawf*l a""ressor@ there 1ein" then no more a""ression to defend a"ainst@ the same havin" ceased from the moment the deceased too6 to his heels. ince one of the in"redients of self>defense is missin"@ com!lete self>defense cannot 1e invo6ed.
P@OPL@ vs. L4GR@L Beywords5 tolen 6iss.
Pa"e =0 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) e4!lanation offered@ wo*ld 1e the a""ressor@ and this !res*m!tion is confirmed 1y the evidence. %he victim then can invo6e self>defense. P@OPL@ V. C4EGNC4L Beywords5 R8CB %HE <8A% Iss*e5 W+N the defendant is com!letely e4em!ted from all criminal lia1ility. 'ecision5 es. %he a!!ellant havin" acted in defense of his wife and child and the other !assen"ers in the 1oat in stri6in" the deceased with an oar in order to ma6e him desist from tryin" to *!set the 1oat@ and the means em!loyed havin" 1een reasona1ly necessary in this defense@ while it was at the cost of the life of the deceased@ he is com!letely e4em!t from criminal lia1ility. G vs. GE,NGE,N Beywords5 = year old man aided 1y another man to !arry the 1lows of D who made *nchaste !ro!osals to the old mans wife. Iss*e5 W+N the !erson who aided the old man 1y f*rnishin" a wea!on to the latter ma6es the former lia1le for homicide.
Vena V. Verga
'ecision5 No. %he 6illin" was done in the !erformance f a d*ty. %he deceased was *nder the o1li"ation to s*rrender and had no ri"ht after evadin" service of his sentence@ to commit assa*lt and diso1edience with a wea!on in the hand@ which altho*"h the !oliceman to resort to s*ch an e4treme means which@ altho*"h it !roved to 1e fatal@ was ;*stified 1y the circ*mstance. Policeman committed no crime. V4LCORS4 vs. P@OPL@ Beywords5 'etention !risoner char"ed of stealin" chic6ens. Po*ltry area. Police only tried to hit the victim on the le" 1*t *nfort*nately hit him on the 1ac6. %he deceased did not head several warnin" shots. Iss*e5 W+N the action of the defendant can 1e ;*stified. 'ecision5 %he act !erformed was committed in the !erformance of official d*ty and was more or less necessary to !revent the esca!in" !risoner from s*ccessf*lly el*din" the officers of the law. %o hold the acc*sed "*ilty of homicide may have the effect of demorali(in" !olice officers dischar"in" official f*nctions identical or similar to those in the !erformance of which !etitioner was en"a"ed at the time he fired at the deceased@ with the res*lt that thereafter@ there wo*ld 1e half> hearted and dis!irited efforts on their !art to com!ly with s*ch official d*ty. %his wo*ld 1e a "reat detriment to !*1lic interest. P@OPL@ vs. EONO4N
'ecision5 No. Where the one@ who *sed the wea!on@ was declared to 1e e4em!t from res!onsi1ility in re!ellin" the attac6 of which he was the victim and in wo*ndin" his assailant therewith@ the lo"ical conse)*ence of that declaration of e4em!tion from res!onsi1ility is that the other@ who f*rnished the le"itimate wea!on *sed in his defense sho*ld 1e also ac)*itted and declared e4em!t from any res!onsi1ility. If one who defends a third !erson *nder the conditions and with the re)*isites the !enal law lays down for e4em!tin" him from res!onsi1ility sho*ld 1e ac)*itted of the char"e in a case !rosec*ted a"ainst him@ then when a !erson who did nothin" more than f*rnish a wea!on to one whom he saw in !eril and in "reat need of defendin" himself and re!ellin" a serio*s assa*lt@ it is illo"ical and *n;*st to deny to said assistant the same e4em!tion from res!onsi1ility and the e4oneration "ranted the slayer on the "ro*nds of self>defense@ as was held in the same ;*d"ment to 1e lawf*l and ri"ht. P@OPL@ vs. #@L,/4 Beywords5 Esca!ee who was 6illed 1y a !oliceman while orderin" the latter to s*rrender. Iss*e5 W+N the !oliceman sho*ld 1e held lia1le
+vvver"a
Beywords5 1ar1ersho!@ insanity KIll 6ill yo*@ KIll !ay yo* Iss*e5 W+N the !rosec*tion have the 1*rden of !rovin" that the acc*sed was sane at the time he committed the crime. 'ecision5 No. In the Phili!!ines@ the 1*rden@ to 1e s*re@ is on the !rosec*tion to !rove 1eyond a reasona1le do*1t that the defendant committed the crime@ 1*t sanity is !res*med@ and when a defendant in a criminal case inter!oses the defense of mental inca!acity@ the 1*rden of esta1lishin" that fact rests *!on him. In the case at 1ar@ the defense inter!osed 1ein" that the defendant was insane at the time he 6illed the deceased@ the o1li"ation of !rovin" that affirmative alle"ation rests on the defense.
Pa"e =2 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) !eo!le of so*nd mind. %o !rove insanity@ therefore@ circ*mstantial evidence@ if clear and convincin"@ s*ffice #Peo!le vs.
Vena V. Verga
G vs. @L,C4N4L Beyword5 Ca!tain 6illed 1y shi!mates. Im!*lse of *ncontrolla1le fear of a "reater in;*ry sho*ld the defendant ref*se.
P@OPL@ vs. R@N@4#O Beywords5 Insane sec*rity "*ard. lave>driver teacher who as6ed the "*ard to ty!e test )*estionnaires. Iss*e5 W+N the defendant can 1e ac)*itted with the ar"*ment that he sho*ld 1e e4em!ted from criminal lia1ility on acco*nt of insanity. 'ecision5 No. 9or !*r!oses of dis!osin" of a!!ellantOs defense it 1ecomes necessary to restate certain 1asic !rinci!les in criminal law@ vi(. that a !erson is criminally lia1le for a felony committed 1y him that a felonio*s or criminal act #delito doloso& is !res*med to have 1een done with deli1erate intent@ that is@ with freedom intelli"ence@ and malice 1eca*se the moral and le"al !res*m!tion is that freedom and intelli"ence constit*te the normal condition of a !erson in the a1sence of evidence to the contrary that one of the ca*ses which will overthrow this !res*m!tion of vol*ntariness and intelli"ence is insanity in which even the actor is e4em!t from criminal lia1ility as !rovided for in Article ,0@ !ara"ra!h ,@ of the Revised Penal Code. In the eyes of the law@ insanity e4ist when there is a com!lete de!rivation of intelli"ence in committin" the act@ that is@ the acc*sed is de!rived of reason@ he acts witho*t the least discernment 1eca*se there is a com!lete a1sence of the !ower to discern@ or that there is a total de!rivation of freedom of the will mere a1normality of the mental fac*lties will not e4cl*de im!*ta1ility. %he on*s !ro1andi rest *!on him who invo6es insanity as an e4em!tin" circ*mstances and he m*st !rove it 1y clear and !ositive evidence. A!!lyin" these !rinci!les@ defense fails. G vs. BN,<" Beyword5 cha*ffer of $ Army. Child was r*n over while the defendant was tryin" to overta6e. Iss*e5 W+N the defendant sho*ld 1e char"ed for reason of rec6less ne"li"ence. 'ecision5 No. 8ne !erson is not com!elled to travel 1ehind another on the hi"hway@ and one has not the e4cl*sive ri"ht to !recede another. %he traveler may !ass to the front when he has "ood and s*fficient "ro*nds to 1elieve that he can do so in safety. Whatever may have 1een the ca*se of an a*tomo1ile accident@ if it cannot 1e attri1*ted to the miscond*ct or the ne"li"ence of the o !erator in the mana"ement of his machine@ he cannot 1e held lia1le either civilly or criminally.
Iss*e5 W+N the defendant can invo6e that he was actin" *nder the im!*lse if an *ncontrolla1le fear of a "reater in;*ry. 'ecision5 Chief mate did not e4ercise infl*ence over the acc*sed.
P@OPL@ vs. E4N#,4N Beywords5 infanticide 1a1y 6illed 1y animal 1ites a1andonment
+vvver"a
Pa"e =3 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Iss*e5 W+N the mother can 1e held lia1le for infanticide and or a1andonment of a minor. 'ecision5 Infanticide and a1andonment of a minor@ to 1e !*nisha1le@ m*st 1e committed willf*lly or conscio*sly@ or at least it m*st 1e the res*lt of a vol*ntary@ conscio*s and@ free act or omission. Even in cases where said crimes are committed thro*"h mere im!r*dence@ the !erson who commits them@ *nder said circ*mstance@ m*st 1e in the f*ll en;oyment of his mental fac*lties@ or m*st 1e conscio*s of his acts@ in order that he may 1e held lia1le. %he law e4em!ts from criminal lia1ility any !erson who acts *nder the circ*mstances in which the a!!ellant acted in this case@ 1y "ivin" 1irth to a child in a thic6et and later a1andonin" it@ not 1eca*se of im!r*dence or any other ca*se than that she was overcome 1y severe di((iness and e4treme de1ility@ with no fa*lt or intention on her !art. he has in her favor the fo*rth and seventh e4em!tin" circ*mstances. P@OPL@ vs. #GNO Beywords5 confined in a mental hos!ital for insanity 1*t fo*nd sane while !er!et*atin" the crime. Hidin" a deadly wea!on and em1ar6in" to evade arrest are conscio*s ado!tion of the !attern to 6ill. 'AR em!loyee 6illed. Iss*e5 W+N the defendant can 1e ac)*itted on the "ro*nds of insanity. 'ecision5 8ne who s*ffers from insanity at the time of the commission of the offense char"ed cannot in a le"al sense entertain a criminal intent and cannot 1e held criminally res!onsi1le for his acts. His *nlawf*l act is the !rod*ct of a mental disease or a mental defect. In order that insanity may relieve a !erson from criminal res!onsi1ility@ it is necessary that there 1e a com!lete de!rivation of intelli"ence in committin" the act@ that is@ that the acc*sed 1e de!rived of co"nition that he acts witho*t the least discernment that there 1e com!lete a1sence or de!rivation of the freedom of the will #Peo!le vs. P*no&. %he fact that the defendant remem1ered his acts !roves that he was not insane or if insane@ his insanity admitted of l*cid intervals. Insanity in law e4ists when there is a com!lete de!rivation of intelli"ence. #,",NG,< ,N4N,"? 3RO/ 4N,"? It is diffic*lt to distin"*ish from insanity. %here no definite defined 1order 1etween sanity and insanity. $nder forei"n ;*risdiction@ there are three ma;or criteria in determinin" the e4istence of insanity@ namely5 del*sion test@ irresisti1le im!*lse test@ and the ri"ht and wron" test. Insane del*sion is manifested 1y a false 1elief for which there is no reasona1le 1asis and which wo*ld 1e incredi1le *nder the "iven
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
circ*mstances to the same !erson if he is of com!os mentis. $nder the del*sion test@ an insane !erson 1elieves in a state of thin"s@ the e4istence of which no rational !erson wo*ld 1elieve. A !erson acts *nder an irresisti1le im!*lse when@ 1y reason of d*ress or mental disease@ he has lost the !ower to choose 1etween ri"ht and wron"@ to avoid the act in )*estion@ his free a"ency 1ein" at the time destroyed. $nder the ri"ht and wron" test@ a !erson is insane when he s*ffers from s*ch !erverted condition of the mental and moral fac*lties as to render him inca!a1le of distin"*ishin" 1etween ri"ht and wron". o far@ *nder o*r ;*risdiction@ there has 1een no case that lays down a definite test or criterion for insanity. However@ We can a!!ly as test or criterion the definition of insanity *nder ection ,-2 of the Revised Administrative Code@ which states that insanity is a manifestation in lan"*a"e or cond*ct@ of disease or defect of the 1rain@ or a more or less !ermanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality@ f*nctional or or"anic@ and characteri(ed 1y !erversion@ inhi1ition@ or 1y disordered f*nction of the sensory or of the intellective fac*lties@ or 1y im!aired or disordered volition. Insanity as defined a1ove is evinced 1y a deran"ed and !erverted condition of the mental fac*lties@ which is manifested in lan"*a"e or cond*ct. An insane !erson has no f*ll and clear *nderstandin" of the nat*re and conse)*ence of his act. %h*s@ insanity may 1e shown 1y s*rro*ndin" circ*mstances fairly throwin" li"ht on the s*1;ect@ s*ch as evidence of the alle"ed deran"ed !ersonOs "eneral cond*ct and a!!earance@ his acts and cond*ct inconsistent with his !revio*s character and ha1its@ his irrational acts and 1eliefs@ and his im!rovident 1ar"ains. Evidence of insanity m*st have reference to the mental condition of the !erson whose sanity is in iss*e@ at the very time of doin" the act@ which is the s*1;ect of in)*iry. However@ it is !ermissi1le to receive of his mental condition for a reasona1le !eriod 1oth 1efore and after the time of the act in )*estion. 'irect testimony is not re)*ired nor the s!ecific acts of deran"ement essential to esta1lish insanity as a defense. %he va"aries of the mind can only 1e 6nown 1y o*tward acts5 there1y we read the tho*"hts@ motives and emotions of a !erson and thro*"h which we determine whether his acts conform to the !ractice of !eo!le of so*nd mind.
Pa"e =7 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) *nconscio*sly. Whoever@ therefore@ invo6es insanity as a defense has the 1*rden of !rovin" its e4istence. %he )*ant*m of evidence re)*ired to overthrow the !res*m!tion of sanity is !roof 1eyond reasona1le do*1t. Insanity is a defense in a confession and avoidance@ and as s*ch m*st 1e !roved 1eyond reasona1le do*1t. Insanity m*st 1e clearly and satisfactorily !roved in order to ac)*it an acc*sed on the "ro*nd of insanity. A!!ellant has not s*ccessf*lly dischar"ed the 1*rden of overcomin" the !res*m!tion that he committed the crime as char"ed freely@ 6nowin"ly@ and intelli"ently. Lastly@ the tate sho*ld "*ard a"ainst sane m*rderer esca!in" !*nishment thro*"h a "eneral !lea of insanity. #Peo!le vs. '*n"o&. P@OPL@ vs. R434N4N Beywords5 chi(o!hrenic !erson !leadin" not "*ilty for the crime of ra!e. Acc*sed confined in the mental hos!ital after the incident. ecl*sive who alle"e that he hears so*nds@ which he descri1ed as K!aran" i1on@ tini" n" i1on. Iss*e5 W+N the defendant can 1e ac)*itted of the char"e of ra!e on the "ro*nd that he was s*fferin" from a mental disorder called schi(o!hrenia at the time he committed the crime. 'ecision5 No. %he alle"ation of insanity or im1ecility m*st 1e clearly !roved. Witho*t !ositive evidence that the defendant had !revio*sly lost his reason or was demented@ a few moments !rior to or d*rin" the !er!etration of the crime@ it will 1e !res*med that he was in normal condition. Acts !enali(ed 1y law are always ref*ted to 1e vol*ntary@ and it is im!ro!er to concl*de that a !erson acted *nconscio*sly@ in order to relieve him from lia1ility@ on the 1asis of his mental condition@ *nless his insanity and a1sence of will are !roved. %he standard set o*t in 9ormi"ones were commonly ado!ted in s*1se)*ent case@ namely5 #a& the tests of co"nition>com!lete de!rivation of intelli"ence in committin" the Qcriminal act@ and #1& the test of violation>or that there 1e a total de!rivation of freedom of the will. <*t o*r case law shows common reliance on the test of co"nition@ rather than on the test relatin" to freedom of the will e4amination of the case law has failed to t*rn *! any case where this Co*rt has e4em!ted an acc*sed on the sole "ro*nd that he was totally de!rived of freedom of the will@ i.e.@ witho*t an accom!anyin" com!lete de!rivation of intelli"ence. %his is !erha!s to 1e e4!ected since !ersonOs volition nat*rally reaches o*t only towards that which is !resented as desira1le 1y his intelli"ence@ whether that intelli"ence 1e diseased 1e healthy. In any case@ where the acc*sed failed to show com!lete im!airment or loss of intelli"ence@ the Co*rt has reco"ni(ed at most a miti"atin"@ not an e4em!tin"@ circ*mstance in accord with Article ,2#& of the Revised Penal Code. *ch illness of the offender as wo*ld diminish the e4ercise of the will> !ower of the offender witho*t however de!rivin" him of the conscio*sness of his Acts. %he law !res*mes every man to 1e sane. A
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
!erson acc*sed of a crime has the 1*rden of !rovin" his affirmative alle"ation of insanity. 44RV4",N 4N# /,",4",N C,RCG/"4NC@ G vs. <,CB Beyword5 Afro>American soldier and Moro woman havin" an illicit affair. %he woman fo*nd another man. Gealo*sy. Evident !remeditation. Iss*e No ,5 W+N m*rder was committed. 'ecision5 %he a1ove>stated facts@ which have 1een f*lly !roven in the !resent case@ constit*te the crime of m*rder@ defined and !*nished 1y article 3-2 of the Penal Code@ in that the woman A"*stina ola met a violent death@ with the )*alifyin" circ*mstance of treachery #alevosia&@ she 1ein" s*ddenly and ro*"hly attac6ed and *ne4!ectedly fired *!on with a 37>cali1er revolver@ at close@ if not !oint 1lan6 ran"e@ while the in;*red woman was *narmed and *n!re!ared@ and at a time when she was listenin" to a conversation@ in which she was concerned@ 1etween her a""ressor and a third !erson@ and after *s*al and c*stomary words had !assed 1etween her and her a""ressor. 9rom all of the fore"oin" it is lo"ically inferred that means@ manners@ and forms were em!loyed in the attac6 that directly and s!ecially ins*red the cons*mmation of the crime witho*t s*ch ris6 to the a*thor thereof as mi"ht have 1een offered 1y the victim who@ owin" to the s*ddenness of the attac6@ was do*1tless *na1le to flee from the !lace where she was standin"@ or even esca!e or divert the wea!on. Iss*e No. 05 W+N Evident !remeditation can 1e a!!reciated. 'ecision5 es. %he circ*mstance of !remeditation can 1e a!!reciated 1*t sho*ld only 1e considered as merely a "eneric one. Premeditation is@ however@ manifest and evident 1y reason of the o!en acts e4ec*ted 1y the acc*sed. All the fore"oin" circ*mstances concl*sively !rove that the acc*sed@ deli1erately and after d*e reflection had resolved to 6ill the woman who had left him for another man@ and in order to accom!lish his !erverse intention with safety@ notwithstandin" the fact that he was already !rovided with a clean and well>!re!ared wea!on and carried other loaded cartrid"es 1esides those already in his revolver@ he entered the ho*se@ "reetin" everyone co*rteo*sly and conversed with his victim@ in what a!!eared to 1e a !ro!er manner@ dis"*isin" his intention and calmin" her 1y his a!!arent re!ose and tran)*ility@ do*1tless in order to s*ccessf*lly accom!lish his criminal desi"n@ 1ehavin" himself !ro!erly as he had !lanned to do 1eforehand.
Pa"e =: of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Iss*e No 25 W+N the acc*sed can invo6e loss of reason and self> control !rod*ced 1y ;ealo*sy. 'ecision5 No. %he only ca*ses which miti"ate the criminal res!onsi1ility for the loss of self>control are s*ch as ori"inate from le"itimate feelin"s@ not those which arise from vicio*s@ *nworthy@ and immoral !assions.
Vena V. Verga
'ecision5 es. Her act of mortally wo*ndin" her lover had not 1een !recede 1y a""ression on the !art of the latter. %here is no occasion to s!ea6 her of the Kreasona1le necessity of the means em!loyed to !revent or re!el it@ nor is it necessary to in)*ire whether or not there was s*fficient !rovocation on the !art of the one invo6in" le"itimate self>defense 1eca*se 1oth circ*mstances !res*!!ose *nlawf*l a""ression@ which@ we re!eat@ was not !resent in the instant case.
G vs. #@L4 CRGS Beywords5 '*e to heat of !assion@ a man 6ills his conc*1ine *!on discoverin" that she had carnal comm*nication with another man. Iss*e No. ,5 W+N the circ*mstances can 1e considered an e4ten*ation of his criminal lia1ility. 'ecision5 es. %he commission of the offense of which defendant was convicted was mar6ed with the e4ten*atin" circ*mstance defined in s*1section = of article @ in that defendant acted *!on an im!*lse so !owerf*l as nat*rally to have !rod*ced !assion and o1f*scation@ the evidence disclosin" that in the heat of !assion he 6illed the deceased@ who had theretofore 1een his )*erida #conc*1ine or lover&@ *!on discoverin" her in fla"rante in carnal comm*nication with a m*t*al ac)*aintance. Iss*e No 05 W+N this case can 1e decided 1ased on Hic6s case. 'ecision5 No. In the former case the ca*se of the alle"ed !assion and o1f*scation of the a""ressor was the convictOs ve4ation@ disa!!ointment and an"er en"endered 1y the ref*sal of the woman to contin*e to live in illicit relations with him@ which she had a !erfect ri"ht to do@ his reason for 6illin" her 1ein" merely that she had elected to leave him and with his f*ll 6nowled"e to "o and live with another. In the case at 1ar the im!*lse *!on which the defendant acted@ and which nat*rally !rod*ced !assion and o1f*scation@ was not that the woman declined to have illicit relations with him@ 1*t the s*dden revelation that she was *ntr*e to him@ and his discovery of her in fla"rante in the arms of another. As said 1y the s*!reme co*rt of !ain in the a1ove cited decision@ this was a s*fficient im!*lse in the ordinary and nat*ral co*rse of thin"s to !rod*ce the !assion and o1f*scation which the law declares to 1e one of the e4ten*atin" circ*mstances to 1e ta6en into consideration 1y the co*rt.
Iss*e No. 05 W+N a sli"ht !*shin" of the head which h*rt the woman can 1e considered a miti"atin" circ*mstance5 'ecision5 No. A sli"ht !*sh of the head with the hand>which@ accordin" to her was the ca*se that led her to sta1 him@ s*ch act does not constit*te the *nlawf*l a""ression mentioned 1y the Code@ to re!el which it is lawf*l to em!loy a means of defense which may 1e reasona1ly necessary. Considerin" that an *nlawf*l a""ression. as a f*ndamental re)*isite of self>defense is not necessarily im!lied in any act of a""ression a"ainst a !artic*lar !erson@ when the a*thor of the same does not !ersist in his !*r!ose or when he desists therefrom to the e4tent that the !erson attac6ed is no lon"er in !eril. Iss*e No. 25 W+N she is entitled to a miti"atin" circ*mstance of lac6 of intention to ca*se "rave in;*ry. . 'ecision5 No. %he sta1>wo*nd inflicted *!on the deceased 1y the acc*sed was not only mortal@ 1*t the victim th*s wo*nded and r*nnin" away was also !*rs*ed 1y the acc*sed@ 6nife in hand@ and> the latter wo*ld !erha!s have inflicted *!on him other wo*nds had it not 1een for the timely arrival of !oliceman who calmed her 1ellicose attit*de and !laced her *nder arrest. %his mar6ed o1stinacy of the acc*sed in her a""ression clearly reveals her intention to ca*se to its f*ll e4tent the in;*ry she has committed. Iss*e No. 35 W+N the defendant is entitled to a miti"atin" circ*mstance that she acted *nder o1f*scation.
P@OPL@ vs. ?G/4N
'ecision5 es. %his miti"atin" circ*mstance sho*ld 1e ta6en into consideration in favor of the acc*sed@ in view of the !ec*liar circ*mstances of the case@ es!ecially the fact that the acc*sed had 1een a1andoned 1y the deceased after livin" to"ether for three or fo*r years@ and the harsh treatment which the deceased "ave the acc*sed on the afternoon of the day in )*estion@ a short time 1efore the a""ression.
Beyword5 Man ref*sed to "o 1ac6 to his live>in !artner. Kthat woman !en6nife
Iss*e No 75 W+N she entitled to the miti"atin" circ*mstance of vol*ntary s*rrender to the a*thorities.
Iss*e No. ,5 W+N the woman committed a crime.
+vvver"a
Pa"e == of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 'ecision5 No. $nder the circ*mstance@ it wo*ld 1e an error to ta6e into consideration this circ*mstance. Iss*e No. :5 W+N she is entitled to a miti"atin" circ*mstance of lac6 of instr*ction. 'ecision5 es. %he defendant is a mere wa"e>earner and co*ld not even si"n her statement 1efore the !olice and had to affi4 her th*m1 mar6. P@OPL@ vs. E@LLO Beyword5 8ld man 6ain"ero ind*ced his yo*n" 1ride to wor6 as a !*1lic hostess. Woman ref*sed to "ive s*!!ort and was seein" another man. 7 "lasses of t*1a White slave trade. Iss*e No.,5 W+N treachery can 1e a!!reciated in order to )*alify the crime to m*rder. 'ecision5 While it cannot 1e denied that Alicia was sta11ed at the 1ac6@ the wo*nd was 1*t a !art and contin*ation of the a""ression. %he fo*r #3& sta1 wo*nds were inflicted indiscriminately@ witho*t re"ard as to which !ortion of her 1ody was the s*1;ect of attac6. %he trial co*rt itself fo*nd that the sta1 in the 1ac6 was inflicted as the victim was r*nnin" away. 9or this reason@ treachery cannot 1e im!*ted Iss*e No. 05 W+N there is evident !remeditation. 'ecision5 Evident !remeditation was@ li6ewise@ not esta1lished.. %he acc*sed had 1een carryin" a 1alison" with him for a lon" time as a !reca*tion a"ainst dr*n6ards@ and witho*t any !resent !lan or intent to *se it a"ainst his commonlaw wife. %hat he watched her movements daily manifested his ;ealo*s character@ 1*t there is no evidence that from this ;ealo*sy s!ro*ted a !lan to sn*ff o*t her life. Iss*e No. 25 W+N the crime can 1e )*alified 1y a1*se of s*!erior stren"th. 'ecision5 No. %he evidence does not show@ either@ any s*!erior stren"th on the !art of the acc*sed@ and@ not !ossessin" it@ he co*ld not ta6e advanta"e of it. %r*e that he was armed with a 1alison"@ 1*t he was old and 1aldado #invalid&@ while Alicia was in the !rime of her yo*th@ and not infirm. %he facts are not s*fficient to draw a com!arison of their relative stren"th. Possession of a 1alison" "ives an a""ressor a formida1le advanta"e over the *narmed victim@ 1*t the !hysi)*e of the a""ressor o*"ht also to 1e considered. At any rate@ ta6in" into acco*nt the emotional e4citement of the acc*sed@ it is not clearly shown that there was intenciSn deli1erada de !revalerse de la s*!erioridad a!rovecharse intencionadamente de la misma i.e.@ deli1erate intent to ta6e advanta"e of s*!erior stren"th.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
Iss*e No. 35 W+N ni"httime may1e a!!reciated as a""ravatin" circ*mstance. 'ecision5 No. %he crime was committed at ni"httime@ 1*t the acc*se did no see6 or ta6e advanta"e of it to 1etter accom!lish his !*r!ose. In fact@ the !lace was 1ri"ht and well li"hted hence the circ*mstance did not a""ravate the crime. Iss*e no. 75 W+N the can 1e a""ravatin" circ*mstance of a1*se of confidence and o1vio*s *n"ratef*lness. 'ecision5 No. %here is nothin" to show that the assailant and his common>law wife re!osed in one another any s!ecial confidence that co*ld 1e a1*sed@ or any "ratit*de owed 1y one to the other that o*"ht to 1e res!ected@ and which wo*ld 1ear any relation@ or connection@ with the crime committed. None is infera1le from the fact that the acc*sed was m*ch older than his victim@ or that he was !enniless while she was a1le to earn a livin" and occasionally "ave him money@ since@ 1oth lived to"ether as h*s1and and wife. Neither is it shown that the acc*sed too6 advanta"e of any s*ch s!ecial confidence in order to carry o*t the crime. Iss*e No. :5 W+N the acc*sed can claim a miti"atin" circ*mstance of havin" acted on !rovocation stron" to ca*se !assion and o1f*scation. #ecision6 ?es. ,t will be recalled that the lower court ound that the accused had *reviousl! re*roved the deceased or allowing hersel to be caressed b! a stranger.
Pa"e = of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
Iss*e5 W+N the co*rt erred in considerin" the defendant a ha1it*al delin)*ent.
P@OPL@ vs. ON
#ecision6 ?es. 4 *erson shall be deemed to be habituall! delinDuent% i within a *eriod o ten !ears rom the date o his release or last conviction o the crimes o robo% hurto% estaa% or alsiicaciXn% he is ound guilt! o an! o said crimes a third time or otener.M "hereore% a**ellants irst conviction% cannot be ta=en into account because his second conviction too= *lace ourteen !ears later.
Beyword5 'e1t Bidna!!ed@ sta11ed to death and 1*ried. Victim even made a !ro!osal of love to the wife of the acc*sed in lie* the latters "am1lin" de1t.
,ssue No. 96 circumstance.
57N etreme *overt! can be a**reciated as a mitigating
#ecision6 ?es. "his court a**roves it% recogniing the immanent *rinci*le that the right to lie is more sacred than a mere *ro*ert! right. "hat is not to encourage or even countenance thet but merel! to dull somewhat the =een and *ain-*roducing edges o the star= realities o lie.
P@OPL@ vs. #? POL Beyword5 falsification of !*1lic doc*ment red*ction of !enalty d*e to miti"atin" circ*mstance of !lea of "*ilty and lac6 of irre!ara1le material dama"e. Iss*e5 W+N the acc*sed is entitled to a miti"atin" circ*mstance of !lea of "*ilt. 'ecision5 es. %he !lea of "*ilty s!ontaneo*sly entered 1y the acc*sed !rior to the !resentation of the evidence for the !rosec*tion constit*tes miti"atin" circ*mstance. Iss*e No. 05 W+N the acc*sed can invo6e the fact that no irre!ara1le material dama"e was ca*sed to the offended !art in the commission of the crime. 'ecision5 No. %he miti"atin" circ*mstance so invo6ed@ which is that the crime committed 1y the acc*sed has ca*sed no irre!ara1le material dama"e to the offended !arty@ is not reco"ni(ed 1y the RPC. Neither is it amon" those which may 1e considered as similar nat*re and analo"o*s to those e4!ressly reco"ni(ed in accordance with Article ,2 section ,- and therefore it cannot correctly 1e ta6en into consideration.
+vvver"a
Iss*e5 W+N the acc*sed 1e held lia1le for the crimes of 6idna!!in" and m*rder. #ecision6 No. "he crime was murder onl!. "here was no illegal detention and victim was =illed and *rom*tl! buried. On the basis o the oregoing evidence% the accused can hardl! be held liable or =idna**ing as well. ,t ma! not be amiss to state that an accused is entitled to acDuittal unless his guilt is shown b! *roo be!ond reasonable doubt. (Rule 100% ection 1% Revised Rules o Court). "he evidence at hand hardl! satisied the reDuirement o *roo be!ond reasonable doubt as to the charge o =idna**ing. "he necessar! result is that the accused can he held liable onl! or the =illing o the victim. ,n other words% the time interval when the deceased was actuall! de*rived o his libert! was short and the same was onl! incidental to the main obective o murdering him.
,ssue No 96 57N treacher! can be a**reciated in Duali!ing the crime to murder. #ecision6 ?es. "reacher! (alevosia) Dualiied the =illing to murder. Gndis*uted acts show that the victimIs hands were tied and his mouth was gagged with a lannel cloth beore he was stabbed twice with an ice*ic= and buried in a shallow grave near a cree=. "hese acts *ortra! well that the tied hands o the victim rendered him deenseless and hel*less thereb! allowing the accused to commit the crime without ris= at all to their *erson. ,ssue6 57N treacher! can be a**reciated as regards the two other accused who did not do the actual stabbing. 'ecision5 Cons!iracy@ connivance and *nity of !*r!ose and intention amon" the acc*sed were !resent thro*"ho*t in the e4ec*tion of this crime. %he fo*r !artici!ated in the !lannin" and e4ec*tion of the crime and were at the scene in all its sta"es. %hey cannot esca!e the conse)*ence of any of their acts even if they deviated in some detail from what they ori"inally tho*"ht of. Cons!iracy im!lies concert of desi"n and not !artici!ation in every detail of e4ec*tion. %h*s@ treachery sho*ld 1e considered a"ainst all !ersons !artici!atin" or coo!eratin" in the !er!etration of the crime. ,ssue No. 06 57N the aggravating circumstance o nighttime can be absorbed in treacher!.
Pa"e = of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) #ecision6 ,t is clear that a**ellants too= advantage o nighttime in committing the elonies charged. ,nasmuch as the treacher! consisted in the act that the victims hands were tied at the time the! were beaten% the circumstance o nighttime is not absorbed in treacher!% but can be *erceived distinctl! thererom% since the treacher! rests u*on an inde*endent actual basis. 4 s*ecial case thereore is *resent to which the rule that nighttime is absorbed in treacher! does not a**l!. "his aggravating circumstance was correctl! a**reciated b! the lower court regardless o whether or not the same was *ur*osel! and deliberatel! sought b! the accused or it is clear that the dar=ness o the night acilitated the commission o the crime and was ta=en advantage o b! them.
,ssue6 57N the *ur*osive selection o uninhabited *lace be a**reciated.
#ecision6 "he *lace was ideal not merel! or bur!ing the victim but also or =illing him or it was a *lace where the *ossibilit! o the victim receiving some hel* rom third *ersons was com*letel! absent. "he accused sought the solitude o the *lace in order to better attain their *ur*ose without intererence% and to secure themselves against detection and *unishment. "he *ur*osive selection o an uninhabited *lace is thus clear rom the evidence. ,ssue No. A6 57N the aggravating circumstance o abuse o conidence can be a**reciated.
Vena V. Verga
to =ill the victim% bur! him% and lee rom the locale o the earul crime. 3or cruelt! to eist% it must be shown that the accused eno!ed and delighted in ma=ing their victim suer slowl! and graduall!% causing him unnecessar! *h!sical or moral *ain in the consummation o the criminal act. @ven granting that the victim died because o as*h!iation when he was buried and not hemorrhage rom stab wounds% it a**ears that the victims burial was not meant to ma=e him suer an! longer but sim*l! to conceal his bod! and the crime itsel. ,ssue No. &6 57N there is evident *remeditation. #ecision6 ?es. the Duali!ing circumstance o evident *remeditation (*remeditacion conocida) attended the commission o the crime. "he accused meditated and tenaciousl! *ersisted in the accom*lishment o the crime and were not *rom*ted merel! b! the im*ulse o the moment. ,ssue6 57N the *lead o guilt can be used as a mitigating circumstance. #ecision6 ?es. ince the =idna**ing *ortion o the crime cannot be a**reciated be!ond reasonable doubt% it would a**ear that the *lead o guilt! to this inormation naturall! would be most unair to the accused since the *enalt! would be that o ca*ital *unishment. "he accused showed signs o remorseulness u*on his arrest when he coo*erated with the *olice authorities in the solution o the crime. ,ssue6 57N the accused can be credited with an! mitigating circumstance.
#ecision6 ,n order or this circumstance to obtain% it is necessar! that there be a relation o trust and conidence between the accused and the one against whom the crime was committed% and that the accused made use o such relation to commit the crime. ,t is essential too that the conidence be a means o acilitating the commission o the crime% the cul*rit ta=ing advantage o the oended *art!s belie that the ormer would not abuse said conidence. "he accused and the victim were together that night in the nightclub as well as in the car not because o said conidence. ,t was merel! because the accused had some accounts to settle with him.
#ecision6 "he accused Eenamin Ong is li=ewise is entitled to the mitigating circumstance that is analogous to *assion and obuscation (4rt. 10% *ar. 18% Revised Penal Code). $ vs. /AMA8 Be!words6 Priest =illed in echange o a sum o mone!. ,nducement b! the uncleK ne*hew reused the mone! but nonetheless carried on with the crime.
,ssue No. '6 57N the use o motor vehicle be a**reciated as aggravating circumstance.
,ssue6 57N the aggravating circumstance that the accused orced or induced his ne*hew to murder the *riest b! hire or reward be a**reciated.
#ecision6 ?es. "he motor vehicle acilitated the star= ha**ening. ,t has been held that the use o a motor vehicle is aggravating in murder where the said vehicle was used in trans*orting the victim and the accused.
#ecision6 No. "he record does not show be!ond a reasonable doubt that the accused was orced or induced to commit this crime. ,t is true that he owed his uncle a sum o mone! and the latter could have used these obligations in order to orce his ne*hew to commit the crime but it has not been shown be!ond reasonable doubt that the uncle actuall! hired his ne*hew to =ill the deceased since the ne*hew reected the oer.
,ssue No. $6 57N cruelt! can be a**reciated as an aggravating circumstance. #ecision6 No. Cruelt! (ensaYamiento)% is an aggravating circumstance% cannot be considered here. "he brie o the 4cting olicitor eneral agrees with that o the accused in den!ing the attendance o cruelt! as an aggravating circumstance. ,ndeed% as it a**ears rom the record% the grou* intended merel!
+vvver"a
,ssue No. 96 5as the crime *ro*erl! classiied as murderJ
Pa"e - of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) #ecision6 ?es. "he deceased received the atal blow while he was in the dar= s*ace between the door and the stairs leading to the u**er *ortion o the convent.
I.
Vena V. Verga IN%8DICA%I8N WHEN MI%I/A%IN/.
A.
i)
(a) NO" <4E,"G4L PR @ G/P ", ON ,N 34V OR O 3 N O N- <4 E, "G4 L C <4 R4 C" @R O 3 ,N"OT,C4",ON
$ vs. 9I%J/ERAL'
#ecision6 ?es. Owing to his etreme ignorance% the C was com*elled to give him the beneits o the mitigating circumstance o lac= o discretion since it was shown the ne*hew was a *oor ignorant isherman and onl! de*ends on his uncle or subsistence.
9acts5 %he acc*sed and the victim had a dis!*te in a distillery. It can 1e ded*ced that 1oth are into4icated. %he victim #Marsh& str*c6 9it("erald@ which 6noc6ed the latter down. 9it("erald immediately arose@ and sayin" KI will show yo* sons of 1Ts@ ran toward the ice !lant in search of a revolver and ret*rned. After which@ he saw Marsh and fired at him. Marsh died soon after.
,ssue No. +6 57N the uncle should be considered as a *rinci*al b! induction.
Iss*e5 W+N a miti"atin" circ*mstance can 1e considered.
#ecision6 ?es. "he ne*hew merel! de*ends on his uncle or his subsistence while the latter was ound to be a man o great inluence.
#ecision6 ,n the *resence o *roo to the contrar!% it will be *resumed that intoication is not habitual% and the act that the accused was drun= at the time o the commission o the crime must then be considered as a mitigating circumstance. 4lso% where it a**ears that the accused ired a loaded revolver at the deceased and =illed him% it must be *resumed that he intended the natural conseDuences o his act% and he is not entitled to the beneit o the mitigating circumstance established b! the Penal Code.
PE8PLE vs. 'E LA R8A Be!words6 demonstrationK 3@4",K securit! guard threw a *illbo hitting one o the demonstrators in the head. ,ssue No. 16 57N the act o the accused can be characteried as murder and multi*le attem*ted murder #ecision6 ?es. "he crime committed is murder with multi*le attem*ted murder Dualiied b! the use o e*losive.
Provocation on the *art o /arsh cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance since there was no evidence how the Duarrel arose. Nor can the act that the homicide was immediatel! *receded b! an ara! between the deceased and the deendant ma! be considered as a mitigating circumstance. No other mitigating circumstance can be a**reciated in his avor or one who attac=s another with a deadl! wea*on as a revolver must =now that the most *robable result o such an aggression is the death o the *erson attac=ed. 4ccused is onl! entitled to a mitigating deense o intoication.
,ssue No. 96 57N the aggravating circumstance o treacher! be a**reciated as well.
ii)
#@3,N,N <4E,"G4L #RGNB4R# 4 ON@ ,V@N "O ,N"OT,C4",ON E? @TC@,V@ G@ O3 , N"OT,C4",N #R,NB
#ecision6 ?es.
,,.
,ssue No 06 57N the accused be credited with aggravating circumstance o lac= o intention to commit so grave a wong as that actuall! done.
3acts6 /c/ann and on /cBa! (one the victims) were *ac=ers at Cam* Vicars in /indanao. /c/ann and /cBa! went to the house o a /oro to get some matches with which to light their cigarettes however% the owners o the house would not allow them to enter. /c/ann then saw another /oro who was carving the head o a bolo. /c/ann snatched the bolo cutting the latterIs
#ecision6 No.
+vvver"a
G.. vs. /C/4NN
Pa"e , of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) ingers. "he moro then re*orted /c/ann to the authorities. "hereater% the /oro% /c/ann and /cBa! ound themselves waiting in a room (not clear i the! were waiting to be investigated% but the! were all together during that time). /c/ann suddenl! ired at /cBa! hitting the latter. 5hen the /oro tried to run% /cmann also ired at him.
Vena V. Verga
#ecision6 ?es. "he commission o the crime was attended b! aggravating circumstance o disregard o the res*ect due the oended *art! on account o her se. ,ssue No. +6 57N ,gnomin! can be added to the natural eects o the act.
,ssue6 57N intoication ma! be considered a mitigating circumstance. #ecision6 ,t is unli=el! that the shooting was accidental since he witnesses testiied that the! sa! /c/ann aiming the gun at /ac Ba!Is head. ,t is *robable that /c/ann was actuall! going to shoot the /oro but because he was drun= at that time% =illed /ac Ba! instead. Clearl!% deendant cannot claim lac= o intention.
#ecision. No. Nothing in the record shows that beore the deceased died% she was subected to such indignities as would cause her shame or moral suering. ,ssue No. A6 57N the act that the victim was the niece o the accused aggravate the crime.
"he court also held that the deendant was drun= at the time the crime was committed. Eut intoication in this case cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance since the deendant is a habitual drun=ard.
#ecision6 No. "he alternative circumstance o relationshi* shall be ta=en into consideration onl! when the oended *art! is the s*ouse% ascendant% descendant% legitimate% natural or ado*ted brother or sister or relative b! ainit! in the same degree o the oended.
,ssue No. '6 57N there are an! mitigating circumstance that can be a**reciated in avor o the accused.
4CCG@# @@N #RGNB "5@LV@ ",/@ OR /OR@
#ecision6 ?es. "he circumstance o his having made a voluntar! *lea o guilt beore the court o ev idence b! the *rosecution.
PE8PLE vs.
CannibalK Gncle =illed his niece to taste human leshK banana
,ssue No. 16 57N it can be contended that three !ears ater the commission o the crime% that the court should have subected the accused to some *s!chiatric test to determine his sanit!. #ecision6 No. "he record constitutes suicient ustiication or the conclusion that the accused was not insane at the time o the commission o the crime. "he accused had made several statements which were reduced into writing and signed b! him. "he acts and circumstances narrated b! the accused in those dierent statements tall! in im*ortant details. "he accused voluntaril! admitted his guilt. ince the accused was charged o having =illed the deceased or more than three !ears ago% it is not *ossible now to ascertain the mental condition o the deendant as o the time when he committed the crime o which he is charged. ,ssue No. 96 57N the accused used su*erior strength. #ecision6 ?es. "he attendant circumstance Dualiies the crime committed as murder. ,ssue No. 06 57N se can be a**reciated as an aggravating circumstance against the accused.
+vvver"a
Gnder the Revised Penal Code% when more than one *erson *artici*ated in the commission o the crime% the law loo=s into their *artici*ation because in *unishing oenders% the Revised Penal Code classiies them as6 (1)
*rinci*alK
(9)
accom*liceK or
(0)
accessor!.
"his classiication is true onl! under the Revised Penal Code and is not used under s*ecial laws% because the *enalties under the latter are never graduated. #o not use the term *rinci*al when the crime committed is a violation o s*ecial law. Onl! use the term :oender.; 4lso onl! classi! oenders when more than one too= *art in the commission o the crime to determine the *ro*er *enalt! to be im*osed. o% i onl! one *erson committed a crime% do not use *rinci*al. Gse the :oenders%; :cul*rits%; or the :accused.; 5hen a *roblem is encountered where there are several *artici*ants in the crime% the irst thing to ind out is i there is a cons*irac!. , there is% as a general rule% the criminal liabilit! o all will be the same% because the act o one is the act o all.
Pa"e 0 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Princi!al 1y accom!lice
indis!ensa1le
coo!eration
distin"*ished
from
an
,t is not ust a matter o coo*eration% it is more than i the crime could hardl! be committed. ,t is not that the crime would not be committed because i that is what !ou would im*l! it becomes an ingredient o the crime and that is not what the law contem*lates. ,n the case o ra*e% where three men were accused% one was on to* o the woman% one held the hands% one held the legs% the u*reme Court ruled that all *artici*ants are *rinci*als. "hose who held the legs and arms are *rinci*als b! indis*ensable coo*eration. "he accused are ather and son. "he ather told his son that the onl! wa! to convince the victim to marr! him is to resort to ra*e. o when the! saw the o**ortunit! the !oung man grabbed the woman% threw her on the ground and *laced himsel on to* o her while the ather held both legs o the woman and s*read them. "he u*reme Court ruled that the ather is liable onl! as an accom*lice. "he *oint is not ust on *artici*ation but on the im*ortance o *artici*ation in committing the crime.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
,n the irst situation% the acts indicate that i the ellow who held the legs o the victim and s*read them did not do so% the oender on to* could hardl! *enetrate because the woman was strong enough to move or resist. ,n the second situation% the son was much bigger than the woman so considering the strength o the son and the victim% *enetration is *ossible even without the assistance o the ather. "he son was a robust arm bo! and the victim undernourished. "he act o the ather in holding the legs o the victim merel! acilitated the *enetration but even without it the son would have *enetrated. "he basis is the im*ortance o the coo*eration to the consummation o the crime. , the crime could hardl! be committed without such coo*eration% then such coo*eration would bring about a *rinci*al. Eut i the coo*eration merel! acilitated or hastened the consummation o the crime% this would ma=e the coo*erator merel! an accom*lice. ,n a case where the oender was running ater the victim with a =nie. 4nother ellow came and bloc=ed the wa! o the victim and because o this% the one chasing the victim caught u* and stabbed the latter at the bac=. ,t was held that the ellow who bloc=ed the victim is a *rinci*al b! indis*ensable coo*eration because i he did not bloc= the wa! o the victim% the oender could not have caught u* with the latter. ,n another case% 4 was mauling E. C% a riend o E tried to a**roach but # sto**ed C so that 4 was able to continuousl! maul E. "he liabilit! o the ellow who sto**ed the riend rom a**roaching is as an accom*lice. Gnderstandabl! he did not coo*erate in the mauling% he onl! sto**ed to other ellow rom sto**ing the mauling. ,n case o doubt% avor the lesser *enalt! or liabilit!. 4**l! the doctrine o *ro reo.
Princi!al 1y ind*cement Conce*t o the inducement 2 one strong enough that the *erson induced could hardl! resist. "his is tantamount to an irresistible orce com*elling the *erson induced to carr! out the eecution o the crime. ,ll advised language is not enough unless he who made such remar= or advice is a co-cons*irator in the crime committed. 5hile in the course o a Duarrel% a *erson shouted to 4% :Bill himW Bill him.; 4 =illed the other ellow. ,s the *erson who shouted criminall! liable. ,s that inducementJ No. ,t must be strong as irresistible orce. "here was a Duarrel between two amilies. One o the sons o amil! 4 came out with a shotgun.
Pa"e 2 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) :, will give !ou a large amount o mone!.; :, will not marr! !ou i !ou do not =ill E;(let us sa! he reall! loves the inducer). "he! *racticall! become co-cons*irators. "hereore !ou do not loo= into the degree o inducement an!more. ,n Peo!le v.
Accessories
Vena V. Verga
One cannot be an accessor! unless he =new o the commission o the crime. One must not have *artici*ated in the commission o the crime. "he accessor! comes into the *icture when the crime is alread! consummated. 4n!one who *artici*ated beore the consummation o the crime is either a *rinci*al or an accom*lice. o the Code. /ere *ossession o an! article o value which has been the subect o robber! or thet brings about the *resum*tion o :encing;. Presidential #ecree No. 1'19 has% thereore% modiied 4rticle 1> o the Revised Penal Code.
"wo situations where accessories are not criminall! liable6 (1)
5hen the elon! committed is a light elon!K
*estions F Answers
(9)
5hen the accessor! is related to the *rinci*al as s*ouse% or as an ascendant% or descendant or as brother or sister whether legitimate% natural or ado*ted or where the accessor! is a relative b! ainit! within the same degree% unless the accessor! himsel *roited rom the eects or *roceeds o the crime or assisted the oender to *roit thererom.
1. /a! one who *ro ited out o the *rocee ds o estaa or malversation be *rosecuted under the 4nti-3encing LawJ
+vvver"a
No. "here is onl! a ence when the crime is thet or robber!. , the crime is embelement or estaa% still an accessor! to the crime o estaa% not a ence.
Pa"e 3 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 9. , *rinci*al committed robber! b! snatching a wristwatch and gave it to his wie to sell% is the wie criminall! liableJ Can she be *rosecuted as an accessor! and as a enceJ "he liabilit! o the wie is based on her assisting the *rinci*al to *roit and that act is *unishable as encing. he will no longer be liable as an accessor! to the crime o robber!.
Vena V. Verga
"he cor*us delicti is not the bod! o the *erson who is =illed% even i the cor*se is not recovered% as long as that =illing is established be!ond reasonable doubt% criminal liabilit! will arise and i there is someone who destro!s the cor*us delicti to *revent discover!% he becomes an accessor!.
Har1orin" or concealin" an offender
,n both laws% Presidential #ecree No. 1'19 and the Revised Penal Code% the same act is the basis o liabilit! and !ou cannot *unish a *erson twice or the same act as th at would go against double eo*ard!.
,n the third orm or manner o becoming an accessor!% ta=e note that the law distinguishes between a *ublic oicer harboring% concealing or assisting the *rinci*al to esca*e and a *rivate citien or civilian harboring concealing or assisting the *rinci*al to esca*e.
Ac)*irin" the effects of !iracy or 1ri"anda"e
,n the case o a *ublic oicer% the crime committed b! the *rinci*al is immaterial. uch oicer becomes an accessor! b! the mere act that he hel*ed the *rinci*al to esca*e b! harboring or concealing% ma=ing use o his *ublic unction and thus abusing the same.
,t is relevant to consider in connection with the criminal liabilit! o accessories under the Revised Penal Code% the liabilit! o *ersons acDuiring *ro*ert! subect o *irac! or brigandage. "he act o =nowingl! acDuiring or receiving *ro*ert! which is the eect or the *roceeds o a crime generall! brings about criminal liabilit! o an accessor! under 4rticle 1>% *aragra*h 1 o the Revised Penal Code. Eut i the crime was *irac! o brigandage under Presidential #ecree No. A00 (4nti-*irac! and 4nti$+)% said act constitutes the crime o abetting *irac! or abetting brigandage as the case ma! be% although the *enalt! is that or an accom*lice% not ust an accessor!% to the *irac! or brigandage. "o this end% ection + o Presidential #ecree No. A09 *rovides that an! *erson who =nowingl! and in an! manner acDuires or receives *ro*ert! ta=en b! such *irates or brigands or in an! manner derives beneit thererom shall be considered as an accom*lice o the *rinci*al oenders and be *unished in accordance with the Rules *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code. ,t shall be *resumed that an! *erson who does an! o the acts *rovided in this ection has *erormed them =nowingl!% unless the contrar! is *roven. 4lthough Re*ublic 4ct No. $'A>% in amending 4rticle 199 o the Revised Penal Code% incor*orated therein the crime o *irac! in Phili**ine territorial waters and thus corres*ondingl! su*erseding Presidential #ecree No. A09% ection + o the #ecree which *unishes said acts as a crime o abetting *irac! or brigandage% still stands as it has not been re*ealed nor modiied% and is not inconsistent with an! *rovision o Re*ublic 4ct No. $'A>.
'estroyin" the cor!*s delicti 5hen the crime is robber! or thet% with res*ect to the second involvement o an accessor!% do not overloo= the *ur*ose which must be to *revent discover! o the crime.
+vvver"a
On the other hand% in case o a civilian% the mere act that he harbored concealed or assisted the *rinci*al to esca*e does not i*so acto ma=e him an accessor!. "he law reDuires that the *rinci*al must have committed the crime o treason% *arricide% murder or attem*t on the lie o the Chie @ecutive. , this is not the crime% the civilian does not become an accessor! unless the *rinci*al is =nown to be habituall! guilt! o some other crime. @ven i the crime committed b! the *rinci*al is treason% or murder or *arricide or attem*t on the lie o the Chie @ecutive% the accessor! cannot be held criminall! liable without the *rinci*al being ound guilt! o an! such crime. Otherwise the eect would be that the accessor! merel! harbored or assisted in the esca*e o an innocent man% i the *rinci*al is acDuitted o the charges. ,llustration6 Crime committed is =idna**ing or ransom. Princi*al was being chased b! soldiers.
Pa"e 7 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) when it comes to a civilian% the law s*eciies the crimes that should be committed% !et there is a s*ecial law which *unishes the same act and it does not s*eci! a *articular crime. Presidential #ecree No. 1&9>% which *enalies obstruction o a**rehension and *rosecution o criminal oenders% eective anuar! 1'% 1>&1% *unishes acts commonl! reerred to as :obstructions o ustice;. "his #ecree *enalies under ection 1(c) thereo% the act% inter alia% o :(c) o the Code. "he subect acts ma! not bring about criminal liabilit! under the Code% but under this decree. uch an oender i violating Presidential #ecree No. 1&9> is no longer an accessor!. % the aunt is criminall! liable but not as an accessor!. 5hether the accom*lice and the accessor! ma! be tried and convicted even beore the *rinci*al is ound guilt!. "here is an earlier u*reme Court ruling that the accessor! and accom*lice must be charged together with the *rinci*al and that i the latter be acDuitted% the accom*lice and the accessor! shall not be criminall! liable also% unless the acDuittal is based on a deense which is *ersonal onl! to the *rinci*al. 4lthough this ruling ma! be correct i the acts charged do not ma=e the *rinci*al criminall! liable at all% because there is no crime committed. ?et it is not alwa!s true that the accom*lice and accessor! cannot be criminall! liable without the *rinci*al irst being convicted. Gnder Rule 118 o the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure% it is reDuired that all those involved in the commission o the crime must be included in the inormation that ma! be iled. 4nd in iling an inormation against the *erson involved in the commission o the crime% the law does not distinguish between *rinci*al% accom*lice and accessor!. 4ll will be accused and whether a certain accused will be *rinci*al or accom*lice or accessor! will de*end on what the evidence would show as to his involvement in the crime. ,n other words% the liabilit! o the accused will de*end on the Duantum o evidence adduced b! the *rosecution against the *articular accused. Eut the *rosecutor must initiate *roceedings versus the *rinci*al. @ven i the *rinci*al is convicted% i the evidence *resented against a su**osed accom*lice or a su**osed accessor! does not meet the reDuired *roo be!ond reasonable doubt% then said accused will be acDuitted. o the criminal liabilit!
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
o an accom*lice or accessor! does not de*end on the criminal liabilit! o the *rinci*al but de*ends on the Duantum o evidence. Eut i the evidence shows that the act done does not constitute a crime and the *rinci*al is acDuitted% then the su**osed accom*lice and accessor! should also be acDuitted. , there is no crime% then there is no criminal liabilit!% whether *rinci*al% accom*lice% or accessor!. Gnder *aragra*h 0% 4rticle 1>% ta=e note in the case o a civilian who harbors% conceals% or assists the esca*e o the *rinci*al% the law reDuires that the *rinci*al be ound guilt! o an! o the s*eciied crimes6 treason% *arricide% etc. "he *aragra*h uses the *articular word :guilt!;. o this means that beore the civilian can be held liable as an accessor!% the *rinci*al must irst be ound guilt! o the crime charged% either treason% *arricide% murder% or attem*t to ta=e the lie o the Chie @ecutive. , the *rinci*al is acDuitted% that means he is not guilt! and thereore% the civilian who harbored% concealed or assisted in the esca*e did not violate art. 1>. "hat is as ar as the Revised Penal Code is concerned. Eut not Presidential #ecree No. 1&9>. "his s*ecial law does not reDuire that there be *rior conviction. ,t is a malum *rohibitum% no need or guilt% or =nowledge o the crime. ,n %aer v. CA@ accused received rom his co-accused two stolen male carabaos. Cons*irac! was not *roven. "aer was held liable as an accessor! in the crime o cattle rustling under Presidential #ecree No. A00. "aer should have been liable or violation o the 4nti-encing law since cattle rustling is a orm o thet or robber! o large cattle% ece*t that he was not charged with encing.F ,n Enrile v. Amin@ a *erson charged with rebellion should not be se*aratel! charged under Presidential #ecree No. 1&9>. "he theor! o absor*tion must not conine itsel to common crimes but also to oenses *unished under s*ecial laws which are *er*etrated in urtherance o the *olitical oense.
PENAL%IE
Meas*res of !revention not considered as !enalty "he ollowing are the measures o *revention or saet! which are not considered *enalties under 4rticle 9+6 (1)
"he arrest and tem*orar! detention o accused *ersons as well as their detention b! reason o insanit! or imbecilit! or illness reDuiring their coninement in a hos*ital.
(9)
"he commitment o a minor to an! o the institutions mentioned in art. &8 or the *ur*oses s*eciied therein.
(0)
us*ension rom the em*lo!ment or *ublic oice during the trial or in order to institute *roceedings.
Pa"e : of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) (+)
3ines and other corrective measures which% in the eercise o their administrative disci*linar! *owers% su*erior oicials ma! im*ose u*on their subordinates.
(A)
#e*rivation o rights and re*arations which the civil laws ma! establish in *enal orm.
5h! does the Revised Penal Code s*eci! that such detention shall not be a *enalt! but merel! a *reventive measureJ "his article gives ustiication or detaining the accused. Otherwise% the detention would violate the constitutional *rovision that no *erson shall be de*rived o lie% libert! and *ro*ert! without due *rocess o law. 4nd also% the constitutional right o an accused to be *resumed innocent until the contrar! is *roved.
Vena V. Verga
o% i the accused has actuall! undergone *reventive im*risonment% but i he has been convicted or two or more crimes whether he is a recidivist or not% or when he has been *reviousl! summoned but ailed to surrender and so the court has to issue a warrant or his arrest% whatever credit he is entitled to shall be oreited. , the oender is not disDualiied rom the credit or deduction *rovided or in 4rticle 9> o the Revised Penal Code% then the net thing to determine is whether he signed an underta=ing to abide b! the same rules and regulations governing convicts. , he signed an underta=ing to abide b! the same rules and regulations governing convicts% then it means that while he is suering rom *reventive im*risonment% he is suering li=e a convict% that is wh! the credit is ull. Eut i the oender did not sign an underta=ing% then he will onl! be subected to the rules and regulations governing detention *risoners. 4s such% he will onl! be given &8 or +7A o the *eriod o his *reventive detention.
Re!eal of Article When may a minor 1e committed to a reformatoryU , the minor is between > - 1A !ears old and acted with discernment% sentence must irst be sus*ended under the ollowing conditions6 (1)
Crime committed is not *unishable b! death or reclusion *er*etuaK
(9)
(0)
3rom this *rovision% one can see that the detention o the oender ma! subect him onl! to the treatment a**licable to a detention *risoner or to the treatment a**licable to convicts% but since he is not convicted !et% while he is under *reventive im*risonment% he cannot be subected to the treatment a**licable to convicts unless he signs and agrees to be subected to such disci*linar! measures a**licable to convicts. #etention *risoner has more reedom within the detention institution rather than those alread! convicted. "he convicted *risoner suers more restraints and hardshi* than detention *risoners. Gnder what circumstances ma! a detention *risoner be released% even though the *roceedings against him are not !et terminatedJ
Correlatin" Article 03 with Article 0 4lthough under 4rticle 9+% the detention o a *erson accused o a crime while the case against him is being tried does not amount to a *enalt!% !et the law considers this as *art o the im*risonment and generall! deductible rom the sentence. 5hen will this credit a**l!J , the *enalt! im*osed consists o a de*rivation o libert!. Not all who have undergone *reventive im*risonment shall be given a credit Gnder 4rticle 9+% *reventive im*risonment o an accused who is not !et convicted% but b! e*ress *rovision o 4rticle9+ is not a *enalt!. ?et 4rticle 9>% i ultimatel! the accused is convicted and the *enalt! im*osed involves de*rivation o libert!% *rovides that the *eriod during which he had undergone *reventive detention will be deducted rom the sentence% unless he is one o those disDualiied under the law.
+vvver"a
4rticle 9> o the Revised Penal Code has been amended b! a Eatas Pambansa eective that tool eect on e*tember 98% 1>&8. "his amendment is ound in the Rules o Court% under the rules on bail in Rule 11+ o the Rules on Criminal Procedure% the same treatment eactl! is a**lied there. ,n the amendment% the law does not s*ea= o credit. 5hether the *erson is entitled to credit is immaterial. "he discharge o the oender rom *reventive im*risonment or detention is *redicated on the act that even i he would be ound guilt! o the crime charged% he has *racticall! served the sentence alread!% because he has been detained or a *eriod alread! eDual to i not greater than the maimum *enalt! that would be *ossibl! be im*osed on him i ound guilt!. , the crime committed is *unishable onl! b! destierro% the most the oender ma! be held under *reventive im*risonment is 08 da!s% and whether the *roceedings are terminated or not% such detention *risoner shall be discharged.
Pa"e = of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Gnderstand the amendment made to 4rticle 9>. "his amendment has been incor*orated under Rule 11+ *recisel! to do awa! with arbitrar! detention. Pro*er *etition or habeas cor*us must be iled to challenge the legalit! o the detention o the *risoner.
*estions F Answers , the oender has alread! been released% what is the use o continuing the *roceedingsJ "he *roceedings will determine whether the accused is liable or not. , he was criminall! liable% it ollows that he is also civill! liable. "he civil liabilit! must be determined. "hat is wh! the trial must go on.
"he duration o destierro is rom si months and one da!% to si !ear% which is the same as that o *rision correcional and sus*ension. #estierro is a *rinci*al *enalt!. ,t is a *unishment whereb! a convict is vanished to a certan *lace and is *rohibited orm entering or coming near that *lace designated in the sentence% not less than 9A Bms..
5hen a legall! married *erson who had sur*rised his or her s*ouse in the act o seual intercourse with another and while in that act or immediatel! thereater should =ill or inlict serious *h!sical inuries u*on the other s*ouse% and7or the *aramour or mistress. "his is ound in 4rticle 9+$.
(9)
,n the crime o grave threat or light threat% when the oender is reDuired to *ut u* a bond or good behavior but ailed or reused to do so under 4rticle 9&+% such convict shall be sentenced to destierro so that he would not be able to carr! out his threat.
(0)
,n the crime o concubinage% the *enalt! *rescribed or the concubine is destierro under 4rticle 00+.
(+)
5here the *enalt! *rescribed b! law is arresto ma!or% but the oender is entitled *rivileged mitigating circumstance and lowering the *rescribed *enalt! b! one degree% the *enalt! one degree lower is destierro. "hus% it shall be the one im*osed.
'*ration of !enalties
Recl*sion !er!et*a 5hat is the duration o reclusion *er*etuaJ #o not answer 4rticle 9$ to this Duestion. "he *ro*er answer would be that reclusion *er*etua has no duration because this is an indivisible *enalt! and indivisible *enalties have no durations. Gnder 4rticle 9$% those sentenced to reclusion *er*etua shall be *ardoned ater undergoing the *enalt! or 08 !ears% unless such *erson% b! reason o his conduct or some other serious cause% shall be considered b! the Chie @ecutive as unworth! o *ardon. Gnder 4rticle $8% which is the "hree-3old Rule% the maimum *eriod shall in no case eceed +8 !ears. , a convict who is to serve several sentences could onl! be made to serve +8 !ears% with more reason% one who is sentenced to a singl! *enalt! o reclusion *er*etua should not be held or more than +8 !ears. "he duration o +8 !ears is not a matter o *rovision o lawK this is onl! b! analog!. "here is no *rovision o the Revised Penal Code that one sentenced to reclusion *er*etua cannot be held in ail or +8 !ears and neither is there a decision to this eect.
'estierro
5hat is the duration o destierroJ
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
Civil Interdiction Civil interdiction is an accessor! *enalt!. oender during the time o his sentence6
Civil interdiction shall de*rive the
(1)
"he rights o *arental authorit!% or guardianshi* either as to the *erson or *ro*ert! o an! wardK
(9)
/arital authorit!K
(0)
"he right to manage his *ro*ert!K and
(+)
"he right to dis*ose o such *ro*ert! b! an! act or an! conve!ance inter vivos.
Pa"e of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
Can a convict eecute a last will and testamentJ ?es.
Primary classification of !enalties
, as=ed what are the accessor! *enalties% do not ust state the accessor! *enalties. tate the *rinci*al *enalt! and the corres*onding accessor! *enalties. Penalties in which other accessor! *enalties are inherent6
Princi!al !enalties and accessory !enalties (1)
4rticle +8. #eath - *er*etual absolute disDualiication% and civil interdiction during 08 !ears ollowing date o sentenceK
(9)
4rticle +1. Reclusion *er*etua and reclusion tem*oral - civil interdiction or lie or during the *eriod o the sentence as the case ma! be% and *er*etual absolute disDualiicationK
(0)
4rticle +9. Prision ma!or - tem*orar! absolute disDualiication *er*etual s*ecial disDualiication rom the right o surageK
(+)
4rticle +0. Prision correccional - sus*ension rom *ublic oice% rom the right to ollow a *roession or calling% and *er*etual s*ecial disDualiication rom the rights o surage i the duration o said im*risonment shall eceed 1& months.
(A)
4rticle ++. 4rresto - sus*ension o the right to hold oice and the right o surage during the term o the sentence.
"he *enalties which are both *rinci*al and accessor! *enalties are the ollowing6 (1)
Per*etual or tem*orar! absolute disDualiicationK
(9)
Per*etual or tem*orar! s*ecial disDualiication.
*estions F Answers 1. is the durationJ
, the *enalt! o sus*ension is im*osed as an accessor!% what
,ts duration shall be that o the *rinci*al *enalt!. 9. , the *enalt! o tem*orar! disDualiication is im*osed as *rinci*al *enalt!% what is the durationJ "he duration is si !ears and one da! to 19 !ears. 0. 5hat do we reer to i it is *er*etual or tem*orar! disDualiicationJ
"here are accessor! *enalties which are true to other *rinci*al *enalties. 4n eam*le is the *enalt! o civil interdiction. "his is an accessor! *enalt! and% as *rovided in 4rticle 0+% a convict sentenced to civil interdiction suers certain disDualiication during the term o the sentence. One o the disDualiications is that o ma=ing a conve!ance o his *ro*ert! inter vivos.
5e reer to the duration o the disDualiication.
,llustration6
+.
4 has been convicted and is serving the *enalt! o *rision ma!or. 5hile serving sentence% he eecuted a deed o sale over his onl! *arcel o land. 4 creditor moved to annul the sale on the ground that the convict is not Dualiied to eecute a deed o conve!ance inter vivos. , !ou were the udge% how would !ou resolve the move o the creditor to annul the saleJ
5hat do we reer to i it is s*ecial or absolute disDualiicationJ
5e reer to the nature o the disDualiication.
"he classiication o *rinci*al and accessor! is ound in 4rticle 9A. ,n classi!ing the *enalties as *rinci*al and accessor!% what is meant b! this is that those *enalties classiied as accessor! *enalties need not be stated in the sentence. "he accessor! *enalties ollow the *rinci*al *enalt! im*osed or the crime as a matter o course. o in the im*osition o the sentence% the court will s*eci! onl! the *rinci*al *enalt! but that is not the onl! *enalt! which the oender will suer. Penalties which the law considers as accessor! to the *rescribed *enalt! are automaticall! im*osed even though the! are not stated in the udgment. 4s to the *articular *enalties that ollow a *articular *rinci*al *enalt!% 4rticles +8 to +A o the Revised Penal Code shall govern.
+vvver"a
Civil interdiction is not an accessor! *enalt! in *rision ma!or. "he convict can conve! his *ro*ert!.
*estions F Answers 5hat accessor! *enalt! is common to all *rinci*al *enaltiesJ Coniscation or oreiture on the instruments or *roc eeds o the crime.
Pa"e of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga 'esi"nation of !enalty
ince the *rinci*al *enalties carr! with them certain accessor! *enalties% the courts are not at libert! to use an! designation o the *rinci*al *enalt!. o it was held that when the *enalt! should be reclusion *er*etua% it is error or the court to use the term :lie im*risonment;. ,n other words% the courts are not correct when the! deviate rom the technical designation o the *rinci*al *enalt!% because the moment the! deviate rom this designation% there will be no corres*onding accessor! *enalties that will go with them. ,llustration6 5hen the udge sentenced the accused to the *enalt! o reclusion *er*etua% but instead o sa!ing reclusion *er*etua% it sentenced the accused to lie im*risonment% the designation is wrong.
*estions F Answers Recl*sion !er!et*a as modified 1. , bond to =ee* the *eace is not the same as bond or good behavior% are the! one and the same bond that dier onl! in nameJ No. "he legal eect o each is entirel! dierent. "he legal eect o a ailure to *ost a bond to =ee* the *eace is im*risonment either or si months or 08 da!s% de*ending on whether the elon! committed is grave or less grave on one hand% or it is light onl! on the other hand. "he legal eect o ailure to *ost a bond or good behavior is not im*risonment but destierro under 4rticle 9&+. "hus% it is clear that the two bonds are not the same considering that the legal eect or the ailure to *ut u* the bond is not the same. 'ivisi1le and indivisi1le !enalties 5hen we tal= o *eriod% it is im*l!ing that the *enalt! is divisible. ,% ater being given a *roblem% !ou were as=ed to state the *eriod in which the *enalt! o reclusion *er*etua is to be im*osed% remember that when the *enalt! is indivisible% there is no *eriod. #o not tal= o *eriod% because when !ou tal= o *eriod% !ou are im*l!ing that the *enalt! is divisible because the *eriod reerred to is the minimum% the medium% and the maimum. , it is indivisible% there is no such thing as minimum% medium and maimum.
%he ca!ital !*nishment ?ou were as=ed to state whether !ou are in avor or against ca*ital *unishment. Gnderstand that !ou are not ta=ing the eamination in "heolog!. @*lain the issue on the basis o social utilit! o the *enalt!. ,s it beneicial in deterring crimes or notJ "his should be the *remise o !our reasoning.
Eeore the enactment o Re*ublic 4ct No. $'A>% which made amendments to the Revised Penal Code% the *enalt! o reclusion *er*etua had no ied duration. "he Revised Penal Code *rovides in 4rticle 9$ that the convict shall be *ardoned ater undergoing the *enalt! or thirt! !ears% unless b! reason o his conduct or some other serious cause% he is not deserving o *ardon. 4s amended b! ection 91 o Re*ublic 4ct No. $'A>% the same article now *rovides that the *enalt! o reclusion *er*etua shall be rom 98 !ears to +8 !ears. Eecause o this% s*eculations arose as to whether it made reclusion *er*etua a divisible *enalt!. 4s we =now% when a *enalt! has a ied duration% it is said to be divisible and% in accordance with the *rovisions o 4rticles 'A and $'% should be divided into three eDual *ortions to orm one *eriod o each o the three *ortions. Otherwise% i the *enalt! has no ied duration% it is an indivisible *enalt!. "he nature o the *enalt! as divisible or indivisible is decisive o the *ro*er *enalt! to be im*osed under the Revised Penal Code inasmuch as it determines whether the rules in 4rticle '0 or the rules in 4rticle '+ should be observed in iing the *enalt!. "hus% consistent with the rule mentioned% the u*reme Court% b! its 3irst #ivision% a**lied 4rticle 'A o the Code in im*osing the *enalt! or ra*e in Peo!le v. Conrado L*cas@ /R No. ,-,=0>=2@ May 07@ ,3 . ,t divided the time included in the *enalt! o reclusion *er*etua into three eDual *ortions% with each *ortion com*osing a *eriod as ollows6 /inimum - 98 !ears and one da!% to 9' !ears and eight monthsK /edium - 9' !ears% eight months and one da!% to 00 !ears and our monthsK /aimum - 0+ !ears% our months and one da!% to +8 !ears.
+vvver"a
Pa"e - of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Considering the aggravating circumstance o relationshi*% the Court sentenced the accused to im*risonment o 0+ !ears% our months and one da! o reclusion *er*etua% instead o the straight *enalt! o reclusion *er*etua im*osed b! the trial court. "he a**ellee seasonabl! iled a motion or clariication to correct the duration o the sentence% because instead o beginning with 00 !ears% our months and one da!% it was stated as 0+ !ears% our months and one da!. "he issue o whether the amendment o 4rticle 9$ made reclusion *er*etua a divisible *enalt! was raised% and because the issue is one o irst im*ression and momentous im*ortance% the 3irst #ivision reerred the motion to the Court en banc.
Gltimatel!% the Duestion arises6 :5hat then ma! be the reason or the amendment iing the duration o reclusion *er*etuaJ; "his Duestion was answered in the same case o Peo!le v. L*cas b! Duoting *ertinent *ortion o the decision in Peo!le v. Reyes@ 0,0 CRA 3-0@ thus6 "he im*uted duration o thirt! (08) !ears or reclusion *er*etua% thereo% is onl! to serve as the basis or determining the convictIs eligibilit! or *ardon or or the a**lication o the three-old rule in the service o *enalties. ince% however% in all the graduated scales o *enalties in the Code% as set out in 4rticle 9A% $8 and 91% reclusion *er*etua is the *enalt! immediatel! net higher to reclusion tem*oral% it ollows b! necessar! im*lication that the minimum o reclusion *er*etua is twent! (98) !ears and one (1) da! with a maimum duration thereater to last or the rest o the convictIs natural lie% although% *ursuant to 4rticle $8% it a**ears that the maimum *eriod or the service o *enalties shall not eceed ort! (+8) !ears. ,t would be legall! absurd and violative o the scales o *enalties in the Code to rec=on the minimum o Reclusion Per*etua at thirt! (08) !ears since there would thereb! be a resultant lacuna whenever the *enalt! eceeds the maimum twent! (98) !ears o Reclusion "em*oral but is less than thirt! (08) !ears.
,n a resolution *romulgated on anuar! >% 1>>A% the u*reme Court en banc held that reclusion *er*etua shall remain as an indivisible *enalt!. "o this end% the resolution states6 4ter deliberating on the motion and re-eamining the legislation histor! o R4 $'A>% the Court concludes that although ection 1$ o R4 $'A> has ied the duration o Reclusion Per*etua rom twent! !ears (98) and one (1) to ort! +8 !ears% there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classiication as an indivisible *enalt!. ,t shall then remain as an indivisible *enalt!. Veril!% i reclusion *er*etua was classiied as a divisible *enalt!% then 4rticle '0 o the Revised Penal Code would lose its reason and basis or eistence. "o illustrate% the irst *aragra*h o ection 98 o the amended R4 No. '+9A *rovides or the *enalt! o reclusion *er*etua to death whenever the dangerous drugs involved are o an! o the Duantities stated herein. , 4rticle '0 o the Code were no longer a**licable because reclusion *er*etua is su**osed to be a divisible *enalt!% then there would be no statutor! rules or determining when either reclusion *er*etua or death should be the im*osable *enalt!. ,n ine% there would be no occasion or im*osing reclusion *er*etua as the *enalt! in drug cases% regardless o the attendant modi!ing circumstances. Now then% i Congress had intended to reclassi! reclusion *er*etua as divisible *enalt!% then it should have amended 4rticle '0 and 4rticle $' o the Revised Penal Code. "he latter is the law on what are considered divisible *enalties under the Code and what should be the duration o the *eriods thereo. "here are% as well% other *rovisions o the Revised Penal Code involving reclusion *er*etua% such as 4rticle +1 on the accessor! *enalties thereo and *aragra*hs 9 and 0 o 4rticle '1% which have not been touched b! a corres*onding amendment.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
Innovations on the im!osition of the death !enalty 4side orm restoring the death *enalt! or certain heinous crimes% Re*ublic 4ct No. $'A> made innovations on the *rovisions o the Revised Penal Code regarding the im*osition o the death *enalt!6 (1)
4rticle +$ has been reworded to e*ressl! include among the instances where the death *enalt! shall not be im*osed% the case o an oender who is below 1& !ears old at the time o the commission o the oense. Eut even without this amendment% the death *enalt! ma! not be meted out on an oender who was below 1& !ears o age at the time o the commission o the crime because 4rticle '& the lowers the im*osable *enalt! u*on such oenders b! at least one degree than that *rescribed or the crime.
(9)
,n the matter o eecuting the death *enalt!% 4rticle &1 has been amended and% thus% directs that the manner o *utting the convict to death b! electrocution shall be changed to gas *oisoning as soon as the acilities are *rovided% and the sentence shall be carried out not later that one !ear ater the inalit! o udgment.
(0)
"he original *rovision o 4rticle &0% anent the sus*ension o the eecution o the death *enalt! or three !ears i the convict was a
Pa"e , of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) woman% has been deleted and instead% limits such sus*ension to last while the woman was *regnant and within one !ear ater deliver!.
*1sidiary !enalty
Vena V. Verga
,n Peo!le v. *1ido@ it was held that the convict cannot choose not to serve% or not to *a! the ine and instead serve the subsidiar! *enalt!. 4 subsidiar! *enalt! will onl! be served i the sheri should return the eecution or the ine on the *ro*ert! o the convict and he does not have the *ro*erties to satis! the writ.
,s subsidiar! *enalt! an accessor! *enalt!J No. *estions F Answers , the convict does not want to *a! ine and has so man! riends and wants to *rolong his sta! in ail% can he sta! there and not *a! ineJ No. 4ter undergoing subsidiar! *enalt! and the convict is alread! released rom ail and his inancial circumstances im*rove% can he be made to *a!J ?es% or the ull amount with deduction.
"he *enalt! im*osed b! the udge is ine onl!. "he sheri then tried to lev! the *ro*ert! o the deendant ater it has become inal and eecutor!% but it was returned unsatisied. "he court then issued an order or said convict to suer subsidiar! *enalt!. "he convict was detained% or which reason he iled a *etition or habeas cor*us contending that his detention is illegal. 5ill the *etition *ros*erJ
4rticle 0> deals with subsidiar! *enalt!. "here are two situations there6 (1)
5hen there is a *rinci*al *enalt! o im*risonment or an! other *rinci*al *enalt! and it carries with it a ineK and
( 9)
5 he n *e na lt ! is onl ! a in e.
"hereore% there shall be no subsidiar! *enalt! or the non-*a!ment o damages to the oended *art!. "his subsidiar! *enalt! is one o im*ortant matter under the title o *enalt!. 4 subsidiar! *enalt! is not an accessor! *enalt!. ince it is not an accessor! *enalt!% it must be e*ressl! stated in the sentence% but the sentence does not s*eci! the *eriod o subsidiar! *enalt! because it will onl! be =nown i the convict cannot *a! the ine. "he sentence will merel! *rovide that in case o non-*a!ment o the ine% the convict shall be reDuired to save subsidiar! *enalt!. ,t will then be the *rison authorit! who will com*ute this.
?es. "he udgment became inal without statement as to subsidiar! *enalt!% so that even i the convict has no mone! or *ro*ert! to satis! the ine% he cannot suer subsidiar! *enalt! because the latter is not an accessor! and so it must be e*ressl! stated. , the court overloo=ed to *rovide or subsidiar! *enalt! in the sentence and its attention was later called to that eect% thereater% it tried to modi! the sentence to include subsidiar! *enalt! ater *eriod to a**eal had alread! ela*sed% the addition o subsidiar! *enalt! will be null and void. "his is tantamount to double eo*ard!. , the ine is *rescribed with the *enalt! o im*risonment or an! de*rivation o libert!% such im*risonment should not be higher than si !ears or *rision correccional. Otherwise% there is no subsidiar! *enalt!.
ii. (1)
, the subsidiar! *enalt! *rescribed or the non-*a!ment o ine which goes with the *rinci*al *enalt!% the maimum duration o the subsidiar! *enalt! is one !ear% so there is no subsidiar! *enalt! that goes be!ond one !ear. Eut this will onl! be true i the one !ear *eriod is higher than 170 o the *rinci*al *enalt!% the convict cannot be made to undergo subsidiar! *enalt! more than 170 o the duration o the *rinci*al *enalt! and in no case will it be more than 1 !ear - get 170 o the *rinci*al *enalt! - w hichever is lower.
(9)
, the subsidiar! *enalt! is to be im*osed or non *a!ment o ine and the *rinci*al *enalt! im*osed be ine onl!% which is a single *enalt!% that means it does not go with another *rinci*al *enalt!% the most that the convict will be reDuired to undergo subsidiar! im*risonment is si months% i the elon! committed is grave or less grave% otherwise% i the elon! committed is slight% the maimum duration o the subsidiar! *enalt! is onl! 1A da!s.
o even i subsidiar! *enalt! is *ro*er in a case% i the udge ailed to state in the sentence that the convict shall be reDuired to suer subsidiar! *enalt! in case o insolvenc! to *a! the ine% that convict cannot be reDuired to suer the accessor! *enalt!. "his *articular legal *oint is a bar *roblem. "hereore% the udgment o the court must state this. , the udgment is silent% he cannot suer an! subsidiar! *enalt!. "he subsidiar! *enalt! is not an accessor! *enalt! that ollows the *rinci*al *enalt! as a matter o course. ,t is not within the control o the convict to *a! the ine or not and once the sentence becomes inal and eecutor! and a writ o eecution is issued to collect the ine% i convict has *ro*ert! to lev! u*on% the same shall answer or the ine% whether he li=es it or not. ,t must be that the convict is insolvent to *a! the ine. "hat means that the writ o eecution issued against the *ro*ert! o the convict% i an!% is returned unsatisied.
+vvver"a
When is s*1sidiary !enalty a!!lied
Pa"e 0 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) "here are some who use the term subsidiar! im*risonment. "he term is wrong because the *enalt! is not onl! served b! im*risonment. "he subsidiar! *enalt! ollows the nature o the *rinci*al *enalt!. , the *rinci*al *enalt! is destierro% this being a divisible *enalt!% and a *enalt! with a ied duration% the non-*a!ment o the ine will bring about subsidiar! *enalt!. "his being a restriction o libert! with a ied duration under 4rticle 0> or the non*a!ment o ine that goes with the destierro% the convict will be reDuired to undergo subsidiar! *enalt! and it will also be in the orm o destierro.
Vena V. Verga
"he "hree-3old Rule should not a**lied b! the court. ,n this case o A8 counts o estaa% the *enalt! im*osed was arresto ma!or and a ine o P988.88. 4rresto ma!or Z P988.88 A8. 4rresto /a!or is si months A8 [ 9A !ears. P988.88 A8 [ P18%888.88. "hus% , would im*ose a *enalt! o arresto ma!or and a ine o P988.88 multi*lied b! A8 counts and state urther that :as a udge% , am not in the *osition to a**l! the "hree-3old Rule because the "hree3old Rule is to be given eect when the convict is alread! serving sentence in the *enitentiiar!. ,t is the *rison authorit! who will a**l! the "hree-3old Rule. 4s ar as the court is concerned% that will be the *enalt! to be im*osed.;
,llustration6 4 convict was sentenced to sus*ension and ine. "his is a *enalt! where a *ublic oicer antici*ates *ublic duties% he entered into the *erormance o *ublic oice even beore he has com*lied with the reDuired ormalities. u**ose the convict cannot *a! the ine% ma! he be reDuired to undergo subsidiar! *enalt!J ?es% because the *enalt! o sus*ension has a ied duration. Gnder 4rticle 9$% sus*ension and destierro have the same duration as *rision correccional. o the duration does not eceed si !ears. ince it is a *enalt! with a ied duration under 4rticle 0>% when there is a subsidiar! *enalt!% such shall be 170 o the *eriod o sus*ension which in no case be!ond one !ear. Eut the subsidiar! *enalt! will be served not b! im*risonment but b! continued sus*ension. , the *enalt! is *ublic censure and ine even i the *ublic censure is a light *enalt!% the convict cannot be reDuired to *a! the ine or subsidiar! *enalt! or the non-*a!ment o the ine because *ublic censure is a *enalt! that has no ied duration. #o not consider the totalit! o the im*risonment the convict is sentenced to but consider the totalit! or the duration o the im*risonment that the convict will be reDuired to serve under the "hree-3old Rule. , the totalit! o the im*risonment under this rule does not eceed si !ears% then% even i the totalit! o all the sentences without a**l!ing the "hree-3old Rule will go be!ond si !ears% the convict shall be reDuired to undergo subsidiar! *enalt! i he could not *a! the ine. ,llustration6 4 collector o N4544 collected rom A8 houses within a certain localit!. 5hen he was collecting N4544 bills% the charges o all these consumers was a minimum o 18. "he collector a**ro*riated the amount collected and so was charged with estaa.
+vvver"a
3or the *ur*oses o subsidiar! *enalt!% a**l! the "hree-3old Rule i the *enalt! is arresto ma!or and a ine o P988.88 multi*lied b! 0. "his means one !ear and si months onl!. o% a**l!ing the "hree- 3old Rule% the *enalt! does not go be!ond si !ears. that i the means o the convict should im*rove% even i he has alread! served subsidiar! *enalt!% he shall still be reDuired to *a! the ine and there is no deduction or that amount which the convict has alread! served b! wa! o subsidiar! *enalt!.
Articles :2 and :3 , crime committed is *arricide% *enalt! is reclusion *er*etua. "he accused% ater committing *arricide% voluntaril! surrendered and *leaded guilt! o the crime charged u*on arraignment. ,t was also established that he was intoicated% and no aggravating circumstances were *resent. 5hat *enalt! would !ou im*oseJ Reclusion *er*etua% because it is an indivisible *enalt!. 5hen there are two or more mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance% *enalt! to be im*osed shall be one degree lower to be im*osed in the *ro*er *eriod. #o not a**l! this when there is one aggravating circumstance. ,llustration6 "here are about our mitigating circumstances and one aggravating circumstance. Court osets the aggravating circumstance against the mitigating circumstance and there still remains three mitigating circumstances. Eecause o that% the udge lowered the *enalt! b! one degree. ,s the udge correctJ
Pa"e 2 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) No. ,n such a case when there are aggravating circumstances% no matter how man! mitigating circumstances there are% ater osetting% do not go down an! degree lower. "he *enalt! *rescribed b! law will be the *enalt! to be im*osed% but in the minimum *eriod. Cannot go below the minimum *eriod when there is an aggravating circumstance. o into the lowering o the *enalt! b! one degree i the *enalt! is divisible. o do not a**l! the rule in *aragra*h A o 4rticle '+ to a case where the *enalt! is divisible.
Vena V. Verga *rescribed b! law de*ending on what the *articular *rovision o the Revised Penal Code states.
(+)
5hen the *enalt! *rescribed or the crime committed is a divisible *enalt! and there are two or more ordinar! mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances whatsoever% the *enalt! net lower in degree shall be the one im*osed.
(A)
5henever the *rovision o the Revised Penal Code s*eciicall! lowers the *enalt! b! one or two degrees than what is ordinaril! *rescribed or the crime committed.
Article :: 5hen there are mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstance and the *enalt! is onl! ine% when it is onl! ordinar! mitigating circumstance and aggravating circumstance% a**l! 4rticle ''. Eecause !ou determine the im*osable ine on the basis o the inancial resources or means o the oender. Eut i the *enalt! would be lowered b! degree% there is a *rivileged mitigating circumstance or the elon! committed is attem*ted or rustrated% *rovided it is not a light elon! against *ersons or *ro*ert!% because i it is a light elon! and *unishable b! ine% it is not a crime at all unless it is consummated. o% i it is attem*ted or rustrated% do not go one degree lower because it is not *unishable unless it is a light elon! against *erson or *ro*ert! where the im*osable *enalt! will be lowered b! one degree or two degrees. Penalt! *rescribed to a crime is lowered b! degrees in the ollowing cases6 (1)
5hen the crime is onl! attem*ted or rustrated , it is rustrated% *enalt! is one degree lower than that *rescribed b! law. , it is attem*ted% *enalt! is two degrees lower than that *rescribed b! law. "his is so because the *enalt! *rescribed b! law or a crime reers to the consummated stage.
(9)
5hen the oender is an accom*lice or accessor! onl! Penalt! is one degree lower in the case o an accom*lice. Penalt! is two degrees lower in the case o an accessor!. "his is so because the *enalt! *rescribed b! law or a given crime reers to the consummated stage.
(0)
5hen there is a *rivilege mitigating circumstance in avor o the oender% it will lower the *enalt! b! one or two degrees than that
+vvver"a
Penalt! commonl! im*osed b! the Revised Penal Code ma! be b! wa! o im*risonment or b! wa! o ine or% to a limited etent% b! wa! o destierro or disDualiication% whether absolute or s*ecial. ,n the matter o lowering the *enalt! b! degree% the reerence is 4rticle $1. ,t is necessar! to =now the chronolog! under 4rticle $1 b! sim*l! =nowing the scale. "a=e note that destierro comes ater arresto ma!or so the *enalt! one degree lower than arresto ma!or is not arresto menor% but destierro. /emorie the scale in 4rticle $1. ,n 4rticle 9$% with res*ect to the range o each *enalt!% the range o arresto menor ollows arresto ma!or% since arresto menor is one to 08 da!s or one month% while arresto ma!or is one month and one da! to si months. On the other hand% the duration o destierro is the same as *rision correccional which is si months and one da! to si !ears. Eut be this as it is% under 4rticle $1% in the scale o *enalties graduated according to degrees% arresto ma!or is higher than destierro. ,n homicide under 4rticle 9+>% the *enalt! is reclusion tem*oral. One degree lower% i homicide is rustrated% or there is an accom*lice *artici*ating in homicide% is *rision ma!or% and two degrees lower is *rision correccional. "his is true i the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code is a whole divisible *enalt! -- one degree or 9 degrees lower will also be *unished as a whole. Eut generall!% the *enalties *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code are onl! in *eriods% li=e *rision correcional minimum% or *rision correcional minimum to medium. 4lthough the *enalt! is *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code as a *eriod% such *enalt! should be understood as a degree in itsel and the ollowing rules shall govern6 (1)
5hen the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Code is made u* o a *eriod% li=e *rision correccional medium% the *enalt! one degree lower is *rision correccional minimum% and the *enalt! two degrees lower is arresto ma!or maimum. ,n other words% each degree will be made
Pa"e 3 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
(9)
u* o onl! one *eriod because the *enalt! *rescribed is also made u* onl! o one *eriod. 5hen the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Code is made u* o two *eriods o a given *enalt!% ever! time such *enalt! is lowered b! one degree !ou have to go down also b! two *eriods. ,llustration6 , the *enalt! *rescribed or the crime is *rision correccional medium to maimum% the *enalt! one degree lower will be arresto ma!or maimum to *rision correccional minimum% and the *enalt! another degree lower will be arresto ma!or minimum to medium. @ver! degree will be com*osed o two *eriods.
(0)
5hen the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code is made u* o three *eriods o dierent *enalties% ever! time !ou go down one degree lower% !ou have to go down b! three *eriods. ,llustration6 "he *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code is *rision ma!or maimum to reclusion tem*oral medium% the *enalt! one degree lower is *rision correccional maimum to *rision ma!or medium. 4nother degree lower will be arresto ma!or maimum to *rision correccional medium.
"hese rules have nothing to do with mitigating or aggravating circumstances. "hese rules reer to the lowering o *enalt! b! one or two degrees. 4s to how mitigating or aggravating circumstances ma! aect the *enalt!% the rules are ound in 4rticles '0 and '+. 4rticle '0 governs when the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code is indivisible. 4rticle '+ governs when the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code is divisible. 5hen the *enalt! is indivisible% no matter how man! ordinar! mitigating circumstances there are% the *rescribed *enalt! is never lowered b! degree. ,t ta=es a *rivileged mitigating circumstance to lower such *enalt! b! degree. On the other hand% when the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code is divisible% such *enalt! shall be lowered b! one degree onl! but im*osed in the *ro*er *eriod% when there are two or more ordinar! mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance whatsoever.
Article =7 ? 9ines 5ith res*ect to the *enalt! o ine% i the ine has to be lowered b! degree either because the elon! committed is onl! attem*ted or rustrated or because there is an accom*lice or an accessor! *artici*ation% the ine is lowered b! deducting 17+ o the maimum amount o the ine rom such maimum without changing the minimum amount *rescribed b! law.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
,llustration6 , the *enalt! *rescribed is a ine ranging rom P988.88 to PA88.88% but the elon! is rustrated so that the *enalt! should be im*osed one degree lower% 17+ o PA88.88 shall be deducted thererom. "his is done b! deducting P19A.88 rom PA88.88% leaving a dierence o P0$A.88. "he *enalt! one degree lower is P0$A.88. "o go another degree lower% P19A.88 shall again be deducted rom P0$A.88 and that would leave a dierence o P9A8.88.
Article :: ,n so ar as ordinar! mitigating or aggravating circumstance would aect the *enalt! which is in the orm o a ine% 4rticle '' o the Revised Penal Code shall govern. Gnder this article% it is discretionar! u*on the court to a**l! the ine ta=ing into consideration the inancial means o the oender to *a! the same. ,n other words% it is not onl! the mitigating and7or aggravating circumstances that the court shall ta=e into consideration% but *rimaril!% the inancial ca*abilit! o the oender to *a! the ine. 3or the same crime% the *enalt! u*on an accused who is *oor ma! be less than the *enalt! u*on an accused committing the same crime but who is w ealth! . 3or instance% when there are two oenders who are co-cons*irators to a crime% and their *enalt! consists o a ine onl!% and one o them is wealth! while the other is a *au*er% the court ma! im*ose a higher *enalt! u*on the wealth! *erson and a lower ine or the *au*er. Penalt! or murder under the Revised Penal Code is reclusion tem*oral maimum to death. o% the *enalt! would be reclusion tem*oral maimum 2 reclusion *er*etua 2 death. "his *enalt! made u* o three *eriods.
%he %hree>9old R*le Gnder this rule% when a convict is to serve successive *enalties% he will not actuall! serve the *enalties im*osed b! law. ,nstead% the most severe o the *enalties im*osed on him shall be multi*lied b! three and the *eriod will be the onl! term o the *enalt! to be served b! him.
Pa"e 7 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 4lthough this rule is =nown as the "hree-3old rule% !ou cannot actuall! a**l! this i the convict is to serve onl! three successive *enalties. "he "hree-3old Rule can onl! be a**lied i the convict is to serve our or more sentences successivel!. , the sentences would be served simultaneousl!% the "hree-3old rule does not govern. "he chronolog! o the *enalties as *rovided in 4rticle $8 o the Revised Penal Code shall be ollowed. ,t is in the service o the *enalt!% not in the im*osition o the *enalt!% that the "hree-3old rule is to be a**lied. "he three-3old rule will a**l! whether the sentences are the *roduct o one inormation in one court% whether the sentences are *romulgated in one da! or whether the sentences are *romulgated b! dierent courts on dierent da!s. 5hat is material is that the convict shall serve more than three successive sentences. 3or *ur*oses o the "hree-3old Rule% even *er*etual *enalties are ta=en into account. o not onl! *enalties with ied duration% even *enalties without an! ied duration or indivisible *enalties are ta=en into account. 3or *ur*oses o the "hree-3old rule% indivisible *enalties are given eDuivalent o 08 !ears. , the *enalt! is *er*etual disDualiication% it will be given and eDuivalent duration o 08 !ears% so that i he will have to suer several *er*etual disDualiication% under the "hree-3old rule% !ou ta=e the most severe and multi*l! it b! three. "he "hree-3old rule does not a**l! to the *enalt! *rescribed but to the *enalt! im*osed as determined b! the court.
Vena V. Verga
,llustration6 4 district engineer was sentenced b! the court to a term o >1+ !ears in *rison. 4 *erson was sentenced to three death sentences. igniicance6 , ever granted *ardon or 1 crime% the two remaining *enalties must still be eecuted. "his rule will a**l! onl! i sentences are to be served successivel!.
Act No. 3-,2 #Indeterminate entence Law&@ as amended "hree things to =now about the ,ndeterminate entence Law6 (1)
,ts *ur*oseK
(9)
,nstances when it does not a**l!K and
(0)
,ndeterminate entence Law governs whether the crime is *unishable under the Revised Penal Code or a s*ecial Law. ,t is not limited to violations o the Revised Penal Code. ,t a**lies onl! when the *enalt! served is im*risonment. im*risonment% then it does not a**l!.
, not b!
,llustration6 Penalties im*osed are 2 P*r!ose One *rision correcional 2 minimum 2 9 !ears and + months One arresto ma!or
- 1 month and 1 da! to ' months
One *rision ma!or
- ' !ears and 1 da! to 19 !ears
#o not commit the mista=e o a**l!ing the "hree- 3old Rule in this case. Never a**l! the "hree-3old rule when there are onl! three sentences. @ven i !ou add the *enalties% !ou can never arrive at a sum higher than the *roduct o the most severe multi*lied b! three. "he common mista=e is% i given a situation% whether the "hree-3old Rule could be a**lied. , as=ed% i !ou were the udge% what *enalt! would !ou im*ose% or *ur*oses o im*osing the *enalt!% the court is not at libert! to a**l! the "hree-3old Rule% whatever the sum total o *enalt! or each crime committed% even i it would amount to 1%888 !ears or more. ,t is onl! when the convict is serving sentence that the *rison authorities should determine how long he should sta! in ail.
+vvver"a
"he *ur*ose o the ,ndeterminate entence law is to avoid *rolonged im*risonment% because it is *roven to be more destructive than constructive to the oender. o% the *ur*ose o the ,ndeterminate entence Law in shortening the *ossible detention o the convict in ail is to save valuable human resources. ,n other words% i the valuable human resources were allowed *rolonged coninement in ail% the! would deteriorate. Pur*ose is to *reserve economic useulness or these *eo*le or having committed a crime -- to reorm them rather than to deteriorate them and% at the same time% saving the government e*enses o maintaining the convicts on a *rolonged coninement in ail. , the crime is a violation o the Revised Penal Code% the court will im*ose a sentence that has a minimum and maimum. "he maimum o the indeterminate sentence will be arrived at b! ta=ing into account the attendant mitigating and7or aggravating circumstances according to 4rticle '+ o the Revised Penal Code. ,n arriving at the minimum o the indeterminate sentence% the court will ta=e into account the *enalt! *rescribed or the crime and go one degree lower. 5ithin the range o one degree lower% the court will i the
Pa"e : of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) minimum or the indeterminate sentence% and within the range o the *enalt! arrived at as the maimum in the indeterminate sentence% the court will i the maimum o the sentence. , there is a *rivilege mitigating circumstance which has been ta=en in consideration in iing the maimum o the indeterminate sentence% the minimum shall be based on the *enalt! as reduced b! the *rivilege mitigating circumstance within the range o the *enalt! net lower in degree. , the crime is a violation o a s*ecial law% in iing the maimum o the indeterminate sentence% the court will im*ose the *enalt! within the range o the *enalt! *rescribed b! the s*ecial law% as long as it will not eceed the limit o the *enalt!. ,n iing the minimum% the court can i a *enalt! an!where within the range o *enalt! *rescribed b! the s*ecial law% as long as it will not be less than the minimum limit o the *enalt! under said law. No mitigating and aggravating circumstances are ta=en into account. "he minimum and the maimum reerred to in the ,ndeterminate entence Law are not *eriods. o% do not sa!% maimum or minimum *eriod. 3or the *ur*oses o the indeterminate entence Law% use the term minimum to reer to the duration o the sentence which the convict shall serve as a minimum% and when we sa! maimum% or *ur*oses o ,L45% we reer to the maimum limit o the duration that the convict ma! be held in ail. 5e are not reerring to an! *eriod o the *enalt! as enumerated in 4rticle $1. Courts are reDuired to i a minimum and a maimum o the sentence that the! are to im*ose u*on an oender when ound guilt! o the crime charged. o% whenever the ,ndeterminate entence Law is a**licable% there is alwa!s a minimum and maimum o the sentence that the convict shall serve. , the crime is *unished b! the Revised Penal Code% the law *rovides that the maimum shall be arrived at b! considering the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the commission o the crime according to the *ro*er rules o the Revised Penal Code. "o i the maimum% consider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances according to the rules ound in 4rticle '+. "his means 2 (1)
Penalties *rescribed b! the law or the crime committed shall be im*osed in the medium *eriod i no mitigating or aggravating circumstanceK
(9)
, there is aggravating circumstance% no mitigating% *enalt! shall be im*osed in the maimumK
(0)
, there is mitigating circumstance% no aggravating% *enalt! shall be in the minimumK
(+)
, there are several mitigating and aggravating circumstances% the! shall oset against each other. 5hatever remains% a**l! the rules.
(A)
Vena V. Verga , there are two or more mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance% *enalt! net lower in degree shall be the one im*osed.
Rule under 4rt '+ shall a**l! in determining the maimum but not in determining the minimum. ,n determining the a**licable *enalt! according to the ,ndeterminate entence Law% there is no need to mention the number o !ears% months and da!sK it is enough that the name o the *enalt! is mentioned while the ,ndeterminate entence Law is a**lied. "o i the minimum and the maimum o the sentence% *enalt! under the Revised Penal Code is not the *enalt! to be im*osed b! court because the court must a**l! the ,ndeterminate entence Law. "he attendant mitigating and7or aggravating circumstances in the commission o the crime are ta=en into consideration onl! when the maimum o the *enalt! is to be ied. Eut in so ar as the minimum is concerned% the basis o the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code% and go one degree lower than that. Eut *enalt! one degree lower shall be a**lied in the same manner that the maimum is also ied based onl! on ordinar! mitigating circumstances. "his is true onl! i the mitigating circumstance ta=en into account is onl! an ordinar! mitigating circumstance. , the mitigating circumstance is *rivileged% !ou cannot ollow the law in so ar as iing the minimum o the indeterminate sentence is concernedK otherwise% it ma! ha**en that the maimum o the indeterminate sentence is lower than its minimum. ,n one u*reme Court ruling% it was held that or *ur*oses o a**l!ing the ,ndeterminate entence Law% the *enalt! *rescribed b! the Revised Penal Code and not that which ma! be im*osed b! court. "his ruling% however% is obviousl! erroneous. "his is so because such an inter*retation runs contrar! to the rule o *ro reo% which *rovides that the *enal laws should alwa!s be construed an a**lied in a manner liberal or lenient to the oender. "hereore% the rule is% in a**l!ing the ,ndetermiante entence Law% it is that *enalt! arrived at b! the court ater a**l!ing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances that should be the basis. Crimes *unished under s*ecial law carr! onl! one *enalt!K there are no degree or *eriods. /oreover% crimes under s*ecial law do not consider mitigating or aggravating circumstance *resent in the commission o the crime. o in the case o statutor! oense% no mitigating and no aggravating circumstances will be ta=en into account. ust the same% courts are reDuired in im*osing the *enalt! u*on the oender to i a minimum that the convict should serve% and to set a maimum as the limit o that sentence. Gnder the law% when the crime is *unished under a s*ecial law% the court ma! i an! *enalt! as the maimum without eceeding the *enalt! *rescribed b! s*ecial law or the crime committed. ,n the same manner% courts are given discretion to i a minimum an!where within the range o the *enalt! *rescribed b! s*ecial law% as long as it will not be lower than the *enalt! *rescribed. #isDualiication ma! be divided into three% according to 2
+vvver"a
Pa"e = of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
5ithout regard to the nature o the crime% onl! those whose *enalt! does not eceed si !ears o im*risonment are those Dualiied or *robation. , the *enalt! is si !ears *lus one da!% he is no longer Dualiied or *robation.
(1)
"he time committedK
(9)
"he *e nalt! im*ose dK and
(0)
"he oender involved.
"he ,ndeterminate entence Law shall not a**l! to6
, the oender was convicted o several oenses which were tried ointl! and one decision was rendered where multi*le sentences im*osed several *rison terms as *enalt!% the basis or determining whether the *enalt! disDualiies the oender rom *robation or not is the term o the individual im*risonment and not the totalit! o all the *rison terms im*osed in the decision. o even i the *rison term would sum u* to more than si !ears% i none o the individual *enalties eceeds si !ears% the oender is not disDualiied b! such *enalt! rom a**l!ing or *robation.
(1)
Persons convicted o oense *unishable with death *enalt! or lie im*risonmentK
(9)
Persons convicted o treason% cons*irac! or *ro*osal to commit treasonK
(0)
Persons convicted es*ionageK
( +)
Pe rso ns co nv ict ed o *i ra c! K
On the other hand% without regard to the *enalt!% those who are convicted o subversion or an! crime against the *ublic order are not Dualiied or *robation. o =now the crimes under "itle ,,,% Eoo= 9 o the Revised Penal Code. 4mong these crimes is 4larms and candals% the *enalt! o which is onl! arresto menor or a ine. Gnder the amendment to the Probation Law% those convicted o a crime against *ublic order regardless o the *enalt! are not Dualiied or *robation.
(A)
Persons who are habitual delinDuentsK
/a! a recidivist be given the beneit o Probation LawJ
( ')
Pe rso ns w ho s hal l ha ve e sca *e d rom co n in eme nt sentenceK
($)
"hose who have been granted conditional *ardon b! the Chie @ecutive and shall have violated the term theretoK
(&)
"hose whose maimum term o im*risonment does not eceed one !ear% but not to those alread! sentenced b! inal udgment at the time o the a**roval o ,ndeterminate entence Law.
o mis*rision o treason% rebellion% sedition%
or e va de d
4lthough the *enalt! *rescribed or the elon! committed is death or reclusion *er*etua% i ater considering the attendant circumstances% the im*osable *enalt! is reclusion tem*oral or less% the ,ndeterminate entence Law a**lies (Peo!le v. Cem!ron@ ,= CRA 0= ).
Presidential 'ecree No. : #Pro1ation Law& 4mong the dierent grounds o *artial etinction o criminal liabilit!% the most im*ortant is *robation. Probation is a manner o dis*osing o an accused who have been convicted b! a trial court b! *lacing him under su*ervision o a *robation oicer% under such terms and conditions that the court ma! i. "his ma! be availed o beore the convict begins serving sentence b! inal udgment and *rovided that he did not a**eal an!more rom conviction.
+vvver"a
4s a general rule% no. @ce*tion6 , the earlier conviction reers to a crime the *enalt! o which does not eceed 08 da!s im*risonment or a ine o not more than P988.88% such convict is not disDualiied o the beneit o *robation. o even i he would be convicted subseDuentl! o a crime embraced in the same title o the Revised Penal Code as that o the earlier conviction% he is not disDualiied rom *robation *rovided that the *enalt! o the current crime committed does not go be!ond si !ears and the nature o the crime committed b! him is not against *ublic order% national securit! or subversion. 4lthough a *erson ma! be eligible or *robation% the moment he *erects an a**eal rom the udgment o conviction% he cannot avail o *robation an!more. o the beneit o *robation must be invo=ed at the earliest instance ater conviction.
Pa"e of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) , the oender would a**eal the conviction o the trial court and the a**ellate court reduced the *enalt! to sa!% less than si !ears% that convict can still ile an a**lication or *robation% because the earliest o**ortunit! or him to avail o *robation came onl! ater udgment b! the a**ellate court. 5hether a convict who is otherwise Dualiied or *robation ma! be give the beneit o *robation or not% the courts are alwa!s reDuired to conduct a hearing. , the court denied the a**lication or *robation without the beneit o the hearing% where as the a**licant is not disDualiied under the *rovision o the Probation Law% but onl! based on the re*ort o the *robation oicer% the denial is correctible b! certiorari% because it is an act o the court in ecess o urisdiction or without urisdiction% the order den!ing the a**lication thereore is null and void.
Vena V. Verga
committed% although bailable% the! cannot aord to *ut u* a bail% u*on *romulgation o the sentence% naturall! he goes bac= to detention% that does not mean that the! alread! start serving the sentence even ater *romulgation o the sentence% sentence will onl! become inal and eecutor! ater the la*se o the 1A-da! *eriod% unless the convict has waived e*ressl! his right to a**eal or otherwise% he has *artl! started serving sentence and in that case% the *enalt! will alread! be inal and eeuctor!% no right to *robation can be a**lied or. Probation shall be denied i the court inds6 (1)
"hat the oender is in need o correctional treatment that can be *rovided most eectivel! b! his commitment to an institutionK
Probation is intended to *romote the correction and rehabilitation o an oender b! *roviding him with individualied treatmentK to *rovide an o**ortunit! or the reormation o a *enitent oender which might be less *robable i he were to serve a *rison sentenceK to *revent the commission o oensesK to decongest our ailsK and to save the government much needed inance or maintaining convicts in ail
(9)
"hat there is undue ris= that during the *eriod o *robation the oender will commit another crimeK or
(0)
Probation will de*reciate the seriousness o the crime.
Probation is onl! a *rivilege. o even i the oender ma! not be disDualiied o *robation% !et the court believes that because o the crime committed it was not advisable to give *robation because it would de*reciate the eect o the crime% the court ma! reuse or den! an a**lication or *robation.
( 1)
/a ndat or! co ndi ti on sK an d
( 9)
# isc re ti on ar ! co nd it ion s.
enerall!% the courts do not grant an a**lication or *robation or violation o the #angerous #rugs Law% because o the *revalence o the crime. o it is not along the *ur*ose o *robation to grant the convict the beneit thereo% ust the individual rehabilitation o the oender but also the best interest o the societ! and the communit! where the convict would be sta!ing% i he would be released on *robation. "o allow him loose ma! bring about a lac= o res*ect o the members o the communit! to the enorcement o *enal law. ,n such a case% the court even i the crime is *robationable ma! still den! the beneit o *robation. Consider not onl! the *robationable crime% but also the *robationable *enalt!. , it were the non-*robationable crime% then regardless o the *enalt!% the convict cannot avail o *robation. enerall!% the *enalt! which is not *robationable is an! *enalt! eceeding si !ears o im*risonment. Oenses which are not *robationable are those against natural securit!% those against *ublic order and those with reerence to subversion. Persons who have been granted o the beneit o *robation cannot avail thereo or the second time. Probation is onl! available once and this ma! be availed onl! where the convict starts serving sentence and *rovided he has not *erected an a**eal. , the convict *erected an a**eal% he oreits his right to a**l! or *robation. 4s ar as oenders who are under *reventive im*risonment% that because a crime committed is not bailable or the crime
+vvver"a
"he *robation law im*oses two =inds o conditions6
iii. Mandatory conditions5 (1)
"he convict must re*ort to the Probation Oicer (PO) designated in the court order a**roving his a**lication or Probation within $9 hours rom recei*t o Notice o such order a**roving his a**licationK and
(9)
"he convict% as a *robationer% must re*ort to the PO at least once a month during the *eriod o *robation unless sooner reDuired b! the PO.
"hese conditions being mandator!% the moment an! o these is violate% the *robation is cancelled.
#iscretionar! conditions6 "he trial court which a**roved the a**lication or *robation ma! im*ose an! condition which ma! be constructive to the correction o the oender% *rovided the same would not violate the constitutional rights o the oender and subect to this two restrictions6 (1) the conditions im*osed should not be undul! restrictive o the *robationerK and (9) such condition should not be incom*atible with the reedom o conscience o the *robationer
Pa"e of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
ED%INC%I8N 89 CRIMINAL LIA
Vena V. Verga
grounds b! which criminal liabilit! is etinguished. administrative cases but not criminal cases.
"his is onl! true to
4lwa!s *rovide two classiications when answering this Duestion. 'eath of the offender Criminal liabilit! is totall! etinguished as ollows6 (1)
E! the death o the convict as to *ersonal *enaltiesK and as to *ecuniar! *enalties% liabilit! thereore is etinguished onl! when the death o the oender occurs beore inal udgment
(9)
E! service o sentenceK
5here the oender dies beore inal udgment% his death etinguishes both his criminal and civil liabilities. o while a case is on a**eal% the oender dies% the case on a**eal will be dismissed. "he oended *art! ma! ile a se*arate civil action under the Civil Code i an! other basis or recover! o civil liabilit! eists as *rovided under 4rt 11A$ Civil Code. ( Peo!le v.
(0)
E! amnest! which com*letel! etinguished the *enalt! and all its eectsK
Amnesty and !ardon
(+)
E! absolute *ardonK
( A)
E ! *re scr i* tio n o th e cr ime K
(')
E! *rescri*tion o the *enalt!K
($)
E! the marriage o the oended women as in the crimes o ra*e% abduction% seduction and acts o lasciviousness.
Criminal liabilit! is *artiall! etinguished as ollows6 (1)
E! conditional *ardonK
( 9)
E ! co mmu tat ion o se nte nce K
(0)
3or good conduct% allowances which the cul*rit ma! earn while he is serving sentenceK
(+)
ParoleK and
(A)
Probation.
u**ose% instead o amnest!% what was given was absolute *ardon% then !ears later% the oended was again ca*tured and charged or rebellion% he was convicted% is he a recidivistJ ?es. Pardon% although absolute does not erase the eects o conviction. Pardon onl! ecuses the convict rom serving the sentence. "here is an ece*tion to this and that is when the *ardon was granted when the convict had alread! served the sentence such that there is no more service o sentence to be eecuted then the *ardon shall be understood as intended to erase the eects o the conviction. o i the convict has alread! served the sentence and in s*ite o that he was given a *ardon that *ardon will cover the eects o the crime and thereore% i he will be subseDuentl! convicted or a elon! embracing the same title as that crime% he cannot be considered a recidivist% because the *ardon wi*es out the eects o the crime.
%otal e4tinction of criminal lia1ility 4mong the grounds or total etinction as well as those or *artial etinction% !ou cannot ind among them the election to *ublic oice. ,n one case% a *ublic oicial was charged beore the andiganba!an or violation o 4nti-rat and Corru*t Practices 4ct. #uring the ensuing election% he was nevertheless reelected b! the constituents% one o the deenses raised was that o condonation o the crime b! his constituents% that his constituents have *ardoned him. "he u*reme Court ruled that the re-election to *ublic oice is not one o the
+vvver"a
"he eects o amnest! as well as absolute *ardon are not the same. 4mnest! erases not onl! the conviction but also the crime itsel. o that i an oender was convicted or rebellion and he Dualiied or amnest!% and so he was given an amnest!% then !ears later he rebelled again and convicted% is he a recidivistJ No. Eecause the amnest! granted to him erased not onl! the conviction but also the eects o th e conviction itsel.
Eut i he was serving sentence when he was *ardoned% that *ardon will not wi*e out the eects o the crime% unless the language o the *ardon absolutel! relieve the oender o all the eects thereo. Considering that recidivism does not *rescribe% no matter how long ago was the irst conviction% he shall still be a recidivist. ,llustrations6
Pa"e ,-- of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 5hen the crime carries with it moral tur*itude% the oender even i granted *ardon shall still remain disDualiied rom those alling in cases where moral tur*itude is a bar. Pedro was *rosecuted and convicted o the crime o robber! and was sentenced to si !ears im*risonment or *rision correccional. 4ter serving sentence or three !ears% he was granted absolute *ardon. "en !ears later% Pedro was again *rosecuted and convicted o the crime o thet% a crime embraced in the same title% this time he shall be a recidivist. On the other hand% i he has served all si !ears o the irst sentence% and his name was included in the list o all those granted absolute *ardon% *ardon shall relieve him o the eects o the crime% and thereore even i he commits thet again% he shall not be considered a recidivist. ,n Monsanto v. 9actoran@ Gr.@ ,=- CRA ,,@ it was held that absolute *ardon does not i*so acto entitle the convict to reinstatement to the *ublic oice oreited b! reason o his conviction. 4lthough *ardon restores his eligibilit! or a**ointment to that oice% the *ardoned convict must rea**l! or the new a**ointment . Pardon becomes valid onl! when there is a inal udgment. , given beore this% it is *remature and hence void. "here is no such thing as a *remature amnest!% because it does not reDuire a inal udgmentK it ma! be given beore inal udgment or ater it.
Prescri*tion o crime and *rescri*tion o the *enalt! Prescri*tion o the crime begins% as a general rule on the da! the crime was committed% unless the crime was concealed% not *ublic% in which case% the *rescri*tion thereo would onl! commence rom the time the oended *art! or the government learns o the commission o the crime.
moment the alsiied document is registered in the Registr! o Pro*ert!% the *rescri*tive *eriod alread! commenced to run. 5hen a crime *rescribes% the tate loses the right to *rosecute the oender% hence% even though the oender ma! not have iled a motion to Duash on this ground the trial court% but ater conviction and during the a**eal he learned that at the time the case was iled% the crime has alread! *rescribed% such accused can raise the Duestion o *rescri*tion even or the irst time on a**eal% and the a**ellate court shall have no urisdiction to continue% i legall!% the crime has indeed *rescribed. "he *revailing rule now is% *rescri*tion o the crime is not waivable% the earlier uris*rudence to the contrar! had alread! been abrogated or overruled. /oreover% or *ur*oses o *rescri*tion% the *eriod or iling a com*laint or inormation ma! not be etended at all% even though the last da! such *rescri*tive *eriod alls on a holida! or a unda!. 3or instance% light elon! *rescribes in '8 da!s or two months. , the '8 th da! alls on a unda!% the iling o the com*laint on the succeeding /onda! is alread! atal to the *rosecution o the crime because the crime has alread! *rescribed. "he rules on Criminal Procedure or *ur*oses o *rescri*tion is that the iling o the com*laint even at the *ublic *rosecutorIs oice sus*ends the running o the *rescri*tive *eriod% but not the iling with the baranga!. o the earlier rulings to the contrar! are alread! abrogated b! e*ress *rovision o the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. "he *rescri*tion o the crime is interru*ted or sus*ended 2 (1)
5hen a com*laint is iled in a *ro*er baranga! or conciliation or mediation as reDuired b! Cha*ter $% Local overnment Code% but the sus*ension o the *rescri*tive *eriod is good onl! or '8 da!s. 4ter which the *rescri*tion will resume to run% whether the conciliation or mediation is terminated or notK
(9)
5hen criminal case is iled in the *rosecutorIs oice% the *rescri*tion o the crime is sus*ended until the accused is convicted or the *roceeding is terminated or a cause not attributable to the accused.
:Commission o the crime is *ublic; -- "his does not mean alone that the crime was within *ublic =nowledge or committed in *ublic. ,llustration6 ,n the crime o alsiication o a document that was registered in the *ro*er registr! o the government li=e the Registr! o Pro*ert! or the Registr! o #eeds o the Civil registr!% the alsiication is deemed *ublic rom the time the alsiied document was registered or recorded in such *ublic oice so even though% the oended *art! ma! not reall! =now o the alsiication% the *rescri*tive *eriod o the crime shall alread! run rom the moment the alsiied document was recorded in the *ublic registr!. o in the case where a deed o sale o a *arcel o land which was alsiied was recorded in the corres*onding Registr! o Pro*ert!% the owner o the land came to =now o the alsiied transaction onl! ater 18 !ears% so he brought the criminal action onl! then. "he u*reme Court ruled that the crime has alread! *rescribed. 3rom the
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
Eut where the crime is subect to ummar! Procedure% the *rescri*tion o the crime will be sus*ended onl! when the inormation is alread! iled with the trial court. ,t is not the iling o the com*laint% but the iling o the inormation in the trial which will sus*end the *rescri*tion o the crime. On the *rescri*tion o the *enalt!% the *eriod will onl! commence to run when the convict has begun to serve the sentence. 4ctuall!% the *enalt! will *rescribe rom the moment the convict evades the service o the sentence. o i an accused was convicted in the trial court% and the conviction becomes inal
Pa"e ,-, of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) and eecutor!% so this ellow was arrested to serve the sentence% on the wa! to the *enitentiar!% the vehicle carr!ing him collided with another vehicle and overturned% thus enabling the *risoner to esca*e% no matter how long such convict has been a ugitive rom ustice% the *enalt! im*osed b! the trial court will never *rescribe because he has not !et commenced the service o his sentence. 3or the *enalt! to *rescribe% he must be brought to /untinlu*a% boo=ed there% *laced inside the cell and thereater he esca*es.
ater the marriage% otherwise% notwithstanding such marriage% the oended woman% although alread! his wie can still *rosecute him again% although the marriage remains a valid marriage. #o not thin= that the marriage is avoided or annulled. "he marriage still subsists although the oended woman ma! reile the com*laint. "he u*reme Court ruled that marriage contem*lated must be a real marriage and not one entered to and not ust to evade *unishment or the crime committed because the oender will be com*ounding the wrong he has committed.
5hether it is *rescri*tion o crime or *rescri*tion o *enalt!% i the subect could leave the Phili**ines and go to a countr! with whom the Phili**ines has no etradition treat!% the *rescri*tive *eriod o the crime or *enalt! shall remain sus*ended whenever he is out o the countr!. 5hen the oender leaves or a countr! to which the Phili**ines has an etradition treat!% the running o the *rescri*tive *eriod will go on even i the oender leaves Phili**ine territor! or that countr!. Presentl! the Phili**ines has an etradition treat! with "aiwan% ,ndonesia% Canada% 4ustralia% G4 and witerland. o i the oender goes to an! o these countries% the *rescri*tive *eriod still continues to run. ,n the case o the *rescri*tion o the *enalt!% the moment the convict commits another crime while he is ugitive rom ustice% *rescri*tive *eriod o the *enalt! shall be sus*ended and shall not run in the meantime. "he crime committed does not include the initial evasion o service o sentence that the convict must *erorm beore the *enalt! shall begin to *rescribe% so that the initial crime o evasion o service o sentence does not sus*end the *rescri*tion o *enalt!% it is the commission o other crime% ater the convict has evaded the service o *enalt! that will sus*end such *eriod.
Marria"e ,n the case o marriage% do not sa! that it is a**licable or the crimes under 4rticle 0++. ,t is onl! true in the crimes o ra*e% abduction% seduction and acts o lasciviousness. #o not sa! that it is a**licable to *rivate crimes because the term includes adulter! and concubinage. /arriages in these cases ma! even com*ound the crime o adulter! or concubinage. ,t is onl! in the crimes o ra*e% abduction% seduction and acts o lasciviousness that the marriage b! the oender with the oended woman shall etinguish civil liabilit!% not onl! criminal liabilit! o the *rinci*al who marries the oended woman% but also that o the accom*lice and accessor!% i there are an!. Co-*rinci*als who did not themselves directl! *artici*ate in the eecution o the crime but who onl! coo*erated% will also beneit rom such marriage% but not when such co-*rinci*al himsel too= direct *art in the eecution o the crime.
Vena V. Verga
Partial e4tinction of criminal lia1ility
/ood cond*ct allowance "his includes the allowance or lo!alt! under 4rticle >&% in relation to 4rticle 1A&. 4 convict who esca*es the *lace o coninement on the occasion o disorder resulting rom a conlagration% earthDua=e or similar catastro*he or during a mutin! in which he has not *artici*ated and he returned within +& hours ater the *roclamation that the calamit! had alread! *assed% such convict shall be given credit o 17A o the original sentence rom that allowance or his lo!alt! o coming bac=. "hose who did not leave the *enitentiar! under such circumstances do not get such allowance or lo!alt!. 4rticle 1A& reers onl! to those who leave and return.
Parole "his corres*ondingl! etinguishes service o sentence u* to the maimum o the indeterminate sentence. "his is the *artial etinction reerred to% so that i the convict was never given *arole% no *artial etinction.
CIVIL LIA
Civil liabilit! o the oender alls under three categories6 (1)
Restitution and restorationK
(9)
Re*aration o the damage causedK and
(0)
,ndemniication o conseDuential damages.
Restit*tion or restoration /arriage as a ground or etinguishing civil liabilit! must have been contracted in good aith. "he oender who marries the oended woman must be sincere in the marriage and thereore must actuall! *erorm the duties o a husband
+vvver"a
Restitution or restoration *resu**oses that the oended *art! was divested o *ro*ert!% and such *ro*ert! must be returned. , the *ro*ert! is in the hands
Pa"e ,-0 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
o a third *art!% the same shall nevertheless be ta=en awa! rom him and restored to the oended *art!% even though such third *art! ma! be a holder or value and a bu!er in good aith o the *ro*ert!% ece*t when such third *art! bu!s the *ro*ert! rom a *ublic sale where the law *rotects the bu!er.
be an allowance or de*reciation% otherwise% the oended *art! is allowed to enrich himsel at the e*ense o the oender. oender. o there will be a corres*onding de*reciation and the oended *art! ma! even be reDuired to *a! something ust to cover the dierence o the value value o what was restored to him. him.
3or eam*le% i a third *art! bought a *ro*ert! in a *ublic auction conducted b! the sheri levied on the *ro*ert! o a udgment creditor or an obligation% the bu!er o the *ro*ert! at such such eecution sale is *rotected *rotected b! law. "he oended *art! *art! cannot divest him thereo. thereo. o the oended oended *art! ma! onl! resort resort to re*aration o the damage done rom the oender.
"he obligation o the oender transcends to his heirs% even i the oender dies% *rovided *rovided he died ater udgment became inal% the heirs shall assume the burden burden o the civil liabilit! liabilit!%% but this is onl! to the etent that the! inherit *ro*ert! rom the deceased% i the! do not inherit% the! cannot inherit the obligations.
ome believed that this civil liabilit! is true onl! in crimes against *ro*ert!% *ro*ert!% this is not correct. Regardless o the the crime committed% ii the *ro*ert! is illegall! illegall! ta=en rom the oended *art! during the commission o the crime% the court ma! direct the oender to restore or restitute such *ro*ert! to the oended *art!. *art!. ,t can onl! be done i the *ro*ert! is brought brought within the urisdiction o that court.
"he right o the oended *art! *art! transcends to heirs u*on death. "he heirs o the oended *art! ste* into the shoes o the latter to demand civil liabilit! rom the oender.
3or eam*le% in a case where the oender committed ra*e% during the ra*e% the oender got on o the earrings earrings o the victim. 5hen a**rehended% the oender was *rosecuted or ra*e ra*e and thet. 5hen the oender was as=ed wh! wh! he got on o the earrings o the victim% the oender disclosed that he too= one o the earrings in order to have have a souvenir souvenir o the seual intercourse. u*reme Court ruled that the crime committed committed is not thet and ra*e ra*e but ra*e and unust veation or the ta=ing o the earring. "he latter crime is not a crime against against *ro*ert!% this is a crime against *ersonal securit! and libert! under "itle ,T o Eoo= ,, o the RPC. 4nd !et% the oender was reDuired reDuired to restore or restitute the earring to the oended woman.
,n case o human lie% re*aration o the damage cause is basicall! PA8%888.88 value value o human human lie% eclusive eclusive o other orms orms o damages. damages. "his PA8%888.88 PA8%888.88 ma! also increase whether such lie was lost through through intentional intentional elon! or criminal negligence% negligence% whether the result o dolo or cul*a. 4lso in the crime o ra*e% the damages awarded to the oended woman is generall! P08%888.88 or the damage to her honor. ,n earlier rulings% the amount varied% whether whether the oended woman is !ounger !ounger or a married woman. woman. u*reme Court ruled that that even i the oended woman does not adduce evidence or such damage% court can ta=e udicial notice o the act that i a woman was ra*ed% she inevitabl! suers damages. Gnder the Revised Rules Rules on Criminal Procedure% Procedure% a *rivate *rivate *rosecutor can recover all =inds =inds o damages including attorne!Is ee. "he onl! limita limitatio tion n is that that the amoun amountt and the nature nature o the damages damages should should be s*eciied. s*eciied. "he *resent *rocedur *rocedural al law does not allow a blan=et blan=et recover! recover! o damages. damages. @ach =ind o damages damages must be s*eciied s*eciied and the amount amount dul! *roven.
Pro*ert! will have to be restored to the oended *art! even this would reDuire the ta=ing o the *ro*ert! rom rom a third *erson. 5here *ersonal *ro*ert! *ro*ert! was divested rom the oended *art! *ursuant to the commission o the crime% the one who too= the same or acce*ted the same would be doing so without the beneit o the ust title. o even i the *ro*ert! ma! ma! have been bought b! the third *erson% the same ma! be ta=en rom him and restored to the oended *art! *art! without an obligati obligation on on the *art o the oended *art! *art! to *a! him whatever he *aid. "he right to recover what he has *aid will be against the oender who sold it to him. On the other hand% hand% i the crime crime was thet or robber! robber!%% the one who received the *ersonal *ro*ert! becomes a ence% he is not onl! reDuired to restitute the *ersonal *ro*ert! but he incurs criminal liabilit! in violation o the 4nti-3encing Law. , the *ro*ert! *ro*ert! cannot be restituted restituted an!more% an!more% then the damage must be re*aired% reDuiring the oender to *a! the value thereo% as determined b! the court. "hat value includes the sentimental sentimental value to the oended *art!% *art!% not onl! onl! the re*lacement cost. ,n most cases% the sentimental value value is higher than the re*lacement value. Eut i what would be restored is brand new% then there will
+vvver"a
Re!aration of the dama"e ca*sed
,ndemniication o conseDuential damages ,ndemniication o conseDuential damages reers to the loss o earnings% loss o *roits. *roits. "his does not reer onl! to conseDuential conseDuential damages damages suered suered b! the oended *art!K this also includes conseDuential damages to third *art! who also suer because o the commission o the crime. "he oender carna**ed carna**ed a bridal bridal car while the newl!-weds newl!-weds were inside the church. ince the car was onl! rented% conseDuential conseDuential damage not onl! onl! to the newl!-weds but also to the entit! which rented the car to them. /ost im*ortantl!% reer to the *ersons who are civill! liable under 4rticles 189 and 180. "his *ertains to the owner% *ro*rietor o hotels% hotels% inns% taverns and
Pa"e ,-2 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) similar establishments% establishments% an obligation to answer civill! or the loss or *ro*ert! o their guests. Gnder 4rticloe 189% two conditions must be *resent beore liabilit! attaches to the in=ee*ers% tavern=ee*ers and *ro*rietors6 (1) (1)
(9)
"he "he guest guest must must have have in inor orme med d the man manag agem emen entt in adva advanc nce e o his his having brought to the *remises certain valuables aside rom the usual *ersonal belongings o the guestK and "he gues guestt must must hav have e ollow ollowed ed the the rule rules s and and regul regulati ations ons *rescr *rescribe ibed d b! the manage managemen mentt o such such inn% inn% tavern tavern%% or simila similarr estab establis lishme hment nt regarding the sae=ee*ing o said valuables.
"he u*reme Court ruled that even though the guest did not obe! the rules and regulations *rescribed b! the management or sae=ee*ing o the valuables% this does not absolve absolve management management rom the subsidiar subsidiar! ! civil liabili liabilit! t!.. Noncom*liance with such rules and regulations but the guests will onl! be regarded as contribut contributor! or! negligence% negligence% but it wonIt absolve the managemen managementt rom civil liabilit!. Liabilit! s*eciall! attaches when the management is ound to have violated an! law or ordinance% rule or regulation governing such establishment. @ven i the crime is robber! with violence against or intimidation o *ersons or committed b! the in=ee*erIs em*lo!ees% management will be liable% otherwise% not liable because there is duress rom the oender% liable onl! or thet and orce u*on things. Gnder 4rticle 180% the subsidiar! liabilit! o an em*lo!er or master or the crime crime commit committed ted b! his em*lo!ee em*lo!ee or serva servant nt ma! attach attach onl! onl! when when the ollowing reDuisites concur6 (1) (1)
"he "he em*lo em*lo!e !err must must be enga engage ged d in busi busine ness ss or in in trad trade e or indu indust str! r! while the accused was his em*lo!eeK
(9) (9)
4t the time time the the crim crime e was was comm commit itte ted% d% the em*lo em*lo!e !eee-em em*l *lo! o!er errr relationshi* must be eisting between the twoK
(0) (0)
"he "he em*lo em*lo!e !ee e must must have have been been ound ound guil guilt! t! o the the crim crime e charg charged ed and and accordingl! held civill! liableK
(+) (+)
"he "he writ writ o eecu eecuti tion on or or the sati satis sac actio tion n o the civi civill liabi liabili lit! t! was was returned returned unsatisie unsatisied d because because the accused-em accused-em*lo! *lo!ee ee does not have enough *ro*ert! to *a! the civil liabilit!.
5hen these reDuisites concur% the em*lo!er will be subsidiaril! civill! liable or the ull amount that his em*lo!ee em*lo!ee was adudged adudged civill! liable. liable. ,t is alread! alread! settled in uris*rudence that there is no need to ile a civil action against the
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
em*lo! em*lo!er er in order order to enorc enorce e the subsid subsidiar iar! ! civil civil liabil liabilit! it! or the crime crime committed b! his em*lo!ee% it is enough that the writ o eecution is returned unsatisied. "here is no denial o due *rocess o law because the liabilit! o the em*lo!er is subsidiar! subsidiar! and not *rimar!. *rimar!.
,n case case o a elon elon! ! commi committe tted d under under the the com*ul com*ulsio sion n o an an irres irresist istibl ible e orce. "he *erson who em*lo!ed em*lo!ed the irresistible irresistible orce is subsidiaril! liableK
(9)
,n case case o a elon! elon! commit committed ted under under an an im*ul im*ulse se o o an eDual eDual or or great greater er inur!. inur!. "he *erson who generated generated such an im*ulse im*ulse is subsidiaril subsidiaril! ! liable.
"he owners o taverns% inns% motels% hotels% where the crime is committed within within their their establ establish ishme ment nt due to noncom noncom*li *lianc ance e with with genera generall *olice *olice regulations% i the oender who is *rimaril! liable cannot *a!% the *ro*rietor% or owner is subsidiaril! liable.
Pa"e ,-3 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) 3elonies 3elonies committed committed b! em*lo!ees% em*lo!ees% *u*ils% servants servants in the course o their em*lo!ment% schooling or household chores. "he em*lo!er% em*lo!er% master% master% teacher is subsidiaril! liable civill!% civill!% while the oender is *rimaril! liable. ,n case the accom*li accom*lice ce and the *rinci*al *rinci*al cannot *a!% the liabilit! liabilit! o those subsidiaril! liable is absolute.
Vena V. Verga
iv. Com!os Com!osite ite Crime+ Crime+!e !ecia ciall Com!le Com!le4 4 Crime "his is one which in substance is made u* o more than one crime but which in the e!es o the law is onl! a single indivisible indivisible oense. "his is also =nown =nown as a s*ecial s*ecial com*le com*le crime. @am*les @am*les are robber! robber! with homicide% homicide% robber! robber! with ra*e% and ra*e with homicide.
C8MPLED CRIME Philoso*h! behind *lural *lural crimes6 "he treatment o *lural crimes as one is to be lenient to the oender% who% instead o being made to suer distinct *enalties or ever! resulting crime is made to suer one *enalt! onl!% although it is the *enalt! or the most serious one and is in the maimum *eriod. Pur*ose is in the *ursuance o the rule o *ro reo. , be com*leing the crime% the *enalt! would turn out to be higher% do not com*le an!more. @am*le6 /urder and thet (=illed with treacher!% treacher!% then stole the right). Penalt!6 , com*le 2 Reclusion tem*oral maimum maimum to death. , treated individuall! 2 Reclusion tem*oral to Reclusion Per*etua. Com*le Com*le crime is not ust a matter matter o *enalt! *enalt!%% but o substance substance under the Revised Penal Code. Pluralit! o crimes ma! be in the orm o6 (1)
Com*ound crimeK
(9)
Com*le crimeK and
(0)
Com*osite cr crime.
"he com*ound crime and the com*le crime are treated in 4rticle +& o the Revised Penal Code. Eut in such article% a com*ound crime is also designated designated as a com*le crime% but :com*le crimes; are limited onl! to a situation where the resulting elonies are grave and7or less grave. 5hereas 5hereas in a com*ound com*ound crime% there is no limit as to the gravit! gravit! o the resulting resulting crimes crimes as long as a single single act brings brings about two or more crimes. trictl! trictl! s*ea=ing% s*ea=ing% com*ound com*ound crimes are not limited to grave grave or less grave grave elonies but covers all single act that results in two or more crimes. ,llustration6 4 *erson threw a hand grenade and the the *eo*le started scam*ering. scam*ering. 5hen the hand grenade e*loded% no on was seriousl! wounded all were mere wounded. ,t was held that this is a com*ound crime% although the resulting elonies are onl! slight. ,llustration o a situation where the term :necessar!; in com*le crime should not be understood as indis*ensable6 4betting 4betting committed committed during the encounter encounter between rebels rebels and government government troo*s such that the homicide committed cannot be com*leed with rebellion. "his is because the! are indis*ensable indis*ensable *art o rebellion. (Caveat6 Ortega sa!s rebellion can be com*leed with common crimes in discussion on Rebellion) "he com*le crime lies actuall! in the irst orm under 4rticle 1+&.
4 com*ound crime is one where a single act *roduces two or more crimes. 4 com*le crime strictl! s*ea=ing is one where the oender has to commit an oense as a means or the commission commission o another oense. ,t is said that the oense oense is committed committed as a necessar! necessar! means to commit commit the other oense. oense. :Necessar!; should not be understood as indis*ensable% otherwise% it shall be considered absorbed and not giving rise to a com*le crime.
"he irst orm o the com*le crime is actuall! a com*ound crime% is one where a single act constitutes two or more grave and7or less less grave elonies. "he basis in com*leing or com*ounding com*ounding the crime is the the act. o that when an oender *erormed *erormed more than one act% although although similar similar% i the! result result in se*arate se*arate crimes crimes%% there there is no com*le com*le crime crime at all% all% instea instead% d% the oend oender er shall shall be *rosecuted or as man! crimes as are committed under se*arate inormation.
4 com*osite crime is one in which substance is made u* o more than one crime% but which in the e!es o the law is onl! a single indivisible indivisible oense. "his is also =nown as s*ecial com*le crime. crime. @am*les are robber! robber! with homicide% robber! with ra*e% ra*e% ra*e with homicide. homicide. "hese are crimes which in in the e!es o the law are regarded onl! as a single indivisible oense.
5hen the single act brings about two or more crimes% the oender is *unished with onl! one *enalt!% although in the maimum *eriod% because he acted onl! with single criminal im*ulse. "he *resum*tion is that% since there is onl! one act ormed% it ollows that there is onl! one criminal im*ulse and correctl!% correctl!% onl! one *enalt! should be im*osed.
+vvver"a
Pa"e ,-7 of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) Conversel!% when there are several acts *erormed% the assum*tion is that each act is im*elled b! a distinct criminal im*ulse and or ever criminal im*ulse% a se*arate *enalt!.
C8N%IN$E' AN' C8N%IN$IN/ CRIME ,n criminal law% when a series o acts are *er*etrated in *ursuance o a single criminal im*ulse% there is what is called a continued crime. ,n criminal *rocedure or *ur*oses o venue% this is reerred to as a continuing crime. "he term :continuing crimes; as sometimes used in lieu o the term :continued crimes;% however% although both terms are analogous% the! are not reall! used with the same im*ort. :Continuing crime; is the term used in criminal *rocedure to denote that a certain crime ma! be *rosecuted and tried not onl! beore the court o the *lace where it was originall! committed or began% but also beore the court o the *lace where the crime was continued.
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
run awa!. 5hen the hands o the /uslims were tied% one o them *rotested% he did not want to be included among those who were tied becase he was a
Pa"e ,-: of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
Vena V. Verga
out o this is done simultaneousl!. u*reme Court considered this as com*le. 4lthough the =illings did not result rom one single act.
committed were in the nature o a continued crime characteried b! the same lewd design which is an essential element in the crime o orcible abduction.
,n criminal *rocedure% it is *rohibited to charge more than one oense in an inormation% ece*t when the crimes in one inormation constitute a com*le crime or a s*ecial com*le crime.
"he abuse amounting to ra*e is com*leed with orcible abduction because the abduction was alread! consummated when the victim was ra*ed. "he orcible abduction must be com*leed therewith. Eut the multi*le ra*es should be considered onl! as one because the! are in the nature o a continued crime.
o whenever the u*reme Court concludes that the criminal should be *unished onl! once% because the! acted in cons*irac! or under the same criminal im*ulse% it is necessar! to embod! these crimes under one single inormation. ,t is necessar! to consider them as com*le crimes even i the essence o the crime does not it the deinition o 4rt +&% because there is no other *rovision in the RPC. #u*licit! o oenses% in order not to violate this rule% it must be called a com*le crime. ,n earlier rulings on abduction with ra*e% i several oenders abducted the woman and abused her% there is multi*le ra*e. "he oenders are to be convicted o one count o ra*e and se*aratel! charged o the other ra*es. ,n Peo!le v. Gose@ there were our *artici*ants here. "he! abducted the woman% ater which% the our too= turns in abusing her. ,t was held that each one o the our became liable not onl! or his own ra*e but also or those committed b! the others. @ach o the our oenders was convicted o our ra*es. ,n the e!es o the law% each committed our crimes o ra*e. One o the our ra*es committed b! one o them was com*leed with the crime o abduction. "he other three ra*es are distinct counts o ra*e. "he three ra*es are not necessar! to commit the other ra*es. "hereore% se*arate com*laints7inormation. ,n Peo!le v. Pa1asa@ the u*reme Court through ustice 4Duino ruled that there is onl! one count o orcible abduction with ra*e committed b! the oenders who abducted the two women and abused them several times. "his was onl! a dissenting o*inion o ustice 4Duino% that there could be onl! one com*le crimeo abduction with ra*e% regardless o the number o ra*es committed because all the ra*es are but committed out o one and the same lewd design which im*elled the oender to abduct the victim. ,n Peo!le v.
+vvver"a
Note6 "his is a dangerous view because the abductors will commit as much ra*e as the! can% ater all% onl! one com*le crime o ra*e would arise. ,n adulter!% each intercourse constitutes one crime. 4**arentl!% the singleness o the act is not considered a single crime. @ach intercourse brings with it the danger o bringing one stranger in the amil! o the husband. 4rticle +& also a**lies in cases when out o a single act o negligence or im*rudence% two or more grave or less grave elonies resulted% although onl! the irst *art thereo (com*ound crime). "he second *art o 4rticle +& does not a**l!% reerring to the com*le crime *ro*er because this a**lies or reers onl! to a deliberate commission o one oense to commit another oense.
"he thet o 10 cows belonging to two dierent *ersons committed b! the accused at the same *lace and *eriod o time ( Peo!le v. %*mlos@ := Phil. 20- )K
Pa"e ,-= of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes)
(2)
"he thet o si roosters belonging to two dierent owners rom the same coo* and at the same *eriod o time ( Peo!le v. Garanillo)K
(0)
"he illegal charging o ees or service rendered b! a law!er ever! time he collects veteranIs beneits on behal o a client who agreed that attorne!Is ees shall be *aid out o such beneits ( Peo!le v. a11*n@ ,- CAR ,7:). "he collections o legal ees were im*elled b! the same motive% that o collecting ees or services rendered% and all acts o collection were made under the same criminal im*ulse.
On the other hand% the u*reme Court declined to a**l! the conce*t in the ollowing cases6
(1)
(2)
(0)
"wo @staa cases% one which was committed during the *eriod rom anuar! 1> to #ecember% 1>AA and the other rom anuar! 1>A' to ul! 1>A' (Peo!le v. 'ich*!a@ ,2 Phil 2-:). aid acts were committed on two dierent occasionsK everal malversations committed in /a!% une and ul! 1>0' and alsiications to conceal said oenses committed in 4ugust and October% 1>0'. "he malversations and alsiications were not the result o one resolution to embele and alsi! ( Peo!le v. CIV@ :: Phil. 27,)K event!-ive estaa cases committed b! the conversion b! the agents o collections rom the customers o the em*lo!er made on dierent dates.
,n the thet cases% the trend is to ollow the single larcen! doctrine% that is ta=ing o several things% whether belonging to the same or dierent owners% at the same time and *lace% constitutes one larcen! onl!. /an! courts have abandoned the se*arate larcen! doctrine% under which there was distinct larcen! as to the *ro*ert! o each victim. 4lso abandoned is the doctrine that the government has the discretion to *rosecute the accused or one oense or or as man! distinct oenses as there are victims (antiago v. ustice architorena% decided on #ecember 9% 1>>0).
+vvver"a
Vena V. Verga
ED%INC%I8N 89 CRIMINAL LIA
#eath o the convict as to the *ersonal *enalties beore inal udgment E! service o the sentence E! amnest! which com*letel! etinguishes the *enalt! and all its eects E? *rescri*tion o the crime E! *rescri*tion o the *enalt! E! the marriage o the oended *art! (ra*e)
$ vs. MA'LAN/
,ssue6 57N the act charged has alread! *rescribed. #ecision6 ?es. "he date o the violation o the law becomes the o*erative date or the commencement o the *eriod o *rescri*tion. "he date o com*uting the *eriod o *rescri*tion would be rom the date o the iling o the a**lication. @ven i the ten !ear *eriod commenced to run rom the registration and
Pa"e ,- of ,--
Criminal Law 1 Reviewer (Padilla cases and notes combined with Ortega Notes) issuance o the ree *atent title b! the register o deed% registration being a constructive notice to the whole word% the *rescri*tive *eriod would la*se on 1>&' or A months beore the iling o the com*laint. PE8PLE vs. REE
Vena V. Verga
,ssue6 57N the driverIs em*lo!er can be civill! liable. #ecision6 No. the em*lo!er is not engaged in business or industr! and merel! uses automobile or *rivate ends. "he em*lo!er was also no in the automobile when the accident ha**ened and when it eercised due diligence in choosing a driver% the em*lo!er cannot be civill! liable.
3eyword( prescription of crime4 filling in the register of deeds
MAR$EJ vs. CA%ILL8 ,ssue6 57N the crime *rescribed #ecision6 ?es. "he criminal action has been etinguished b! *rescri*tion. "he title% once registered is a notice to the world. 4ll *ersons must ta=e notice. Considering the la*se o more than 98 !ears% the crimes charges alread! *rescribed. ,ssue6 #oes 4rt. >1 cannot be construed in such manner as to admit a**lication o the rule on construction. #ecision6 No. 4lthough caution should be observed in a**l!ing the rule o construction in civil cases% the court will not hesitate to do so i the actual and legal circumstance so warrant. "he a**lication o the rule on constructive notice in the construction o 4rticle >9 o the RPC would most certainl! be avorable to the accused since the *rescri*tive *eriod o the crime shall have to be rec=oned with earlier. "he criminal oense o alsiication o *ublic document has alread! *rescribed.
Be!word6 Chauer% /C the em*lo!er did not =now his car was used. victim died.
"he
,ssue6 Can the em*lo!er be held liable. #ecision6 No. 5here it admitted that the em*lo!er did not =now that his chauer was using the car that da! and the he eercised due diligence in hiring the chauer% the em*lo!er can not be held liable. "he subsidiar! liabilit! o the master onl! ta=es *lace when the servant% subordinate or em*lo!ee commits a *unishable criminal act while in the actual *erormance o his own ordinar! duties and he was innocent thereb! rendering inca*able o satis!ing b! himsel his own liabilit!. VARELA vs. 9INNICB Be!word6 @staa o ewelsK *awned instead o selling them. ,ssue6 57N the ewels can be recovered.
M8NAN%8 vs. 9AC%8RAN Be!words6 @staaK alsiication o *ublic documents. 9$LL and A<8L$%E 9REE'8M6 ubect to the limitations im*osed b! the constitution% the *ardoning *ower cannot be restricted or controlled b! the legislative action. 4bsolute *ardon dies not blot out the crime committed. Pardon i granted beore conviction% it *revents an! *enalties and disabilities% conseDuent u*on condition% rom attaching. , granted ater conviction% it removes *enalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. "he ver! essence o *ardon is orgiveness and remission o guilt. Pardon im*lies guilt% thus% it does no erase the crime and the conviction thereo. "his is the reason wh! the em*lo!ee is not entitled to bac=*a! when *ardoned. AR%ICLE ,-@ver! *erson criminall! liable or a elon! in also civill! liable. %EIME%J vs. VAL'EJ Be!word6 9 vehicles collided in intersectionK victim cannot collect rom the driver.
#ecision6 ?es. @ver! *erson criminall! liable or a crime or misdemeanor is also civill! liable. "he owner has an absolute right to the ewels rom the *ossession o whoever holds them% in accordance with the udgment entered in the aoresaid cause or estaa. REE vs. R$IJ Be!word6 #eraudK ewels ,ssue6 57N the owner o the ewels direct our *awnsho*s to restore the ewels without indemnit! on the *art! o the *etitioner. #ecision6 ?es. 4mong the civil res*onsibilities incurred b! a *erson committing estaa is that o restoring the thing ta=en. "he ewels were *awned without the =nowledge o the owner thus must be restored b! the *awnsho* owners. , restitution is im*ossible% the! ma! re*atriate or the inur! or indemni! the owner. $ vs. VILLAL8<8 Be!word6 "het o carabao. 4nother *erson aided in *rocuring registration certiicate. ,ssue6 57N that *erson is mere accessor! to the thet or *rinci*al.
+vvver"a
Pa"e ,- of ,--
