Sunteți pe pagina 1din 33

CRIMINAL

LAW 1 REVIEWER

TITLE I: FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH


AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY

CHAPTER 1: FELONIES


Article 3. Definitions
Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies.

Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by
means of fault (culpa).

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and
there is fault when the act results from imprudence, negligence, lack
of foresight, or lack of skill.

POINTS

I. Elements of Felonies
1. There must be an act or omission.
2. Said act or omission must be punishable by Revised Penal Code.
3. Said act or omission must be performed by means of deceit or
fault.

II. FIRST REQUISITE: There Must Be An Act Or Omission
A. Important Words And Phrases
Act
o Any bodily movement tending to produce some effect
in the external world.
No need for it to actually be produced.
Possibility of its production suffices.
o Must be defined as a felony in the Revised Penal Code
At least an overt act an act which has direct
connection with the felony to be committed.

Omission
o Failure to perform a positive duty that one is bound to
do
There must be a law requiring the doing or
performance of an act
o Examples
Article 275, par. 1 Abandonment of persons
in danger.
Article 213, par. 2[b] Failure to issue
receipts
Article 116 Misprision of Treason.


B. Are Internal Acts Covered By The Revised Penal Code?
No because they are beyond the sphere of penal law. Thinking
of committing a felony does not constitute a felony unless you
act on it.
Thus, only external act is punished.

III. SECOND REQUISITE: Said Act Or Omission Must Be Punishable By
Revised Penal Code
Punishable by law
o Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
There is no crime when there is no law
punishing it
Case: People v. Silvestre and Atienza
o Atienza threatens to burn down a house; Silvestre is
standing right beside him.
o Silvestre does nothing as Atienza commits the crime.
o Court ruled that Silvestre is not criminally liable
because mere passive presence at the scene of
anothers crime, mere silence, and a failure to give the
alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy is
not punishable


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



IV. THIRD REQUISITE: Said Act Or Omission Performed By Means Of
Deceit Or Fault
A. Classification Of Felonies: Intentional v. Culpable
1. Intentional Felonies
o Act is performed with deliberate intent (malice).
o Offender has the intention to cause an injury to the
person, property or right of another.
o Crimes which cannot be committed through
imprudence or negligence such as murder, treason,
robbery, and malicious mischief.
o Requisites of dolo (malice)
Freedom
Without freedom, a person is no longer
a human being, but a tool.
There is no freedom if the offender is
under the compulsion of an irresistible
force or uncontrollable fear.
Intelligence
Intelligence is necessary to determine
the morality of human acts. Without
this, no crime can exist.
The imbecile, insane, infant under 9
years of age, and minor between 9-15
years of age have no criminal liability.
Intent
This is presumed from the proof of the
commission of an unlawful act
2. Culpable Felonies
o The injury caused is unintentional, it being simply the
incident of another act performed without malice.
People v. Guillen
Accused threw a grenade at the
president in an attempt to kill him and
ended up killing other people

Accused did not commit a culpable


felony because deliberate intent to do
an unlawful act is essentially
inconsistent with the idea of reckless
imprudence
Acts resulting from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.
Reason for punishing acts of negligence:
A man must use his common sense and
exercise due reflection in all his actions.
He is responsible for such results as anyone
might foresee and for his acts which no one
would have performed except through culpable
abandon.
Examples
US v. Divina
Defendant who is not a medical
practitioner ties up a girl and sets her
on fire. He claims he is trying to cure
her ulcer and that he acted in good
faith.
Defendant is guilty of physical injury
through imprudence
People v. Lopez
A man runs over a girl with his truck
despite him not intending to do so.
Man convicted of reckless imprudence
The driver should have taken the
precaution necessary to avoid injury to
persons because he was neither
compelled to refrain from or prevented
from doing so.

o
o


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



o

Definition of reckless imprudence consists in


voluntarily but without malice, doing or failing to do an
act from which material damage results.


B. Both Intentional And Culpable Felonies Are Voluntary
Reasons
o Man has free will.
o Man is a rational being who can distinguish between
good and evil.
o Intentional felonies were intended while culpable
felonies resulted from acts, which were voluntary but
not intended as felonies.
Acts cease to be voluntary when there is compulsion or
prevention by force or intimidation

V. Intent
Intent is a mental state manifested through the overt acts of
people.
o A person who causes an injury by mere accident does
not have intent therefore is not criminally liable.
When the acts naturally produce a definite result, courts are
slow in concluding that some other result was intended
o People v. Sia Teh Ban
Respondent stole a watch therefore showing
intent to gain.
Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime
are always presumed to exist on the part of the
person who executes an act which the law
punishes, unless the contrary shall appear
Lack of intent to kill the deceased because offender meant to
kill another person does not clear the offender of criminal
liability.
Lack of intent may be inferred from the facts of the case.

A. Presumption Of Criminal Intent Does Not Arise From The Proof Of


The Commission Of An Act Which Is Not Unlawful.
US v. Catolico
o Judge orders money deposited by the defendants as a
bond to be given to the plaintiff. Judge is subsequently
accused of malversation.
o It was ruled that his original act was not unlawful
therefore there was no criminal liability.
o Actus non facit reum, nisi mens set rea
The act itself does not make a man guilty unless
his intentions were so.

B. Criminal Intent Is Necessary In Felonies Committed By Means Of
Dolo
There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent.
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus
o An act done by me against my will is not my act.
o Example
People who commit crimes while sleepwalking
do not incur criminal liability because there was
no intent (People v. Taneo).

C. Distinction Between General Intent And Specific Intent
Some felonies necessitate specific types of intent.
o Robbery necessitates intent to gain.
o Frustrated homicide necessitates intent to kill.
When the accused is charged with intentional felony, absence
of criminal intent is a plausible defense.
o If there is only error on the part of the accused, he does
not act with malice and as such, he cannot be liable for
intentional felony.
Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in
felonies committed by means of culpa.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

10

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



VI. Mistake Of Fact
A. General Points
Ignorantia facti excusat
o Ignorance of fact relieves the accused from criminal
liability.
Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of
the person who injury to another. He is not criminally liable,
because he did not act with criminal intent.
An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal
intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act.

B. Requisites Of Mistake Of Fact As A Defense:
1. Act would have been lawful is facts were as the accused
believed them to be.
o US v. Ah Chong
Accused killed a man because after taking all of
the necessary precautions, he thought that he
was being attacked by a robber
Acquitted by mistake of fact because had the
facts been as the accused thought, his actions
would have constituted self defense. Also, the
circumstances pressed him for immediate and
decisive action
o People v. Oanis
Killed a sleeping man because he was mistaken
for an escaped felon.
Accused was convicted because he did not take
all the necessary precautions needed to verify
the identity of the person and the accused had
no authority to shoot a sleeping man even if he
was the escaped felon. Lastly, the
circumstances did not press him for immediate
and decisive action.
2. Intention of the accused must be lawful.

When an unlawful act is done willfully, mistake of the


identity of an intended victim does not relieve the
accused of criminal responsibility (People v. Gona).
o Mistake in the identity of the intended victim is not
reckless imprudence (People v. Guillen).
3. Mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of
the accused
o People v. De Fernando
Accused shot a man going up the stairs because
he thought he was an escaped felon
Accused is guilty of homicide through reckless
negligence because he failed to take all the
necessary precautions to ensure the identity of
the man he eventually shot
The act done by the accused would have constituted:
o A justifying circumstance (Article 11)
o Absolutory clause (Article 247)
o An involuntary act
Resisting arrest is not a crime when there is a mistake of fact
o


VII. Crimes Punishable By Special Laws
A. General Points
Includes crimes punishable by municipal or city ordinances.
Dolo is not required.
o It is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and
consciously.
o The act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes
the offense.
People v. Bayona
Unwittingly but voluntarily brought a
gun into a polling place
Convicted because no matter what his
intentions were, the act prohibited by
the special laws was committed


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

11

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER


Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetuate the act


must be distinguished
o If there is no intent to perpetrate the act prohibited,
there is no criminal liability


B. Reasons Why Criminal Intent Is Not Necessary In Crimes Made By
Statutory Enactment
The act in itself, without the intervention of any other fact, is
the evil.
o Example: Law Prohibiting display of revolutionary flags
The evil to society and to the government does
not depend upon the state of mind of the one
who displays the banner, but upon the effect
which that display has upon the public mind.
The public is not affected by the intention of
the offender but by the act itself.
When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is
considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the
doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.

C. Good Faith And Absence Of Criminal Intent Are Not Valid Defenses
In Crimes Punished By Special Laws
Since the offense is malam prohibitum, the performance of the
act itself will constitute the offense.
Exceptions:
o People v. Landicho If it is done in order to comply
with government policies.
When there is a law prohibiting the carrying of
loose firearms in relation to a man who was
authorized to buy and collect guns to be sold to
the authorities later on, that individual is not
criminally liable.
This is not the same if the man held on to the
firearms for a undue length of time when he

had all the chances to surrender it to the


proper authorities.
o People v. Asa & US v. Samson Civilian guards who
acted in good faith and never had any intention of
committing an offense against the law prohibiting the
carrying of loose firearms because they believed their
position in the civilian guard association warranted the
carrying of such firearms.
o Peope v. Mallari When the accused has a pending
application for permanent permit to possess a firearm
and whose possession in not unknown to the
authorities who actually advised him to keep his
firearm for the meantime.
o People v. Lucero When accused was given authority
to carry a revolver in order to capture or kill a wanted
person.
In all cases mentioned, the absence of intent to violate the law
was considered in favor of the accused.


VIII. Mala In Se And Mala Prohibita Distinguished
General rule: Acts in mala in se, there must be a criminal
intent; but those in mala prohibita it is sufficient if the
prohibited act was intentionally done.

A. Mala In Se
Wrongful from its nature.
Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society
as to call for almost unanimous condemnation from its
members.
Punishable by Revised Penal Code.

B. Mala Prohibita
Wrongful because it is prohibited by a statute.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

12

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER


Violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a


more orderly regulation of the affairs of society
Found in special laws.
Refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws.


C. When The Acts Are Inherently Immoral, They Are Mala In Se Even If
Punished Under Special Law
People v. Sunico et al.
o Voters names were omitted from the list.
o The act was mala in se because the omission and failure
to include a voters name in the registry list of voters is
not only wrong because it is prohibited, it is wrong per
se because it disenfranchises a voter and violates one
of his fundamental rights.
o For such an act to be punished, it must be shown that
said act was committed with malice.

IX. Motive
A. Intent Distinguished From Motive
Motive The moving power which impels one to action for a
definite result.
Intent The purpose to use a particular means to effect such
result.

B. Motive: When Relevant And When Not Need To Be Established
Not an essential element of a crime; need not be proven for
purposes of a conviction.
o Even a strong motive cannot take the place of proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
Good motives do not prevent an act from becoming a crime
o Example: Mercy Killing
Relevance:
o When the identity of the perpetrator is being disputed,
the motive is very relevant (People v. Murray).

Not applicable if perpetrator has been


positively identified (People v. Gadiana).
Not applicable if perpetrator admits to crime
(People v. Arcilla).
When ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic
theories or versions of the killing (People v. BoholstCaballero; People v. Lim; People v. Tabije)
Where the identification of the accused proceeds from
an unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive
and not free from doubt, evidence of motive is
necessary (People v. Beltran).
When there are no eyewitnesses and suspicion falls on
a lot of people (People v. Melgar).
When evidence is merely circumstantial (People v.
Oquio).
Not applicable if guilt is established by
sufficient evidence (People v. Corpuz).
When there is no doubt that the accused committed
the crime, his motives are unimportant (People v.
Feliciano).

o
o


C. How Motive Is Proved
Established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or
statements of the accused before or immediately after the
commission of the offense.
Establishment through the evidence presented.
Lack of motive may be aid in showing innocence.
Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction.
It cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt,
sufficient to overthrow presumption of innocence.

Article 4. Criminal liability
Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

13

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



wrongful act be different from that which he intended.
2. By an person 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.

POINTS

I. The Manner Of Incurring Criminal Liability Under The Revised Penal
Code Is Stated In Article 3
This article has not reference to the manner criminal liability is
incurred.

II. One Who Commits An Intentional Felony Is Responsible For All The
Consequences Which May Naturally And Logically Result Therefrom,
Whether Foreseen Or Intended Or Not
One is not relieved from the criminal liability for the natural
consequence of ones illegal acts, merely because one does not
intend to produce such consequences.
o Thus, one who fired his gun at B, but missed and hit C
instead, is liable for the injury caused to C, although the
one who fired the gun had no intention to injure C.

III. Rationale Of Article 4
El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado
o He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
caused.

IV. Important Words
Committing a felony
o Act or omission has to be punishable by the Revised
Penal Code.
o Necessitates malice because of the phrase that which
he intended.

Cannot therefore be an act or omission punished by a


special law because the offender violating such a law
may not have the intent to do an injury to another.
US v. Divino
Defendant who is not a medical
practitioner ties up a girl and sets her
on fire. He claims he is trying to cure
her ulcer and that he acted in good
faith.
He is not guilty of a felony because he
had no intent to harm. He is however
guilty of physical injury through
imprudence and/or illegal practice of
medicine.
Although the wrongful act be different from that which he
intended
o Causes
Mistaken identity (error in personae) A
shoots B because he thinks he is C.
Mistaken blow (aberration ictus) A tries to
shoot B but accidentally shoots C.
The act exceeds the intent (praeter
intentionem) A only intends to injure B but
ends up killing him.
o Examples
People v. Mabugat
Accused and B were sweethearts. They
got into a fight and one night, accused,
with revolver in hand, waited for B and
her niece C to leave the house of D and
head home. As they reached the house,
accused aimed and fired a shot at B but
instead hit C.
o


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

14

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



Accused is criminally liable (frustrated
murder)
People v. Tomotorgo
Accused, incensed by his wife, beats
her until she falls to the ground and
complains of chest pains. Accused
proceeds to take his wife home and
take care of her. Wife dies.
Accused is guilty of parricide.
SC ruled that the fact that the accused
intended to maltreat his wife only or
inflict physical injuries does not exempt
him from liability for the resulting and
more serious crime of parricide
Maltreatment inflicted by the accused
was the proximate cause of wifes
death


V. When A Person Has Not Committed A Felony, He Is Not Criminally
Liable For The Result Which Is Not Intended
US v. Villanueva
o Accused, out of curiosity, snatched a bolo carried by
the victim in his belt. The victim was subsequently
injured.
o Accused is not criminally liable because there is no
provision punishing the act of snatching the property of
another just to satisfy curiosity.
People v. Bindoy
o Accused, carrying a bolo in one hand, got into a heated
altercation with Pacas wife. Pacas attempted to take
away the bolo from the accused and during the scuffle,
an innocent bystander was injured.

Accused is not criminally liable because the law permits


him to use necessary force to retain what belongs to
him.
If accused had been trying to strike Pacas and instead
hit someone else, he would be criminally liable.


PAR. 1: BY ANY PERSON COMMITTING A FELONY (DELITO),
ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT
WHICH HE INTENDED

I. Requisites Of Article 4 Paragraph 1
In order that a person may be held criminally liable for a felony
different from that which he intended to commit:
1. Intentional felony was committed
2. The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural,
and logical consequence of the felony committed by the
offender

II. FIRST REQUISITE: Intentional Felony Was Committed
A. No Felony Is Committed When:
The act or omission is not punishable under Revised Penal
Code.
o Suicide is not punishable under the Revised Penal Code
(Article 253) If A jumps off the building and lands on
B, he is not criminally liable for intentional homicide.
The act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances in
Article 11
o Self defense, fulfillment of duty, etc.
o These acts must still be exercised with due care
otherwise the accused will be liable for culpable felony.
o Example: People v. Salinas
Accused, along with B, go to the house of C and
D. Accused enters the house, B stays outside. B
challenges C to a fight and accused holds on to


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

15

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER


C to prevent him from going outside. A struggle


ensues and D, while holding a baby, attempts
to free C from the accused. D ends up falling
down the stairs, baby in hand. The baby
eventually dies.
Accused cannot be criminally liable for holding
on to C and preventing him from engaging in
what would have been a bloody encounter
with B because such an act is not punishable.
Similarly, accused is not guilty of the death of
the baby because the death was not the direct
consequence of a crime seeing as how accused
did not committing any crime.


B. 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 v. Toling
o Accused proceeds to commit robbery aboard a
jeepney. Accused threatens the passengers and
subsequently, B jumps out of the jeepney in order to
escape. B ends up hitting her head on the pavement
and eventually dies.
o It was held that accused is guilty for the death of B
because he created an immediate sense of danger that
prompted B to try and escape.
o Similarly, if a person believing himself to be in danger
of death or great bodily harm jumps into the water and
drowns, the person who caused him to believe he was
in danger is criminally liable for his death

III. SECOND REQUISITE: Wrong Done Must Be The Direct, Natural, And
Logical Consequence Of A Felonious Act (Proximate Cause).

General Rule: A person is criminally responsible for acts


committed by him in violation of the law and for all the natural
and logical consequences resulting therefrom.
Examples
o US v. Valdez Victim who was threatened or chased
by the accused with a knife, jumps into the water and
drowns because of the heavy current.
Accused is criminally liable.
o People v. Quianson Victim removes drainage from a
wound given to him by the accused in order to alleviate
great pain. Victim subsequently contracts an infection
and dies.
Accused is criminally liable because he directly
caused the great pain which victim was trying
to alleviate.
o People v. Moldes A wound that was inflicted was
dangerous or calculated to destroy human life.
Immediate cause of death was erroneous medical
treatment.
Even if erroneous medical treatment comes
into play, the one who inflicted the wound is
still criminally liable.
o People v. Illustre; People v. Rodriguez; People v. Reyes
Victim was suffering from an internal malady and
said malady was fatally aggravated by a blow from the
accused.
Accused is criminally liable.
o US v. Marasigan Victim refused to submit to surgical
operation.
Offended party is not obliged to submit to a
surgical operation to relieve the accused from
the natural and ordinary results of his crime.
o People v. Martir Injury was aggravated by infection


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

16

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER


An accused is liable for all the consequences of


his acts, and the infection of a wound he has
caused is one of the consequences for which he
is answerable
Except if infection is due to the malicious act of
the offended party (US v. De los Santos).

Cases
o People v. Quianson
A injures B. While taking medical treatment, B
removes the drainage from his wound in order
to alleviate immense pain. This results in the
development of an infection which eventually
leads to the death of B.
A contends that he was not involved in the
taking out of the drainage which eventually led
to the infection and subsequent death.
Court rules that A is criminally liable for the
death of B because his removal of the drainage
was due to the immense pain he felt from the
wounds inflicted by A.
o US v. Marasigan
Accused strikes at B with a knife. In an attempt
to ward off the blow, the finger of B was
severed.
Claims of the accused that B can get surgery in
order to restore his finger is not a valid defense
because B is not obliged to receive surgical
treatment in order to relieve accused of his
liability.
o People v. Reloj
Accused stabs B with an ice pick. B undergoes a
successful surgical operation but days later he
dies because of a condition that takes place as

a consequence of internal organs being


exposed during surgery.
Accused is criminally liable because the
condition would not have come about if B did
not need to undergo surgery because of
injuries inflicted by the accused.
If it clearly appears that the injury would not have caused
death, in the ordinary course of events, but would have healed
in so many days and where it was shown beyond all doubt
that the death was due to the malicious or careless acts of the
injured person or a third person, the accused is not criminally
liable for homicide


A. Proximate Cause
The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting
injury
Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would
not have occurred.
o Natural refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course
of human life or events.
o Logical means that there is a rational connection
between the act of the accused and the resulting injury
or damage.
Proximate legal cause
o That acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately, or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events,
each having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor.
o There must be a relation of cause and effect, the
cause being the felonious act of the offended, the


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

17

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER


effect being the resultant injuries and/or death of the


victim.
Not altered because of pre-existing conditions,
predisposition of the offended party or the
concomitant or concurrent conditions, or the
conditions supervening the felonies.
Exceptions (felony committed is not proximate cause 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.
2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the
victim.
The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his
delictual (wrongful) act caused, accelerated, or contributed to
the death of the victim.


B. How To Determine The Proximate Cause
Vda. de Bataclan, et al. v. Medina
o Passenger bus travelling in the province at 2 in the
morning turns over, trapping 4 passengers. Gasoline
begins to leak and spread all over the bus. Men with
torches come to help out the trapped passengers but
the fire from their torches (keep in mind the gasoline
that spread all around the bus) causes the bus to
become engulfed in flames.
o It was ruled that the proximate cause was not the fire
from the torches but instead the turning over of the
bus. The arrival of men carrying torches in the middle
of the night to help the trapped passengers was a
natural consequence seeing as how it was dark and
they were in the province.
o Furthermore, there is negligence on the part of the
agents of the carrier since they would have realized

that gasoline was leaking (gasoline has a distinct scent)


and should have warned the men with torches.
People v. Luces
o Accused gave a fist blow to victim in the stomach,
causing her to fall to the ground and become
unconscious. Victim never regains consciousness and
eventually dies. Autopsy shows that cardiac failure was
probable cause for death.
o Accused argues that cardiac failure and not the fist
blow was not the cause of death.
o Court rules that the fist blow was the primary and
proximate cause of death because the cardiac failure
(incurred either directly because of the fist blow, while
falling to the ground, or while being unconscious) was
caused by the fist blow.
He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
the evil caused.
Causes, not being efficient intervening causes, do not break
the relation of cause and effect the felony committed and
the resulting injury.


C. Intervening Causes
The following are not efficient intervening causes
People v. Illustre & People v. Reyes The weak or diseased
physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering from
tuberculosis or heart disease.
People v. Almonte & People v. Quianson Nervous
temperament, as when a person dies in consequence of an
internal hemorrhage because he was moving around against
doctors orders because of his nervous temperament due to the
wound inflicted by the accused.
People v. Buhay, US v. Valdez Causes inherent to the victim
o Victim does not know how to swim
o Victim is an alcoholic


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

18

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER


US v. Marasigan & People v. Red Neglect of the victim or a


third person.
o Refusal of victim to undergo surgery
o Failure of doctors to give anti-tetanus injection to the
injured person
People v. Moldes Erroneous or unskillful medical treatment
as when the assault took place in an outlying barrio where
proper modern surgical service was not available
Case: People v. Piamonte, et al.
o A stabs B. B is successfully operated on but eventually
he contracts a condition due to his weakened state.
o A is criminally liable because the stabbing was the
proximate cause of death.


D. Natural Consequence
When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical
injuries inflicted
1. The victim was in normal health when the injury was inflicted.
2. Death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted.
3. Death ensued within a reasonable time.
Case: People v. Tammang
o Boy was in good health the morning of the incident.
Teacher assaults boy and boy complains about
experiencing oppressive pain to his mother later on.
Boy vomits blood until he dies 3 days later.
o Teachers liability for homicide necessarily follows from
the premises stated.
o Had it been proven that the boy died from
hypochondria and not the injuries inflicted by the
teacher, accused would have been acquitted on the
charge of homicide.
Not direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony committed.

If the consequences produced have resulted from a distinct act


or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act, the offender is
not responsible for such consequences.
A person is not liable criminally for all possible consequences
which may immediately follow his felonious act, but only for
such as are proximate:
o People v. Rockwell
A strikes B. B falls to the ground. A horse jumps
on B and kills him.
A is not liable for the death of B
o US v. De los Santos
A lightly injures B. B deliberately immerses
himself in a cesspool of filth. The injuries of B
become greater.
A is not liable for the worsened condition of B.
o People v. Palalon
A strikes B with the back of his hand. Later on,
B dies. There is a prevalent sickness in the
locality.
A is not liable for the death of B because it is
reasonable to believe that it could have been
caused by the prevalent sickness in the locality.
o US v. Embate
Accused strikes a child who was seriously ill.
Child dies two days later.
Accused is not liable for childs death because it
cannot be established if the illness or the strike
caused the death.
o Urbano v. IAC
When medical findings lead to the possibility
that the infection of the wound was an efficient
intervening cause (not a proximate cause), the
accused must be acquitted of the crime of
homicide


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

19

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER




PAR. 2: BY ANY PERSON PERFORMING AN ACT WHICH WOULD BE AN
OFFENSE AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY, WERE IT NOT FOR THE
INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS ACCOMPLISHEMTN, OR ON
ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL
MEANS

I. Impossible Crimes
The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of criminal
propensity or criminal tendency on the part of the actor.
o Such person is therefore a potential criminal.
o The community must be protected from anti-social
activities, whether actual or potential, of the morbid
type of man called socially dangerous person.

II. Requisites Of Impossible Crime
1. Act performed would be an offense against persons or property
2. Act was done with evil intent
3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means
employed are inadequate or ineffectual
4. Act is not a violation of another provision of the Revised Penal
Code

III. Important Words And Phrases
Performing an act which would be an offense against persons
or property (Requisite 1)
o A felony against persons or property should not be
actually committed, for, otherwise, offender would be
liable for that felony. This means there is no impossible
crime to speak of.
o Felonies against persons
Parricide (Article 246)
Murder (Article 248),
Homicide (Article 249),

Infanticide (Article 255),


Abortion (Article 256, 257, 258, and 259),
Duel (Article 260 and 261),
Physical injuries (Art, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266)
Rape (Article 266-A)
o Felonies against property
Robbery (Art. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302,
303)
Brigandage (Article 306 and 307)
Theft (Article 308, 310, 311)
Usurpation (Article 312 and 313)
Culpable insolvency (Article 314)
Swindling and other deceits (Article 315, 316,
317 and 318)
Chattel mortgage (Article 319)
Arson and other crimes involving destruction,
malicious mischief (Article 327, 328, 329, 330
and 331)
o If the act performed would be an offense other than a
felony against persons or property, there is no
impossible crime
Act was done with evil intent (Requisite 2)
o Offender must have the intent to do an injury to
another
Stabbing a persons corpse to satisfy a grudge is
not a crime if and when the accused knew that
the person was already dead
o A takes the check payment meant for her company and
deposits it in her own account. The check bounces.
Accused found guilty of an impossible crime
There can be no question that as of the time
accused took possession of said check, she had
performed all the acts to consummate the


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

20

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER


crime of theft, had it not been impossible of


accomplishment in this case
o A peppers the bedroom of B with bullets. B was not in
his bedroom.
Convicted of an impossible crime
Were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means
o Inherent impossibility of accomplishment
Legal impossibility
Physical impossibility
Examples:
Trying to kill a person without knowing
that he is already dead legal and
physical impossibility.
Trying to poison a person with arsenic
when it turns out, only salt was used.
Stealing a watch even if it turns out the
said watch is actually yours legal
impossibility,
Attempting to steal money from a safe
that turns out to be empty.
o Employment of inadequate and ineffectual means
Examples
A tries to poison B with a decent
amount of arsenic but B does not die
because he has strong resistance to
arsenic
A tries to shoot B in the head only to
find out the gun is not loaded when he
pulls the trigger


IV. Purpose Of The Law In Punishing The Impossible Crime
To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies

Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony but


subjectively, he is a criminal


Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be
repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of
excessive penalties.
Whenever 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 induce the court to
believe that said act should be the subject of legislation.

In the same light, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive,
through the Department of Justice, such statements 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.

POINTS

I. First Paragraph Pertains To Acts Which Should Be Repressed But
Which Are Not Punishable By Law.
Basis of Paragraph 1: Nulllum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
o There is no crime if there is no law that punishes the
act (no matter how bad that act may be).
Trial of a criminal case requires the following:
1. The act committed by the accused appears not
punishable by any law.
2. The court deems it proper to repress such act.
3. In that case, the court must render the proper decision
by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

21

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



4. The judge must then make a report to the Chief
Executive through the Secretary of Justice, stating the
reasons which induce him to believe that the said act
should be made the subject of penal legislation.

II. Second Paragraph Pertains To Excessive Penalties
Second paragraph requires the following:
1. The court of trial finds the accused guilty
2. The penalty provided by law and which the court
imposes for the crime committed appears to be clearly
excessive because
The accused acted with lesser degree of malice
There is no injury or the injury caused is of
lesser gravity
3. The court should not suspend the execution of the
sentence.
4. The judge should submit a statement to the chief
executive, through the Secretary of Justice,
recommending executive clemency.

A. Cases
People v. Monleon
o Accused maltreats his wife while inebriated. Wife dies.
Since the accused had no intent to kill his wife
and her death may have been hastened by lack
of proper medical care, the punishment of
reclusion perpetua appears to be excessive.
People v. Espino
o Accused steals coconuts for his familys consumption.
Punishment for the crime was 4 months and 1
day of arresto mayor to 3 years, 6 months, and
21 days of prison correccional according to the
Revised Penal Code.

In light of the circumstances surrounding the


case, the court recommended the accused be
pardoned after serving 4 months of the
sentence
People v. Cabagsan
o Accused alters documents in order to show that a
person was arrested on a later day. Falsifications were
done in order to make it appear that there was no
delay in the preliminary investigation being conducted
on the case.
It was ruled that there was an apparent lack of
malice and a total absence of injury
People v. Canja
o Battered wife kills her husband and confesses to doing
so
Court recommended that the accused is
deserving of executive clemency, not of full
pardon but of a substantial if not radical
reduction or commutation of her life sentence
People v. Manlapaz
o Accused committed simple rape
The penalty for simple rape was increased from
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua as a
means to deter rampant cases of rape
happening after WWII.
It was recommended that after the accused
shall have served a term of imprisonment
consistent with retributive justice, executive
clemency may be extended to him.


B. Penalties Are Not Excessive When Intended To Enforce A Public
Policy
People v. Estoista


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

22

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



Rampant lawlessness justifies imprisonment for
promiscuous carrying and use of powerful firearms
when ordinarily such a penalty would seem excessive.
People v. Tiu Ua
o Heavy fines imposed by congress to repress
profiteering so that people would not take advantage
of critical conditions (like a global recession, strong
storms, etc.) to make unusual profits.
o


III. Duty Of The Courts To Apply The Law
A. Courts Have The Duty To Apply The Penalty Provided By Law
It is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law,
regardless of their private opinions.
o Courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy, or
morality of laws. Such questions fall exclusively within
the legislative that makes the law and the executive
who approves or vetoes it.
o Example
Judge sentences accused to life imprisonment
when the law clearly states that the
punishment should be death.
In this situation, the judge did not fulfill
his duty

B. Judge Has The Duty To Apply The Law As Interpreted By The
Supreme Court
Judge must first think that it is his duty to apply the law as
interpreted by the Highest Court of the land, and that any
deviation from a principle laid down by the latter would
unavoidable cause, as a sequel, unnecessary inconveniences,
delays and expenses to the litigants
Judge is free to state his opinion on the matter if his views
contrast with those of the SC but he must still follow the
interpretation of the SC


C. Courts Are Not The Forum To Plead For Sympathy
Dura lex sed lex
o The law is hard but it is the law

III. Strict Enforcement Of The Provisions Of This Code
Article 5 may not be invoked for cases of mala prohibita
because it is expressly worded that Article 5 only applies to
strict enforcement of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code

Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted are punishable.

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
the felony as a consequence but, which, nevertheless do not produce
it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of
a felony, directly through overt acts, and does not perform all the acts
of execution which would produce the felony by reason of some cause
or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

POINTS

I. Development Of Crime
From the moment the culprit conceives the idea of committing
a crime up to the realization of the same, his act passes through
certain stages.

A. Stages:
1. Internal acts


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

23

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



Thoughts in the mind of the person; can never be
punishable no matter how evil they are.
o Mere intent to commit a crime cannot be punished if it
produces no effect.
o Intent and effect must concur.
2. External acts
a. Preparatory acts
Ordinarily they are not punishable unless
provided by law.
The act of buying poison is not
necessarily punishable.
Carrying a picklock is punishable
because there is a provision against it.
BUT preparatory acts which are considered in
themselves by law as independent crimes are
punishable.
Article 304 The possession of
picklocks is a preparatory act to the
commission of robbery.
b. Acts of execution
Punishable by law
Stages of acts of execution:
AttemptedFrustratedConsummate
d
All stages of acts of execution are punishable
o


II. STAGE 1: Attempted Felony
A. Elements Of Attempted Felony
1. Commencement of the commission of the felony directly by
overt acts.
2. Offender does not perform all acts of execution which should
produce the felony.
3. The offenders act is not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance.

4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a


cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

B. Important Words And Phrases For Attempted Felony
Commences the commission of a felony
o Two requisites:
i. There must be an external act committed.
ii. External acts must be connected with the crime
intended to be committed.
Directly by overt acts
o Only offenders who personally execute the commission
of a crime can be guilty of attempted felony.
If A tells B to kill C but B refuses
A is not liable for attempted homicide
since the attempt was not done
directly with physical activity
If A tells B to kill C and B shoots at C and misses
A and B are criminally liable of
attempted
felony
because
of
conspiracy. In conspiracy, the act of
one is the act of all.
Does not perform all the acts of execution
o If all the acts of execution are performed, it is
automatically either frustrated or consummated.
o If not all acts are performed, it is only attempted.
US v. Eduave
If anything yet remained for him to do,
he would be guilty of an attempted
crime.
People v. Lamahang
Accused did not enter the store
therefore there was only an attempted
trespass.
By reason of some cause or accident


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

24

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



Cause
A tries to pickpocket B but B catches him
before he can do so.
A has not done all the acts of execution
in relation to pick pocketing.
o Accident
A tries to shoot B but the gun jams.
A has not committed all the acts of
execution.
Other than his own spontaneous desistance
o You cannot be punished if you stop yourself from
committing a crime.
o It is a sort of reward granted by law to those who,
having one foot on the verge of crime, heed the call of
their conscience and return to the path of
righteousness.
o One who takes part in planning a criminal act but
desists in its actual commission is exempt from criminal
liability.
Could have been caused by his conscience
o It does not matter if spontaneous desistance was due
to either fear or remorse as long as act is stopped on
account of the would-be offenders own free will.
o Desistance must be made before the crime is
committed.
A steals a chicken & brings it back an hour later.
Robbery has already been committed
therefore the return of the chicken
does not free A from criminal liability.
o Own spontaneous desistance exempts one from
criminal liability for the intended crime, and not from
any crimes which may have been committed before the
desistance.
o

A shoots B and misses. A decides not to shoot


anymore.
A is not guilty of attempted homicide
because of his spontaneous desistance
but he is guilty of making grave threats
which he had already committed.


Subjective phase of the offense
In an attempted felony, the offender never gets past the
subjective phase.
Definition
o That portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting
from the point where the offender begins the
commission of the crime to that point where he still has
control over his acts, including their natural cause.
As long as he does not commit the last act of
execution, offender is still in the subjective
phase
Example: A tries to poison B with poisoned soup.
o Subjective phase ends as soon as the B swallows the
soup.

III. Overt Acts
Some physical activity or deed indicating the intention to
commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or
preparation, which if carried to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being frustrated by
external obstacles, nor by the voluntary desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense.

A. Distinguishing Between Preparatory Acts And Overt Acts
Act of buying poison


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

25

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



On its own, this act is a mere preparatory act because
it does not logically follow that he who buys poison
wishes to commit a felony.
o It becomes an overt act when he who buys poison
begins to mix said substance into a soup which he will
serve to his intended victim. In such case, there is clear
intent to poison a person
People v. Tabago
o Accused seemed to be drawing his pistol while talking
to a policeman.
o Accused is not criminally liable for attempted homicide
because merely drawing a pistol does not show intent
to kill.
o To constitute attempted homicide, the person using a
firearm must fire it, with intent to kill, at the intended
victim without inflicting a mortal wound.
US v. Simeon
o Accused raised a bolo as if to strike at the offended
party.
o Not an overt act because there was no blow struck, and
there is no proof that the accused issued threats to kill
or to do bodily harm.
B. Overt Acts May Not Always Be Physical Activities
US v. Gloria
o Offering money to a public officer with the purpose of
corrupting him is an overt act in the crime of corruption
of a public officer.

C. External Acts Must Have Direct Connection With The Crime
Intended To Be Committed By The Offender
People v. Lamahang
o Accused was caught making an opening in the wall of a
store while the owners were asleep.
o

Cannot be counted as attempted robbery because the


mere act of making an opening in the wall of the store
does not immediately mean that a robbery was taking
place.
The crime that the accused was convicted of was
attempted trespass given that when he was caught, the
only act that he had committed so far was the making
of an opening in the wall of the store.


IV. Indeterminable offense
It is one when the purpose of the offender in performing an act
is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is
ambiguous.

A. The Intention Of The Accused Must Be Viewed From The Nature Of
The Acts Executed By Him, And Not From His Admission
The intention of the accused must be ascertained from the
facts
o It is necessary that the mind be able to directly infer
from the facts the intention of the perpetrator to cause
a particular injury.
People v. Lamahang
o Acts susceptible of double interpretation, that is, in
favor as well as against the accused, and which show an
innocent as well as a punishable act, must not and
cannot furnish grounds by themselves for attempted
crime.
o Acts must be shown to be directly aimed at the
execution of the crime, and therefore they must have
an immediate and necessary relation to the offense.

V. STAGE 2: Frustrated Felony
A. Elements Of Frustrated Felony
1. Offender commits all acts of execution.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

26

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



2. All the acts performed would produce a felony.
3. Felony is not produced.
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

B. Important Words And Phrases For Frustrated Felony
Performs all the acts of execution
o Nothing left to be done by the offender.
Homicide Offender is able to afflict a fatal
wound.
o The SC in some cases has emphasized the belief of the
accused.
People v. Sy Pio
A shoots at B. B escapes and A does not
chase him.
A cannot be accused of frustrated
homicide because he knew that he did
not perform all the acts of execution
necessary to kill his victim.
A is guilty of attempted murder.
People v. Dagman
A shoots at B. B pretends to be dead. A
no longer shoots at B.
A is guilty of frustrated homicide
because he only stopped shooting
because he thought he had already
killed B.
US v. Eduave
A thinks he kills B and disposes of the
body in the bushes.
A is guilty of frustrated homicide
because he believed he had already
killed B.
o The belief of the accused need not always be
considered.

What ought to be considered is whether or not


all the acts of execution that would produce
the felony as a consequence were performed.
Would produce the felony as a consequence
o All the acts of execution performed by the offender
could have produced the felony as a consequence.
A tries to stab B but instead stabs the back of
the chair where B was sitting. Attempted
murder only because murder would not have
been produced as a consequence of the actions
performed by A.
o Does not pertain to the stopping of the felony from
happening because the performance of the acts of
execution were prevented.
Do not produce it
o If the intended felony was produced, the act is
consummated.
Independent of the will of the perpetrator
o If the crime is not produced because of the timely
intervention of a third party (after all acts of execution
have been committed).
o If the crime is stopped because of spontaneous
desistance (perpetrators own will), there is no
frustrated felony, because the 4th element is absent.
o Example:
Doctor poisons wife but immediately
administers to her an adequate antidote.
Not guilty of frustrated parricide because the
intervening cause that saved the wife was not
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Doctor is only guilty of physical injuries since
the wife already ingested the poison before he
administered the antidote.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

27

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



C. Is There Frustration Due To Inadequate Or Ineffectual Means?
Such a frustration would be tantamount to an impossible crime

D. Distinguishing Frustrated Felony From Attempted Felony
In frustrated felony, the offender has reached the objective
phase (completion of all acts of execution) while in attempted
felony, the offender has not made it past the subjective phase
In the following cases, the stage of execution was held to be
frustrated, because the wound inflicted was mortal:
o People v. Honrada Accused stabbed the offended
party in the abdomen, penetrating the liver, and in the
chest.
o People v. Mercado Accused wounded the victim in
the left abdomen with a sharp-edged weapon which
was serious enough to have possibly caused death.
o People v. David Accused in firing his revolver at the
offended party hit him and perforating the lungs.
Victim was only saved by timely medical attention.
In the following cases, the stage of execution was held to be
attempted, because there was no wound inflicted or the
wound inflicted was not mortal:
o US v. Bien Accused threw the victim, who didnt
know how to swim, into deep water. Victim held on the
boat, and the accused tried to hit him with the oar.
Accused was prevented from striking the victim, and
hence there was only attempted homicide.
o People v. Kalalo Not having hit the offended part
despite firing four successive shots, the accused failed
to perform all acts of execution.
o People v. Domingo Two physicians testifying could
not agree on the seriousness of the wound. One of
them said the wounds were not serious enough to
produce death even if no medical assistance had been
given to the offended party.

People v. Somera where the head of the offended


party was merely grazed by the shot which hit him, the
wound being far from fatal.


E. Distinguishing Attempted Or Frustrated Felony From Impossible
Crime
In attempted or frustrated felony, the crime could have been
accomplished in impossible crime, the crime can never be
accomplished.
Attempted or frustrated felony are thwarted by external
reasons impossible crime is thwarted by internal reasons
such as the inherent impossibility of the crime or the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means by the
offender.

VI. STAGE 3: Consummated Felony
A. Important Words And Phrases For Consummated Felony
All the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
o Every crime has its own elements which must all be
present to constitute a culpable violation of a precept
of law.

B. What Happens When Not All The Elements Of A Felony Are Proved?
Felony is not shown to have been consummated.
Felony is not shown to have been committed.
Another felony is shown to have been committed.
Examples
o Homicide not consummated without death.
o Theft not consummated if no intent to gain.
o Estafa not consummated if there is no deceit or
abuse of confidence proven.
Can instead be found guilty of attempted or
frustrated estafa.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

28

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



o

Robbery with violence not consummated if no intent


to gain.
Can instead be found guilty of grave coercion.
Forcible abduction not consummated if no element
of lewd designs is proved.
Can instead be found guilty of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention.


VII. How To Determine Between Attempted, Frustrated, And
Consummated
A. Nature Of Crime
Arson
o Attempted poured gasoline around the house but
got caught before he could strike a match.
o Frustrated poured gasoline around the house and lit
the fire but the house did not burn
o Consummated poured gasoline around the house
and lit the fire. The house is burning.

B. Elements Constituting The Felony
Theft
o Consummated when thief is able to get hold of object
even if he is not able to carry it away
US v. Adiao
A steals a belt and keeps it in his desk.
Belt is found in his desk shortly after.
Court ruled that the theft had been
consummated because A was already
in possession of the belt.
People v. Espiritu
Accused steal linen curtains and put
these items in the back of their truck.
Accused gets caught when they try to
pass a checkpoint.

Court rules they are guilty of


consummated theft.

Estafa
o The crime is consummated when the offended party is
actually damaged or prejudiced.
US v. Dominguez
A receives money from a sale which he
should give to the cashier. A puts the
money in his pocket with intent to
misappropriate the amount.
Court ruled that this is frustrated estafa
because estafa can only be
consummated when the offended
party has been damaged or prejudiced.


C. Manner Of Committing Crime
1. Formal crimes Consummated in one instant; no attempt.
o There are crimes like slander and false testimony that
are consummated by a single act. It is either
consummated or not.
2. Crimes Consummated By Mere Attempt
o Flight to enemys country a mere attempt is a
consummated felony.
o Corruption of minors a mere proposal to satisfy the
lust of another will consummate the offense.
3. Felony By Omission
o There is no attempted stage because in this kind of
felony, the offender does not execute acts.
4. Crimes Requiring The Two Or More Persons Is Consummated
By Mere Agreement
o Corruption of a public officer consummated if
agreement is reached; attempted if offer is rejected.
o Cases
People v. Diego Quin


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

29

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



A gives B a bribe. B later returns the
bribe.
A is guilty of frustrated bribery because
all the acts of execution were done but
the end result was not attained
because the money was returned
US v. Te Tong
A gives B a bribe. B accepts bribe
because he will use it as evidence
against A later on.
A is guilty of frustrated bribery because
all the acts of execution were done but
the end result was not attained
because the money was returned
5. Material Crimes
o Crimes with 3 stages of execution
Attempted, frustrated, consummated
o Rape:
Consummated entry of the labia or lips of
the female organ without rupture of the hymen
or laceration of the vagina is generally held
sufficient to warrant conviction of the accused
for the consummation of rape
People v. Orita Perfect penetration
is not essential
Frustrated There is doubt as to whether
accused succeeded in penetrating the vagina.
Attempted The accused, on top of the
victim, firmly endeavored to have sexual
intercourse with the victim but the victim
managed to get away.
o Homicide
Consummated
People v. Sazon

A wounds B. A and B grapple


for the gun. C stabs B.
Though it was C who inflicted
the proximate cause of death,
A is liable because of the
existence of a conspiracy
between A and C.

Attempted
People v. Ramolete
o A shoots B but misses all the
vital organs.
o A is liable for attempted
homicide because all the acts
of execution were not done
(you have to mortally wound
your target in order to
complete all the acts of
execution).
Murder
Frustrated
People v. Mision
o A stabs B and C. B dies, C lives.
o A is liable for frustrated murder
in relation to C.


Frustrated theft
The Espiritu and Dino cases
o Both were claimed to be cases of frustrated theft
because they were unable to dispose freely of the
articles stolen
People v. Espiritu
Accused stole a truck in a compound
surrounded by a tall fence. Accused
was caught before he left compound


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

30

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



People v. Dino
Court ruled that there was no
consummated theft because the truck
and van that were being stolen were
still within the compound
o Supreme court says that there is no crime of frustrated
theft and that the Espiritu and Dino cases should not be
adopted in this jurisdiction
Ability of the offender to freely dispose of the
property stolen is not a constitutive element of
the crime of theft.
Theft is produced when there is deprivation of
personal property due to its taking by one with
intent to gain.
It should be immaterial if the offender was able
to freely dispose of the property stolen since
the owner of the said property has already
been deprived.
The unlawful taking is deemed complete from
the moment the offender gains possession of
the thing, even if he has no opportunity to
dispose of the same.
People v. Del Rosario
o Accused entered the bodega through a hole in the floor
but were caught before they could put a sack of sugar
into the hole from whence they came.
o Accused liable for frustrated theft.
In robbery by the use of force upon things,
offender must enter the building and exit it
carrying the stolen goods.
In robbery with violence against or intimidation
of persons, the crime is consummated the
moment the offender gets hold of the thing

taken and/or is in a position to dispose of it


freely.

Attempted theft and Estafa
Attempted theft
o People v. De la Cruz
A tries to steal a jeep but he cannot do so
because there was an iron bar on the gearshift.
A is guilty of attempted theft because he was
unable to perform all the acts of execution.
Attempted estafa
o US v. Villanueva
A pretends to be of authority in order to collect
money from B. B does not pay him the money.
A is guilty of attempted estafa because he
began the acts of execution (pretending he was
an authority figure) but was not able to
complete it (because B did not give him the
money).

Frustrated Estafa
People v. Gutierrez
o Accused makes false representations in order to get
money from B. Accused is able to receive money from B
but is arrested before he can receive the full amount.
o All acts of execution were committed; frustrated
because of the intervention of the policeman.
People v. Castillo
o Accused is able to receive money but is immediately
arrested because the whole situation was a setup
meant to catch him in the act of estafa.

VIII. Element Of Intent To Kill When Inflicting Physical Injuries


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

31

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER


If there is intent to kill, offender could be liable for attempted


or frustrated parricide or murder.
o US v. Joven
Accused inflicts several wounds on the victim.
Accused utters until I can kill you.
Attempted homicide, not physical injuries,
because clear intent to kill can be established
o US v. Maghirang
Accused inflict wounds on shoulder and lips of
the victim using a bolo and then stops.
Not frustrated homicide but serious physical
injuries because there is no intent to kill.
o Mondragon v. People
A hits B. B retaliates by hitting him with a bolo.
A runs away.
A is liable for less serious physical injuries
because there was no intent to kill since he ran
away.
o People v. Malinao
A voluntarily leaves his victim after giving him a
thrashing.
Mere physical injuries and not murder because
there is no intent to kill that can be established.


IX. There Is No Attempted Or Frustrated Impossible Crime
In impossible crime, all the acts of execution were committed
therefore an attempt is impossible.
There is no frustrated impossible crime because the acts
performed by the offender are considered as constituting a
consummated crime.
The act was completely carried out, the result was just
inherently impossible.

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.

POINTS

I. What Are Light Felonies?
Infractions of the law punished by arresto menor, a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos, or both (Article 9, par. 3).
Light Felonies punished by the Revised Penal Code:
o Slight physical injury (Article 266)
o Theft (Article 309, par. 7 & 8)
o Alteration of boundary marks (Article 313)
o Malicious mischief (Article 328, par.3; Art. 329, par.3)
o Intriguing against honor (Article 364)

II. General Rule: Punishable only when consummated unless
committed against persons or property
Light felonies product such light, insignificant moral and
material injuries that the public is satisfied with providing a
light penalty for their consummation.
If they are not consummated, the wrong done is so slight that
there is no need to penalize it.

III. Reasons For The Exception
Light felonies against persons or property presupposes moral
depravity of the offender.
For this reason, even attempted and frustrated light felonies
against persons or property is punishable.

IV. Examples
Light felony against persons
o Slight physical injuries and maltreatment (Article 266)
Light felony against property


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

32

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



o

o
o

Theft by hunting, fishing, or gathering of forest or farm


products within a enclosed area where trespass is
prohibited and the value of items stolen is less than 5
pesos (Article 309, No. 7)
Theft of items valued at less than 5 pesos where the
offender was prompted by hunger, poverty, or the
difficulty of earning a livelihood (Article 309, No. 8)
Altering boundary marks (Article 313)
Malicious mischief where the damage less than 200
pesos or it cannot be estimated (Article 328, No.3)


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 therefore.

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 decide to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons

POINTS

I. Important Words And Phrases
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony
o Two different things: (1) conspiracy & (2) felony
Only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
therefore
o There must be a specific provision in the Revised Penal
Code punishing a specific instance of conspiracy or
proposal.
Treason (Article 115)
Rebellion (Article 136)
Sedition (Article 141)


II. Reason For The Rule
Conspiracy and proposal to commit a crime are only
preparatory acts, and the law regards them as innocent or at
least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases.
As long as the conspirators do not perform overt acts in
furtherance of their malevolent designs, the sovereignty of the
state is not outraged and the tranquility of the public remains
undisturbed.

III. When A Felony Is Committed, The Existence Of A Conspiracy
Assumes Pivotal Importance In Determining Who Is Criminally Liable.

IV. Treason, Rebellion, Coup Detat, Insurrection, Sedition Must
Actually Not Be Committed
If they are committed, the charge is no longer proposal to or
conspiracy to commit but rather the act itself.
o Ex:
If A commits treason, he is guilty of treason and
not conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
because the act of treason has already been
committed.
A cannot be charged with treason and
conspiracy to commit treason at the same
time.
Though it must be said that the establishment of a conspiracy
could be used to see who else is criminally liable.

V. Conspiracy
A. Examples Of Conspiracy As A Felony And Conspiracy As A Manner
Of Incurring Criminal Liability
A and B decide to rise publicly and take arms against the
government with the help of their followers.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

33

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



If they carry out their plan, A and B are guilty of
rebellion.
o If they do not carry out their plan, A and B are guilty of
conspiracy to commit rebellion.
A, B, and C conspire to kill D.
o If they do not carry out their plan, they are not
criminally liable because conspiracy to commit murder
is not punishable by law.
o If they carry out their plan, they are all liable for
murder even if A was just a lookout or B was the only
who really harmed D.
The fact that there was a conspiracy between
A, B, and C is enough grounds to make all of
them criminally liable for the murder of D.
o


B. Article 186 Of The Revised Penal Code Punishing Conspiracy
Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.
o Penalty is prision correccional in its minimum period or
a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both.
Any person who shall enter into any 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 or
to prevent by artificial means free competition
in the market.
Any person who, being a manufacturer,
producer, shall combine, 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.

C. Requisites Of Conspiracy
1. Two or more persons came to an agreement

Must be shown that defendant received or accepted


the agreement
2. Agreement concerned the commission of a felony
3. Execution of the felony be decided upon
o


D. Direct Proof Is Not Essential To Establish Conspiracy
Existence of conspiracy can be inferred from the collective acts
of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the
crime
o Not necessary to show that all conspirators actually hit
and killed the victim

E. Indications Of Conspiracy
When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object,
one performing one part and the other performing the other so
as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same
object, and their acts, though independent, were in fact
concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal
association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments,
the court will be justified in concluding that said defendants
were engaged in a conspiracy.
o At the time of the aggression, all of them acted in
concert, each doing his part to fulfill their common
design to kill the 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.
o Neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se
sufficient proof of conspiracy.
o Obedience to command does not necessarily show
concert of design, for at any rate it is the acts of the
conspirators that show their common design.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

34

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



Although defendants may be relatives and had acted
with some degree of simultaneity in attacking their
victim, this fact alone does not prove conspiracy.
People v. Pugay
o A and B are friends. A pours gasoline over B for fun. C
sets B on fire.
o Where there is nothing in the records showing that
there was previous conspiracy or unity of criminal
purpose between A and C immediately before the
commission of the crime, no animosity between A and
B, and it is clear that A just wanted to have fun with B,
there is no conspiracy.
o A is liable only for the act he committed, not for the act
of C.
o


F. Quantum Of Proof Required To Establish Conspiracy
Elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
o Evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere
cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.
A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive
evidence.
o Conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and
convincingly as the commission of crime itself.
o Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime
does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy
transcends companionship.
o People v. Comadre
Mere act of running away with the accused
does not automatically lead to a conspiracy

VI. Proposal
A. The Rpc Specially Provides A Penalty For Mere Proposal In Article
115 And 136

Article 115
o Proposal to commit treason prison correctional and
a fine not exceeding 5,000 pesos
Article 136
o Proposal to commit coup detat prision mayor in its
minimum period and a find not exceeding 8,000 pesos
o Proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection prision
correctional in its medium period and a fine not
exceeding 2,000 pesos
The felony must actually not be committed or else it would not count
as a mere proposal.

B. Requisites Of A Proposal
1. Person has decided to commit a felony.
2. Person proposes the execution of that felony to others.

C. Situations When There Is No Criminal Proposal
Person who proposes the felony is not determined to commit
the felony.
o A wants to overthrow the government but is afraid to
do it. A suggests the overthrow of the government to
desperate people who would do it with the slightest
provocation. A is not liable for proposal to commit
rebellion because A has not decided to commit it.
There is no decided, concrete, and formal proposal.
o A mere suggestion to commit rebellion does not count
as a formal proposal.
It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
o A wants to overthrow the government. A goes around
the country with his pals to convince people of the
need to have a new government.
Going around the country trying to convince
people of the need for a new government is


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

35

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER


not a crime therefore the proposal of it incurs


no criminal liability.
It can however be considered a preparatory act
for the commission of rebellion (still does not
incur criminal liability).


D. What If The Proponents Of The Rebellion Desist Before Rebellion Is
Committed?
Once a proposal to commit rebellion is made by the proponent
to another person, the crime of proposal to commit rebellion is
consummated and the desistance of the proponent cannot
legally exempt him from criminal liability
Similarly, the law does not require that the proposal be
accepted by whoever it was proposed to.
o If it is accepted, it would become conspiracy and not
proposal because there was agreement

E. Proposal As An Overt Act
One who offers money to a public officer but is rejected is liable
for attempted bribery

VII. Reasons Why Proposal And Conspiracy Are Punished
The crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are
crimes against the security of the state or economic security.
o Treason against external security.
o Coup detat, rebellion, sedition against internal
security,
o Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade
against economic security,
If the perpetrator succeeds in these crimes against the external
and internal security of the state, they would obtain power and
therefore impunity for their crimes.
o If A overthrows the government successfully, A will
likely not be punished for rebellion.


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 punishes with penalties
which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with
the above mentioned article.

Light felonies are those infractions of the law for the commission of
which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos,
or both, is provided.

POINTS

I. Important Words And Phrases
Capital punishment
o Death penalty
Penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive
o When the penalty prescribed includes an afflictive
penalty.
A felony punishable by prision correccional to
prision mayor is a grave felony because prision
mayor is afflictive.
o If the penalty prescribed is composed of two or more
periods corresponding to different divisible penalties,
the higher or maximum period must be that of an
afflictive penalty.
A felony punishable by prision correccional (in
its maximum period) to prision mayor (in its
minimum period) is a grave felony because the
minimum period of prision mayor is considered
afflictive.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

36

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER



If both penalties prescribed are afflictive, it is a grave
offense.
Penalties that are afflictive: Reclusion
perpetua, reclusion temporal, perpetual or
temporary absolute disqualification, perpetual
or temporary special disqualification, prision
mayor
Penalties which in their maximum period are correccional
o When the penalty prescribed includes a correctional
penalty.
A felony punishable by arresto menor to
destierro is a less grave felony because
destierro is a correctional penalty.
o When the penalty prescribed is composed of two or
more periods corresponding to different divisible
penalties, the higher or maximum period must be that
of a correctional penalty.
A felony punished by arresto menor (in its
maximum period) to destierro (in its minimum
period) is a less grave felony because the
higher is a period of a correctional felony.
o If both penalties prescribed are correctional, it is a
grave offense.
Penalties that are correctional: Prision
correccional, arresto mayor, suspension,
destierro.
The penalty of arresto menor and a fine not exceeding 200
pesos, or both is provided
o Fines
200 pesos or less light felony
201 pesos to 6,000 pesos less grave felony
6,001 pesos and above afflictive felony
o Article 9 should take precedence over Article 26
because the former classifies felonies according to their
o

gravity while the other does it according to amount of


money for fines.
Arresto menor and public censure are also penalties for
light felonies


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 specially provide
the contrary.

POINTS

I. Meaning Of Article 10
Composed of 2 clauses
o First clause provides that the offenses under special
laws are not subject to the provisions of this code.
Special penal laws prevail over general ones.
o Second clause makes the Revised Penal Code
supplementary to the special laws unless the special
laws say otherwise.

II. Important Words And Phrases
Special laws
o A penal law which punishes acts not punished in the
Revised Penal Code.
Enacted by the legislative
Not a law which amends the Revised Penal
Code
Usually follows the form of American penal law
Supplementary
o The Revised Penal Code supplies what is lacking in the
special laws unless the latter provides for the contrary
Examples


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

37

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER


Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code


o Imprisonment in case person
convicted cannot pay fine
Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code
o Confiscation of instruments
used in the commission of the
crime


III. Provisions Of The Revised Penal Code On Penalties Cannot Be
Applied To Offenses Punishable Under Special Laws
Special laws do not provide a scale of penalties where a given
penalty can be lowered by one or two degrees.
o Example:
Mitigating circumstances and aggravating
circumstances cannot affect the penalties in
the special laws unless expressly provided by
said special law.
People v. Noble
Even when accused pleaded guilty,
Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code on
mitigating circumstances did not
automatically take effect .
Special laws use the term imprisonment rather than the
other terms ascribed to the penalties found in the Revised
Penal Code.
Hence, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms under the
special laws is imprisonment and not prision correccional
because the latter is peculiar to offenses punished in the
Revised Penal Code.

IV. If The Special Laws Adopt The Penalties Found In The Revised
Penal Code, The Rules For Graduating Penalties By Degrees Can Be
Applied

Act 4103 later amended under RA 4203 (Indeterminate


Sentence Law)
o If a penalty found in the Revised Penal Code is imposed
on an offense under special laws, the rules of the
Revised Penal Code governing said penalty will be
applied
Example
If the special law imposes the penalty
of arresto mayor, the articles in the
Revised Penal Code that deal with
arresto mayor shall be applicable


V. Article 6 Of The Revised Penal Code (Attempted, Frustrated,
Consummated) Cannot Be Applied To Offenses Punished By Special
Laws
Special laws are mala prohibita which means you either commit
them or you dont.
Examples
o Special law prohibiting interest in municipal contracts
by councilors.
US v. Basa
Acquitted because a mere attempt is
not punishable by the special law.
o Remember that under the
Revised Penal Code Article 6,
attempts are punishable.
Navarra v. People
Convicted because the deal was
approved by the municipal board thus
the offense was committed.

VI. Special Law Has To Fix Penalties For Attempted And Frustrated
Crime Before They Can Be Punished
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine legit.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

38

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER


The special law does not provide for a penalty one or two
degrees lower than that provided for that consummated stage.
If the special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime
defined by it, then the mere attempt is punishable.
o Law prohibiting the any attempt to export gold.
Had this act been consummated, the exporter
would already have been outside our
jurisdiction thus he is able to get away with the
offense.


VII. Article 10 Is Not Applicable To Punish An Accomplice Under The
Special Law
Unless expressly provided, the penalty imposed is clearly
intended only for the one committing the offense.
o People v. Padaong (dissenting opinion)
If the special law does not prescribe a penalty
for accomplices, it would be a legal
impossibility to determine what their penalty
would be.

VIII. Revised Penal Code Supplementary To Special Laws
People v. Moreno
o Accused was convicted of homicide through reckless
imprudence and violation the Motor Vehicle Law.
Motor Vehicle Law is silent about indemnity to
heirs of the deceased (art. 100) and subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency (art. 39).
Court rules that Article 39 and Article 100 can
be applied as supplementary to the Motor
Vehicle Law.
People v. Lardizabal
o Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code was applied if and
when the person convicted could not pay the offended
party the indemnity that was awarded to the latter.


IX. Example Of Article 12 Par. 3 Of The Revised Penal Code Being
Applied In A Special Law
People v. Navarro
o 13 year old girl sells cocoa for 11 cents more than the
price fixed by government
Article 12 par. 3 was used as a basis
Prosecution failed to show that the
accused acted with discernment
o Accused could not have been
able to act with intelligence
because of her age
o For crimes that are mala
prohibita, offense must be
done voluntarily
o Accused could not have been
able to act voluntarily because
of lack of intelligence

X. Suppletory Application Of The Revised Penal Code
Only applies if the provisions of the special law is silent on the
matter
o Subsidiary Penalty (Article 39) imprisonment if
cannot pay fine.
o Civil Liability (Article 100) every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
o Rules on service of sentence (Article 70).
o Definitions on Principals, Accomplices, Accessories
(Article 17-19) was used when the special laws cited
but did not on their own provide a definition for
principals, accomplices, and accessories.
o Principle of conspiracy (Article 8) was used when the
special laws cited but did not on their own provide a
definition for conspiracy.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

39

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER




XI. Revised Penal Code Is Not Suppletory When The Penalties Under
The Special Law Are Different From Those Under The Revised Penal
Code
People v. Panida
o Court did not apply the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code suppletorily because the anti-carnapping law
provides for its own penalties which are distinct and
without reference to the Revised Penal Code.

XII. Special Laws Amending The Revised Penal Code Are Subject To Its
Provisions
If the special law is an amendment of a certain article in the
Revised Penal Code, that special law will necessarily be covered
by relevant provisions in the Revised Penal Code.
o Example:
PD 533 amends the provision of the Revised
Penal Code governing theft of large cattle.
Since the special law (PD 533) is an amendment
of an existing provision in the Revised Penal
Code, all the other provisions of the Revised
Penal Code such as mitigating circumstances,
etc. may be applied.


Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)

40