AW UP L BAR REVIEWER
2012
CRIMINAL LAW Dean, UP College of Law Associate Dean, UP College of Law Secretary, UP College of Law Faculty Adviser, UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2012 Commissioner
Academics Committee Heads
Criminal Law Subject Heads s Layout
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
2
AW UP L BAR REVIEWER
2012
CRIMINAL |Commissioner |Deputy Commissioners |Secretary |Treasurer |Auditor
•
|Acads |Acads
• • •
LAW Faculty Editor Subject Heads
•
• • •
• • •
|Special Lectures |Secretariat |Publicity |Publicity and Promotions |Marketing |Logistics • • |HR |Merchandise |Layout |Mock Bar |Bar Candidates’ Welfare • |Events
• • • •
|Hotel Operations |Day-Operations |Night-Operations |Food |Transpo |Linkages
Layout Artists | •
• •
• •
Layout Head|
• •
•
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
2
AW UP L BAR REVIEWER
2012
CRIMINAL |Commissioner |Deputy Commissioners |Secretary |Treasurer |Auditor
•
|Acads |Acads
• • •
LAW Faculty Editor Subject Heads
•
• • •
• • •
|Special Lectures |Secretariat |Publicity |Publicity and Promotions |Marketing |Logistics • • |HR |Merchandise |Layout |Mock Bar |Bar Candidates’ Welfare • |Events
• • • •
|Hotel Operations |Day-Operations |Night-Operations |Food |Transpo |Linkages
Layout Artists | •
• •
• •
Layout Head|
• •
•
2012 UP Law Bar Reviewer
\
CRIMINAL
LAW Copyright and all other relevant rights over this material are owned jointly by the University of the Philippines College of Law and the Student Editorial Team. The ownership of the work belongs to the University of the Philippines College of Law. No part of this book shall be reproduced or distributed without the consent of the University of the Philippines College of Law. All Rights reserved.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
4
Criminal Law 1 CHAPTER I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW .......................... 14
A.
Definition of Criminal Law ........ 14 1. Difference between Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita.......................... 14 B. Scope of Application and Characteristics of the Philippine Criminal Law 16 0. Generality ........................ 16 1. Territoriality ..................... 17 2. Prospectivity ..................... 19 3. Legality (nullum (nullum crimen crimen nulla nulla poena sine lege) ....................... 20 4. Strict Construction of Penal Laws Against State: The ―Doctrine of Pro Reo‖ ..................................... 20 C. Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws in the Bill of Rights .......................... 20 1. Equal protection ................. 20 2. Due process....................... 20 3. Non-imposition of cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines 20 4. Bill of attainder .................. 20 5. Ex post facto law ................ 20
E. Stages of Execution................. 32 F. Conspiracy and Proposal ........... 36 G. Multiple Offenders .................. 39 1. Recidivism......................... 40 2. Habituality (Reiteracion) ....... 40 3. Quasi-Recidivism ................. 40 4. Habitual Delinquency Delinquency............ 40 H. Complex Crimes and Special Complex Crimes........................... 40 1. Complex Crimes .................. 41 2. Special Complex/Composite Complex/Composite crimes ................................... ................................ ... 42 3. Continued and Continuing Crimes (Delito Continuado) ................... .............. ..... 42 CHAPTER III. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY .............. 44
A.
Justifying Circumstances .......... 44 1. Self Defense ...................... 44 2. Defense of Relatives............. 46 3. Defense of Strangers ............ 46 4. Avoidance of a Greater Evil .... 46 5. Fulfillment of Duty Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right or office ............ 47 6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose .................. 47
B.
Exempting Circumstances ......... 48 1. Insanity and Imbecility .......... 49 2. Minority............................ 49 3. Accident ........................... 50 4. Irresistible Force ................. 50 5. Uncontrollable Fear ............. 51 6. Insuperable or Lawful Causes .. 51
C.
Mitigating Circumstances Circumstances .......... 51 1. Incomplete Justification and Exemption .............................. 52 2. Under 18 Or Over 70 Years Of Age 53 3. No Intention to Commit So Grave A Wrong (Praeter Intentionem) ...... 53 4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat 54 5. Immediate Vindication of A Grave Offense .................................. 54 6. Passion or obfuscation (Arrebato y Obsecacion) .......................... 55 7. Voluntary Surrender ............. 56 8. Plea Of Guilt ...................... 57 9. Plea to a Lesser Offense ........ 57 10. Physical Defects ............... 57 11. Illness ........................... 57
CHAPTER II. FELONIES ..................... 22
A.
Preliminary matters ................ 22 1. Differentiating Felonies, Offense, Misdemeanor Misdemeanor and Crime .............. 22 1. Felonies: How Committed ......... 22 2. How is Criminal Liability Incurred? ................................ 22 3. Discussion of Article 5........... 23 4. Wrongful Act Different from that Intended ................................ 23 5. Omission .......................... 25 B. Classifications of Felonies ......... 25 1. According to the Manner of Their Commission ............................. 26 2. According to the Stages of Their Execution ............................... 26 3. According to Their Gravity ..... 26 4. As to Count ....................... 27 5. As to Nature ...................... 27 C. Elements of Criminal Liability .... 27 1. Elements of Felonies ............ 27 Intentional Felonies ................... 27 D. Impossible Crimes .................. 31
CRIMINAL LAW
12. Analogous Mitigating Circumstances.......................... 58 D.
E.
F.
Aggravating Circumstances Circumstances ........ 58 1. Generic............................ 59 1. Taking Advantage of Public Office 59 2. In Contempt of or With Insult to Public Authorities ............... 59 3. With Insult or Lack of Regard Due to Offended Party by Reason of Rank, Age or Sex .................... 60 4. Abuse of Confidence and Obvious Ungratefulness ............ 61 5. Crime in Palace or in Presence of the Chief Executive ............. 62 (Nocturnidad); 6. Nighttime Uninhabited Place (Despoblado); With a Band (Cuadrilla)............ 62 7. On Occasion of a Calamity .. 63 8. Aid of Armed Men or Means to Ensure Impunity (Auxilio de Gente Armada) .............................. 63 9. Recidivism (Reincidencia) (Reincidencia) ... 64 10. Reiteracion/Habituality Reiteracion/Habituality... 65 11. Prize, Reward or Promise . 66 12. lInundation, lInundation, Fire, Poison.. 66 13. Evident Premeditation (Premeditacion (Premeditacion Conocida) ......... 66 (Astucia), 14. Craft Fraud (Fraude) or Disguise (Disfraz)..... 67 15. Superior Strength or Means to Weaken Defense ................. 68 16. Treachery (Alevosia) ...... 69 17. Ignominy .................... 70 18. Unlawful Entry ............. 71 19. Breaking Wall, Floor, Roof 71 20. With Aid of Persons Under 15; By Motor Vehicle ............... 71 21. Cruelty ...................... 71 Alternative Circumstances ........ 75 1. Relationship ...................... 75 2. Intoxication....................... 76 3. Degree of Instruction/ Education 76 Absolutory Causes .................. 76 1. Instigation ........................ 76
2. Pardon ............................. 77 3. Other Absolutory Causes ........ 77 4. Acts Not Covered By Law And In Case Of Excessive Punishment ....... 77
CHAPTER IV.PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE/DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION PARTICIPATION ..... 78 A. PrincipalsError! Bookmark not defined.
B. C.
1. 2. 3.
By Direct Participation .......... 78 By Inducement Inducement ................... 79 By Indispensable Indispensable Cooperation .. 79 Accomplices ......................... 79 Accessories........................... 80
CHAPTER V. PENALTIES .................... 83
A.
General Principles .................. 83 1. Purposes........................... 84 2. Classification ..................... 84 3. Duration and Effect.............. 84
B.
Penalties which may be imposed . 84 1. Scale of Principal Penalties .... 84 2. Scale of Accessory Penalties ... 85
C. Specific Principal Principal And Accessory Penalties ................................... 86 1. Afflictive penalties .............. 86 1. Reclusion Perpetua .............. 86 2. Reclusion Temporal........... 87 3. Prision mayor .................. 87 1. Correctional penalties........... 87 1. Prision Correccional ............. 87 2. Arresto Mayor.................. 87 3. Light penalties ................... 89 1. Arresto Menor .................... 89 2. Public Censure................. 89 4. Penalties common to afflictive, correctional, correctional, and light penalties .... 89 1. Fine ................................ 89 2. Bond to Keep the Peace ........ 89 D.
Accessory penalties................. 90 1. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification ........................ 90 2. Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification ............ 91
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
6
3. Suspension from Public Office, the Right to Vote and Be Voted for, the Right to Practice a Profession or Calling ................................... 91 4. Civil Interdiction .............. 91 5. Indemnification or Confiscation of Instruments or Proceeds of the Offense ............................... 91 6. Payment of Costs ............. 91 Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification ........................... 92 E.
Measures not considered penalty 92
F.
Application .......................... 93 1. Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. 4013, as amended) ............. 94 2. The Three-fold rule ............. 96 3. Subsidiary imprisonment........ 97
G. Special rules for certain situations 104 1. Complex Crimes................. 104 2. Crimes Different from That Intended ............................... 105 3. Where the Offender Is Below 18 Years ................................... 106 H. Execution and Service ............ 107 1. Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended) .............................. 108 CHAPTER VI. MODIFICATION AND EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY .. 113
A. B. C. D. E.
Prescription of crimes (Art. 90) . 113 Prescription of penalties (Art. 92) 114 Pardon by the offended party ... 115 Pardon by the Chief Executive... 115 Amnesty ............................. 115
Criminal Law 2 Title I. Crimes against National Security and the Law of Nations .................. 155
A.
Crimes against Security ........... 155 1. Article 114 – Treason ........... 155 2. Article 115 - Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason ........ 156
3. Article 116 - Misprision of Treason.................................156 4. Article 117 – Espionage.........157 B.
Crimes against the Law of Nations 157 1. Article 118 - Inciting to War or Giving Motives for Reprisals .........157 2. Article 119 - Violation of Neutrality ..............................157 3. Article 120 - Correspondence with Hostile Country .................157 4. Article 121 - Flight to Enemy's Country .................................157 5. Article 122 - Piracy in General and Mutiny on the High Seas or in Philippine Waters .....................157 6. Article 123 - Qualified Piracy.158
Title II. Crimes against Fundamental Laws of the State ................................ 158
1. Article 124 - Arbitrary Detention 158 2. Article 125 - Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities ...................159 3. Article 126 - Delaying Release 159 4. Article 127 – Expulsion .........160 5. Article 128 - Violation of Domicile 160 6. Article 129 - Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained, and Abuse in the Service of Those Legally Obtained .160 7. Article 130 - Searching Domicile without Witnesses ....................161 8. Article 131 - Prohibition, Interruption and Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings ....................161 9. Article 132 - Interruption of Religious Worship .....................161 10. Article 133 - Offending the Religious Feelings .....................162 Title III. Crimes against Public Order . 162
A. Chapter I – Rebellion, Coup d‘etat, Sedition and Disloyalty ..................162 1. Article 134 Rebellion /Insurrection ..........................162 2. Article 134-A - Coup d‘ État ...163 3. Article 135 - Penalty for Rebellion, Insurrection or Coup d‘ État 163
CRIMINAL 4. Article 136 - Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Coup d‘ État, Rebellion or Insurrection ............ 164 5. Article 137 - Disloyalty of Public Officers or Employees................ 164 6. Article 138 - Inciting to Rebellion or Insurrection ........................ 164 7. Article 139 - Sedition........... 164 8. Article 140 - Persons Liable for Sedition ................................ 165 9. Article 141 - Conspiracy to Commit Sedition ...................... 165 10. Article 142 – Inciting to Sedition ................................ 165 B. Chapter II - Crimes against Popular Representation........................... 166 1. Article 143 - Acts Tending to Prevent the Meeting of the Congress of the Philippines and Similar Bodies 166 2. Article 144 - Disturbance of Proceedings............................ 166 3. Article 145 - Violation of Parliamentary Immunity ............. 166 C. Chapter III – Illegal Assemblies and Associations .............................. 166 1. Article 146 - Illegal Assemblies 166 2. Article 147 - Illegal Associations 167 D. Chapter IV - Assault upon and Resistance and Disobedience to, Persons in Authority and Their Agents ......... 167 1. Article 148 - Direct Assault.... 167 2. Article 152 - Persons in Authority and Agents of Persons in Authority 168 3. Article 149 - Indirect Assault.. 168 4. Article 150 - Disobedience to Summons Issued by Congress, Its Committees or Subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions, Its Committees, Subcommittees or Divisions ................................ 168 5. Article 151 - Resistance and Disobedience to a Person in Authority or the Agents of Such Persons ...... 168
LAW E.
Chapter V - Public Disorders .....169 1. Article 153 - Tumults and Other Disturbances of Public Order ........169 2. Article 154 - Unlawful Use of Means of Publication and Unlawful Utterances .............................169 3. Article 155 - Alarms and Scandals 169 4. Article 156 - Delivering Persons from Jail ...............................170
F. Chapter VI - Evasion of Service of Sentence ..................................170 1. Article 157 - Evasion of Service of Sentence ...............................170 2. Article 158 - Evasion of Service of Sentence on the Occasion of Disorders, Conflagrations, Earthquakes, or Other Calamities ..171 3. Article 159 - Other Cases of Evasion of Service of Sentence .....171 G. Chapter VII - Commission of Another Crime during Service of Penalty Imposed for Another Previous Offense ..........171 1. Article 160 - Quasi Recidivism 171 H. Title IV. Crimes against Public Interest ....................................171 1. Acts of Counterfeitin ...........172 1. Article 161 - Counterfeiting the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, Forging the Signature or Stamp of the Chief Executive...............................172 2. Article 162 - Using Forged Signature or Counterfeit Seal or Stamp ................................172 3. Article 163 - Making and Importing and Uttering False Coins 172 4. Article 164 - Mutilation of Coins .................................173 5. Article 165 - Selling of False or Mutilated Coin, Without Connivance 173
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
8
6. Article 166 - Forging Treasury or Bank Notes or Other Documents Payable to Bearer; Importing and Uttering Such False or Forged Notes and Documents..................... 173 7. Article 167 - Counterfeiting, Importing, and Uttering Instruments Not Payable to Bearer ............ 174
7. Article 183 - False Testimony in Other Cases and Perjury in Solemn Affirmation ................180 8. Article 184 - Offering False Testimony in Evidence ............181 9. Article 185 - Machinations in Public Auctions .....................181 10. Article 186 – Monopolies and Combinations in Restraint of Trade 181 11. Article 187 – Importation and Disposition of Falsely Marked Articles or Merchandise Made of Gold, Silver, or other Precious Metals or their Alloys ..............182
2. Acts of Forgery .................. 174 1. Article 168 - Illegal Possession and Use of False Treasury or Bank Notes and Other Instruments of Credit 174 2. Article 169 - How Forgery is Committed.............................174 3. Acts of Falsification ............ 174 1. Article 170 - Falsification of Legislative Documents ............... 174 2. Article 171 - Falsification by Public Officer, Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastical Minister ......... 175 3. Article 172 - Falsification by Private Individual and Use of Falsified Documents ............... 177 4. Article 173 - Falsification of Wireless, Cable, Telegraph and Telephone Messages, and Use of Said Falsified Messages ........... 178 5. Article 174 - False Medical Certificates, False Certificates of Merits or Service, etc. ............ 178 6. Article 175 - Using False Certificates ......................... 178 7. Article 176 - Manufacturing and Possession of Instruments or Implements for Falsification ..... 179 4. OTHER FALSITIES................ 179 1. Article 177 - Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions ..... 179 2. Article 178 - Using Fictitious and Concealing True Name....... 179 3. Article 179 - Illegal Use of Uniforms and Insignia ............. 179 4. Article 180 - False Testimony Against a Defendant............... 180 5. Article 181 - False Testimony Favorable to the Defendant ...... 180 6. Article 182 - False Testimony in Civil Cases ....................... 180
Title V. Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs .................. 182
A. B. C. D.
Acts Punished:......................182 Penalties for Unlawful Acts: .....182 Definition of Important Terms ...183 Other Important Points ...........183
Title VI. Crimes against Public Morals 184
CHAPTER I: Gambling and Betting.....184 A.
Chapter I - Gambling and Betting 184 1. Article 195 - What Acts Are Punishable in Gambling ..............184 2. Article 196 - Importation, Sale and Possession of Lottery Tickets or Advertisements........................185 3. Article 197 – Betting in Sports contents ................................185 4. Article 198 - Illegal Betting on Horse Race .............................185 5. Article 199 (as amended by PD 449) 186
B. Chapter II. Offenses against Decency and Good Customs ............186 0. ........................................186 1. Article 200 - Grave Scandal ...186 2. Article 201 - Immoral Doctrines, Obscene Publications and Exhibitions and Indecent Shows ..................186 3. Article 202 - Vagrancy and Prostitution ............................187 Title VII. Crimes Committed by Public Officers ..................................... 188
CRIMINAL A.
Chapter I: Preliminary Provisions189
B. Chapter II: Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office ................... 189 1. Article 204 - Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment ..................... 189 2. Article 205 - Judgment Rendered Through Negligence .................. 189 3. Article 206 - Unjust Interlocutory Order ................................... 190 4. Article 207 - Malicious Delay in the Administration of Justice ....... 190 5. Article 208 - Prosecution of Offenses; Negligence and Tolerance 190 6. Article 209 – Betrayal of Trust by an Attorney or a Solicitor – Revelation of Secrets .............................. 190 7. Article 210 - Direct Bribery.... 191 8. Article 211 - Indirect Bribery . 191 9. Article 211-A - Qualified Bribery 192 10. Article 212 - Corruption of Public Officials ........................ 192 C. Chapter III: Frauds and Illegal Exactions and Transactions ............ 192 1. Article 213 - Fraud against the Public Treasury and Similar Offenses 192 2. Article 214 - Other Frauds..... 193 3. Article 215 Prohibited Transactions ........................... 193 4. Article 216 - Possession of Prohibited Interest by a Public Officer 194 D. Chapter IV: Malversation of Public Funds or Property ....................... 194 1. Article 217 - Malversation of Public Funds or Property Presumption of Malversation........ 194 2. Article 218 - Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts ............................... 195 3. Article 219 - Failure of a Responsible Public Officer to Render Accounts Before Leaving the Country 195
LAW
4. Article 220 - Illegal Use of Public Funds or Property.....................195 5. Article 221 - Failure to Make Delivery of Public Funds or Property 196 6. Article 222 - Officers Included in the Preceding Provisions.............196
E. Chapter V: Infidelity of Public Officers....................................196 1. Article 223 - Conniving With or Consenting to Evasion ................196 2. Article 224 - Evasion through Negligence .............................196 3. Article 225 - Escape of Prisoner under the Custody of a Person Not a Public Officer..........................196 4. Article 226 Removal, Concealment, or Destruction of Documents .............................197 5. Article 227 - Officer Breaking Seal 197 6. Article 228 - Opening of Closed Documents .............................197 7. Article 229 - Revelation of Secrets by an Officer .................197 8. Article 230 - Public Officers Revealing Secrets of Private Individuals .............................198 F. Chapter VI: Other Offenses or Irregularities by Public Officers .......198 1. Article 231 - Open Disobedience 198 2. Article 232 - Disobedience to the Order of Superior Officer When Said Order Was Suspended by Inferior Officer ..................................198 3. Article 233 - Refusal of Assistance 198 4. Article 234 - Refusal to Discharge Elective Office ........................198 5. Article 235 - Maltreatment of Prisoners ...............................199 6. Article 236 - Anticipation of Duties of a Public Officer ............199 7. Article 237 Prolonging Performance of Duties and Powers .199
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
8. Article 238 - Abandonment of Office or Position ..................... 199 9. Article 239 - Usurpation of Legislative Powers .................... 199 10. Article 240 - Usurpation of Executive Functions .................. 200 11. Article 241 - Usurpation of Judicial Functions .................... 200 12. Article 242 - Disobeying Request for Disqualification ........ 200 13. Article 243 - Orders or Request by Executive Officer to Any Judicial Authority ............................... 200 14. Article 244 Unlawful Appointments ......................... 200 15. Article 245 - Abuses against Chastity ................................ 200
10
B.
Title IX. Crimes against Personal Liberty and Security ............................... 212
A.
Chapter I: Crimes against Liberty 212 1. Article 267 - Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention .............212 2. Article 268 - Slight Illegal Detention ..............................214 3. Article 269 - Unlawful Arrest ..214 4. Article 270 - Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor ............214 5. Article 271 - Inducing a Minor to Abandon His Home....................215 6. Article 272 - Slavery ............215 7. Article 273 - Exploitation of Child Labor ...................................215 8. Article 274 - Services Rendered Under Compulsion in Payment of Debt 215
B.
Chapter II: Crimes against Security 216 1. Article 275 - Abandonment of Persons in Danger and Abandonment of Own Victim .........................216 2. Article 276 - Abandoning a Minor 216 3. Article 277 - Abandonment of Minor by Person Entrusted With Custody; Indifference of Parents ...216 4. Article 278 - Exploitation of Minors ..................................216 5. Article 280 - Qualified Trespass to Dwelling ................................217 6. Article 281 - Other Forms of Trespass ................................218 7. Article 282 - Grave Threats....218 8. Article 283 - Light Threats.....218 9. Article 284 - Bond for Good Behavior ................................219
Title VIII. Crimes against Persons...... 201
A.
Chapter I: Destruction of Life.... 201 1. Article 246 - Parricide ......... 201 2. Article 247 - Death or Physical Injuries Under Exceptional Circumstances......................... 202 3. Article 248 - Murder ............ 202 4. Article 249 - Homicide ......... 203 5. Article 250 - Penalty for Frustrated Parricide, Murder or Homicide ............................... 204 6. Article 251 - Death Caused in Tumultuous Affray .................... 204 7. Article 252 - Physical Injuries Caused in Tumultuous Affray ....... 204 8. Article 253 - Giving Assistance to Suicide ................................. 204 9. Article 254 - Discharge of Firearms ............................... 204 10. Article 255 - Infanticide .... 205 11. Article 256 - Intentional Abortion ................................ 205 12. Article 257 - Unintentional Abortion ................................ 205 13. Article 258 Abortion Practiced by the Woman Herself or by Parents ................................. 206 14. Article 259 - Abortion by a Physician or Midwife and Dispensing of Abortives ............................... 206 15. Article 260 - Responsibility of Participants in a Duel ................ 206 16. Article 261 - Challenging to a Duel 206
Chapter II: Physical Injuries ......207 1. Article 262 - Mutilation ........207 2. Article 263 - Serious Physical Injuries .................................207 3. Article 264 - Administering Injurious Substances or Beverages .207 4. Article 265 - Less Serious Physical Injuries .................................208 5. Article 266 - Slight Physical Injuries and Maltreatment...........208 6. Article 266-A - Rape (amended by RA 8353)................................208
CRIMINAL 10. Article 285 – Other Light Threats ................................. 219 11. Article 286 - Grave Coercions 219 12. Article 287 - Light Coercions 219 13. Article 288 - Other Similar Coercions .............................. 220 14. Article 289 - Formation, Maintenance, and Prohibition of Combination of Capital or Labor through Violence or Threats ........ 220 C. Chapter III: Discovery and Revelation of Secrets ................... 220 1. Article 290 - Discovering Secrets through Seizure of Correspondence 220 2. Article 291 - Revealing Secrets with Abuse of Office ................. 221 3. Article 292 - Revelation of Industrial Secrets ..................... 221
LAW
11. Article 304 - Possession of Picklock or Similar Tools .............226 12. Article 305 - Defines False Keys 226
B. Chapter 2: Brigandage (Articles 306307) 226 1. Article 306 - Who Are Brigands226 2. Article 307 - Aiding and Abetting a Band of Brigands ....................227 C.
Chapter 3: Theft ...................227 1. Article 308 - Who Are Liable for Theft....................................227 2. Article 309 - Penalties..........228 3. Article 310 - Qualified Theft ..228 4. Article 311 - Theft of the Property of the National Library and National Museum......................230
D.
Chapter 4: Usurpation.............230 1. Article 312 - Occupation of Real Property or Usurpation of Real Rights in Property .............................230 2. Article 313 - Altering Boundaries or Landmarks ..........................230
E.
Chapter 5: Culpable Insolvency ..230 1. Article 314 Fraudulent Insolvency..............................230
Title X. Crimes against Property ....... 222
A.
Chapter I: Robbery in General ... 222 1. Article 293 - Who Are Guilty of Robbery ................................ 222 2. Article 294 - With Violence or Intimidation of Persons .............. 223 3. Article 295 - Robbery with Physical Injuries, in an Uninhabited Place and by a Band.................. 223 4. Article 296 - Definition of a Band and Penalty Incurred by the Members Thereof................................. 224 5. Article 297 - Attempted and Frustrated Robbery with Homicide 224 6. Article 298 - Execution of Deeds through Violence or Intimidation... 224 7. Article 299 - Robbery in an Inhabited House or Public Building or Edifice Devoted to Worship ......... 224 8. Article 300 – Robbery in an Uninhabited Place and by a Band .. 226 9. Article 302 - In an Uninhabited Place or Private Building ............ 226 10. Article 303 - Robbery of Cereals, Fruits or Firewood in an Inhabited Place or Private Building 226
F. Chapter 6: Swindling and Other Deceits ....................................230 1. Article 315 - Estafa .............230 a. With Unfaithfulness or Abuse of Confidence (315 par. 1(a) (b) (c)) ..231 b. Estafa by Means of False Pretenses or Fraudulent Acts (315 par. 2(a) (b) (c) (d) (e); BP22): .....................233 c. Through Other Fraudulent Means (315 Par 3 (a) (b) (c)) ................235 2. Article 316 - Other Forms of Swindling and Deceits ................236 3. Article 317 - Swindling of a Minor 237 4. Article 318 - Other Deceits ....237 G. Chapter 7: Chattel Mortgage .....237
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1. Article 319 - Removal, Sale, or Pledge of Mortgaged Property ...... 237
12
14. Article 346 – Liability of ascendants, guardians, teachers and other persons entrusted with the custody of the offended party ......249
H. Chapter 8: Arson and Other Crimes Involving Destruction.................... 238 I.
Chapter 9: Malicious Mischief .... 239 1. Article 327 - Who Are Responsible 239 2. Article 328 - Special Cases of Malicious Mischief .................... 239 3. Article 329 - Other Mischiefs .. 239 4. Article 330 - Damage and Obstruction to Means of Communication ....................... 239 5. Article 331 – Destroying or Damaging Statues, Public Monuments or Paintings ............................ 239
J. Chapter 10: Exemption from Criminal Liability ........................ 239 1. Article 332 - Exemption from Criminal Liability in Crimes Against Property................................239 Title XI. Crimes against Chastity ....... 242
1. Article 333 - Adultery .......... 242 2. Article 334 - Concubinage ..... 242 3. Article 335 – Rape .............. 243 4. Article 336 Acts of Lasciviousness ......................... 243 5. Article 337 - Qualified Seduction 244 6. Article 338 - Simple Seduction 245 7. Article 339 Acts of Lasciviousness with the Consent of the Offended Party........................ 245 8. Article 340 - Corruption of Minors 246 9. Article 341 - White Slave Trade 246 10. Article 342 Forcible Abduction .............................. 246 11. Article 343 - Consented Abduction .............................. 247 12. Article 344 - Prosecution of Private Offenses ...................... 248 13. Article 345: Civil Liability .. 249
Title XII. Crimes against the Civil Status of Persons .................................. 250
1. Article 349 - Bigamy ............251 2. Article 350 - Marriage Contracted against Provisions of Laws ...........251 3. Article 351 - Premature Marriage 251 4. Article 352 - Performance of Illegal Marriage Ceremony...........251
Title XIII. Crimes against Honor ........ 253
A.
Chapter I: Libel ....................253 1. Article 353 - Definition of Libel 253 2. Article 354 - Requirement for Publicity................................254 3. Article 355 - Libel by Writing or Similar Means..........................254 4. Article 356 - Threatening to Publish and Offer to Prevent Such Publication for a Compensation ....254 5. Article 357 Prohibited Publication of Acts Referred to in the Course of Official Proceedings (Gag Law)255 6. Article 358 - Slander............255 7. Article 359 - Slander by Deed .255 8. Article 360 - Persons Responsible for Libel ................................255 9. Article 361 - Proof of Truth ...256 10. Article 362 - Libelous Remarks 256
B. Chapter II: Incriminatory Machinations..............................256 1. Article 363 - Incriminating innocent person .......................256 2. Article 364 - Intriguing against Honor ...................................256 Title XIV. Quasi-Offenses ................ 259
1. Article 365 - Imprudence and Negligence .............................259
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
13
AW UP L BAR REVIEWER
2012
CRIMINAL Criminal Law 1
LAW Faculty Editor Subject Heads
|Commissioner |Deputy Commissioners |Secretary |Treasurer |Auditor
•
|Acads
• •
•
•
Layout Artists | • •
• • •
•
•
•
|Special Lectures |Secretariat |Publicity and Promotions |Marketing |Logistics |HR |Merchandise |Layout |Mock Bar |Bar Candidates’ Welfare |Events •
•
•
• •
•
• •
• •
|Hotel Operations |Day-Operations |Night-Operations |Food |Transpo |Linkages
•
• •
Layout Head|
Criminal Law 1 Criminal Law 1
Criminal Law 2
I. II. III. IV. V. VI.
CRIMINAL LAW Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law Felonies Circumstances which affect criminal liability Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation Penalties Modification and extinction of criminal
REVISED PENAL CODE/SPECIAL LAWS, PRESIDENTIAL DECREES, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS A. Book 1 (Articles 1-99, RPC, excluding provisions on civil liability), including related Special Laws
of crime
ment is taken into account for the punishment.
As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances
They are taken into account in imposing penalty When there is more than one offender, the degree of participation of each in the commission is taken into account.
As to degree of participation
As to stage of accomplishment
CHAPTER I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW A. DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL LAW B. SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND CHARACTERISTICS C. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
A. Definition of Criminal Law Criminal law is that branch of public substantive law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment.
As to what laws are violated
EXAMS) As to nature
As to use of good faith as defense
As to WON criminal intent is an element
As to degree of accomplishment
Mala in Se
Mala Prohibita
Wrong from its very nature. GF a valid defense, unless the crime is the result of culpa Criminal intent is an element.
Wrong because it is prohibited by law GF is not a defense.
Degree of accomplish
Criminal intent is immaterial, BUT still requires intelligence & voluntariness 0. The
Degree of participation is generally not taken into account. All who participated in the act are punished to the same extent. Penalty on offenders is same whether they acted as mere accomplices or accessories Generally, special laws.
Note: Dolo is not required in crimes mala prohibita. In those crimes which are mala prohibita, the
1. Difference between Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita (ASKED TWICE IN BAR
Penalty is computed on the basis of whether he is a principal offender or merely an accomplice or accessory Generally, the RPC.
act gives rise to a crime only when consu mmat ed. They are not taken into account.
act alone irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense. Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes mala prohibita.
(2001): Estrada is challenging the plunder law. One of the issues he raised is whether plunder is a malum prohibitum or malum in se. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
Held: Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent. Precisely because the crimes constituting plunder are mala in se the element of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. i. While intentional felonies are always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala prohibita. ii. Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
good faith and the lack of criminal intent are valid defenses; unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa. Likewise when the special laws require that the punished act be committed knowingly and willfully, criminal intent is required to be proved before criminal liability may arise. Note: Where malice is a factor, good faith is a
defense.
CRIMINAL LAW VS. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Criminal Law Criminal Procedure
It is substantive. Prospective application.
It is remedial.
If it is to the
Exception Exception:
To
favorable accused.
Retroactive in application.
Basis of criminal liability: Human free will. Endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty ; there is scant regard to human element . (3) Positivist Theory Primary purpose: Reformation; prevention/ correction.
Heinous crimes should be dealt with manner; thus, capital punishment.
in a classical
Note: The Revised Penal Code today follows the
mixed or eclectic philosophy. For example: Intoxication of the offender is considered to mitigate his criminal liability, unless it is intentional or habitual; Age of the offender is considered; A woman who killed her child to conceal her dishonor has in her favor a mitigating circumstance.
May be promulgated by Statutory; it is passed by the Legislature (e.g. the Legislature. jurisdiction of courts) or the Judiciary (e.g. Rules of Court) STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIME (ASKED ONCE
IN BAR EXAMS)
Art. II, Sec. 5 (1987 Constitution) Declaration of Principles and State Policies. The maintenance of peace and order, th e protection of life, liberty and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS: SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF RPC Art. 10, RPC. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. – Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
provisions supplement the provisions of special laws. General
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW
a. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) Created pursuant to Administrative Order No. 94; enacted January 1, 1932; based on the Spanish Penal Code, US Penal Code, and Phil. Supreme Court decisions. b. Special penal laws and penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law. PENAL LEGISLATION Schools of Thought EXAMS) (PUCE)
(4) Eclectic/Mixed Combines both positivist and classical thinking. Crimes that are economic and social by nature should be dealt with in a positivist manner; thus, the law is more compassionate.
The
1. When the accused is a habitual delinquent. (Art. 22) 2. Where the new law expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of actions. (Tavera v. Valdez)
a.
(2) Classical Theory Primary purpose: Retribution.
Basis of criminal liability: The sum of the social, natural and economic phenomena to which the actor is exposed.
in
Exception:
(1) Utilitarian Theory Primary purpose: Protection of society from actual or potential wrongdoers.
(ASKED ONCE IN BAR
Rule: RPC
Exceptions :
(1) Where the special law provides otherwise (Art.10) (2) When the provisions of the Code are impossible of application, either by express provision or by necessary implication, as in those instances where the provisions in question are peculiar to the Code. (Regalado, Criminal Law Prospectus) Ladonga v People (2005):
Spouses Ladonga were convicted by the RTC for
15
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
16
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (3 counts). The husband applied for probation while the wife appealed arguing that the RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to B.P. Blg. 22 which is a special law. Held: 1. B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly prescribe the suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC. 2. Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily. 3. The court cited the case of Yu vs. People, where the provisions on subsidiary imprisonment under Art. 39 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22 was applied suppletorily.
1. Generality General Rule: Art. 14, NCC. The penal law of the country is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. Limitations: Art. 2, RPC. ―Except as provided in the treaties or laws of preferential application xxx‖
a. Treaty Stipulations Examples: Bases
entered into by the Philippines and the US on Mar. 14, 1947 and expired on Sept. 16, 1991. Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) 2 signed on Feb. 10, 1998. Agreement
Article V Criminal Jurisdiction
People vs. Rodriguez (1960):
It was held that a violation of a special law can never absorb a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code, because violations of the Revised Penal Code are more serious than a violation of a special law.
1. Subject to the provisions of this article: (a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses committed within the Philippines and punishable under the law of the Philippines.
But a crime in the Revised Penal Code can absorb a crime punishable by a special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the felony defined in the Code.
(b) United States military authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the United States over United States personnel in the Philippines.
People vs. Martinada:
The crime of cattle-rustling is not malum a modification of the crime of theft of large cattle.
prohibitum but
2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the Philippines, punishable under the laws of the Philippines, but not under the laws of the United States.
So Presidential Decree No. 533, punishing cattlerustling, is not a special law, but a law amending provisions of the RPC (Arts. 309 and 310). It can absorb the crime of murder. If in the course of cattle rustling, murder was committed, the offender cannot be prosecuted for murder.
(b) United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the United States, punishable under the laws of the United States, but not under the laws of the Philippines.
Note: Murder would be a qualifying circumstance in
the crime of qualified cattle rustling. 1
B. Scope of Application and Characteristics of the Philippine Criminal Law
(c) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 3 of this article, an offense relating to security means:
1. GENERALITY (WHO?) 2. TERRITORIALITY (WHERE?) 3. PROSPECTIVITY (WHEN?)
(1) treason; (2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national defense.
Criminal law has three (3) characteristics: General, Territorial, and Prospective.
3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent, the following rules shall apply: 2
1
Sec. 8, P.D. No. 533
Take note of Art. V, which defines criminal jurisdiction over United States military and civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines in connection with activities approved by the Philippine Government.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
(a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed by United States personnel, except in cases provided for in paragraphs l (b), 2 (b), and 3 (b) of this Article. (b) United States military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States personnel subject to the military law of the United States in relation to: (1) offenses solely against the property or security of the United States or offenses solely against the property or person of United States personnel; and
United States shall notify each other of the disposition of all cases in which both the authorities of the Philippines and the United States have the right to exercise jurisdiction. b. Laws of Preferential Application Examples: Members of Congress are
(2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty. (c) The authorities of either government may request the authorities of the other government to waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case. (d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United States military authorities to maintain good order and discipline among their forces, Philippine authorities will, upon request by the United States, waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction except in cases of particular importance to the Philippines. If the Government of the Philippines determines that the case is of particular importance, it shall communicate such determination to the United States authorities within twenty (20) days after the Philippine authorities receive the United States request. (e) When the United States military commander determines that an offense charged by authorities of the Philippines against United States personnel arises out of an act or omission done in the performance of official duty, the commander will issue a certificate setting forth such determination. This certificate will be transmitted to the appropriate authorities of the Philippines and will constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty for the purposes of paragraph 3(b)(2) of this article. In those cases where the Government of the Philippines believes the circumstances of the case require a review of the duty certificate, United States military authorities and Philippine authorities shall consult immediately. Philippine authorities at the highest levels may also present any information bearing on its validity. United States military authorities shall take full account of the Philippine position. Where appropriate, United States military authorities will take disciplinary or other action against offenders in official duty cases, and notify the Government of the Philippines of the actions taken. (f) If the government having the primary right does not exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other government as soon as possible. (g) The authorities of the Philippines and the
not liable for libel or slander for any speech in Congress or in any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) Any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or minister are exempt from arrest and imprisonment and whose properties are exempt from distraint, seizure and attachment.3 (R.A. No. 75) Warship Rule – A warship of another country, even though docked in the Philippines, is considered an extension of the territory of its respective country. This also applies to embassies.
c. Principles of Public International Law Art. 14, NCC. ―xxx subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.‖
The following persons are exempt from the provisions of the RPC: (1) Sovereigns and other heads of state (2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, minister resident and charges d‘ affaires. (Article 31, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) Note: Consuls and consular officers are NOT exempt from local prosecution. (See Article 41, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations)
Public vessels of a friendly foreign power are not subject to local jurisdiction. Note: Generality has NO reference to territoriality.
2. Territoriality GENERAL RULE: Penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its territory.
3
It cannot penalize crimes committed outside its territory. The territory of the country is not limited to the land where its sovereignty resides but includes also its maritime and interior water s as well as its atmosphere. (Art. 2, RPC)
R.A. No. 75 penalizes acts which would impair the proper observance by the Republic and inhabitants of the Philippines of the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in the Philippines
17
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
18
(1) Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land. (2) Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and interior waters. (3) Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the atmosphere.
i. Free Zone Theory The atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to the jurisdiction of the subjacent state, except for the protection of its national security and public order. ii. Relative Theory The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over the atmosphere only to the extent that it can effectively exercise control thereof.
EXCEPTIONS
(1) Extraterritorial crimes, which are punishable even if committed outside the Philippine territory (Art. 2, RPC) (ASKED 4 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
iii. Absolute Theory The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the atmosphere above it subject only to the innocent passage by aircraft of a foreign country.
Art. 2 embraces two scopes of applications: General rule - Intraterritorial refers to the application of the RPC within the Philippine territory (land, air and water).
Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an aircraft, no matter how high, as long as it can be established that it is within the Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal law 6 will govern.
Exception - Extraterritorial4 refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code outside the Philippine territory. (a) Par.
1: Crimes committed Philippine ship or airship:
aboard
The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels 5 if the crime is committed while the ship is treading: i. Philippine waters (intraterritorial), or ii. The high seas i.e. waters NOT under the jurisdiction of any State (extraterritorial)
Note: The Philippines adopts this theory.
(b) Par. 2: Forging/Counterfeiting and Coins or Currency Notes in the Philippines
i. Forgery is committed abroad, and ii. It refers only to Philippine coin, currency note, obligations and securities.
Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country (i.e. a foreign vessel treading Philippine waters OR Philippine vessels treading foreign waters): i.
ii.
(c) Par. 3: Should introduce into the country the above-mentioned securities.
FRENCH RULE: It is the flag or nationality of the vessel which
(d) Par. 4: When public officers or employees
The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH RULE .
nationality of the ship will always apply.
When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, the nationality of the vessel will always determine jurisdiction because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong. International Theories on Aerial Jurisdiction 4
R.A. 9327 (The Human Security Act) contains provisions for extraterritorial application. 5 The country of registry determines the nationality of the vessel, NOT ITS OWNERSHIP. A Filipino-owned vessel registered in China must fly the Chinese f lag.
and
i. The reason for this provision is that the introduction of forged or counterfeited obligations and securities into the Philippines is as dangerous as the forging or counterfeiting of the same, to the economical interest of the country.
determines jurisdiction UNLESS the crime violates the peace and order of the host country. ENGLISH RULE: the location or situs of the crime determines jurisdiction UNLESS the crime merely relates to internal management of the vessel.
However, these rules are NOT applicable if the vessel is on the high seas when the crime was committed. In these cases, the laws of the
obligations
commit an offense in the exercise of their functions.
Crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public official’s functions: The crimes which may be committed are: i. Direct bribery (A.210) ii. Qualified Bribery (A. 211-A) iii. Indirect bribery (A.211) iv. Corruption (A.212) v. Frauds against the public treasury (A.213) vi. Possession of prohibited interest (A.216) vii. Malversation of public funds or property (A. 217) viii. Failure to render accounts (A.218) 6
See Anti-Hijacking Law, (Other part of the reviewer)
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
ix. x. xi. xii.
Illegal use of public funds or property (A.220) Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (A.221) Falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official position (A.171) Those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country .
The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law: i. to be performed by the public officer; ii. in the foreign service of the Phil. government; iii. in a foreign country. (e) Par. 5: Commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, (Title One, Book 2, RPC)
Crimes against national security: i. Treason (A.114) ii. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (A.115) iii. Misprision of treason (A.116) iv. Espionage (A.117) Crimes against the law of nations: i. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (A.118) ii. Violation of neutrality (A.119) iii. Correspondence with hostile country (A.120) iv. Flight to enemy‘s country (A.121) v. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters (A.122)
Art. 62(5) RPC. xxx For the purpose of this article, a
person shall be deemed to be a habitual delinquent, if within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo(robbery), hurto(theft), estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty of any crimes a third time or oftener. EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: (1) The new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing cause of actions; or (2) The offender is a habitual criminal. Effects of repeal of penal law
(1) If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, (a) The new law shall be applied, (b) EXCEPT when the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not applicable to pending action or existing causes of action. (2) If the new law imposes a heavier penalty (a) Law in force at the time of the commission of the offense shall be applied. (3) If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, (a) The crime is obliterated. (b) Pending cases are dismissed. (c) Unserved penalties imposed are remitted. (4) Rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial decisions,7 administrative rulings and circulars. Co vs. CA, (1993): In this case, Circular No. 4 of
Note:
Crimes against public order (e.g., rebellion, coup d‘etat, sedition) committed abroad is under the
jurisdiction of the host country.
Terrorism is now classified as a crime against national security and the law of nations. (See R.A. 9372, otherwise known as Human Security Act of 2007).
3. Prospectivity GENERAL RULE: Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed AFTER
a penal law has taken effect.
Conversely, acts or omissions which have been committed before the effectivity of a penal law could not be penalized by such penal law. EXCEPTION: Art. 22 RPC. Penal laws shall have a retroactive
effect, insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
the Ministry of Justice, dated December, 15, 1981, provided that ―where the check is issued as part of an arrangement to guarantee or secure the payment of an obligation, whether preexisting or not, the drawer is not criminally liable for either estafa or violation of B.P. 22.‖
Subsequently, the administrative interpretation was reversed in Circular No. 12 , issued on August 8, 1984, such that the claim that the check was issued as a guarantee or part of an arrangement to secure an obligation or to facilitate collection, is no longer a valid defense for the prosecution under B.P. 22. Hence, it was ruled that under the new circular, a check issued merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation is covered by B.P. 22 [ Que vs. People]. However, consistent with the principle of prospectivity, the new doctrine should not apply to parties who had relied on the old Circular and acted on the faith thereof. No retrospective effect.
7
Art. 8, Civil Code
19
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
20
Rationale for the prospectivity rule: the punishability of an act must be reasonably known for the guidance of society [citing Peo v. Jabinal]. [NOTE: The SC outline does not include the next two characteristics.]
4. Legality
(nullum poena sine lege)
crimen
not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. Limitation:
Not every law punishing an act or omission may be valid as a criminal law. If the law punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null and void.
5. Strict Construction of Penal Laws Against State: The ―Doctrine of Pro Reo‖ Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations - one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender, that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. Pro reo doctrine:
Basis: The
fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused and presumption of innocence of the accused. Art. III, Sec. 14(2), 1987 Const. In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Note: This is peculiar only to criminal law.
EQUIPOISE RULE:
When the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are equally balanced, the scale should be tilted in favor of the accused in obedience to the constitutional presumption of innocence. 8
C. Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws in the Bill of Rights (i) Equal protection (ii) Due process (iii)Non-imposition of cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines (iv) Bill of attainder (v) Ex post facto law
Ursua v. CA (1996); Corpuz v. People (1991)
Article III, Section 1, 1987 Const. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
nulla
Art. 21. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty
8
1. Equal protection
2. Due process Art. III, Sec. 14 (1), 1987 Const. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
Must be general in application.
3. Non-imposition
of cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines
Art III, Sec. 19, 1987 Const. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
a. Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines (R.A. 9346) Republic Act 9346 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty.
Repealed the law imposing lethal injection (R.A. 8177) and the law imposing the death penalty (R.A. 7659) (Sec. 1). This Act also imposes the punishment of reclusion for offenses under any act using the nomenclature of the RPC (Sec. 2 (a)) and the punishment of life imprisonment for offenses under any act which does not use the nomenclature of the RPC (Sec. 2(b))
perpetua
4. Bill of attainder Art III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
- a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial, its essence being the substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt. Bill of attainder
5. Ex post facto law Art III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const. No ex post facto law or
bill of attainder shall be enacted.
is one which: (1) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act. (2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
Ex post facto law
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; (4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense; (5) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and (6) Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code citing In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.)
Other constitutional limitations
Must not provide imprisonment for non-payment of debts or poll tax. [1987 Const. Art. III, Sec. 19 (1)] Must not restrict other constitutional freedoms, e.g. due process, religion, free speech, and assembly.
Basic Maxims in Criminal Law a. Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea ―The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal.‖ U.S. vs. Catolico (18 Phil. 504, 508) Facts: Accused was a justice of the peace who
rendered decisions for damages based on breach of contract. The defendants failed to pay the bonds required on time, so upon petition of the plaintiffs, the accursed dismissed the appeals and ordered the sums attached and delivered to plaintiffs in satisfaction of the judgment. Accused was prosecuted for malversation. Held: The general rule is that, if it is proved that
the accused committed the criminal act charged, it will be presumed that the act was done with criminal intention. However, it must be borne in mind that the act from which such presumption springs must be a criminal act. In this case, the act of the accused was not unlawful. Everything he did was done in good faith under the belief that he was acting judiciously and correctly. The act of a person does not make him a criminal, unless his mind be criminal. b. Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus ―An act done by me against my will is not my act.‖
c. El Que Es Causa De La Causa Es Causa Del Mal Causado
―He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.‖
This is the rationale in par. 1 of Art. 4 which enunciates the doctrine of proximate cause.
He who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
21
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
CHAPTER II. FELONIES 22
A. PRELIMINARY MATTERS B. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES C. ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY D. IMPOSSIBLE CRIME E. STAGES OF EXECUTION F. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL G MULTIPLE OFFENDERS H. COMPLEX CRIME AND SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES
Intentional Felony v. Culpable Felony Intentional
Culpable
Act is malicious.
Not malicious.
With deliberate intent.
Injury caused is unintentional, being just an incident of another act performed without malice. Wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Has intention to cause an injury.
A. Preliminary matters 1. Differentiating Felonies, Offense, Misdemeanor and Crime Felony: refers only to violations of the Revised Penal Code.
A crime punishable under a special law is not referred to as a felony. ―Crime‖ or ―offense‖
are the proper terms. (ASKED 3 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS) Importance: There are certain provisions in the Revised Penal Code where the term ―felony‖ is used, which means that the provision is not extended to crimes under special laws.
Example: Art. 160. Quasi-Recidivism: ―A person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final
judgment, before beginning to serve sentence or while serving the same, shall be punished under the maximum period of the penalty.‖ Note that the word ―felony‖ is used.
2. How is Criminal Liability Incurred? Art. 3 describes the manner of incurring criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code. Intentional felony v. Culpable Felony. – It means performing or failing to do an act, when either is punished by law, by means of deceit (with dolo) or fault (with culpa) It is important to note that if the criminal liability arises from an omission, such as misprision of treason or abandonment of helpless persons, there must be a law requiring
the performance of such act.
criminal liability.
Offense: A crime punished under a special law is
called a statutory offense.
Misdemeanor: A minor infraction of the law , such as
a violation of an ordinance.
Crime: Whether the wrongdoing is punished under
the Revised Penal Code or under a special law, the generic word ―crime‖ can be used.
1. Felonies: How Committed Art. 3. Definitions (RPC) — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies ( delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault ( culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
In Par. 1 of Art. 4, the law uses the word ―felony,‖ that whoever commits a felony incurs
Par. 2 of Art. 4 makes a person liable even if the accomplishment of his crime is inherently impossible. Art. 6 also provides for liability for the incomplete elements of a crime. There are certain felonies committed by conspiring in or proposing the commission of certain acts, the principle behind this can be found in Art. 8. Plural crimes on the other hand are discussed under Art. 48.
Requisites of Dolo or Malice
(1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act. (2) He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing/omitting an act. (3) He must have INTENT while doing/omitting the act. (a) Intent which is a mental process presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence. (b) If an act is proven to be unlawful, then intent will be presumed prima facie. (U.S. v. Apostol) (c) An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises from the commission of a felonious act. (People v. Oanis) General v. Specific Intent
In some particular felonies, proof of specific intent is required. In certain crimes against property, there
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
must be intent to gain (Art. 293 – robbery, Art 308 – theft). Intent to kill is essential in attempted and frustrated homicide (Art 6 in relation to Art 249), as well as in murder. In forcible abduction (Art. 342), specific intent of lewd designs must be proved. Requisites of Culpa
(1) He must have FREEDOM while doing/omitting to do an act (2) He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act/omitting to do an act (3) He is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT, or LACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL while doing the act/omitting to do an act.
3. Discussion of Article 5 Art. 5 RPC. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. 1) Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, 2) it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation. 3) In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, 4) when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense. Art. 5 covers two situations:
a. Where the court cannot convict the accused because the act he committed is not punishable under the law, but the court deems it proper to repress such act. The proper judgment is acquittal. The judge must report to the Chief Executive that said act be made subject of penal legislation and the reasons therefore.
Art. 4. RPC. Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. xxx xxx xxx
Rationale: el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused). Requisites :
(1) An intentional felony has been committed. (a) The felony committed should be one committed by means of dolo (with malice) because Art. 4, Par. 1 speaks of wrongful act done different from that which he intended.
(b) The act should not be punished by a special law because the offender violating a special law may not have the intent to do an injury to another. (c) No felony is committed when: i. the act or omission is not punishable by the RPC, ii.the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances enumerated in Art. 11. (2) The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender. (a) Proximate Cause - That cause, which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury without which the result would not have occurred. Criminal liability exists from the concurrence of the mens rea and the actus reus. Illustration: Dave and JR are supposed to meet in Audrey‘s home
but when JR arrived Dave was not home. JR received an SMS from Dave telling the former to get the house key from under the doormat. Dave lets himself in and saw an iPod on the table. JR took the iPod.
b. Where the court after trial finds the accused guilty, and the penalty prescribed for the crime appears too harsh considering the conditions surrounding the commission of the crime, The judge should impose the law (not suspend the execution of the sentence). The most that he could do is recommend to the Chief Executive to grant executive clemency.
4. Wrongful Act Different from that Intended When a person commits a felony with malice, he intends the consequences of his felonious act.
What is JR’s criminal liability? He is liable only for
theft and not robbery because the intent to gain concurred only with the act of taking BUT NOT with the act of using the owner‘s keys to enter the house .
Note: Criminal liability for some felonies arises only upon a specific resulting harm: (1) HOMICIDE AND ITS QUALIFIED FORMS requires
DEATH of the victim to be consummated.
(2) ESTAFA: requires that the victim incur damage
for criminal liability for the consummated felony to arise
Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina (1957):
SC laid down the definition of proximate cause: ―that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. And more
23
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
24
comprehensively, 'the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.‖ GENERAL RULE: The offender is CRIMINALLY LIABLE
for ALL the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the resulting harm. Thus, the person is still criminally liable although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended in the following cases: (1) Error in personae - mistake in the identity of the victim; injuring one person mistaken for another (Art. 49 – penalty for lesser crime in its maximum period) (a) At least two subjects (b) A has intent to kill B, but kills C (c) Under Art. 3, if A hits C, he should have no criminal liability. But because of Art. 4, his act is a felony. (2) Aberratio ictus - mistake in the blow; when offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another (Art. 48 on complex crimes – penalty for graver offense in its maximum period) (a) There is only one subject. (b) The intended subject is a different subject, but the felony is still the same. (3) Praeter intentionem - injurious result is greater than that intended (Art. 13 – mitigating circumstance) (a) If A‘s act constitutes sufficient means to carry out the graver felony, he cannot claim praeter intentionem. Proximate Cause v. Immediate Cause v. Remote Cause
C, then C hit the car of B, then, finally, B hit the car of A. In this case, the immediate cause of the damage to the car of A is the car of B, but that is not the proximate cause. The proximate cause is the negligence of E (using his cellphone while driving) because it sets into motion the collision of all the cars. US v. Valdez (1921):
The deceased is a member of the crew of a vessel. Accused is in charge of the crew members engaged in the loading of cargo in the vessel. Because the offended party was slow in his work, the accused shouted at him. The offended party replied that they would be better if he would not insult them. The accused resented this, and rising in rage, he moved towards the victim, with a big knife in hand threatening to kill him. The victim believing himself to be in immediate peril threw himself into the water. The victim died of drowning. The accused was prosecuted for homicide. His contention that his liability should be only for grave threats since he did not even stab the victim, that the victim died of drowning, and this can be considered as a supervening cause. Held: The deceased, in throwing himself into the river, acted solely in obedience to the instinct of selfpreservation, and was in no sense legally responsible for his own death. As to him, it was but the exercise of a choice between two evils, and any reasonable person under the same circumstance might have done the same. This case illustrates that proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended party. It is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party an immediate sense of danger that made him place his life at risk. In this case, the accused must, therefore, be considered the author of the death of the victim.
Illustrations:
A, B, C, D, and E were driving their vehicles along
Urbano v. IAC (1988):
Ortigas Ave. A‘s car was ahead, followed by those of
A and B had a quarrel and A started to hack B with a bolo. B was wounded at the back.
When A‘s car reached the intersection of EDSA and
Ortigas Avenue, the traffic light turned red so A immediately stepped on his brakes, followed by B, C, and D.
Upon intervention, the two settled their differences. A agreed to shoulder all the expenses for the treatment of the wound of B, and to pay him also whatever loss of income B may have suffered.
However, E was using his cellphone and therefore was not aware that the traffic light had turned to red, so he bumped the car of D, then D hit the car of
B, on the other hand, signed a statement of his forgiveness towards A and on that condition, he withdrew the complaint that he filed against A.
B, C, D, and E.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
victim being addicted to tuba drinking. (People
After so many weeks of treatment in a clinic, the doctor pronounced that the wound was already healed. Thereafter, B went back to his farm.
v. Buhay and People v. Valdez).
(4) Neglect of the victim or third person, such as the refusal by the injured party of medical attendance or surgical operation, or the failure of the doctor to give anti-tetanus injection to the injured person. (U.S. v. Marasigan).
A month later, B came home and was chilling. Before midnight, he died out of tetanus poisoning. The heirs of B filed a case of homicide against A.
(5) Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment, as when the assault took place in anu outlaying barrio where proper modern surgical service was not available. (People v. Moldes).
Held: The Supreme Court held that A is not liable. A, if at all, is only liable for the physical injuries inflicted upon B. The Court took into account the incubation period of tetanus toxic. Medical evidence was presented, that tetanus toxic is good only for two weeks. If, indeed, the victim had incurred tetanus poisoning out of the wound inflicted by A, he would not have lasted for around a month (22 days). What brought about the tetanus to infect his body was his work in the farm using his bare hands. The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. However, the act of B working in his farm where the soil is filthy, using his own hands, is an efficient supervening cause which relieves A of any liability for the death of B. There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent infection, for failure to take necessary precautions, with tetanus may have been the proximate cause of Javier's death with which the petitioner had nothing to do. The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
(1) There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or (2) The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
The following are not efficient intervening cause:
(1) The weak or diseased physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering from tuberculosis or heart disease. (People v. Illustre).
5. Omission It is inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which a person is bound to do. There must be a law requiring the doing or performing of an act. Punishable omissions in the RPC:
(1) Art. 116: Misprision of treason. (2) Art. 137: Disloyalty of public officers or employees. (3) Art. 208: Negligence and tolerance in prosecution of offenses. (4) Art. 223: Conniving with or consenting to evasion. (5) Art. 275: Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one‘s own victim.
(6) Art. 276: Abandoning a minor.
B. Classifications of Felonies FELONIES ARE CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 1. According to the manner of their commission 2. According to the stages of their execution 3.
(ASKED 9 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS) According to their gravity
OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS: 4. As to count 5. As to nature
This question was asked in the bar examination: How do you classify felonies and how are felonies defined? TIP: What the examiner had in mind was Articles 3, 6 and 9. Do not write the classification of felonies under Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The question does not require the candidate to classify but also to define. The purpose of classifying penalties is to bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment. The penalties are graduated according to their degree of severity. The stages (Art. 6) may not apply to all kinds of felonies. There are felonies which do not admit of division.
(2) The
nervousness or temperament of the victim, as when a person dies in consequence of an internal hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor‘s orders, because of
his nervous condition due to the wound inflicted on the accused. (People v. Almonte).
◦
(3) Causes which are inherent in the victim, such (a) the victim not knowing to swim and (b) the
◦
25
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
26
1. According to the Manner of Their Commission Under Art. 3, they are classified as: a. Intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent; and b. Culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
2. According to the Stages of Their Execution Under Art. 6, they are classified as: a. Attempted b. Frustrated c. Consummated Note: The classification of stages of a felony in Article 6 are true only to crimes under the Revised Penal Code. It does NOT apply to crimes punished under special laws.
However, even certain crimes which are punished under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of these stages. Related to this, classification of felonies as to: a. Formal Crimes : Crimes which are consummated in one instance. Example: ILLEGAL EXACTION under Art. 213
Mere demanding of an amount different from what the law authorizes him to collect will already consummate a crime, whether the taxpayer pays the amount being demanded or not. Material Felonies: crimes that have various stages of execution Felonies by omission: Crimes which have no attempted stage.
determinative of whether the crime of theft has been produced. We thus conclude that under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft.
3. According to Their Gravity Under Art. 9, felonies are classified as: a. Grave felonies or those to which the law attaches (1) the capital punishment or (2) penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive; (a) Reclusion perpetua (b) Reclusion temporal (c) Perpetual or Absolute DQ (d) Perpetual or Temporary Special DQ (e) Prision mayor (f) Fine more than P6,000 b. Less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes (1) with penalties which in their maximum period is correctional; (a) Prision correccional (b) Arresto mayor (c) Suspension (d) Destierro (e) Fines equal to or more than P200 c. Light felonies or those infractions of law for the commission of which (1) the penalty is arresto menor, or a fine not exceeding P200, or both. (ASKED 4 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
b. c. d.
Crimes which have NO FRUSTRATED STAGE:
the essence of the crime is the act itself.
in rape, the slightest penetration already consummates the crime; the same is true for arson where the slightest burning already renders the crime complete. Example:
Valenzuela vs. People (2007): No crime of frustrated theft.
Facts: A grocery boy was caught trying to abscond a box of Tide Ultrabar laundry soap from the Super Sale Club. The guards apprehended him at the store parking lot while trying to board a taxi. He claimed the theft was merely frustrated for he was not able to dispose of the goods. Held: The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not been designed in such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings. Again, there is no language in Article 308 that expressly or impliedly allows that the ―free disposition of the items stolen‖ is in any way
Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave, less grave or light?
(1) To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not; the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty. (2) In other words, these are felonies classified according to their gravity, stages and the penalty attached to them.
Take note that when the Revised Penal Code speaks of grave and less grave felonies, the definition makes a reference specifically to Art. 25 of the Revised Penal Code. Do not omit the phras e ―In accordance with Art. 25‖ because there is also a classification of penalties under Art. 26 that was not applied. This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription of crimes. (3) Ex. If the penalty is a fine and exactly P200.00, it is only considered a light felony under Art. 9. If the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the fine of P200.00 is considered a correctional penalty under Art. 26, hence a less grave penalty.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Art. 26 (with respect to prescription of penalties) . It is considered as a correctional penalty and it prescribes in 10 years. If the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years, he can be made to suffer the fine.
Plurality of crimes may be in the form of: a. Compound Crime, b. Complex crime; and c. Composite crime.
5. As to Nature
(ASKED 4 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
culpa. Dolo is DELIBERATE INTENT otherwise referred to as
criminal intent, and must be coupled with freedom of action and intelligence on the part of the offender as to the act done by him. Liability even in the absence of criminal intent
There are two exceptions to the requirement of criminal intent: (a) Felonies committed by CULPA. (infra) (b) Offenses MALA PROHIBITA. (infra)
a. Mala in se b. Mala prohibita Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. - Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. NOTE: Please refer to p. [1] for the table comparing mala in se and mala prohibita
C. Elements of Criminal Liability 1. Elements of Felonies a. There must be an act or omission ACTUS REUS/PHYSICAL ACT to be considered as a felony, there must be an act or omission; Act: Any kind of body movement which tends to produce some effect in the external world; includes possession. Omission: The failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do under the law.
It is important that there is a law requiring the performance of an act; if there is no positive duty, there is no liability. 9
Failure to render assistance, failure to issue receipt or non-disclosure of knowledge of conspiracy against the government. 10 Mens rea: "A guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful
purpose or criminal intent." 11
Sometimes referred to in common parlance as the gravamen of the offense (bullseye of the crime), or criminal or deliberate intent.
9
b. That the act or omission must be punishable by the RPC; c. That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or
4. As to Count
Examples:
For an act to be punishable , there must be a CONCURRENCE BETWEEN THE ACT and the INTENT.
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one's own victim. 10 Art. 116. Misprision of treason. 11 Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 889
Intentional Felonies
The act or omission is performed or incurred with deliberate intent (with malice) to cause an injury to another. Requisites i. Freedom
Voluntariness on the part of the person who commits the act or omission. If there is lack of freedom, the offender is exempt from liability (i.e., presence of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear) ii.
Intelligence
Capacity to know and understand the consequences of one‘s act.
This power is necessary to determine the morality of human acts, the lack of which leads to non-existence of a crime. If there is lack of intelligence, the offender is exempt from liability. (i.e., offender is an imbecile, insane or under 15 years of age) iii.
Criminal intent
The purpose to use a particular means to effect a result. The intent to commit an act with malice, being purely a mental state, is presumed (but only if the act committed is unlawful ). Such presumption arises from the proof of commission of an unlawful act. However, in some crimes, intent cannot be presumed being an integral element thereof; so it has to be proven. Example: In
frustrated homicide, specific intent to kill is not presumed but must be proven, otherwise it is merely physical injuries.
27
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
(due to lack of discernment) or there was a mistake of fact (infra).
28
Recuerdo v. People (2006):
General criminal intent is an element of all crimes but malice is properly applied only to deliberate acts done on purpose and with design. Evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a felony. A deliberate and unlawful act gives rise to a presumption of malice by intent. On the other hand, specific intent is a definite and actual purpose to accomplish some particular thing.
The general criminal intent is presumed from the criminal act and in the absence of any general intent is relied upon as a defense, such absence must be proved by the accused. Generally, a specific intent is not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of fact, must be proved by the State just as any other essential element. This may be shown, however, by the nature of the act, the circumstances under which it was committed, the means employed and the motive of the accused
If he is successful, then the presumption that he intended to do something wrong is overcome along with the need to determine specific intent. However, the result of Ernie‘s act will now
determine his liability. Was his act justified that he incurs no liability? Is he entitled to any exemption? Or is his liability only mitigated? DISTINCTION Between Intent, Discernment and Motive (ASKED 4 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS) INTENT
DISCERNMENT
MOTIVE
Determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. Establish the nature and extent of culpability in intentional felonies.
The mental capacity to tell right from wrong.
It is the moving power which impels one to do an act (ex. vengeance).
Integral to the element of intelligence, NOT intent.
Generally, it is not an essential element of a crime, hence, it need not be proved for purposes of conviction (except in certain cases enumerated below)
Note: If any of the elements is absent, there is no
dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be no intentional felony.12 Categories of Intent General Criminal Intent
Specific Criminal Intent
The intention to do something wrong.
The intention to commit a definite act.
Presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent.
Existence presumed.
is
not
Since the specific intent is an element of the crime, the burden is upon the prosecution to establish its existence.
When Motive Becomes Material in Determining Criminal Liability (ASKED ONCE IN BAR EXAMS)
When the act brings about variant crimes (e.g. kidnapping v. robbery13) When there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant. When there is the need to ascertain the truth between two antagonistic versions of the crime. When the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive and not free from doubt. When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and when suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons. When the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial. Lack of motive can aid in achieving acquittal of the accused, especially where there is doubt as to the identity of the accused.14
i. ii. iii. iv.
v.
Illustration:
Ernie, without any provocation, stabbed Bert. vi.
The very act of stabbing is the quantum of proof needed to establish the fact that Ernie intended to do something wrong. This is the GENERAL CRIMINAL INTENT. However, Ernie can be liable for more than one crime; thus, prosecution must establish Ernie‘s SPECIFIC INTENT in order to determine whether he planned to kill Bert or merely to inflict a whole lot of pain. Ernie can overturn the presumption of general criminal intent by proving that he was justified (infra), entitled to any exempting circumstances
Illustration:
Ernie came home and found his wife in a pleasant conversation with Bert, former suitor. Thereupon, he went to the kitchen, opened a drawer and pulled out a knife. He then stabbed Bert. The moving force is jealousy. 13
12
Visbal vs. Buban (2003)
People v. Puno (1993) People vs Hassan, 1988
14
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
The intent is presumed from the resort to the knife, so that means he desires to kill Bert, the former suitor. Ernie‘s deliberate choice of something as lethal as
the knife shows the presence of intelligence because it is his very awareness of the danger which prompted his choice. This only means that he knew what is right from wrong and deliberately chose to do what is wrong. Note: Discernment does not indicate the presence of intent, merely intelligence.15 Thus, discernment is necessary whether the crime is dolo or culpa. People v. Delos Santos (2003):
Delos Santos stabs Flores with a kitchen knife hitting him on the different parts of his body, inflicting upon him mortal wounds which directly caused his death. He then argues that since the prosecution witnesses testified that there was no altercation between him and Flores, it follows that no motive to kill can be attributed to him. Held: The court held that the argument of Delos Santos is inconsequential. Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the accused is positively identified by an eyewitness and his participation is adequately established. In People vs. Galano, the court ruled that in the crime of murder, motive is not an element of the offense, it becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is some doubt on whether the accused had committed it. In this case, the court finds that no such doubt exists, as witnesses De Leon and Tablate positively identified Delos Santos.
(1) Mistake of Fact ( ignorantia facti excusat) (ASKED ONCE IN BAR EXAMS) It is a reasonable misapprehension of fact on the part of the person causing injury to another. Such person is NOT criminally liable as he acted without criminal intent. Under this principle, what is involved is the lack of intent on the part of the accused. Therefore, the defense of mistake of fact is an untenable defense in culpable felonies , where there is no intent to consider. An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act.
15
People v. Cordova 1993
Requisites:
(a) That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be; (b) That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful; (c) That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense.16 US v. Ah Chong (1910):
A cook who stabs his roommate in the dark, honestly mistaking the latter to be a robber responsible for a series of break-ins in the area, and after crying out sufficient warnings and believing himself to be under attack, cannot be held criminally liable for homicide. 1) Would the stabbing be lawful if the facts were really what the houseboy believed? Yes. If it was really the robber and not the roommate then the houseboy was justified. 2) Was the houseboy‘s intention lawful? Yes. He was acting out of self-preservation. 3) Was the houseboy without fault or negligence? Yes. His deliberate intent to defend himself with the knife can be determined by the fact that he cried out sufficient warnings prior to the act. Stabbing the victim whom the accused believed to be an intruder showed a mistake of fact on his part which led him to take the facts as they appear to him and was pressed to take immediate action.
However, mistake of fact is NOT availing in People v. Oanis (74 Phil. 257) , because the police officers
were at fault when they shot the escaped convict who was sleeping, without first ascertaining his identity. (It is only when the fugitive is determined to fight the officers of law trying to catch him that killing the former would be justified) (2) Culpa (CONSTRUCTIVE INTENT) Although there is no intentional felony, there could be culpable felony. The act or omission is not malicious; the injury caused being simply the incident of another act performed without malice.
The element of criminal intent is replaced by negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. Is culpa merely a mode of committing a crime or a crime in itself?
(a) AS A MODE
16
People v. Oanis, 1988
29
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Under Art. 3, it is clear that culpa is just a modality by which a felony may be committed.
30 Act of Dolo
Act of Culpa
physical injuries through reckless imprudence for which he was tried and acquitted. Prior to his acquittal, a case for serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence was filed.
OR
Accused claimed that he was placed in twice in jeopardy.
FELONY
People vs. Faller (1939):
It was stated indirectly that criminal negligence or culpa is just a mode of incurring criminal liability. In this case, the accused was charged with malicious mischief. Malicious mischief is an intentional negligence under Article 327. Thus, there is no malicious mischief through simple negligence or reckless imprudence because it requires deliberateness. The Supreme Court pointed out that although the allegation in the information charged the accused with an intentional felony, yet the words feloniously and unlawfully, which are standard languages in an information, covers not only dolo but also culpa because culpa is just a mode of committing a felony.
Held: The second case must be dismissed. Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for the same act. For the essence of the quasi-offense under Art. 365 of the RPC lies in the execution of an imprudent act which would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes the negligent act and not the result. The gravity of the consequences is only taken into account to determine the penalty. It does not qualify the substance of the offense. As the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense remains one and the same, and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.
Negligence - Indicates deficiency of perception,
(b) AS A CRIME In Art. 365, criminal negligence is an omission which the article specifically penalizes. The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform an act. Art. 365 creates a distinction between imprudence and negligence; simple or reckless , one might think that criminal negligence is the one being punished. Act of Dolo
OR
failure to pay proper attention, and to use diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused. Usually involves lack of foresight. Imprudence - Indicates deficiency of action, failure
to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or damage to property. Usually involves lack of skill.
Reason for punishing acts of negligence or imprudence: A man must use his common sense and
exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent.
Act of Culpa
DOCTRINES CONCERNING CULPABLE CRIMES INTENTIONAL
(a) Emergency Rule A person who is confronted with a sudden emergency may be left no time for thought so he must make a speedy decision based largely upon impulse or instinct. Importance: cannot be held to the same conduct as one who has had an opportunity to reflect , even though it later appears that he made the wrong decision.
CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE ART 365
Requisites:
(a) Freedom (b) Intelligence (c) Negligence, reckless imprudence, foresight or lack of skill;
(b) Doctrine Of ―Last Clear Chance‖ lack
of
People v. Buan (1968):
The accused was driving a passenger bus. Allegedly because of his recklessness, the bus collided with a jeep injuring the passengers of the latter. A case was filed against the accused for slight
The contributory negligence of the party injured will NOT defeat the action if it be shown that the accused might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party. But: The doctrine is not applicable in criminal cases: Anuran v. Buno (1966):
The principle about the "last clear chance"
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
would call for application in a suit between the owners and drivers of the two colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligation. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence. Last Clear Chance is a defense by the defendant in a damage suit against liability by transferring it to the plaintiff. These dynamics cannot be replicated in a criminal case because: i. the liability is penal in nature and thus cannot be transferred within the same case
It is not a case between two parties involved in an incident but rather between an individual and the State. (c) Rule Of Negative Ingredient This is related to the doctrine of proximate cause and applicable when certain causes leading to the result are not identifiable. This rule states that: i. The prosecution must first identify what ii. iii.
Inherent impossibility : The act intended by the
offender is by its nature one of impossible accomplishment. There must be either (1) legal impossibility or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act.
Legal impossibility: The intended acts, even if
completed, would not amount to a crime. Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where: a. the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law; b. there is intention to perform the physical act; c. there is a performance of the intended physical act; and d. the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime. (Intod v. CA)
or factual impossibility: Extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. Physical
Note: In the Philippines, impossibility of
the accused failed to do. Once this is done, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused.
The accused must show that the failure did not set in motion the chain of events leading to the injury.17
D. Impossible Crimes
accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense but an act penalized by itself.
(4) That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC. Illustration:
criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal.
The victim was tortured to death. He was later shot in the back to make it appear that he was killed while trying to escape. The accused is not a principal to an impossible crime but an accessory to the killing committed by the principal (People v. Saladino).
Requisites:
Note: Since the offender in an impossible crime has
Purpose of punishing impossible crimes: To suppress
(1) That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property. (2) That the act was done with evil intent.
The offender intends to commit a felony against persons or against property, and the act performed would have been an offense against persons or property. It must be shown that the actor performed the act with the intent to do an injury to another. However, it should not be actually performed, for otherwise, he would be liable for that felony.
(3) That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.
17
Carillo vs People, 1994
already performed the acts for the execution of the same, there could be no attempted impossible crime. There is no frustrated impossible crime either, because the acts performed by the offender are considered as constituting a consummated offense. Felonies against persons:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)
Parricide (Art. 246) Murder (Art. 248) Homicide (Art. 249) Infanticide (Art. 255) Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258 and 259) Duel (Arts. 260 and 261) Physical injuries (Arts. 262, 263, 264, 265 and 266) (h) Rape (Art. 266- A) Felonies against property:
(a) Robbery (Arts. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302 and 303) (b) Brigandage (Arts. 306 and 307)
31
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
32
(c) (d) (e) (f)
Theft (Arts. 308, 310 and 311) Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313) Culpable Insolvency (Art. 314) Swindling and other deceits (Art. 315, 316, 317 and 318) (g) Chattel Mortgage (Art. 319) (h) Arson and other crimes involving destruction (Arts. 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325 and 326) (i) Malicious mischief (Arts. 327, 328, 329, 330 and 331)
to the intended victim‘s house.
E. Stages of Execution Classification Under Art. 6 a. Consummated Felony
Modified concept of impossible crime
When all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; the felony is
Intod v. CA (1992):
In this case, four culprits, all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the intended victim‘s house and after having
produced.
b. Frustrated Felony When the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
pinpointed the latter‘s bedroom, all four fired
As a result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to imprisonment of only six months of arresto mayor for the felonious act he committed with intent to kill: this despite the destruction done
at and riddled the said room with bullets, thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. It so happened that the intended victim did not come home that evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder. CA affirmed the judgment but the SC modified the same and held the petitioner liable only for the so-called impossible crime.
c. Attempted Felony When the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Development of a Crime ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Actus Reus Mens Rea Concurrence Result Causation a.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
ATTEMPTED
FRUSTRATED
CONSUMMATED
Lacking due to: i. inherent impossibility employment of ii. inadequate means
Intervention other than own desistance; some but not all acts of execution
Overt act
A commission of the felony is deemed commenced when the following are present: (1) There are external acts. (2) Such external acts have a direct connection with the crime intended to be committed. Overt act: Some physical activity or deed (but not
necessarily physical, depending on the nature of the felony) indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. Rait v. People (2008): The Court found that the petitioner‘s acts of successfully removing victim‘s clothing and inserting
his finger to the victim‘s vagina were overt or external acts in the crime of rape. The acts were clearly the first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparations are made. Had it not been for the victim‘s strong p hysical resistance, petitioner‘s next step would, logically,
be having carnal knowledge of the victim. b.
Development of a crime (1) Internal acts
Intent, ideas and plans; generally not punishable. The intention and act must concur. Illustration: Ernie
plans to kill Bert
(2) External acts
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
(a) Preparatory Acts Acts tending toward the crime. Ordinarily not punished except when considered by law as independent crimes (i.e. Art. 304 – possession of picklocks) Proposal and conspiracy to commit a felony are not punishable except when the law provides for their punishment in certain felonies. These acts do not yet constitute even the first stage of the acts of execution. Intent not yet disclosed. Illustration: Ernie goes to the kitchen to get a knife.
Illustration:
Ernie stabs Bert
(b) Acts of Execution Usually overt acts with a logical relation to a particular concrete offense. Punishable under the RPC.
Indeterminate offense
It is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous. The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his admission. Attempted and Frustrated Felonies
The difference between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage lies in: whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution for the accomplishment of a felony.
Attempted Felony
Frustrated Felony
Overt acts of execution are started
All acts of execution are finished BUT
Acts Performed
BUT
Not all acts of execution are present
Crime sought to be committed is not achieved
Why
Due to reasons other than the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator
Due to intervening causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
Position in the Timeline
Offender is already in the objective Offender still in subjective phase phase because all acts of execution are because he still has control of his already present and the cause of its nonacts, including their natural cause. accomplishment is other than the offender‘s will
a. Attempted Stage Elements:
But, it does not negate all criminal liability, if the desistance was made when acts done by him already
(1) The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; (2) He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; (3) The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
resulted in a felony,
Marks the commencement of the subjective phase:
Note: Desistance is true only in the attempted stage
Subjective phase - That portion of the acts constituting a crime, starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he still has control over his acts including their (act‘s) natural course
If between those two points, the offender is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is merely an attempt. The subjective phase for Ernie was from the moment he swung his arm to stab Bert up until he finished his stroke. This is the interim where he still has control of his actions. Illustration:
Desistance – is an absolutory cause which negates
criminal liability because the law encourages a person to desist from committing a crime.
The offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about by his act. What is negated is only the attempted stage, but there may be other felonies arising from his act. of the felony.
If the felony is already in its frustrated stage, desistance will NOT negate criminal liability. Supposing Ernie (because he thought killing Bert was too easy a revenge) desisted midstroke. However, Bert felt the movement and turned. He was so shocked that he suddenly backed away and tripped over his own feet. As Bert went down, his left eye caught the sharp corner of a table causing a puncture on his eyeball rendering him completely blind on the left side. Ernie would not be liable for attempted murder because of his desistance (regardless of his reason for doing so) His liability would now be for serious physical injuries because his act of raising the knife was the proximate cause for Bert losing an eye. Illustration:
33
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
In the attempted stage, the definition uses the word “directly.‖
34
There was only a shelling of the castle but no bombardment of the drawbridge yet.
The word ―directly‖ emphasizes the requirement
that the attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the overt act performed by the offender, not the felony he has in his mind. People v. Lamahang (1935):
The accused was arrested while he was detaching some of the wood panels of a store. He was already able to detach two panels. Held: In criminal law, since the act of removing the panel indicates only at most the intention to enter, he can only be prosecuted for trespass. There is nothing in the record to justify a concrete finding that his final objective, once he succeeded in entering the store, was to rob, to cause physical injury to the inmates, or to commit any other offense. The removal of the paneling is just an attempt to trespass, not an attempt to rob. Although Lamahang was charged with attempted robbery, the Supreme Court held that he is only liable for attempted trespass because that is the crime that can be directly linked to his act of removing the wood panel. There are some acts which are ingredients of a certain crime, but which are, by themselves, already criminal offenses. People v. Campuhan (2000):
The mother of the 4-year-old victim caught the houseboy Campuhan in the act of almost raping her daughter. The hymen of the victim was still intact. However, since it was decided in People v. Orita that entry into labia is considered rape even without rupture and full penetration of the hymen, a question arises whether what transpired was attempted or consummated rape. Held: There was only attempted rape. Mere touching of external genitalia by the penis is already rape. Touching should be understood as inherently part of entry of penis penetration and not mere touching, in the ordinary sense, of the pudendum. Requires entry into the labia, even if there be no rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, to warrant a conviction for consummated rape. Where entry into the labia has not been established, the crime amounts to an attempted rape. The prosecution did not pro ve that Campuhan‘s
b.
Frustrated Stage
Elements
(1) The offender performs all the acts of execution; (2) All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence; (3) But the felony is not produced; (4) By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. The end of the subjective phase and the beginning of the objective phase. Objective phase – the result of the acts of
execution, that is, the accomplishment of the crime.
If the subjective and objective phases have been passed there is a consummated felony. People v. Listerio (2000):
Brothers Jeonito and Marlon were walking when they met a group composed of men who blocked their path and attacked them with lead pipes and bladed weapons. One stabbed Jeonito from behind. Jeonito‘s brother, Marlon, was hit on the head.
Held: 1) The SC held that the crime is a frustrated felony not an attempted offense considering that after being stabbed and clubbed twice in the head as a result of which he lost consciousness and fell. Marlon's attackers apparently thought he was already dead and fled. 2) A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the offender, after beginning the commission of the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against his will, by some outside cause from performing all of the acts which should produce the crime. 3) In other words, to be an attempted crime, the purpose of the offender must be thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes and compels him to stop prior to the moment when he has performed all of the acts which should produce the crime as a consequence, which acts it is his intention to perform. 4) If he has performed all the acts which should result in the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it cannot be an attempt.
penis was able to penetrate victim‘s vagina
because the kneeling position of the accused obstructed the mother‘s view of the alleged
sexual contact. The testimony of the victim herself claimed that penis grazed but did not penetrate her organ.
Crimes which do not admit of frustrated stage
(a) Rape The essence of the crime is carnal knowledge. No matter what the offender may do to accomplish a penetration, if there was no penetration yet, it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
We can only say that the offender in rape has performed all the acts of execution when he has effected a penetration. Once there is penetration, no matter how slight it is, the offense is consummated.
People v. Orita (1990):
For this reason, rape admits only of the attempted and consummated stages, no frustrated stage. (see the previously cited case of People v. Campuhan for the most recent doctrine on penetration). (b) Arson One cannot say that the offender, in the crime of arson, has already performed all the acts of execution which could produce the destruction of the premises through the use of fire, unless a part of the premises has begun to burn. The crime of arson is therefore consummated even if only a portion of the wall or any part of the house is burned. The consummation of the crime of arson does not depend upon the extent of the damage caused. (People v. Hernandez)
(c) Bribery and Corruption of Public Officers The manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver and the receiver. If there is a meeting of the minds, there is consummated bribery or consummated corruption. If there is none, it is only attempted.
(d) Adultery This requires the sexual contact between two participants. If that link is present, the crime is consummated;
(e) Physical Injuries Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of physical injuries is penalized on the basis of the gravity of the injuries. There is no simple crime of physical injuries. There is the need to categorize because there are specific articles that apply whether the physical injuries are serious, less serious or slight. Thus, one could not punish the attempted or frustrated stage because one does not know what degree of physical injury was committed unless it is consummated.
Illustration:
When Bert lost his left eye, Ernie‘s liability was
automatically for serious physical injuries. He would have no liability if the eye was intact. If the eye suffered damage due to the impact, the crime would not be frustrated nor attempted physical injuries because the RPC still considers this as a consummated physical injury, its gravity
depending on the duration that it took for the damage to heal. (f) Theft Once there is unlawful taking, theft is consummated. Either the thing was taken or not.
Disposition of the stolen goods is not an element of theft under the RPC.
Felonies that do not require any result do not have a frustrated stage. Rule of thumb:
Factors in Determining the Stage of Execution of a Felony a. The manner of committing the crime; b. The elements of the crime; and c. The nature of the crime itself.
These three factors are helpful in trying to pinpoint whether the crime is still in its attempted, frustrated or consummated stage. a. The Manner of Committing the Crime (1) Formal Crimes - consummated in one instant, no attempt. (a) Ex. Slander and false testimony (b) There can be no attempt, because between the thought and the deed, there is no chain of acts that can be severed. (2) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal by overt act. (a) Ex. Flight to enemy‘s country (Art. 121) and corruption of minors (Art. 340) (3) Felony by omission (a) There can be no attempted stage when the felony is by omission, because the offender does not execute acts, he omits to perform an act which the law requires him to do. (4) Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them are consummated by mere agreement. (a) In bribery, the manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver and the receiver. (b) When the giver delivers the money to the supposed receiver, but there is no meeting of the minds, the only act done by the giver is an attempt. (5) Material Crimes – have three stages of execution Thus, in determining the stage of some crimes, the manner of execution becomes pivotal in determining the end of the subjective phase, i.e. once the offender performs the act in the manner provided for in the law, HE IS ALREADY DEEMED TO HAVE PERFORMED EVERY ACT FOR ITS EXECUTION.
35
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
36
b. The Elements of the Crime (1) Along with the manner of execution, there are crimes wherein the existence of certain elements becomes the factor in determining its consummation. (2) In the crime of estafa, the element of damage is essential before the crime could be consummated. If there is no damage, even if the offender succeeded in carting away the personal property involved, estafa cannot be considered as consummated. (3) On the other hand, if it were a crime of theft, damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of theft. (4) What is necessary only is intent to gain, not even gain is important. (5) In the crime of abduction, the crucial element is the taking away of the woman with lewd designs.
c. The Nature of the Crime Itself In defining of the frustrated stage of crimes involving the taking of human life (parricide, homicide, and murder), it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded . Hence, the general rule is that there must be a fatal injury inflicted , because it is only then that death will follow.
F. Conspiracy and Proposal Conspiracy – exists when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. (Article 8, RPC). Requisites of conspiracy:
(1) Two or more persons come to an agreement. Agreement presupposes meeting of the minds of two or more persons
(4) Coup d’état, (Art. 136) (5) Sedition (Art. 141) (6) Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade, espionage (Art. 186) (7) Illegal association (Art. 147) (8) Highway Robbery (P.D. 532) (9) Espionage (Sec. 3, C.A. 616) (10) Selected acts under the Dangerous Drugs Acts (11) Arson (12) Terrorism (R.A. 9372) Proposal to commit –
(1) Treason (Art. 115) (2) Coup d’ etat (Art. 136) (3) Rebellion (Art. 136) (4) Inducement not to answer summons, appear or be sworn in Congress, etc. (Art. 150)
Rationale : Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only preparatory acts and the law regards
them as innocent or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases.
Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability: As a felony , conspirators do not need to actually
commit treason, rebellion, insurrection, etc., it being sufficient that two or more persons agree and decide to commit it. As a manner of incurring criminal liability , if they commit treason, rebellion, etc., they will be held liable for it, and the conspiracy which they had before committing the crime is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, not a separate offense.
In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. GENERAL RULE: When the conspiracy is established,
all who participated therein, irrespective of the quantity or quality of his participation is liable equally, whether conspiracy is pre-planned or instantaneous.
(2) The agreement pertains to a commission of a felony. Agreement to effect what has been conceived and determined.
(3) The execution of the felony was decided upon. Note: There must be participation in the criminal
resolution because simple knowledge thereof by a person may only make him liable as an accomplice.
EXCEPTION: Unless one or some of the conspirators
committed some other crime which is not part of the conspiracy.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: When the act constitutes a ―single indivisible offense.‖ Proposal to commit a felony - when the person who
has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons. (Art. 8, RPC)
GENERAL RULE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit
a felony are not punishable.
Examples: Proposal to commit treason (Art. 115) and proposal to commit coup d‘état, rebellion or insurrection (Art. 136).
EXCEPTION: They are punishable only in the cases in
Requisites :
which the law specially provides a penalty therefore. Conspiracy to commit -
(1) Treason (Art. 115) (2) Rebellion (Art. 136) (3) Insurrection (Art. 136)
(1) That a person has decided to commit a felony; and (2) That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
There is no criminal proposal when:
(1) The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony; (2) There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal; (3) It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed. Note: It is not necessary that the person to whom
the proposal is made agrees to commit treason or rebellion.
People v. Laurio (1991): It must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not by
conjectures or speculations.
People v. Bello (2004): Conspiracy is predominantly
a state of mind as it involves the meeting of the minds and intent of the malefactors. Consequently, direct proof is not essential to establish it.
joint purpose, community of interest and in the mode and manner of commission of the offense. Legal effects of implied conspiracy are:
Not all those present at the crime scene will be considered conspirators; Only those who participated in the criminal acts during the commission of the crime will be considered co-conspirators; Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime, without any act of criminal participation, shall not render one criminally liable as co-conspirator. In the absence of any previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same person is individual and not collective, and that each of the participants is liable only for his own acts. (People v. Bagano)
People v. Comadre (2004):
To establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required. Conspiracy is never presumed; it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the crime itself. Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship.
People v. Cenahonon (2007):
While it is mandatory to prove conspiracy by competent evidence, direct proof is not essential to show it – it may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. The accused herein were shown to have clearly acted towards a common goal. People v. Talaogan (2008):
Direct proof is not required, as conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence. It may be established through the collective acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of a felony that all the accused aimed at the same
object, one performing one part and the other performing another for the attainment of the same objective; and that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. People v. Pangilinan (2003): Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy (ASKED 1 TIME IN BAR EXAMS) – Conspiracy need not be direct but may
be inferred from the conduct of the parties, their
A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each other . When several persons who
do not know each other simultaneously attack the victim, the act of one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them. Everyone will be liable for the consequences. One who desisted is not criminally liable. As
pointed out earlier, desistance is true only in the attempted stage. Before this stage, there is only a preparatory stage. Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage. A thought of having her husband killed because the latter was maltreating her. She hired some persons to kill him. The goons got hold of her husband and started mauling him. The wife took pity and shouted for them to stop but the goons continued. The wife ran away. The wife was prosecuted for parricide. But the Supreme Court said that there was desistance, so she is not criminally liable. Illustration:
Do not search for an agreement among participants .
If they acted simultaneously to bring about their common intention, conspiracy exists. And when conspiracy exists, do not consider the degree of participation of each conspiracy because the act of one is the act of all. As a general rule, they have equal responsibility. Illustration:
A, B and C have been courting the same lady for several years. On several occasions, they even visited the lady on intervening hours. Because of this, A, B and C became hostile with one another. One day, D invited the young lady to go out with him and she accepted the invitation. Eventually, the young lady agreed to marry D. When A, B and C learned about this, they all stood up to leave the house of the young lady feeling disappointed. When A looked back at the young lady with D, he saw D laughing menacingly. At that
37
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
instance, A stabbed D. C and B followed. In this case, it was held that conspiracy was present.
38
In some exceptional situations, having community of design with the principal does not prevent a malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice if his role in the perpetration of the homicide or murder was, relatively speaking, of a minor character. (People v. Nierra) Illustration:
There was a planned robbery, and the taxi driver was present during the planning. The taxi driver agreed for the use of his cab but said, ―I will bring you there, and after committing the robbery I will return later.‖ The taxi driver
brought the conspirators where the robbery would be committed. After the robbery was finished, he took the conspirators back to his taxi and brought them away. It was held that the taxi driver was liable only as an accomplice. His cooperation was not really indispensable. The robbers could have engaged another taxi. The taxi driver did not really stay during the commission of the robbery. At most, what he only extended was his cooperation. Siton v. CA, (1991): The idea of a conspiracy is incompatible with the idea of a free-for-all. It is not enough that the attack be joint and simultaneous; it is necessary that the assailants be animated by one and the same purpose. A conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself. There is no definite opponent or definite intent as when a basketball crowd beats a referee to death. Distinctions between the liability of a conspirator and that of a member of a band where the crime committed is robbery which is attended by other crimes. (1) A conspirator is liable only for such other crimes which could be foreseen and which are the natural and logical consequences of the conspiracy. Thus, if the conspiracy is only to rob the victim, rape is not a foreseeable consequence. (People v. Castillo) (2) A member of a band in a robbery cuadrilla, on the other hand, is liable for all assaults, inclusive of rape and homicide, where he was present when these crimes were being committed but he did not attempt to prevent the same. (Art. 296 (2), RPC). (3) If both conspiracy to rob and cuadrilla are present, both rules may apply, in this manner: (a) If a homicide was committed, the lookout is liable therefore under the conspiracy theory; (b) if a rape was committed and the lookout was present but did not try to prevent it, he will be liable under the cuadrilla rule; and (c) if the lookout was not present when the homicide was committed, he will not be liable for the rape
but he will still be liable for the homicide under the conspiracy theory.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
2 Concepts of Conspiracy
Stage
How incurred
Legal requirements
AS A FELONY IN ITSELF
Preparatory acts
Mere agreement
AS A BASIS FOR LIABILITY
Executory acts
Commission of overt act
Illustration
The RPC must specifically punish the act of conspiring (and proposing) The act MUST NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED, else the conspiracy is obliterated and the ACT ITSELF IS PUNISHED. QUANTUM OF PROOF: Conspiracy as a crime must be established beyond reasonable doubt
A, B, C and D came to an agreement to commit rebellion. Their agreement was to ring about the rebellion on a certain date. Even if none of them has performed the act of rebellion, there is already criminal liability arising from the conspiracy to commit the rebellion. But if anyone of them has committed the overt act of rebellion, the crime of all is no longer conspiracy but rebellion itself. This subsists even though the other co-conspirators do not know that one of them had already done the act of rebellion.
Participants acted in concert or simultaneously or IN ANY WAY which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective. The act of meeting together is not necessary as long as a common objective can be discerned from the overt acts. THE ACT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED, if there is only conspiracy or proposal, THERE IS NO CRIME TO BE PUNISHED. QUANTUM OF PROOF: Reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenders when such acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal objective. (People v. Pinto)
Three persons plan to rob a bank. For as long as the conspirators merely entered the bank there is no crime yet. But when one of them draws a gun and disarms the security guard, all of them shall be held liable, unless a coconspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime.
G. Multiple Offenders Recidivism/Reincindencia; Habituality/ Reiteracion/ Art. 14 (9) Repetition; Art. 14 (10)
Sufficient that the offender have been previously convicted by Crimes final judgment for another committed crime embraced in the same title of the Code on the date of his trial Period of time the crimes are committed Number of crimes committed
Necessary that the offender shall have served out his sentence for the first offense
No period of time The second conviction for The previous and an offense embraced in subsequent offenses must the same title of RPC NOT be embraced in the
Quasi-Recidivism; Art. 160
Habitual Delinquency; Art. 62 (5)
Before serving or while serving sentence, the offender commits a felony (NOT a crime)
Specified: 1. less serious or serious physical injuries 2. robbery 3. theft 4. estafa 5. falsification Within 10 years from his last release or conviction
Before serving or while serving sentence Offender commits a felony
Guilty the third time or oftener
39
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
same title of the RPC
40 Their effects
If not offset by any mitigating circumstance, Not always an aggravating increase the penalty only circumstance to the maximum
1. Recidivism Basis: the greater perversity of the offender, as shown
by his inclination to commit crimes
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. (People v. Lagarto, 1991) Requisites
(1) Offender is on trial for an offense (2) He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime (3) Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPC (4) Offender is convicted of the new offense
Note: What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of commission of the crime. (Reyes, Revised Penal Code)
2. Habituality (Reiteracion) Basis: same as recidivism Requisites
(1) (2)
(3)
Accused is on trial for an offense He previously served sentence a. for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, OR b. for two or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new offense He is convicted of the new offense
3. Quasi-Recidivism Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty . — Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by t he maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
4. Habitual Delinquency Art. 62, last par. For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
Imposes the maximum of the penalty for the new offense, and cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance
An additional penalty shall be imposed
Requisites
(1) Offender had been convicted of any of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification (2) After that conviction or after serving his sentence, he again committed, and, within 10 years from his release or first conviction, he was again convicted of any of the said crimes for the second time (3) After his conviction of, or after serving sentence for, the second offense, he again committed, and, within 10 years from his last release or last conviction, he was again convicted of any of said offenses, the third time or oftener Purpose of the law in imposing additional penalty
To render more effective social defense and the reformation of habitual delinquents (REYES, quoting People v. Abuyen)
See also: Aggravating circumstances
H. Complex Crimes and Special Complex Crimes Plurality of Crimes (Concursu de delitos) (1) Consists of the successive execution (2) by the same individual (3) of different criminal acts (4) for any of which no conviction has yet been declared. Philosophy behind plural crimes
Through the concept of plural crimes, several crimes are treated as one. The purpose of this is to allow leniency towards the offender, who, instead of being made to suffer distinct penalties for every resulting crime is made to suffer one penalty only, although it is the penalty for the most serious one and is imposed in its maximum period. Note: If by complexing the crime, the penalty would turn out to be higher, do not complex anymore. PLURALITY OF CRIMES
RECIDIVISM
There is no conviction for any of the crimes committed.
There must be conviction by final judgment of the first or prior offense.
A Complex crime is not just a matter of penalty, but of substance under the Revised Penal Code. Kinds of Plurality of Crimes a. Real or Material Plurality
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
(1) There are different crimes in law as well as in the conscience of the offender. (2) In such cases, the offender shall be punished for each and every offense that he committed. Illustration:
A stabbed B. Then, A also stabbed C. There are two crimes committed. b. Formal or Ideal Plurality (1) There is but one criminal liability in this kind of plurality. (2) Divided into 3 groups: (a) Complex Crimes - When the offender commits either of the complex crimes defined in Art. 48 of the Code. (b) Special Complex Crimes - When the law specifically fixes a single penalty for 2 or more offenses committed. (c) Continuing and Continued Crimes - A single crime consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution.
1. Complex Crimes (ASKED 5 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
a. Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto)
A single act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies.
41
Requisites:
(1) That only a single act is performed by the offender Single Act
Several Acts
Throwing a hand grenade A single bullet killing two person
Submachine gun – because of the number of bullets released Firing of the revolver twice in succession
(2) That the single acts produces : 2 or more grave felonies, or i. ii. 1 or more grave and 1 or more less grave felonies, or iii. 2 or more less grave felonies Light felonies produced by the same act should be treated and punished as separate offenses or may be absorbed by the grave felony. Illustration:
When the crime is committed by force or violence, slight physical injuries are absorbed.
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies , or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other , the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
So that when an offender performed more than one act, although similar , if they result in separate crimes, i. there is no complex crime at all, ii. instead, the offender shall be prosecuted for as many crimes as are committed under separate information.
Art. 48 requires the commission of at least 2 crimes. But the two or more GRAVE or LESS GRAVE felonies must be (1) the result of a single act, or (2) an offense must be a necessary means for committing the other.
Compound crimes under Art. 48 is also applicable to crimes through negligence. Thus, a municipal mayor who accidentally discharged his revolver, killing a girl and injuring a boy was found guilty of complex crime of homicide with less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. (People v. Castro)
Nature of complex crimes Although two or more crimes are actually committed , they constitute only one crime, in the
Example of a compound crime:
eyes of the law; and in the conscience of the offender.
Even in the case where an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the evil intent of the offender is only one. Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime. Monteverde vs. People (2002): No complex crime when: 1. Two or more crimes are committed, but not by a single act; 2. Committing one crime is not a necessary means for committing the other (or others)
Two kinds of complex crimes
(ASKED 4 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
The victim was killed while discharging his duty as barangay captain to protect life and property and enforce law and order in his barrio. The crime is a complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in authority. When in obedience to an order several accused simultaneously shot many persons, without evidence how many each killed, there is only a single offense, there being a single criminal impulse. b. Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo)
An offense is a necessary means for committing the other . In complex crime, when the offender executes various acts, he must have a single purpose. When there are several acts performed, the assumption is that each act is impelled by a distinct But:
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
criminal impulse, hence each will have a separate penalty.
42 Requisites:
(1) That at least two offenses are committed (2) That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other
(3) That both or all the offenses must be punished under the same statute. Note: The phrase ―necessary means‖ does not mean ―indispensable means‖ People vs. Comadre (2004):
The single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade may quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct offenses, yet these component criminal offenses should be considered only as a single crime in law on which a single penalty is imposed because the offender was impelled by a ―single criminal impulse‖ which shows
his lesser degree of perversity. No complex crime proper:
(a) Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible abduction with rape, are separate acts of rape. (b) Not complex crime when trespass to dwelling is a direct means to commit a grave offense. (c) No complex crime, when one offense is committed to conceal the other. (d) When the offender already had in his possession the funds which he misappropriated, the subsequent falsification of a public or official document involving said offense is a separate offense. (e) No complex crime where one of the offenses is penalized by a special law. (f) There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson, robbery, or other common crimes (People v. Hernandez; Enrile v. Salazar). (g) In case of continuous crimes. (h) When the other crime is an indispensable element of the other offense. General rules in complexing crimes:
(a) When two crimes produced by a single act are respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of two courts of different jurisdiction, the court of higher jurisdiction shall try the complex crime. (b) The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
(c) When two felonies constituting a complex crime are punishable by imprisonment and fine, respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment should be imposed. (d) Art. 48 applies only to cases where the Code does not provide a definite specific penalty for a complex crime. (e) One information should be filed when a complex crime is committed. (f) When a complex crime is charged and one offense is not proven, the accused can be convicted of the other. (g) Art. 48 also applies in cases when out of a single act of negligence or imprudence, two or more
grave or less grave felonies resulted, but only the first part is applicable, i.e. compound crime. The second part of Art. 48 does not apply, referring to the complex crime proper because this applies or refers only to a deliberate commission of one offense to commit another offense.
2. Special Complex/Composite crimes The substance is made up of more than one crime but which in the eyes of the law is only (1) a single indivisible offense. (2) all those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime. Special Complex Crimes
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294 (1)) Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2)) Robbery with Arson Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Art. 267 (3)) (5) Kidnapping with rape (6) Rape with Homicide (Art. 335) (7) Arson with homicide
When crimes complexed, viz :
involved
cannot
be
legally
(1) Malicious obtention or abusive service of search warrant (Art. 129) with perjury; (2) Bribery (Art. 210) with infidelity in the custody of prisoners; (3) Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235) with serious physical injuries; (4) Usurpation of real rights (Art. 312) with serious physical injuries; and (5) Abandonment of persons in danger (Art. 275) and crimes against minors (Art. 276 to 278) with any other felony.
3. Continued and Continuing Crimes (Delito Continuado ) Continued crime (continuous or continuing) - A
single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution.
Cuello Calon explains the delito continuado in this way: When the actor , there being unity of purpose and of right violated, commits diverse acts, each one of which, although of a delictual character, merely constitutes a partial execution of a single particular delict, such delictual acts is called delito continuado. Example: One who on several occasions steals wheat deposited in a granary. Each abstraction constitutes theft, but instead of imposing on the culprit different penalties for each theft committed, he is punished for only one ―hurto continuado‖ for the total sum or value abstracted. Continuing offense - A continuous, unlawful act or
series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long a time it may occupy.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Although there is a series of acts, there is only one crime committed. Hence, only one penalty shall be imposed. Real or plurality
material
Continued Crime
There is a series of acts performed by the offender. different acts Each act performed The constitute only one constitutes a separate crime because all of the crime because each act acts performed arise is generated by a from one criminal criminal impulse resolution. People v. De Leon (1926): a thief who took from a
yard of a house two game roosters belonging to two different persons was ruled to have committed only one crime of theft, because there is a unity of thought in the criminal purpose of the offender. The accused was animated by a single criminal impulse. A continued crime is not a complex crime. The offender here does not perform a single act, but a series of acts, and one offense is not a necessary means for continuing the other. Hence, the penalty is not to be imposed in its maximum period.
A continued crime is different from a transitory crime (moving crime.) in criminal procedure for purposes of determining venue. When a transitory crime is committed, the criminal action may be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality, city or province wherein any of the essential ingredients thereof took place. (ASKED TWICE IN BAR EXAMS) While Article 48 speaks of a complex crime where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave offenses, those cases involving a series of acts resulting to two or more grave and less grave felonies, were considered by the Supreme Court as a complex crime when it is shown that the act is the product of one single criminal impulse. If confronted with a problem, the Supreme Court has extended this class of complex crime to those cases when the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts as long as it is the product of a single criminal impulse TIP:
People v. Garcia (1980):
The accused were convicts who were members of a certain gang and they conspired to kill the other gang. Some of the accused killed their victims in one place within the same penitentiary, some killed the others in another place within the same penitentiary. The Supreme Court ruled that all accused should be punished under one information because they acted in conspiracy. The act of one is the act of all. Because there were several victims killed and
some were mortally wounded, the accused should be held for the complex crime of multiple homicide with multiple frustrated homicide. There is a complex crime not only when there is a single act but a series of acts. It is correct that when the offender acted in conspiracy, this crime is considered as one and prosecuted under one information. Although in this case, the offenders did not only kill one person but killed different persons, the Supreme Court considered this as complex.
Whenever the Supreme Court concludes that the criminals should be punished only once, because they acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal impulse: it is necessary to embody these crimes under one single information. It is necessary to consider them as complex crimes even if the essence of the crime does not fit the definition of Art 48, because there is no other provision in the RPC.
Applying the concept of the ―continued crime‖, the following cases have been treated as constituting one crime only: i. People v. Tumlos, (1939): The theft of 13 cows
belonging to two different persons committed by the accused at the same place and period of time; ii. People v. Jaranilla, (1974): The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop and at the same period of time; iii. People v. Sabbun, (1964) : The illegal charging of fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time he collected veteran‘s benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that attorney‘s fees shall be
paid out of such benefits. The collections of legal fees were impelled by the same motive, that of collecting fees for services rendered, and all acts of collection were made under the same criminal impulse. The Supreme Court declined to apply the concept in the following cases : i. People v. Dichupa, (1961): Two estafa cases,
one which was committed during the period from January 19 to December, 1955 and the other from January 1956 to July 1956. Said acts were committed on two different occasions; ii. People v. CIV : Several malversations committed in May, June and July 1936 and falsifications to conceal said offenses committed in August and October, 1936. The malversations and falsifications were not the result of one resolution to embezzle and falsity; In the THEFT cases: The trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine:
i. taking of several things, ii. whether belonging to the same or different owners,
43
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
iii. at the same time and place, constitutes one larceny only.
44
Abandoned is the doctrine that the government has the discretion to prosecute the accused for one offense or for as many distinct offenses as there are victims.
Note: The concept of delito continuado has been
applied to crimes under special laws since in Art. 10, the RPC shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter provides the contrary.
CHAPTER III. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY A. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES B. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES C. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES D. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES E. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES F. ABSOLUTORY CAUSE JUSTIFYING
EXEMPTING
MITIGATING
AGGRAVATING
ALTERNATIVE
NO WRONG No criminal liability
THERE IS A WRONG No criminal liability With civil liability Except: accident; insuperable cause
THERE IS A FELONY Decreased criminal liability
THERE IS A FELONY Increased criminal liability
THERE IS A FELONY Increased or decreased liability
With civil liability
With civil liability
With civil liability
No civil liability Except: state of necessity
Imputability – is the quality by which an act may be
ascribed to a person as it author or owner. It implies that the act committed has been freely and consciously done and may, therefore, be put down to th doer as his very own Responsibility – is the obligation of suffering the
consequences of crime. It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil consequences of the crime. Imputability distinguished from responsibility
An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of evidence rests on the accused who must prove the circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. There is NO crime committed, the act being justified. Thus, such persons cannot be considered criminals. Basis: Lack of criminal intent
–
while imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person, responsibility implies that the person must take the consequences of such a deed. Guilt – is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty. ( Reyes, Revised Penal Code)
A. Justifying Circumstances (ASKED 30 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS) FIVE TYPES of justifying circumstances : 1. Self defense 2. Defense of relatives 3. Defense of strangers 4. Avoidance of a greater evil 5. Fulfillment of duty 6. Obedience to an order issued for some
lawful purpose
Justifying Circumstances – those where the act of a
person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. There is no civil liability except in par. 4, Art. 11, where the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act.
1. Self Defense Includes not only the defense of the person or body
of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by law. It includes: a. The right to honor. Hence, a slap on the face is considered as unlawful aggression since the face represents a person and his dignity. (Rugas vs, People) b.
can be invoked if there is an attack upon the property although it is not coupled with an attack upon the person of the owner of the premises. All the elements for justification must however be present. ( People The defense of property rights
v. Narvaez)
Elements:
a. Unlawful aggression (1) Equivalent to an actual physical assault; OR threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind which is offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause harm. (2) The aggression must constitute a violation of the law. When the aggression ceased to exist, there is no longer a necessity to defend one‘s self. EXCEPT: when the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
aggressor retreats to obtain a more advantageous position to ensure the success of the initial attack, unlawful aggression is deemed to continue. (3) Must come from the person attacked by the accused. (4) Unlawful aggression must also be a continuing circumstance or must have been existing at the time the defense is made. Once the unlawful aggression is found to have ceased, the one making the defense of a stranger would likewise cease to have any justification for killing, or even just wounding, the former aggressor. [ People vs. Dijan (2002)] Note: No unlawful aggression when there was an
agreement to fight and the challenge to fight was accepted. BUT aggression which is ahead of an agreed time or place is unlawful aggression. b. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it. Test of reasonableness
The means employed depends upon: (1) nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor (2) aggressor‘s physical condition, character, size, and other circumstances (3) and those of the person defending himself (4) the place and occasion of the assault. c. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of defender
(1) In case there was a provocation on the part of the person attacked, the attack should not immediately precede the provocation for defense to be valid. (2) Never confuse unlawful aggression with provocation. (3) Mere provocation is not enough. It must be real and imminent. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite. (4) If there is unlawful aggression but one of the other requisites is lacking, it is considered an incomplete self-defense which mitigates liability. (5) Self-defense includes the defense of one‘s rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of which is protected by law. (6) Retaliation is different from an act of selfdefense.
Marzonia v. People (2006): Held: As the Court
previously held, mortally wounding an assailant with a penknife is not a reasonably necessary means to repel fist blows. a. Defense of Honor:
People v. Dela Cruz (1935): Accused was found
guilty of homicide for stabbing and killing Rivera.
Prosecution claimed that Dela Cruz and Rivera had a relationship and that the accused was madly in love with the deceased and was extremely jealous of another woman with whom Rivera also had a relationship. Dela Cruz claimed, on the other hand, that on her way home one evening, Rivera followed her, embraced and kissed her and touched her private parts. She didn‘t know that it was Rivera and
that she was unable to resist the strength of Rivera so she got a knife from her pocket and stabbed him in defense of her honor. Held: She is justified in using the pocketknife in repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her honor. It was a dark night and she could not have identified Rivera. There being no other means of self-defense. People v. Juarigue (1946): Amado (deceased) has
been courting the accused Avelina in vain. On the day of the crime, Avelina and Amado were in Church. Amado sat beside Avelina and placed his hand on her thigh. Thereafter, Avelina took out her knife and stabbed Amado in the neck, causing the death of Amado. Held: Although the defense of one‘s honor exempts one from criminal liability, it must be proved that there is actual danger of being raped. In this case, 1) the church was well-lit, 2) there were several people in the church, including the father of the accused and other town officials. In light of these circumstances, accused could not have possibly been raped. The means employed in defense of her honor was evidently excessive. b. Defense of Property: People vs. Apolinar : This can only be invoked as
justifying circumstance if (1) Life and limb of the person making the defense is also the subject of unlawful aggression (2) Life cannot be equal to property.
People v. Narvaez (1983): Narvaez was taking his
rest inside his house when he heard that the wall of his house was being chiseled. He saw that Fleischer and Rubia, were fencing the land of the father of the deceased Fleischer. He asked the group to stop but they refused. The accused got mad so he got his shotgun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the jeep and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, the accused fired at Rubia as well. Narvaez claimed he acted in defense of his person and rights.
Held: There was aggression by the deceased not on the person of the accused but on his property rights when Fleischer angrily ordered the continuance of the fencing. The third element of self-defense is also present because there was no sufficient provocation on the part of Narvaez since he was sleeping when the deceased where fencing. However, the second element was lacking. Shooting the victims from the window of his house is disproportionate to the physical aggression by the
45
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
victims. Thus, there is incomplete self-defense.
(3) The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
46
Note: If the person being defended is a second cousin, it will be defense of stranger.
2. Defense of Relatives Elements: (1) Unlawful aggression
Unlawful aggression may not exist as a matter of fact, it can be made to depend upon the honest belief of the one making the defense. Reason: The law acknowledges the possibility that a relative, by virtue of blood, will instinctively come to the aid of their relatives. (2) Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it (3) In case person attacked provoked attacker defender must have no part therein
Reason: Although the provocation prejudices the person who gave it, its effects do not reach the defender who took no part therein, because the latter was prompted by some noble or generous sentiment in protecting and saving a relative
Basis: What one may do in his defense, another may
do for him. The ordinary man would not stand idly by and see his companion killed without attempting to save his life
4. Avoidance of a Greater Evil Requisites: (1) Evil sought to be avoided actually exists (2) Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it (3) There is no other practical & less harmful means of preventing it
The evil or injury sought to be avoided must not have been produced by the one invoking the justifying circumstances. GENERAL RULE: No civil liability in justifying
circumstances because there is no crime.
EXCEPTION: There is CIVIL LIABILITY under this
Relatives entitled to defense: i. Spouse ii. Ascendants iii. Descendants iv. legitimate, natural or adopted Brothers/Sisters v. Relatives by affinity in the same degree vi. Relatives by consanguinity w/in the 4th civil degree Illustration:
The sons of A honestly believe that their father was the victim of an unlawful aggression when in fact it was their father who attacked B. If they killed B under such circumstances, they are justified. Balunueco v. CA (2003):
Held: Of the three (3) requisites of defense of relatives, unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non, for without it any defense is not possible or justified. In order to consider that an unlawful aggression was actually committed, it is necessary that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act positively determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made;a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to justify the commission of an act which is punishable per se, and allow a claim of exemption from liability on the ground that it was committed in self-defense or defense of a relative.
3. Defense of Strangers Elements: (1) Unlawful aggression; (2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
paragraph. Persons benefited shall be liable in proportion to the benefit which they have received. Illustration:
A drove his car beyond the speed limit so much so that when he reached the curve, his vehicle skidded towards a ravine. He swerved his car towards a house, destroying it and killing the occupant therein. A cannot be justified because the state of necessity was brought about by his own felonious act. Ty v. People (2004): Ty's mother and sister were confined at the Manila Doctors' Hospital. Ty signed the "Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment" in the Contract of Admission. The total hospital bills of the two patients amounted to P1,075,592.95. Ty executed a promissory note wherein she assumed payment of the obligation i n installments. To assure payment of the obligation, she drew 7 postdated checks against Metrobank payable to the hospital which were all dishonored by the drawee bank due to insufficiency of funds. As defense, Ty claimed that she issued the checks because of ―an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury.‖ She averred that she was forced to issue the checks to obtain release for her mother who was being inhumanely treated by the hospital. She alleged that her mother has contemplated suicide if she would not be discharged from the hospital. Ty was found guilty by the lower courts of 7 counts of violation of BP22. Held: The court sustained the findings of the lower courts. The evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated. So the defense of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury‖ is not applicable. Ty could have taken advantage of an available option to avoid committing a crime. By her own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or