CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW 1) GENERAL Criminal Law is binding on ALL PERSONS who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory

2) PROSPECTIVE A Penal Law cannot make an act punishable in a manner which was lawful when done (EXCEPTIONS: ART. 22, RPC) 3) TERRITORIAL Criminal Laws undertake to punish crimes within Philippine territory (EXCEPTIONS: ART.2, RPC)

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. RULES AS TO JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSELS: y FRENCH RULE such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered ENGLISH RULE such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect things within the vessel or refer to the internal management therof. In the PHILIPPINES, we follow the ENGLISH RULE

EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROSPECTIVITY OF THE RPC: Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. y

PP VS. WONG CHENG (EXCEPTION TO THE ENGLISH RULE) EXCEPTIONS TO THE TERRITORIALITY THE RPC: Art. 2. Application of its provisions. Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who: 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands; 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number; The point at issue is whether the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction over crime, like the one herein involved, committed aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdiction waters. 1awph!l.net There are two fundamental rules on this particular matter in connection with International Law; to wit, the French rule, according to which crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessels should not be prosecuted in the courts of the country within whose territorial jurisdiction they were committed, unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory; and the English rule, based on the territorial principle and followed in the United States, according to which, crimes perpetrated under such circumstances are in general triable in the courts of the country within territory they were committed. Of this two rules, it is the last one that obtains in this jurisdiction, because at present the theories and jurisprudence prevailing in the United States on this matter are authority in the Philippines which is now a territory of the United States. In the cases of The Schooner Exchange vs. M'Faddon and Others (7 Cranch [U. S.], 116), Chief Justice Marshall said:

1|P ag e

JLA GAMBE

MT Notes in Criminal law I

. . . When merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. . . . In United States vs. Bull (15 Phil., 7), this court held: . . . No court of the Philippine Islands had jurisdiction over an offense or crime committed on the high seas or within the territorial waters of any other country, but when she came within three miles of a line drawn from the headlands, which embrace the entrance to Manila Bay, she was within territorial waters, and a new set of principles became applicable. (Wheaton, International Law [Dana ed.], p. 255, note 105; Bonfils, Le Droit Int., secs. 490 et seq.; Latour, La Mer Ter., ch. 1.) The ship and her crew were then subject to the jurisdiction of the territorial sovereign subject to such limitations as have been conceded by that sovereignty through the proper political agency. . . . It is true that in certain cases the comity of nations is observed, as in Mali and Wildenhus vs. Keeper of the Common Jail (120 U.., 1), wherein it was said that: . . . The principle which governs the whole matter is this: Disorder which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on board are to be dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship, but those which disturb the public peace may be suppressed, and, if need be, the offenders punished by the proper authorities of the local jurisdiction. It may not be easy at all times to determine which of the two jurisdictions a particular act of disorder belongs. Much will undoubtedly depend on the attending circumstances of the particular case, but all must concede that felonious homicide is a subject for the local jurisdiction, and that if the proper authorities are proceeding with the case in the regular way the consul has no right to interfere to prevent it. Hence in United States vs. Look Chaw (18 Phil., 573), this court held that:

Although the mere possession of an article of prohibited use in the Philippine Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit in any local port, does not, as a general rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts of the Islands, such vessels being considered as an extension of its own nationality, the same rule does not apply when the article, the use of which is prohibited in the Islands, is landed from the vessels upon Philippine soil; in such a case an open violation of the laws of the land is committed with respect to which, as it is a violation of the penal law in force at the place of the commission of the crime, no court other than that established in the said place has jurisdiction of the offense, in the absence of an agreement under an international treaty. We have seen that the mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit was held by this court not triable by or courts, because it being the primary object of our Opium Law to protect the inhabitants of the Philippines against the disastrous effects entailed by the use of this drug, its mere possession in such a ship, without being used in our territory, does not being about in the said territory those effects that our statute contemplates avoiding. Hence such a mere possession is not considered a disturbance of the public order. But to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the public order here established, because it causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our territory. It seriously contravenes the purpose that our Legislature has in mind in enacting the aforesaid repressive statute. Moreover, as the Attorney-General aptly observes: . . . The idea of a person smoking opium securely on board a foreign vessel at anchor in the port of Manila in open defiance of the local authorities, who are impotent to lay hands on him, is simply subversive of public order. It requires no unusual stretch of the imagination to conceive that a foreign ship may come into the port of Manila and allow or solicit Chinese residents to smoke opium on board. y MALA IN SE generally refers to felonies defined and penalized by the RPC; when crimes are inherently immoral, they are mala in se, even if punished by special laws. Here, criminal intent governs

2|P ag e

JLA GAMBE

MT Notes in Criminal law I

MALA PROHIBITA generally refers to acts made criminal by special laws; here the only inquiry is: has the law been violated? The determination of criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy FELONIES

Art. 3. Definitions. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

y y y y y y y

INTENT MOTIVE, WHEN RELEVANT & WHEN IT NEED NOT BE ESTABLISHED ABERRATIO ICTUS, ERROR IN PERSONAE, PRAETER INTENTIONEM ARTICLE 27 DISTINGUISH RECLUSION PERPETUA FROM LIFE SENTENCE WHEN IS A FINE AFFLICTIVE? COMPLEX CRIME

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. REQUISITES: 1) only a SINGLE ACT IS PERFORMED by the offender 2) that the single act produces: a. 2 or more grave felonies or b. 1 or more grave and 1 or more less grave felonies c. two or more less grave felonies

y y y

REQUISITES OF CULPA REQUISITES OF NEGLIGENCE IMPOSSIBLE CRIME - act which would be an offense against

persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. (ART. 4, PAR. 2) When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos. (ART.59)

1)

TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES: COMPOUND CRIME when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave offenses COMPLEX CRIME PROPER when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other

2)

SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES complex crimes punished by special laws (example: robbery with homicide, kidnapping with murder or homicide, etc.) PLURALITY OF CRIMES consists in the successive execution by the same individual of different criminal acts upon which no conviction has yet been declared 2 KINDS: FORMAL OR IDEAL PLURALITY (Art.48 provides for 2 cases of this kind. There is but one criminal liability for this kind) REAL OR MATERIAL PLURALITY

1)

2)

MOTIVE

3|P ag e

JLA GAMBE

MT Notes in Criminal law I

y y

CONTINUING AND TRANSITORY CRIMES JUSTIFYING, EXEMPTING, MITIGATING(TYPES), AGGRAVATING(TYPES), ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. Art. 18. Accomplices. Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. Art. 19. Accessories. Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:chan robles virtual law library 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery. 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: -Based on the higher degree of perversity of the offender manifested at the time of the commission of the felony  GENERIC- Will cause the prescribed penalty to be imposed in its maximum period if not offset by a mitigating circumstance; need not be alleged in the information QUALIFYING- may change the nature of the crime and make the penalty more severe; to be considered as such, it has to be raised in the information otherwise even if proven it would be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance

ARTICLES 16- 20

Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: 1. Principals. 2. Accomplices. 3. Accessories. The following are criminally liable for light felonies: 1. Principals 2. Accomplices. Art. 17. Principals. The following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER

4|P ag e

JLA GAMBE

MT Notes in Criminal law I

PP VS. TOLING Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended". The presumption is that "a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act" (Sec. 5[c], Rule 131, Rules of Court). The rule is that "if a man creates in another man's mind an immediate sense of danger which causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing he injures himself, the person who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the injuries which result" (Reg. vs. Halliday 61 L. T. Rep. [N.S.] 701, cited in U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 4911, 500). Following that rule, is was held that "if a person against whom a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water, impelled by the instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is responsible for homicide in case death results by drowning" (Syllabus, U.S. vs. Valdez, supra, See People vs. Buhay, 79 Phil. 371). The twins are liable for eight (8) murders and one attempted murder. (See People vs. Salazar, 105 Phil. 1058 where the accused Moro, who ran amuck, killed sixteen persons and wounded others, was convicted of sixteen separate murders, one frustrated murder and two attempted murders; People vs. Mortero, 108 Phil. 31, the Panampunan massacre case, where six defendants were convicted of fourteen separate murders; People vs. Remollino, 109 Phil. 607, where a person who fired successively at six victims was convicted of six separate homicides; U. S. Beecham, 15 Phil. 272, involving four murders; People vs. Macaso, 85 Phil. 819, 828, involving eleven murders; U.S. vs. Jamad, 37 Phil. 305; U.S. vs. Balaba, 37 Phil. 260, 271. Contra: People vs. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 82, 102-103; People vs. Floresca, 99 Phil. 1044; People vs. Sakam, 61 Phil. 27; People vs. Lawas, 97 Phil. 975; People vs. Manantan, 94 Phil. 831; People vs. Umali, 96 Phil. 185; People vs. Cu Unjiengi, 61 Phil. 236; People vs. Penas, 66 Phil. 682; People vs. De Leon, 49 Phil. 437, where the crimes committed by means of separate acts were held to be complex on the theory that they were the product of a single criminal impulse or intent).

5|P ag e

JLA GAMBE

MT Notes in Criminal law I