Crim Law Notes

CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law, defined.

CRIMINAL LAW branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and
provides for their punishment
1. Defines crimes [civil law country] when there is no law against an act or omission, then
there is no crime
2. Nature Elements of a crime [absence of one element is a ground for the acquittal of the
accused]
Crime, defined.
CRIME act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it
Sources of Philippine Criminal Law
1. RPC (Act 3815)
2. Special Penal Laws
3. Penal P.D. issued during Martial Law
No common law crimes in the Philippines
Philippines is CIVIL LAW COUNTRY not common law
*Common Law not defined as crimes or enacted by legislature but considered by society as
crimes
*Court decisions are not sources of criminal law because they merely explain the meaning of,
and apply, the law
Power to define and punish crimes
Basis of the States power to define and punish crime: Police Power
*Police Power power of the state to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the
general welfare of the people
Limitation on the Power of the Lawmaking Body Enact Penal Legislations
1. Art III Sec22 No ex post facto law or bill attainder shall be enacted
2. Art III Sec14(1) No person shall be held to answer for criminal offense without due
process of law (applies to the judicial branch)
3. Art III Sec 19 No law that provides for cruel and unusual punishment shall be passed
EX POST FACTO: a law that punishes an act which was not punishable at the time it was
committed.
a. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when
done, and punishes such an act
b. Aggravates a crime, or make it greater than it was, when committed
c. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the
crime when committed
d. 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
e. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or
deprivation of a right for something which when done is lawful
f. 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
Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015
BILL OF ATTAINDER legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial

To give a law retroactive application to the prejudice of the accused is to make it an
ex post facto law.
Constitutional rights of the accused.
1. All persons shall have the right to speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,
quasi-judicial or administrative bodies (Sec16)
2. No person shall be held to answer for criminal offense without due process of law (Sec14
[1])
3. All persons, EXCEPT those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or to be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of writ of habeas corpus is
suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
4. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of
the nature and cause of accusation against him, to have speedy, impartial, and public
trial, to meet with the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure
the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided
that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Sec14[2])
5. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Sec17)
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice.
If the person cannot afford the services of a counsel, he must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (Sec12
[1])
No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free
will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him. (Sec12 [3])
6. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. (Sec19 [1])
7. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute
a bar to another prosecution for the same act. (Sec21)
8. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall
not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. (Sec11)
STATUTORY RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
(Section1 Rule 115 of Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure):
1. Presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt
2. To be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him
3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings,
from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment
4. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters
covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him
5. Exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself

6. Confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial
7. Have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of
other evidence in his behalf
8. Have speedy, impartial and public trial
9. Appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law
Rights of the accused which may be waived and rights which may not be waived.
Rights which can be waived: right to confrontation and confrontation
Cannot be waived: right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
against him
*Rights which are personal can be waived, rights involving public interest which may be affected
cannot be waived.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
1. General
2. Territorial
3. Prospective
GENERAL criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine
territory (Art14 of New Civil Code)
GR: Jurisdiction of civil courts is not affected by the military character of the
accused (U.S. vs. Sweet Sweet, an employee of the US army assaulted a prisoner of war)
Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-martial over soldiers
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
The Revised Penal Code or other penal law is not applicable when a military court
takes cognizance of the case.
Jurisdiction of military courts.
The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar to another
prosecution for the same offense.
Offenders accused of war crime are triable by military commission.
Legal Basis:
1. Art 2 RPC provisions of the Code shall be enforced within the PH archipelago,
including its atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone, without reference to the
person or persons who might violate any of its provisions.
2. Art 14 of the Civil Code penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in
the PH territory.
Exceptions to the general application of Criminal Law.
1. Article 2 RPC Treatises stipulations and laws of preferential application
2. Article 14 of the new Civil Code Principles of public international law and to treaty
stipulations
Treaties or treaty stipulations.
(1) Bases Agreement (2) RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement
Example of Law of preferential application: R.A. 75 in favor of diplomatic representatives and

their domestic servants
PERSONS EXEMPT FROM THE OPERATION OF OUR CRIMINAL LAWS BY
VIRTUE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state
2. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges daffaires
diplomatic representatives
Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign nations are
not entitled to the privileges or immunities of an ambassador or minister.
In the absence of a treaty to the contrary, consuls are subject to the laws of the country to which
he is accredited
Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-martial over soldiers of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (murder, malversation by an army finance officer)
Even in times of war, provided that in the place of the commission of the crime, no
hostilities are in progress and civil courts are functioning
RPC or other penal laws are not applicable when the military court takes cognizance of
the case involving a person subject to military law = Articles of War apply
Prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar to another prosecution of the
accused for the same offense (Reason: double jeopardy)
Offender accused of war crimes are triable by military commission
Military commissions have jurisdiction so long as a technical state of war continues (war
is not ended because hostilities have ceased because incidents of war may remain
pending which should be disposed of as in time of war)
TERRITORIAL criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within the Philippine
territory
PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within
its territory
Extent of Philippine territory for purposes of criminal law.
Legal Basis: Art 2 of RPC provisions of the Code shall be enforced within the PH archipelago,
including its atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone.
(Art I of the Constitution) national territory comprises the Philippines archipelago, with all the
islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of all its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including
its territorial sea, seabed, subsoil, insular shelves and other submarine areas. Waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
Exceptions to the territorial application of criminal law. (Article 2, RPC)
1. Commit an offense on board a Philippine ship or airship
2. Forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and
securities issued by the Philippine government
3. Liable for acts connected with the introduction into Philippines obligations and
securities mentioned in the preceding number
4. Public officers or employees who commit an offense in the exercise of their functions
5. Should commit crimes against national security and the law of nations
PROSPECTIVE penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not
punishable when committed
*Art366, RPC crimes are punished under the law in force at the time of their commission
Exceptions: where penal law is more lenient or favorable to the accused, it can be given
retroactive effect
Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws.
1. New law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of actions
2. Offender is a habitual criminal (Art 22, RPC)
Different Effects of Repeal of Penal Law:
1. Repeal makes the penalty lighter new law shall apply EXCEPT when offender is a
habitual delinquent or make inapplicable to pending action or causes of action
2. Repeal makes the penalty heavier law in force at the time of the commission of the
offense will be applied
3. New law totally repeals the existing law (to the effect that the act which was penalized
is no longer punishable) crime is obliterated
When the repeal is absolute, the offense ceases to be criminal.
Absolute Repeal offense ceases to be a crime (decriminalization); Effect: pending case is
dismissed, those serving time are released
Repeal of a penal law by its reenactment, will not destroy criminal liability. (U.S. vs. Cuna
selling opium)
When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense, the offender can be
tried under the old law (U.S. vs. Cuna) [new law is not more favorable, so old law will be
enforced]
When repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law, the accused
cannot be convicted under the new law (People vs. Sindiong and Pastor neglecting to
make return of sales of newspapers and magazines within the time prescribed by the Revised
Administrative Code law was repealed by the National Internal revenue Code wherein such
return of sales is not required)
A person erroneously accused and convicted under a repealed statute may be
punished under the repealing statute (People vs. Baesa for having failed to pay his
employees salary, Baesa was convicted under Com. Act 303, subsequently repealed by RA602,
with which its provisions are inconsistent, will not prevent his conviction under the repealing
law which punishes the same act, provided that accused had an opportunity to defend himself
against the charge brought against him)
A new law which omits anything contained in the old law dealing on the same
subject, operates as a repeal of anything not so included in the amendatory act
cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex (when the reason for the law ceases, the law itself also
ceases)
Partial or Implied Repeal still punishable but modified; example, lesser punishment
Self-repealing law
Expiration of a law by its own limitation (Effect: deprivation of the courts to try, convict and
sentence persons charged with violation of the old law prior to the repeal)
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
1. Penal laws are strictly construed against the government and in favor of the accused (can
be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its application; no
room for interpretation where the law is clear and unambiguous) - (People vs. Garcia
Act4130 as amended by Commonwealth Act 301 penalizes persons who sold tickets of
the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes without being a duly authorized agent. PCSO tickets
were different from the tickets being sold by Garcia. He must be acquitted because no
person should be brought within the terms of criminal statute who is not clearly within
them, nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by the
statute)
2. In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the RPC, Spanish text is
controlling because it was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text
(People vs. Mangulabnan Robbery with accidental homicide. Spanish text which
states that robbery with homicide is a criminal act even if homicide is a mere accident
even though the RPC conveys the meaning that homicide should be intentionally
committed [Under the Spanish text, it is sufficient that homicide resulted, even if by
accident].
3. EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE when the evidence of the prosecution and of the defense is
equally balanced, the scale should b tilted in favor of the accused in obedience to the
constitutional presumption of innocence. He should be acquitted.
4. VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE effect that a statute establishing a criminal
offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary
intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute it can only be
invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which
cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction.
5. PRO REO DOCTRINE when a circumstance is susceptible to two interpretations one
favorable to the accused and the other against him, that interpretation favorable to him
shall prevail. In case of doubt, rule in favor of the accused.
REVISED PENAL CODE

(ACT 3815, AS AMENDED)
History of the Revised Penal Code
RPC consists of 2 books:
1. Book One (a) basic principles affecting criminal liability (Art1-20); (b) provisions on
penalties including criminal and civil liability (Art21-113)
2. Book Two defined felonies with corresponding penalties (grouped into 14 different
titles; Art114-365)
ARTICLE 1.
TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT THIS CODE SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE FIRST
DAY OF JANURAY, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY-TWO.
RPC took effect on January 1, 1932
CRIMINAL LAW
That branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their
punishment.
FELONY
Act or omission violative of the RPC committed intentionally or negligently.
OFFENSE
Act or omission violative of a special law, i.e. any law other than the RPC.
CRIME
Violation of any penal law be it the RPC, special law or a mere ordinance.
Where lies the power to define and punish an act as a crime?
Only in Congress.
4 Theories in Criminal Law
1. Classical Theory (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth)
a. Basis of criminal liability: human free will
b. Purpose of penalty: retribution
c. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
d. Man is free to choose between good and evil, thus, there is more stress upon the
effect or result of the felonious act (strong sense of responsibility)
e. Establishes a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty
f. Scant regard to the human element
2. Positivist Theory (society made man that way)
a. Basis of criminal liability: The sum of the social, natural and economic phenomenon
which the actor is exposed
b. Purpose: Reformation
c. Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains

him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition (no sense of responsibility)
d. Crime is a social and natural phenomenon and cannot be treated and checked by the
application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a
punishment
3. Eclectic Theory (mix of the Classical and Positivist)
a. Classical theory for heinous crimes
b. Positivist theory for social crimes
4. Utilitarian Theory (Protective Theory)
a. Purpose: protection of society from actual or potential wrongdoers
*RPC is mainly based on the classical theory but positivistic on some provisions (i.e. juvenile
delinquency, impossible crime, aggravating, mitigating and justifying circumstances)
ARTICLE 2
APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE TREATIES AND
LAWS OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE SHALL BE
ENFORCED NOT ONLY WITHIN THE PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO, INCLUDING ITS
ATMOSPHERE, ITS INTERIOR WATERS AND MARITIME ZONE, BUT ALSO OUTSIDE OF
ITS JURISDICTION, AGAINST THOSE WHO:
1. SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE WHILE ON BOARD A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR
AIRSHIP
2. SHOULD FORGE OR COUNTERFEIT ANY COIN OR CURRENCY NOTE OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS OR OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
3. SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR ACTS CONNECTED WITH THE INTRODUCTION INTO
THESE ISLANDS OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES MENTIONED IN THE
PRECEDING NUMBER
4. WHILE BEING PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES, SHOULD COMMIT AN
OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS
5. SHOULD COMMIT ANY OF THE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
LAW OF NATIONS, DEFINED IN TITLE ONE OF BOOK TWO OF THIS CODE.
Scope of the application of the provisions of the RPC:
1. Territorial
2. Extraterritorial
Exceptions to Art 2: Treatises and laws of preferential applications.
Atmosphere penal laws extend to all air space covered by the territory SUBJECT to right of
way or easement in favor of foreign aircrafts.
Interior Waters all body of waters within the 3-mile limit
Maritime Zone includes bays, gulfs, adjacent parts of the sea or recesses in the coastline whose
width at their entrance is not more than 12miles measured in a straight line from headland to
headland, and all straits of less than 6miles wide (for straits having more width, the space in the
center outside of the maritime league limits is considered as open sea)
*Foreign merchant ships is an extension of the territory of the country to which it belongs and
offenses committed on such in high seas is not triable by our courts
*Offenses committed on board a foreign vessel while on Philippine waters is triable before our
court Continuing crime on board a foreign vessel is triable when forbidden conditions existed
during the time the ship was within territorial waters (ex. Norweigian Ship)
Rules as to the jurisdiction over crimes committed on board foreign merchant
vessels
1. French Rule Not triable unless the commission affects the peace and security of the
territory or safety of the state is endangered
2. English Rule Triable in the country unless they merely affect things within the vessel or
they refer to internal management
*Philippines observes the English Rule (reason: It goes well with the territorial rule).
SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE WHILE ON BOARD A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP
GR: Penal laws do not apply if ship is outside the Philippines
Exception: Philippines has jurisdiction over registered private merchant vessels that are outside
the Philippine territory but within international waters and outside the jurisdiction of other
countries
Applies to Philippine vessels even beyond the 3-mile limit (triable before our civil courts)
but when Philippine vessel is found in a foreign territory = crime committed on said
vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of the foreign country
Ownership of the vessel depends on its registration (so long as registered under
Philippine laws in the Philippine Bureau of Customs, it shall be considered as an
extension of the Philippine territory). A Filipino owning a vessel not registered under
Philippine laws will not be criminally liable under Philippine laws.
If vessel is unregistered, Art2 will not apply
SHOULD FORGE OR COUNTERFEIT ANY COIN OR CURRENCY NOTE OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS OR OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
*Persons who make such are liable even though the act is done in a foreign country
SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR ACTS CONNECTED WITH THE INTRODUCTION INTO THESE
ISLANDS OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING
NUMBER
*Reason: introduction of such is as dangerous as forging or counterfeiting the same, to the
economical interest of the country
WHILE BEING PUBLIC OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES, SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE IN
THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS
Examples: direct and indirect bribery (Art210,211); frauds against public treasury (Art213),
possession of prohibited interest (Art216), malversation of public funds or property (Art217),
failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art218), illegal use of public funds or property
(Art220), failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art221) and falsification by a
public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official position (Art171)
*Can be prosecuted here even when committed abroad
*Philippine ambassador to Australia committed malversation of funds and falsification of public
documents while in an office in Australia = liable under Philippine Courts; but if he committed
rape, he cannot necessarily be held liable because it is not related to his official functions as a
diplomat
SHOULD COMMIT ANY OF THE CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE ALW
OF NATIONS, DEFINED IN TITLE ONE OF BOOK TWO OF THIS CODE
Law of Nations Crimes against humanity (example Human Trafficking)
Examples: treason (Art114), conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art115), espionage
(Art117), inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals (Art118), violation of neutrality
(Art119), correspondence with hostile country (Art120), flight to enemys country (Art121), and
piracy and mutiny on the high seas (Art122)
RTC has original jurisdiction over all crimes and offenses committed on the high seas or beyond
the jurisdiction of any country on board a ship or warcraft of any kind registered in the
Philippines
10
Jurisdiction over homicide committed on board a foreign merchant vessel by a crew member
against another Philippines will only have jurisdiction if public peace is disturbed, otherwise,
the jurisdiction lies with the sovereignty of the home of the ship
*Crimes involving breach of public order committed on board a foreign merchant vessel in
transit (possession of opium) = not triable by our courts (reason: does not constitute breach of
public order without being within Philippine soil); if not in transit, liable for illegal importation
*Smoking opium on board a foreign vessel anchored within Philippine territory constitutes
breach of public order
Warship Rule a warship of another country, even though docked in the Philippines is
considered an extension of the territory of its respective country (acts done within a warship of
another country cannot be subjected to the criminal law of the Philippines
*Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board foreign warships in
territorial waters (warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which it
belongs and cannot be subject to the laws of another state; A US Army transport is considered a
warship)
11
ARTICLE 3
DEFINITIONS ACTS AND OMISSIONS PUNISHABLE BY LAW ARE FELONIES (DELITOS).
FELONIES ARE COMMITTED NOT ONLY BY MEANS OF DECEIT (DOLO) BUT ALSO
BY MEANS OF FAULTY (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.
*Deceit = intent
*Fault or Culpa Quasi-offenses (without intent)
FELONIES acts and omissions punishable by the RPC
-different fromCrime and Offense infractions of the law punished by special statutes
RPC
Special Law
Mala Prohibita (Ought
Mala in Se
to Know)
Wrongful from their Wrong merely because
nature
prohibited by statute
Intent is required to Intent is not Required as
determine whether or long as a violation was
not there is a violation
committed
Examples:
Acts of Lasciviousness vs. Harassment
Theft vs. Anti-Fencing Law
*Inherently immoral = mala in se even if punishable by special laws
Elements:
1. There must be an act or omission
2. The act or omission is punishable by RPC
3. Such act or omission is incurred by means of dolo or culpa
4. The act or omission must be done voluntarily
Act external act which has direct connection with the felony intended to be committed
*Internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal laws
*Only external act is punished
Omission inaction; the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do (there must
be a law requiring the doing or performance of an act)
Examples of felony by omission:
1. Abandonment of persons in danger
2. Illegal exaction for officers collecting taxes who voluntarily fails to issue a receipt
3. Persons owing allegiance to the Philippines not disclosing knowledge of conspiracy
against the government misprision of treason
*Mere passive presence at the scene of anothers crime, mere silence and failure to give the
alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, is not punishable
Punishable by law no crime where there is no law punishing it (punished by RPC not by a
special law)
Classifications of felonies:
Intentional Felonies
act or omission of the offender is malicious
Culpable Felonies
act or omission of the offender is not malicious
12
Requisites:
Freedom
Intelligence
Intent
done with deliberate intent (with the intention
to cause an injury to another)
Requisites:
Freedom
Intelligence
Negligence, Imprudence, Lack of foresight,
Lack of Skill
unintentional injury caused to another; done
without malice (imprudence, negligence, lack
of foresight, lack of skill)
As to nature
Mala in se
Wrong from its very nature
As to use of good
faith as a defense
Valid defense unless the crime

is a result of culpa
As to criminal intent
as an element
Degree
of
accomplishment
of
crime
As to mitigating and
aggravating
circumstances
As to degree of
participation
Essential element
As to stages of
execution
As
to
persons
criminally liable
As to which laws are

violated
As to division of
penalties
DOA is taken into account for

the punishment
Mala Prohibita
Wrong because it is prohibited by
law
Not a defense. Intent is not
necessary. it is sufficient that the
offender has the intent to perpetrate
the act prohibited by the special law
Immaterial but still requires
intelligence and voluntariness
The act gives rise to a crime only
when consummated
They are taken into account in

imposing penalty
They are not taken into account
When there is more than one

offender, it is taken into
consideration
3
stages:
attempted,
frustrated, consummated
Principal,
accomplice,
accessory
GR: not taken into consideration.

All who participated in the act are
punished to the same extent
No stages of execution
Penalty is computed on the

basis whether he is a principal
offender
or
merely
an
accomplice or accessory
RPC
Penalty of the offenders is same

whether they acted as mere
accomplices or accessories
Penalties may be divided into

degrees and periods
There is
penalties
Only principal is liable
Special Penal Laws

no
such
division
of
a. Dolo is not required in crimes mala prohibita.

b. In those crimes which are mala prohibita, the act alone irrespective of its motives,
constitutes the offense.
c. Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes mala
prohibita.
d. When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se, even if punished under
special law, like plunder which requires proof of criminal intent. [Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan (2001)]
e. Where malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.
13
f.
A crime in the RPC can absorb a crime punishable by a special lawif it is a necessary
ingredient of the felony defined in the Code but a special law can never absorb a crime
punishable under the RPC, because violations of the Revised Penal Code are more
serious than a violation of a special law. [People v. Rodriguez (1960)]
g. The crime of cattle-rustling is not malum prohibitum but a modification of the crime of
theft of large cattle under the RPC (i.e. there are special laws which only modify crimes
under the RPC therefore still mala in se). [People v. Martinada]
Dolus malice; intent to do an injury
IMPRUDENCE deficiency of action (lack of skills); fails to take the necessary precaution to
avoid injury to person or damage to property; performed without prudence in connection with
the circumstances
NEGLIGENCE deficiency of perception (lack of foresight); fails to pay proper attention and to
use due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused; performed without
taking into account the consequences
(Reason for punishing negligence: a man must use common sense and exercise due reflection in
all his acts; duty to be cautious, careful and prudent)
*Reckless Imprudence done voluntarily but without malice; doing or failing to do an act from
which material damage results (ex. Hunter with 2 companions Homicide through reckless
imprudence [People vs. Ramirez]); a person who caused an injury, without intention to cause an
evil may be held liable for culpable felony
Voluntary concurrence of intelligence, freedom and intent
*A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary, and in the absence of indubitable explanation, act
must be declared voluntary and punishable.
*Act becomes involuntary when there is compulsion or prevention by force or intimidation.
Reasons why the act or omission in felonies must be voluntary
1. RPC based on Classical Theory that the basis for criminal liability is human free will
2. Acts or omissions punished by law are always deemed voluntary since man is a rational
being
3. In intentional felonies, act performed with deliberate intent must necessarily be
voluntary, while in culpable felony, it is the voluntary doing or failing to do an act from
which material injury results
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.
Intentional Felonies The act or omission is performed or incurred with deliberate intent (with
malice) to cause an injury to another.
REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE: (FII)
1. Freedom [voluntariness] (reason: person who acts without freedom is not a human
being, he is a tool)
a. Voluntariness on the part of the person who commits the act or omission.
b. If there is lack of freedom, the offender is exempt from liability (i.e., presence of
irresistible force or uncontrollable fear)
2. Intelligence [Deliberate Intent] while doing or omitting to do an act (reason: without
intelligence to determine the morality of the act, there is no crime [examples, insane and
minors below 9 years of age])
a. Capacity to know and understand the consequences of ones act.
14
b. This power is necessary to determine the morality of human acts, the lack of
which leads to non-existence of a crime.
c. 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)
3. Criminal Intent or Malice (Malice or criminal intent is presumed and presumption arises
from the proof of commission of an unlawful act)
a. The purpose to use a particular means to effect a result.
b. 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.
c. However, in some crimes, intent cannot be presumed being an integral element
thereof; so it has to be proven.
d. Example: In frustrated homicide, specific intent to kill is not presumed but must
be proven; otherwise it is merely physical injuries.
e. Intent which is a mental process presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use
of intelligence.
f. If an act is proven to be unlawful, then intent will be presumed prima facie. [U.S.
v. Apostol]
g. An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which
arises from the commission of a felonious act.[People v. Oanis]
h. Mens rea: "A guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent."
[Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 889] Note: If any of the elements is absent,
there is no dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be no intentional felony. [Visbal
vs. Buban (2003)]
*A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force is not criminally liable
*A person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury I
not criminally liable also.
Without
Freedom
or
=
Intelligence
Without Intent
* Freedom + Intelligence Intent = No fault or Intention = no Liability

Example: A person conceals the belongings of another and denies such without a satisfactory
explanation = with intention
*Intent is necessary because:
1. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea the act itself does not make a man guilty unless
his intention were so
2. Actus me invite factus non est meus actus an done by me against my will is not my act
LIABILITY EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENT
Exception to the requirement of criminal intent:
(a) Felonies committed by CULPA.
(b) Offenses MALA PROHIBITA.
General Intent
(third element of voluntariness)
The intention to do something wrong
(Disputable presumption)
Specific Intent
The intention to commit a definite act
15
Presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act

Existence of intent not presumed
Burden of proof is upon the wrongdoer to Burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to
rebut that he acted without such criminal establish existence
intent
Presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the commission of an act which
is not unlawful
Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea a crime is not committed if the mind of the person
performing the act complained be innocent
GR: If it is proved that the accused committed the criminal act charged it is a presumption that
the act done was with criminal intention and the burden of proof rests with the accused to rebut
such presumption
Requisite: Act from which such presumption springs must be a criminal act
*No felony by dolo if there is no intent (mistake of fact) = not voluntary; no criminal intent
(example: sleepwalking)
Mistake of Fact (example: US vs. Achong landmark case)
Requisites:
1. (Lawful Facts / Belief) Act would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believed it to be
2. (Lawful Intention) Intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful
3. Without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused
Effect of Mistake of Fact:
1. Act will constitute justifying circumstance
2. Act will constitute an absolutory cause
3. Act will constitute an involuntary act
Ignorantia facti excusat ignorance or mistake fact relieves the accused from criminal liability
*Misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another = not liable =
did not act with criminal intent
Honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the
commission of a felonies act.
Danmum Absque Injuria Damage without Prejudice (example, US vs. Achong)
*Lack of intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the facts of the case
People vs. Oanis not mistake of fact (at fault)
*Mistake in Identity does not relieve the accused from criminal responsibility (acted maliciously
and willfully; there is intent)
*No crime of resistance when there is mistake of fact (A person who resist arrest believing the
peace officer to be a bandit but who submits to the arrest upon being informed by the peace
officer that he is a policeman is not guilty of resistance)
When there is negligence, mistake of fact is not a defense (example, People vs. De Fernando
stairs)
Requisites for Culpable Felonies [quasi-offenses; not from a criminal mind]:
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Imprudent, Negligent, Lack of foresight, Lack of skill
16
*In culpable felonies, the injury caused must be unintentional, it being the incident of another
act performed without malice (example, People vs. Guillen Bomb)
Causing damage or injury to another without malice or fault does no give rise to criminal
liability as long as the act performed is lawful (example: accident without fault or intention not
within the definition of intentional or culpable felony)
3 Classes of Crimes
1. Intentional Felonies
2. Culpable Felonies
3. Punishable by Special Laws
GR: Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws (reason: act is injurious to public
welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself)
Requisites:
1. Criminal Intent
2. Intent to perpetrate the Act
*It is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously crimes punished by special
laws, it is enough that the act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense)
Example: People vs. Bayona (Gun during Election Period Mala Prohibita)
*Good faith is and absence of criminal intent not a valid defense in crimes punished by special
laws (example: unlicensed possession is sufficient to sustain a conviction of illegal possession of
firearms)
Exception:
1. People vs. Landicho temporary and incidental possession of firearms enforcing the
law by collecting firearms
2. Civilian Guards
3. People vs. Mallari pending application for permanent permit to possess firearm with
advise of agent of the law to keep it in the meantime
4. People vs. Lucero civilian confidential agents entrusted with the duty of surveillance
and effecting the killing or capture of wanted persons
Intent to Commit
There must be a criminal intent
Motive
Moving power which
impels one to action for
a
definite
result
(example: revenge)
not an essential element
of a crime
Intent to Perpetrate
Prohibited act is
consciously
done
freely
Intent
Purpose to use
particular means
effect such result
a
to
Essential element of a
crime except in crimes
committed with culpa
Essential only when the

Essential in intentional
identity of the felon is in
felonie
doubt
*Person may not have the motive but has the intent
(example: serial killers)
*Good motive does not prevent an act from being a
crime
17
and
GR: Proof of motive is not necessary to pin a crime on the accused if the commission of the
crime has been proven and the evidence of identification is convincing
Exceptions:
1. When the act brings about variant crimes
2. There is doubt as to the identity of the assailant - Identity of the person accused of
having committed a crime is in dispute
3. Important in ascertaining the truth between 2 antagonistic theories or versions of killing
4. Identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony is
inconclusive and not free from doubt
5. No eyewitnesses and suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons
6. Evidence is merely circumstancial
How motive is proved
GR: Testimony of witnesses (Can also be proved by evidence)
*Proof of motive is not sufficient to support a conviction IF there is no reliable evidence from
which it may be reasonably deduced that the accused was the malefactor
*Strong motive to commit the crime cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt
because proof beyond reasonable doubt is the mainstay of our accusatorial system of criminal
justice
*Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused (example: sleepwalking)
18
ARTICLE 4
CRIMINAL LIABILITY CRIMINAL LIABILITY SHALL BE INCURRED:
1. BY PERSONS COMMITTING FELONY (DELITO) ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT
DONE BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED
2. BY PERSONS PERFORMING AN ACT WHICH WOULD BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST
PERSONS OR PROPERTY, WERE IT NOT FOR THE INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF
ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF
INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL MEANS ) Impossible Crimes
One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences
which may directly, naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or
intended or not.
Rationale of rule in par 1, Article 4
El que es causa de la cause es causa del mal causado he who is the cause of the cause is tha
cause of the evil caused (People vs. Mario Mariano girl died upon struggling from rape)
When a person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally liable for the result
which is not intended. (People vs Bindoy upon retaining the possession of his bolo; no
intention to hurt anyone)
Not Applicable in US vs. Divino rags with petroleum = physical injuries through reckless
imprudence and illegal practice of medicine
Coverage of Art 4 (1):
1. Mistake in Identity (Error in Personae) People vs. Oanis
2. Mistake in the Blow (Aberratio Ictus) - the offender intending to do an injury to one
person actually inflicts is on another. People vs. Mabugat (Intention to shoot Juana but
Perfecta was hit instead, lack of precision)
3. Injurious result is greater than that intended (Praeter Intentionem) People vs. Cagoco
[without intention to kill, he struck the victim in the head from behind causing victim to
fall and hit his head]
Article 4 (1) requisites:
1. Intentional Felony
2. Wrong done to the aggrieved party be direct, natural and logical consequence of felony
committed
No felony if:
1. Act or omission is not punishable by RPC
2. Justifying Circumstances
Any person who creates in anothers mind an immediate sense of danger, which
causes the latter to do something resulting in the latters injuries is liable for the
resulting injuries. (People vs Toling by instinct of self-preservation jumped from the water
which caused his death)
19
2nd Requisite of Art4(1): Wrong done to aggrieved party be direct, natural and logical
consequence of felony committed
1. Victim chased by a person with a knife jumped into the water and drowned (US vs
Valdez)
2. Wound inflicted by the accused caused extreme pain and restlessness causing victim to
remove the draining from the wound = death by peritonitis (People vs. Quianson)
3. Other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result, as long as the wound inflicted is
dangerous (calculated to endanger life) [if injury would not have caused death, then
there is no homicide]
4. Victim suffering from internal malady
a. Blow is the efficient cause of death
b. Blow accelerated death
c. Blow was the proximate cause of death
5. Offended party not obliged to submit to a surgical operatio0n to relieve accused from the
natural and ordinary results of his crime (People vs. Marasigan)
6. Resulting injury aggravated by infection (People vs. Martir) Accused is liable for all the
consequence of his acts and the infection of a wound he caused is one of the consequence
for which he is answerable. (US vs. de los Santos) Infection should not be due to the
malicious act of the offended party.
The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury
PROXIMATE CAUSE that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, producing the injury and without which the injury would not have
occurred
Natural occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events
Logical rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or
damage
*Felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury
PROXIMATE LEGAL CAUSE that acting first and producing the injury, wither 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.
*There must be a cause [felony] and effect [injury/death] relation which is NOT altered or
changed by pre-existing conditions (example, pre-existing conditions like pathological,
predisposition, concomitant/concurrent condition, conditions supervening the felony)
NOT proximate cause when:
1. Active force intervened between the felony committed and resulting injury
2. Resulting injury is due to the intentional act (desired to increase criminal liability of the
offender) of the victim (example, US vs. de los Santos cesspool)
ACTIVE FORCE direct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused
*Supervening event may be the subject of amendment of a new charge without being double
jeopardy (example, case filed was for slight physical injuries but it was found out that it will take
30days for the wound to heal = conversion of the case to serious physical injuries
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.
20
A supervening event may be the subject of amendment or original information or

of a new charge without double jeopardy
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES (Potential Crimes) indicative of criminal propensity or criminal
tendency on the part of the actor
Requisites:
1. Act performed would be an offense against persons or property
2. Act was done with evil intent
3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible or the means employed is inadequate or
ineffectual
4. Act performed should not constitute violation of another provision of the RPC
Felonies against persons:
1. Parricide (Art246)
2. Murder (Art248
3. Homicide (Art249)
4. Infanticide (Art255)
5. Abortion (Art256-259
6. Duel (Art260-261)
7. Rape (Art 266-a)
Felonies against Property:
1. Robbery (Art294, 297-303)
2. Brigandage (Art306-307)
3. Theft (Art 308, 310-311)
4. Usurpation (Art312-313)
5. Culpable Insolvency (Art314)
6. Swindling and other deceits (Art315-318)
7. Chattel Mortgage (Art319)
8. Arson and Other Crimes Involving Destruction (Art320-326)
9. Malicious Mischief (Art327-331)
No Crime and Not Impossible Crime A wanted to kill B but found B dead and stabbed B
(reason: no evil intent because A knew that B was already dead = no injury can be caused)
Inherent Impossibility of Accomplishment by:
1. Legal Impossibility occurs when an essential element of a crime is not present during
its commission making it impossible of accomplishment.
- Occurs when the intended act, even if complete would not amount to a crime.
- Ex. Impossibility of killing a person already dead
Would apply to those circumstances where:
(1) Motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law
(2) There is an intention to perform the physical act
(3) There is a performance of the intended physical act
(4) The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.
2. Physical (Factual) Impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to
the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.
21
Ex. A man who puts his hand on the cot pocket of another with the intention to steal
the latters wallet and finds the pocket empty
Examples:
1. A did not know that B was already dead and A shot B = impossible crime (legal and
physical)
2. A with intent to gain from B took Bs watch but later found out that it was the watch he
(A) lost = Impossible Crime (legal impossibility because in theft property taken must
belong to another)
Employment of Inadequate means (example, with intent to poison B, A put a small amount of
poison in the food believing it was sufficient)
*Adequate means employed but result expected was not produced is not impossible crime
but frustrated murder
Employment of ineffectual means (example, A tried to kill B by trying to put poison in Bs soup
but A put sugar instead, thinking it was arsenic = ineffectual means; A wanting to shoot B but
found out that it was empty when the trigger was pressed = ineffectual means = impossibility)
Purpose of the law in punishing impossible crimes
Suppress criminal propensity or tendencies
22
ARTICLE 5
DUTY OF THE COURT IN CONNECTION WITH ACTS WHICH SHOULD BE
REPRESSED BUT WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY LAW AND IN CASES OF EXCESSIVE
PENALTIES.
WHEN A COURT HAS KNOWLEDGE OF ANY ACT WHICH IT MAY DEEM PROPER
TO REPRESS AND WHICH IS NOT PUNISHABLE BY LAW, IT SHALL RENDER THE
PROPER DECISION AND SHALL REPORT TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, THROUGH THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE REASONS WHICH INDUCED THE COURTS TO BELIEVE
THAT THE SAID ACT SHOULD BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF PENAL LEGISLATION. Act
which should be repressed but are not covered by law
IN THE SAME WAY, THE COURT SHALL SUBMIT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE,
THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SUCH STATEMENT AS MAY BE DEEMED
PROPER, WITHOUT SUSPENDING THE EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCE, WHEN A
STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE WOULD RESULT IN THE
IMPOSITION OF A CLEARLY EXCESSIVE PENALTY, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE
DEGREE OF MALICE AND THE INJURY CAUSED BY THE OFFENSE. Excessive penalties
Basis of Art5(1)
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege no crime if there is no law that punishes the act.
Requisites of Art5(1):
1. Act committed appear not punishable by any law
2. Court deems it necessary to repress such act
3. Court must render the proper decision by dismissing the case or acquitting the accused
4. Make a report stating the reasons why the said act should be made the subject of penal
legislation
Requisites of Art5(2):
1. Court finds accused guilty after trial
2. Excessive penalty because:
a. Accused acted with lesser degree of malice and / or
b. There is no injury or injury caused is of lesser gravity
3. Court should not suspend the execution of the sentence
4. Judge should submit a statement recommending executive clemency
Executive clemency recommended for the wife who killed her cruel husband
Executive clemency recommended because of the severity of the penalty for rape.
Penalties are not excessive when intended to enforce a public policy.
Courts have the duty to apply the penalty provided by law
Judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the SC
* Article5 applies only to acts mala in se or crimes committed with criminal intent
23
ARTICLE 6
CONSUMATED, FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED FELONIES [Stages of acts of execution]

CONSUMMATED FELONIES, AS WELL AS THOSE WHICH ARE FRUSTRATED AND
ATTEMPTED ARE PUISHABLE.
A FELONY IS CONSUMMATED WHEN ALL THE ELEMENTS NECESSARY FOR ITS
EXECUTION AND ACCOMPLISHMENT ARE PRESENT AND IT IS FRUSTRATED WHEN
THE OFFENDER PERFORMS ALL THE ACTS OF EXECUTION WHICH WOULD PRODUCE
FELONY AS A CONSEQUENCE BUT WHICH, NEVERTHELESS, DO NOT PRODUCE IT BY
REASON OF CAUSES INDEPENDENT OG THE WILL OF THE PERPETRATOR.
THERE IS AN ATTEMPT WHEN THE OFFENDER COMMENCES THE COMMISSION
OF THE FELONY DIRECTLY BY OVERT ACTS, AND DOES NOT PERFORM ALL THE ACTS
OF EXECUTION WHICH SHOULD PRODUCE THE FELONY BY REASON OF SOME CAUSES
OR ACCIDENT OTHER THAN HIS OWN SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE.
CONSUMMATED all elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present
FRUSTRATED all acts of execution was performed but felony was not produced by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
ATTEMPTED commission of felony by overt acts was commenced but all the acts of
execution was not performed by reason of some causes or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance
Development of a crime
1. Internal Acts mere ideas in the mind (not punishable)
2. External Acts
a. Preparatory Acts (GR: not punishable) example, possession of picklocks
(Art304)
b. Acts of Execution punishable by RPC
ATTEMPTED FELONY
Elements:
1. Commences the commission of felony by directly overt acts
2. Does not perform all the acts which should produce felony
3. Offenders act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance
4. Non-performance of all acts of execution was due to some other cause or accident
Felony is deemed commenced when:
1. There is an external act
2. External acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed
The external acts must be related to the overt acts of the crime the offender
intended to commit.
OVERT ACTS physical activity or deed indicating intention to commit a particular crime,
more than mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following
its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles not by the voluntary desistance
of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
24
Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is not an overt act of homicide

Raising a bolo as if to strike the offended party with it is not an overt act of
homicide
*Overt acts may not be physical activity (example, proposal intended to bribe a public official or
employee)
The external acts must have a direct connection with the crime intended to be
committed by the offender
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE purpose of the offender in performing the act is not certain;
we do not know what crime is in the mind of the offender; crime has not yet been determined
and there are two possibilities when the accused was caught (People vs Lamahang)
Intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts executed by
him and not from his admission
*Acts susceptible of double interpretation cannot be considered as ground for attempted crime
*Offender must personally execute the commission of the felony by taking direct part in the
execution of the act
*Spontaneous desistance discontinuance of the crime by his own free will (not punishable it
is the laws reward to those having one foot on the verge of the crime and heeding the call of
their conscience and return to the path of righteousness)
Desistance should be made before all acts of execution are performed
*Spontaneous desistance exempts criminal liability for intended crime but does not exempt him
from crime committed before his desistance
Desistance which exempts from criminal liability has reference to the crime
intended to be committed and has no reference to the crime actually committed by
the offender before his desistance
SUBJECTIVE PHASE portion of acts constituting the crime starting from the point
offender begins the crime to the point where he still controls his acts, including his acts natural
course
OBJECTIVE PHASE no more control over his acts
FRUSTRATED FELONY
Elements:
1. Performs all acts of execution
2. Acts would produce felony as a consequence
3. Felony is not produced
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
*It is homicide / murder if felony is consummated and victim dies; but if victim survives =
frustrated
*Mortal wound without death = frustrated
*Wound which is not mortal or absence of wound = attempted (as long as there is intent to kill)
Stage of Execution held to be frustrated when wound inflicted was mortal
Stage of Execution held to be attempted when there was no wound inflicted or the
wound inflicted was not mortal.
25
Rules on Crimes Against Persons (murder, homicide, parricide and infanticide) and the stages of
execution:
Gravity of
Death
Intent
the
Crime
Wound
Presumed
Consummat
Yes
Conclusive Mortal
ed MHPI
ly by Law
Mortal
Frustrated
No
Yes
Wounds
MHPI
NonAttempted
No
Yes
Mortal
MHPI
Wounds
Overt Act
Attempted
No
Yes
only, no
MHPI
Wound
Serious
Mortal
No
No
Physical
Wound
Injuries
Less
NonSerious
/
No
No
mortal
Slight
Wound
Physical
Injuries
Impossible
Crime
Cannot
be
accomplished
Impossibility of
accomplishmen
t or ineffective
means
Evil intent is
present
although the
felony was not
accomplished
Frustrated
/
Attempted
Possible
accomplishmen
t
Accomplishmen
t stopped by
extraneous
variables
CONSUMMATED FELONY - All elements of felony must be present to hold accused liable
When not all the elements of a felony are proved
1. Felony is not shown to be consummated
2. Felony is not shown to be committed
3. Another felony is committed
How to determine whether the crime is only attempted or frustrated or it is
consummated? (NEM)
1. Nature of the offense (example, consummated arson any part of the house was burned
no matter how small; frustrated arson there is fire but no part was burned; attempted
arson about to set fire)
2. Elements constituting felony
3. Manner of committing the crime
26
a. Formal Crimes consummated in one instant, no attempt (example, slander and

false testimony)
b. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt acts (example,
fight to enemys country, corruption of minors, treason)
c. Felony by omission
d. Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them are
consummated by mere agreement (example, betting in sport contests and
corruption of public officials)
e. Material Crimes three stages of execution (attempted, frustrated and
consummated)
There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime (not attempted because acts of
execution was already performed; not frustrated because acts performed by offender are
considered to constitute consummated offense)
27
ARTICLE 7.
WHEN LIGHT FELONIES ARE PUNISHABLE LIGHT FELONIES ARE PUNISHABLE ONLY
WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN CONSUMMATED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE
COMMITTED AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY
LIGHT FELONIES: infractions of the law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto
menor [1-30days imprisonment] or a fine not exceeding 200pesos or both is provided [Art9 (3)]
General Rule
Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated (reason: felonies such
light, such insignificant moral and material injuries that public conscience is satisfied with
providing a light penalty for their consummation)
Exception
Light felonies committed against persons or property are punishable even if attempted or
frustrated (reason: felonies against persons or property presupposes in the offender moral
depravity)
Not consummated = no need for providing for its penalty
Light Felonies under RPC:
1. Slight physical injuries (Art266) against persons
2. Theft (Art309 (7) and (8)) against property
3. Alteration of boundary marks (Art313) against property
4. Malicious mischiefs (Art328 (3) and Art329(3)) against property
5. Intriguing against honor (Art 364) against persons
*Art309 (7) theft by hunting or fishing or gathering fruits, cereals or other forest or farm
products upon an enclosed estate or field where trespass is forbidden and the value of the thing
stolen does not exceed 5pesos
*Art309 (8) theft where the value of the stolen property does not exceed 5pesos and the
offender was prompted by hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood
28
ARTICLE 8
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY.

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY ARE PUNISHABLE ONLY IN
THE CASES IN WHICH THE LAW SPECIALLY PROVIDES A PENALTY THEREOF.
A CONSPIRACY EXISTS WHEN TWO OR MORE PERSONS COME TO AN
AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY AND DECIDE TO COMMIT
IT.
THERE IS PROPOSAL WHEN THE PERSON WHO HAS DECIDED TO COMMIT A
FELONY PORPOSES ITS EXECUTION TO SOME OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS.
CONSPIRACY 2 or more persons come into an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it
General Rule: Conspiracy is not a crime
Exception: law specifically provides for its penalty (Ex: treason, coup detat, rebellion,
insurrection and sedition) [reason: conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are preparatory
acts which the law regards as innocent or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional
cases]
Treason, coup detat, rebellion or sedition should not be actually committed
Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring
criminal liability
Article 186 of RPC punishing conspiracy. Monopolies and combinations in
restraint of trade
Requisites of Conspiracy:
1. 2 or more persons come into an agreement meeting of the minds
2. The agreement concerned the commission of a felony agreement to act, to effect or to
bring about
3. Execution of the felony be decided upon determination to commit the crime of treason,
rebellion or sedition
Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy
It may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused, before, during and after the
commission of the crime
-joint purpose and design
-concerted action
-community of interests
Conspiracy renders all the conspirators as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of
their participation because in contemplation of law, the act of one conspirator is the act of all.
29
Quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy (proven beyond reasonable doubt)

*No crime if conspirators do not perform overt acts in furtherance of their malevolent designs,
Sovereignty of State is not outraged and tranquility of the public is undisturbed.
Punishable Conspiracies:
1. Conspiracy to commit treason (Art115) prision mayor and fine not exceeding
10,000pesos
2. Conspiracy to commit coup detat, rebellion or insurrection (Art136) prision mayor in
its minimum period and fine not exceeding 8,000pesos
*Rebellion and insurrection punishable by prision correccional in its maximum period
and fine not exceeding 5,000pesos
3. Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art141) prision mayor in its medium period and fine
not exceeding 2,000pesos
Treason, Coup detat, rebellion or sedition should not be actually committed to be held liable for
conspiracy (sufficient that 2 or more persons agree and decide to commit such)
*If committed, they will be liable for the crime and the conspiracy will be considered as a
manner by which criminal liability is incurred not a separate offense
Conspiracy as Felony
Conspiracy as manner of
incurring
criminal
liability
Crime
actually
committed; the act of
one is the act of all;
conspiracy
is
not
punishable as a separate
offense
Examples:
1. A and B decided to rise publicly and take
arms against the govt with the help of their
followers = liable for conspiracy. But if it
was actually committed, they are liable for
rebellion and conspiracy is only a manner of
incurring criminal liability
2. A B and C decided to kill D. Even if they fail
to carry out the plan, there is no conspiracy
because the crime they conspired to commit
is murder, not treason, rebellion or sedition.
But if plan was executed, conspiracy is again
a manner of incurring criminal liability.
Indications of Conspiracy
1. People vs. Geronimo when the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one
performing one part and the other performing another part so as to complete it, with a
view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently
independent, were in fact concerted action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will
be justified in concluding that said defendants were engaged in a conspiracy
30
2. People vs. Cantuba accused has been held as a co-conspirator as the circumstances of
his participation indubitably showed unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the
unlawful acts, gleaned from that fact that he knew the plot to assassinate the victim as he
too had been ordered to scout for a man who could do the job; he also knew exactly the
place where the killing was to take place and also the date and approximate time of the
assault
3. People vs. Hernandez for a collective responsibility among the accused to be
established, it is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all of them acted in concert,
each doing his part to fulfill their common design to kill their victim, and although only
one of them may have actually stabbed the victim, the act of that one is deemed to be the
act of all
Acts of the defendants must show a common design there must be unity of purpose and unity
of execution of the unlawful objective
Period of time to afford opportunity for meditation and reflection is not required in conspiracy
conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the
felony
Art186 punishing conspiracy monopolies in restraint of trade prision coreccional in its
minimum period or fine ranging from 200-6,000pesos or both, upon those who (1) shall enter
into a contract or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a
trust or otherwise in restraint of trade or commerce to prevent by artificial means of free
competition in the market (3) any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, shall conspire
or agree with any person for the purpose of making transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce,
or of increasing the market price of any such merchandise
PROPOSAL (must not be actually committed)
Requisites:
1. Person has decided to commit a felony
2. He proposes its execution to some other person or persons
*Not necessary that the person to whom proposal is made agrees to commit treason or rebellion
There is no criminal proposal when:
1. Person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal
3. Not the execution of felony that is proposed
It is not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is made agrees to commit
treason or rebellion.
*Desistance before any rebellious act is actually performed = no proposal
Proposal as an overt act of corruption of public officer
Crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable
1. Treason external security of the State
2. Coup detat and rebellion internal security of the State
3. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade economic security
31
ARTICLE 9
GRAVE FELONIES, LESS GRAVE FELONIES, AND LIGHT FELONIES.

GRAVE FELONIES ARE THOSE TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES THE CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT OR PENALTIES WHICH IN ANY OF THEIR PERIODS ARE AFFLICTIVE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 25 OF THIS CODE.
LESS GRAVE FELONIES ARE THOSE WHICH THE LAW PUNISHED WITH
PENALTIES WHICH IN THEIR MAXIMUM PERIOD ARE CORECCIONAL, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ARTICLE.
LIGHT FELONIES ARE THOSE INFRACTIONS OF LAW FOR THE COMMISSION OF
WHICH THE PENALTY OF ARRESTO MENOR OR A FINE NOT EXCEEDING 200PESOS, OR
BOTH, IS PROVIDED.
Classification of felonies according to their gravity
1. Capital Punishment = death penalty
2. Grave Felonies = Afflictive Periods even if the word any is used, when penalty
prescribed is composed of two or more distinct penalties, the higher/highest of the two is
the afflictive penalty.
Art 25. Afflictive Penalties are:
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal
Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification
Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification
Prision Mayor; fine exceeding Php6,000
3. Less Grave Felonies =
Coreccional Penalties
Prison Correctional
Arresto Mayor
Suspension
Destierro; fine not exceeding Php6,000
4. Light Felony [arresto menor or fine not exceeding Php200 or both]
Death - indivisible
Reclusion perpetua - life imprisonment (20years and 1day to 40years)
Reclusion temporal - 12 yrs 1 day to 20 years
Prision Mayor - 6 yrs 1 day to 12 years
Prision correctional or destierro - 6 mos. 1 day to 6 years
Arresto Mayor - 1 month 1 day to 6 months
Arresto Menor - 1 day to 30 days
Fine
Public Censure - indivisible
32
ARTICLE 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 SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE THE CONTRARY.
RPC is not intended to supersede special laws.

RPC is considered supplementary to special laws unless contrary is provided.
SPECIAL LAWS penal law which punishes acts not defined and penalized by the Penal Code
Supplementary supplying what us lacking; additional
Provisions of penal code on penalties cannot be applied to offenses punishable
under special laws (reason: special laws do not provide for a scale of penalties and penalty
provided by special law does not contain three periods)
Where the special law adopted penalties from the RPC, the rules for graduating
penalties by degrees or determining the proper period should be applied
Article 6 of the RPC cannot be applied to offenses punished by special laws
Offenses under special laws, not subject to the provisions of this Code relating to
attempted and frustrated crimes
Attempted or frustrated stage of execution of an offense penalized by special law is not
punishable unless the special law provides a penalty therefor (special law has to fix penalties for
attempted and frustrated crime).
The special law has to fix penalties for attempted and frustrated crime
When special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime defined by it, the
attempted stage is punishable by the same penalty provided by that law.
Art 10 no applicable to punish an accomplice under special laws (People vs Padaong)
Plea of guilty is not mitigating in illegal possession of firearms punished by special
laws
This Code considered supplementary to special laws.
No accessory penalty unless the special law provides therefor
33
RPC not suppletory when the penalties under the special law are different from
those under the RPC
Special laws amending RPC are subject to its provisions.
Divisible Penalty Penalty which can be divided into 3 [Reclusion Perpetua is Indivisible]
Chapter Two
Justifying Circumstances
and Circumstances which Exempt from
Criminal Liability
The circumstances affecting Criminal Liability are:
1. Justifying Circumstances (Art11)
2. Exempting Circumstance (Art12) There is a crime but no criminal
3. Mitigating Circumstance (Art13) There is a crime but no full criminal / evil intent
(lesser penalty)
4. Aggravating Circumstances (Art14) example, taking advantage of ones knowledge
5. Alternative Circumstance (Art15) Depends, it may mitigate or aggravate
IMPUTABILITY quality by which the act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner;
implies that the act committed has been freely and consciously done
RESPONSIBILITY - obligation of suffering the consequences of the crime; obligation of taking
penal and civil consequences of the crime
GUILT element of responsibility for a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of
a crime unless he is guilty
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
34
ARTICLE 11
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES THE FOLLOWING DO NOT INCUR ANY CRIMINAL

LIABILITY:
1. ANYONE WHO ACTS IN DEFENSE OF HIS PERSON OR RIGHTS, PROVIDED THAT
THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES CONCUR:
FIRST. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
SECOND. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR
REPEL IT
THIRD. LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON
DEFENDING HIMSELF
2. ANYONE WHO ACTS IN DEFENSE OF THE PERSON OR RIGHTS OF HIS SPOUSE,
ASCENDANTS, DESCENDANT, OR LEGITIMATE, NATURAL, OR ADOPTED
BROTHERS OR SISTERS, OR OF HIS RELATIVES BY AFFINITY IN THE SAME
DEGREES, AND THOSE BY CONSANGUINITY WITHIN THE FOURTH CIVIL
DEGREE, PROVIDED THAT THE FIRST AND SECOND REQUISITES PRESCRIBED
IN THE NEXT RPECEEDING CIRCUMSTANCE ARE PRESENT, AND THE FURTHER
REQUISITE, IN CASE THE PROVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE PERSON
ATTACKED, THAT THE ONE MAKING DEFENSE HAD NO APRT THEREIN.
3. ANYONE WHO ACTS IN DEFENSE OF THE PERSON OR RIGHTS OF A STRANGER,
PROVIDED THAT THE FIRST AND SECOND REQUISITES MENTIONED IN THE
FIRST CIRCUMSTANCE OF THIS ARTICLE ARE PRESENT AND THAT THE PERSON
DEFENDING BE NOT INDUCED BY REVENG, RESENTMENT OR OTHER EVIL
MOTIVE.
4. ANY PERSON WHO, IN ORDER TO AVOID AN EVIL OR INJURY, DOES AN ACT
WHICH CAUSES DAMAGE TO ANOTHER, PROVIDED THAT THE FOLLOWING
REQUISITES ARE PRESENT:
FIRST. THAT THE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE AVOIDED ACTUALLY EXISTS
SECOND. THAT INJURY FEARED BE GREATER THAN THAT DONE TO AVOID IT
THIRD. THAT THERE BE NO OTHER PRACTICAL AND LESS HARMFUL MEANS OF
PREVENTING IT
5. ANY PERSON WHO ACTS IN THE FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR IN THE LAWFUL
EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
6. ANY EPRSON WHO ACTS IN OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR
FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE
There is no crime committed, the act being justified.
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 criminal and civil
liability
35
Justifying Circumstances = No crime committed (reason: the element of intent is lacking and
without it, there is no voluntariness and no felony)
GR: Prosecutor has the burden of proof
Exception: Burden of Proof is upon the accused to prove in order that criminal liability may be
avoided
GR: no civil liability
Exception: Art11 (4)
SELF-DEFENSE
*Must be proved by clear and convincing evidence accused must rely on his own evidence and
not on the weakness of the prosecutors evidence
*Includes not only the defense of the person / body but also his rights, the enjoyment of which is
provided by the law (life, property, honor)
Requisites of Self-Defense
1. Unlawful Aggression
2. Reasonable means employed to prevent or repel it
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
Reason why Self-Defense is Lawful
Impossible for the State to prevent aggression upon its citizens, even foreigners and offer
protection tot hose who were unjustly attacked; Mans instinct to protect, prevent, repel and
save his person / right from impending danger or peril (Self-preservation of man)
Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite (statutory and doctrinal requirement)
Aggression must be unlawful
*There is no self-defense when there is no unlawful aggression
No unlawful aggression = nothing to prevent = no basis for second element
2 Kinds of Aggression:
1. Lawful fulfillment of a duty or exercise of a right in a more or less violent manner
2. Unlawful assault or threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind; when
there is peril to ones life, limb or right, actual / imminent; there must be actual physical
force or actual use of weapon
Peril to ones life
1.) Actual danger must be present, that is, actually in existence
2.) Imminent danger is on the point of happening. It is not required that the attack
already begins for it may be too late.
Peril to ones limb.
The blow with a deadly weapon may be aimed at the vital parts of the body, in which case there
is danger to life; or with a less deadly weapon or any other weapon that can cause minor physical
injuries only, aimed at other parts of the body, in which case, there is danger only to his limb.
There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon
36
Slapping = unlawful aggression (reason: physical assault coupled with a willful disregard,
nay, a defiance of an individuals personality. Placing in real danger a persons dignity, rights
and safety)
Mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient
Foot-kick greeting is not unlawful aggression
No unlawful aggression because there was no imminent and real danger to the life
or limb of the accused
A strong retaliation for an injury may amount to an unlawful aggression.
Retaliation is not self-defense
Retaliation
Aggression that was begun by the injured party
already ceased to exist when the accused
attacked him
Self-defense
Aggression still existed when the aggressor
was injured or disabled by the person making
a defense.
Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance.

When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the right to kill or even wound the
former aggressor.
The attack made by the deceased and the killing of the deceased by defendant
should succeed each other without appreciable interval of time
Unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the accused
Public officer exceeding his authority is an unlawful aggressor
Nature, character, location and extent of wound of the accused inflicted by the
injured party contradicts the claim of self-defense
Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor contradicts the claim of selfdefense
The fact that the accused declined to give any statement when he surrendered to a
police man is inconsistent with the plea of self-defense.
Physical fact may determine whether the accused acted in self-defense
When aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists but if the retreat was
made in order to take a more advantageous position, unlawful aggression still
exists
Retreat to make more advantageous position
Agreement to fight = no unlawful aggression (challenge to fight must be accepted,
otherwise, it is self-defense)
Aggression which is ahead of the stipulated time and place is unlawful
37
One who voluntariyly joined a fight cannot claim self-defense

Stand ground when in the right where the accused is where he has a right to be, the law
does not require him to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly
weapon (reason: he runs the risk of being attacked in the back if he flees)
How to determine the unlawful aggressor
The person who was deeply offended by the insult was the one who believed he had the right to
demand explanation of the perpetrator of that insult and the one who also struck the first blow
when he was not satisfied with the explanation offered.
Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights
1.) Attempt to rape a woman defense of right to chastity
2.) Defense of property only when couple with an attack on the person of one entrusted with
said property
3.) Defense of home
The belief of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of
unlawful aggression
There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy pistol, provided the accused
believed it was a real gun
Threat to inflict real injury is unlawful aggression act must be offensive and positively
strong, showing wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause injury (threatening attitude is not
unlawful aggression) *Expected aggression is still real provided that it is imminent
Mere threatening attitude is not unlawful aggression
When intent to attack is manifest, picking up a weapon is sufficiently unlawful
aggression
Aggression must be real, not merely imaginary.
Reasonable Necessity on the means employed to prevent or repeal it
2nd Requisite of Self-Defense: Test of Reasonableness
1. Nature and quality of weapon used by aggressor
2. Physical condition, character, size and other circumstances
3. Physical condition, character, size of the person defending himself
4. Place and occasion of the assault
The necessity to take a course of action and to use a means of defense
The reasonableness of the necessity depends upon the circumstances
No necessity of the course of action taken
When aggressor is disarmed
38
When only minor injuries are inflicted after unlawful aggression has ceased to
exist, there is still self-defense if mortal wounds were inflicted at the time the
requisites of self-defense were present
Person defending himself is not expected to control his blows
reason: person in the heat of an encounter at close quarters, was not in a position to
reflect coolly or to wait after each blow to determine the effects thereof
In repelling or preventing unlawful aggression, the one defending must aim at his
assailant and not indiscriminately fire his deadly weapon (People vs Galacgac)
The test of reasonableness of the means used
Reasonable Necessity on the means employed to prevent or repeal unlawful
aggression to be liberally construed in favor of law-abiding citizens
Rule regarding the reasonableness of the necessity of the means employed when
the one defending himself is a peace officer
The first two requisited common to three kinds of legitimate defense
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
No provocation at all
There was no provocation but not sufficient
How to determine the sufficiency of provocation
Sufficient provocation not given by the person defending himself
Requisite of lack of sufficient provocation referes exclusively to the person
defending himself
Provocation by the person defending himself not proximate and immediate to the
aggression
Battered woman syndrome as a defense
Flight, incompatible with self-defense
Relatives that can be defended
Relatives by Affinity
Relatives by consanguinity
Defense of relatives also requires that there be unlawful aggression
The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is immaterial
39
Who are deemed strangers?

Fulfillment of a duty
When an escaping detainee charged ith a relatively minor offense of stealing a
chicken was shot to death by a policeman
Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified
Legitimate performance of a duty
Illegal performance o fa duty
Distinguished from self-defense and from consequence of felonios act
Lawful exercise of right or office
Doctrine of self-help under Art 429, Civil Code, applied in criminal Law
The actual invasion of property may consist of a mere disturbance of possession or
of a real dispossession
When the order is not for a lawful prupose, the subordinate who obeyed it is
criminally laible
The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior, if he
is not aware of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent
40
ARTICLE 12
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES grounds for exemption from punishment because there is
wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or
negligent.
Basis: The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence,
freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.
Burden of proof: Any of the circumstances is a matter of defense and must be proved by the
defendant to the satisfaction of the court.
Par. 1 Imbecility or Insanity
IMBECILE one while advanced in age has a mental development comparable to that of
children between 2 and 7 years old. He is exempt in all cases from criminal liability.
INSANE one who acts with complete deprivation of intelligence/reason or without the least
discernment or with total deprivation of freedom of will. Mere abnormality of the mental
faculties will not exclude imputability.
General Rule: Exempt from criminal liability
Exception: The act was done during a lucid interval.
NOTE: Defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the
crime because the presumption is always in favor of sanity.
Par. 2 Under Nine Years of Age
Requisite: Offender is under 9 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime. There is
absolute criminal irresponsibility in the case of a minor under 9 years of age.
NOTE: Under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice And Welfare Act a minor 15 years and below is
exempt from criminal liability
Par. 3 Person Over 9 and Under 15 Acting without discernment
NOTE: Such minor must have acted without discernment to be exempt. If with discernment, he
is criminally liable.
41
Presumption: The minor committed the crime without discernment.

DISCERNMENT mental capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of the unlawful act,
which is shown by the:
1. manner the crime was committed
2. conduct of the offender after its commission
NOTE: Under R.A. 9344 a minor over 15 but but below 18 who acted without discernment is
exempt from criminal liability
Par. 4 Accident without fault or intention of causing it
Elements:
1. A person is performing a lawful act
2. with due care
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
Par. 5 Irresistible Force
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE offender uses violence or physical force to compel another person to
commit a crime.
Elements:
1. The compulsion is by means of physical force.
2. The physical force must be irresistible.
3. The physical force must come from a third person.
NOTE: Force must be irresistible so as to reduce the individual to a mere instrument.
Par. 6 Uncontrollable Fear
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to
commit a crime.
DURESS use of violence or physical force
Elements:
1. The threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than, or at least equal to, that which he is
required to commit.
2. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that an ordinary man would have
succumbed to it.
NOTE: Duress to be a valid defense should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for
ones life or limb. It should not be inspired by speculative, fanciful or remote fear. A threat of
future injury is not enough.
ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS
ACTUS Any act done by me against my will is not my act.
PAR 7. Insuperable Cause
INSUPERABLE CAUSE some motive, which has lawfully, morally or physically prevented a
person to do what the law commands
42
Elements:
1. An act is required by law to be done.
2. A person fails to perform such act.
3. His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.
Ex:
1. A priest cant be compelled to reveal what was confessed to him.
2. No available transportation officer not liable for arbitrary detention
3. Mother who was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility, leaving child to die not
liable for infanticide (People v. Bandian, 63 Phil 530)
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES where the act committed is a crime but for some reason of public
policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed. Exempting and justifying circumstances are
absolutory causes.
Examples of such other circumstances are:
1. spontaneous desistance (Art. 6)
2. accessories exempt from criminal liability (Art. 20)
3. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
4. persons exempt from criminal liability from theft, swindling, malicious mischief (Art 332)
5. instigation
NOTE: Entrapment is NOT an absolutory cause. A buy-bust operation conducted in connection
with illegal drug-related offenses is a form of entrapment.
Entrapment
The ways and means are resorted to for the
purpose of trapping and capturing the
lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal
plan.
NOT a bar to accuseds prosecution and
conviction
NOT an absolutory Cause
Instigation
Instigator practically induces the would-be
accused into the commission of the offense
and himself becomes a co-principal
Accused will be acquitted
Absolutory cause
43

Crim Law Notes

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Crim Law Notes

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CRIMINAL LAW

Criminal Law, defined.

BILL OF ATTAINDER legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial

5. Exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself

Example of Law of preferential application: R.A. 75 in favor of diplomatic representatives and

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

REVISED PENAL CODE

c. Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Valid defense unless the crime

As to which laws are

DOA is taken into account for

They are taken into account in

They are not taken into account

When there is more than one

GR: not taken into consideration.

Penalty is computed on the

Penalty of the offenders is same

Penalties may be divided into

Only principal is liable

Special Penal Laws

a. Dolo is not required in crimes mala prohibita.

* Freedom + Intelligence Intent = No fault or Intention = no Liability

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Essential only when the

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

A supervening event may be the subject of amendment or original information or

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

CONSUMATED, FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED FELONIES [Stages of acts of execution]

Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is not an overt act of homicide

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

a. Formal Crimes consummated in one instant, no attempt (example, slander and

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT FELONY.

Quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy (proven beyond reasonable doubt)

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

GRAVE FELONIES, LESS GRAVE FELONIES, AND LIGHT FELONIES.

RPC is not intended to supersede special laws.

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES THE FOLLOWING DO NOT INCUR ANY CRIMINAL

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance.

One who voluntariyly joined a fight cannot claim self-defense

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Who are deemed strangers?

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Presumption: The minor committed the crime without discernment.

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Criminal Law I Comprehensive Notes | MAE Coquilla 2015

Você também pode gostar