Criminal Law I (Atty.

Rene Villarente)
06/13/2013 7:00-9:00pm
Course Outline
Part I
Study of Criminal Law 1
Felonies in General
Circumstances Affecting Criminal
Liability
Persons Criminally Liable
Article 1 20
Part II
Distinction of Criminal Liability
Article 89 113
Part III
Penalties,
Article 21 88,
The Indeterminate Sentence Law
(R.A. 4103)
The Probation Law
(Presidential Decree 968)
The Juvenile Justice and Welfare
System (R.A. 9344)
How do we define criminal law?
It is a branch of law which defines felonies and
crimes, treats of its nature, and provides for its
penalties. (Rimando vs. Comelec)
Omnibus Election Code, Section 261s Is it a source
of criminal law?
SC had the occasion to say that the above proviso
does not prohibit certain acts or provide penalties for
its violation. Neither does it describe the nature of the
crime and its punishment. Consequently the above
phrase cannot be considered a penal provision.
Sources of the subject in criminal law
1. General law the Revised Penal Code
2. Special laws subsequent enactments of
Congress that are penal in nature, defines crimes,
treats of its nature and provides for its penalties
In the absence of either the RPC or special law, what
principle will we apply?
In the absence of either one, there is no crime when
there is no law that defines the act or omission as a
crime. (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege)
In the same case, Rimando, the Supreme Court had
the occasion to mention that particular phrase. All
told, the petitioner there should be absolved of any
criminal liability consistent with the doctrine of nullum
crimen, nulla poena sine lege there is no crime
when there is no law punishing it.
Is the Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, a
source of criminal law?

The Constitution is a source of many provisions

above criminal law but it is not a direct source of
criminal law. The Constitution does not define a
crime, does not treat of its nature, and neither does it
provide for a particular penalty.
Characteristics of criminal law:
1. General in nature
2. Territorial in application
3. Prospective, non-retroactive
General in nature
Criminal laws are binding on every person who lives
or sojourns in the Philippines. Thus, one is not
exempt from the operation of criminal law simply
because it is assumed that an alien or even a tourist
will only have a transient stay in the Philippines.
Those who live, or are here sojourning in the
Philippines, are subject to our criminal law.
Example: A foreigner whose plane lands in NAIA
waits for his next plane, which will depart in six hours.
He was just in the lobby, but he commits a crime. Is
he now under the jurisdiction of the Philippine
criminal law? Yes. Under the principle that our
criminal laws are general in nature and apply to
persons who live here, or at least sojourns in the
Philippines.
We must have to relate that to Article 14 of the Civil
Code, which says Penal laws and those of public
security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who
live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the
principles of public international law and to treaty
applications.
Going to Article 2, there is a phrase that links this
discussion and Article 14 of the civil code. It says
Except as provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application. That is exactly the
principle of public international law and treaty
stipulations. In other words, while it is general in
nature, and applies to all who live or sojourn in our
jurisdiction, this particular principle of generality
admits of two exceptions:
1. Those who are not covered by the principle of
public international law.
2. Those who are exempt by virtue of treaty
provisions.
Example for exception one: Bayan Muna vs. Alberto
Romulo G.R. 159618 Feb. 1, 2011 penned by Justice
Velasco, which is an En Banc decision. (read case)
(En Banc all fifteen judges decide)

Who are exempt under the principles of public

international law:
1. Diplomatic officials and visiting heads of
states (even if the head of state is traveling
incognito, once he declares he is head of
state the principle applies to him)
Who are exempt by virtue of treaty provisions:
1. Philippine-US Visiting Forces Agreement
March 14, 1947 (no longer applicable) which
contains some provisions exempting some
officials of the Armed Forces of the United
States from the jurisdiction of our courts
(Sombilon vs. L/CPL Daniel Smith G.R.
175888 Feb. 11, 2009 En Banc)
Territoriality
The Philippine laws can only be enforced within
Philippine territory. It can only be undertaken to
punish crimes which are committed within the
Philippines.
Generality vs. Territoriality
The former emphasizes on the offender, regardless
as to his citizenship. For as long as he lives and
sojourns in the Philippines, our criminal law applies.
The latter however emphasizes the place, the
location where the crime is committed.
Territoriality admits to several exceptions (refer to
Article 2 as well as Section 58 of RA 9172 Human
Security Act of 2007)
Prospective non-retroactive
An act can only be punished by a law enforced at the
time of its commission. The law becomes
unconstitutional if it is given a retroactive effect. It
then becomes an ex post facto law.(Salvador vs.
Placido Mapa GR 135080 Nov 28, 2007)
An ex post facto law has been defined as one (a)
which makes an action done before the passing of
the law and which was innocent when done criminal,
and punishes such action; or (b) which aggravates a
crime or makes it greater than it was when
committed; or (c) which changes the punishment and
inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to
the crime when it was committed; or (d) which alters
the legal rules of evidence and receives less or
different testimony than the law required at the time
of the commission of the offense in order to convict
the defendant (e) that which assumes to regulate
civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a
penalty or deprivation of a right which when done

was lawful; or (f) that which deprives a person

accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which
he has become entitled, such as the protection of a
former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of
amnesty
Exemptions of an ex-post facto law which gives a
penal law retroactive effect:
1. If the new law is favorable to the accused
(People vs. Alfredo Bon) lifting of the death
penalty
Exception to the exception (even if it favors the
accused it will not be given retroactive effect)
1. If the law provides that it will not give
retroactive effect
2. If the person is a habitual delinquent under
Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code
Rules of Interpretation of Criminal Law
Article 8 of the Civil Code says Judicial decisions
applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution
shall form parts of the legal system of the
Philippines.
Do not interpret the law if the law is clear. Thus
the law should only be interpreted if it is not
clear, and enforced if it is clear.
In Penal laws, all doubts must be resolved in the
favor of the accused. This is known as the equipoise
rule. It is based on the constitutional presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused. (Nestor
Bernardino and Celedonia Tomas vs. People of the
Philippines G.R. 170453 Oct. 30, 2006)
SC had the occasion to reiterate the equipoise rule.
Under the rule, where the evidence on an issue of
fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side
the evidence preponderates, the party having the
burden of proof, which in this case is the prosecution,
loses. The equipoise rule finds application if, as in the
present case, the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations, one of which is consistent with the
innocence of the accused and the other consistent
with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the
test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to
produce a conviction.
In case the English text is in conflict with the
Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code, the
Spanish text shall prevail.

The language used in the enactment of the Penal

code is Spanish. The English text was the language
used by the experts in translating the law.
People vs. Mangulabnan 99 Philippine Reports 992
People vs. Abilong 82 Philippine Reports 172
People vs. Mesias 65 Philippine Reports 267
People vs. Talbot Sept. 27, 1933
People vs. Manaba Oct. 31, 1933
People vs. Geronimo Oct. 23, 1956

for the consequences of the acts that he has

committed.

Article 1 of the Revised Penal code

Article 1. Time when act takes effect. This code shall
take effect on the first day of January nineteen
hundred and thirty-two.

This theory is where the Revised Penal Code is

mostly based upon.

There was one question in the bar exam: trace the

history of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippine
criminal law up to the present. How do you go about
it?
The suggested way:
The precursor of the present penal law is the socalled old penal law, now the revised Penal Code.
The old Spanish penal code took effect in the
Philippine on June 14, 1887 up to the coming of the
Americans during the middle century up to the
formation of the first Philippine Commission. Then in
1915, there was an attempt by the first Philippine
Commission to change the old Spanish penal law by
creating a committee to draft a new law which was
chaired by Rafael del Pan. In 1916, it came up with
the proposed correctional code of del Pan. The
government created a second committee to amend
the correctional code, which was chaired by Anacleto
Diaz with four members: Guillermo Guevara, Mariano
de Hoya, Quinting Paredes and Alex Reyes. The
committee had a blanket authority to revise the
Spanish Penal Code and made January 1, 1932 in
effectivity. In 1949 there was a proposed code of
crimes drafted but up to now it has not been passed.
During the Marcos era, the UP Law center came up
with a new code of crimes, but it was not passed into
law either. As we have it now, we have the Revised
Penal Code.
Theories of Criminal Law
1. Classical theory
2. Positivist theory
Classical Theory
Holds the view that man is a rational being or animal
and he knows what is right from wrong. Thus, if he
commits a wrongful act, he commits it knowingly and
voluntarily. As such, he must be prepared to answer

Man is by nature, a rational being. He must be held

responsible for his acts, and since crimes produces
different effects, some serious, some are not, there
should be a proportion between the crime and the
penalty. (People vs. Genosa GR 135981 Sept. 29,
2000 precursor of R.A. 9262)

Under the utilitarian theory/the protective theory in

criminal law affirms the primary function of a
punishment is the protection of the society against
natural and potential wrongdoers. Akin to classical
theory is the utilitarian theory. (If asked to give three
theories, include the utilitarian theory)
The Positivist Theory
Holds the view that although man is a rational being,
he is sometimes overpowered by certain factors such
as environmental problems or social problems thus in
determining what should be the correct approach on
an offender, we should not look at the act, but also
the causes behind the act. Then we cannot just
create a direct proportion between the crime and the
penalty, hence in the positivist theory the emphasis is
more on the cause on why the crime is committed.
(De Joya vs. Jail Warden of Batangas GR 159418-19
Dec. 10, 2003)
SC said that, However, in imposing penalties for
crimes, the courts must bear in mind that Philippine
penal law is based on the Spanish penal code and
has adopted features of the positivist theory of
criminal law. The positivist theory states that the
basis for criminal liability is the sum total of the social
and economic phenomena to which the offense is
expressed. Philippine penal law looks at the convict
as a member of society. Among the important factors
to be considered in determining the penalty to be
imposed on him are (1) his relationship towards his
dependents, family and their relationship with him;
and (2) his relationship towards society at large and
the State. The State is concerned not only in the
imperative necessity of protecting the social
organization against the criminal acts of destructive
individuals but also in redeeming the individual for
economic usefulness and other social ends.[15] The
purpose of penalties is to secure justice. The
penalties imposed must not only be retributive but
must also be reformative, to give the convict an
opportunity to live a new life and rejoin society as a

productive and civic-spirited member of the

community.
Classical vs. Positivist
The former emphasizes the act, rather than the
person committing the act; while the positivist theory
emphasizes on the person, rather than the act.

There are some provisions of the criminal law that

are based on the positivist theory:
1. The Indeterminate Sentence Law
2. Art. 4 Par. 2 of the RPC
3. Article 68
4. Articles 1- 14
5. Article 63