Sunteți pe pagina 1din 25

Criminal Law Book 1 Articles 1 10

Posted by Magz

Criminal Law A branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment. Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws (ON) 1. 2. 3. . Must be general in application. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or e!cessive fines.

Characteristics of Criminal Law 1. !eneral " the law is binding to all persons who reside in the Philippines 2. "erritorial " the law is binding to all crimes committed within the #ational $erritory of the Philippines Exception to Territorial Application% &nstances enumerated under Article 2. 3. #rospecti$e " the law does not have any retroactive effect. Exception to Prospective Application% when new statute is favorable to the accused. %ffect of repeal of penal law to lia&ilit' of offen(er Total or absolute, or partial or relative repeal. As to the effect of repeal of penal law to the liability of offender, qualify your answer by saying whether the repeal is absolute or total or whether the repeal is partial or relative only. A repeal is absolute or total when the crime punished under the repealed law has been decriminali ed by the repeal. !ecause of the repeal, the act or omission which used to be a crime is no longer a crime. An example is "epublic Act #o. $%&%, which decriminali ed subversion. A repeal is partial or relative when the crime punished under the repealed law continues to be a crime inspite of the repeal. This means that the repeal merely modified the conditions affecting the crime under the repealed law. The modification may be pre'udicial or beneficial to the offender. (ence, the following rule) Conse)*ences if repeal of penal law is total or a&sol*te *+, &f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law , the same shall be dismissed, even though the accused may be a habitual delinquent. *-, &f a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final 'udgment, if the convict is not a habitual delin(uent, then he will be entitled to a release unless there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to those serving sentence at the time of the repeal. )ut if there is no reservation, those who are not

habitual delinquents even if they are already serving their sentence will receive the benefit of the repealing law. They are entitled to release. &f they are not discharged from confinement , a petition for habeas corpus should be filed to test the legality of their continued confinement in 'ail. &f the convict, on the other hand, is a habitual delin(uent , he will continue serving the sentence in spite of the fact that the law under which he was convicted has already been absolutely repealed. This is so because penal laws should be given retroactive application to favor only those who are not habitual delinquents. Conse)*ences if repeal of penal law is partial or relati$e *+, &f a case is pending in court involving the violation of the repealed law, and the repealing law is more favorable to the accused, it shall be the one applied to him. .o whether he is a habitual delinquent or not, if the case is still pending in court, the repealing law will be the one to apply unless there is a saving clause in the repealing law that it shall not apply to pending causes of action. *2+ &f a case is already decided and the accused is already serving sentence by final 'udgment, even if the repealing law is partial or relative, the crime still remains to be a crime. $hose who are not habitual delin(uents will benefit on the effect of that repeal, so that if the repeal is more lenient to them, it will be the repealing law that will henceforth apply to them. /nder Article --, even if the offender is already convicted and serving sentence, a law which is beneficial shall be applied to him unless he is a habitual delinquent in accordance with "ule 0 of Article &-. Consequences if repeal of penal law is express or implied *+, &f a penal law is impliedly repealed, the subsequent repeal of the repealing law will revive the original law. .o the act or omission which was punished as a crime under the original law will be revived and the same shall again be crimes although during the implied repeal they may not be punishable. *-, &f the repeal is e!press, the repeal of the repealing law will not revive the first law, so the act or omission will no longer be penali ed. These effects of repeal do not apply to self1repealing laws or those which have automatic termination. An example is the "ent 2ontrol 3aw which is revived by 2ongress every two years. "heories of Criminal Law 1. Classical "heor' " Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to choose between good and evil and therefore more stress is placed upon the result of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself. 1. #ositi$ist "heor' " Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which conditions him to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his volition. %clectic or Mi+e( #hilosoph' This combines both positivist and classical thin4ing. 2rimes that are economic and social and nature should be dealt with in a positivist manner5 thus, the law is more

compassionate. (einous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner5 thus, capital punishmen

BA,-C MA.-M, -N C/-M-NAL LA0 1octrine of #ro /eo 6henever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations 7 one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender 7 that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. N*ll*m crimen2 n*lla poena sine lege There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law countries, but not to common law countries. !ecause of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. #o matter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not considered a crime. Act*s non facit re*m2 nisi mens sit rea The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony characteri ed by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from negligence. 3tilitarian "heor' or #rotecti$e "heor' The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society from actual and potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wronged society, should direct the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers, since criminal law is directed against acts and omissions which the society does not approve. 2onsistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle which punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should not be utili ed to apply the full harshness of the special law. ,o*rces of Criminal Law 1. $he ,evised Penal -ode 2. .pecial Penal /aws " Acts enacted of the Philippine /egislature punishing offenses or omissions. Constr*ction of #enal Laws 1. -riminal .tatutes are liberally construed in favor of the offender. $his means that no person shall be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them, nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by statute. 2. $he original te!t in which a penal law is approved in case of a conflict with an official translation. 3. &nterpretation by analogy has no place in criminal law MALA -N ,% AN1 MALA #/O4-B-"A

8iolations of the "evised Penal 2ode are referred to as malum in se, which literally means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. 0n the other hand, violations of special laws are generally referred to as malum prohibitum. #ote, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. 1hile intentional felonies are always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala prohibita. 2ven if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense3 unless it is the product of criminal negligence or culpa. /ikewise when the special laws re(uires that the punished act be committed knowingly and willfully, criminal intent is re(uired to be proved before criminal liability may arise. 1hen the act penali4ed is not inherently wrong, it is wrong only because a law punishes the same. 1istinction &etween crimes p*nishe( *n(er the /e$ise( #enal Co(e an( crimes p*nishe( *n(er special laws 15 As to moral trait of the offender

&n crimes punished under the ,evised Penal -ode, the moral trait of the offender is considered. $his is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the punishable act. &n crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered3 it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done. 65 As to use of good faith as defense

&n crimes punished under the ,evised Penal -ode, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense3 unless the crime is the result of culpa &n crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense 75 As to degree of accomplishment of the crime

&n crimes punished under the ,evised Penal -ode, the degree of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender3 thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in the commission of the crime. &n crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime only when it is consummated3 there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special law e!pressly penali4e the mere attempt or frustration of the crime.

85

As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances

&n crimes punished under the ,evised Penal -ode, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in imposing the penalty since the moral trait of the offender is considered. &n crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not taken into account in imposing the penalty. 95 As to degree of participation

&n crimes punished under the ,evised Penal -ode, when there is more than one offender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is taken into account in imposing the penalty3 thus, offenders are classified as principal, accomplice and accessory. &n crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penali4ed to the same e!tent. $here is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider. "est to (etermine if $iolation of special law is mal*m prohi&it*m or mal*m in se Analy e the violation) 9s it wrong because there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as such: 9f you remove the law, will the act still be wrong: 9f the wording of the law punishing the crime uses the word ;willfully<, then malice must be proven. 6here malice is a factor, good faith is a defense. 9n violation of special law, the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act. Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability, unless the special law punishes an omission. 6hen given a problem, ta4e note if the crime is a violation of the "evised Penal 2ode or a special law. Art5 15 "his Co(e shall take effect on :an*ar' 12 1;765 Art5 65 %+cept as pro$i(e( in the treaties an( laws of preferential application2 the pro$isions of this Co(e shall &e enforce( not onl' within the #hilippine Archipelago incl*(ing its atmosphere2 its interior waters an( Maritime zone2 &*t also o*tsi(e of its <*ris(iction2 against those who 15 ,ho*l( commit an offense while on a #hilippine ship or airship= 65 ,ho*l( forge or co*nterfeit an' coin or c*rrenc' note of the #hilippine -slan(s or o&ligations an( sec*rities iss*e( &' the !o$ernment of the #hilippine -slan(s= 75 ,ho*l( &e lia&le for acts connecte( with the intro(*ction into these islan(s of the o&ligations an( sec*rities mentione( in the prece(ing n*m&er= 85 0hile &eing p*&lic officers or emplo'ees2 sho*l( commit an offense in the e+ercise of their f*nctions= or *.ome of these crimes are bribery, fraud against national treasury,

malversation of public funds or property, and illegal use of public funds5 e.g., A 'udge who accepts a bribe while in =apan., 95 ,ho*l( commit an' crimes against the national sec*rit' an( the law of nations2 (efine( in "itle One of Book "wo of this Co(e5 *These crimes include treason, espionage, piracy, mutiny, and violation of neutrality, Rules as to crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels% 1. >rench /*le " .uch crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered. 1. %nglish /*le " .uch crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof. *$his is applicable in the Philippines+ two situations where the foreign country may not apply its criminal law even if a crime was committed on board a vessel within its territorial waters and these are) *+, 6hen the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of the country to whose naval force they belong5 *-, 6hen the foreign country in whose territorial waters the crime was committed adopts the French Rule, which applies only to merchant vessels, except when the crime committed affects the national security or public order of such foreign country. Requirements of an offense committed while on a hilippine !hip or Airship 5 1. ,egistered with the Philippine )ureau of -ustoms 2. .hip must be in the high seas or the airship must be in international airspace. /nder international law rule, a vessel which is not registered in accordance with the laws of any country is considered a pirate vessel and piracy is a crime against humanity in general, such that wherever the pirates may go, they can be prosecuted. 3, $5 B*ll A crime which occurred on board of a foreign vessel, which began when the ship was in a foreign territory and continued when it entered into Philippine waters, is considered a continuing crime. 6ence within the 'urisdiction of the local courts. As a general rule, the "evised Penal 2ode governs only when the crime committed pertains to the exercise of the public official>s functions, those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country. The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law, to be performed by the public officer in the ?oreign .ervice of the Philippine government in a foreign country. Exception) The "evised Penal 2ode governs if the crime was committed within the Philippine Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. This is because embassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty. Paragraph 0 of Article -, use the phrase ;as defined in Title @ne of !oo4 Two of this 2ode.<

This is a very important part of the exception, because Title 9 of !oo4 - *crimes against national security, does not include rebellion. Art 75 Acts an( omissions p*nisha&le &' law are felonies5 Acts " an overt or e!ternal act "mission " failure to perform a duty re(uired by law. Example of an omission% failure to render assistance to anyone who is in danger of dying or is in an uninhabited place or is wounded " abandonment. Felonies " acts and omissions punishable by the ,evised Penal -ode Crime 7 acts and omissions punishable by any law 1hat re(uisites must concur before a felony may be committed8 There must be *+, an act or omission5 *-, punishable by the "evised Penal 2ode5 and *%, the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa. #ow felonies are committed% 1. &' means of (eceit (dolo) " $here is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent. Requisites$ 1. freedom 2. intelligence 3. intent Examples% murder, treason, and robbery Criminal intent is not necessar% in these cases$ *+, 6hen the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, rec4less imprudence, lac4 of foresight or lac4 of s4ill5 *-, 6hen the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum prohibitum. &n criminal law, intent is categori'ed into two$ *+, Aeneral criminal intent5 and *-, .pecific criminal intent. (eneral criminal intent is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such criminal intent. !pecific criminal intent is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, li4e intent to 4ill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicideBparricideBmurder. The prosecution has the burden of proving the same. )istinction between intent and discernment &ntent is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. 9t is the design to resolve or determination by which a person acts. @n the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. 9t relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an element of dolo, distinct from intent.

)istinction between intent and motive &ntent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result 7 it is not a state of mind or a reason for committing a crime. @n the other hand, motive implies motion. 9t is the moving power which impels one to do an act. 6hen there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. !ut a crime may be committed without motive. 9f the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. 9ntent is manifested by the instrument used by the offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material if the crime is to be distinguished from the attempted or frustrated stage. 1. b% means of fault *culpa+ " $here is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. 1. &mprudence " deficiency of action3 e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. 6e hit ) because it was raining " reckless imprudence. 2. ,egligence - deficiency of perception3 failure to foresee impending danger, usually involves lack of foresight 3. c. Requisites$ 1. 9reedom 2. &ntelligence 3. &mprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight . /ack of intent The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lac4 of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform an act. 9f the danger impending from that situation is clearly manifest, you have a case of rec.less imprudence. !ut if the danger that would result from such imprudence is not clear, not manifest nor immediate you have only a case ofsimple negligence. Mistake of fact " is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused in'ury to another. 6e is not criminally liable. a. Requisites% 1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be3 2. intention of the accused is lawful3 3. mistake must be without fault of carelessness. %+ample$ /nited !tates v. Ah Chong. Ah -hong being afraid of bad elements, locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by somebody who was trying to open the door. 6e asked the identity of the person, but he did not receive a response. 9earing that this intruder was a robber, he leaped out of bed and said that he will kill the intruder should he attempt to enter. At that moment, the chair struck him. )elieving that he was attacked, he sei4ed a knife and fatally wounded the intruder.

Cista4e of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through dolo, but not when the felony is a result of culpa. 6hen the felony is a product of culpa, do not discuss mista4e of fact. Art5 85 Criminal lia&ilit' shall &e inc*rre( 15 B' an' person committing a felon'2 altho*gh the wrongf*l act (one &e (ifferent from that which he inten(e(5 Article , paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the pro!imate cause of the resulting felony. &t must be the direct, natural, and logical conse(uence of the felonious act.
Ca*ses which pro(*ce a (ifferent res*lt 0ista.e in identit% of the victim " in'uring one person who is mistaken for another *this is a comple! crime under Art. :+ e.g., A intended to shoot ), but he instead shot because he *A+ mistook - for ).

1.

9n error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. 9t was the actual victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim. (ow does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender: Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was intended. 9f the crime committed is the same as that which was intended, error in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. 9n mista4e of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a different victim, error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. !ut if the crime committed was different from the crime intended, Article DE will apply and the penalty for the lesser crime will be applied. 9n a way, mista4e in identity is a mitigating circumstance where Article DE applies. 6here the crime intended is more serious than the crime committed, the error in persona is not a mitigating circumstance 2. 0ista.e in blow " hitting somebody other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous instances *this is a comple! crime under Art. :+ e.g., ) and - were walking together. A wanted to shoot ), but he instead in'ured -. 9n aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else. 9n aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime. aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a complex crime. This being so, the penalty for the more serious crime is imposed in the maximum period. 3. &n1urious result is greater than that intended " causing in'ury graver than intended or e!pected *this is a mitigating circumstance due to lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong under Art. 13+ e.g., A wanted to in'ure ). 6owever, ) died.

praeter intentionem is mitigating, particularly covered by paragraph % of Article +%. 9n order however, that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem, there must be a notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony &n all these instances the offender can still be held criminally liable, since he is motivated by criminal intent. Requisites% 1. the felony was intentionally committed 2. the felony is the pro!imate cause of the wrong done )octrine of roximate Cause " such ade(uate and efficient cause as, in the natural order of events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, which would necessarily produce the event. Requisites% 1. the direct, natural, and logical cause 2. produces the in'ury or damage 3. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause . without which the result would not have occurred roximate Cause is negated b%$ 1. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused, which serves as a sufficient intervening cause. 2. ,esulting in'ury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim. proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended party. 9t is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that made him ris4 himself. "equisite for Presumption blow was cause of the death " 1here there has been an in'ury inflicted sufficient to produce death followed by the demise of the person, the presumption arises that the in'ury was the cause of the death. Provided% 1. victim was in normal health 2. death ensued within a reasonable time The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable. The one who caused the immediate cause is also liable, but merely contributory or sometimes totally not liable. 65 B' an' person performing an act which wo*l( &e an offense against persons or propert'2 were it not for the inherent impossi&ilit' of its accomplishment or on acco*nt of the emplo'ment of ina(e)*ate or ineffect*al means5 /e)*isites (-M#O,,-BL% C/-M%) 1. Act would have been an offense against persons or property 2. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the -ode or of a special penal law 3. $here was criminal intent . Accomplishment was inherently impossible3 or inade(uate or ineffectual means were employed. Notes 1. 0ffender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing another who he knew was already dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime. 2. $he law intends to punish the criminal intent. 3. $here is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.

?elonies against persons% parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, physical in'uries, etc. ?elonies against property) robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc. 9nherent impossibility% A thought that ) was 'ust sleeping. ) was already dead. A shot ). A is liable. &f A knew that ) is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.

6hen we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have materiali ed. 9f the crime could have materiali ed under a different set of facts, employing the same mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime5 it would be an attempted felony. Employment of inadequate means% A used poison to kill ). 6owever, ) survived because A used small (uantities of poison " frustrated murder. 9neffectual means% A aimed his gun at ). 1hen he fired the gun, no bullet came out because the gun was empty. A is liable. 6henever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was committed, be careful about the question as4ed. 9f the question as4ed is) ;9s an impossible crime committed:<, then you 'udge that question on the basis of the facts. 9f really the facts constitute an impossible crime, then you suggest than an impossible crime is committed, then you state the reason for the inherent impossibility. 9f the question as4ed is ;9s he liable for an impossible crime:<, this is a catching question. Even though the facts constitute an impossible crime, if the act done by the offender constitutes some other crimes under the "evised Penal 2ode, he will not be liable for an impossible crime. (e will be prosecuted for the crime constituted so far by the act done by him. this idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort, 'ust to teach the offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. 9f he could be taught of the same lesson by charging him with some other crime constituted by his act, then that will be the proper way. 9f you want to play safe, you state there that although an impossible crime is constituted, yet it is a principle of criminal law that he will only be penali ed for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the "evised Penal 2ode. Art ;. 1henever 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 -hief 2!ecutive, through the <epartment of =ustice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made sub'ect of legislation. -n the same wa' the co*rt shall s*&mit to the Chief %+ec*ti$e2 thro*gh the 1epartment of :*stice2 s*ch statement as ma' &e (eeme( proper2 witho*t s*spen(ing the e+ec*tion of the sentence2 when a strict enforcement of the pro$isions of this Co(e wo*l( res*lt in the imposition of a clearl' e+cessi$e penalt'2 taking into consi(eration the (egree of malice an( the in<*r' ca*se( &' the offense5

6hen a person is charged in court, and the court finds that there is no law applicable, the court will acquit the accused and the 'udge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished. Paragraph 2 does not apply to crimes punishable by special law, including profiteering, and illegal possession of firearms or drugs. $here can be no e!ecutive clemency for these crimes. Art. >. -onsummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. A felon' is cons*mmate( when all the elements necessar' for its e+ec*tion an( accomplishment are present= an( it is fr*strate( when the offen(er performs all the acts of e+ec*tion which wo*l( pro(*ce the felon' as a conse)*ence &*t which2 ne$ertheless2 (o not pro(*ce it &' reason of ca*ses in(epen(ent of the will of the perpetrator5 "here is an attempt when the offen(er commences the commission of a felon' (irectl' &' o$ert acts2 an( (oes not perform all the acts of e+ec*tion which sho*l( pro(*ce the felon' &' reason of some ca*se or acci(ent other than his own spontaneo*s (esistance5 )evelopment of a crime 1. &nternal acts " intent and plans3 usually not punishable 2. 2!ternal acts 1. Preparatory Acts " acts tending toward the crime 2. Acts of 2!ecution " acts directly connected the crime Stages of Commission of a Crime Attempt

Frustrated

Consummated

Overt acts of execution are started Not all acts of execution are present Due to reasons other than the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator All acts of execution are present Crime sought to be committed is not

1. 2. 3.

achieved Due to intervening causes independent of the will of the perpetrator All the acts of execution are present he result sought is achieved

!tages of a Crime does not appl% in 0ffenses punishable by .pecial Penal /aws, unless the otherwise is provided for. 9ormal crimes *e.g., slander, adultery, etc.+ &mpossible -rimes !. -rimes consummated by mere attempt. Examples) attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason, corruption of minors. ;. 9elonies by omission >. -rimes committed by mere agreement. Examples) betting in sports *endings in basketball+, corruption of public officers.

1esistance Fesistance on the part of the offender negates criminal liability in the attempted stage. Fesistance is true only in the attempted stage of the felony. 9f under the definition of the felony, the act done is already in the frustrated stage, no amount of desistance will negate criminal liability. The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all criminal liability. Even though there was desistance on the part of the offender, if the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a felony, that offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about his act 9n deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or consummated, there are three criteria involved) *+, The manner of committing the crime5 *-, *%, The elements of the crime5 and The nature of the crime itself. Applications$ A put poison in )?s food. ) threw away his food. A is liable " attempted murder.@1A A stole )?s car, but he returned it. A is liable " *consummated, theft. A aimed his gun at ). - held A?s hand and prevented him from shooting ) " attempted murder. A inflicted a mortal wound on ). ) managed to survive " frustrated murder. A intended to kill ) by shooting him. A missed " attempted murder. A doused )?s house with kerosene. )ut before he could light the match, he was caught "attempted arson.

1. 2. 3. !. ". #.

$. %. &.

A cause a bla4e, but did not burn the house of ) " frustrated arson. )?s house was set on fire by A " *consummated, arson. A tried to rape ). ) managed to escape. $here was no penetration " attempted rape. 1B. A got hold of )?s painting. A was caught before he could leave )?s house " frustrated robbery.234

The attempted stage is said to be within the sub'ective phase of execution of a felony. @n the sub'ective phase, it is that point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overt act until that point where he loses control of the commission of the crime already. 9f he has reached that point where he can no longer control the ensuing consequence, the crime has already passed the sub'ective phase and, therefore, it is no longer attempted. The moment the execution of the crime has already gone to that point where the felony should follow as a consequence, it is either already frustrated or consummated. 9f the felony does not follow as a consequence, it is already frustrated. 9f the felony follows as a consequence, it is consummated. although the offender may not have done the act to bring about the felony as a consequence, if he could have continued committing those acts but he himself did not proceed because he believed that he had done enough to consummate the crime, .upreme 2ourt said the sub'ective phase has passed ,"T5! ", AR!",6 The weight of the authority is that the crime of arson cannot be committed in the frustrated stage. The reason is because we can hardly determine whether the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would result in arson, as a consequence, unless a part of the premises has started to burn. @n the other hand, the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises has blac4ened, in law, arson is consummated. This is because consummated arson does not require that the whole of the premises be burned. 9t is enough that any part of the premises, no matter how small, has begun to burn. 5!TAFA 7!. T#5FT 9n estafa, the offender receives the property5 he does not ta4e it. !ut in receiving the property, the recipient may be committing theft, not estafa, if what was transferred to him was only the physical or material possession of the ob'ect. 9t can only be estafa if what was transferred to him is not only material or physical possession but 'uridical possession as well. 6hen you are discussing estafa, do not tal4 about intent to gain. 9n the same manner that when you are discussing the crime of theft, do not tal4 of damage. Nat*re of the crime itself 9n crimes involving the ta4ing of human life 7 parricide, homicide, and murder 7 in the definition of the frustrated stage, it is indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. /nder the definition of the frustrated stage, to consider the offender as having performed all the acts of execution, the acts already done by him must produce or

be capable of producing a felony as a consequence. The general rule is that there must be a fatal in'ury inflicted, because it is only then that death will follow. 9f the wound is not mortal, the crime is only attempted. The reason is that the wound inflicted is not capable of bringing about the desired felony of parricide, murder or homicide as a consequence5 it cannot be said that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce parricide, homicide or murder as a result. An exception to the general rule is the so1called sub'ective phase. The .upreme 2ourt has decided cases which applied the sub'ective standard that when the offender himself believed that he had performed all the acts of execution, even though no mortal wound was inflicted, the act is already in the frustrated stage. The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved, the participants are punished as principals. This notion is no longer absolute. 9n the case of eople v. ,ierra,the .upreme 2ourt ruled that even though there was conspiracy, if a co1 conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or minimal acts, such that even without his cooperation, the crime could be carried out as well, such co1conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only. Art. C. /ight felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated with the e!ception of those committed against persons or property.
Examples of light felonies% slight physical in'uries3 theft3 alteration of boundary marks3 malicious mischief3 and intriguing against honor. &n commission of crimes against properties and persons, every stage of e!ecution is punishable but only the principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies, accessories are not.

Art. :. -onspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefore. A conspirac' e+ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felon' an( (eci(e to commit it5 "here is proposal when the person who has (eci(e( to commit a felon' proposes its e+ec*tion to some other person or persons5 2onspiracy is punishable in the following cases % treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, and monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. 2onspiracy to commit a crime is not to be confused with conspiracy as a means of committing a crime. &n both cases there is an agreement but mere conspiracy to commit a crime is not punished 2D-2P$ in treason, rebellion, or sedition. 2ven then, if the treason is actually committed, the conspiracy will be considered as a means of committing it and the accused will all be charged for treason and not for conspiracy to commit treason. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a Crime

Conspiracy

Proposal

'lements

Agreement among 2 or more persons to commit a crime he( decide to commit it A person has decided to commit a crime )e proposes its commission to another Conspirac( to commit sedition Conspirac( to commit rebellion Conspirac( to commit treason *roposal to commit treason *roposal to commit rebellion

Crimes

1. 2. 3. !. ".

Mere conspiracy in combination in restraint of trade *Art. 1:>+, and brigandage *Art. 3B>+.

Two wa%s for conspirac% to exist$ *+, *-, There is an agreement. The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a

meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal ob'ective. 6hen several offenders act in a synchroni ed, coordinated manner, the fact that their acts complimented each other is indicative of the meeting of the minds. There is an implied agreement. Two .inds of conspirac%$ *+, 2onspiracy as a crime5 and *-, 2onspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability 6hen conspiracy itself is a crime, no overt act is necessary to bring about the

criminal liability. The mere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy5 otherwise, the conspiracy does not bring about the commission of the crime because conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition, and coup d>etat are the only crimes where the conspiracy and proposal to commit to them are punishable. 6hen the conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be an overt act done before the co1conspirators become criminally liable. ?or as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. !ut when one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless a co1conspirator was

absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime. As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind. ?or as long as none of the conspirators has committed an overt act, there is no crime yet. !ut when one of them commits any overt act, all of them shall be held liable, unless a co1conspirator was absent from the scene of the crime or he showed up, but he tried to prevent the commission of the crime As a general rule, if there has been a conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular place, anyone who did not appear shall be presumed to have desisted. The exception to this is if such person who did not appear was the mastermind. 6hen the conspiracy itself is a crime, this cannot be inferred or deduced because there is no overt act. All that there is the agreement. @n the other hand, if the co1 conspirator or any of them would execute an overt act, the crime would no longer be the conspiracy but the overt act itself. conspiracy as a crime, must have a clear and convincing evidence of its existence. Every crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. it must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not by con'ectures or speculations. 6hen the conspiracy is 'ust a basis of incurring criminal liability, however, the same may be deduced or inferred from the acts of several offenders in carrying out the commission of the crime. The existence of a conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from the acts of the offenders when such acts disclose or show a common pursuit of the criminal ob'ective. mere 4nowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without cooperation or at least, agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute a conspiracy. There must be an intentional participation in the crime with a view to further the common felonious ob'ective. 6hen several persons who do not 4now each other simultaneously attac4 the victim, the act of one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of in'ury inflicted by any one of them. All will be liable for the consequences. A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not 4nown to each other. Fo not thin4 that participants are always 4nown to each other. Conspirac% is a matter of substance which must be alleged in the information, otherwise, the court will not consider the same. roposal is true only up to the point where the party to whom the proposal was made has not yet accepted the proposal. @nce the proposal was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is unilateral, one party ma4es a proposition to the other5 conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two parties. ,%1-"-ON=

Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. !ut if /nion ! accepts the proposal, there will be conspiracy to commit sedition which is a crime under the "evised Penal 2ode. Composite crimes 2omposite crimes are crimes which, in substance, consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of the law, there is only one crime. ?or example, the crimes of robbery with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with physical in'uries. 9n case the crime committed is a composite crime, the conspirator will be liable for all the acts committed during the commission of the crime agreed upon. This is because, in the eyes of the law, all those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed upon are acts which constitute a single crime. As a general rule, when there is conspiracy, the rule is that the act of one is the act of all. This principle applies only to the crime agreed upon. The exception is if any of the co1conspirator would commit a crime not agreed upon. This happens when the crime agreed upon and the crime committed by one of the co1conspirators are distinct crimes. Exception to the exception) 9n acts constituting a single indivisible offense, even though the co1conspirator performed different acts bringing about the composite crime, all will be liable for such crime. They can only evade responsibility for any other crime outside of that agreed upon if it is proved that the particular conspirator had tried to prevent the commission of such other act. Art. E. Frave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their are afflictive, in accordance with Article 2; of this -ode. Less gra$e felonies are those which the law p*nishes with penalties which in their ma+im*m perio( are correctional2 in accor(ance with the a&o$e?mentione( article5 Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which he penalt' of arresto ma%or or a fine not e+cee(ing 600 pesos2 or &oth is pro$i(e(5 -apital punishment " death penalty. Penalties *imprisonment+% Frave " si! years and one day to reclusion perpetua *life+3 /ess grave " one month and one day to si! years3 /ight " arresto menor *one day to 3B days+. CLA,,->-CA"-ON O> >%LON-%, This question was as4ed in the bar examination) (ow do you classify felonies or how are felonies classified: 6hat the examiner had in mind was Articles %, & and E. Fo not write the classification of felonies under !oo4 - of the "evised Penal 2ode. That was not what the examiner had in mind because the question does not require the candidate to classify but also to define. Therefore, the examiner was after the classifications under Articles %, & and E. >elonies are classifie( as follows (1) According to the manner of their commission

/nder Article %, they are classified as, intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent5 and culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence, rec4less imprudence, lac4 of foresight or lac4 of s4ill. *3+ According to the stages of their execution /nder Article &., felonies are classified as attempted felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance5 frustrated felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony as a consequence but which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator5 and, consummated felony when all the elements necessary for its execution are present. (7) According to their gravit% /nder Article E, felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive5 less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period was correccional5 and light felonies or those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor. 6hy is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave, less grave or light: To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not, and to determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty. 9n other words, these are felonies classified according to their gravity, stages and the penalty attached to them. Ta4e note that when the "evised Penal 2ode spea4s of grave and less grave felonies, the definition ma4es a reference specifically to Article -0 of the "evised Penal 2ode. Fo not omit the phrase ;9n accordance with Article -0< because there is also a classification of penalties under Article -& that was not applied. 9f the penalty is fine and exactly P-GG.GG, it is only considered a light felony under Article E. 9f the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the fine of P-GG.GG is considered a correctional penalty under Article -&. 9f the penalty is exactly P-GG.GG, apply Article -&. 9t is considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes in +G years. 9f the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years, he can be made to suffer the fine. This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription of crimes. 9n the case of light felonies, crimes prescribe in two months. 9f the crime is correctional, it prescribes in ten years, except arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years. Art5 105 Offenses which are or in the f*t*re ma' &e p*nisha&le *n(er special laws are not s*&<ect to the pro$isions of this Co(e5 "his Co(e shall &e s*pplementar' to s*ch laws2 *nless the latter sho*l( speciall' pro$i(e the contrar'5

1. 2. 3.

9or .pecial /aws% Penalties should be imprisonment, and not reclusion perpetua, etc. 0ffenses that are attempted or frustrated are not punishable, unless otherwise stated. Plea of guilty is not mitigating for offenses punishable by special laws. #o minimum, medium, and ma!imum periods for penalties. #o penalty for an accessory or accomplice, unless otherwise stated. rovisions of R C applicable to special laws$ Art. 1> Participation of Accomplices Art. 22 ,etroactivity of Penal laws if favorable to the accused Art. ; -onfiscation of instruments used in the crime

,3##L%"O/@ A##L-CA"-ON O> "4% /%A-,%1 #%NAL CO1% 9n Article +G, there is a reservation ;provision of the "evised Penal 2ode may be applied suppletorily to special laws<. Hou will only apply the provisions of the "evised Penal 2ode as a supplement to the special law, or simply correlate the violated special law, if needed to avoid an in'ustice. 9f no 'ustice would result, do not give suppletorily application of the "evised Penal 2ode to that of special law. ?or example, a special law punishes a certain act as a crime. The special law is silent as to the civil liability of one who violates the same. (ere is a person who violated the special law and he was prosecuted. (is violation caused damage or in'ury to a private party. Cay the court pronounce that he is civilly liable to the offended party, considering that the special law is silent on this point: Hes, because Article +GG of the "evised Penal 2ode may be given suppletory application to prevent an in'ustice from being done to the offended party. Article +GG states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. That article shall be applied suppletory to avoid an in'ustice that would be caused to the private offended party, if he would not be indemnified for the damages or in'uries sustained by him. 9n eople v. Rodrigue', it was held that the use of arms is an element of rebellion, so a rebel cannot be further prosecuted for possession of firearms. A violation of a special law can never absorb a crime punishable under the "evised Penal 2ode, because violations of the "evised Penal 2ode are more serious than a violation of a special law. !ut a crime in the "evised Penal 2ode can absorb a crime punishable by a special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the crime in the "evised Penal 2ode 9n the crime of sedition, the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. (ence, two prosecutions can be had) *+, sedition5 and *-, illegal possession of firearms. !ut do not thin4 that when a crime is punished outside of the "evised Penal 2ode, it is already a special law. ?or example, the crime of cattle1rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification of the crime theft of large cattle. .o Presidential Fecree #o. 0%%, punishing cattle1rustling, is not a special law. 9t can absorb the crime of murder. 9f in the course of cattle rustling, murder was committed, the offender cannot be prosecuted for murder. Curder would be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of qualified cattle rustling. This was the ruling in eople v. 0artinada.

The amendments of Presidential Fecree #o. &D-0 *The Fangerous Frugs Act of +E$-, by "epublic Act #o. $&0E, which adopted the scale of penalties in the "evised Penal 2ode, means that mitigating and aggravating circumstances can now be considered in imposing penalties. Presidential Fecree #o. &D-0 does not expressly prohibit the suppletory application of the "evised Penal 2ode. The stages of the commission of felonies will also apply since suppletory application is now allowed. Circ*mstances affecting criminal lia&ilit' $here are five circumstances affecting criminal liability% *1+ *2+ *3+ * + *;+ =ustifying circumstances3 2!empting circumstances3 Mitigating circumstances3 Aggravating circumstances3 and Alternative circumstances.

"here are two others which are fo*n( elsewhere in the pro$isions of the /e$ise( #enal Co(e *1+ *2+ Absolutory cause3 and 2!tenuating circumstances.

9n 'ustifying and exempting circumstances, there is no criminal liability. 6hen an accused invo4es them, he in effect admits the commission of a crime but tries to avoid the liability thereof. The burden is upon him to establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to 'ustify or exempt his acts from criminal liability. 6hat is shifted is only the burden of evidence, not the burden of proof. =ustifying circumstances contemplate intentional acts and, hence, are incompatible with dolo. Exempting circumstances may be invo4ed in culpable felonies. A&sol*tor' ca*se The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability, although not from civil liability. 9t has the same effect as an exempting circumstance, but you do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with the circumstances under Article +-. Article -G provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees with the exception of accessories who profited themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

Then, Article IE provides how criminal liability is extinguished) Feath of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished if death occurs before final 'udgment5 .ervice of the sentence5 Amnesty5 Absolute pardon5 Prescription of the crime5 Prescription of the penalty5 and Carriage of the offended woman as provided in Article %DD. /nder Article -D$, a legally married person who 4ills or inflicts physical in'uries upon his or her spouse whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally liable. /nder Article -+E, discovering secrets through sei ure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not penali ed. /nder Article %%-, in the case of theft, swindling and malicious mischief, there is no criminal liability but only civil liability, when the offender and the offended party are related as spouse, ascendant, descendant, brother and sister1in1law living together or where in case the widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the deceased spouse, before such property had passed on to the possession of third parties. /nder Article %DD, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action. Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting circumstance and they are predicated on lac4 of voluntariness li4e instigation. 9nstigation is associated with criminal intent. Fo not consider culpa in connection with instigation. 9f the crime is culpable, do not tal4 of instigation. 9n instigation, the crime is committed with dolo. 9t is confused with entrapment. Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal liability. !ut instigation absolves the offender from criminal liability because in instigation, the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation, he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers. 1ifference &etween instigation an( entrapment 9n instigation, the criminal plan or design exists in the mind of the law enforcer with whom the person instigated cooperated so it is said that the person instigated is acting only as a mere instrument or tool of the law enforcer in the performance of his duties. @n the other hand, in entrapment, a criminal design is already in the mind of the person entrapped. 9t did not emanate from the mind of the law enforcer entrapping him. Entrapment involves only ways and means which are laid down or resorted to facilitate the apprehension of the culprit.

The element which ma4es instigation an absolutory cause is the lac4 of criminal intent as an element of voluntariness. 9f the instigator is a law enforcer, the person instigated cannot be criminally liable, because it is the law enforcer who planted that criminal mind in him to commit the crime, without which he would not have been a criminal. 9f the instigator is not a law enforcer, both will be criminally liable, you cannot have a case of instigation. 9n instigation, the private citi en only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when the private citi en upon instigation of the law enforcer incriminates himself. 9t would be contrary to public policy to prosecute a citi en who only cooperated with the law enforcer. The private citi en believes that he is a law enforcer and that is why when the law enforcer tells him, he believes that it is a civil duty to cooperate. 9f the person instigated does not 4now that the person is instigating him is a law enforcer or he 4nows him to be not a law enforcer, this is not a case of instigation. This is a case of inducement, both will be criminally liable. 9n entrapment, the person entrapped should not 4now that the person trying to entrap him was a law enforcer. The idea is incompatible with each other because in entrapment, the person entrapped is actually committing a crime. The officer who entrapped him only lays down ways and means to have evidence of the commission of the crime, but even without those ways and means, the person entrapped is actually engaged in a violation of the law. 9nstigation absolves the person instigated from criminal liability. This is based on the rule that a person cannot be a criminal if his mind is not criminal. @n the other hand, entrapment is not an absolutory cause. 9t is not even mitigating. 9n case of somnambulism or one who acts while sleeping, the person involved is definitely acting without freedom and without sufficient intelligence, because he is asleep. (e is moving li4e a robot, unaware of what he is doing. .o the element of voluntariness which is necessary in dolo and culpa is not present. .omnambulism is an absolutory cause. 9f element of voluntariness is absent, there is no criminal liability, although there is civil liability, and if the circumstance is not among those enumerated in Article +-, refer to the circumstance as an absolutory cause. Cista4e of fact is an absolutory cause. The offender is acting without criminal intent. .o in mista4e of fact, it is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be, this act is 'ustified. 9f not, there is criminal liability, because there is no mista4e of fact anymore. The offender must believe he is performing a lawful act.

2!tenuating circumstances The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. 9n other words, this has the same effect as mitigating circumstances, only you do not call it mitigating because this is not found in Article +%.

&llustrations$ An unwed mother 4illed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. The concealment of dishonor is an extenuating circumstance insofar as the unwed mother or the maternal grandparents is concerned, but not insofar as the father of the child is concerned. Cother 4illing her new born child to conceal her dishonor, penalty is lowered by two degrees. .ince there is a material lowering of the penalty or mitigating the penalty, this is an extenuating circumstance. The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide is an extenuating circumstance but not in the case of parricide when the age of the victim is three days old and above. 9n the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband, at the time she was abandoned by her husband, is it necessary for her to see4 the company of another man. Abandonment by the husband does not 'ustify the act of the woman. 9t only extenuates or reduces criminal liability. 6hen the effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circumstance. A 4leptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation of stealing things which appeal to his desire. This is not exempting. @ne who is a 4leptomaniac and who would steal ob'ects of his desire is criminally liable. !ut he would be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance analogous to paragraph E of Article +%, that of suffering from an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will power without, however, depriving him of the consciousness of his act. .o this is an extenuating circumstance. The effect is to mitigate the criminal liability. 1istinctions &etween <*stif'ing circ*mstances an( e+empting circ*mstances &n 1ustif%ing circumstances 8 *+, *-, The circumstance affects the act, not the actor5 The act complained of is considered to have been done within the bounds of

law5 hence, it is legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law5 *%, .ince the act is considered lawful, there is no crime, and because there is no crime, there is no criminal5 *D, .ince there is no crime or criminal, there is no criminal liability as well as civil liability. &n exempting circumstances 8 *+, *-, The circumstances affect the actor, not the act5 The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the actor acted without

voluntariness. (e is a mere tool or instrument of the crime5 *%, .ince the act complained of is actually wrongful, there is a crime. !ut because the actor acted without voluntariness, there is absence of dolo or culpa. There is no criminal5

*D,

.ince there is a crime committed but there is no criminal, there is civil

liability for the wrong done. !ut there is no criminal liability. (owever, in paragraphs D and $ of Article +-, there is neither criminal nor civil liability. 6hen you apply for 'ustifying or exempting circumstances, it is confession and avoidance and burden of proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on wea4ness of prosecution>s evidence. @1A$he difference between murder and homicide will be discussed in -riminal /aw &&. $hese crimes are found in Articles 2 : and 2 E, )ook && of the ,evised Penal -ode. @2A $he difference between theft and robbery will be discussed in -riminal /aw &&. $hese crimes are found in $itle $en, -hapters 0ne and $hree, )ook && of the ,evised Penal -ode.

/eference Criminal Law Book 1 /e$iewer Ateneo Central Bar Operations 6001

S-ar putea să vă placă și