CRIMINAL LAW 1

CASES FOR DIGEST

Mae Ann F. Bulang

CASES 1. People v Agacer

GR NO 177751, Dec 14, 2011 (Conspiracy: Treachery) Conspiracy: Exist when two or more persons come to an 1)agreement concerning commission of a felony and 2)decides to commit it.
NOT ESSENTIAL: Proof of 1) agreement and 2) decision to commit the crime ESSENTIAL: Fact that malefactors 1) acted in unison 2) pursuant to same objective.

NO LONGER INDESPENSABLE: who among the appellants delivered the fatal blow since in CONSPIRACY, a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another.

Treachery: Exist when the offender commits any of crimes against person, employing means, methods or form of execution which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offender might partake.
TWO CONDITIONS MUST CONCUR (TREACHERY): 1) MOE employed gives person attacked no opportunity to defend

himself 2) MOE deliberate or consciously adopted

ESSENCE OF TREACHERY: Aggressors sudden attack w/o slightest provocation by victim\\ depriving latter of chance to defend himself\\ ensuring commission of the crime\\ w/o

risk to aggressor.

2. People v Concillado

181204, Nov. 28, 2011 (Self-defense; Alevosia; Evident premeditation; Voluntary surrender) 173822, Oct. 13, 2010 (RA 9344: Retroactive application) 188315, Aug. 25, 2010 (Qualifying circumstances of relationship) 164815, Feb. 22, 2008 (Prospective application of penal laws) 168111, July 4, 2008 (Mala in se v Mala prohibita) 180425, July 21, 2008 (Overt or external act) 179035, April 16, 2008 (Complex crimes under the first clause of Act 48) 159255, Jan. 28, 2008 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) 172370, Oct. 6, 2008 (Extinction of criminal liability) 135808, Oct. 6, 2008 (Effects of absolute repeal)

3. Atizado v People 4. People v Flores 5. Valeroso v People 6. Tan et al v Balle et al 7. Rait v People 8. People v Paycana Jr. 9. Vasquez v People 10. People v Castro 11. Securities and Exchange Commission v Interport Resources Corporation 12. People v Gonzales 13. People v Erquiza 14. People v Dela Cruz 15. People v Zulueta Sr.

180448, July 28, 2008 (Corpus delicti) 171348, Nov. 26, 2008 (Proof beyond reasonable doubt) 168173, Dec. 24, 2008 (Effects of conspiracy upon the criminal liability of the conspirators) 177297, Sept. 12, 2008 (RA 9346)

ABBREVS: MOE means of execution

SAMPLEX (Midterms): A) Characteristics of Criminal Law General penal laws are enforceable in all persons who live/sojourn w/i PH (Art. 14 NCC) subject to:
1) principles of public intl law, 2) treaty stipulations and 3) laws on preferential application Exempted: consuls, ambassadors, HOS, etc RP-US VFA RA 75

Territorial general rule is penal laws enforceable only w/i territory of the PH EXCEPT extraterritorial application as provided by Art. 2 of RPC against those:
1) person who commits an offense while in a PH ship/airship 2) person who forge/counterfeit coins, currency bills and other obligations/securities issued by the PH Govt 3)person who introduce forged/counterfeit obligations and securities 4) while being public officer/employee, commits an offense in exercise of function 5) commits an offense against national security or laws of nation EXCEPTION TO EXCEPTION: Penal laws applicable w/i or w/o PH territory if provided by treaty stipulations and laws on preferential application (ART. 2, RPC).

Prospective general rule is that penal law laws shall have no retroactive effect EXCEPT when it is favorable to the accused.
EXCEPTION TO EXCEPTION: 1) expressly made not applicable to pending actions/existing causes of action. 2) offender is a habitual criminal

B) Extraterritorial application of penal laws RPC provides for extraterritorial application and punishes crime even if outside the jurisdiction of the PH when such crimes affect the political and economic life of the nation. C) Art. 3 1) Classify felonies according to: mode of execution mala in se/mala prohibita stages of execution - CFA gravity of execution GLgL means of execution By deceit -dolo (intentional)/ By fault-culpa (culpable) felonies.

2) Mala in se v Mala prohibita

Mala in se is an act that is wrong from its very nature as punishable by RPC. Good faith is a valid defense unless crime is a result of culpa. It is distinguished not based on the law punishing it but based on the act itself. Intent is an element of the crime. *candy answers* NATURE GOOD FAITH AS DEFENSE Wrong from very nature GF valid D, except crime resulting from culpa INTENT AS ELEMENT DEGREE OF ACCOMSPLISHMENT OF CRIME MITIGATING/AGGARAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION Intent - element of crime. Degree of accomplishment taken into account in punishing offender. M/A circumstance taken into account in imposing penalty. If >1 offender, degree of participation taken into account Criminal intent immaterial Act gives rise to a crime when consummated. M/A circumstance not taken into account. Degree of participation generally not taken into account. All participated punished to same Wrong because prohibited by law GF not a D. Mala prohibita is an act that is prohibited by law. Without the law punishing the act, it cannot be considered wrong. Good faith will not stand as a defense because intent is immaterial. *candy answers*

extent. LAWS VIOLATED RPC (general rule) Special Laws (general rule)

3) Differentiate. Abberatio ictus

Mistake in the blow >Occurs when the offender delivers a blow to an intended victim but missed and landed to an unintended victim. >The situation brings about complex crime whereby from a single act, two or more grave or less grave felony has been committed namely: intent to harm the intended

Error in personae
Mistake in identity >Occurs when offender actually hit the person to whom the blow was intended but turns out it was not the person. >Criminal liability is not affected. >Unless the mistake resulted to a crime not what the offender intended to commit which case, the lesser penalty bet. crime intended and crime committed shall be imposed, in maximum period.

Praeter intentionem
Consequence went beyond what is intended >A mitigating circumstance (Art. 13 Par.3) when there is a notorious disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony.

victim the resulting harm to the

unintended victim

4) Categories of crime that requires no intent. A: Crimes that requires no intent are 1) mala prohibita wherein the mere doing of the prohibited act is a crime in itself and 2) culpable felonies which are act or omissions that results from negligence, imprudence, lack of skill and lack of foresight. 5) Mistake of fact as a defense A: Mistake of facts will be appreciated as a defense if 1) the act done was lawful had the facts been what the accused believed it to be, 2) there was lawful intent in performing the act, and 3) mistake must be w/o fault or carelessness 6) Ah Chong case v Oanis case. Differentiate.
In Ah Chong case, the accused has no alternative In the Oanis case, the accused police officer

but to act based on the facts appeared to him at the time. Such facts justified the killing of his roommate. There is lawful act and intent, had the facts been what the accused believed it to be and there is no fault or negligence in his part because he gave prior notice to the deceased by inquiring who he is, who in turn did not respond.

where at fault when they shot the deceased, without first ascertaining his identity.

7) Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. Explain. A: The act would not be criminal if the mind is not criminal. There is no crime if there is no criminal intent. 8) Intent v Motive
INTENT Purpose to use particular means to effect such result. MOTIVE Moving power/reason w/c impels one to commit an act for a definite result. Element of crime EXCEPT culpable felonies. Essential in intentional felonies. NOT an element of crime. Essential ONLY when identity of perpetrator is in doubt.

D) Art 4 1) Causes produce result different what is intended (situational) Art 4 provides that criminal liability shall be incurred by a person committing a felony which will produce a result different from which it was intended. This is based on the legal maxim 2) Impossible crimes (situational) 3) Basis affecting criminal liability (situational) E) Art 5 1) Act so perverse, no law punishes it, is crime committed?
No. It is based on the latin maxim Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege that there is no crime unless there is a law penalizing it. Pursuant to Art 5 of the RPC, in cases wherein there is an act so perverse that it should be repressed yet there is no law penalizing it, it is the duty of the court to render the proper decision and report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reason why the act should be subject to a penal legislation pursuant to Art 5 of the RPC.

2) Duty of court: a) should be repressed but not covered by law

The duty of the court when there is an act so perverse that should be repressed yet is not punished by law is to render the proper decision and report to the Chief Executive through the Department of Justice as to the reason why the said act should be made subject by a penal legislation pursuant to Art 5 of the Revised Penal Code.

b)excessive penalties
The duty of the court when there is an excessive fine in the imposition of a penalty is to render the proper decision and report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the fact that excessive penalty is a result of a strict enforcement of the Code taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense pursuant to Art. 5 of the Revised Penal Code.

F) Art 6 1) Stages of execution of a felony A: As provided by Art. 6 of the RPC, the stages of execution of a felony are: a) Consummated when elements necessary for execution of the felony are present as well as its accomplishment b) Frustrated when the offender has executed all the acts that would result to the felony but for causes independent of the will of the offender, it does not result to the felony. c) Attempted when offender commences the commission of the felony directly by over acts, however he does not perform all the act of execution which should produce the felony due to the cause or accident other than offenders spontaneous desistance. 2) What is an indeterminate offense? A: An indeterminate offense is one where the purpose of the offender is not certain in performing the act. The accused may be convicted for a felony defined by the acts done by him up to the time of desistance. G) Art 7 1) When are light felonies punishable? A: Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, EXCEPT when it is an offense against a person/property pursuant to Art 7 of the RPC.

H) Art 8 1) Conspiracy as a felony v conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability. Differentiate. A: As a general rule, mere conspiracy is not punishable since they are only preparatory acts EXCEPT when
the law specifically provides for a punishment thereof such as in cases of conspiracy in treason, rebellion, insurrection, coup detat, sedition, and monopolies and combination in restraint of trade (TRICSM).

As a felony, conspirators need not execute the act and it is enough that two or more is in agreement and decides to commit the act.

As a manner of incurring criminal liability, if they commit the said act, say treason, they will be held liable for treason and conspiracy will not be treated as a separate offense but as a manner of incurring criminal liability only.

2) Conspiracy to commit v Proposal to commit. Differentiate. A: A conspiracy to commit a felony punishable by RPC such as treason, rebellion, insurrection, coup detat,
sedition and monopoly or combination in restraint of trade is when two or more persons has an agreement and decides to commit a felony while proposal to commit conspiracy is when the person who decided to commit a felony punishable by the RPC for mere proposal such as treason, rebellion, insurrection and coup detat, proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

I) Art 10 1) Classify felony based on gravity. A: The following are felonies based on their gravity as provided by Art 9 of RPC: 1) Grave felony punishable by capital punishment or in any period by afflictive penalties such as reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, permanent or temporary absolute disqualification, permanent or temporary special disqualification and prision mayor, pursuant to Art 25 of the RPC. 2) Less grave felony punishable in their maximum period by correctional penalties which includes prision correccional, arresto mayor, suspension and destierro, pursuant to Art 25 of the RPC. 3) Light felony infractions of the law punishable by arresto menor or fine not greater than P200. J) Art 11

1) Indispensable requisite of self-defense A: A condition sine qua non in self-defense is unlawful aggression without which all other elements of the crime will not be appreciated as a ground for self-defense. 2) Justifying circumstance of self defense A: Pursuant to Art 11 of RPC, the ff are justifying circumstance of K) Art 12 1) Justifying v Mitigating circumstances. Differentiate. A: A justifying circumstance is an act in accordance with the law such that the offender is not deemed to have transgressed the law as the act is lawful due to the absence of criminal intent. Hence there is no criminal and civil liability. On the other hand, mitigating circumstances does not extinguish criminal liability but on serves to reduce the penalty imposed on the basis of diminution of element of deceit (dolo) and fault (culpa). 2) When is relationship mitigating and when is it aggravating?

The Revised Penal Code is silent as to when the alternative circumstance of relationship is mitigating and when it is aggravating. A: As a rule, relationship is mitigating in crime against property such as robbery but in crime against person, it is aggravating when the offended party is a relative of 1) a higher or 2) same degree. In crime against chastity, relationship is always aggravating regardless of the degree of relationship. L) Art 13 1) Vindication v Provocation. Differentiate.
A: In provocation, there is a direct sufficient threat to the person committing the felony which is exciting, irritating and inciting in nature. The status of the person provoked, place and time of the provocation and the nature of act constituting provocation are considered. The provocation need not be a grave offense as if it is offensive and positively strong, it will constitute unlawful aggression which gives rise to the justifying circumstance of self-defense. The felonious act in response to the provocation must immediately precede the act.

In vindication, the grave offense may also be committed to the offenders relatives mentioned by law and the offended party must have done a grave offense to the offender and his relatives mentioned by law. The vindication to the grave offense need not be immediate but only proximate from the time of the commission of the grave offense.

2) When is intoxication mitigating/aggravating? A: Intoxication is mitigating when it not habitual or not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony while it is aggravating when it is habitual and intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit a felony). 3) Entrapment vs Intigation A: Instigation takes place when a peace officer induces a person to commit a crime. Without the inducement, the crime would not be committed. Hence, it is exempting by reason of public policy. Otherwise, the peace officer would be a co-principal. On the other hand, entrapment signifies the ways and means devised by a peace officer to entrap or apprehend a person who has committed a crime. With or without the entrapment, the crime has been committed already. Hence, entrapment is not mitigating. 4) What is an alternative circumstance? A: An alternative circumstances are those which are considered in the commission of a crime of whether it is mitigating or aggravating that includes intoxication, relationship, degree of instruction and education of the offender. 5) Treachery: Exist when the offender commits any of crimes against person, employing means, methods or form of execution which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offender might partake.
TWO CONDITIONS MUST CONCUR (TREACHERY): 1. MOE employed gives person attacked no opportunity to defend himself 2. MOE deliberate or consciously adopted

7/30/2013 7:26:00 AM I. Judicial Power A.

power to preserve judiciary s honor In Re Laureta Possessor (Sec. 1) Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law *In Re Laureta Maravilla Illustre wrote to the justices of the SC, complaining about the dismissal of the her case (a land dispute involving large estate) by a minute-resolution. Illustre claims that it was an unjust resolution deliberately and knowingly promulgated by the 1st Division, that it was railroaded with such hurry beyond the limits of legal and judicial ethics. In short, SC resolutions are beyond investigation from other departments of the government because of separation of powers. The correctness of the SC decisions are conclusive upon other branches of government.

Montesclaros v. Comelec (SK) Congress RA 9164 (2002) (voters/candidates of SK election 15 or >18) LGC (1991) SK membership (15 or >21) --------------WON Congress can lower the court can lower the max age requirement under the LGC of 1991 for membership in the SK to the disenfranchisement of about 7m youths. ----------

B.

Definition (Sec. 1) actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable *Montesclaros v. Comelec (SK) *PACU v. Secretary of Education (license) determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government *Villarosa v. HRET (JTV)

*PCGG v. Desierto (Westinghouse)

7/30/2013 7:26:00 AM