Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Definition
- That branch or division of law which DEFINES crimes, TREATS OF THEIR NATURE, and
provides for their Punishment.
Construction
- Strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the accused
- Prospective in nature. CANNOT MAKE AN ACT PUNISHABLE IN A MANNER IN WHICH IS WAS
NOT PUNISHABLE WHEN COMMITTED (Ex Post Facto Law)
o However, if the law is FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED, it can be applied retroactively.
PROVIDED further, that the new law does not prohibit retroactivity and that he is
not a habitual delinquent
PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORITALITY
- Penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory
EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE: Principle of EXTRATERRITORIALITY
1. Crimes committed in a Philippine ship or airship- even if abroad or in high seas
as long as ship is registered in the phil
2. Forging or counterfeiting an coin or currenvy note of the Philippines or
obligations and securities issued by the government of the phil
3. Introduction to these islands the obligations and securities mentioned
4. Public officers or employees who commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions
Problem: A, a Mayor together with his secretary B, attended an official
conference in Korea. On the first night of the conference, Mayor called B in his
hotel room and raped her. Is the crime triable in the Philippines?
-NO, since the crime of rape was not committed in the performance of his public
duties.
5. Commission of asny crime against national security and the law of nations
Problem: can conspiracy to commit coup detat, if committed abroad be
prosecuted in the Philippines?
- NO, conspiracy to commit coupdetat is not a crime against national security and the law of
nations.It is a crime against public order.
BILL OF ATTAINDER
- Legislative act which inflicts punishment to an act without trial. Bill of attainder is
unconstitutional.
1. As to nature
MS: INHERENTLY WRONG amnd ESSENTIALLY EVIL; immoral in nature
MP: NOT INHERENTLY IMMORAL but becomes so because it is by LAW.
2. As to LAWS violated
MS: Revised Penal Code
MP: Special Law
3. As to intent
MS: Criminal intent is necessary. (In RPC usually intent is necessary)
MP: Criminal intent to Commit is not necessary, the mere intent to perpetrate an act
prohibited by law is sufficient (example in election gun ban, bringing of guns is considered
mala prohobita, mere intent to perpetrate)
MISTAKE OF FACT
Misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another
- Act would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be
(Important) Landmark case: Problem: A is a janitor in a school. He is very superstitious and is very
afraid of bad elements. One evening while cleaning in the storage room, he placed a chair in the
door to prevent anyone from entering. His co-worker B, tried to scare A by knocking loudly on the
door. A shouted twice “who is there?” but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a
robber, A held his pocket knife and shouted “if you enter this room I will kill you!”. B kicked the door
hitting A in the head which caused A to panic and attack B with the knife. B died. Can A be held
criminally liable?
- No, A cannot be held criminally liable as there was mistake of fact on the part of A. There
was no criminal intent. Had the facts been as A believed them to be (that B was indeed a
robber), then his act of killing B would have been justified for self-defense.
Proximate cause
- The natural and contitnuous sequence, UNBROKEN BY ANY EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE,
which produces injury and without which the result would not have occurred.
Efficient Intervening Cause
- Active force that INTERVENED between the felony committed and the resulting injury.
Effect: if there is efficient intervening cause, it will affect the determination of the liability of the
accused. In a commission of a crime, dapat the act constituting the felony must be the proximate
cause of the injury or death, if may efficient intervening cause na mag intervene in between, then
the accused’s liability would be determined only based on the act which resulted to the direct injury
before the efficient intervening cause.
Example: A stabbed B in the stomach but B did not die. Thw wound was not mortal. B was rushed to
the hospital but refused to have medication. He instead called a quack doctor (unskillful and
incompetent) to treat his wounds. Then later, his wounds became infected and later died.
- Here A cannot be held liable to the death of B. while the general rule is that he who inflicts
injury is not relieved of responsibility if the wound inflicted is dangerous, or calculated to
destroy or endanger life, even if the immediate cause of death was the erroneous or
unskillful medical or surgical treatment. However, is the wound is not mortal but the victim
died due to unskillful or incompetent medical treatment, then the accused cannot be held
liable for the death of the victim.
Article 4(1)
Criminal liability, how is it incurred?
1. By any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended;
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offnse against persons or property,
were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of adequate or ineffectual means.
If the wrongful act done is different from which he intended, he would still be criminally liable.
Instances:
1. ERROR IN PERSONAE- mistake in the identity of the victim (accused stabbed a victim
which he thought is his enemy but later found that it was a stranger)
2. ABERRATIO ICTUS- mistake in the blow (there is mistake in the execution of the act
causing injury to another)
Sample: A hit B with a bat. B dodged, so the bat hit C in the head.
3. PRAETER INTENTIONEM- the injurious result is greater than that intended. IT IS
CONSIDERED AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Elements:
1. Act would be an offense against persons of property
2. Done with evil intent
3. Its ACCOMPLISHMENT IS INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE and that the MEANS EMPLOYED IS
INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL
4. Act should not constitute a violation of another provision in the RPC
Problem: A was hired to kill B. A went to the house of B and fired his armalite towards the room of B.
However, there was no one on the house of B. What crime was committed?
-Impossible crime as there was physical impossibility in the accomplishment of killing of B.
CONSPIRACY (general rule not punishable as this is a mere preparatory act. It becomes punishable if
the perpetrator has committed an overt act to commit such felony conspired upon)
Elements:
1. There are TWO OR MORE PERSONS who come into an AGREEMENT
2. the agreement pertains to the COMMISSION OF A FELONY
3. The EXECUTION of the felony was decided upon. (decide to commit it)
Recidivist
- One who AT THE TIME OF HIS TRIAL for one crime shall have been PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED
by FINAL JUDGMENT of another crime EMBRACED IN THE RPC
Quasi Recidivist
- Commits a felony after having been convicted by final judgment of another crime, befiore
serving such sentence. The SECOND CRIME NEEDS TO BE A FELONY PUNISHED UNDER RPC.
Reiteracion
- Habitual offender
- The offender must have served his sentence for the first offense then committed another
offense
- Old and new offense need not be under the same code (RPC)
Sample: A who was out on bail, was convicted of theft by final judgment of a crime punished under
RPC. Before his arrest due to the judgment, he was caught carrying marijuana. Is he a quasi
recidivist?
NO. crime of possessing marijuana is punished under the Dangerous Drugs Act which is a
special law. To become a recidivist, two felonies must be under the RPC or that if one is a special
law, the second offense must be the one punished under RPC.
Sample. A was convicted of crime for selling drugs (special law). While serving his sentence, he
stabbed B’s arm with a fork. Is he a quasi recidivist?
YES. It makes no difference whether the crime for which the accused is serving sentence, at the time
of commission of the felony charged, is punished under the RPC or a special law. The second crime is
the only one required to be a felony (under RPC)
1. An accomplice incurs criminal liability by MERELY COOPERATING in the execution of the crime
without participating as a principal, by prior or simultaneous acts; whereas a conspirator
PARTICIPATES in the commission of a crime as a co-principal.
2. An accomplice incurs criminal liability in an individual capacity BY HIS ACT ALONE of cooperating in
the execution of the crime; while a conspirator incurs criminal liability not only for his individual acts
in the execution of the crime but also FOR THE ACTS OF THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS in the
commission of the crime collectively. The acts of the other participants in the execution of the crime
are considered also as acts of a conspirator for purposes of collective criminal responsibility.
3. An accomplice participates in the execution of a crime WHEN THE CRIMINAL DESIGN OR PLAN IS
ALREADY IN PLACE; whereas a conspirator PARTICIPATES IN THE ADOPTION OR MAKING OF THE
CRIMINAL DESIGN.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
- Act which are said to be in accordance with law such that the person is deemed not to have
transgressed the law hence is free from incurring criminal liability
Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following DO NOT INCUR any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his PERSON OR RIGHTS, provided that the following circumstances
concur; (SELF -DEFENSE) (U.R.L)
First. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION.
Third. LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION on the part of the person defending himself.
3. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same
degrees and those consanguinity within the FOURTH CIVIL DEGREE, provided that the first
and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the
further requisite, in case the revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one
making defense had no part therein. (DEFENSE OF RELATIVES)
Note: if beyond the fourth civil degree, considered as defense of stranger)
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a STRANGER, provided that the FIRST AND
SECOND REQUISITES mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are present and that the
person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Elements:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. The person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
Notes:
● A stranger is any person not included in the enumeration of relatives under par. 2 of Art. 11.
● Basis: What one may do in his defense, another may do for him. The ordinary man would not
stand idly by and see his companion killed without attempting to save his life.
● The first and crucial requisite for defense of strangers to prosper is absent in this case. Unlawful
aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life or
limb of a person. The mere cocking of the M-14 rifle by the victim (Cbl. Salabao) without aiming the
firearm at any particular target, is not sufficient to conclude that the life of the Vice-Governor,
Herrera or even of Amora was in imminent danger. A threatening or intimidating attitude per se
does not constitute unlawful aggression. 11 Even a mysterious whisper poses no danger. There is
nothing from the act of the victim in trying to stand up, from which the Court may infer that the life
of the person (the Vice Governor) whom petitioner was allegedly protecting, was under actual threat
or attack from the victim. (Almeda vs. CA, G.R. No. 120853, March 13, 1997)
● If one who defends a third person under the conditions and with the requisites the penal law lays
down for exempting him from responsibility should be acquitted of the charge in a case prosecuted
against him, then when a person who did nothing more than furnish a weapon to one whom he saw
in peril and in great need of defending himself and repelling a serious assault, as Juan Subingsubing
was doing and where the person assaulted made lawful and reasonable use of the weapon furnished
him and he has been declared exempt from responsibility, it is illogical and unjust to deny to said
assistant the same exemption from responsibility and the exoneration granted the slayer on the
grounds of self-defense, as was held in the same judgment to be lawful and right. (People vs. Subing-
Subing, G.R. No. L-10736, August 31, 1915)
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
- are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from
criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
-One single fact cannot be made the basis of more than one mitigating circumstance. Hence, a
mitigating circumstance arising from a single fact, absorbs all the other mitigating circumstances
arising from the same fact.
BASIS: Diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity of
the offender.
CLASSES:
ORDINARY
PRIVILEGED
- Applies, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability are
NOT attendant.
- It is considered a privileged mitigating circumstance, provided, majority of the elements required
to justify or exempt are present.
- But in the case of “incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of a stranger,”
unlawful aggression must be present, it being an indispensable requisite.
-It is the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime which should be determined.
His age at the time of trial is immaterial.
PROVOCATION is understood as any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party,
capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating any one.
REQUISITES:
(1) The provocation must be sufficient.
> Sufficient means adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly
be proportionate to its gravity (People vs. Nabora, 73 Phil 434, 435)
> Depends on:
(a) The act constituting the provocation
(b) The social standing of the person provoked
(c) The place and time when the provocation is made
(2) It must originate from the offended party.
(3) The provocation must be personal and directed at the accused.
(4) The provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime by the person who is
provoked.
- The threat should not be offensive and positively strong. Otherwise, the threat to inflict
real injury is an unlawful aggression, which may give rise to self-defense.
REQUISITES:
(1) That there must be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony; his spouse;
ascendants; descendants; legitimate, natural or adopted brothers
or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
(2) That the felony is committed in immediate vindication of such grave offense.
- “Immediate” allows a lapse of time unlike in sufficient provocation, as long as the offender
is still suffering from the mental agony brought by the offense to him.
To determine whether the personal offense is grave, the following must be considered:
(1) Social standing of the person
(2) Time when the insult was made
(3) Place where the insult was made
(4) Sometimes, even the age is considered
- The infliction of injury must be immediate from the act that caused passion or obfuscation.
ELEMENTS:
(1) The accused acted upon an impulse.
(2) The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation.
REQUISITES:
(1) That here be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind
(2) That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the
crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal
equanimity.
(3) The act causing such obfuscation was committed by the victim himself.
- The passion or obfuscation should arise from lawful sentiments in order to be mitigating.
- May lawfully arise from causes existing only in the honest belief of the offender.
BASIS: Loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his willpower.
- When the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect,
restricting his means of action, defense or communication with other
- The physical defect must relate to the offense committed. E.g. blindness does not mitigate estafa
BASIS: Offender does not have complete freedom of action; diminution of freedom and
voluntariness
REQUISITES:
(1) That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his willpower.
(2) That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.
> Includes illness of the mind not amounting to insanity.
EXAMPLES:
(1) Impulse of jealousy, similar to passion and obfuscation.
(2) Testifying for the prosecution, analogous to plea of guilty.
(3) Over 60 years old will failing sight, similar to over 70 years of age under par 2.
- There is a complex crime when a SINGLE ACT constitutes TWO OR MORE GRAVE or LESS
GRAVE felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other.
- The penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed.
- Althpugh there are two crimes, it is considered as one crime by law
Sample: Having been trained as a marksman and with intent to kill, A aimed his sniper rifle at X. A
pulled the trigger but the bullet hit a huge boulder and ricocheted, hitting X and a bystander S, killing
both of them. Information for two counts of murder was filed against A. Is the information correct?
-NO. A is liable for the complex crime of murder. There was only a single act which p[roduced two
crimes resulting in a compound crime wherein a single act caused two or more grave or less grave
felonies.
1. Reclusion perpetua is prescribed on crimes punishable by the REVISED PENAL CODE, while
Life imprisonment is imposed on offenses punishable by SPECIAL LAWS.
3. Reclusion perpetua entails a minimum imprisonment of 30 years after which a convict becomes
eligible for pardon, but the maximum period for imprisonment may not exceed 40 years.
-Life imprisonment, however, does not have any definite extent or duration of imprisonment.
4.Unlike life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty and has no minimum,
medium or maximum periods. It is imposed in its entirety regardless of any attendant aggravating or
mitigating circumstances
(Important) INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (ISLAW)
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory in all cases, EXCEPT if the accused will fall in any of
the following exceptions:
ISLAW applies to offenses punished by Special Law and Revised Penal Code.
In the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law the judge will get the maximum penalty and
likewise the minimum penalty. If the accused was already able to serve the minimum term of his
indeterminate sentence and upon the approval of the Board, the accused now becomes eligible for
parole. ISLAW is favorable to the accused.
If the accused was granted parole and violated some conditions of the parole, What will happen?
A warrant of arrest will be issued by the court and the accused will be made to serve the rest of the
remaining or unexpired portion of his sentence. (But in probation you go back to number 1, serving
of sentence will be from the beginning)
Application of ISLAW:
The maximum penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law is reclusion temporal. But reclusion
temporal is a divisible penalty consisting of maximum, medium and minimum periods. Which period
will we place the maximum term of the Indeterminate Sentence?
Important: If your maximum penalty is wrong, it follows that the minimum penalty will also be
wrong.
Suppose in the example above, 1 aggravating circumstance was proven. What is now the maximum
penalty?
It would still be reclusion temporal, but it shall be placed in the maximum period because of the
presence of 1 aggravating circumstance.
(More examples)
The preceding example is an exception to the rule. If there is a privileged mitigating circumstance,
we take it into account first in order to obtain the proper maximum penalty. Then, from that
maximum penalty, we obtain the proper minimum penalty by getting the penalty 1 degree lower.
Same rule applies as to the period of the minimum penalty.
In the preceding example, there are 3 mitigating circumstance present and no aggravating
circumstance. The first two mitigating circumstance shall be a privileged mitigating circumstance.
Thus, the penalty will be reduced by 1 degree from reclusion temporal to prision mayor. The 3rd
mitigating circumstance shall place the penalty in the minimum period.
4 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the medium period (2 privileged circumstance. Thus we
lower by 2 degrees)
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period
5 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the minimum period
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period
At most we can only lower by 2 degrees. Thus, if there are 6 mitigating circumstance and NO
aggravating:
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the minimum period
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period
Under the Revised Penal Code, falsification of public documents (Article 171) is a more serious
offense punished by prision mayor than estafa (Article 315), punished only by prision correctional.
Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty for estafa through
falsification of public documents shall be prision mayor in the maximum period. Minimum penalty
shall be prision correctional, any period.
Suppose there was 1 mitigating circumstance proven. Maximum penalty would still be prision mayor
in the maximum period. In pursuant to Article 48, even if there is a mitigating circumstance present,
it should still be imposed at the maximum period.
4 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: arresto mayor in its maximum period
(Important) Problem:
If the last day in the period of prescription of a felony falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, may the
information be filed on the next working day?
NO. Where the sixtieth and last day to file an information falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, the
sixty-day period cannot be extended up to the next working day. Prescription has automatically set
in. The remedy is for the fiscal or prosecution to file the information on the last working day before
the criminal offense prescribes. (case of Rafael Yapdiangco vs. Hon Buencamino, GR No. L-28841,
June 24, 2983)
Automatic Suspension of Sentence; Duration; Appropriate Disposition after the Lapse of the Period of
Suspension of Sentence
-Republic Act No. 9344 warrants the suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law
notwithstanding that he/she has reached the age of majority at the time the judgment of conviction
is pronounced. Thus:
Note: until 21 years of age lang. suspension will be lifted na after reaching age of 21.
What will happen during suspension:
The child in conflict will be placed under DSWD, or other social agencies recommended by the
government.
ELEMENTS
Illegal detention- usually kidnapping; done by private individual; depriving one of his liberty
Arbitrary detention- an arrest committed by a public officer against an individual without due
process of law and without legal grounds