DEFINITION: Criminal Law – A branch of
municipal law which defines crimes, treats of their
nature and provides for their punishment.
MAIN CONCERN IN CRIMINAL LAW:
a.) Defines crimes
b.) Treats their nature
c.) Provides for their punishment
MAIN CONCERN IN CRIMINAL LAW 1:
b.) Treats of the nature of the crimes
c.) Rules on Penalties
CRIMINAL LAW
- branch of law which defines crimes, treats
of their nature and provides for their punishment.
(Recall EBAC)
1) CRIMINAL LAW -- system of rules governing
human conduct, just, obligatory, promulgated by
competent authority and of general observance and
benefit.
2) CRIMINAL LAW defined
3) Ex post facto law:
a) Makes an act CRIMINAL now when act was
innocent when done.
b) INCREASES the penalty
c) AGGRAVATES the crime
d) ALTERS the legal rules of evidence to make
it easier to convict the accused. (Recall CIAA)
4) Two tests of ex post facto law:
a) Prejudicial to accused
b) Retroactive effect
5) Bill of attainder defined:
(Cite People vs. Ferrer – 48 SCRA 382 where the
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A.
1700 (Anti-Subversion Law) defining the CPP-NPA
as an organized conspiracy to overthrow the
government as not being a bill of attainder because
membership must still be judicially determined to
have been done “knowingly, wilfully and by overt
acts” as distinguished from mere nominal
membership. There is still a judicial determination of
guilt, not legislative determination of guilt or
innocence of the accused which the Constitution
frowns upon.
LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF THE
LAWMAKING BODY TO ENACT PENAL
LEGISLATION UNDER 1987
CONSTITUTION:
1) No Ex post facto laws enacted. -- See People vs.
Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972) 1. (Art.III,
Sec.22)
2) No Bill of attainder enacted.
3) Of general Application.
4) No Cruel or inhuman punishment inflicted, or
excessive fines imposed.
5.) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law. (Art. III, Sec.
14[1])
Ex Post Facto Law is one which:
• Makes criminal an act done before the
passage of the law
• Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than
it was
• Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment
• Alters legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
conviction upon less or different testimony
than the law required
• Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies
only
• Deprives a person accused of crime some
lawful protection to which he has become
entitled
Bill of Attainder – is a legislative act which inflicts
punishment without trial. Its essence is the
substitution of a legislative act for a judicial
determination of guilt.
MAXIM:
Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege
- There is no crime when there is no law
punishing the same.
Q: it the constitution be a source of criminal law
A: there is nothing in the Constitution that defines
crimes, treats of their nature and provide for their
punishment.
Construction of Penal Laws
• Liberally in favor of the accused
• Strictly against the State
Doctrine of Equipoise – when the evidence of the
prosecution and of the defense is equally balanced,
the scale should be tilted in favor of the accused in
obedience to the constitutional presumption of
innocence.
• “void-for-vagueness” doctrine
 Doctrine of Pro Reo – when a circumstance is
susceptible to two interpretations, one favorable
to the accused and the other against him, that
interpretation favorable to him shall prevail .
- This is in consonance with the
constitutional guarantee that that accused
shall be presumed innocent unless and
until his guilt is established beyond
reasonable doubt.
Applicable:
  When the party are both related through
affinity, sister-in law against brother in law
When in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in
consonance with the constitutional guarantee that
the accused shall be presumed innocent unless and
until his guilt is established beyond reasonable
doubt.
Intimately related to the in dubio pro reo principle is
the rule of lenity. The rule applies when the court is
faced with two possible interpretations of a penal
statute, one that is prejudicial to the accused and
another that is favorable to him. The rule calls for
the adoption of an interpretation which is more
lenient to the accused (Intestate of Manolita
Gonzales Vda De Carungcong vs People, GR No.
181409, February 11, 2010)
 Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
- Act does not make one guilty unless there
is a criminal intent
 Actus me invite factus non est meus actus
- act done by me against my will is not my
act.
Ex. Gisugo ka na barilon ang isa ka tao kay patyon
ka kung dili nimu himuon.
 El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal
causado
- He who is the cause of the cause is the
cause of the evil caused
 Nullum crimen nulla peona sine lege
no crime or punishment without a law.
 Doctrine of Incorporation under the
Constitution: (Sec 2 Art. 2)
- It is customary for the states for respect
each other. “Par in parem non habet
imperium” meaning all states are
sovereign equals and cannot assert
jurisdiction over each other.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:
 GENERALITY
 TERRITORIALITY
 PROPECTIVITY
 GENERALITY
GENERAL RULE: Criminal law is binding on all
persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine
Territory whether Citizens or not (Article14 of the
Civil Code)
Exception: But subjected to the public international
law and treaty stipulation.
EXEMPTED:
 Diplomats and heads of the state
- In consonance with the public
international law, they are immune. We
comply with the international law as this
is provided in the constitution.
 Treaty stipulations
Pacta sunt servanda – international
agreements must be performed in good faith.
Promises should be kept.
PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY – other
state must give the same immunity.
EXAMPLES:
1. VFA
2. UNCLOS: Granting a country jurisdiction over
natural resources within 12 nautical miles.
1: internal water: waters on the landward side of the
baseline of the territorial sea form
2. Territorial sea: 12 nautical miles, measured
from baselines
3. Contiguous zone: 24 nautical miles from the
baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea
is measured
4. Exclusive economic zone: 200 nautical miles
from the baselines from which the breadth of the
territorial sea is measured
RULES ON MERCHANT VESSELS:
GENERAL RULE: The Philippine court has no
jurisdiction over crimes committed on the high seas
on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the
Philippines as provided for by the law.
EXEMPTION: If the vessel is registered in the
Philippines. If that is the case, use the English Rule.
Jurisdictional Rules: Exterritorial jurisdiction
ONLY to those registered to the Philippines
1) French rule – such crimes are not triable in
territorial state, unless affecting peace and security of
the state. (Nationality rule)
2) English rule – such crimes are triable in the
territorial state, unless such crime only affects the
internal management of the vessel. (Territoriality
rule)
- used by the Philippines.
FOREIGN WARSHIP RULE:
Cannot be subject to any territorial laws as
they are deemed extension of the territory of the
country where they belong.

 Laws of preferential application
Examples of law of preferential :
 Immunity from suit – the president is immune
from suit during his incumbency.
Ex. Presidential immunity
Does Applies to:
 Cases relating to personal actions such as graft
and corruption. This is not in the performance of
his or her duty.
President is immune from suit only on the acts in
performance of his duty. (ESTRADA VS
DESIERTO, GR. No. 146710-15, March 2001)
 Warship Rules: Warship are immune from the
law of the state as stipulate in the public
international law and treaty stipulations.
Articles of War (CA no. 408) – members of the AFP
are under the jurisdiction of courts martial for service
connected offenses defined in Art. 54 to 70, 72 to 92,
95 to 97.
Applied to:
 Warship of another country
State immunity extends to acts Jure imperii or
sovereign and governmental acts i.e. officers acting
in the exercise of their official functions are afforded
with the cloak of protection.
“The principle of State immunity therefore bars the
exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the persons
of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.
While warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit
as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the
UNCLOS states: “The flag State shall bear
international responsibility for any loss or damage to
the coastal State resulting from the non-compliance
by a warship or other government ship operated for
non-commercial purposes with the laws and
regulations of the coastal State concerning passage
through the territorial sea or with the provisions of
this Convention (UNCLOS) or other rules of
international law.” (Arigo VS Swift, GR. No.
206510, September 214)
Doctrine of non-suability of the state
LIMITATION: Only applies to criminal liability
and not on civil liability
 PD 1083 (Muslim Law)
- The Code of Muslim Personal Law of the
Philippines
- bigamy shall not apply to all person
married under the Muslim Law.
Application:
 Cases of bigamy
Prejudicial question: prejudicial question is one
which arises in a case the resolution of which is a
logical antecedent of the issue involved therein.
It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate
from the crime but so intimately connected with it
that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused. It must appear not only that the civil case
involves facts upon which the criminal action is
based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised
in the civil action would necessarily be determinative
of the criminal case.
Consequently, the defense must involve an issue
similar or intimately related to the same issue raised
in the criminal action and its resolution determinative
of whether or not the latter action may proceed. Its
two essential elements are:
(a) the civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action; and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether
or not the criminal action may proceed. (Marbilla-
Bobbis vs Bobis GR 138509, July 2009) - Bigamy
and Prejudicial question.
Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge
for themselves its nullity, only competent courts
having such authority. Prior to such declaration of
nullity, the validity of the first marriage is beyond
question. A party who contracts a second marriage
then assumes the risk of being prosecuted for
bigamy. (Landicho vs Relova )
 Cases of bigamy ( between muslim and non-
muslim)
His second marriage did not comply with the Article
27 of the Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines
providing:
"No Muslim male can have more than one
wife unless he can deal with them in equal
companionship and just treatment as enjoined by
Islamic Law and only in exceptional cases."
Only with the permission of the Shari'a Circuit Court
can a Muslim be permitted to have a second, third or
fourth wife. The clerk of court shall serve a copy to
the wife or wives, and should any of them objects, an
Agama Arbitration Council shall be constituted. If
the said council fails to secure the wife's consent to
the proposed marriage, the Court shall subject to
Article 27, decide whether on not to sustain her
objection (NOLLORA JR VS PEOPLE, GR NO.
191425, SEPTEMBER 2011)
 Military offenders under RA 7055:
SECTION 1: Members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and other persons subject to military law,
including members of the citizens Armed Forces
Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses
penalized under the Revised Penal Code other
special penal laws, or local government ordinances
regardless of whether or not civilians are co-accused,
victims, or offended parties which may be natural or
juridical persons, shall be tried by the proper civil
court except when the offense, as determined before
arraignment by the civil court, is service-connected,
in which case the offense shall be tried by court-
martial: provided, that the President of the
Philippines may, in the interest of justice, order or
direct at any time before arraignment that any such
crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts.
As used in this Section, service-connected crimes or
offenses shall be limited to those defined in Articles
54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of
Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended.
Application:
 Cases of jurisdiction of 2 conflicting law (
Civil employee of US Army assaulted a US
Army personnel – US vs Smith, GR L-14057,
January 1919)
During this time, the RPC used was from Spanish
text.
It would thus be preposterous to suppose that, with a
change of sovereignty which has caused a complete
separation of Church and State and the abolition of
all special privileges for a particular religious sect,
the courts would sanction any higher prerogatives for
a Church official than they would for any citizen.
(See U.S. vs. Balcorta [1913], 25 Phil., 273.)
It is by following out to its logical conclusion the
same line of reasoning, that we believe inapplicable
at the present day the Spanish jurisprudence inspired
by Spanish conditions, should be made to include
officers in the military service of the United States.
(US vs Smith, GR L-14057, January 1919)
 Same law (United State Law)
In case: US military personnel committing an act
against prisoner of war:
general principle applies—that the jurisdiction of
civil courts is unaffected by the military or other
special character of the person brought before it. The
contention also that the act was performed under the
order of his military superior cannot affect the right
of the court to take jurisdiction of the case.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that there is
no actual conflict between the two jurisdictions; the
military tribunal not asserting any claim.
 RA No. 75 – prohibits the arrest and
imprisonment of foreign ambassador or
public minister or his domestic or domestic
servant.
 Constitution – parliamentary immunity from
libel suit for senators and members of the
Philippines
 Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the
Philippines –
 TERRITORIALITY:
What constitute Philippine Territory?
1. Article 1 of the 1987 constitution
2. Territorial description of the National
Territory under RA 9522
3. Article 27, UNCLOS
4. Reservations made upon ratification of
UNCLOS.
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code:
Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within
the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters
and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those
who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine
Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the
Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these
islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding
number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in
the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law
of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
GENERAL RULE: Criminal law shall be enforced
within the territory of the Philippines.
2 ways of application of the Revised Penal Code:
 Territorial
 Extraterritorial Crimes under Article 2 of the
RPC
 Extraterritorial crimes under special laws
 Territorial
- Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code
 Extraterritorial crimes under the Article 2 of the
Revised Penal Code
“SEC. 58. Extra-Territorial Application of this Act”
APPLIES TO:
Inside the territorial limits:
1. Commit crimes define and punishable under this
act.
Physical outside the Philippine Territory:
2. Commit, conspire or plot to commit any of the
crimes defined and punished in this Act
3. Commit any of the said crimes on board
Philippine ship or Philippine airship;
4. Crimes within any embassy, consulate, or
diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by
the Philippine government in an official capacity;
5. It said crimes against Philippine citizens or
persons of Philippines descent, where their
citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the
commission of the crime;
6. Directly against the Philippine government
7. UNIVERSAL CRIMES
Application:
 Counterfeit of coins or currency even outside
of the Philippines
 Philippine law still has jurisdiction as under
the law, any person counterfeiting or forging
any coin or currency note of the Philippine
Islands or obligations and securities issued by
the Government of the Philippine Islands will
be liable under the said government even if
the crime is committed outside of its
jurisdiction.
 Offenses in exercise of their function
o Falsification (Art. 171)
o Direct bribery (Art. 210)
o Qualified Bribery (Art. 211-A)
o Corruption (Art.)
o Fraud against public treasury and
similar offenses (Art 213)
o Possession of Prohibited Interest (Art.
216)
o Malversation of Public Funds of
Property (Art. 217)
o Failure to render accounts (Art. 218)
o Failure to render accounts before
leaving the country (Art.219)
o Illegal use of public funds or property
(Art.220)
o Failure to make delivery of public
funds or property (Art.221)
 Bribery
o As a public official, any offense
committed in the performance of their
function is liable in the Philippines
even if the said act is committed
outside the Philippines.
 Commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations
Ex. Special agent 007 bond of the Philippines
SWAT team sole vital national security
matters to the Bolseviks.
 Terrorism or conspiracy against Philippines
even Physically outside
RA 9372 (Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism)
o There is a conspiracy to commit terrorism
when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of
terrorism and decide to commit it.
o Applicable to individual persons who
although physically outside the territorial
limits of the Philippines, commit, conspire
or plot to commit any of the crimes defined
and punished there under.
 Crimes under Penal laws committed outside
Philippine Jurisdiction
o Not applicable outside Philippine
jurisdiction as penal law can only be
enforced if the offense is committed
within Philippine territory.
 Crime committed outside the Philippines,
while the nationality of both parties are
Filipinos.
o Not applicable as the crime had
happened outside the Philippines.
 Universal Crimes - Crimes against
international law
Piracy - unlike other crimes, has no territorial limits.
Elements:
1. Attack or seizure of vessel
2. Taking away whole or part of the cargo,
belongings, equipment
3. Violence or intimidation or force upon thing
4. Committed by any person, including
passenger of member of the complement of
said vessel
Penal code dealing with the crime of piracy, notably
articles 153 and 154, to be still in force in the
Philippines.
 The crime of piracy was accompanied by (1) an
offense against chastity and (2) the
abandonment of persons without apparent
means of saving themselves. It is, therefore,
only necessary for us to determine as to whether
the penalty of cadena perpetua or death should
be imposed.
 People v. Derito, April 18, 1997
 At least 3 aggravating circumstances, that the [GRINO]
wrong done in the commission of the crime was
deliberately augmented by causing other wrongs 1. General Rule
not necessary for its commission, that advantage 2. Exemption
was taken of superior strength, and that means Escalante v. Santos, 56 Phil. 483,
were employed which added ignominy to the 485 [GRINO]
natural effects of the act, must also be taken into 3. Exemptions to the
consideration in fixing the penalty. exemption (Art. 22, RPC)

• Pirates are in law hostes humani generis i. Habitual

(enemy of mankind) delinquency (Art. 62, par. 5,
Application: RPC) ii. Even if favorable to
the accused, and even if he is
 Attack or seizure of vessel not a habitual delinquent, a
favorable retroactive
Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but
application may still not be
against all mankind. It may be punished in the
allowed if expressly
competent tribunal of any country where the
provided by the law that is
offender may be found or into which he may be
favorable to the accused
carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other
(RA No. 4661, the Act
crimes has no territorial limits. (People v. Lol-lo
amending Rules on Libel)
And Saraw, G.R. No. 17958, February 22, 1922)
People v. Carballo, 62 Phil.
651 [GUBA]
 Taking away whole or part of the cargo,
belongings, equipment Interpretation of Criminal law

A. Spanish Text v. English Text

 Extraterritorial crime under the special penal (Translation)
laws People v. Nocum, GR No. L-482, February
 Plunder 25, 1847 [GUBA]
B. Title of the penal law v. the Body of
 PROSPECTIVITY the penal law
People v. Yabut, September 27, 1933
GENERAL RULE: Crimes are punished under the [HALLARSIS]
law in force at the time of their commission. This is
on consonance with the maxim Nullum crimen Constitutional Limitations on the Power of
nulla poena sine lege, that there is no crime when Congress to enact penal laws
there is no law punishing it.
3. Non-
Exemption: when the law is favorable to the impos
accused. It if it such then, the law may be given a ing of
retroactive effect. cruel
and
Exemption to the exemption: the offender is unus
habitual delinquent. ual
penal
[Grab your reader’s attention with a great quote ty, or
from the document or use this space to emphasize a exces
key point. To place this text box anywhere on the sive
page, just drag it.] fines
Mend
oza v.
Peopl
e, GR
No.
18389
1
a. Art. 21, RPC [HAL
 LAR 2. Abbeatio ictus
SIS] Matic v. People, GR No. 1802019
[MORCIANOS]
Elements of Felony People v. Mabugat, 51 Phil. 967
[MORCIANOS]
2. The act of omission must be punishable by 3. Praeter intentionem
law People v. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524
People v. Bernardo, 123 SCRA 365 [PANGILAMEN]
[ISIDRO]
Doctrine of Proximate Cause
Types of Felony based on the third People v. Villacorta, GR No. 186412, September 7,
element: 2011 [PANGILAMEN]
US v. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497 [PENAFIEL]
A. Intentional felonies People v. Cogoco, 58 Phil. 524 [PENAFIEL]
People v. Ural, GR No. L-30801 [SANDALO]
In whose perspective intent is Bataclan v. Medina, GR No. L-10126 [SANDALO]
determined? People v. Palalon, 49 Phil. 177 [SANTISSEBAN]
People v. Belbes, GR. No. 124670 US v. Sornito, 4 Phil. 357 [SANTISEBAN]
[ISIDRO] People v. Page, 77 SCRA 355 [SINARIMBO]

Classification of Intent Efficient intervening Cause

US v. Delos Santos [SINARIMBO]
i. General criminal intent
People v. Elements of impossible crime
Onanis, 74 Jacinto v. People, GR No. 125540, July 13, 2009
Phil. 257 [TAGARO]
[LAPAZ] Intod v. CA, GR No. 103119 [TAGARO]

What is motive? Art. 5, RPC

People v. Paguntalan, GR No. 116272, Mendoza v. People, GR No. 183891, October 2011
March 27, 1995 [LAPAZ] [ULANGKAYA]

Mistake of fact
People v. Onanis, 74 Phil. 257
[LIBARIOS]

Mala in se v. Mala prohita

Garcia v. CA, GR No. 15171, March 14,
2006 [LIBARIOS]
Ysidro v. People, GR No. 1923330,
November 14, 2012 [LOZANO]

Who incurs criminal liability?

a. General manner of incurring criminal

liability
“Although the wrongful act be different
from that which he intended.”
People v. Tomotorgo, GR No. L-4791, April
30, 1985 [LOZANO]
People v. Monleon, GR No. L-36282
[LUMPOT]
People v. Belbes, GR No. 124670
[LUMPOT]

1. Error in personae
People v. Onanis, 74 Phil 257 [MEJOS]
People v. Gona, 54 Ohil. 605 [MEJOS]