Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
a Penal Code
crime?
committee wasThe ?*Special
formed
CRIMINAL
Penal Laws enacted or
Statepursuant to Administrative
PROCEDURE - body
passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National
Order
of
*the No.Batasang
rules
RPC 94contains
that byenforces
the Department
provisions
or of Justice.
regulates
of the *The committee
criminal
Spanish law,
penal was
provides
code,formed
for
US on Oct
the
Penalsteps18, in
Code
*what
Congress
No.
Because
during
There
Assembly,
1827 *The particular
of (Legislative)
its
Theories
Martial Law
are
committee
police limitations.
Pambansa,
was act
lawtheconstitutes
Congress
composed
power.
in Criminal
(only because The
of theItatshould
ofright
PresidentAnacleto
to
that
the
Philippines
Diaz
time
not
*Penalcrime
(head);
prosecute
had
violate
Quintin
and *what
Presidential the
Decrees
Paredes;
punish
legislative power,
are
issued
crimes
but Alexis
generally,
the
and prosecution
SC decisions and/or
of Joya
the isPhilippines
conviction of
before
an accused.
theoncreation of the RPC
the
constitution
Reyes
the
vested elements
The
and
in Spanish
Classical
Mariano
Executive branch
the – of
cannot
sovereign
arises from knowledge
the
objective
De Penal
issue EOacts
RETRIBUTION
power, or PP Code
that
which / emphasis
are
is penal
the in the crime/liability
nature)
Filipino *Spanish
people. Penal Code
*US Penal Code (we copied the ff crimes from the US Penal Code: estafa, malversation, etc)
Positivist – objective is REFORMATION/emp on the criminal/believes that
crime is a social phenomenon 1. Criminal aspect – seeks the
Mixed or Eclectic- combination imposition of penalty
of 1 and 2/ applies Classical provided
Theory for by
Heinous Crimes/ applies positivist
lawfor economic and social crimes
The
Thepolice
managerpower ofisLa
theFlor
power vestedain the
granted
POLICE POWER - vested in the legislature - Facts:
The Andres
right Pablo, a and punishment
of prosecution
no person shall be TheGustillo
prosecution
W/N
was already
violatedconvicted
Gustillo the
may
legislature
maternityofleave the state to make, but
to Macaria ordain, and
refused The right of
policeman,
for a crime isreported
one of that he saw
the attributes of a crime
thatPhilippines for
Bill illegal
and Act possession
No. 89
topay
to make,
establish
Php ordain,
all manner
80.00 to andthe
of wholesome
which establish
and -reasonable byRodrigo
a naturalandlaw
Malicsi
twice put in jeopardy
in theto the sovereign of firearms.
belongs be prosecuted
However, for
another
reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, prosecution and
jueteng arena and then testified
power instinctively charged by the
which embody the principle that
laws,
employee statutes,
either with is entitled
penalties and
or ordinances-
as her
without, which are not w/ or w/o
regular
for the same offense
on the contrary during the trial. the
information
no person shallsecond
was filedtime
be twice in for
against
put
wage as
penalties
repugnant stated
-not
to the in Sec. 13
repugnant
constitution of
as they3071.
Act
to D constitution
shall
commonpunishment for a
will of the members of society
He was charged with perjury and him for the
the same
same crime
offense for
sameviolation. but
to look after, guard and defend the jeopardy for the
judge to be for the good and welfare of the convicted under Act. 1697 which
crime belongs to the
interests
a different
because ammunition
this rule covers as whichnearly
=as they shall
commonwealth, and judge to beof for
of the subjects the the good and was said of to the
havecommunity
repealed as well as he already possessed at the
rights of 318
eachandindividual.
324 of theImposing as possible every single criminal
welfare
state sovereign power
articles
punishments
code.
penal
should be the last resort:act same born of time and same
a single criminalplace the
intent
our laws do not merely provide for
It:isBefore even first information
though more was
than filed
one crime
retributionW/N the
but it also court
not a jurisdictional
provides is
defectanandapplication
one which
for laws against him. for the
deprives writ
the of
trial habeas
court of its
The defendants wereis already
convicted for violation ofinOrdinance corpus. to the
try, court
Offenses committed in the Philippines are
authority convict,
Petitioners and pass
were sentence, that
is committed
charged of a criminal
by said
visiting action
act. wherein
a house is brought
the fact
It is admitted that an act394
that jueteng is already prohibited and
prohibited and penalized ofNo.
article 195that are
the 394,
in
Revisedfavor of
Penal the
Code. offender.
But the fact that an act is already prohibited and penalized by
W/N Ordinance the name of the city of Manila instead of the United States. That
has
crimes
opium jurisdiction
was against the people of the
fact constitutes
awhich
generalprohibits
law does notthe playing
preclude of jueteng.
the enactment The court
of a municipal ordered
ordinance for athe
covering the same
mere orsmoked.
matter.
defect The rule
error isThey
well
curable now
atsettled
any claimed
that
stage thethe
of that
same act
action theconstitute
may
does court erred
not deprivean thein
penalized
conflicts
dismissal ofwith
offense against by
both a general
thetheonlaw.
state and law
a does
political not preclude
subdivision thereof and the
both jurisdictions may
their punish
decision the act, without.
because infringing
it does
a validnotany constitutional
haveand principle.
jurisdiction overAs athe
general rule,
the case
additional
the ground that said ordinance is nullcourt
regulation to that of the state law does not constitute a
andto
conflict
try
void
of
Philippines the
the power
therewith. The
case.
to pronounce
fact that an ordinance
judgment
enlarges upon
impose a valid
the provisions
sentence.
of a
enactment
for it conflicts ofwith
a municipal
Art 195 of ordinance
the RPC, covering
which provides thefor Offenses
lesser case. committed in the Philippines are crimes against the people of the
statute by requiring more than the statute requires creates no conflict therewith, Philippines.
unless the statute limits the requirement for all cases to its own prescription. Both
same
penalties
the matter
ordinance than theprohibit
and RPC ordinance
and penalize the same act and the distinction in penalties is necessary because of the peculiar conditions of the locality.
(December 8, 1930)
• Facts: Vicente Sotto is the director, editor, publisher and printer of
a weekly paper. On May 1915, he edited the paper with the
intention of attacking them reputation of Lope K. Santos and two
other principals of a labor group. He was found guilty of libel.
Issue: W/N Sotto was guilty
Issue:Penalties
Decision: Yes. W/N the penalty forto
are used Carillo
deter was justified
people from doing
the same crime. A deterrent effect upon others is
The
oneaccused is a dangerous
of the purposes enemy
of the of the society
infliction thus, imposition
of a penalty for the of the
highest penalty if justified. Carillo has proved himself to be a dangerous
violation of the criminal law (Exemplarity).
enemy of society. The latter must protect itself from such enemy by
taking his life in retribution for his offense and as an example and
warning to others. In these days of rampant criminality it should have a
salutary effect upon the criminally minded to know that the courts do
not shirk their disagreeable duty to impose the death penalty in cases
where the law so requires.
• Facts: Jimmy Young is a hired killer who committed a crime of murder under Art
248 of the RPC. He refused to plea guilty because according to him, his guilt is
lighter than those who ordered the killing of Alfonso Liongto. He was sentenced
with death penalty in accordance with Art 248 in relation to Art 64 of the RPC.
However, RA 296, which was approved 17 June 1948, provides that for a penalty of
death is imposed, all justices of the Supreme Court must first concur. Said law is
procedural thus can be applied to cases pending at the time of its approval.
Issue: W/N Young should be charged with the crime of murder
Decision: One of the justices dissented, thus death penalty was not
imposed. The killing in question was attended by evident premeditation
which qualified the crime as murder: (a) it was committed in
consideration of a price reward or promise and (b) with treachery. This
case also provides the notion of aggravating circumstances (acts that
would provide for higher penalties – art 14) and mitigating
circumstances (provides for lighter penalties – art 13). Death penalty
was imposed to rationalize the concept of Exemplarity: making a
person example to serve as a deterrent)
•Issue:
People W/N vs.the Revilla People vs. Issue: W/N the charge against Revilla is
Galano
proportionate to the act he committed.
• Facts: The accused was charged for the
penalty if too
crime of infidelity in the custody Facts:
of the Galano
Decision: was accused
No. His action thenof
was due to a
prisoners. Nicasio Junio, the prisoner, was mistaken conception of his duty, hence it is
only sentenced to suffer six daysfalsification
harsh of one peso bill, which he
of arresto obvious that the penalty imposed against him is
menor only, a penalty that may be served
usedof to purchase
in the house of the offender because four eggs.
notoriously excessive Heofwas
to the extent being
the condition of his health. The found guilty cruel for being out of proportion with the crime
municipality also could not feed him and was sentenced to
committed. The penalty was not proportionate
Nicasio for lack
Decisions: of appropriation,
The punishment Revilla isintermediate
suffer too
to the harsh and
evil to be penalty
it may
curbed. ranging
not the
Retribution,
then believed that this act in permitting
penalty should be commensurate with the
actually
Nicasio toserve
sleep in the purpose
his own from
house wasof10the yearslegislator.
and 1 day to 12 years
gravity of the offense.
Thenot grave
Imprisonment
penalty imposed may
in nature,
upon change
being
the and
at
accused for10
most an
a months.
individual
infidelity ThebutofSolicitor
in the custody ita prisoner
can also General
sentenced to
mere relaxation of the rules prescribed for
onlythe
six care
daysand
of arresto
custodymenor beingbelieves that
excessive, such factthe
should be brought to is
punishment thetoo
expose the person to hardened
attention
223 for hisofactions.
of municipal
prisoners. Revilla was charged under Art
His Excellency,harsh.
the President of the Philippines for him to decide whether
or not it would be convenient to recommend to the national assembly the amendment of art
criminal
223 of RPC (conniving.with or consenting
Thus, to evasion) soshould
punishments as to makebe it more in consonance with
applied
the amplitude of the matters that a court must consider in meting out punishment to whoever
with
may havecare. A copyf infringing
the misfortune of the thedecision was sent
precept regarding tointhe
infidelity the custody of prisoners
or detained prisoners.
president for the exercise of executive clemency.
An eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth.” – Oculo pro
oculo, dente pro dente
Man is a moral creature with absolute free will to choose between good and evil, thereby
placing more stress upon the effect or result of felonious act than upon the man.
Endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty
Crime is a social and natural phenomenon
Facts: Petitioner refused to pay the new rates of the stall she
was holding stating that the increased rate was excessive. The
Issue: W/N the petitioner can be prosecuted
increase criminally
is based on of her non-payment
the provisions of a municipalofordinance.
the rental.
The petitioner was criminally convicted by the trial court for not
paying the surcharge.
Decision: No. The surcharge for non-payment if not a penalty under criminal law but
only an amount added to the usual charge. It is more of an administrative
It which
penalty, is more
canofbean administrative
recovered penalty,
only by civil action.which
can be recovered only by civil action.
History of the Revised Penal Law
The royal order dated December 17, 1886, directing the execution of the royal
decree of September 4, 1884, wherein it was ordered that the Penal Code in
force in the Peninsula, as amended in accordance with the recommendations
of the code committee, be published and applied in the Philippine Islands, as
well as the Provisional Law of Criminal Procedure which accompanied it. These
two laws, having been published in the Official Gazette of Manila on March 13
and 14, 1887, became effective in July 14, 1876. (US. vs. Tamparong)
US Period – they tried to translate the Penal code but certain areas were
defectively translated
CRIM LAW CRIM PROCEDURE
Substantive Remedial
when the crime punished under the repealed law has been decriminalized by the
repeal. Because of the repeal, the act or omission which used to be a crime is no
longer a crime. An example is Republic Act No. 7363, which decriminalized subversion.
Consequences ifif repeal
Consequences repeal of
ofpenal
penallaw
lawis is
partialororabsolute
total relative
If
If aa case
case is pending
is already decided and inthecourt
accused isinvolving the
already serving violation
sentence by final of
judgment, if the convict is not a habitual delinquent, then he will be entitled to a
the repealed law, the same shall be dismissed, even
release unless there is a reservation clause in the penal law that it will not apply to
though
those the accused
serving sentence may
at the time of be aBut
the repeal. habitual
if there is nodelinquent.
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.
Consequences if repeal of penal law is
express or implied
If a penal law is impliedly repealed, the subsequent repeal
of the repealing law will revive the original law. So 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.
(1) Terrestrial jurisdiction is the
jurisdiction exercised
over land.
(2) Fluvial jurisdiction is the
jurisdiction exercised over
maritime and interior waters.
(3) Aerial jurisdiction is the
The atmosphere over the country is free and not jurisdiction exercised over
subject to the jurisdiction of the subjacent state, the atmosphere.
except for the protection of its national security and
Penal laws of the country have force
public order.
and effect only within its territory.
:
(a) It cannot penalize crimes committed outside its
The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over the
Extraterritorial
territory.
atmosphere only to the extent that it can effectively Crimes, which are
exercise control thereof.
(b) The national territory comprises the Philippine punishable even if
Archipelago… [Art. I, 1987 Constitution].
committed outside
(c) The
Theterritory
subjacent of state
the country is not limited
has complete to theover the the
jurisdiction Philippine
atmosphere above it subject only to
landthewhere its sovereignty
innocent passage by resides butofincludes
aircraft a foreign country. Under this theory, if the crime is
alsocommitted
its maritimeinand interior no
an aircraft, waters as well
matter howas territory
its as long as
high, [Art. 2,that it is
it can be established
atmosphere.[Art. 2, RPC] atmosphere, Philippine criminal law (See Anti- Hijacking Law) will
within the Philippine RPC]
govern.
No, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the
bigamous marriage was contracted or solemnized in
Singapore, hence such violation is not one of those
where the Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof,
may be applied extraterritorially. The general rule on
territoriality of criminal law governs the situation.
Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed
aboard while in the territorial
waters
of anotherthese
However, country (i.e.
rules area foreign vessel treading
NOT applicable if the
Philippine
vessel is onwaters ORseas
the high Philippine vessels
when the treading
crime was
foreign waters):
committed. In these cases, the laws of the
(1 : Itship
nationality of the is the flag
will or nationality
always apply. of the
vessel which determines jurisdiction UNLESS the
crime violates the peace and order of the host
country.
(2) : the location or situs of the crime
determines jurisdiction UNLESS the crime merely
relates to internal management of the vessel
Territory, atmosphere, interior waters, maritime zone
Classification of Vessels
US1.vs.Foreign
Fowler public vessels
Decision:
Issue: No. Courts–ofwar
W/N the
vessels/war
First Instance ships
of the Philippines have no
(ex.was
Facts: Theft Lawton
committed
court Ship
jurisdiction
has in
on board US
to take vs. Fowler).
acognizance
transport of crimes
while War the
committed
navigating vessels
onhigh
the high
seas.seas
on board
The accused were brought of try
to trial
jurisdiction to aand
transport or othercontends
defendants vessel notthat
registered or licensed
the Court of Firstin
are considered
thethe
case.
Instance have no jurisdiction
to becase
Philippines. an because
over theWarships
extension
are always of was
reputed
the crime
the
to be the territory
committed in of
a
foreign nationality
public vessel andofon the owner ofbelong
saidan vessel and to the laws
the country to which they cannot be subjected
high seas.
of another state. A US Army transport is considered a warship.
cannot be subjected to the laws of the state
US2. vs.Foreign
Bull merchant vessels – more or less
H.N Bull, who was the master of a vessel transporting cattle, carabao and other animals from
Formosa tosubjected
Manila, failed toto thesuitable
provide territorial
means forlaws.
securing animas while they are in
transit. Such
Decision: Whenneglect wascomes
a vessel a violation
withinof 3Act. No.from
miles 275 the
of the Philippine
headland Commission.
which Bull
embrace the entrance
Note:
contends
of Manila that The
Bay, the
the state
Philippine
vessel isthehave
courts
is within not noobligated
jurisdiction
territorial to
over
waters and hisgive
thus, immunity
offense.
the laws of the Philippines
onA crimes
shall apply. done
continuing crime in foreign
committed on boardpublic
a Norwegianvessels. Thissailing
merchant vessel is to the
Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippine when the forbidden
just
conditions a matter
existed of the
during the time comity.
ship was within the territorial waters, regardless of the
fact that the same conditions existed when the ship sailed from the foreign port and while it was
on the high seas.
Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed
aboard foreign merchant vessels while in the
territorial waters of another country
1. French Rule – such 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. French courts therefore claim exclusive jurisdiction over crimes
committed on board French merchant vessels in foreign ports by one member of
the crew against another. (US vs. Bull)
5. English Rule –The English only exercise their jurisdiction on issues that involve the
internal management of vessel, otherwise, such crimes are triable in that country
where they were committed. (US vs. Bull)
not in transit
Chapter One
FELONIES
Is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act. This
Note: does not require proof. The burden is upon the
In theft, the mens rea is thewrongdoer
taking of the property
to prove thatofhe acted without such criminal
another with intent to gain.intent.
In falsification, the mens rea is the effecting of the
is animus
Although
Is not presumedI because
Transient
possession,
element
was init is an ingredient or
of a crime,although I have
like intent to kill
of attempted or frustrated
in the crimes
possession
Note: In some particular felonies, proof of
intent, and
specific intent this istoan
is required produce the crime
such as in frustrated and attempted homicide.
exception to mala prohibita
– mistake
that which had in the
the facts identity
been true to the belief of the offender, his act can
be justified. It is such mistake that will–negate
– where criminal
the consequence
mistake liability
in the blow because
exceeded the of the absence of
intention
the element of intent.
– the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused
Q: Who are liable for grave or less grave
felonies?
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this
Code. — Offenses which are or in the future may
be punishable under special laws are not subject
to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter
should specially provide the contrary.