Criminal Law Reviewer

Criminal Law 1

Definition Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment. Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. Elements of a CRIME 1. There is a law punishing the act 2. There is a commission of a crime 3. There is an omission of the law Sources of Philippine Criminal Law 1. Revised Penal Code 2. Special Penal Laws 3. Penal Presidential Decrees No Common Law Crimes in the Philippines. Common Law Crimes known in the United States and England as the body of principles, usages and rules of action, which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature, are not recognized in the country. Power to Define and Punish Crimes The State has the authority, its police power, to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of Criminal Procedure. Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws 1. Must be general in application and must clearly define the acts and omissions punished as crimes. 2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law. 3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder. 4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines. 5. No person shall be held liable to answer for criminal offense without due process of law. What is an Ex Post Facto Law? 1. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act. 2. Aggravates a crime, or make it greater that it was, when committed. 3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed. 4. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense. 5. Imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful 6. Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he become entitled. In Short: Ex Post Facto Law will make it easier for the accused to be convicted. 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. To give a law retroactive application to the prejudice of the accused is to make it an ex post facto law. Constitutional Rights of the Accused (Provided by 1987 Bill of rights) 1. Right to a speedy disposition of cases (Sec.16) 2. Right to a due process of law (Sec. 14)

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Right to Bail and the right against excessive bail (Sec. 13) Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, right to be informed and right to be heard in court (Sec. 14(2)) Right against Self-incrimination (Sec.17) Right against excessive fines (Sec. 19(1) Right against double jeopardy (Sec. 21) Right for a free access in courts (Sec. 11)

Statutory Rights of an accused (Sec 1, Rule 115, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedures) 1. Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty 2. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him 3. Right to be present and defend in person and by counsel’ 4. Right to testify as a witness on his behalf 5. Right to be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself 6. Right to confront and cross-examine the witness 7. Right to have a compulsory process 8. Right to have a speedy, impartial and public trial 9. Right to appeal Rights which may be waived by the accused 1. Right to confront and cross-examine the witness or 2. Rights that are personal Rights which may not be waived by the accused 1. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him or 2. Those rights that involved public interest which may be affected Characteristics of Criminal Law General – Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine Territory. (Art. 14, New Civil Code) I. As a general rule, jurisdiction of civil courts is not affected by the military character of the accused. a. Ex. The case of U.S. vs. Sweet II. Civil Courts have Concurrent jurisdiction with general courts martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in cases such as: a. murder cases b. malversation (People v. Livara) c. And cases even in times of war, provided that in the place of the commission of the crime no hostilities are in progress and civil courts are functioning. (Valdez vs. Lucero) III. The Revised Penal Code or other penal law is not applicable when a military court takes cognizance of the case. a. Articles of War may apply to such cases not RPC or penal laws IV. Jurisdiction of Military Courts V. The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense. a. Considered as criminal and not an administrative case VI. Offenders accused of war crimes are triable by military commission. VII. Exception to the General Application of Criminal Law are those provided by: a. Treaties or Treaty Stipulations except when: i. The offense is committed with any bases or the offense is against the security of the Philippines or the offender and the offended party. b. Law of Preferential Application in favor of

1

Criminal Law 1

c.

i. Diplomatic Representatives and their Domestic Servants 1. Ambassadors 2. Public Minister ii. Note: Not applicable when the foreign country adversely affected does not provide similar protection to our diplomatic rep. Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by virtue of the principles of public international law, they possess immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the country of their sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested or punished by the law of that country. i. Sovereigns and other chiefs of State ii. Ambassadors, Ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges d’affaires.

I. II.

III.

General Rule: Penal laws must not have a retroactive effect. Exception a. When it is favorable to the accused i. Exception to the Exception when the criminal is a habitual delinquent ii. Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing cause of action. Different effects of Repeal on Penal Law a. Makes the penalty lighter the new law shall be applied except to habitual delinquent. b. If new law imposes a heavier penalty, then the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime shall be applied. c. Crime is obliterated if the new law totally repeals the existing law which punish the act are no longer punishable.

A consul, vice-consuls and other commercial representatives are not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister, but are subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. Note: Principle of Extra – Territoriality is another exception of the GENERAL characteristics of the law. Territorial – Criminal law undertake to punish crimes committed within its territory. I. II. Principle of Territoriality means that as a rule, penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory. Extent of Philippine Territory for purposes of Criminal law a. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (Article 1 of 1987 Constitution) Exceptions to the territorial application of criminal law. The following shall be enforced outside Philippine Territory against those who: a. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine Ship or Airship b. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippines. c. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number. d. While being a public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or e. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the Law of nations, defined in Title One of Book two of the Revised Penal Code

When the Repeal is absolute, the offense ceases to be criminal. The accused must be acquitted. Ex. The case of People v. Tamayo Total Repeal – 1st law rendered inactive. Partial Repeal or Repeal by reenactment or implication – The act may still be penalized. When the new law and old law penalize the same offense, the offender can be tried under the old law. Ex. The Case of U.S. v. Cuna When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law, the accused cannot be convicted under the new law. Ex. The Case of People v. Sindiong and Patsor A person erroneously accused and convicted under a repealed statute may be punished under the repealing statute. Ex. People v. Baesa A new law which omits anything contained in the old law dealing on the same subject operates as a repeal of anything not so included in the amendatory act. Legal Maxim: Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex – The reason for the law ceasing, the law itself ceases. Self-repealing law – Where an act expires by its own limitation, the effect is the same as though it had been repealed at the time of its expiration; and it is a recognized rule in this jurisdiction that the repeal of a law carries with it the deprivation of the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence persons charged with violation of the old law prior to the repeal. (People v. Jacinto) Construction of Penal Laws I. Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and liberally in favor of the accused. a. It is invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its interpretation. b. If the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for the application of the rule. In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the RPC, the Spanish text is controlling, because it was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text.

III.

II.

Prospective – A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. Crimes are punishes under the laws in force at the time of their commission (Article 366 of the RPC)

History of the Revised Penal Code 1. Enacted by the Philippine Legislature 2. Approved on December 8, 1930 3. Took effect on January 1, 1932

2

Criminal Law 1

4.

Consists of Two Books a. Book One i. Basic Principles affecting Criminal liability (Arts. 1-20) ii. Provisions on penalties including criminal and civil liability (Arts. 21113) b. Book Two – defines felonies with the corresponding penalties, classified and grouped under fourteen different titles (Arts. 114-365)

Date of Effectiveness Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. – This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two. The Revised Penal Code is based mainly on principles of the classical school. Two Theories in Criminal law Classical Theory – man is a moral creature, he will be penalized if he chooses to do evil, and emphasis of penalty is retribution. Characteristics: 1. The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution. 2. That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result of the felonious act than upon the man, the criminal himself. 3. It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty. Positivists Theory – man is a sick person that can be cured and emphasis of penalty is reformation. Characteristics: 1. That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition. 2. That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be treated and checked by the application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined a priori; but rather through the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a thorough, personal and individual investigation conducted by a competent body of psychiatrists and social scientists. Article 2. Application of its provision. – 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 preceding number; 4. While helping 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. Scope of the application of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code

Shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, but also outside of its jurisdiction in certain cases. 2. Shall be enforced to acts committed in the air, at sea, and even in a foreign country when such acts affect the political or economic life of the nation. When RPC is applicable to cases outside the Philippines 1. When the offender should commit an offense while on a Philippine Ship or Airship A. Philippine Vessel or aircraft – must be registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs in accordance with the Philippine laws B. Exception – when the Philippine Vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, the crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign country. Or when the crime is committed on the high seas on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines. 2. When the offender, 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; A. Even if committed in the foreign country, it may be prosecuted by our courts 3. When the offender, should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these Islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number; A. Due to the economic interest of the country 4. When the offender, while helping public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; A. Direct Bribery B. Indirect Bribery C. Frauds against the public treasury D. Possession of prohibited Interest E. Malversation of public funds or property F. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts G. Illegal use of public funds or property H. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property I. Falsification by a public officers or employee committed with abuse of his official position. 5. When the offender should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations A. Treason B. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason C. Espionage D. Inciting to war and giving motives for reprisals E. Violation of neutrality F. Correspondence with hostile country G. Flight to enemy’s country H. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas Crimes punishable in the Philippines under Article 2 are cognizable by the Regional Trial Court in which the Charge is filed. It includes jurisdiction over offenses committed on the high seas or beyond the jurisdiction the jurisdiction of any country on board ship or warcraft of any kind registered or licensed in the Philippines in accordance with its laws. “Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application.” PROVIDED an exception for the GENERAL RULE that Penal laws are enforceable against any person who violates any of its provisions while living or sojourning in the Philippines. “Its atmosphere” – all air space which covers its territory, subject to the right of way or easement in favor of foreign aircrafts.

1.

3

Criminal Law 1

“Interior waters” – creeks, rivers, lakes and bays, gulfs, straights, coves, inlets and roadsteads lying wholly within three mile limits. “Maritime zone” – length is three miles from the coastline, starting from the low water mark. Crimes committed on board a foreign merchant ship or airship is not subject to our jurisdiction if the crime is committed on the high sea. Continuing offense on board a foreign vessel sailing from other country to our country violating our laws is triable before our court. Offenses committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while on Philippine waters or within three mile limits are triable before our court. Ex. U.S. v. Bull Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessel while in the territorial waters of another country. Philippines observe English Rule. 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. a. Matters happening on board a merchant ship which do not concern the tranquility of the port or persons foreign to the crew, are justiciable only by the courts of the country to which the vessel belongs. 2. English Rule – such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof. Do the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime of homicide committed on board a foreign merchant vessel by a member of the crew against another?  Depend on the attending circumstances of the particular case .1. Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on board are to be dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship. .2. Disorders which disturb the public peace may be suppressed, and, if need be, the offenders punished by the proper authorities of the local jurisdiction. Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on board a foreign merchant vessel in transit not triable by our courts.  Foreign merchant vessels landing or using opium is an open violation of the Philippine Penal laws and is triable by our courts.  When the foreign merchant vessel is not in transit because the Philippines is its terminal port, the person in possession of opium on board that vessel is liable. (U.S. v. Ah Sing) Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public order. Philippine courts have jurisdiction over crimes constituting a breach of public order aboard merchant vessels anchored in Philippine jurisdictional waters. (People v. Wo Cheng) Philippines courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board foreign warships in territorial waters.  Merchants ships are more or less subjected to the territorial laws  Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of another state.

Extra-territorial application of Republic Act No. 9372 shall apply to individual person: 1. Who commit any of the crimes defined and punished in the Act within the terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime zone and airspace of the Philippines 2. Who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit, conspire of plot any of the crimes defined and punished in the act inside the territorial limits of the Philippines. 3. Who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the said crimes on board Philippine Ship or airship 4. Who commit any of said crimes within any embassy, consulate or diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity. 5. Who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes against Philippine citizens or persons of the Philippine descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime; 6. Who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes directly against the Philippine Government. Article 3. Definition. – Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) by also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of forfeiture, or lack of skill. Felonies – are acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code. Elements of Felonies: 1. There must be an act or omission. 2. The act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal Code. 3. The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa. Act – any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually produced, as the possibility of its production is sufficient. Note: The act must be an overt act of that felony, which is an external act which has direct connection with the felony intended to be committed. Only external acts are punished. Internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law. Hence, a criminal thought or mere intention, no matter how immoral or improper it may be, will never constitute a felony. Internal Acts – merely a mental state of the mind Omission – is inaction or the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do. There must be a law requiring the doing of performance of an act. Examples of felony by omissions: 1. Abandonment of persons in danger 2. Illegal exaction 3. Misprision of treason The omission must be punishable by law.

4

Criminal Law 1

Because there is no law that punishes a person who does not report to the authorities the commission of a crime which he witnessed, the omission to do so is not a felony. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime where there is no law punishing it Ex. People v. Silvestre and Atienza FACTS : Martin Atienza was convicted as principal by direct participation and Romana Silvestre as accomplice of the crime of arson by the Court of First Instance. On the night of November 25, 1930, while Nicolas de la Cruz and his wife, Antonia de la Cruz, were gathered together with the appellants herein after supper, Martin Atienza told the couple to take their future out of the house for he was going to set a fire to it to avenge the people of Masocol, who he said had instigated a charge against him and Romana Silvestre, who was also with them during that night after supper. Since Atienza was with was armed with a pistol, no one dared anything to him, even Livestre. She was there listening to her co-defendants threat without protest. On their way to report the threat caused by Atienza, the de la Cruz couple realized that the fire had already started when they saw their home in flames. The fire destroyed about forty-eight houses. Issue: Whether or not Romana can be convicted as accomplice Held: Mere passive presence at the scene of another's crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy is not punishable. Decision is reversed with reference to Romana Silvestre, who is acquitted. Preliminary Acts – not punishable unless the Revised Penal Code punishes such Preliminary Act Offense – infractions of the law punished by special statutes. Classification of felonies according to the means by which they are committed 1. Intentional Felonies a. The act or omission of the offender is malicious. b. The act is performed with deliberate intent. c. The offender has the intention to cause an injury d. Committed by means of dolo e. Punished by RPC 2. Culpable Felonies a. The act or omission is not malicious b. The injury cause by another person is unintentional c. The offense is simply an incident of another act performed without malice. d. The wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. e. Committed by means of culpa. f. Punished by special laws Imprudence – deficiency of action, lack of skill Negligence – deficiency of perception, lack of foresight In felonies committed by means of dolo or with malice and in felonies committed by means of fault or culpa, the acts or omissions are voluntary. Acts executed negligently are voluntary. When there is compulsion or prevention by force or intimidation, there is no voluntariness in the act. Three reasons why the acts or omissions in felonies must be voluntary 1. Human free will is the basis of criminal liability.

2. 3.

Man is a rational being. In felonies by dolo, and culpa are necessarily being voluntary.

Requisites of Dolo: A voluntary act is a free, intelligent ad intentional act. 1. Freedom a. A person who acts under the compulsion of irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability. b. A Person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury is exempt from criminal liability. 2. Intelligence – the capacity to distinguish what is wrong and right. a. Thus, a person who is imbecile and insane, the infant under nine year of age, the minor acting without discernment, has no criminal liability. 3. Intent – purely a mental process, is presumed and the presumption arise    Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence. The exercise of intent is shown by the overt acts of a person. Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act.

General Rule: If it is proved that the accused committed the criminal act charged, it will be presumed that the act was done with criminal intention and that it is for the accused to rebut this presumption. But the presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the commission of an act which is not unlawful. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing to act complained to be innocent. There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent. Mistake of Fact (Ignorantia facti excusat) relieves the accused from criminal liability because of the absence of intent. It is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. Requisites of Mistake of Fact 1. That the act would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be. 2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful 3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. Lack of intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the facts of the case. U.S. v. Ah Chong Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley. He was afraid of bad elements. One evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out twice, “Who is there,” but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed & called out again, “If you enter the room I will kill you.” But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been placed against the door, & believing that he was being attacked he seized a kitchen knife & struck & fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate.

5

Criminal Law 1

Held: Ah Chong must be acquitted because of mistake of fact. Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be, he would have been justified in killing the intruder under Article 11 under Self defense where the requisites are as follows: 1. 2. 3. Unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo because: 1. Actus no facit reum nisi mens sit rea – the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so. 2. Actus me invite factus non est meus actus – an act done by me against my will is not my act. General intent and specific intent. In felonies committed by dolus, the third element of voluntariness is a general intent; whereas, in some particular felonies, proof of particular specific intent is required. When the accused is charged with intentional felony, absence of criminal intent is a defense. Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in felonies committed by means of culpa. In felonies committed by culpa, the mind of the accused is not criminal. However, his act is wrongful, because the injury or damaged caused to the injured party results from the imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. Requisites of Culpa 1. Freedom 2. Intelligence 3. Imprudence, negligent or lack of foresight or skill In culpable felonies; 1. The injury caused to another should be unintentional, 2. It being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. 3. Mistake in the identity of the intended victim is not reckless imprudence, where such an unlawful act is willfully done. 4. A person causing damage or injury to another, without malice or fault, is not criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code. 5. The act done must be lawful Three classes of crimes 1. Intentional Felonies 2. Culpable Felonies 3. Those defined punished by Special laws Dolo or intent is not required in crimes punished by special laws. Mala In Se – there must be a criminal intent Mala Prohibita – sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done. In those crimes punished by special laws, the act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense. Reasons why criminal intent is not necessary in crimes made such by statutory enactment. When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself. Good faith and absence of criminal intent not valid defenses in crimes punished by special laws. Mala in se and Mala Prohibita Mala in Se Wrongful from their nature Crimes with those so serious in Mala Prohibita Wrong merely because prohibited by statute Crimes due to violations of mere

People v. Oanis Facts: Chief of Police Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Galanta were under instructions to arrest one Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back toward the door, simultaneously fired at him with their revolvers, without first making any reasonable inquiry as to his identity. The victim turned out to be an innocent man, Tecson, and not the wanted criminal.. Held: Both accused are guilty of murder It is only when the fugitive from justice is determined to fight the officers the officers of the law who are trying to capture him would be justified. The mistake of fact must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. Ah Chong Case and Oanis case distinguished Ah Chong Case Oanis Case There is an innocent mistake of The accused found no fact without any fault or circumstances whatever which carelessness on the part of the would press them to immediate accused. action. The accused has no time or The accused had the ample time opportunity to make further and opportunity ascertain the inquiry, and being pressed by identity of the sleeping person circumstances to act immediately, The accused had no alternative The accused could even affect a but take the facts as they bloodless arrest, if any appeared to him reasonable effort has been made since the victim is unarmed. Such facts justified his act of The accused were at fault when killing the deceased they shot the victim without resistance Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his intention was to kill another, does not relieve the accused from criminal responsibility. In mistake of fact, the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful. Thus in error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim, the principle of mistake of fact does not apply. No crime of resistance when there is mistake of fact. When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense. The defense of mistake of fact is untenable when the accused is charged with a culpable felony. In mistake of fact, what is involved is lack of intent on the part of the accused.

6

Criminal Law 1

their effects on society for rules of convenience designed to almost unanimous condemnation secure a more orderly regulation of its members of the affairs of society Intent governs Intent is not necessary Refers to felonies penalized by criminal acts penalized by RPC special laws Inherently immoral even if Consummated Crimes punished Motive and Intent Motive Intent reason purpose The moving power which impels Intent is the purpose to use a one to action for a definite result. particular means to effect such result. Not an essential element of crime and hence need not to be proved in a crime. A good motive does not prevent an act from being crime. Motive, when relevant and when need not be established. 1. The identity of a person accused is in dispute 2. There is doubt as to the identity of the assailant. Immaterial when the accused has been identified. 3. Important in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic version 4. The identification of the accused is from an unreliable source and is not free from doubt 5. There are no eyewitness to the crime and where a suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons 6. The evidence is merely circumstantial Motive is proved by the testimony of the eyewitness or by evidence. Disclosure of the motive is an aid in completing the proof of the commission of the crime. But proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction. Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused. ARTICLE 3 – Provides for the manner of incurring criminal liability through performing or failing to do an act by means of deceit or culpa. Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or not intended. Paragraph 1 General Rule: A person committing a felony is criminally liable although the consequences of his felonious acts are not intended by him. Rationale of the Rule: “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. Committing Felony  The wrongful act must be committed by the means of dolo that is with malice  Must not be punished by special laws.  Must not be committed by means of imprudence or negligence  A felony is an act punishable by the Revised Penal Code

Ex. People v. Bindoy Facts: On May 6, 1930, Donato Bindoy offered some tuba to Tibay, Faustino Pacas’ wife. She refused and Bindoy threatened to injure her if she did not accept. Pacas stepped in to defend his wife and attempted to take away from Bindoy the bolo he carried. The disturbance attracted the attention of Emigdio Omamdam. In the course of the struggle, Bindoy succeeded in disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo from the latter’s hand, with such violence that the point of the bolo reached Omamdam’s chest, who was then behind Bindoy. The trial court held that Bindoy was guilty of the crime of homicide. Bindoy appealed, alleging that the death of Omamdam was caused accidentally and without malicious intent. Although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. Causes which may produce different results 1. Mistake in the identity of the victim – error in personae (Oanis Case) 2. Mistake in the blow , that is, when the offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts to another – aberration ictus (People v. Mabugat) 3. The acts exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious result is greater than that intended – praeter intentionem (People v. Cagoco) Requisites of Impossible Crimes: 1. An intentional felony is committed 2. The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequences of the felony committed by the offender. No felony is committed when: 1. The act or omission is not punishable by the Revised Penal Code 2. When the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances defined in Article 11. Ex. People v. Salinas A person who creates in another’s mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to do something resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries. Ex. U.S. v. Valdez People v. Page Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of felonious act. 1. Blow was efficient cause of death (People v. Ilustre) 2. Blow was accelerated death (People v. Rodriguez) 3. Blow was proximate cause of death (People v. Reyes) Proximate Cause – that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury which the result would not have occurred. Natural – an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events Logical – there is a rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage. Proximate legal Cause – is that acting first and producing the injury There must be a relation of cause and effect Not a proximate cause when: 1. There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a

7

Criminal Law 1

2.

distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.

Impossible Crimes – Indicative of criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of the actor. Such actor is a potential criminal. Limited only to crimes against persons and property. Penalty for impossible crimes is provided in Article 59. Requisites of Impossible Crime: 1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property. 2. That the act was done with evil intent. 3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual. 4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the Revised Penal Code. Ex. Intod v. Court of Appeals Important Words Article 4 in Paragraph 2 A. Performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property. 1. Felonies against Persons i. Parricide (Art. 246) ii. Murder (Art. 248) iii. Homicide (Art. 249) iv. Infanticide (Art. 255) v. Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258 and 259) vi. Duel (Arts. 260 and 261) vii. Physical Injuries (Arts. 262, 263, 264, 265 and 266) viii. Rape (Art. 266-A) 2. Felonies against Property i. Robbery ii. Brigandage iii. Theft iv. Usurpation v. Culpable insolvency vi. Swindling and other deceits vii. Chattel mortgage viii. Arson and other crimes involving destruction ix. Malicious Mischief Were it not for inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. 1. The act intended by the offender is by its nature and one of impossible accomplishment. i. Legal impossibility ii. Physical Impossiblity 2. Employment of inadequate or ineffectual means i. The result expected is not produced Purpose: To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. Objectively: The offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively he is a criminal.

In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense. 1st paragraph In connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by law requires the following: A. The act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any law. B. The court deems it proper to repress such act C. In that case, the court must render the proper decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused, D. The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive through the secretary of Justice , stating the reasons which induce him to believe that the said act should be made the subject of penal laws. Basis: Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act. 2nd paragraph In cases of excessive penalties A. B. The court after trial finds the accused guilty The penalty imposed by the court appear to be excessive because a. The accused acted with lesser degree of malice b. There is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence The Judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive clemency.

C. D.

The penalties are not excessive when intended to enforce a public policy. Court has the duty to apply the penalty provided by law. Judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Article 5 applies only to mala in se or crimes committed with malice and intent. Article 5 is not applicable to offenses punished by special law and by acts mala prohibita. Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted are punishable. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance. Development of a crime: A. Internal Acts – mere ideas in the mind of the person, are not punishable even if, had they been carried out, they would constitute a crime. a. Intention and effect must concur B. External Acts

B.

C.

Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. — Whenever 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 Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation.

8

Criminal Law 1

a.

b.

Preparatory acts – not punishable i. unless there is a provision that provided for the contrary, ii. Preparatory acts which are considered by law as independent crimes. Ex. Possession of picklocks Acts of execution – punishable under RPC. Stages are i. Attempted ii. Frustrated iii. Consummated

1.

2.

Subjective Phase – it is that portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he has still control over his acts, including their natural course. a. In attempted felony, the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense. Objective Phase – the offender has no control over his acts, could be frustrated or consummated.

Requisites of Attempted Felony: 1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts 2. The offender does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony 3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance 4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. When felony deemed commences? 1. There be external acts 2. Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed. The external acts must be related to the overt acts of the crime the offender intended to commit. Overt acts – is some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course , without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. Preparatory Acts Overt Acts

Requisites of Frustrated Felony: 1. The offender performs all the acts of execution a. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender b. It is the belief of the offender that he executed all the acts i. Frustrated if the wound inflicted is mortal ii. Attempted if there is no wound or the wound inflicted is not mortal 2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence 3. But the felony is not produced a. Because if produced the felony is consummated 4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator a. Intervention or causes independent of the perpetrator or by the third person Attempted Felony Has not accomplished the crime Offender merely commences the commission of felony directly by overt acts Never passed the subjective phase Both commences the commission of the crime There is an intervention Prevented all the acts of execution. Does not produce felony. Has control with his acts Attempted or Frustrated Evil intent is not accomplished Evil intent is possible of accomplishment Evil intent is prevented by the intervention of certain cause or accident. Frustrated Felony Has not accomplished the crime Offender performed all the acts which would produce the felony Has reached the objective phase Both commences the commission of the crime No intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency No felony produced.

   

Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is not an overt act of homicide. Raising a bolo as if to strike the offended party with it is not an overt act of homicide. Over act may not be a physical activity. The external acts must have a direct connection with the crime intended to be committed by the offender.

No control with his acts. Impossible Crime Evil intent is not accomplished Evil intent is inherently impossible to accomplished Evil intent is impossible to accomplished because of ineffectual or inadequate means

Indeterminate Offense – where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous. Ex. People vs. Lamahang The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his admission.

Consummated Felony – when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. How to determine whether the crime is attempted, frustrated or consummated? 1. Nature of the Crime 2. Elements constituting the felony 3. Manner of committing the felony Manner of Committing the Crime 1. Formal Crimes – consummated in one instant, no attempt. a. Ex. Slander and false testimony 2. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt acts. a. Ex. Flight to enemy’s country and corruption of minors 3. Felony by omission – always consummated

“Directly by overt acts” – suggests that the offender must
commence the commission of the felony by taking direct part in the execution of the act. Desistance should be made before all the acts of execution performed. The desistance which exempts from criminal liability has reference to the crime intended to be committed, and has no reference to the crime actually committed by the offender before his desistance. Two Phases of Crime

9

Criminal Law 1

4. 5.

Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them are consummated by mere agreement. a. Ex. Corruption of Public Officer Material Crimes – there are three stages of execution. Do not apply to crimes punishable by special laws. a. Ex. Consummated Rape, Frustrated Rape and Attempted Rape, Consummated Homicide, Frustrated Murder and attempted homicide

3.

That the execution of the felony be decided upon.

Direct Proof is not necessary to establish conspiracy but a quantum of proof. Requisites of proposal: 1. That a person has decided to commit a felony 2. That he proposes its execution to some other persons No proposal if: 1. The person who proposes is not determined to commit the felony 2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal 3. a is not the execution of a felony that is proposed. i. It The crimes in which conspiracy and proposal are punishable are against the security of the state or economic security. Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. — Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Art.. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided. Article 9 classifies felonies according to their gravities.

There is no attempted or frustrated in impossible crime.

Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Slight physical injuries Theft Alteration of boundary marks Malicious mischief Intriguing against honor

Arresto menor – imprisonment from one day to thirty days or a fine of not exceeding 200 pesos General Rule: Punishable only when they have been consummated. Exception: Light felonies committed against persons or property, are punishable even if attempted or frustrated. Reason for General Rule: produce such light or insignificant moral or material injuries Reason for the exception: presupposes in the offender moral depravity. Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefore. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons. Conspiracy is not a crime except when the law specifically provides a penalty therefore. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. General Rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable. Exception: when the law specifically provides for their penalty. Reason: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are merely preparatory acts. The law regards them as innocent or at least permissible The act of one is the act of all – conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability – not a punishable offense. Requisites of Conspiracy: 1. That two or more persons came to an agreement 2. That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony

A. B.

Capital punishment – death penalty Afflictive penalties are 1. Reclusion perpetua 2. Reclusion temporal 3. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification 4. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification 5. Prision Mayor

Correctional Penalties 1. Prision Correccional 2. Arresto Mayor 3. Suspension 4. Destierro 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. 1ST Paragraph Offenses under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the code. 2nd Paragraph The second makes the code supplementary to such laws. Special law – a penal law which punishes acts not defined and penalized by the penal code. Enacted by the legislature, penal in character and not an amendment to the Revised Penal Code. The provisions of RPC on penalties cannot be applied to offenses punishable by special laws. Supplementary – means supplying what is lacking Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:

10

Criminal Law 1

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; A. B. C. Unlawful aggression. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Requisites: A. Unlawful aggression. B. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. C. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Self-defense includes the defense of the person or body and the right of that person. Reason why Penal law makes self-defense lawful  It would be impossible for the State in all cases to prevent aggression upon its citizens (and even foreigners, of course) and offer protection to the person unjustly attacked. Classicist View: lawful defense is grounded on the impossibility on the part of the State to avoid a present unjust aggression and protect a person unlawfully attacked. Positivist View: lawful defense is an exercise of a right, an act of social justice done to repel the attack of an aggression. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite. Aggression must be unlawful. Aggresion: A. Lawful –fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right in a more or less violent manner. B. Unlawful – equivalent to assault or attack, when there is peril to one’s life, limb or right is either actual or imminent. There must be an actual force or actual use of weapon. Peril to one’s life A. Actual – that the danger must be present, that is actually in existence B. Imminent – that the danger is on the point of happening. Peril to one’s limb A. When a person is attacked, he is in imminent danger of death or bodily harmed               Retaliation is not self defense. No time interval. Aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the accused A Public officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor. Nature, character, location and extent of the wound of the accused allegedly inflicted by the injured party may belie claim of self-defense. Improbability of the deceases being the aggressor belies the claim of self-defense. The fact that the accused declined to give any statement when he surrendered to a policeman is inconsistent with the plea of self-defense. Physical fact may determine whether the accused acted in self-defense. When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists. No unlawful aggression where there is agreement to fight. Aggression may be ahead of the stipulated time and place. One who voluntary joined a fight cannot claim selfdefense. The belief of the accused may be considered in determining may be considered in determining the existence of unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights: o Defense of chastity o Defense of property

2. Anyone 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. 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 Art. are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present; A. B. C. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

5. 6.

Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

Imputability – the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner. It implies that the act committed has been freely and consciously done and may, therefore, be put down to the doer as his very own. Responsibility – the obligation of suffering the consequences of its crime. It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil consequences of the crime. Imputability – implies that a deed may be imputed to a person Responsibility – the person must take consequence of the deed Guilt – an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty. Justifying circumstances – are those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and in free both criminal and civil liability. There is no civil liability, except in Par. 4 of Article 11, where the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act. Basis – The law recognizes the non-existence of a crime by expressly stating in the opening sentence of Article 11 that the persons therein mentioned “do not incur any criminal liability.” Burdern of Proof – incumbent upon the accused Par. 1 – Self-defense

11

Criminal Law 1

 
nd

o Defense of Home Mere threatening attitude is not unlawful aggression. Aggression must be real, not merely imaginary

Strangers- any person who is not enumerated in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph 2. 4th Paragraph – Avoidance of greater evil or injury or state of necessity Requisites: A. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; B. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; C. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. Damage to another – covers injury to persons and property 5th Paragraph – Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right of office Requisites: 1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. 2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. Paragraph 6 – Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose. Requisites 1. That an order has been issued by a superior 2. That such an order must be for some lawful purpose 3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.

2 requisite of Self Defense The reasonableness of necessity of the means use to prevent or repel depends upon the circumstances depends on the; o The nature and quality of the weapons o Physical condition, character and size o Other CIRCUMSTANCES 3rd requisite of Self Defense The provocation must be sufficient, which means that it should be proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission.  Sufficient provocation must not be given by the person defending himself  If there is provocation by the defending person, it should not be proximate and immediate to the aggression. Ex. People v. Dolfo Battered Woman Syndrome – do not incur civil and criminal liability A form of self- defense or incomplete self-defense Battered Woman- who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something without concern for her rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate relationships. Cycle of Violence: 1. The tension building phase 2. The acute battering incident 3. The tranquil, loving phase Paragraph 2 – Defense of Relatives Relatives that can be defended: 1. Spouse 2. Ascendants 3. Descendants 4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters or relatives by affinity in the same degrees 5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree. Relative by affinity – by marriage Relative by consanguinity – blood relatives Brother and Sisters – SECOND CIVIL DEGREE Uncle and niece or aunt and nephew – Third civil degree First cousins – fourth civil degree Basis of Justification – Humanitarian sentiment and impulse of blood relative Requisites of Defense of Relatives: 1. Unlawful aggression. 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. 3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked the one making a defense had no part therein 3rd Paragraph – Defense of a Stranger 1. Unlawful aggression. 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it 3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive

12